Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1963)

PAY TV SURVEY Price 4i ml Prwyramminfj Both fast Subscribvr.s (Continued from Page 15) to take in view of the expressed attitudes? Hold on? Or cut the cable? This question was put: What are Your Intentions Regarding Pay TV? A 54% majority of remaining Subscrbers said they plan to continue the Telemeter service. An interesting feature of the vote is that it runs higher than the "satisfied" vote (39%). Hence, a percentage of the "dissatisfied" and "undecided" apparently intend to hold on to their meters. More significant, perhaps, is that a grand total of 46% could not say with certainty that they will continue. This balance is broken down as follows: "considering cancellation" received a vote of 22%. "Decided to cancel" brought a vote of 16%. A total of 8% voted "undecided." As indicated by prior responses, the hard core of sports fans make up the major composition of the "will continue" group. About one-fifth of the stay-put group said they will "try it one more year, and see what happens." These apparently are hoping for better programs. Among the 22% "considering cancellation", a main factor was the unexpired portion of their annual $15 outlay. The Subscriber residue as measured by this study — now down approximately 45% to some 2,600 to 2,700 outlets — is fraught with mixed attitudes of satisfaction. Only 39%, mostly sports fans, could express contentment of a more or less positive nature. Without immediate redress in the form of more ample general entertainment, principally new movies, Audienscope must conclude that Subscriber ranks will slump to a bedrock comprised of oldsters, shut-ins, and overflow spectators from Toronto's ice hockey and football attractions. FORMER SUBSCRIBERS ATTITUDES This category was found to be 83% as large a group as present Subscribers in the Audienscope study. As indicated by announced payer intentions, the ranks of Former Subscribers likely is growing steadily. Taken as a whole, Former Subscribers may be described as a more hostile version of the "dissatisfied" Subscriber group examined earlier. Complaints run to a broadly similar line. The main difference is that Former Subscribers translated their unfavorable attitudes into the positive action of cancellation. While the Former Subscribers, in overwhelming majority, were found to be adamant in their disapproval of the experience, some thought an improved utilization of the medium might give them pause for reconsideration. What prompted this group to throw in the sponge? What accounts for a Subscriber shrinkage of 45% in the Audienscope sample — a show business phenomenon matched, perhaps, only by the nose-dive in theatre attendance? This question was asked of Former Subscribers: What Was Your Primary Reason for Discontinuing? Disappointment in programming 44% Cost 40% Rather go out 7% Removed by Telemeter 4% Other reasons 5% Again, we find the basic factors of price and programming so interwoven in a cause-and-effect relationship. Thev are inseparable elements. The introduction of a new cost aspect — the $15 annual charge — unmistakablygoaded many pay patrons into a closer examination of the Telemeter service. A large number then decided Pay TV wasn't worth the money, and they quit. Many were not sure what impelled their decision — the increased charge or the inferior programming. It was the old chicken or egg quandary. Nonetheless, it was found that the annual fee chased not only infrequent or marginal users, but moderate users as well, many of whom viewed Telemeter as tolerable in terms of the earlier overall costs, but unacceptable in the higher cost context. The other side of the coin is this: had the general programming been held in higher viewer esteem, it is evident that the increased cost would not have taken on so oppressive a character, and a lower proportion of cancellations would have resulted. The issue is reducible to a judgment of what the payee believes he is getting for his money. For $15 per year more, a very high number felt not enough. Specific charges against Telemeter programming deal essentially with (1) the inferiority of attractions and (2) the insufficiency of worthy ones. Disappointment in film offerings — too few new pictures, too many "repeats" and ( Continued on Page 21 ) SUBSCRIBERS SAID: "Will keep one more year because we paid the rate. Hope shows will improve. Very disappointed so far. They did not give what they promised." "Even though they raised the rate, I like Telemeter for the sports they show, but we hardly use it in the summer." "Programs deteriorated atfer the first year. We think the shows were very disappointing and the movies of lower quality." "We like it pretty much. The shows in the winter are good, mostly the games. We watch little in the summer because they repeat many things." "Poor shows. I'm not interested in what is offered. I haven't turned it on in a long time. Will discontinue." "Quality of programs not bad, not good. But I don't know if we'll keep it because of the rate. We don't use it enough. If it doesn't improve, we'll give it up." "May have it taken out. For my part, they can take it out. My husband may want it for the hockey. We haven't made a decision yet. I rather watch regular TV." "Programs good at first, then it started to go down. There are too damn many old movies. I don't like the sports announcer." "We use it now and then. Actually, the children use it much more than we do." "Movies are no good — kid stuff. The whole thing's too expensive for what we're getting. There's not enough description of what's going to play." "I think it's convenient, but the shows definitely could be better. The kiids keep us home." "I think it's nice. We can seldom go out because of an invalid son." Page 16 Film BULLETIN August 19, 1963