International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1940)

Mr. Independent Theatre Supply Dealer: Where Do You Go From Here? SEVERAL independent theatre supply dealers have advised the writer of their extreme displeasure anent certain comment pertaining to current conditions in the supply field which appeared in these columns recently. The burden of these complaints is that our comment reflects contempt of the sincere efforts made recently by a group of dealers to strengthen their position in the field, and also that it contributes to a loss of dealer prestige. Although these correspondents don't say so directly, we assume that their pique was induced by our failure to wax enthusiastic and execute a few editorial cartwheels relative to the formation recently, by 20 dealers who met in Chicago, of the Theatre Equipment Dealers Protective Association. If this assumption be correct, we can promise our correspondents no immediate alleviation of their pain. We could cite any number of reasons why the aforementioned Protective Association will fail signally of its avowed purpose and not mean a plug nickel to any member. However, the four reasons we will lay on the line should suffice. Let's see. Current Set-Up's Deficiencies First, the 20 dealers who formed the Association are lacking in number, in prestige, in competent direction and are poorly located geographically to render effective any program that is adopted. Second, the estimated annual income of the Association, calculated on the basis of the established dues per member, is woefully inadequate to keep the members happy when the winds of competition begin howling — or, for that matter, even when competition approximating a Spring zephyr is stirring. Third, the utter futility of the Association as a regulatory or a disciplinary body, or both, was amply demonstrated within a few hours of its formation when two moves which it initiated collapsed for want of strength and driving power. Details of these incidents are omitted herein in deference to the parties concerned. Fourth [and this is the most serious deficiency] the Association was spawned in an atmosphere so charged with hypocricy and downright sham that, out of consideration for the olfactory organs of those present, it might far better have died aborning. The Chicago meeting was called for the advertised purpose of rigging a defense against what were termed the "unfair practices" of equipment manufacturers and service organizations. [Mark well, this italicized phrase.] It was an open secret that the real, if not the only, purpose of the meeting was to devise ways and means for combating the "menace" to the dealers of current activities by the field forces of both the RCA and Altec service organizations. [RCA and Altec deny that their activities constitute any threat to the security of independent dealers, but such assurances have thus far failed to quiet the fears of the dealers.] Now, those dealers who consumed the most time at the Chicago meeting, yelled the loudest and cried copiously were the very ones who, even as they sounded off, had already signed, or had handy in their pockets ready for signing, a contract form which provided for their voluntary active participation in practices which they were shrilly denouncing in terms of extreme bitterness. Now, anybody who can with equanimity swallow such a potion is welcome to it. We can't. The most confusing aspect of this situation is the feverish straining on the part of the independent dealers currently to organize an association of precisely the same character as the one they so blithely consigned to the ashcan not so many months ago. We refer, of course, to the now defunct Independent Theatre Supply Dealers Association. The Independent outfit, despite the inevitable grousing of a few congenital moochers, was the best thing that ever happened to the dealers. It had to be to endure the strains to which it was subjected by the few who could not get through their noodles the fact that the breaks had to be distributed around impartially instead of being handed out to a favored few. Fine Record of Old Organization \ The Independent Association, unaer the able direction of Joe Robin, proved its worth to the dealers. It cleaned up the tangled discount situation by establishing one figure in place of the four, or more, previously prevalent. It afforded group strength and protection of its members without the slightest impairment of individual freedom of action. It conducted L. U. 143' s Residence Canvass in Manpower Dispute Unique stunt involving a house-tohouse canvass of residents of two St. Louis suburban towns was employed by I A. projectionist Local 143 in an effort to acquaint the public with Union's side of controversy with theatres which refused to employ two-men shifts. Union members act as canvassers and, covering every residence in the towns, explain to the townsfolk that a lockout rather than a strike is involved. Also, stress is placed on the fact that a neighboring St. Louis County ordinance requires two-men projection shifts. a high-class, clean-cut advertising and promotional campaign that added immeasurably to dealer prestige; in fact, so successful was this campaign that it forced the hands of non-advertisers — which development certainly didn't hurt the s.ale of equipment overall. The Association earned the confidenceand enjoyed the cooperation of the trade press. One example of this cooperation was the battle waged jointly by the Association and this publication against any extension of the "electrics' " influence in this field. This was a nice job, one that was productive of splendid results — particularly for the dealers. The Association kept its members informed of the very latest developments in the equipment field. It promoted community welfare. It enlisted Federal aid for itscause when such assistance was vitally necessary. It took the "bull" out of manufacturers' bulletins. It — well, what's the use? The best proof of the worth of the independent Association is the current frantic activity on the part of its former membersto organize its exact connterpart! The Independent Association was split asunder finally by the petty-larcenous conniving of a few dealers who, unable to hog all the benefits, were determined that their fellow-member should not enjoy the fruits of his own perspicacity and effort. Indicative of this small-mindedness is the instance wherein two large-volume dealers permitted a disgruntled solicitor for a regional trade paper to "horse" them into demanding that, since they paid more dues than certain small-volume dealers, their names appearing in the Association's ad copy should be in relatively larger type! Break-Up of Assoc. Unwarranted Some dealers might point to the effect of the Patman Act as largely responsible for the demise of the Independent Association. To which our reply would be that if this be true, why the sudden yearning for a dealer organization now when the Patman Act still is operative? The effect of the Patman Act should have emphasized anew the greater need for the survival and the strengthening, rather than the disruption, of the Association. Manufacturers were not permitted to tiein with Association activities; but it violates no confidence to reveal that just before the outfit folded plans were completed for manufacturer participation in the Association's promotional campaign to an extent that would have been productive of fine results. Vitally needed in this field is such an organization, the existence of which would benefit all concerned, including the independent dealers' competitors, through the raising of standards all along the line and in making Messrs. Exhibitor and Projectionist conscious of the manifold advantages of good equipment kept in repair and frequently replaced. Our contact with both dealers and manu(Continued on page 36) THIRD-PARTY PICKETING O.K. Federal courts are without power to enjoin unions from picketing third parties in a labor dispute even though alleged violations of the Sherman Act are involved, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled recently in a decision of marked interest to the film exhibition field. In effect, the decision okays secondary picketing. Case was a Chicago non-theatrical one. NOVEMBER 1940 29