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 Yearly Subscription Rates: United States S15.00 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, MAY 2, 1931 No, 18 THE EFFECT OF THE PARAMOUNT ADVERTISING POLICY ON THE BUSINESS OF ITS THEATRES Elsewhere in this issue there is an article dealing with a statement Adolph Zukor has made to the ParamountPublix board or directors about the company’s financial condition. He addmitted that the revenues of both the film and the theatre departments have diminished with the intimation that the "board oi directors” may see fit to pass up the next dividend. The cause of the reduced revenue in the Paramount theatre department is not the depression alone, for competitors of Paramount theatres, independent exhibitors, are doing well in many instances, even though they are compelled to show second-run film, often after the Publix theatres have shown them ; it is owed a great deal to the ill will the advertising policy of ParamountPublix has created among the picture-going public. Many newspapers have resented the Paramount act, and have written editorials against it, with the result that a large number of picture-goers have come to associate the Paramount trademark with advertising. Unless Mr. Zukor changes his advertising policy, within a short time the Paramount trade-mark, which only recently he valued at more than ten million dollars, will not be worth a dime. You may judge for yourself after reading the following comments from newspapers : Mr. A. De Bemardi, Jr., Drama Editor of The Denver Post, one of the most influential newspapers of the middlewest. writes me as follows under date of April 21 : “My dear Mr. Harrison : I have been reading with considerable interest your campaign against ‘subtly insinuated' advertising in films, and believe you have started something that is going to bring results. “We have been battling this imposition on the public for months through our columns, and it is pleasing to see you are arousing the editors and publishers of other newspapers over the country. “I am enclosing a story on film advertising from last Sunday's issue of The Denver Post which clearly sets forth our views on the matter. This article is only one of a dozen or so we have printed at various times, and we are getting considerable comment from the public. The public, of course, agrees that the screen is no place for advertising. “My suggestion to the producers of ad-films is that they hire a theatre and offer their advertising reels to the public free of charge. The lack of patronage of this free show certainly would demonstrate to these film producers that the public does not want advertising in its films.” Mr. De Bemardi makes a good suggestion when he says that the film producers hire a theatre to show the advertising films, separately from the regular show. This idea might still be improved upon; let Paramount and Warner Bros, put the following banner across the front of each of their theatres : “The regular admission price to this theatre is one dollar (or whatever the price may be) ; but because today we are showing the advertisements of five (or whatever the number) national advertisers we are reducing the price to io cents — ONLY A DIME 1 Bargain day ! Come in and bring the ‘kiddies’ along!” In this manner, the public will be informed that they are going to see advertisements before they buy their tickets and will get the “advertisement symposium” at a reduced price. The article Mr. De Bemardi refers to is headed as follows: “ ‘FOOL THE PUBLIC.’ IS MOTTO OF FIRMS MAKING AD FILMS. Official of one Organization Advises Its Members to Make Advertising ‘Subtle’ So Movie Fans Will Be Duped by it.” In one part of the article Mr. De Bemardi says :“Greedy producers who are making such films and causing them to be included in the programs of theatres are violating public confidence just as much as the fellow who would charge a tourist $5 to drive through a toll road that was lined up on both sides with flamboyant billboards stressing this and that commodity, when the thing the tourist expected to look at was scenery . . .” Mr. Frank E. Tripp, General Manager of The Gannett newspapers, consisting of Brooklyn Eagle , Hartford Times, Rochester Times-Union, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Utica Observer-Dispatch, Albany Knickerbocker Press, Albany News, Olean Herald, Elmira StarGazette and Advertiser, Elmira Telegram, Plainfield Courier-Nes.es, Ithaca Journal-News, Ogdensburg Republican-Journal, Newburgh Beacon-News, and Malone Telegram, has written me as follows : “The Gannett Newspapers grant the right of the motion picture industry to prostitute its screen if it sees fit We claim no right to determine their policy. We do claim and reserv e the right to withhold publicity, promotion or approval of any film which is sponsored by an advertiser which either directly or in insidious fashion conveys advertising to an audience which has paid its money to be entertained. We particularly claim this right as refers that film which deliberately deceives the audience by so concealing the advertising feature that the spectator is almost unaware of the existence of advertising. We shall, to the best of our ability, refrain from promoting any such picture, reserve the right to criticize the theatre which persists in this type of picture and, in so far as we are able to discover, will advise our readers in advance of such programs. In pursuing this policy obviously those theatres which decline to enter into this type of picture will have an advantage of not being subjected to this sort of scrutiny.” The Evening Observer, of Dunkirk, N. Y., so wrote partly in the April 11 issue under the heading, “CHEAPENING THEIR ART.” "Business has its place. Art has its place. The work of art is to entertain. The customer pays money to see a drama or a comedy. He pays for entertainment. When the motion picture producer insidiously slips over advertising the customer is being cheated. No one wants to pay good money for the doubtful privilege of hearing about the virtues of some commercial product. It is a shabby, shoddy, cheap trick . . . When the movie patrons come to understand that they are being victimized the death knell of the movie business will have been sounded.” Mr. Edwin A. Menninger, of The Stuart Daily News, Stuart, Florida, has sent me two clippings, of two different issues, in which he has attacked screen advertising. In the one he reproduces the letter that was printed in Harrison’s Reports recently from an exhibitor who reported that one of his customers, dealer in radios, complained to him because some of the pictures he showed contained and advertisement of Brunswick Radios. And by the way, in many of the \\ amer and the Yitaphone pictures no Brunswick radios are employed, even though the introductory titles read : “Brunswick Radio is used in this picture.” Exhibitors should sue Warner Bros, and Yitaphone for using their screens without permission. Remember the bill posting law ! Mr. Chester B. Bahn. well known to the Harrison’s Reports subscribers Motion Picture Editor of the Syracuse Herald, again comes forward with a long and powerful article, pointing out the danger of the commercialization of the motion picture screen. Mr. Bahn informs the “advertising” producers that the only thing that has resulted from their advertising activities is the dissatisfaction of the picture-goer. Mr. Bahn has a wide circle of readers, and is frequently quoted by other newspapers throughout the country. The producers would do well, therefore, to heed his warning. ( Continued on last page)