The Exhibitor (1966)

The Trade Paper Read by Clioice-Not by Chance Founded in 1918. Published weekly except first issue in January and first issue in SeptemDer Py Jay Emanuel Publications Incorporated. General offices at 317 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Publishing office at 3110 Elm Ave., Baltimore, Md. 2121 1. New York field office: 1600 Broadway, Suite 604, New York 10019, West Coast field office: William M. Schary, 818 S. Curson Ave., Los Angeles Calif. 90036. London Bureau: Jock MacGregor, 16 Leinster Mews, London, W. 2, England. Jay Emanuel, publisher and gen. mgr.: Albert Erlick, 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. Single copy 25<. Second class postage paid at Baltimore, Maryland. Address all official communications to the Philadelphia offices. Telephone: Area Code 215, WAInut 2-1860. PU AM^IMP ArtnDETGG? Please send old and new address. If possible '■'NMIMUI IMLl MLf U rvCOO • include address portion of old mailing wrapper. Volume 75 • No. 2 February 16, 1966 Our 48th Year THIS OSTRICH NEEDS HELP The chaotic manner in which films are sold and bought continues to amaze many industryites who like to think they can conduct their affairs in a businesslike manner. Certainly, there is a certain amount of conflict between buyer and seller in any industry, but in the motion picture industry it sometimes appears to be jungle warfare, with no holds barred. Some time ago, we editorialized that some distributors, from the manner in which they conduct their business, must sleep on an anvil and think it’s a pillow. Others, we said, seem to have lost the ability to cry because their tear ducts are obviously constipated. The unrealistic bidding system in the motion picture in¬ dustry results in letters from subscribers complimenting us on our editorial position. As more and more theatres become involved in these bidding traps, regardless of their competitive position, there is more and more hard feeling in the industry. One reader writes that he is certain some distributors have had their hearts amputated. This gentleman has just been through a business wringer in which a film was rebid three times before a decision was made on who would play it. This is not an isolated situation. Rebids are a common occurrence and another reason for the chaos and confusion that can be found in no other industry. It is possible that the Department of Justice considers this a sound business practice. However, how come it can’t be found as a general practice in any other business? Certainly the federal agencies supposedly concerned with such things are aware of the situation. We have had correspondence with the Department of Justice, but the oft-repeated words have not PAUL REVERE No one in his right mind will deny the power and effec¬ tiveness of good advertising. It has been with us for a long time, far longer than we have been an independent country. It is known that George Washington arranged for the printing and distribution of handbills and posters to whip up public enthusiasm and stimulate recruiting for the Continental Army. In the same historical period, a Boston paper carried an advertisement for false teeth. The businessman placing the ad was an able craftsman named Paul Revere, who later became famous for carrying a far different message to the colonists. So it is clear that advertising is not new. It is also clear that advertising must promote a product that is attractive or interesting. The most impressive advertising campaign is money down the drain if the product to be sold doesn’t have a built-in potential. The peg on which motion picture advertising must hang is the title of the film, and some of the films released recently have been burdened with hard-to-sell titles that do not create sufficient interest to launch the film at the boxoffice. We offer as a recent example an excellent motion picture resulted in a single moment of action. Can it be charged to politics? We wonder. Every distributor confronted with the facts surrounding bidding for motion pictures agrees that it is unfair. He agrees that if the situation were reversed, he would never want to buy films in such a manner. It is clear that exhibition is living on borrowed time unless these evils are corrected, but the industry is stalled on dead center. The situation reminds one of a lot of ostriches with their heads buried in the sand, hoping that the danger will disappear if they refuse to recognize its existence. It should be clear by now that the danger will not disappear by itself. Available statistics indicate that today, in the midst of a building boom limited primarily to shopping center developments, there are over 16,000 theatres and drive-ins in the United States. This compares to a total of more than 20,000 not too many years ago. While the nation’s wealth and the nation’s population soared higher and higher, the nation’s theatres declined and are still declining. Surely there is a lesson to be learned here, and yet the industry seems incapable of applying this knowledge without outside pressure. That pressure will have to come eventually from some agency outside the industry, and still the sanctimonious pro¬ nouncements of the so-called Department of Justice continue. Ostriches who refuse to take their heads out of the sand can’t govern themselves. That, unfortunately, is the situation in which the motion picture industry finds itself today. “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” simply means the thing that speaks for itself. RIDES AGAIN based on a successful stage play. We are certain that everyone who has seen the film has enjoyed it tremendously. Add to these positive aspects of the release the fact that the film com¬ pany mounted an excellent advertising campaign in its behalf. On the negative side, the stars of the feature were relatively unknown to the mass motion picture audience. Other pictures, not nearly so well made and entertainment-packed as this one have made it big at the boxoffice without top stars, but this one failed to get off the ground. Why? We believe it is because the picture was saddled with a title that did nothing to create a “want-to-see” attitude on the part of theatre audiences. People who turn to the theatre page of their newspapers are looking for entertainment. If the title does not attract them quickly, they are lost forever. A well known star helps, but these million dollar salaries are no guarantee of boxoffice success. In any event, a poor title is two strikes against any film. Some of the titles adorning marquees today are an indication of how little some folks in Hollywood really know about their audience. As a friend of ours once remarked, “Their knowledge of the subject would echo in a thimble.”