Motion Picture News (Jan-Feb 1919)

Volume 19, No. 1 January 4, 1919 The Price You Pay THERE is a feature article in this issue of Motion Picture News that reminds us of an editorial subject that has been frequently suggested by friends in the producing ranks. " What's the Price? " is the heading of the article, which you will find on Page 73. In interesting manner it 1 sets forth the exchange man 's viewpoint towards the booking methods of a large percentage of exhibitors. In a way it is an effective answer to the complaints of many theatre men regarding the quality of the general run I of their attractions — though, it does not reply to the ex! hibitor who put quality above price in booking, and still find room for complaint. The writer of the article declares that it is the continual ' ' What 's the Price ? ' ' slogan of so many exhibitors that hampers the production of really big attractions and puts a premium on mediocre pictures. What he says should start an interesting exhibitor discussion on the editorial subject we have in mind. %r 4f $k ^fc ^ 9 What Determines the Price You Pay? THERE is the subject — What method of calculation does the average exhibitor follow to determine the price he can afford to pay for any particular picture or individual star? Whatever the method, one of our producer friends tells us that it works an injustice to the unusually big star and the extra strong Special. There are a select few stars, he says, whose box office value is limited only by the size of the theatre playing them. He adds that there are always a few Specials on the market which fall in the same class. Then he goes on to his point — either the exhibitors are not paying enough for these sure-fire attractions, or they are paying too much for the average run of their bookings. It sums up — the great difference in the drawing power of the sure-fire offering and the average one overbalances the difference in rental paid. Is our producer friend right ? He would probably admit that the " select few " of which he speaks get close to their real rental price. The manufacturer usually sees to that when he discovers a sure-fire attraction on his hands. So the point at which he seems to be aiming is — too much is paid by the exhibitor for his average attractions. As against which another producer told us that the rental price on a pretty good quality of program attractions when averaged up for the entire country and all classes of theatres barely reached the munificent sum of ten dollars. What is the answer? Rentals and the Big Fellows ABOUT a year ago when " High Rentals " was the phrase on everyone's lips Motion Picture News learned in its investigations that the big exhibitors of the country give little time to worrying over the rental question. The class of men who make up the Motion Picture News Advisory Board will roar at the drop of the hat about the class of advertising aids supplied with productions, about the quality of the market's offerings. But their opinions on the subject of rentals can be summed up in the statement : " Give us the attraction — a good picture plus good advertising aids — and we'll pay the price. It's pictures, not price, with us." We'd like to hear the ideas of all exhibitors on this rental problem. Is your method of determining the price that of merely cutting in half the exchange man's first figure and then, finally, splitting the difference ? Or do you carefully calculate the possible box office returns and then pay just so much — and that much — as your books show you can afford to pay ? Or do you let the big attractions pass because their rentals are so much higher than your day-in-and-day-out offerings ? What 's your opinion of the general problem of picture rentals, anyhow? ###### Another " Suggested Editorial ' ' HERE is a subject for an editorial that has been suggested to us on an average of once a month for two years. The speaker is usually a state rights man or an exchange man : ' ' Why don 't you take up the question of closed towns, ' ' he asks. " The cities and sections that are controlled by one man or where two or three exhibitors have, an undercover pool to keep prices down? " The particular friend of the moment then goes on to show us how from twenty to forty per cent of the rightful earnings of a big production are lost to the manufacturer by the cut-rating he suffers in the ' ' closed towns. ' ' And still further goes our friend to show how this, on the one hand, hurts the exhibitors in other sections where competition exists, and how it hamstrings the manufacturer who would spend real money on his productions. Then we ask our friend, ' ' What shall we do about it ? " He says, ' ' Write an editorial. ' ' Shall we tell the man who is fortunate enough to control all the theatres in a town that he is naughty-naughty (Continued on next page)