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 $16.00 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 PEnnsylvania 6-6379 Cable Address : Harreports (Bentley Code) A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XIII SATURDAY, APRIL 18, 1931 No. 16 THE HARRISON’S REPORTS CAMPAIGN AGAINST SCREEN ADVERTISING AND THE PRESS The vigorous campaign this paper is conducting against the sponsored screen advertising activities of the Paramount-Publix and the Warner Bros, organizations is receiving unprecedented support from the press of the nation. The results so far indicate that within a short time every worth-while newspaper in the country will have written one or more editorials against this practice ; they may even adopt the suggestion made in the second letter mailed to them about inviting the public to take a part in it. In the issue of March 28, the names of the following papers were mentioned as having given me their moral support : The Syracuse Herald, Syracuse, N. Y. (Mr. Chester B. Balm, Motion Picture Editor) ; The Denison Herald, Denison, Texas (Mr. J. L. Greer, Publisher) The Frederick Leader, Frederick, Okla. ; The Harrison Daily Times, Harrison, Arkansas; the Gazette and the Mail, of Morristown, Tennessee; Queens Evening News, Jamaica, L. I., N. Y. (Gerald Doyle) ; The Asbury Park Evening Press, of Asbury Park, N. J., and The Sioux City Tribune, of Sioux City, Iowa. It was also stated that Mr. Carrol E. King, Vice-President and Managing Editor of the Johnson City Chronicle, of Johnson City, Tenn., and Mr. Harry H. Whitley, of the Dowagiac Daily News, Dowagiac, Mich., had sent words of encouragement. In the issue of April 4, the names of the following papers were given : Editor and Publisher The Fourth Estate, which reaches every editor in the country; The Rochester Times-Union, of Rochester, N. Y. ; iVillows Journal, of Willows, Cal., and The Cisco Daily News, of Cisco, Texas. Here are the names of additional papers : The Indianapolis News, of Indianapolis, Ind., condemns the practice of using the screen for commercial advertising in strong terms. The Sunday Independent, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., says partly: “Surely they (Paramount and Warner Bros.) must know that there is a nation-wide protest against too lengthy introductions to radio programs, some of the families having become expert in the practice of turning on and turning off the dials just in time to catch what they want to hear and to avoid the tiresome orations of the announcers. In the case of the theatre, they have only one of two choices. They must either take the advertising with the play or remain away altogether. Many are doing the latter.” The News-Sentinel, of Rochester, Indiana, says partly : “For the time being, however, these producers can laugh it all off and continue collecting fat advertising fees but in time an indignant public will unite the theatre owners and the press in bringing the ‘racket’ to an end. Meanwhile, those movie fans who feel that they pay money to be entertained and not to have undercover advertising forced on them can best make their protests felt by telling the theatre owners just how much they resent it all.” The Dowagiac Daily News, of Dowagiac, Mich., says that “It looks like a big war and the public will finally decide the winner.” The Colusa Herald, of Colusa, Cal., informs its readers that the motion picture is now the latest competitor of the newspapers for advertising, and reprints the part of the editorial in Harrison's Reports in which Paramount and Warner Bros, were warned lest the public become so aroused as to throw rotten tomatoes on the screens of their theatres. Mr. Thomas H. Gallop, of The Daily Advertiser, of Lafayette, La., informs this paper that he has reproduced Mr. Laemmle’s statement, and that he is interested in this campaign, and asks me to send him any additional material that I may have for him to use, because he believes that the motion picture industry should be kept where it belongs. Mr. Howard E. Lee, Managing Editor of The Day, of New London, Conn., in his editorial published in the issue of March 20, says among other things : “Let the movie producers change their tactics before it is too late and let the theatre owners give the public what it wants, entertainment.” The Morning Herald, of Gloversville and Johnstown, N. Y., printed two editorials on the subject: one in the March 24 issue, and the other in the April 3 : “For some time past,” the first editorial states partly, “several newspapers throughout the country have pointed out the fact that advertising, of a most unethical character, was being introduced into moving pictures. Soaps, tooth pastes and other articles have been used in certain scenes, so that one could easily recognize the package. A building in a scene would have a poster on it advertising somebody’s breakfast food. A truck would pass with an advertisement of a certain brand of gasoline (comment by Harrison's Reports: Manifestly the editor of The Morning Herald is referring to the Texaco advertisement in “Cimarron.”) The public, at first, took such things for granted. . . . Now, however, there would appear to be little doubt but that the motion picture producing organizations are deliberately introducing such advertising into their films and receiving vast sums of money for the advertising. . . .” The second editorial, after quoting Mr. Carl Laemmle’s statement, says partly as follows : “Moving picture audiences are virtually helpless — but they can indicate their disapproval to the management of theatres, and this has been done on several occasions in New York. Moreover, they can concentrate their patronage on houses which confine their presentations to ‘talkies’ in which no advertising appears. “We believe that the motion picture industry would be well advised to give heed to Mr. Laemmle’s words of wisdom.” The Carthage Evening Press, of Carthage, Mo., suggests that there should be some way to distinguish the advertising part in a film from the rest of the play. “Advertising not plainly evident as such should be,” the editorial concludes, “properly labeled.” Mr. Harris Samonisky, City Editor of Every Day, of Wilmington, Del., closes his editorial as follows: “The American public is long-suffering in many respects . . . and it is unlikely that they will be willing to long pay admission to screen attractions for the ‘privilege’ of viewing and listening to subtle announcements which, stripped of all camouflage, is advertising pure and simple.” Mr. Hugh V. Haddock, City Editor of The Tulsa Tribune, sends a second clipping dealing with advertisements on the screen. This time he sent one of his reporters to interview Mr. Hal Roach, who was in Tulsa as a guest of Ralph Talbot, the well known exhibitor. Mr. Roach was rather non-commital on the subject. Mr. Carrol E. King, of the Staff News, Johnson City, Tenn., printed a two column, double-size column, editorial in the March 31 issue. There is no mistake as to his feelings on this question. In one part of the editorial he says : “People do not like to pay from 35 cents to $2.00 for the privilege of sitting in a theatre reading advertisements.” And this gives a rise to the following thought : What would happen if the newspapers should call the attention of the public to the fact that, while a picture is shown in some towns at $2.00 top admission price, the same picture is shown in some other city nearby at twenty-five cents? Mr. Zukor had better think this over. More newspaper comments will be given in subsequent issues.