The Exhibitor (1960)

42 Years ot Service to the Theatre Industry Founded in 1918. Published weekly by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. Publishing office: 246-248 North Clarion Street, Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania. New York field office: 8 East 52nd Street, New York 22. West Coast field office: Paul Manning, 8141 Blackburn Avenue, Los Angeles 48, Calif. London Bureau: Jack MacGregor, 16 Leinster Mews, London, W. 2, England. Jay Emanuel, publisher; Paul J. Greenhalgh, general manager; Albert Erlick, editor; M. R. (Mrs. "Chick") Lewis, associate editor; George Frees Nonamaker, feature editor; Mel Konecoff, New York editor; Albert J. Martin, advertising manager; Max Cades, business manager. Subscriptions: $2 per year (50 issues); and outside of the United States, Canada, and Pan-American countries. $5 per year (50 issues). Special rates for two and three years on application. Second class postage paid at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Address all official communications to the Philadelphia publish¬ ing office. Volume 64 • No. 17 SEPTEMBER 21, 1960 INTRA-INDUSTRY FOUL PLAY We have had a phone call from a well known circuit ex¬ ecutive, in which he shouts loud and long about the things some distributors and exhibitors do to one another. And he’s awfully right! There seems to be an element in this industry “who don’t mind playing dirty, or taking advantage of the other felloiv’s hard work, if there are just a few lousy bucks to be made. They never think that there is no patent on such practices, and that it doesn’t even require a very clever mind to put themselves on the wrong end of a similar deal in the near future.” His case in point is a recent fair-sized picture being mar¬ keted by an aggressive independent, who poured a lot of ad¬ vertising dollars and promotional effort into a campaign even though the star had previously been only a minor name. Watching the effort, and for no reason other than to take advantage of it, a competitive distributor dug up an “oldie” with the same star and rushed it into competitive theatres a few days before the better advertised playdates. Result, a confused public and not as big a gross on either picture as expected. So our circuit friend is blowing his top. He has personally served notice on the competitive distributor to stay out of his booking department for the next six months unless he is ready to apologize and to pledge cleaner future methods. He has also registered his displeasure with the competitive ex¬ hibitors, whether or not they are direct competition to his theatres, and has told them not to expect any cooperation or any “breaks’ from him while they “reach for such unfair bucks.” We can’t blame him. Initiative and effort grease the wheels of exhibition and keep it running. Whenever the coat-tailhangers are able to hitch a ride on the other fellow’s push— and get away with it— future initiative and effort will be mini¬ mized. A healthy industry should blackball such hitchhikers. FACTS ON THEATRE ASSESSMENTS Elsewhere in this issue the theatre reader will find a re¬ print of an address made by Paul J. Greenhalgh, Vice-Presi¬ dent and General Manager of this publication, upon invitation of the Tax Assessment Commissioners representing the 67 Counties of the State of Pennsylvania. The occasion was the latter group’s annual meeting, held this year at historic Valley Forge, and on the speakers’ panel were numerous authorities on shopping centers, motels, natural and mineral deposits, taxing methods, etc. Drawing from the files of COMPO, and from the 42-yearold records of MOTION PICTURE EHIRITOR, Mr. Green¬ halgh sought to portray a true picture of theatre industry conditions, with particular emphasis on conditions inside this particular State. It was also his purpose to show how the ulti¬ mate taxes obtained from theatres, even on lower assessed values, would be an improvement over any that might be obtained from any other use to which such single-purpose structures could be converted. The questions and answers that followed indicated that this latter point had a lot of merit and would be considered. This address can be a model easily adaptable to any other State as well. The national statistics will not change. We will be happy to submit local statistics for any other State re¬ quested. If enough theatremen submit these reasonings, and these Bureau of Census facts, many more open theatres will receive some needed tax aid. Open theatres are our business. THE THEATRE EFFORT AGAINST TOLL-TV That kit, containing very simple and very useable material for the battle against Pay-TV, should now be in the hands of all theatremen. Prepared by the JOINT COMMITTEE AGAINST PAY-TV, chairmanned by Phil Harling, there is little question of the influence of such material on legislators if sufficient millions of signatures of interested patrons can be obtained. So the success or failure of this important work now rests squarely in the laps of theatremen themselves. What they do— and how well they do it— will be reflected on this industrv’s exhibition methods for manv years to come. It seems elemental that— if you value your theatre job— or if you value your theatre investment— it behooves you to do your best to back this JOINT COMMITTEE. You can expect no producer or distributor leadership as in many other cam¬ paigns. Exhibition is more-or-less on its own. Is its local leadership sufficient to the task? THAT JOE VOGEL MANAGEMENT If any doubts remained about the M.G.M. successes in the few short years since the management reins of a badly de¬ moralized organization were dropped into the hands of Joe Vogel, they were dispelled by the recently announced dividend increase. The estimated earnings for the fiscal year ending Aug. 31 is now official at $3.75 per share. This is the best result in the past 12 years, even including the earning figures for the years when the now divorced theatre circuit was in¬ cluded with production-distribution. So, confident that a higher dividend rate can be maintained, it has been moved up 33/3% to $1.60 per year. All of this has resulted from the making and renting of features to theatres and series shorts to TV, and from the renting of old pictures to TV. No short-cut outright sales have been made to anyone. As Joe Vogel puts it, “We’re in the business of making and retailing motion picture entertainment!” And he sure makes it look like a profitable business!