Motion Picture Herald (Jan-Mar 1932)

January 9. 193 2 MOTION PICTURE HERALD 59 TONICHT-EAST LYNNE" OR THE CYCLES OF SHOW ADVERTISING Herewith we start off what we hope will prove an interesting as well as constructive series dealing with the necessity of advertising and exploitation for ail types of theatres. The thought behind this series is to bring to the surface the reactions of various showmen from all fields in the industry on the question of whether any theatre with the pick of product and doing a consistently good business must keep on advertising and exploiting their attractions. It is far from a foolish discussion because what you believe to be the obvious answer may not be the opinion of others. And vice versa. At any rate we start off with an article from Gabe S. Yorke, director of advertising and publicity for Fox Theatres and Fox Film Corporation, unquestionably, one of the leaders in the field of advertising and a man with a keen understanding of the manifold problems confronting the theatres of today and tomorrow in the matter of show-selling and its important part in the show-world's scheme of things. We liked this article from Mr. Yorke and feel certain that you will like it too. It will be followed up by others from well-known and not-so-well-known men in the industry. "CHICK" Given a theatre that plays nothing but hits: can it get along without advertising and exploitation? Given a theatre that plays more flops than hits: can it be pulled out of the red by advertising and exploitation? Are advertising and exploitation really necessary to show business? Can this man Chick Lewis ask questions? NOW I'LL ASK ONE Is show business really necessary? No, it is not — which is why civilized peoples have always insisted on maintaining and patronizing it. That sounds Hke a paradox and so it is. There's hardly anything in" the amusement field that isn't paradoxical. Of course, if show business is not necessary then its advertising and exploitation are not necessary. That answers Chick's third question, although in a left-handed manner. Show business in all the centuries from the days of Aristophanes to the days of his fellow countryman, Spyros Skouras, has been always changing but never changed. (Another paradox.) Its advertising and exploitation follow that rule. The operators of the theatre in Elizabeth's time, and later, crabbed about the "useless" cost of the trumpeters and town criers who announced their shows — and eliminated them as soon as the first newspapers (tabloids, by the way) were willing to quote decent rates on theatrical copy. Current remarks about the futility of advertising and exploitation are, therefore, nothing new — and nothing to become excited about. Nor should any weight be given to the thought that everything in show business has progressed but advertising. Consult Percy Hammond, Billy Phelps and Terry Ramsaye and you will find that all the plays ever presented, all the novels ever printed and all the pictures ever produced were based on exactly thirty-six original plots. The entry of sound into our business did not add to or subtract from that total. WHAT PRICE "IDEAS"! No one has counted the number of original ideas that are the bases of all our advertising and exploitation. I'd wager that it is not over fifty. In the past fifteen years theatrical advertising has passed through the following stages : "To-night — 'East Lynne'." " 'East Lynne' — The Newest, Greatest Sensation." "Should a Husband Forgiv? See 'East Lynne'." "An Epic of Mother Love. The Masterpiece of the Ages — 'East Lynne'." "While His Hot Breath Seared Her Neck the Warmth of Her Body Melted His Shirt Studs. Passion Urged Them On in 'East Lynne'." "It Will Tug at Your Heart Strings. With Sound Effects. 'East Lynne'." "An All-Talking, All-Singing, All-Dancing By GABE S. YORKE Production — 'East Lynne'." "To-night— Ann Harding in 'East Lynne'." Perhaps these are not arranged in proper chronological order. Perhaps intermediate stages have been omitted. But, by and large, there you have a complete revolution of the advertising wheel. Criticism of advertising and exploitation does not arise from the fact that at regular intervals we repeat ourselves. It appears, and rightly, when the advertising wheel stops revolving. Chick's first question can be answered, therefore, in this manner: a theatre playing nothing but hits can get along without stationary, monotonous and unmodified advertising. But whatever success can be attributed to its product will be augmented by variety in advertising and exploitation. I've seen it done and will cite a specific instance later. OLD IDEAS— OR NEW? Successful showmen, be they authors, producers, actors or press agents may boast about their originality, but the truth is that their success depends upon the extent of their repertoires and the speed with which they can_ dig up old ideas to replace new ones. (Again a paradox. ) Eugene O'Neill writes dialogue with good, old-fashioned "asides" and garners greater glory by the very device *hat laughed the Victorian playwrights out of the theatre. Janet Gaynor, at the peak of the Sex Appeal Era, patterns her work after that of the Maude Adamsses that used to be, and is elected Queen of the Movies. Howard Dietz, consciously or subconsciously, goes back to the ancient circus principle of treating the yokels to some hula-hula in front of the tent, calls it the "living marquee" and stages one of the most successful ballyhoos of recent years. There is a theatre on Broadway, operated on a long-run, two-a-day basis that has had the reputation of playing nothing, or almost nothing, but hits. But a new attraction never opens in it without a new lobby and a complete change in the electrical display, both of which are important forms of advertising and exploitation. No new attraction goes in without a hooray in advance of it on the theatrical pages of the newspapers. The Republic Theatre in New York had a stretch of capacity business that lasted five years — the five during which it housed "Abie's Irish Rose." But there was not a week of that period when it did not get advertising and exploitation, if not in space that was paid for then in the more valuable free space that dramatic editors insisted on throwing at it. DOES IT HELP THE "FLOPS"? As to the question of what advertising and exploitation can do for a house that plays more flops than hits : Mark this circumstance, which can be observed in any group of theatres operated by one chain. You will see two, three or half a dozen theatres of equal size and equal expectancy playing the same product but turning in unequal grosses. All the gags about house managers who don't know if their jobs are good until they read their morning mail, have their origin in that circumstance. In some chains a manager who pulls a house out of the red is shifted to do the job all over again in another tough spot. In other chains a manager who cures a bad house is kept in it and the fellows who go from black to red get all the orders to move. But behind all the shifting of personnel and the unending firing stand the figures by which comparisons can be made. This, more often than the whims of executives, is what causes so many theatre managers to learn geography without the aid of books. I know a certain manager who varies the business of moving from house to house within one theatre chain by moving from chain to chain. By every such move he has bettered himself. Even in these unhappy times there is competition for his services — and for just one reason. He has always made it a point to keep an air of liveliness about his theatre — for use as a cushion when he plays poor product and to squeeze in the last customer when he plays a hit. He changes his style of newspaper advertising frequently. He never lets a week go by without introducing his audience to a different gag in his lobby or on his stage. His repertoire is extensive and he can dig up old ideas speedily to replace new ones. You can not name a stunt, however old, that he has not used. He has discovered that his public is not so much taken with the originality of his exploitation as with the variety of it. He keeps demonstrating that proper advertising and varied exploitation, even in a house that plays more flops than hits, find their justification in the extra business they bring in with good pictures and the minimizing of the losses on bad ones. There are many like him. EVERYBODY'S DOING IT! There has probably been no time when other industries copied theatrical advertising and exploitation more than they do at present. In Los Angeles they open new soda fountains with ceremonies copied after those that made Grauman's Chinese famous. The Sunshine Biscuit people during the past two weeks introduced a new product with advertisements that were deliberate and detailed imitations of the theatrical copy and layout. A prominent chain store organization has hired men from the motion picture business to stage the openings of new units. Department stores have not only adopted theatrical advertisinjg but are putting on street ballyhoo. (Have you seen one of those Macy balloon parades?) The cigarette manufacturers pay us a compliment with imitation and even use our tools — the names and photographs of the stars whom our methods have made famous. As soon as a new device is used in lobby decoration it is sold for store window dressing. Vyhile the rest of the business world is trying to jam a laurel wreath on our collective brow there are people in our own industry who ask whether our advertising and exploitation are necessary ! The inevitable paradox.