The Exhibitor (1960)

42 Years of Service to the Theatre Industry Ftaundcd 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. 21 OCTOBER 19, 1960 EVOLUTION OF Reports from a number of different territories claim that certain film exchanges have stopped making any effort to sell some of their customers. Salesmen who formerly made periodic calls, or at least made telephone contact, haven’t been heard from for months. In some cases a followup proves that economies at the exchange level have cut the number of salesmen and enlarged the territories of others. But in many more other cases the salesmen are there but theatremen think they are following some new technique of “planned scarcity.” Sort of a “he’s-got-to-have-pictures-to-stay-open-andif-he-must-come-to-me-Tll-have-an-advantage” plan. One “old timer” is grinning complacently. He was thinking of cutting the number of mid-week shows and stretching his playing time, and this little “slight” from a company where he has spent a lot of film rental through the years has given him reason to cut them out. Another eastern booker tells us he is managing to get by through the use of everybody else’s product except the non-callers. Checking this out at the exchange level has produced some interesting results. A veteran film salesman points to the fact that handling so many more “independent productions results in more and more “desk work” and sales reports. That he now gets to his exchange at 8:30 a.m. and spends a busy day until 5:30 or 6 p.m. when he feels entitled to join his family for dinner. FILM SELLING That in that day he makes many phone calls to circuits, buy¬ ing groups, and independent exhibitors, but that in the latter classification it is nearly impossible to reach anyone because few have matinees midweek, or are in their theatres. He assures us that he is “on” his accounts with every available feature date, except for these latter few where he must moreor-less wait for them to call him. Another veteran assures us that he calls on or telephones each of his accounts regularly “except for the bad ones.” In the latter category he places: (1) Those who sign anything, but leave a trail of uncompleted contracts behind them; (2) those who have their overheads “kited” to the place it is impossible to make a decent percentage rental return; (3) those who don’t pay their bills; etc. All of this must reflect itself on the “possibility sheets” of the particular branch— with duplicates to the general sales managers’ offices in New York. Are calls being reported that are not actually made? Or, are theatres being eliminated as “sales possibilities” in particular territories while they are still very much alive and buying other people’s film? This reflects a condition with 31 branch sales offices, and possibly three times that many salesmen. Can you imagine what would happen under the PREMINGER PLAN of just one national sales office in New York selling and booking all of any one company’s films? r RECOGNITION OF SHOPPING-CENTER THEATRES We had a visitor the other day with stars in his eyes. He wanted to inspect our photograph and data files on shoppingcenter theatres. The visiting gentleman is the operator of six or eight fine suburban roofed theatres and two drive-ins, all situated in and around an eastern city. He hadn’t thought it possible to finance the construction of a new theatre in today’s money market, and had no expansion plans. Then, out of the blue, an important builder and developer came to him. Was he aware of the $8,000,000 Shoppers World (Shopping Center) at Framingham, Mass., and had he heard the report that the 1500 seat Cinema Theatre situated in it had grossed nearly $500,000 in 1959? He seemed to remember something about it— but he had not heard about the gross! Would he be interested in modern theatres in two proposed shopping centers (the locations of which made his eyes pop)? He most certainly was! So our visitor had been up to Framingham for a quiet look, and liked everything he saw. We were able to help through an eight-page pictorial and editorial survey of that project that we had published in 1952, and through more than a dozen other theatres in similar locations that we had surveyed in that and other vears. He was full of excitement and drive! J One of the proposed centers would be in a particularly plush area, that was already served by several fine suburban theatres, but there was no reason why a 500 seat high admissioned art tvpe operation— with all that adjacent free parking— couldn’t do well. The other was a “natural” in an as yet under¬ developed area with a tremendous growth potential, where it would build into a 1500 seat suburban first-run in not more than two or three years. We shared his enthusiasm! All of this is typical of the heightened interest in shoppingcenter theatres that we keep hearing from many areas. Phil Smith, original lessor and still operator of the Framingham theatre, recently formed a corporation for the promotion and construction of no less than 10 such houses. From the west coast come other rumors of large scale plans. And single developments are everywhere. And all of it is right as rain! We have oft repeated on this page that there were no unsuccessful shopping-center theatres. That theatremen with leases on such projects valued them highly. And that the parking areas, community interests and modern merchandising images of shopping centers were an ideal climate for modern theatres. It is heartening to note this current trend! It’s a healthy sign.