Harrison's Reports (1931)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison’s Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: United States $55.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. . 16.00 Canada, Alaska 16.00 Mexico, 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. XIII SATURDAY^MARCH J 1931 No. 10 Again About Concealed In last week’s issue the disclosure was made that in “It Pays to Advertise” there are more than fifteen advertisements in addition to the main advertisement, “13 Soap Unlucky for Dirt,” which Paramount is being accused of having created as a brand for the purpose of selling it. The act of concealing advertisements in motion pictures offered to the exhibitors as entertainments and through the exhibitors to the public is unethical and unmoral ; it is unjust, for by this act the Paramount is trying to gain pecuniary profit without cost to it. It is an imposition upon the public. Messrs. Zukor, Kent and Katz may think that they can take advantage of the public, but this paper can assure them that no individual or company has yet been born that will take unfair advantage of the public. The public has a peculiar way of protesting ; not by loud talk or by vivid gestures, but by silently abstaining from buying the articles advertised and the medium through which they are advertised. One of two things is going to happen: either Paramount will have to discontinue the practice of deception, or Paramount pictures will be looked upon by the public with contempt, and the name “Paramount" will become anathema. And this goes for Warner Bros., who, too, is concealing advertisements in its pictures. Harrison’s Reports is pleased to note, and to call your attention to it, that at least one of the major producers has come out strongly against advertisements in pictures, concealed or open — Mr. Carl Laemmle, President of Universal Pictures Corporation. In a statement he issued last week, Mr. Laemmle says partly as follows : “I appeal to every exhibitor not to prostitute his screen with paid advertising 1 “I appeal to every producer not to release ‘sponsored’ moving pictures — meaning pictures which contain concealed or open advertising of some one’s product ! “This kind of profit is a false one. “It is temporary profit at best, for in the long run it will degrade the movies and earn a bad will which will drive millions from attending the movies. “It is a serious mistake to figure that because the radio broadcasts contain advertising it is all right for the movies to do it. They are as far apart as the two poles. "The millions who listen to fine radio entertainment do not pay for it. Therefore, they have no real right to object to injection of advertising blurbs by the announcers. "But the millions who attend the movies are on a different footing. They pay at the box office for entertainment. They pay the price you fix. They are entitled to get what they pay for. “When they buy a newspaper which contains advertising, they are not compelled to read the advertising if they don’t want to. If they don’t like the radio advertising, they can shut off the radio. But when they pay to enter your theatre, they can’t turn a page nor turn off a dial. They can look and listen to whatever is on your screen. “Believe me, if you jam advertising down their throats and pack their eyes and ears with it, you will build up a resentment that will in time damn your business. “The screen in all its years of existence has been kept free from propaganda, with the only one exception — and that was during the war. In those black days, we all did what we could to arouse the fighting and Liberty-bondbuying spirit of the people. It was for a real cause. But outside that, the screen has been kept free from propaganda — whether religious, political, advertising or otherwise. “Your screen is a sacred trust. It is not actually yours. It belongs to the people who pay to see what is on it. In heaven’s name don’t prostitute it !” It is clear that this appeal comes from Mr. Laemmle’s heart. He has fought for the industry long enough, and Advertisements in Films has seen it go through hardships big enough, to enable him to realize the danger to it if we are going to deceive the public, or to take advantage of it. Now that we have Universal on record as opposed to commercial advertising in pictures, as well as RKO, the executives of which have assured this paper that they have not received compensation for advertisements that have appeared a few times in their pictures, and that in the future they will refrain from “shooting” anything that might be taken as “sponsored” advertising, let us ask every producer to make his stand in this question clear. I am sending to every producer a letter asking him to state in writing, for the purpose of publication, a statement as to whether he is putting “sponsored” advertisements in his pictures or not, and if not whether he intends to do so during the picture season after he has sold his pictures to you without giving you an inkling, before you signed your contracts with him, that he intends to include advertisements in his pictures. If he should refuse to commit himself, you will then know that he intends to deceive you and the public by “slipping” “sponsored” advertisements on you. Let us find out now where each producer stands, so that you may know what to do when you are ready to buy pictures. In the meantime I would suggest that you watch the reviews in this paper closely to learn what pictures contain “sponsored” advertisements so that you may reject them. There may be a case here and there where an advertisement of some nationally known article appears that has not been paid for, but I believe your rights in the matter do not diminish in the least in demanding that such advertisements be excluded, for the public has no way of distinguishing what has and what has not been paid for, with the result that the harm done to your business is just as great when it has not been paid for as it is when it has. The screen deals with a fictitious world and all things in it should be fictitious. In the matter of Warner Bros., which has in each Vitaphone Short a title reading “Brunswick Radio is Used in this Picture,” it is my belief that you have the right to reject any Vitaphone or other Warner Bros, picture that carries this line, because Warner Bros., unless it has obtained permission from you to allow it to display this wording on your screen, is violating your common law rights. You can, in fact, as I said last week, reject any picture that contains advertising of any description. Unless Paramount and Warner Bros, give up this unethical practice, Harrison's Reports is going to advocate legislation that will force them to do it. It is too bad that this matter has come so late — Congress is about to adjourn and nothing can be done now ; otherwise this paper would have suggested to you to write to your Congressman urging the insertion of a provision in the Copyright Bill depriving copyright protection to any producer who would fail to indicate advertising properly and unmistakably, by having appear in the scene in large type the word, “Advertisement,” just as the Postal Laws force a newspaper owner to do when the story he prints has been paid for. My lawyer was out of town and therefore I could not reach him to frame the letter I promised you, but I believe the following form will do : “It has come to our attention that some of the films we have contracted for from certain distributors have contained advertisements of nationally known articles. These were displayed on our screen without our knowledge or consent, in violation of our rights, and of the various promises they have made, through your association, known as the Hays organization, to representatives of exhibitors while negotiating contracts with them at different times in the past. This resulted in a damage to our ( Continued on last page )