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 Sbcth Avenue) Harrison's Reports, Inc., U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.60 „ „ . ,„ N v Publisher Canada 16.50 Wew Iork n' T* p. S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Great Britain 17.50 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1, 1919 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 Ug Editorial Poiicy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 35c a Copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXXI SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1949 No. 9 A WAY TO COMBAT HARMFUL PUBLICITY ABOUT FABULOUS INDUSTRY SALARIES In his annual report to National Allied's Board of Directors at the Mid-Winter meeting held in Washington two weeks ago, Mr. Abram F. Myers, Allied's Chairman and General Counsel, had this to say, in part, relative to the industry's public relations: "Mark Twain's crack that 'everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it" applies with special force to the industry's sagging public relations. The reason for the low state of the industry's good will is not that it has not publicly patted itself on the back and sought to deflect or smother criticism. The trouble is that it has not subjected itself to a searching self-examination to detect the causes of public dissatisfaction and to remove them. Moreover, there is no official spokesman in such matters and there is no organized responsibility. . . . "Allied long has been acutely aware of the need for sound public relations. It is only natural that the independent exhibitors should be more sensitive to the need for public good will than the New York and Hollywood executives. They not only must please their patrons with whom they are in daily contact, but being subject to many forms of taxation and regulation, they must also be on friendly terms with their legislators and city officials. Hardly a day passes that National Headquarters does not hear of some small triumph by independent exhibitors in the public relations field. One of the biggest obstacles they have to contend with is the never-ending publicity about the fabulous salaries and bonuses paid the big company executives and the Hollywood stars. Recently a paper with a national circulation carried an article urging higher salaries for public officials. It was only natural that it should contrast the $750,000 salary of a certain studio executive with the $100,000 paid the President of the United States. But that sort of publicity is murder for theatre men trying to protect the industry against unfair taxation. The publicity cannot be helped — the Treasury is required to release the figures — but there is nothing to prevent the producers from acquiring an improved sense of values and putting into effect needed reforms." As Mr. Myers points out, the wide publicity given to the earnings of the most highly paid industry heads, stars and directors cannot be helped, for under the law the Treasury Department is required to make such information public. Unfortunately, however, this information gives many people the wrong impression: they think that every one in the industry is rolling in wealth and, subconsciously, resent it. Yet no one in the industry has undertaken to tell the public how little is left to the highly paid industryites after taxes arc deducted. What is needed is a defense committee, such as this paper advocated recently, to give the public the facts so that all may know that every one in the picture business bears his share of the nation's upkeep, just as does everybody else. As a matter of fact, a compilation of figures may very well show that those employed in the picture industry contribute a greater share of taxes per capita than those employed in any other industry. A step such as this will not only help the industry to gain good will and prevent adverse tax legislation, but it will also help to render ineffective the mouthings and writings of Communists who harp on the industry's high salaries for propaganda purposes without telling their hearers or readers that those who earn big money are taxed in direct proportion to their earnings. When will the industry wake up and take steps that will protect it from ill-wishers? THE TELEVISION PROBLEM At its recent meeting in Washington, D. C, the board of directors of Theatre Owners of America recommended "such action as is legally permissible" in the event that the distributors released their films, made for theatres, to television stations. This paper does not know on what grounds the TOA leaders will bring legal action against such distributors as make their films available to television stations. At present there is no clause in the exhibitor-distributor contracts prohibiting the distributors from so disposing of their films. Consequently, legal action is impossible until the exhibitors demand that a clause be inserted into the contracts forbidding the distributors from showing on television pictures licensed to the theatres until after a certain length of time has elapsed. It is hardly likely, of course, that the producerdistributors will consent to having their films barred from television forever. Apropos of this discussion, let us say that there is no justification at the present time for the fear that has gripped many exhibitors as a result of the progress of television, and there is no justification for any one's arousing the motion picture industry to fight television. No one can stop progress; and since we cannot stop the progress of television, the industry should conceive ways and means by which television may be put to work for the benefit of the motion picture business. Contracting television time for the showing of trailers locally is one of these ways, but there will have to be many more television sets in the homes before the exhibitors may receive appreciable benefits from televised trailers. The fear that television will keep people in their homes to the detriment of motion picture theatre attendance is, likewise, groundless. There is no question that the picture theatres will be hurt temporarily; but there will be a speedy readjustment, and conditions will again become normal. When a person works all day long and returns home, he wants diversion; and when the housewife stays home all day attending to her duties, she, too, wants diversion. Both want such diversion, not at home, but away from it, and the picture theatre is the most logical as well as most reasonablypriced place where such diversion may be sought. And even if attendance should drop on certain evenings because of unusually good programs on television, it will rise above normal on other evenings because of the public's desire to see a picture they have missed — provided, of course, that it is a good one. (Continued on bac\ page)