Harrison's Reports (1954)

Bnt«r«d as Moond-claaa matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at Now York, New York, under the act of March S, 18T9. Harrison’S Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: United States $16.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.50 Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 17.50 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 S5c a Copy 1270 SIXTH AVENUE New York 20, N. Y. Published Weekly by Harrison’s Reports, Inc., Publisher A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors P. S. HARRISON. Editor Established July 1, 1919 Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Circle 7-4622 A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXXVI SATURDAY, APRIL 17, 1954 No. 16 SOME REVEALING COMMENTS ON TELEMETER Under date of February 22, I received from Ted Leitzell, director of public relations for the Zenith Radio Corporation, a letter commenting on my report of the Telemeter demonstration held in Palm Springs, Cahf., late last November. My report, which was published in the December 5, 1953 issue of HarrI' son’s Reports, was reproduced in the February issue of Films in Review, a pubhcation of the National Board of Review, in which it came to the attention of Mr. Leitzell. Because of the revealing statements made by Mr. Leitzell about Telemeter, which is competitive to Zenith’s Phonevision subscription TV system, I sent a copy of his letter to Carl Leserman, executive vice' president of the Telemeter Corporation, asking him to comment on Mr. Leitzell’s statements so that I might print both his remarks and Mr. Leitzell’s letter in the same issue of this paper. I wrote to Mr. Lesserman on March 1 1 and he has not yet come through with a reply. Accordingly, I see no reason to delay further the pubhcation of Mr. Leitzell’s letter. The columns of this paper will remain open to Mr. Lesserman, of course, in the event he decides to comment on Mr. Leitzell’s statements. The following is Mr. Leitzell’s letter : “Dear Mr. Heirrison: “1 have just read with a great deal of interest your Telemeter piece in the February Films in Review. Your understanding of the ovenall problem leads me to some comments and to de-whiskering a few facts that you are entitled to know. “As you undoubtedly realize, Zenith began work in 1931 on the knotty technical problems of providing a home box office for TV. Basic in all our years of research and experimentation was the fact that a pay'tO'See-it TV system must have secrecy. “You and I are well aware that movie box offices would be wrecked virtually overnight if every movie house in the country had a front entrance to collect admissions and admit the paying customers, and two or three side entrances where other movie goers could enter for nix. “Subscription television could no more stand extensive ‘sneaking under the tent’ than movie houses. “Yet at the Palm Springs Telemeter show, Zenith and others picked up without paying any fee and without any Telemeter connection the same entertainment that Telemeter’s customers had to pay to see. We did it by using a standard Zenith TV set equipped with a continuous tuner and an ordinary FM table set. One brought in the clear picture; the other, normal sound. “I’m sure you will be shocked to know that the Telemeter TV signals at Palm Springs were not scrambled. A gimmick that generates a scramble was put into the receiver at the time the Telemeter apparatus was installed. This built-in scramble was ehminated when the customer paid his money. For sets not so equipped by Telemeter, the transmission was free and open to be received on any TV set by a slight shift within the wave band. “By way of contrast, our Phonevision systems scramble the video and audio signals at the transmitter. Any TV set will receive a scrambled picture with garbled sound. To pick up the program in clear form, the Phonevision-equipped receiver must get, either through the air or over a telephone line, the proper decoding information. Specifically, there are five Phonevision systems which can provide subscription service to all homes within range of a TV transmitter; only one of these systems uses a telephone circuit to carry code information continuously. “Phonevision methods can vary also. Subscribers must pay for the program by dropping coins in a box attached to the receiver, by purchasing cards, or by monthly billing. (The attached brochure on Phonevision goes into even greater detail.) “You mentioned a franchise deal with local theatres. There’s httle doubt it could be worked out for a town with one movie theatre, but how in the world would it be practical in large cities with many moviegoing audiences and hundreds of movie houses? “I note that you question whether viewers would pay to see top-flight entertainment on TV. Evidence has been mounting rapidly during the past few years that TV audiences are willing and eager to pay, once they understand that this is the only way television will be able to bring them top quality programs and major sports events. “For example : “Our Phonevision test in Chicago during the first 90 days of 1951 showed conclusively that the public will pay for superior entertainment on television. Three hundred families, selected by National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago, were equipped with television receivers which could also receive Phonevision. Each day, for three months, we presented three showings of Hollywood pictures. Our test families had the choice of watching any of the four commercial TV stations in Chicago or of watching a good movie on Phonevision by accepting the charge of $1 per picture. (Continued on back