Harrison's Reports (1931)

72 HARRISON’S REPORTS The Cleveland Plain Dealer, (a highly influential bigtown paper), of Cleveland, Ohio, printed a strong article on the subject by Mr. W. Ward Marsh, which reads partly as follows : “Audiences resent this kind of advertising. They laugh at it. It ruins the kind of entertainment producers should be creating. In the end, if the methods are continued — and there is every sign they will be maintained — the producers will find that what revenue they have gathered by this method of screen advertising, they will have more than lost at the box office. “The loss will be even greater than what appears on the face of the box office losses. Fans will not be made. The good will of the public will in a great measure be lost. “The screen is in a none too sweet spot at the present moment, and Hollywood, New York and Wall Street must be careful about new entanglements. “These be hard times, but harder times are ahead for film companies which persist mixing drama with soaps, towels, tooth cleansers, headache remedies, automobiles, radios and everything else so necessary to all walks of modern life, the motion picture screen excepted.” Wise words, and should not be lost on Adolph Zukor and Harry Warner. The Christian Century, leading undenominational religious journal, wrote partly as follows in its April 8 issue : “Movie producers have found a new way to make money. It consists in making films for advertising purposes and then palming them off on the public as entertainment. For example, two of the largest producers are reported to be making and distributing a series of 13 specials in praise of cigarettes. . . . Parents who want their children to see the better movies must now reckon with this fact : that a good Booth Tarkington story may be preceded or followed by a reel depicting the value of certain brands of cigarettes.” If your local editor has not yet written an article against this practice, urge him to do so — let him have your copies if necessary, and then write me to send you duplicates. If he has, and the fact is not mentioned in Harrison’s Reports, write and tell me about it ; editors are busy men and some overlook sending me clippings, and it is my desire to mention the name of every paper that has joined the Harrison’s Reports crusade against advertising on theatre screens. It is my intention to keep up this fight until the erring members of our industry are brought to the path of common sense. MR. ZUKOR’S FINANCIAL STATEMENT TO THE PARAMOUNT-PUBLIX BOARD OF DIRECTORS The financial section of the April 22 issue of The New York Timcshud the following news item under the heading, “ZUKOR SAYS SLUMP HIT MOVIES SHARPLY”: “Motion picture companies are not ‘depression proof,’ Adolph Zukor, president of Paramount-Publix Corporation, told the stockholders of that company yesterday at their annual meeting in response to a question. He added that Paramount had felt a sharp curtailment of business in industrial centres where unemployment was widespread. He mentioned Detroit and Toledo as two places in which sharp curtailment in revenues of the company had occurred. “ ‘Paramount-Publix theatres did not reflect the unemployment situation at once.’ he said, ‘but when money became scarce on the part of the unemployed, we felt the depression sharply.’ “ ‘Does that mean a change in our dividends ?’ asked a stockholder. “ ‘Dividends are a matter that are entirely up to the directors,’ responded Mr. Zukor. . . .” Mr. Zukor says that the matter of the dividends is up to the board of directors. The board of directors consists of some of the following : Emil Shauer, relative of Mr. Zukor. Albert A. Kaufman, relative of Mr. Zukor. Ralph A. Kohn, relative of Mr. Zukor. Eugene Zukor, son of Mr. Zukor. Adolph Zukor himself. Elek John Ludvigh, old friend and associate of Mr. Zukor. John Cecil Graham, an old friend of Emil E. Shauer, relative of Mr. Zukor. Sam Katz, employ of Paramount Publix, drawing a big salary and commissions. Sidney R. Kent, employ of Paramount-Publix, drawing a big salary and commissions. Jesse L. Lasky, a partner of Mr. Zukor since the inception of Paramount, drawing a big salary. May 2, 1931 Herman Wobber, an old associate of Mr. Zukor. There are altogether 18 members on the Board of Directors. Out of these, 11 are either relatives, or close associates of his, or employes of the company. There are enough persons on the Paramount-Publix payroll receiving anywhere from fifty to three-hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year to choke a horse. What many stockholders are interested in is whether, if the “board of directors” should see fit to pass up the next dividend, there will be a substantial reduction in these salaries and in the bonuses some are receiving. No one seems to know who is receiving a bonus and who is not. This fact should become known. It should be public property, for Adolph Zukor is no longer the head of his own company; the company has twenty-thousand stockholders, and to many of them it would be a great hardship, particularly at this time, if the dividend were passed. PROMISES THAT WILL BE KEPTLET US HOPE The following editorial appeared in a recent issue of “The Exhibitor,” of Philadelphia written by Jay Emmanuel : “At the recent Warner Convention it was pointed out that over fourteen million dollars in the past year and a half was returned to exhibitors by the company. Oral promises only were involved, but oral promises had been made and these were regarded as binding. Warner Bros, are to be congratulated on this stand. “This season Paramount expects to sell its product to the Warner Theatres. This product was sold to the independents last season. In many instances the exhibitors were told that in the event of a new deal this season, they were assured of at least a fifty-fifty split on their product. Nothing written. Just a promise, and from the outstanding leader of the industry, Mr. S. R. Kent, this is considered sufficient. Those exhibitors who are affected feel satisfied. Paramount deserves credit for this attitude. “The day has at last come in the film business when a man’s word means a company’s honor. Certain salesmen’s promises are still to be regarded with suspicion, and should be reduced to writing, but all in all, the industry has a right to be proud of both Paramount and Warner Bros. It is !” In view of the fact that Paramount-Publix and Warner Bros, have patched up their differences, exhibitors who are competitors of Warner Bros., and who have dealt with Paramount are very anxious lest all the Paramount product be given to Warner Bros. But I have felt right along that Mr. Kent keeps his promises; and since he has given his promise to let these exhibitors have fifty per cent of the Paramount product, I am sure that Mr. Kent will see to it that they get it. The exhibitors involved need product, for they have stiff competition from Warner* and in some localities from Fox, theatres. If the case were different, these exhibitors would not be so anxious after the poor showing the Paramount product made in the 1930-31 season. ABOUT “KIKI” AS A SUBSTITUTION “Kiki” is being delivered in the place of “Forever Yours.” “Forever Yours,” however, was to have been founded on the play “Secrets,” by Rudolph Befier and Mae Edginton, and since “Kiki” has been founded on the David Belasco play of the same name it is a story substitution. But the United Artists contract contains the following provision : “The Distributors shall have and hereby reserves the right in the sole discretion to change the title of any of the motion pictures specified in the schedule; to change any story, book or play ; to make any change or adaptation thereof, and to change the cast or any member, and the director of any thereof, excepting the director of those described in the schedule as a motion picture of a particular star.” Consequently, if your contract contains such a provision, you are forced to accept “Kiki,” even though it is a story substitution. Look it over! The presence of such a provision in the United Artists contract had not come to my attention before : otherwise I would have warned you against it, for I feel that for an exhibitor to sign a contract containing such a provision it is a great folly. Scrutinize the United Artists 1931-32 contract and scratch such a provision out before you sign it ; with such a provision. United Artists may insist that it has the right to sell you a picture with Mary Pickford as the star and deliver a picture with Miss Duffy Fluff; its meaning is ambiguous.