Boxoffice-May.03.1952

LETTERS
Advocates Film Advertising Via TV
To BOXOFFICE:
I
have just read Albert E. Slndllngers survey
published in April 12 BOXOFFICE.
Over a year ago I questioned several film
salespeople as to why TV was not iised to sell
pictures. I was told it was too expensive a
medium for advertising pictures.
Now comes Mr. Sindlinger's survey. It is
the most intelligent thing I have read yet.
Why producers have not tried such a program
for bringing back our lost audience has been
the $64 question—yet features have had a
$500,000 advertising budget (non-TV>.
TRY OUT TV AS AD MEDIUM
Why not spend that much on advertising
via TV and see what happens— ?? And not
spend it via the newspapers and other routine
media.
Here is the conclusion I draw from Mr.
Sindlinger's survey:
1. The major portion m percentages of theatre
attendance loss can be attributed to TV.
2. The theatres are losing contact with their
audiences.
3. This audience, once lost, will stay lost,
unless we can reach them again.
4. The only way this can be achieved is
through the diverting cause, or TV.
5. Whether or not the TV "looker" was, in
the past, a regular attendant at theatres or
whether he was one of the great mass of people
who rarely or never attended a movie, he
can be reached through TV and, if the movie
trailer is good, it will create a desire to see
the new picture, as well as acquaint not only
one, but every member of the family with the
advertised film—including the small fry and
teenagers. Anyone who has raised a family
will not underestimate the power of the
children and teenagers to bring out the family
if they want to see the picture.
6. Every TV viewer is a potential theatre
customer, because he bought an expensive TV
set to enjoy the same type of entertainment,
previously available only in the theatre. With
probably 20 million TV .sets in operation, there
is a possible audience of 100 million persons
every one of w'hom are potential movie theatre
customers, if they know about current
pictures.
A three-minute trailer would do the
trick even if it were run only once a day at
the right time. The producers know the value
of a trailer in theatres but have completely
mi.s.sed the boat with TV
GO AFTER TV VIEWERS
7. Only a limited number of any family read
newspapers and the percentage who actually
scan the theatre page is very small, unless
they have already made up their minds to see
a movie. We can never recapture the "lost"
audience this way and will continue to lose
more and more as the number of TV stations
increases.
With producers controlling in their vaults
several hundred old pictures which could be
used on TV without much more damage to
theatre audiences than has already been done,
with a potentially high amount of revenue
available from the use of these films, and with
producing units and equipment which could
be used for 15 and 30-minute short TV films,
why have not big movie producing companies
built or bought into controlling interest of a
good number of TV stations so that they can
exploit and advertl.se their new product which
will be shown in theatres and thus bring back
a high percentage of our lost audience who
can be made to want to see the.se fine new
films in theatres? Truly, the producers have
been .shortsighted and thus has been the greatest
cause for loss of revenue and audiences.
If the movie industry can't live comfortably
with TV—marry the girl!
MASON SHAW
Saratoga Theatre,
Saratoga, Calif.
An Exhibitor Thinking Out Loud
To BOXOFFICE:
The more I read your good magazine of
late, the more I wonder if a small-town exhibitor
who isn't making plans to turn his
auditorium into a skating ring or a television
sales room or some other business with a "supposedly
future" isn't a chump.
There are an awful lot of solutions floating
around for remedying the plight of this business.
Personally, I think the worst trouble
is the "bawl babies" in production and exhibition
who are constantly selling the masses
on the idea that, "There's NO business in
show business." Who wants to be different
and spend his dough with a loser?
Doesn't anyone in the production field ever
take the time to think about the guy who is
going to see more than one show a year?
SIMILARITY IN SHORTS
Let's take short subjects. In the past few
months I'v« run three cartoons all based on
the old story of the poor old shoemaker who
takes in a homeless waif and, as a reward,
a bunch of elves take over his shop and
turn him out a wonderous bunch of shoes.
The first time we played one of these it went
over great. But two more on the same subject,
even though they were well made and
cute, fell flat. Even the kids wanted to know
what we were trying to pull on them.
A few weeks ago I was running a Tom and
Jerry cartoon that was simply wonderful.
During its run I happened to be visiting with
a brother exhibitor in the county who was
having trouble getting enough light on his
screen and wanted me to see if I could help
him remedy the situation. We put his cartoon
on the machines and, as I adjusted the
lamps, I was dumfounded to find that at
least half of the .scenes were exact duplicates
of the Tom and Jerry cartoon I was playing,
yet titles were different. Now I don't think
there is anything wrong with MGM saving
money by using cartoon sections over, but
they should wait a while to do it. Suppose
I play that cartoon in the next month or two.
Do you think people forget soon enough that
they won't recognize the fact that they have
already seen most of that cartoon?
I used to think trailers completed my sales
campaign as nothing else could. I wonder if
many times it doesn't kill it? Think for
yourself how many times you've witnessed
the trailer on an average B picture (a picture
that the producer knew and the exhibitor
knew were just run-of-the-mill film fare, yet
would provide reasonable entertainment for
a lot of people who enjoy spending a few
hours away from it all) that rivals the picture-selling
potential of some of the top product.
So the trailer drags in a lot of people
who think they're going to see a big production
and find just program fare. Had we been
honest and presented it as just a nice little
feature that would give them a fair degree
of entertainment and not tried to make every
feature appear to be a super, the public
wouldn't be .so wary. Now I find my public
even dubious at time about the really big
ones, because they've been duped -so many
times in the past from misleading trailers.
PUBLIC NOT GULLIBLE
From remarks you quote in your magazine
of some of the producers and distributors,
they still think the public is as gullible as it
was in the days when Barnum could brag
about taking the suckers and make them
like
it.
As a promotion man and showman I think
Kroger Babb is probably one of the best and
I enjoy reading his rantings as usually he
gives forth with some sound ideas.
But do you think the public this day and
age likes ;to think they've been played for
chumps? I don't. And when Mr. Babb keeps
bragging how he has taken two "corny films"
and grossed over 25 million. I think he's waving
a red flag in front of a bunch of wonderful
guys and gals who like to think they're
the smartest entertainment purchasers in the
country when they fill our seats.
When he sells the "Prince of Peace" I'm
for him 100 per (sent for he's selling entertainment
that is laying a sound foundation
for all of us . . . And no one is a sucker who
buys a ticket to such entertainment. But
cashing in on sex and dope, etc., like a lot
of his product does and bragging about how
it's corny stuff isn't helping anybody and I
for one think it's a shame a guy as capable
as he is can't devote more of his time to the
kind of product that will do this business
some good "tomorrow," instead of the kind
that will make him a lotta bucks today.
THE ACADEMY AWARDS
I've blatted overtime now, but there's one
other thing I'd like to know and that is when
are they going to kick this Academy award
thing in the pants? By and large I think
it is helping retard business. I've checked in
towns much larger than mine and find that
every year a great many, usually a majority,
of the nominees are not really popular—great
boxoffice attractions. They're the type that
attract the small segment of people in every
town who are the industy's severest critics.
The type who will only see the stuff that some
of the big-shot critics say is tops. If they
panned the greatest show on earth none of
these would come. If they lauded a Johnny
Mack Brown western, these dopes would flock
out. Sure, there's fine acting, photography,
etc., in the ones they pick—but that isn't
everything. Why not give the public as a
whole a chance to pick who they think is the
best of the year. You'll find few that have
won lately ever get a nod. After this year
I'm going to ask that my contracts release
me from playing anything that gets the
award. For that label seems to be poison.
Uintah Theatre,
Fruita,
Colo.
BOB WALKER
26 BOXOFFICE May 3, 1952