Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1963)

THE 'SUICIDE' POLICY REASONS FOR SALE TO TV CALLED 'FRIVOLOUS' The writer, personally, and other members of our firm have had numerous conversations with executives of the major film companies urging them to call a halt to the ridiculous policy of selling the relatively new films to the TV networks for home showing at prime hours. In most cases, they acknowledge that this is harmful to exhibition, but excuse their actions on the grounds that they follow this policy because (1) members of their boards of directors insist that this quick cash be picked up to keep their company treasuries in good, liquid condition, (2) most of the pictures actually are owned by independent production companies, which retain the right to sell them to television, and (3) they are fearful of the Government's reaction if they withhold their pictures from TV. Frankly, I believe all three answers are frivolous and a "dodge" to cover indecision and incompetence in management. It would seem to me that any distribution head worth his salt could make it perfectly clear to the board of directors that the exhibition of features on television at prime hours will cost the company and the entire industry much more than the sums they might obtain from their sale. As for the contention that the independent producers control the product within a couple years after initial release to theatres, this is a confession of stupid management. Any film executive interested in preserving the company and the whole industry on a long range basis could write into every contract with his firm's independent producers a restrictive covenant clause preventing the release of the pictures to television for a specified number of years. A minimum of five years clearance would be reasonable. The issue of the Department of Justice attitude toward a clause restricting films for theatre use only for a number of years strikes me as being an idle and fictitious one. It seems highly improbable, our counsel tells us, that the Government could sustain any legal move to force the owner of a copyrighted film to sell it, and thereby injure himself and his established customers. Is it too much to ask this kind of sane, business-like conduct on a matter which — as presently practised — is wreaking havoc upon our industry? ANONYMOUS 0 0 TREXLER (Continued from Page 11) ies on television, but they continue to see the shows in spite of their objections to the manner in which they are presented. The producer or distributor, in our opinion, is materially damaged by substantially reducing the potential on the pictures w hich are new, currently showing in the motion picture theatres. Thus, it appears to us that damage occurs to the film industry in general in two ways. One, bad presentation on television, which causes discontent to viewers; Two, reduced revenue produced on current attractions at the motion picture theatre. I do not have a "pat" answer to the problems involved in this matter. Undoubtedly, producers and distributors feel that they are financialy benefitted by showing their older product on television, and sometimes even relatevly new product, while their current attractions are being exhibited in the theatres. Apparently, they have been unable to measure in any way satisfactory to them the degree of damage worked on current releases by films which they are releasing for television usage. I believe that producers and distributors should withhold all motion pictures produced for exhibition in motion picture theatres from the television screen for a minimum period of ten years. A limitation of this type would enable the producer and distributor to get maximum returns on current attractions, and encourage the exhibitor to more fully promote these current attractions to the mutual benefit of all. Exhibition should continue to work with the various distributor organizations and producers in the compilation of statistics, through current surveys, and such other means as can be devised, to present to distributors and producers tangible evidence as to the damage incurred through the present practice of releasing relatively current attractions for prime showing time in competition with new pictures in release for the motion picture theatre. CHARLES B. TREXLER, President and Treasurer, Stewart & Everett Theatres, Inc. 0 0 GOOD BUSINESS JUDGMENT MUST RULE-YURASKO We exhibitors are well aware of the attendant dangers to the spreading practice of TV showings of product that is relatively new. Our alarm is of a selfish nature but I wonder if the distribution moguls are acting in accordance with good business judgment. I, therefore, offer the following questions which could be put to the distributors. Is it good business for a distributor to permit his pictures to be booked on TV without regard for the order in which they were released? He would not condone this for theatre distribution but he does for Television to ridiculous extremes. Is it good business for a distributor to increase his share of box-office dollars from Theatres and, at the same time, encourage audiences to wait at home for TV showings? He then is affecting the total number of box-office dollars and narrowing the exhibitors' share and thus risking a loss of more theatre outlets for his product. Is it good business for a distributor to secure Court approval of his theatre distribution practices and not fight for this same right (if he has to) with regard to distribution on TV? In short ... is it good business for a distributor to get a fast "buck" today by digging his own grave to fall into tomorrow? That TV "buck (and probably more) will still be there any time in the future that he chooses to get it . . . after all his prior-releases have been sold. I believe the above adequately covers this subject of product which is produced and distributed by the same company. Of course, there is another facet and that is the matter of distributors competitively negotiating to distribute the product of independent producers. No doubt, one of the factors in these competitive negotiations is the amount of time that the distributor retains the right for theatre distribution. This could be similarly called the question of clearance over Television. I think this could be handled if the distributors arrive at a common equation covering this contingency. The Consent Decree gave the distributors the right to determine clearance for theatre distribution and this becomes a matter of self-preservation, as I see it, when it comes to determining the interval between commercial showings and TV showings. WILLIAM E. YURASKO, Comerjord Theatre Circuit, Scranlou. Pa. Page 22 Film BULLETIN February 4, 1943