Harrison's Reports (1954)

64 HARRISON’S REPORTS April 17, 1954 “The success of this test was outstanding. On the average, our families ‘went to the movies at home’ 1.73 times per week, which is about V/z times the then rate of motion picture attendance in the theatres. On the average each picture was purchased by 25% of the test famihes. In selhng these pictures to our test families Zenith had no legal device for collecting the monthly bills, except that service could be discon' tinned to defaulters. Nevertheless, our total collec' tions were more than 99%. “In considering the above facts, remember that every picture shown during the test was at least 2 years old and had completed its first, second and third theatre runs. “In addition to this ‘hard cash’ demonstration, there have been numerous sxirveys conducted around the country pointing out public willingness to pay. With' out exception these surveys have shown that the ma' jority of television set owners are willing to pay for better entertainment on home TV. I am enclosing copies of some of these surveys. “In 1947 when we publicly revealed the first of our Phonevision systems. Zenith was a prophet without honor through much of the broadcasting industry and the advertising fraternity. During the free2;e, when competition between stations in most markets was limited or non'existent, television seemed a heaven'sent bonanza for station owner or applicant and sponsor. Today, broadcasters and advertisers are caught in the economic squeeze of growing competi' tion and rising costs, and are confronted with the spectre of even greater costs for color television, when it arrives. “There is no doubt in my mind that the crescendo of interest in subscription television will continue, and that the coming of subscription television is in' evitable. TV must hmve the additional revenue that a subscriber service would bring if it is to provide prO' gramming that the public expects and wants and if it is to achieve its full stature as the greatest medium of communication the world has yet known. “Sincerely, (signed) “Ted Leitzell” 4: * * While on the subject of Telemeter, I should like to call attention to a revealing news article that was published in the April 10 issue of Showmens Trade Review pointing out that all is not well with the Telemeter experiment now being conducted in Palm Springs. According to this article, Earle Strebe, the exhibitor who has been conducting the test, has dropped simuh taneous showings of pictures in his theatres and over the Telemeter home video system because of his inabihty to obtain first'nm product for the test after the first few weeks. Strebe told the STR reporter that in recent times his Telemeter showings had been restricted to last runs and old films, and that he had been confined practically to the pictures of one company, Para' mount, which owns a half interest ni Telemeter. Strebe attributed his loss of first'run films for Tele' meter to protests from the rival Sunair Drivein Thea' tre at Palm Springs, which had complained to the Department of Justice that it had to play pictures after they had been shown over the Telemeter system and had emphasised Paramount’s part ownership of Telemeter, claiming that this violated the Government decree restraining Paramovmt from participation in exhibition. Strebe stated that, after this letter had been written, he lost his first runs for Telemeter and had to change his policy of simultaneous showings in his theatres. Strebe revealed also that, as a result of being con' fined to old product. Telemeter business lately has “been very slow.’’ He admitted, in fact, that the Tele' meter experiment has never been profitable since there are only 150 Telemeter'equipped sets in the area, which has approximately 800 TV sets. These developments in the Telemeter test are in' deed revealing and, as Harrison’s Reports said in its origind report, the system leaves much to be answered before either the exhibitors or the produc' ers can draw conclusions as to its worth. HAIL, UNITED ARTISTS! Today, April 17, marks the 35 th anniversary of United Artists, but as recent as three years ago, when the company was on the brink of financial obUvion, there was not much hope that it would ever attain a 35 th birthday. At that time, however, a brighter future loomed for the company when it was taken over by a new management group headed by Arthur B. Krim, Robert S. Benjamin, William J. Heineman, Max E. Youngstein and Arnold Picker — men who were thoroughly familiar with the h^Lndling of a film company’s affairs. The industry — and the exhibitors in particular — expressed the deep hope that the new management would succeed. And the fact that United Artists is celebrating its 35 th anniversary today is overwhelm' ing proof that this hope has been realized. What is particularly gratifying about the success of this new management team, is that United Artists has become a dependable source from which the ex' hibitors can expect a continuous flow of product — a matter that is of prime importance to the exhibitors, for there are few times in the past turbulent history of the film industry when product volume has been more necessary. Important, too, of course, is that much of UA’s forthcoming product is of top caliber, accompanied by celebrated names in acting, directing and producing. So, for its accomplishments down through the years from the early beginnings of the industry, and for its spectacular resurgence as a prime source of supply for exhibitors, Harrison’s Reports expresses its con' gratulations to United Artists on its 35th anniversary. And for their individual contributions of business acumen and endless energy they have exhibited during the past three years, Harrison’s Reports wishes to express its congratulations also to the new man' agement team, along with a sincere hope that they will continue the traditions and achievements of the past for the grovring future of themselves and of the industry as a whole. A NOTE TO SUBSCRIBERS If you are a subscriber an you happen to receive a circular soliciting your subscription, please disregard it. Every effort is made to exclude the names of sub' scribers from the Hst of exhibitors to whom circulars are sent, but the list is so large that, no matter how carefully the work is done, the name of a subscriber is sometimes included.