Showmen's Trade Review (Oct-Dec 1949)

SHOWMEN'S TRADE REVIEW, November 19, 1949 11 Lessons Never Learned In our travels around this country we've met and talked with a lot of exhibitors. Circuit men and Independents. A great many with whom we chatted were mystified by what they seem to feel is a complete disregard of fair trading and, in some instances, in violation of the recent decision in the government case. The constant jockeying for position by some of the companies under the very questionable guise of trading, can only lead to another avalanche of lawsuits. Even worse than the potential flood of suits is the constant danger that the Department of Justice will step in and charge the industry with further violations of the anti-trust laws. Each time they do so means millions of dollars of expense and endless charges and counter-charges. Why must this continue? When will the Big Brains of this business learn that it is not only bad business to push a hard deal but downright silly in the face of possible results from such tactics? What the hell difference does it make if a company does pop up with a rare and occasioned super-duper that can do a great business at the box-office? Is that any reason to make outrageous demands or sledgehammer the kind of a deal or the kind of terms that the average theatreman, be he circuit or independent, does not want? Or why have one kind of a deal for circuits and another for independents? It is sometimes sickening to listen to every conceivable form of criticism and abuse being heaped upon the industry as a whole because of these examples of bad trading. There was a time when we looked forward to getting out into the field and visiting and talking with industry people. Now we are getting to hate the idea altogether. Put this in your pipe and smoke it: In the last three weeks we heard of contemplated lawsuits, some in the talking stage and some about ready to be started, in several different parts of the country, that can add up to ten or fifteen triple-damage court duels amounting to about forty millions of dollars in damages claimed. In our humble opinion — and with the welfare of the industry at heart it is not only a right but a duty to speak out about this situation — these possible suits create a distinctly bad impression regarding the whole setup as it exi'^ts todav in the selling and buying of pictures. Why this grim determination that the domestic market m7ist make up for all the lost or frozen foreign revenue? How about all those Hollywood economy drives that we were told, time and again, would bring production costs down to where they could recoup on the domestic market. Wha hoppen to those costs? Have they been brought down or was the campaign a flop? And if they were brought down, why the demand for higher and tougher terms all the time? How in the name of goodness can this industry even contemplate, much less expect to launch, a public relations campaign when two of its most important branches are ready to spring at each other's throats. Perhaps the divorcement of exhibition from distribution now in process may to some extent alleviate this situation and create a market so competitive that many of the weird and fantastic policy-makers will have to change their tunes and their habits. Especially the ones who are responsible for the current wave of antagonism which appears to be engulfing the industry. What kind of a crime is it supposed to be when an exhibitor can buy a great picture and make a lot of money with it? Is it against the laws of man and business? We don't think so. We've never heard of a great picture that made a lot of money for the exhibitors that didn't do likewise for the producers and distributors. Did you? Think it over, carefully and soberly, you men and women of this movie industry. Whether you be part of exhibition or distribution, just ask yourself: is it all worth the money, the time and the bitterness that comes of these incidents? There can be only one answer and those involved had better act on it . . . but quick before too much damage is done. AAA Good Timing The industry will watch with considerable interest the results of the immense effort made by the 20th-Fox showmen who have tackled (most ambitiously and seemingly most efficiently) that problem of timing consumer advertising to do the picture some good when it breaks at the theatres. "The Prince of Foxes" national campaign scores high from every standpoint of selling approach, tailoring messages to the reader-interest of the various magazines, and timing. Perhaps it will serve as a guide to those who have been splashing the pages of magazines with costly art for very costly space to ballyhoo a show that wasn't going to show up at the theatres for weeks, even months after publication. —CHICK LEWIS SHOWMEN'S TRADE REVIEW. Title and Trade Mark Registered U. S. Patent Office. Published everv Friday by Showmen's Trade Review. Inc.. 1501 Broadway. New York 18, N. Y. Telephone, LOngacre 3-0121. Charles E. 'Chick' Lewis. Editor and Publisher; Tom Kennedy. E,xecutive Editor: Ralph Cokain. Manag-ing Editor: Merlin C. Lewis, Film Advertising Manager; Harold Rendall. Equipment Advertising Manager. West Coast Office. 6777 Hollywood Boulevard. Hollywood 28. California: Telephone HOUywood 2055 ; Ann Lewis, Manager. London Representative, Jock MacGregor, 16 Leinster Mews, London W.2 ; Telephone AMbassador 3601. Member Audit Bureau of Circulation. Address all correspondence to the New York office. Cable address : "Showmen's New York."