Harrison's Reports (1958)

Entered aa second-class matter January 4, 1321, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of Marcli 3, 187U. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Published Weekly by ... cj. , (1[ nn Harrison's Reports, Inc., United States I 5.00 New York 20> N. y Publisher U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.60 „ . . 1Rt.n . _ _ . T-> _ , P. S. HARRISON, Editor Canada 16.50 a Motion Picture Reviewing Service ^ pjcouLT Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Managing Editor Great Britain 17.50 Australia, New Zealand, Established July 1, 1919 India, Europe, Asia 17.50 its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial 35c a Copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Circle 7-4622 A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XL SATURDAY, JANUARY 25, 1958 No. 4 DO IT YOURSELF Although every one seems to agree that an all' industry business-building program is needed badly to stimulate theatre attendance, it is becoming more and more apparent to many industry observers that the great majority of exhibitors, particularly the smaller operators, have been steadily losing whatever enthusiasm they may have had for the business' building program that was finally adopted two weeks ago by the Motion Picture Association of America. When steps to formulate an all-industry businessbuilding campaign were first announced almost two years ago, the idea naturally was received with deep interest by most exhibitors, for the box-office decline had dropped to a dangerously low level and any plan designed to win back the lost audience and increase movie patronage was indeed welcome. Moreover, the exhibitors were gratified to see the film companies show a willingness to join with them in doing something about the box'office depression. On the organisational level, all the principal exhibitor associations officially expressed encouragement over the promotional plans considered by the film companies, and this led to an arrangement where' by representatives of MPAA, COMPO and exhibitor groups worked together to formulate the plan and to devise ways and means by which it could be financed jointly by exhibition and distribution. But what happened From the time the businessbuilding idea was first proposed in May, 1956, until a finalized plan was approved by the MPAA early this month, it was constantly in the discussion stage, with different promotion ideas and budgets approved from time to time, only to be abandoned in favor of other ideas. Meanwhile, theatre attendance continued to go from bad to worse. And now that the MPAA has announced ap' proval of a finalized plan, it is bringing the program to the attention of the exhibitors in way that is, to say the least, peculiarly secretive and hardly con' ducive to full exhibitor support and participation. To begin with, the MPAA, in announcing approval of the plan, stated that Abe Montague would arrange a meeting with exhibitors and COMPO to discuss details and procedures of the program. The announcement stated also that details of the program would be disclosed following the meeting. Such a meeting was held last week, but the only exhibitor organization represented at the session was the Theatre Owners of America. No invitations to attend the meeting were extended to any of the other exhibitor organizations, and efforts by this writer to learn the reason for the omissions brought replies to the effect that the MPAA had left it to Ernest G. Stellings, TOA's president, to do the inviting, and that Stellings in turn had presumed that the MPAA would take care of the matter. Aside from this difficult-to-comprehend confusion concerning the invitations, no details of the program were disclosed following the meeting, and they have not as yet been announced. Stellings, however, has confirmed reports that the new budget is $2,300,000, one-half million dollars less than the figure originally decided upon, and that it includes the $600,000 cost of the forthcoming industry-sponsored telecast of the Academy Awards in March, although the MPAA had previously announced that its producerdistributor members, in conjunction with independent producers, would finance the telecast. By asking exhibition to pay for one-half the Academy Awards telecast, and by revealing the amended details of the promotional campaign exclusively to TOA, which represents mainly the large circuit theatres that dominate the key-runs in principal cities throughout the country, the MPAA, in the opinion of this paper, has dampened whatever enthusiasm the smaller theatre owners may still have had for an all-industry business-building plan, for, by dealing with the TOA to the exclusion of other exhibitor organizations, it has indicated that the firstrun theatres in the large cities stand to benefit most from the impact of the different promotions contained in the program. This is particularly true in connection with the Academy Awards telecast. For example, an oustanding contender for an Academy Award is "The Bridge on the River Kwai," which Columbia is distributing on a roadshow basis. If the picture should win the coveted Oscar, the impact of the attendant publicity will benefit mainly Columbia and a comparative few theatres in the key-runs, for it will be many, many months after the publicity has died down before the picture would be made available to small-town and subsequentrun theatres, which are being asked to participate in the financing of the telecast. Another dampening factor in what is known about the proposed program is that the original budget of $2,800,000, which did not include the cost of the Awards telecast, has been cut to $2,300,000. Deduct from this amount $600,000 for the telecast, and only $1,700,000 remains for promotional and other activities. This represents a cut of $1,100,00 from the original budget requirement and raises a question as to whether or not it is adequate enough to do an effective job on a nationwide scale. Still another factor that must be considered before the proposed program can be launched is whether or not TOA will approve it. The organization's board and executive committee had approved the original (Continued on bac\ page)