Harrison's Reports (1930)

4 HARRISON’S REPORTS January 4, 1930 of the situation would appear to demand that any persons engaged in public relations activities for pay should act at all times in the open, and always express their position clearly as employes of the interests for which they are working. The danger of any other course is as obvious in the case of motion pictures as in the case of public utilities. “For example, a motion picture conference was held in New York on September 24-26, 1929, with meetings at the Lexington Theatre and at the Hotel Montclair. It was attended by persons prominent in social welfare, educational, church, and club work all over the United States. The meetings were conducted by the Hays organization, and its chief officials were among the speakers. . . . “It was clearly explained that, while this conference was held in the public interest, the public was not to be admitted. Only the representatives of the public, in the persons of individuals invited to the conference, were present. Reports of the meeting in the newspapers were not desired. So far, so good. Certainly the character of the conferences defined itself as being propaganda for the film producers in the Hays organization. “Some time after the conference closed there came to various newspapers an article from the office of Charles Stelzle, publicist, of 1 Madison Avenue. (Editor’s Note: It has been brought out that Mr. Stelzle was in the pay of the Hays organization while he was drawing a salary from the h'ederal Council of Churches.) 'There was nothing to indicate in this article that it was issued in the interests of the Hays organization. . . . “This is the type of propaganda or under-cover publicity that leads to many abuses. ... If propaganda is thus disseminated, who can tell to what lengths it will be used? Why not publicity of all sorts bearing identifying marks as to its true source, that is, the marks of the organization that is paying for it? . . . ’’ This is exactly what this paper has been objecting to — to the under-cover methods the Hays organization adopted to corrupt the minds of the independent exhibitor leaders to think the way Mr. Hays thought, thus causing them to betray, unknowingly in many cases perhaps, but betray nevertheless, the interests of the independent exhibitors. No one could condemn Mr. Hays and his lieutenants for exerting their efforts to protect the interests of those that employ them, but we are condemning him for employing unethical means. His efforts, for example, to defeat the Brookhart bill, were praiseworthy; but his transporting exhibitor leaders to Washington to work against the bill, paying their transportation to that city and other expenses connected with trips, is worthy of condemnation. And this is only one of the unethical acts Mr. Hays has sanctioned. 'I'here are many others. The policy of Mr. Hays towards the Churches has failed, and his policy towards the independent exhibitors can hardly be a success, particularly with Abram F. Myers the leader and counsellor of the independent exhibitors. It is the prediction of this paper that 1930 will find the independent exhibitors efficiently organized and able to protect their interests one hundred per cent. Theatre expansion and allocation of product will be the questions that will be settled during the new year in favor of the independent exhibitors. MORE ABOUT THE HERALD-WORLD “BETTER SOUND” FIASCO Three weeks ago you were told in these columns that the first award in the Herold-World “Better Sound” movement, made in this city, was founded, not on merit, but on political considerations. Last week the mails brought a letter from M. B. Horwitz, operating the Washington Theatre Circuit, at Cleveland, Ohio, submitting proof that the awards made in that city were prompted also by political considerations. “No doubt you will be interested to know,” Moe Horwitz writes, “as to the awards made to ‘the best sound theatres in Cleveland.’ “I am herewith enclosing you a copy of the Plain Dealer, which gives you the story. I am enclosing you also a copy containing an advertisement that appeared in all the Cleveland papers, which I paid for ; also the part retraction by the photoplay critic, who was instrumental in selecting the theatres lor the awards of merit. “h rom reading these, you will understand, I am sure, that Mr. Marsh has admitted to me that he has not visited my theatres. “When the question was put point blank to him why he selected these theatres, he said he meant only the first-run lunises, which was a very poor alibi, for if he had meant only them then he should have so stated in his articles in order that the public might know. “But even so, Mr. Marsh’s alibi will not hold for the Cameo, one of the theatres he selected, for it is not a firstrun theatre. “I'or your information, two of the theatres he selected are controlled by Loew, and the third by RKO. These are the only interests that control first run theatres in Cleveland. "This fiasco should be exposed in other cities for the public is made to believe that the houses that receive the awards of merit are the best sound houses. “I might add that I made a trip to Mr. Marsh’s office today, expecting a ‘210 pound sock in the eye,’ but came back in good physical condition. Mr. Marsh will, I am sure, write an article for the Sunday’s issue in which it will be made clear to the readers that the selection of the better sound houses did not include the neighborhood theatres. “In closing I might say that there are at least a dozen theatres in the outskirts of Cleveland that have a superior sound to some of those selected by our sound critic.” * * * 'The issue of December 12 Plain Dealer contains the following article by Mr. Marsh, under the heading, “Clearing a Misunderstanding": “.Yfter yesterday’s announcement of the Exihibitor-Herald’s bronze plaques going to the three first-run houses for superior sound reproduction, there seems to be in circulation the vicious gossip that I was discriminating against the second-run and neighborhood houses in these awards. “With the first announcement of the prize some time ago, I openly declared that only the first-run houses were to be considered in the initial awards. Yet there persists a rumor that W. Ward Marsh prints that the Hippodrome, Cameo and Stillman theatres have better sound equipment than any neighborhood houses. “I have never made such comparisons. The first-run houses to receive these awards were selected only from first-run houses. Incidentally the two previous out-oftown awards — in New York and in Chicago — only included the first-run houses. For all I know, 3'our neighborhood house may have the best equipment in town, and any one who says that I said the Hippodrome, the Stillman and Cameo have the best sound equipment in Greater Cleveland may call at this office and receive a good 210pound sock in the eye.” The small exhibitors have given the Ilerald-lVorld the greatest support. But the Hcrald-li'orld is paying them back by telling the public that their sound is poor, and that the sound of producer-controlled houses is the best. Is that gratitude? TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT NOTICED THE NEW SUBSCRIPTION RATE Now and then I receive a letter from a subscriber asking me if I did not make a mistake in billing him $15 for the subscription. Manifestly these either did not notice the announcement made last spring that on and after April 1, 1929, the yearK' subscription rate would be $15 (plus the first class postage, where the paper is sent by first class mail), or they read it but forgot all about it. So I take this means of calling their attention to it again. l^p to this time only about five exhibitors complained of the increase in the rate. This speaks wel, not only of your fair-mindedness, but also of the service HARRISON’S REPORT'S renders to the exhibitors. 'File increase in price was made necessary, not only because of the higher cost of living but also because of the constant narrowing down of the number of independent theatres.