Harvard business reports (1930)

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.

WELLINGTON THEATER 585 each to the theater. This fact was of some consequence, since any two pictures appearing on the same bill were not bought as a program nor were they usually purchased at the same time or from the same distributor. A question of separate valuation was, therefore, a definite consideration if percentages were to be of the greatest value to the exhibitor as aids to future pricing. A third method was suggested in an attempt to secure separate percentages for each feature. It was proposed to attribute arbitrarily a certain percentage of the total gross to the two pictures of the double-feature program. For example, 75% of the gross might be considered as earned by the featured production while 25% would be allocated to the program feature. This sharing differential between the two pictures might be increased, or diminished to an equal split of 50% to each. In spite of the arbitrary allocation of gross in this manner, the method possessed the advantage of securing a percentage relation of rental to gross for both pictures individually which could be used as a criterion to future buying. One serious disadvantage existed in the use of this plan. When pictures were contracted for in advance, no definite play dates were set; consequently, the exhibitor could not tell which pictures would appear on the same program. The featured picture was always a high-grade production. The program feature, however, usually varied; sometimes it was of equal quality and run, while at other times it was inferior to the featured film or was a subsequent-run picture. Thus a current program feature might be purchased at a price based upon that paid for a comparable film which had been secured and run during the previous season as a featured production, and vice versa. This fact militated against the use of wide differentials in allocating gross to the two pictures appearing on the same program. For example, suppose a picture was purchased for $300 and was run as the featured picture of a double program. Further suppose that the gross of the run amounted to $2,000. Allocating 75% of the gross to the featured picture yields a 20% relationship between rental and gross. Now assume that a picture of the same type or with the same star is purchased for the current season on the strength of past records. Three hundred dollars would appear to be a fair price for such a picture. Suppose, however, that the film is dated in as a program picture with another featured