PG^

,
S2205.
I
Baumoel.
^ T^cde oft^ l/lotian "Pwtme //idtO^
FILM WEEKLY
> Sectional Editions
and Publisher
:hlyen
I^EN Managing Editor
. Business Mgr.
.Western Editor
F. ROUSE III ...Equipment
Editor
82S Van Brunt Blvd..
84124. (816) 241-7J7T
SUth Avenue, Suite
Cmter, New York, N.V.
S«5-«370.
[Ticej: 6425 Uolli-wood Blvd.
Hollywood. Calir.. 90028. Syd
13J 465-1186.
'ice—Anthony Gruner. 1 Wood-
, FlncUey. N. 12. Telephone
33.
DDBBN THEATRE Section Is
one Issue eadi montli.
Mlttlestadt,
m C.
Chuck Boi
Ceoeileve Camp, 166 Llndbergti
K.t 30306.
Kate Savi«e. 3607 Sprlogdale
i'arren, 1 Colgate Boad,
02192.
arr, 812 E. Park Ave.
Frances B. Clow, 175 North
Oak Park. 111. 60302. Tele.
S83-8343.
Frances Hanford, 3433 Clll-
45220. Telephone 221-8654
15700 Van Aken
Uhio 14120.
47 W. Tu
: Anns Lee Fofrenherger, 3000
r*.. West Ues Moines 50265
n PhiUlps. 131 Bllloti St.,
IndBor. Ont. N9A 6V8. Tele-
618) 256-0881.
Ulco M. WIdem, 30 Pioneer
'. UarUord 06117 232-3101.
: Kohert Cornwall, 3233 Col-
Tele. (904) 389-6144.
~ T. Adams, 3041 Klrkcaldj
357-4562.
Lummus, 622 N.E. 98 St.
Willy L. Meyer. 3463 North
63206. LOcust 2-5142.
: Bill DIebl. St. Paul Dls-
I E. 4Ui St.. St. Paul. Minn.
: Maiy Greenhaum, 2303
70122.
at;: Eddie L. Greggs, 1106
-"- — Oklahoma City. Okia.
(405) 526-6734.
I Wtok. 4920 Dodge St.. 68132.
Maurle H. Orodenker, 312-W
Place, 19130. Tele. (215)
Ore.: Arnold Marks, Journal
Myra Stroud. 49S0 Oleatha
I CUjr: Keith Perry. 264 E. 1st
'— Mill. Tele. (801) 328-1641.
- Gladys Candy. 618 Cln-
78201.
: Steve Levin. Arnold Uvaral
Theatrical Co. 230 Hyde
Tele. (415) 673-2343.
Goldman. 4273 Woodland
North 98103. Telephones:
782-5833.
Vlrtlnla K. CoUier, 6112
An.. N.W. EM 2 0892.
IN CANADA
De ilcBean. 3811 Edmonton
m Cleary, AssoclatloD des
du Quebec. 3720 Van
te 4-6. H38 IZ7.
r Lyn Cormier, 1401 Prince
Ir.. Apt. 204, K2C 3J8.
W. Agnew, 274 St. John's
'IV6.
Davie, 3245 W. 12tb.
Hucal, 600-232 Por-
B3C OBI.
Audit Bureau of Circulations
except one issue at
Aisaciatcd Publications, Inc.,
"
. :tlnsa$ City, Mis-
Sabscription rates: Sectional
LOO per year; foreign $15.00.
Edition, J15.00: for.
Sinilt Copy 50c. Second
paid It Kansas City, Mo.
No. 24
25, 19 7 4
THE
IN OUR OWN BACK YARD
PARABLE about the man who
traveled all over the world in search
when he returned
of gold, only to find it
home in his own back yard, has a parallel
in this business. For years, exhibitors and
distributors have been traversing much
ground, seeking to uncover the solutions
to some of their joint problems, when
they might discover them in their own
back yards. One of these problems is competitive
bidding—not just "blind" bidding,
but any kind. A way was shown how
this might be resolved—right at home.
But that direct approach was shunned,
apparently.
We refer to a decision handed down,
away back in the spring of 1961, by the
U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals of
Massachusetts that gave approval to the
splitting of product to "avoid suicidal
competitive bidding." In our comment on
this ruling, at that time, we said that it
could be of far-reaching and beneficial
effect to the industry—IF — greed doesn't
stand in the way. But, if one party in a
competitive situation refuses to enter
into such an agreement, despite the
court's ruling that it would not be illegal,
even with distributors not being a party
thereto, what looks like a solution to an
aggravated problem will again be up in
the air.
And so it has been, becoming further
aggravated by the extension of "blind"
bidding beyond reason. Strangely, it is
the exhibitors, not the distributors, who
are at fault.
While bidding has been beneficial for
some theatres, it has its bad points.
Aside from raising the sights on film
rentals and making many deals unprofitable,
as well as unsound, it probably has
been the source of many another of the
industry's ills. Among these "side-effects,"
it has been injurious to exhibitordistributor
relations; it has built up constant
uncertainty over source of product
supply; it has delayed release of films,
often to the ultimate damage of all concerned;
it has reduced the effectiveness
of national advertising; it has adversely
affected local promotional efforts by
shortening and often eliminating sufficient
opportunity to do a proper job of advance
selling; it has taken the time of
exhibitors in creating the need of a
frenzied effort to obtain product—time
that, otherwise, could be devoted to improving
operational procedures, furthering
public relations, doing better jobs of
picture-selling and making more pictures
prove more profitable for all concerned;
it has created print shortages, another
deterrent to business and attendance
building.
In short, bidding has not proved a panacea
for producer-distributors or for exhibitors,
even for those who always
"won" the bids. Too often it has forced
extended runs in order to "break-even"
and shut out product that could have
had profitable bookings. And there is reason
to question whether the "gains"
made on winning bids, really proved so,
in the final analysis.
Bidding came in the wake of the consent
decrees and their outlawing of blockbooking.
It may have offered some advantages
to exhibitors in the intent to
relieve stringent product conditions. But,
like so many things in this business, it
was carried too far, and was found wanting.
It seems to this observer that effecting
splits of product could go a long way, not
only in easing the product problem in
innumerable situations but in helping to
eradicate other problems that resulted
from the bidding practice. In situations
where it has been put into practice, it has
been working out well for the competitive
exhibitors and also for the distributors.
Last-minute guessing neces.sitating setting
a picture two or three days before
opening has thus been averted. The exhibitors
know what pictures they will
get, far enough in advance to plan and
execute good campaigns for them, resulting
in bigger grosses and a better net return
for all concerned.
Actually, there seems to be little sense
in exhibitors vying to outbid one another
or to be induced to do so, when, usually,
an adjustment is called for to bring an
excessive bid down to a rational rental
figure. Every exhibitor must be as aware
of his theatre's potential as are the distributors
with whom he has had years of
dealings. Taking this into proper account
would conserve time, energy and
effort that might better be directed toward
business-building activity that
could uncover new veins of "gold."
\Jea>xj /OMu/t^n^^