Motion Picture Herald (1953)

Iflct/ch Picture £tcc/?J fire a (jcefi JJhiJeMnteht Trueman rembusch offers a constructive suggestion to Allied members in his proposal that they buy film stocks — and we predict that if they do this, as individuals, across the nation, it will result in more industry harmony rather than in further friction. Shareholders in our major companies can acquire substantial respect for the value of their holdings, and the dividends that accrue. Over a period of years, we have accumulated ten shares at a time, in five motion picture companies. The aggregate has cost us about $1,000 and has paid an average annual dividend of 6.7% on our original investment. We have 20 shares of Loew’s, which we bought out of loyalty to the company we were with at the time, and it cost us (in two purchases) a total of about $400. Since 1946, it has paid $150 in dividends, which we consider a very satisfactory deal. At the moment, it is paying $16 a year, and that is 4% — the lowest return of any of our motion picture stocks, but with a split-up coming, we look for increased income. One of our holdings (talking like a big operator) pays 10% right now, and it is accumulative preferred stock — when they dropped behind a few years ago, they paid up, in full. Another stock, worthy of special mention, is 20th Century-Fox, which we bought at 18)4. Now, we have ten shares of Fox, worth 15)4 and another ten shares of National Theatres, in a split-up, quoted yesterday at 6)4 The combined value is 21 /, which is 3 points better than we paid for it. 20th Century-Fox formerly paid a $2 dividend, and it now pays $1 on the Fox stock and 6(% on the National Theatres stock, which is quite remarkable. We also own ten shares of ABC-Paramount Theatres, which we bought at 18)4 and since the merger with ABC (radio-television) we sometimes wonder what the final score will be. When UPT and ABC were merged, the theatre circuit had a thirty million dollar cash position, and the broadcasting company had an eleven million dollar deficit. We are sitting hack, waiting, for this to change, in our favor. PUBLIC RELATIONS There's P. R. in the shine on your doorman's shoes — and in the smile on his face. Th ere's public relations in every sight, sound or smell that meets and greets the eye, ear and nose of your patron. And, of course, there's more to it than merely that. You must start public relations far afield, away from the theatre, to build palronage until it becomes permanent clientele. Thus, the sweeping phrase includes all of advertising, exploitation, publicity and promotion, in addition to good theatre housekeeping and management skills. We recognize a fine line of demarcation between the Round Table and Better Theatres, in which we aim for merchandising, and George Schutz aims more for basic housekeeping. Also, there's so much in the rudiments of showmanship that we can't keep saying over and over again in this limited space. We have to assume that if you are a member of the Round Table, you are already a manager. So, we take this opportunity to suggest that you and your staff read carefully the articles now running in Better Theatres, under the series title, "Method in Management" by Curtis Mees. In the most recent issue, he outlines a public relations program as it should be discussed in a theatre staff meeting. The entire series, bound together in book form, would cost you more than a year's subscription to the Herald. One thing you can be fairly sure of — if you buy film stocks in line with Trueman Rembusch’s suggestion — you will get a share of earnings, and a dividend rate better than you obtain today with bonds or savings at interest on a non-withdrawal account. In our considered opinion and belief, Trueman has hit upon a fine way to restore confidence in motion picture industry. •J IT MAY NOT BE in season, but with Congressional elections coming up there may yet be time for some exhibitor leader (and we nominate Trueman Rembusch) to run for Congress and go to Washington. It’s time we had a real representative of our industry in either the Senate or the House of Representatives, so we could have an inside opinion of motion picture business affairs on record, rather than the obligation of standing with our hats in our hands, waiting for a chance to speak in our own behalf. Other industries, other lines of trade and merchandising, are considerably closer to the feed-box than film industry, and that seems strange, in the light of history. It’s also quite possible, for an opposite point of view, that film industry is approaching a time when the aim and purpose of exhibitor organizations will be showmanship, with neither legal nor legislative advantages asked or expected of these theatre units. SOME OF the magazines and the leadingfinancial writers in the daily press are making it clear to their readers that the only way the motion picture industry keeps afloat in these trying days is through the sale of popcorn and at the candy and concession counters. That’s partly right — just as correct as any half-truth. We sometimes think this argument is similar to the definition the Russians placed on religion. Popcorn is the opium of showmanship, which dulls the senses and fools the customers into thinking they really didn’t come to the movies — just went out for some fresh popcorn. If enough theatre managers in enough places think the same thing at the same time, it won’t be necessary to worry about the future of film business. Our future will be all behind us — we can just sell popcorn and provide a place for cars to park, for a fee. —Walter Brooks, MANAGERS' ROUND TABLE SECTION, OCTOBER 17, 1953 37