Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1963)

PAY TV SURVEY Infrequent Users Chased by $15 Annual Fee (Continued from Page 16) old movies — was in step with the defects expounded by dissident Subscribers earlier. And it should be noted that the interest in film entertainment appeared substantially greater than interest in sports among the ex-Subscriber element. The 70% who stated they prefer to go out for entertainment was composed in part of some who wanted wider variety and others who referred to the increased cost of Pay TV. A smaller group admitted the equipment was removed by Telemeter. A few cited flaws in the mechanical performance of the meter itself, several saying they lost coins because of technical difficulties. The quality of the tube picture was an issue to a minor count. While many respondents could not disentangle price from programming in accounting for their disenchantment with Telemeter, programming, per se, must be recognized as the primal cause for a major part of the exodus. A strict reading of the system's press agentry; the expectation of an abundance of first run movies, the staging of important plays and special attractions,a greater variety of sports events — these were cited, in some cases chapter and verse, by former patrons as causes for their disillusionment. This is borne out by the hegira of numerous higher-bracket respondents. Here critical discernment seems to have played a role. Some stated they were the medium's earliest champions, but their anticipations were never met. Among the middle income group who cancelled the service, a substantial number said they had no objection to paying within reasonable limits, but had difficulty in finding desirable attractions. This group of Former Subscribers, the so-called "infrequent" user, appears in some ways to be less a tightwad than imagined, more a discriminating buyer who will pay for the kind of entertainment he wants. $ $ $ To what extent would the departed, the Former Subscriber, return to the fold? Would he even consider, and on what grounds? Or is his position intractable? Former Subscribers were asked: What Are Your Intentions Regarding Pay TV? The interviewers reported that the initial, almost instinctive, response of the great majority was an instant "never again!" A total of 68% expressly revealed further that their sentiment had hardened into permanent abstention. However, close to one-third of the Former Subscribers offered some qualifying comments indicating a willingness to reconsider their cancellations. Of this group 16% stated that elimination of the fixed yearly charge would lead them to reconsider, while 11% said better programming (the familiar call for more new movies, more sports, better specials, etc.) might entice them back into the Pay TV ranks. The balance simply hadn't thought about it. Let it be noted here that in interpreting the interviewers' notes, Audienscope reached the conclusion that some of the 68% who voiced positive rejection did so in the anger of disappointment, and could be persuaded to re-subscribe if proper inducements were offered. FORMER SUBSCRIBERS SAID: "Too expensive. Used it little. We like free TV better." "Felt fooled. We expected better programs, and the reception was bad. Movies were older than expected." "When the man from Telemeter told us tthe rate was going up to $15 we told him to take it out. It wasn't worth it for what we got." "Programs were lousy. When they raised the rate, we had it taken out. There's nothing wrong with regular TV." "The programs were good the first year or so, and then started to go down. We felt bad about the collector getting so little money out of the box." "No used often enough. Liked the hockey, nothing else. It wasn't worth the extra money they wanted." "Didn't spend $10 in a year and it wasn't my fault. The programing was no good for the price. The theatre gives you color and wide vision, and you see a new movie. You can go downtown a few times and not pay as much." "Free TV offers enough. There are six channels to get shows from. We hardly spent any money on it, and it cost $5 to install, then they wanted $15 every year on top of it." "The movies were too adult." From a 35 year old respondent.) NON-SUBSCRIBER ATTITUDES The largest segment of the Audienscope sample by far was the group (58%) that had never taken Telemeter into its home. It was established that all but a handful of this class had television sets, and residing within wire transmission range of the Pay TV service, could have subscribed if they had so elected. The question thus arose: Did any statistically definable trend of an attitudinal nature militate against metered viewing ? The answer is no. No single factor may be held as most accountable for abstinence. However, a range of several leading response are worthy of examination. To define Non-Subscriber attitudes more precisely, Audienscope began by searching for a basic reaction to the broad principle of Pay TV. It was hypothesized that, because of the wide publicity attendant upon Telemeter's selection of the Etobicoke community as the test tube of a major experiment, a certain awareness must exist. And hence, that opinion had been formed in most households there. Accordingly, Non-Subscribers were asked the academic question: Do You Approve or Oppose Pay TV? Approve 23% Oppose 45% Undecided 32% The Undecided answer proved the awareness hypothesis not entirely valid, since more than half of these respondents professed a complete lack of knowledge, or at best, a fuzzy recollection of hearing something about it, and as such could not make a judgment. About one out of three said they would like to know more about it. The balance were expressions of indifference or outright disinterest, but not opposition. An informed few told of hearing of certain difficulties in regard to the experiment, but of not really knowing ( Continued on Puge 2 i ) Film BULLETIN August 19, 1 963 Page 21