Harvard business reports (1930)

588 HARVARD BUSINESS REPORTS The difficulty with the procedure suggested is that it is an attempt to deal with a number of variables, the greater number of which are recognized in the case. It follows, therefore, that the individual judgment of the exhibitor will remain of the greatest ultimate importance. The more data which he can obtain, the sounder that judgment is likely to be, but even in such cases as the one under review, individual judgment is perhaps more important than any one single factor, perhaps more than all of them combined. Some detailed criticisms might be suggested. It would appear wise to exclude short subjects rather than include them in the figures dealing with feature subjects. Further, it is probably unwise to attempt to emphasize the so-called feature picture to the extent that was done in this case. Not infrequently the picture selected by the manager as the feature picture may to many of his patrons be less attractive than the so-called program picture. Furthermore, it will be noted that a number of the difficulties presented in this problem are peculiar to those parts of the country wherein a double-feature program is usual. Perhaps the greatest weakness is the attempt to segregate the importance of the two feature pictures. In Exhibit 2, it will be observed that the whole plan is dependent upon attributing a certain value to the first and second features. Thus in picture Number 2 the manager apparently believed that film rental for the two pictures in question amounted to 38%. Clearly, however, this figure is dependent upon the character of the feature picture. In order that this 38% should be applicable in purchasing for another season, it is not only necessary that the new picture be comparable in quality with this particular film, but also that it shall be shown in conjunction with another feature picture substantially identical in character with the second feature of the current year. This procedure is impossible, since the manager cannot know what two pictures will be exhibited until these pictures are actually dated. And even then he is compelled to select arbitrarily which should be the feature picture. Obviously, these facts vitiate any contrasts which might be based upon the method herein described. The deduction of the Sunday gross receipts in an effort to place the four-day run on a basis with the three-day run is also questionable, not only because it is an arbitrary deduction, but also because the simple fact is that a four-day run does exist and includes Sunday showings. Such data as are here collected may be of value to the manager as giving him some basis upon which to bargain with a salesman. They cannot, however, be relied upon as giving any distinct clue as to the amount to be paid for any particular type of picture. It still remains