Harrison's Reports (1939)

168 HARRISON'S REPORTS October 21, 1939 that they will not have to worry much about the reduction in the receipts from the foreign market. Tnis is a bold suggestion ; but one of these days an enterprising executive of some major company will decide to risk a certain sum oi money in the production of a silent drama as a test, and if it should prove successful his name will go down to posterity as the industry's benefactor. After all, millions' of dollars are wasted each year in the production of unworthy stories; what if a few thousand dohars should be risked to demonstrate the feasibility of something that may save millions of dollars in production? PENNY-WISE AND POUND-FOOLISH The October 11 issue of Motion Picture Daily has the following news item : "Several companies are considering complete elimination of appropriations for newspaper cooperative advertising of their pictures. "This is being considerd along with other cashconserving proposals which may or may not be included in the retrenchment programs. . . . "The industry spends about $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 annually on cooperative advertising, this representing the distributors' share of first-run theatres' advertising in local newspapers. The expenditure ranges from $100,000 to $200,000 per company annually." In plain language, the decision of some of the major companies means that they will no longer share with the exhibitor in the advertising that is done for their top-bracket pictures in the local newspapers before and during the showing of such pictures. Sharing in the advertising that is done for percentage pictures is an established custom ; it was started by the theatrical industry long before pictures were even dreamed of, and accepted by the moving picture industry when it began roadshow ing its first big pictures, such as "Cabiria," "Dante's Inrerno'' (not the Fox version, but the Italian), and "The Birth of a Nation." To abandon the system now .is to forego a practic^ that has been ingrained in. the mind of the exhibitor as the just method of advertising percentage pictures. It will have no other result than to add another cause for exhibitor dissatisfaction. Those of the major companies that intend to abandon cooperative advertising may save anywhere between $100,000 and $200,000. How much they will lose by the insufficient newspaper advertising that will be done on their percentage pictures, as is bound to happen because the exhibitor will feel aggrieved, cannot be computed, for it is one of the looses tnan can in no way be determined. And how much they will lose by the loss of newspaper good will cannot be computed either. 1 1 they would stop spending anywhere from five hundred to a million dollars on stories that haven't a Chinaman's chance of making good pictures, they will not need to economize on such puny items — puny as compared with other items of expenditure. It is at the studios where the waste is done and not in the advertising of the pictures. Advertising is the life-blood of a business. Stop the: advertising and a manufacturer's business dies of asphyxiation. That is exactly what will happen to the percentage pictures, too, if the producers should stop encouraging the exhibitor to advertise. DO WE HEAR THE AMERICAN EXHIBITORS' VOICE? "Possibiy the higgest source of unrest in the film business today," says Mr. J. W. Dent, Editor and Publisher of The Australian Exhibitor (Sydney), official organ of Australian Motion Picture Exhibitors' Association, "is the tendency of film distributors to abuse the grouping system by consistently enlarging the top groups, and classifying ordinary 'A' features in those groups." The article continues in a similar vein and points out the fact that, although not the full number of pictures sold on the contract is delivered at the end of each picture season, the shortage is "almost invariably m the lower group," and then says : "This is a distinct breach of faith with the exhibitor, and it is of such insidious nature that relationships are bound to be bad until it is stopped." Alter pointing out the fact that some of the stars that appear in the top-group pictures are "has beens," Mr. Dent says : "In fact, most exhibitors believe that the distributors' idea of top groups is to get top money, and what gees into them is of secondary consideration. Repeated short delivery in past years, nearly always in the bottom group, reveals the tendency to make a welter of the top group idea. ..." You would think that, when Mr. Dent was writing this article, he was writing for the American exhibitors. He could not have expressed the facts more accurately had he been writing for them, and not for the Australian exhibitors. At the beginning of the negotiations between the Allied and the distributor negotiating committees, it was decided that the exhibitors be given a cancellation privilege of 10%, 15%, and 20%, the particular percentage in the case of each exhibitor depending on the average amount he paid for the film ; but no sooner was this decision announced than the sales forces began to increase the number of pictures in each top group, the intention manifestly being, as the Allied leaders accused, to nullify the cancellation privilege. Only that in Australia there have been no such negotiations ; the distributors there just increase the groups and let it go at that. When the accusation was hurled at the distributor negotiating committee during the Minneapolis convention, the members of that committee assured the exhibitors present that, if any "chiseling"' was done, it was done without their knowledge, promising them to issue orders to their sales forces to desist ; they stated definitely that may a salesman's scalp would be taken were they to disregard the new instructions. But "chiseling" is going on, just the same, as I am judging by the letters that I am receiving from exhibitors. The following is a part of the latest letter that I have received from a Chicago exhibitor : "The situation between the Chicago exhibitors and the distributors has become serious enough to warrant being brought to your attention. "Despite the national policy announced by Warner, Metro, Fox, etc., shorts and newsreels ARE being forced. Now, I ask, how much do the solemn pronouncements of the distribution heads mean ? A salesman offers a deal for $2,000 ; and a short subject deal. You don't want shorts ? The deal goes to $2,250 for features. Who's crazy Yes, who ?