Harrison's Reports (1949)

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: 1270 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS Published Weekly by United States $15.00 (Formerly Sixth Avenue) Harrison's Reports, Inc., U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 ^ v , ,n N v Publisher Canada 16.50 wew 1 orK zu> w* 1 • p. s. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Great Britain 15.75 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1, 1919 Australia, New Zealand, ___ India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 Jta Editorial Pol;cy. No problem Too Eig for Its Editorial circle 7-4622 35c a Copy Columns, if It is to Eenefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE"fREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol XXXI "SATURDAY, JANUARY 8, 1949 No. 2 IN DEFENSE OF THE STUDIOS ON ADVERTISING PLUGS Harrison's Reports has condemned advertising plugs inserted in feature pictures ever since 1919, the year in which it was founded. In 1931, this paper's war against sponsored screen advertising reached such proportions that, when Paramount and Warner Brothers went into it openly, it appealed to the newspapers of the nation for their aid in its efforts to stamp out the practice. And the aid was given freely, for the fight was just. The result was that three months (less one week) after Harrison's Reports started its crusade, both Paramount and Warner Brothers discontinued that sort of advertising, giving up contracts amounting to millions of dollars a year. The fact that the two companies discontinued their screen advertising activities and that some of the other companies gave up their plans to indulge in the practice did not deter this paper from calling the exhibitors' attention to the occasional presence of concealed advertising in feature pictures. At first, Harrison's Reports was inclined to blame the producers for the presence of such advertising. Closer inquiry, however, brought to light the fact that all the major studios and most of the smaller ones are blameless. As stated in this paper frequently in the past, there are in Hollywood representatives of manufacturers whose function is to try to influence people working for a production unit to manage to stick into a scene the article manufactured by the company they represent, the remuneration being a quantity of the prod' uct displayed. This paper pointed out that, when a representative of a whiskey concern succeeded in inducing a worker of a production unit to insert an advertising plug, that representative sent that worker a case of bourbon. If the representative succeeded in having such an employee arrange for a close-up of a watch, the watch company sends this worker one of the finest watches it manufactures. Recently I had a confidential talk with a reputable unit producer of a major studio and was told that he. and the other unit producers of his company watch * the property men like hawks lest they put one over on them by sticking the brand of-an article into a scene. It is after the set is ready for shooting, the unit producer informed me, that the property man, unknown to the director, slips in the advertisement. If it is a can, for example, showing a blank side, the property man merely twists the can to display the brand name. In a recent case, I happened to see the brand of an article inserted in one of the pictures that my informant himself produced. He told me that he had noticed it after the picture was finished, and that he became furious. But it was too late, for to eliminate the plug would have required the reshooting of the scene, and that happened to be impracticable. I am refraining from mentioning names and the picture's title because the information was given to me in confidence and it would be breaking faith were I to disclose the facts. In passing this information on to you, my main object is to do justice to the studios, which have been accused all along as being guilty of inserting the advertisements. The information that I have received from this producer is truthful and accurate. If the unit producers of all the studios would exercise the same care in preventing the insertion of unauthorized advertising plugs, an end will soon be put to the evil, and the film companies would not be faced with the justified wrath of the exhibitors, whose screens are being used as billboards, not only without payment, but also to the displeasure of their patrons. A COSTLY "SIT-DOWN" STRIKE Whoever conceived the idea of cutting out the distributor s share of newspaper and other advertising on percentage pictures conceived an idea that will cost the distributors millions each year. If the distributor thinks that the exhibitor will pay all the advertising freight on pictures leased on a percentage basis, he has another guess coming, for, in the opinion of Harrison's Reports, such distributor will compel the exhibitor to assume one of two attitudes : either "sit down" and do very little advertising on a percentage picture, or refuse to book that picture on any other than a flat-rental basis. Cutting out the distributor's share of the advertising cost is, in itself, unjust and unfair, by reason of the fact that, in the event that the exhibitor did bear all the advertising costs, the distributor, in collecting his share of the receipts, will be taking from the exhibitor money that he, the distributor, is not entitled to. Percentage playing is a partnership affair, widi the income to be divided in accordance with an agreed formula. Such being the case, the distributor is obliged, not only morally but also from a sensible* business point of view, to bear his share of the advertising cost, for the more sensational the advertising the more the picture will gross. And sensational advertising is not obtained without spending money. (Continued on bac^ page)