Motion Picture Herald (Oct-Dec 1956)

The HERALD INSTITUTE of Industry. Opinion Exhibition Is Anxious to Experiment in Order to Get Improved Operation by JAMES D. IVERS Exhibition is eager to experiment with operation and to change standard and traditional operating procedures if it can be shown that such experimentation, or change, will build audiences. A majority of exhibitors have modernized their houses or intend to do so as soon as it is economically possible. Almost half of them believe that a study should be made of the relation of admission prices to attendance but an equal number say that by no means should prices be generally lowered. Almost half of the indoor theatres believe the parking problem is an important factor in reducing attendance. About 60 per cent of exhibitors find the timing of the main feature at night shows a ticklish problem. These are the conclusions of Part II of a study conducted by The Herald Institute of Industry Opinion of factors affecting attendance today. Part I, published in The Herald September 8, covered the types of product most needed at the box office. The present section covers theatre operation factors, and Part III to be published next week will cover general proposals for stimulating attendance and interest. On the question of modernization a majority of the members of the Institute’s exhibition panel said that their theatres were “sufficiently modern in appearance, comfort and equipment” to insure that they were not losing patronage on that account. Only a small minority admitted that this was not so, most of them on the grounds that they could not afford it under present economic conditions and another small minority were not certain that this was a factor in attendance. Conversely, of course, those who said they had modernized argued that modernization was a potent factor in building attendance. Of those, however, who have not modernized in any degree or who are not certain of its affect, a majority said they intended to modernize as soon as they are able. Economics, of course, were most often voiced as the reason for not modernizing. A Colorado exhibitor said “We should have new seats but business does not justify the expense at this time.” A Florida circuit owner said, “Our theatres are at the point where we can’t afford to modernize. Our film rent is still too high for the reduced gross, even though several of the HOW PANELISTS VIEW OPERATING PROBLEMS Question: What is your opinion of experimenting with admission prices in order to increase attendance? Up to 7,500 30,000 Over Total A study should be made of 7,500 30,000 700,000 700,000 Exhibition the effect Lowered prices would bring 41 60.8 34.1 39.6 43.9 in more patrons Any decrease in price would 5.4 8.7 17.8 17.7 12.4 be inadvisable 53.6 30.5 48.1 42.7 43.7 Question: Does the problem of parking space limit your patronage? Yes 19.5 36.8 50 64 42.6 No 61 21.1 II. 1 28 30.3 Sometimes ... 19.5 42.1 38.9 8 21 A Question: Is the timing of ing patronage? the main feature on week nights a probl em affect Yes 45.6 61.9 61.1 73 60.4 No 19.7 14.3 1 l.l — 1 1.3 Not sure 34.7 23.8 28.8 27 28.6 companies have made reductions in the past year. Our overhead is down to rock bottom, but with the film rent added we have quite a few marginal operations.” A vehement word in defense of the exhibitor came from Rotus Harvey of San Francisco. “I am sick and tired,” he said, “of reading about lazy theatre managers, worn out and dirty theatres. We have the proper theatres and the right kind of personnel and we prove it every time we have a good picture to sell. Merchandise is what counts. If you haven’t got it you can’t sell it. We must have merchandise better than they give away on TV and to compete with the producers who are on the air against us at the same time we are trying to sell their product.” Exhibitor panel members in both large and small situations favored, in varying degrees, a study of admission price scales in relation to falling attendance. Reserved Seat Plan Leo Schuessler of Sheboygan, Wis., suggested on admissions, “Snob appeal could be utilized to advantage by inaugurating a system of reserving a limited number of choice seats at premium prices. This could be extended beyond the loge seats of the big first runs. The balance of the house would be on an open basis.” Indicative of the changing problems of exhibition in a traffic bound world, over 42 per cent of the panel members said that parking is a major factor in lower attendance at indoor theatres. The figure, of course, rises steeply from the small town to the heavily urbanized areas. Thirty per cent said it did not constitute a problem and another 27 per cent said it only occasionally affected them. The matter of timing of the main feature on week nights to please a majority of patrons is apparently a tough one to solve. Over 60 per cent of the panelists said it required further study. On this subject Frank Fitzpatrick of Clinton, Mich., had a proposal. “We would like to see all small town theatres,” he said, “start showing the feature only once on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday between September 15 and June 1. Start with shorts and previews a halfhour later than the normal starting time,” he suggested, “and then show the shorts again after the main feature for the latecomers. This would bring a big savings in labor, heat, and electricity and still have the bulk of your audience satisfied, even though a few 9 o’clock stragglers might be disappointed at first.” 12 MOTION PICTURE HERALD, OCTOBER 13, 1956