Harrison's Reports (1930)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 18T9. Harrison’S Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: tinited States $16.00 U. S. Insular Possessions . . 16.00 Janada, Alaska 16.00 -lexico, Spain, Cuba 16.00 Great Britain, New Zealand 16.00 Other Foreign Countries.. 17.50 35c a Copy 1440 BROADWAY New York, N. Y. A Motion Picture Reviewing Service by a Former Exhibitor Devoted Exclusively to the Interests of Exhibitors Its Editorial Policy; No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Published Weekly by P. S. HARRISON Editor and Publisher Established July 1, 1919 Tel. : Pennsylvania 7649 Cable Address : Harreports (Bentley Code) A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XII SATURDAY, JUNE 21, 1930 No. 25 The Producer Activities on Zoning and Protection Mr. E. E. Alger, of Alger’s Theatre, Peru, Illinois, has written to this office as follows ; “I have been serving on a committee to re-zone the State of Illinois. Mr. J. J. Rubens, of Publix, also was on the committee and presented a plan for zoning, which I am enclosing. CTharles C. Pettijohn was also present at all times, and was very insistent that this plan be adopted. No definite action was taken, as the meeting was postixined in order to await action of the committee that was working on the Chicago City territory. “It is evident that the Distributors and the Circuit Owners are trying to work out some legal plan to justify protection in order to prevent Government prosecution. “One other independent exhibitor sat on the committee with me, and he also was of the same opinion that I am regarding it. “I am enclosing also a letter that I have sent to each member of the committee, stating that we do not approve the plan. “I should like to suggest that you advise every exhibitor to be on his guard in his territory, as the producers are evidently trying to slip something over. The Allied organization can no doubt give you complete information regarding it.” The Plan The zoning plan for Cook County, which was submitted by the Hays organization through C. C. Pettijohn to the exhibitor committee, consisting of six affiliated exhibitors and only three independent exhibitors, and which has, no doubt, been submitted to similar committees in every zone in the country, reads as follows : “Relative to protection of a ‘larger town’ over a ‘smaller town.’ Protection of one mile radius shall be granted for each one thousand of population a ‘larger town’ over a ‘smaller town.’ A forty mile radius shall be the maximum protection area in any situation. Small town adjacent to and within a radius of three miles from a larger town should be considered as second run situations. The following is the suggested chart to determine the protection afforded a ‘larger town’ over a ‘smaller town.’ Within a ten mile radius of the larger town termed key center fourteen days protection. Twenty mile radius ten day protection. Thirty mile radius seven days protection. Forty mile radius five days protection. The above formula is based on theatres charging the regular top daily admission price of the key center town. The regular top daily admission price of the smaller town shall also be used for computing this protection. “For each five cents of a lower admission price charged by a smaller town one extra day shall be added to the number of days protection afforded the key center. Any town, excepting the town directly adjacent to and connected with the larger town over three thousand population, shall be considered a key center. Where protection overlaps from one key center to another it is distinctly understood that in no event shall a smaller town be permitted to play ahead of a larger town in the recognized radius of a larger town. "Second and subsequent run situations. “Second run houses charging the same admission price as a first run theatre may play a picture fourteen days after the first run. Second run theatres charging an admission price of five cents less than a first run theatre shall play twenty-eight days after the first run. If thirty cents admission is charged forty-nine days after first run. If twentyfive cents admission is charged seventy days after first run. Regardless of the admission price charged by the first run house second run theatres charging a top admission price of twenty-five cents shall not be required to play the picture later than seventy days after the first run. In the event of an admission price of twenty cents is charged ninety-one days protection is afforded the first run house. If fifteen cents admission is charged one hundred twelve days protection. "Suggested additional conditions. “Smaller towns shall not advertise through the medium of posters or newspapers a ‘protected picture’ until the engagement ends at the larger town which has protection over him. “Second run theatres shall not advertise a second run picture either inside or outside of his theatre until after the first run engagement has been completd. If this condition is violated the second run picture is set back thirty days without prejudice to the subsequent runs. “Two for one tickets shall be considered as half admission price regularly charged. “Double or triple programs shall not be permitted unless all features on said program shall be over one year old. “Distributors are urged not to permit the destructive practice of booking the same star in first and second run competitive situations on simultaneous dates.” Mr. Alger’s Recommendations The recommendations whicli Mr. Alger has submitted to the committee read as follows : “Gentlemen : “Relative to the tentative suggestion presented by Mr. J. J. Rubens of Publix Theatres at the Committee meeting yesterday, I wish to state that as a member of the committee representing the Independent Theatre Owners, I am not in favor of the plan for the following reasons ; “The whole theory of protection is wrong and is only tolerated by the independent exhibitors on account of its being forced on them. “The inclusion of all towns within a three mile radius of any town and considering it as a second run is unjust to the theatres located there, as a penalty of twenty-one days protection for each five cents reduction in admission price is excessive. Why should a town four miles from a key center be penalized only one day protection for each five cents less admission price, while a town three miles away would be penalized twenty-one days for each five cents less admission price ? It is self-evident that Mr. Rubens arrived at this, to fit some particular case in the Publix territory. This unjust discrimination lays the whole scheme open to prosecution in the courts. F'or instance, in my territory LaSalle has protection over Peru and Spring Valley, the latter a Publix town. Spring Valley, a smaller town, is only three miles from Peru, and yet would be able to show pictures fifty-two days ahead of Peru, at the same admission prices. “The suggestion of not letting any theatre run a picture ahead of any with overlapping protection from a larger town, would practically nullify the whole zoning agreement as this territory can reach out for a distance of forty miles. A town such as Lincoln, Illinois, while permitted to show a picture seven days after Springfield, cannot run the picture ahead of Bloomington, Decatur, or Peoria. “The committee with full powers to act must be made up of at least 50% of independent theatre owners, for them to have any power whatever, as the committee now appointed is made up of three exhibitors and six opposing. “The tentative agreement as drawn up by the committee yesterday was the complete plan presentd by Mr. Rubens of Publix, and fully agreed to by Mr. Pettijohn of the Hays {Continued on last page)