The Exhibitor (1961)

The Trade Paper Read by Choice — Not by Chance Founded in 1918. Published weekly except first issue in January and first issue in September by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. Publishing Office: 317 North Broad Street, Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania. New York field office: 8 East 52nd Street, New York 22. West Coast field office: William M. Schary, 375 S. Crescent Heights Blvd., Los Angeles 48, Calif. London Bureau: Jock MacGregor, 16 Leinster Mews, London, W. 2, England. Jay Emanuel, publisher and general manager; Albert Eriick, 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, S5 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 publishing office. Volume 67 • No. 9 FEBRUARY 14, 1962 THE "A-B-C" OF ADVERTISING We have commented several times on this page about the shortsightedness of certain producers and distributors who fail to advertise adequately certain pictures to the trade. In¬ terested readers have been asking the reason for this. After all, they point out, distributors are asking fancy percentage terms even on these unadvertised features. Why, indeed? The question is not really a hard one to answer. The motion picture industry is not like any other in its advertising meth¬ ods. Too often, advertising is purchased for all the wrong reasons. The purpose of advertising is first to increase sales, but you would never know that from the actions of some advertising “experts” in this business. Only in this industry is advertising purchased to 1) ward off a bad review in a publication whose circulation is ques¬ tionable; 2) respond to the nagging of certain top flight ex¬ ecutives; 3) pay off a personal friend; or 4) see your name in print. There are many similar reasons for the persistent in¬ consistencies in policy, but these should get the idea across. It is conceded by most industry observers that advertising is an important factor helping to create sales and enthusiasm, but advertising is not a magic wand. Distributors are quick to criticize their customers for not advertising as much as the distributor thinks they should. However, it would seem that same shoe fits other feet as well. Top flight newspapers and magazines are members of the Audit Bureau of Circulation. This organization measures and analyzes the circulation of about 2,800 member publications throughout the United States, providing an important service for would-be advertisers. Only three publications in the mo¬ tion picture field are members of ABC, and MOTION PIC¬ TURE EXHIBITOR is one of them. ABC gives the advertiser facts on paid circulation, a pretty good measuring rod for readership. The organization is like an independent bank examiner with no bosses and an al¬ legiance only to the facts. Advertising is wisely placed if the money spent for it is based on facts. This is true whether that money is being spent by distributor or exhibitor. Why should anyone buy a “pig in a poke” when the true situation can be discovered with rela¬ tive ease? Could it be that fear is the reason? It is interesting to note that eligibility for membership in ABC is based on a ruling which provides that at least 70 per cent of a publication’s total circulation must qualify as “paid”; provisional membership is available to publications with 50 per cent paid circulation if the publisher agrees to reach the 70 per cent figure within three years. ABC is a non-profit organization servicing more than 800 top flight advertisers and 300 advertising agencies. They are a storehouse of factual data, but the motion picture industry, for one, appears willing to ignore such facts. Yet distributors all use the services of Sargoy and Stein to check theatre receipts in an effort to ascertain “facts.” And these same gentlemen have been heard on numerous occasions to complain that there are too many trade papers in the motion picture field. Some people, it would seem, are like the circus calliope. They make the most noise, but always bring up the rear. To those who are acting on outdated principles, may we respect¬ fully suggest, “The man who never changes his opinion never corrects any of his mistakes.” SHALL WE BOOST ADMISSION PRICES? One problem that exhibitors everywhere face is the ticklish question of whether or not to raise prices for a better than average picture. One exhibitor writes us about an experience that adds a new and more confusing dimension to the situa¬ tion. He says his customers “were surprised because the ad¬ mission price was not raised on a certain motion picture.” In fact, he adds, the public seemed disappointed. This poses an interesting question. Does the admission price have a psychological effect on the movie patron? To phrase it another way, does the picture played at regular boxoffice prices lose prestige in the flexible entertainment marketplace? The picture in question was a very good one, but there were no top star names featured. With clearances being reduced, and the same picture playing as part of a double feature at theatres following just a few days later, doesn’t the first-run exhibitor face the danger of alienating his customers by rais¬ ing admission for his single feature showing? This is a question that has been debated in industry circles for some time. Like most complex questions there are no simple answers. MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITOR would like to throw its pages open for subscriber views for or against a flexible admission scale dependent on the worth of the pic¬ ture being shown. What are your views? This industry would be in sorry shape if most of us would say and do nothing. Stand up and be counted. Your views could well guide others constructively. Serving the Reader First— Which Serves the Advertiser Best