Harrison's Reports (1931)

IN TWO SECTIONS— SECTION ONE 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 25, 1931 No. 17 UNFAIR COMPETITION WITH NEWSPAPERS When a theatre owned by Paramount-Publix or by Warner Bros, shows on its screen a film depicting the cultivation of coffee in South America, or of tea in China ; or showing the different uses of lysol as a disinfectant, the merits of Texaco oil for first class automobiles, the durability of Oldsmobile over other cars, the deadliness of Flit as an insecticide, for which display the Home Office receives five dollars for each one thousand persons that have attended the performances in that theatre while the advertising film was shown, such theatre resorts to unfair competition with the newspapers, the recognized legitimate mediums for advertising, in that it does not show the advertisement labeled, and the public is made to think it is part of the entertainment. A newspaper cannot resort to the same practice ; when a story, though excellent as reading matter, is printed for the purpose of advertising a certain commercial article, the law compels the newspaper to put the word “Advertisement” at the bottom of the story. It is manifest that Congress, when framing the law compelling the newspapers to label advertisement stories, sought to protect the public from such an unfair practice. And the newspapers have obeyed the law. What is unfair on the part of newspapers is naturally unfair on the part of the moving picture screens ; the public is taken advantage of, is imposed upon, when they are shown a film as an entertainment when in reality it is an advertisement. Since there is no law to protect the American public against this sort of exploitation by the moving picture producers, there should be one, and the newspapers of the United States should do well to talk to their congressmen with a view to having such a bill introduced at the next session of Congress. At least, this paper will urge them to do so just before Congress convenes. Let there be a law that will compel a producer to label the main title and each scene where the advertisement either appears or is spoken of. Unless Paramount-Publix and Warner Bros, give up competing unfairly with the newspapers, they are going to pay dearly for their short-sightedness, for it is unthinkable that the newspapers will sit idle while their revenue is reduced by unfair and unethical competition. And an evidence of it may be had by the number of newspapers that have responded to this paper’s appeal to join its anti-advertising crusade. Here are the names of additional papers and the comment they have made editorially : Sunday Nnvs, of Lawrence, Mass., printed a front page article, with big headlines, carried to the third page, attacking the practice in scathing terms. It copied freely from the several articles that appeared in the different issues of Harrison’s Reports, particularly from those that warned Paramount and Warner Bros, of the consequences if they should persist in continuing their advertising policy. The Ashland Times-Gazette, of Ashland, Ohio, reproduces excerpts from Harrison’s Reports, one of them being from the article in which it threatened to ask Congress to pass a law compelling the producers to label advertising. “The Harrison publication is to be commended,” Mr. Harry L. Horne, its editor, wrote, “for carrying on this fight against prostituting the screen. . . . And we are glad to add our protest to the practice. ...” The Toronto Daily Tribune, of Toronto, Ohio, adds its protest. Mr. George T. Haney, its City Editor, states partly as follows : “On several occasions we have had our attention called to the fact that some talkie pictures, particularly those put out by Warner Bros., have ‘sponsored’ screen advertising and we have checked up and found it true. . . . This is true of the Paramount company. You patrons can stop this by demanding your money back when a picture deliberately advertises some article in a picture that is supposed to be a play for entertainment purposes only. ...” The Bergen Evening Record, of Hackensack, N. J., joins with a strong protest. Mr. Jas. G. Anderson, editor of the Neosho Daily Democrat, of Neosho, Mo., writes me as follows : “Keep the good work going! Following receipt of your last issue of ‘Harrison’s Reports,’ I wrote an article ‘panning’ ‘It Pays to Advertise.’ The manager of our local theatre made a special trip to Kansas City to cancel the picture, which he had booked for showing the following Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. He saw it himself and agreed with you. ...” The Record-American, of Mahanoy City, Pa., comes forward with a strong protest. Mr. James L. Hughes, Managing Editor of The Rock Island Argus, Rock Island, 111., writes me as follows : “Your fight against ‘sponsored’ screen advertising has, naturally, commanded our interest as well as our best wishes for its ultimate success. In the near future we expect to direct some editorial comment in support of your campaign. . . . Also wish to advise you that this newspaper and the other newspapers of the tri-cities — Rock Island, Davenport and Moline — have heretofore taken notice of the encroachments of certain producers into the national advertising field, and have entered a protest with the local managements. This protest, of course, has been transmitted to the national offices.” The Denison Daily Herald, of Denison, Texas, comes forward with a second editorial, and a powerful one, against the practice. “The Reaction of the press throughout the nation to the insidious advertising which is being inserted in moving picture films,” says Mr. J. L. Greer, the editor, “has been unanimous and decisive. ... If for one year the columns of the newspapers had been closed to movie publicity, the promoters would either have to spend millions of dollars for what they have received gratis, or the pictures would have failed. Now the movie operators are biting the hand that fed them. . . . The newspapers feel that their territory is being encroached upon in an unfair manner and that they have a legitimate right to appeal to public opinion.” Advertising Age, published in Chicago, has printed a strong article in the April nth issue condemning the practice, commending the crusade of Harrison’s Reports. Mr. E. Crain, the Managing Editor, in a personal letter thanks the writer for having sent him material on the subject. Mr. Birney Imes, Editor and Publisher of The Daily Commercial Dispatch, of Columbus, Miss., in sending a clipping of a strong article he published, says : “We were very much interested in your letter of April 4 relative to ‘sponsored’ screen advertising and in the comments which accompanied your letter.” Mr. T. E. Johnson, of The Globe and of Daily News, of Amarillo, Texas, sends a clipping of an article he wrote under the title, “WARNING TO THE MOVIES,” and writes me as follows : “We want to thank you for the information you have given us on ‘sponsored’ screen advertising. It occurs to us that the newspapers everywhere should take up the fight as you have suggested.” Mr. Lester Boyd, City Editor of Tribune and Times-Age, of Coshocton, Ohio, prints a strong article against the practice. ( Continued on last page )