Harrison's Reports (1958)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1021, al ihe post oflice at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 187S. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Published Weekly by „ j i tic nn Harrison's Reports, Inc.. United States $15.00 New York 20, N. Y. Publisher U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 „ „ . ^ * ickii » c P. S. HARRISON, Editor Canada 16.50 a Motion Picture Reviewing Service ^ PICOULT Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors ManaWine Editor Great Britain 17.60 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, NOVEMBER 8, 1958 No. 45 FROM THE HEIGHT OF SUBSERVIENCY TO THE DEPTH OF DISHONOR Although we prefer to devote our available editorial space to important industry topics, we must, for the en' lightenment of our subscribers and others in the industry, as well as for the protection of our own good reputation, reply to another vicious editorial attack made against us by Motion Picture Exhibitor, which this time has added to its characteristics of subserviency and psuedo-fearlessness the iniquity of falsehoods in a futile attempt to combat the harsh truths we said about it in our October 2? issue. Our editorial, titled "The Height of Subserviency," con' demned that trade paper for trying to curry favor with Paramount by attacking our reputation. This latest Exhibitor attack, which is published in their current November 5 issue under the heading, " A Little Lecture on Good Judgment . . . and Good Manners," com' pletely by-passes our challenge to specify what it means by its reference to the "curves" we pitch in support of "various individuals and minority groups," nor does it take up our challenge to identify these unnamed parties. Instead, the Exhibitor, li\e many people who lack proof, reason, valid arguments or sense to win a debate, resorts to the weapons of the weak— sneering and falsehoods — in an attempt to discredit us, and, in language that contra' diets its own editorial heading, wallows in the mud to express its opinions. Defending the attack it made on us in its October 15 issue because we dared to be critical of Paramount' s hyp' ocricy in attempting to make it appear as if its announced increase in production activities is an "affirmation" of its faith in the future of the industry, Exhibitor had this to say, partly, "to keep the record straight": "To summarize our Oct. 15 remarks, we virtually said . . . that to cat-call and to throw verbal brickbats at such an up-beat announcement, and to start raising hob over the if-prices that might be charged for such if-product was not intelligent thinking, and resembled more the braying of a jackass than wise trade paper counselling. "Without question, the particular braying we had in mind had appeared in Harrison's Reports of Oct. 4; but out of kindness for a Utile hell-raiser who occasionally comes up with a good piece, we didn't mention it by name. In their issue of Oct. 25, they put the shoe on and seemed, with some sort of masochistic delight, to enjoy getting the bile out of their system and rolling around in it." We have re-read most carefully our October 4 editorial, which Exhibitor refers to, and we could not find one word or sentence that makes any mention whatever of, to quote Exhibitor, "the if-prices that might be charged for such ifproduct." Our criticism of Paramount was confined solely to its claims about a continuing faith in the future of the industry when the record clearly shows that it displayed little faith during the past several years, as evidenced by its policy of reduced film production. It is quite plain, therefore, that Exhibitor, to justify its attack on us to its subsbcribers, resorted to an out'and-out lie about what was contained in our October 4 editorial. This is not only stupid, since our remarks are a matter of public record, open for all to read, but it is downright dishonest and clearly reflects that trade paper's dubious integrity. And since we are treating with falsehoods, dishonesty and dubious integrity, it is interesting to note that we touched a sore spot when we stated in our October 25 editorial that the Exhibitor's paid subscription circulation has dropped by more than 2,000 during the past nine months. To combat this, the Exhibitor had this to say, again "for the record": "If Harrison's Reports knew more about circulation, and knew anything at all about ABC audited circulation, they would know that there are no available circulation figures later than last June 30. That nine months before that Motion Picture Exhibitor had not yet combined with Showmen s Trade Review, and that much of the 2000 sub' scriptions to which they refer represented duplications be tween the two lists. In their anxiety to 'get' the largest single-editorial national paper in the industry they grabbed at straws and published erroneous data, even though we don't suppose we need expect an apology." The Exhibitor is right in surmising that we will not apologize for what we said about its falling circulation, because it so happens that the "erroneous data" we are charged with publishing comes from its own published figures. To prove this, let us untwist the twisted facts it has presented: In its June 18, 1958 issue, on page 9, Exhibitor, in an apparent effort to entice a greater share of the film com' panies' trade paper advertising, publshed a full-page comparison study containing what it called "modern, audi' ted, and believable circulation facts" concerning itself, Boxoffice and Motion Picture Herald, as drawn for the ABC publishers' statements of the respective publications, for the "6 Months Period Ending December 31, 1957." The Exhibitor, in presenting the comparative figures, took special pains to point out that it was merged with Showmen's Trade Review on Nov. 6, 1957, and that its audited circulation figures represented "the combined, non-duplicating result." Its "non-duplicating" total paid subscription circulation was given as 15,654. In its October 8, 1958, issue, on page 15, Exhibitor, in accordance with Post Office regulations, published a certified statement of ownership, management, circulation, etc., wherein it is stated that, during the twelve months preceding October I, 1958, the average number of copies sold to paid subscribers was 13,634. By the Exhibitor's own figures, therefore, the record shows that in the nine months from Dec 31, 1957, at which time it claimed an ABC audited "non-duplicating" total paid subscription circulation of 15,654, to October 1, 1958, when it certified a figure of 13,634, its paid subscription circulation dropped by more than 2,000. If this is "erroneous data," then we can only say that the Exhibitor has given the lie to itself and not to us. Elsewhere in its deceptive editorial, Exhibitor, again displaying a typical lack of forthrightness and courage, resorts to innuendo to impugn our integrity, hinting that we are not above being "subsidized, dutiful or subservient," because some of our subscribers are film distributors and because it has heard that "at least one prominent distributor is a very generous subscriber." These statements, of course, are too inane to be worthy of a detailed reply, but we will say to Exhibitor that we challenge it to name this "prominent distributor," to cite the extent of his alleged generosity, and to prove that he or any other subscriber to our paper has ever influenced our opinions because of subscription support. In short, here is an opportunity for the Exhibitor to "put up or shut up." In a further effort to disparage us, the Exhibitor resorted to considerable self-praise to cite the services it offers to its subscribers for a low subscription price ($2.00 per year and even less for longer periods) and pointed to us as offering little by comparison but getting "an extremely high subscription price." What the Exhibitor doesn't seem to understand is that our subscribers fully realize that honesty and integrity in a trade paper cannot be bought at cheap subcription rates. These intelligent subscribers want the truth about what is going on in this industry and they are willing to pay a premium for it.