Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1963)

7ke Vieu frw OuUide by ROLAND PENDARIS Importance of Teenagers A survey about which I read the other day purported to find that the major recreational activity of teenagers in the United States was going to the movies. This was reported with a considerable degree of relish and satisfaction in some sections of the motion picture trade. As for me, my eyebrows are still raised. I am dubious about every aspect of the matter. I do not think the survey is an accurate reflection of the situation; and I certainly hope that the motion picture industry will not accept it as gospel. If the people who make the movies become convinced that the teenagers are their most devoted audience, then you and I know what kind of movies we are in for. You and I also know what kind of movie audiences we are in for. In such event, I will echo the immortal words of Sam Goldwyn: "Include me out." Optimists among film people will insist that movies are also the major recreational activity of post-teenagers, young-married, golden-agers and what have you, and that, therefore, the teenage audience couldn't possibly be the dominant influence. In this case, while I do not agree as to the enthusiasms of all the various age levels, I do agree with the conclusion. The teenagers should not dominate the movie market. In order to state my case, I must first challenge the findings of the survey. Is the major recreational activity of teenagers the buying of tickets for motion pictures? I am inclined to think the record industry might argue the point. The radio broadcasters, the television people and the bowling alley proprietors might also want at least equal time. But let's take a statistical look at the population. In the 15-to1 9-year-old age group, as of July, 1961, we had 13,700,000 people. In the 10-to14-year-old group we had almost 18,000,000, of whom perhaps 3,500,000 would be 14-year-olds and almost 7,000,000 in their teens. Thus it is fair to estimate that we have more than 20,000,000 teenagers contributing in one way or another to the vagaries of the national economy thes? days. Any way you look at it, that's a pretty fair collection of folks to be concentrating on the movies. Now proceed to apply this statistic to the figures on weekly movie attendance. Would you, for example, say that we are averaging 45,000,000 tickets per week? This would be two and a half times larger than the total teenage population of the nation. But between the ages of 20 and 39 alone there are 46,000,000 people and between 40 and 49 we collect another 23,000,000. If those under 40 go to the movies once a month they are buying tickets at the rate of more than 11,000,000 a week, and if those between 40 and 49 go once every two months they are buying only slightly less than 3,000,000 tickets every week. Thus, of 45,000,000 tickets per week, we can very probably account for more than a third without going near the teenagers. Examine the market in another way. Look at the character of the movies which have made outstanding successes in recent years. For the most part, you will find either adult pictures, or, particularly in the case of Walt Disney, family films. The picture deliberately made for the teen-age market is the occasional exploitation success rather than the general formula for fun and profit at the bijou. It may seem rather odd for this column to devote so much attention to analysis of a harmless survey. The basic reason for the attention is that your humble commentator does not consider such surveys harmless. The direction in which the industry can go if it listens to those who would orient it toward teenagers is, in this corner's considered opinion, down, down, down. So there are two solutions. Either find pictures which can appeal to a market other than teenagers, or find films which appeal to a market of which teenagers are only a fractional and manageable segment. Whatever prosperity the motion picture industry has enjoyed in recent years is certainly not due to any single segment of the population. But I think it is fair to state that most of the headaches that theatre managers have had to endure have come from one general age level and I don't think these managers would be thrilled to know that this is the meat and potatoes of their boxoffice potential. I have fought hard against the temptation, but I cannot resist the opportunity to say a few words about the showing of theatrical movies in prime time on network television. Forget questions of the size of the audience they attract. Just look at the matter from the point of view of what it does to two businesses. Yes, I said two businesses. We have all heard about its effect on theatre attendance. At a time when there is a product shortage in theatres, the idea that competitive full length attractions, however interrupted by commercials, can be seen for free on the home screen suggests a form of industrial suicide in slow takes by the film companies. Or perhaps it is industrial homicide, since the companies are more likely to survive than the theatres. The companies get income from TV showings, theatres just get the competition. And if the home public should develop real enthusiasm for seeing recent films on television, the stage is nicely set for film companies to move into the pay TV business. They will be able to pit three markets against each other — the still experimental feevee, home television and the theatre. But look at the other industry that is affected. Every time a theatrical movie displaces several hours of new television programming on a network in prime time it is reducing the creativity of the TV medium and tending to make that network a sort of subsequent-run free movie theatre. This hardly encourages new television talent — or new television audiences. There is, of course, still a third force involved in all this. That force is the public. I cannot help wondering why, if so many millions of people willingly tune in on the telecast of a recent movie, some significant proportion of these people might not be lured into a theatre to see these same attractive films uninterrupted. It might take a new promotional campaign for the film, but surely such effort would be worthwhile in sustaining motion picture theatre attendance and loyalty. Booking films into prime network evening time is an easy and quick way to latch on to additional revenue for a movie company, but is it sound business for the long haul? And, incidentally, do we have enough pictures around to keep on with this sort of double entry marketing? Does it occur to the movie moguls that within a couple years they might find themselves without a theatre market and without product for a TV market? Page 8 Film BULLETIN March 18, 1943