Harrison's Reports (1950)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

IN TWO SECTIONS— SECTION ONE Entered as second-class matter January -1, l'J21, at the post office at New York, NeSv 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 M Y , n M v Publisher Canada 16.50 Wew 1 ork zu' x« 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, Now Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 Ug EditoriaI 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. XXXII SATURDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1950 No. 40 THE ALLIED CONVENTION In an effort to eliminate competitive bidding between independent exhibitors, National Allied's board of directors, meeting prior to the organization's three-day annual convention held in Pittsburgh this week, directed Abram F. Myers, its general counsel, to meet with representatives of the defendant distributors in the New York anti'trust case to discuss ways and means of arriving at a more equitable interpretation of the words "or others" in the anti-discrimination clause of the final decree. Myers contends that the words in question, construed in the light of the pleadings, evidence and findings in the case, warrant resort to competitive bidding only on the application of an independent exhibitor competing on a run with an affiliated or large circuit theatre that is wrongly seeking to corral the product. Myers contends further that, since the independent theatres were not parties to the suit there is nothing in the decree that requires competitive bidding where two independents are competing for product, and that the major distributors are wrongfully interpreting the decree to their own advantage when they call for bidding in such situations. The imposition of bidding in such cases serves to boost film rentals by setting the exhibitors against one another. Failing to come to an agreement with the distributors in this matter, Myers was authorized by the Board to take the matter up with the Department of Justice. Another action taken by the Board was to extend Allied's membership in COMPO for another year. Among the many highlights of the convention were the personal appearances of four major distributor sales managers, including William F. Rodgers, MGM; Andy W. Smith, Jr., 20th Century-Fox; Alfred W. Schwalberg, Paramount; and Robert Mochrie, RKO. Each made an effective talk to the delegates present, and each submitted himself voluntarily to questions from the convention floor. Rodgers, among other matters, took up the problem of competitive bidding and emphasized that his company had not invited the procedure. "It has been followed," he said, "only because we know of no other method to satisfy competing interests who are seeking the same position as to product and its availability. We do invite, however, any ideas or suggestions for any other plan of procedure that will have as an objective the same principles desired by those who are seeking something they heretofore have not enjoyed and to which they believe they are entitled." He pointed out that a condition of overbidding exists in some situations, and that, though his company deplores such a condition, "the competing interests often do not favor a solution and have repeatedly refused our overtures to make our product available in some equitable manner." He warned that unless these situations discontinue overbidding, his company may find it necessary to refuse to consider such bids "to protect such erring participants from themselves." "Generally," said Rodgers, "the complaints about bidding come from those who, in the past, may not have appreciated the rights of others and who may have enjoyed a priority that now, under the decree, they may not continue to receive. On the other hand, many competitive theatres have been successful in securing product they long claimed they should have the right to compete for. . . . We expect to continue to offer our product in the fairest manner we know how and that is in free and open competition, regardless of personalities, affiliations or buying power and in doing so we are not going to be deterred by those who, because of this, accuse us of being unfriendly." Rodgers revealed that out of 450 situations now bidding competitively for MGM product, 200 involve affiliated or former affiliated theatres in competition with independents. Of 10,522 pictures involved, 5,396 have been awarded to independents, 4,431 to the affiliates, and 695 were not sold. In 147 situations where bidding is between representative independent circuits and individual independent theatres, and where 6,251 pictures were involved, 3,016 were awarded to the individuals, 2,716 to the circuits, and 519 were not sold. In 94 situations where two independents were bidding against each other, and where 3,803 pictures were involved, the division was 1,902 pictures in one instance, 1,746 in the other instance, and 155 pictures unsold. "This record," declared Rodgers, "speaks for itself." Elsewhere in his talk, Rodgers urged greater attendance at tradeshows; asked that drive-in operators avoid the adoption of free admissions, threatening to decline to do business with such offenders; and asked for complete support of COMPO. To complaints from the floor about the forcing of unwanted pictures, Rodgers stated flatly that, if it can be proved that an MGM man forced a picture, that man would be discharged immediately. "That goes for me, too," he added. Andy W. Smith, Jr., in his talk, offered exhibitors in small towns and outlying areas away from distribution centers a license agreement covering a full season's product to facilitate their bookings. Smith defined these theatres as those that have a limited ability to gross; that operate in many instances for less than a full week, even one night; and that are for the most part actually operated by the exhibitor and his family, thus giving them limited opportunity to visit the exchange center and make deals for pictures. Although salesmen are sent to these situations as often as possible, said Smith, the procedure is costly and has had its disadvantages for both the exhibitor and his company. Stating that the license agreement will cover product released from September 1, 1950 through August 31, 1951, Smith said that the standard form of contract will be employed and, in addition to the regular clauses, there will be three riders, the fust stating the number of feature pictures involved, the second protecting the exhibitor's right to can ( Continued on bac\ page)