Motion Picture Herald (Oct-Dec 1932)

12 MOTION PICTURE HERALD October I , 19 3 2 PATRONAGE DROPS ON OTHER NIGHTS (.Continued from preceding page) lix has given away several cars, and the winner had to be at the Paramount at the time of the drawing. Increased attendance was found the night of the drawing, but it was said that it hurt attendance other nights. Most of Denver's theatre men were of the opinion that inducements such as these would be continued, at least until conditions improved. The plan has assumed increasing proportions among Milwaukee exhibitors and business men and the Better Business Bureau and the retail division of the Milwaukee Association of Commerce is urging trade groups and civic organizations to join in the condemnation of lotteries. Until recently, prizes were awarded by only outlying theatres. However, on September 10 and 11, two automobiles were awarded at a local first-run circuit house. Most exhibitors in Milwaukee believe that the lottery does not build business. Gift offers invariably increase box-office attendance at the outset, they say, but, as in the case of double features when they become a general practice, soon lose their effectiveness. Likewise they have resulted in keen competition, so that where theatres were originally content to give just baskets of groceries, they now offer furniture, radios and automobiles. Merchants donate merchandise or the theatre gives numbers upon the purchase of a ticket. Lotteries in Wisconsin are illegal and this form of promotion is not looked upon favorably by leading Milwaukee exhibitors. Many using this plan say they were forced into it by opposition. The awarding of prizes and presentation of merchandise to stimulate attendance have assumed proportions of a menace, declare leading owners and exchange heads of San Francisco, where, it is pointed out, many theatres have become distributing depots for merchandise, with entertainment of secondary consideration. None of the downtown houses in San Francisco has engaged in the plan, but the practice flourishes in the suburbs where prizes range from automobiles, washing machines, vacuum cleaners and cash, to groceries, dishes and toilet preparations. One circuit has given away eight automobiles. San Francisco exhibitors are almost a unit in declaring that prizes have not increased business noticeably. The result has been to pack houses on certain nights and leave them almost empty at other times. One San Francisco theatre that started out with one gift night a week is now giving away merchandise five nights a week. Entertainment is featured as the sole attraction on but two nights. San Francisco exchange managers brand the gift schemes as a greater menace than the double bill. They said exhibitors seek cheap pictures for gift nights, declaring that they can not pay regular prices for films and prizes at the same time. Objections to drawings have been made by San Francisco's Parent-Teacher organizations and women's clubs. Illegal in Canada Lotteries and drawings are strictly illegal in Canada. The only loophole is that the giving away of merchandise as premiums, where there is no cash consideration, does not come under the statutes. Recently, authorities at Ottawa banned drawings at theatres and a conviction was registered against an Ottawa owner. Oscar R. Hanson, general manager of Allied Exhibitors of Ontario, has been preaching to his 77 members : "You can overdo the gift stunt ; you can give your theatre away if you want to — the people won't object." Neighborhood chain houses in Toronto have gone in for gift nights and independent exhibitors followed suit, but many regret the step, and it looks as if the majority will abandon the WHAT USE THE FILM WITHOUT THE GIRL Canada's most northerly motion picture theatre has folded! After a stent struggle as bitter as the weather in the land of its location, the only house in Churchill, in the province of Manitoba, has closed its doors. This, strangely enough, despite the residence in Churchill of some 5 00 men working on construction projects. The management tried everything for a full year. Solent pictures did not appeal, amateur nights lost their flavor, star names were meaningless and talking films evoked no response. The offer of "Gents, 50 Cents, Ladies Free" went unanswered. There are only 1 5 women in the town, all wives of officials — and thereby hangs a tale. The men unanimously declared, in effect, "What's the use of going to a show, if you can't take your girl," and the theatre closed its door. V A great many showmen know the answer. plan as soon as the prize sets are completed, particularly because theatre business is on the upgrade and special inducements are regarded as being unnecessary. Toronto exhibitors admit they lost friends among nearby merchants because of the giving away of merchandise prizes — they found the storekeepers less ready to cooperate in window displays and other advertising. The giveaway problem was settled in Detroit two months ago by a ruling from the prosecutor's office, construing all such inducements not benefiting the entire audience as lotteries. Enforcement of the ruling comes under a state anti-lottery law. Action is believed to have been prompted by the three leading newspapers. Intervention by the prosecutor's office was welcomed by exhibitors, for at the time the situation had become acute. Cash awards led the list, ranging from $400 four times a week, down to $10 a night. Drawings for prizes, regarded by some New England exhibitors as a business pull and by others as a deterrent, have not hit Providence. Exhibitors there have steered clear of the idea, although in some small houses down state they give crockery and candy occasionally. Most Providence showmen think that to indulge in lotteries is cheapening and in the nature of an apology for the entertainment offered. At Houston, giveaways flourished throughout the summer, but for the past three weeks they seem to have become passe. Exhibitors are lukewarm in their discussion of the practice now. With an anti-gambling law which is apparently enforced only against professional gaming, and then with only indifferent success, Washington, D. C, is a mecca for street carnivals at which "wheels" and other devices are freely used, but theatres use prize methods only infrequently and, except for a few neighborhoods, drawings are rarely used, most exhibitors holding that the film's the thing, and if a picture won't bring them in, it does not improve the reputation of the house to offer prizes. In the neighborhoods, the gift performance has been found to be a business builder for Saturday afternoon shows for youngsters. Giveaways have been used by many in Cincinnati and in every case they resulted in increased returns. The most extensive plan was staged by L. B. Wilson, operating a circuit at Covington, Ky., where 60 Pontiac coupes were given away one each week. Another house now is conducting a "Gold Night," at which $100 in gold, consisting of 14 prizes, is given away. The result is a lineup at the box-office. The only difficulty thus far encountered is at the Andalus where Frank Hammel, manager, awarded an automobile. Rival exhibitors, probably anticipating inroads on their business, caused Mr. Hammel's arrest for alleged violation of the lottery law. The case still is unsettled. Several local exhibitors say they are in favor of giveaways, and may put it into practice later, and exhibitors who have used the plan report good response, and excellent word-of-mouth advertising. Although there is a federal law against a lottery and a state law prohibits such procedure, no adverse reaction, except in the case cited, has resulted. There has been considerable discussion at Portland as to whether the practice was good business. The majority of managers say that it is not. The largest first-run has given away 10 automobiles, 10 refrigerators and two motorboats. For this particular house it did help, and on the nights of the drawing some 5,000 people endeavored to get in to occupy 3,000 seats. The management advised, however, that there was not as much interest manifested by patrons when the second motorboat was given away and they have decided to give away 10 more cars instead. The John Hamrick theatres have used an automobile in two instances, but do not expect to repeat, as Mr. Hamrick believes it does not build permanent patronage. At St. Petersburg, Fla., presentation of an Austin automobile increased the income of a local theatre by several hundred dollars. This form of "drumming" up business is also successful in other Florida towns. "Evil" at New Orleans Prize awards and giveaways have grown into an evil at New Orleans, even affecting first-run houses. While certain exhibitors are of the opinion that they do not help the box office permanently, forcing the public to shop for the house that gives the best prizes, and while exchanges have attempted to persuade exhibitors to eliminate them, the possibilities of a cure, other than a legal one, are remote. Loew's State and Orpheum are not in on the policy. The situation in the neighborhood field is a maze. Independents claim they were forced to give away prizes by the action of United Theatres in this matter and by what they term excessive protection granted United by exchanges. Cleveland has a city ordinance against raffles, drawings, or contests in which there is any element of chance. This ordinance, however, is not enforced, with the result that until recently almost every subsequent-run theatre in the territory employed this means of boosting business. While the practice is still used, it is not as prevalent as it was earlier in the summer. The circuits report that they have discontinued drawings in practically all spots. Independents still employ this plan. In no instance have theatre owners been interfered with by city officials. In Cleveland, all giveaways and premiums will automatically cease January 1, when the Horwitz protection settlement goes into effect. The agreement provides abolition of double features, giveaways, lotteries and premiums. There is also a state ordinance.