Drive-Ins.com
> > > >

1950-51 Theatre Catalog, 9th Edition, Page 151 (131)

1950-51 Theatre Catalog, 9th Edition
1950-51 Theatre Catalog
1950-51 Theatre Catalog, 9th Edition, Page 151
Page 151


1950-51 Theatre Catalog, 9th Edition, Page 151

MINIMUM AVERAGE AVERAGE MILES MILES

MAXIMUM AVERAGE MILES



FIGURE 7. Average traveling distances in miles traveled (rom the patron's home regardless of direction during 1950 (open graph) as contrasted to the preceding 1949 (shaded graph).

7. From the standpoint of time of

performance:

Patrons Who Attend Only Drive-Ins During Summer

Time of Perf.

Weekday lst Perf. 31.7% \Veekday 2nd " 27.3 Weekend lst N 30.2 Weekend 2nd " 25.7

8. 51% (42%) of all patrons reported that they attend driveins 2most often."

9. 35% (43%) reported that they attend neighborhood theatres "most often."

10. 14% (15%) reported that they attend 2100p," first run theatres ttmost oftenBi

11. From the standpoint of time of

performance:

. Drive- Neigh- "Loop"

Tlme 0f Perf' In borhoodlst Run

Weekday lst Perf. 57.2% 28.5% 17.0% Weekday 2nd " 49.3 39.9 10.8 Weekend lst " 53.4 34.2 11.9 Weekend 2nd " 43.6 39.0 17.4

12. 62.5% (58%) of the average

patronis total movie attendance was at drive-in theatres.

FIGURE 8. Series of attendance analysis of the patrons studied during 1950 (open graph) as contrasted to the preceding 1949 (shaded graph).

DRIVE-IN ATTENDANCE AVVENDONLV CONTRASVED TOTOVAL DNIVE-INSIN

ATTENDING DRIVE-IN FOR

MOVIE GOING FIRSTTIME

SUMMER



1950-51 THEATRE CATALOG

13. From the standpoint of time of

performance: . Percentage of Drive-In T'me 0f Pe'f' Attendance to Total Weekday lst Perf. 65.8% Weekday 2nd " 49.0 Weekend lst " 64.4 Weekend 2nd " 52.7

14. 18% (3.2%) of all patrons had a television set in their homes.

15. 82% (96.8%) had no television set in their homes.

16. From the standpoint of time of

performance:

Time of Pei-f. Patrons with Television

Weekday lst Perf. 18.1% Weekday 2nd 2 22.8 Weekend lst 't 17.3 Weekend 2nd " 20.5

Significance

A further increase occurred in the already great distance which the typical patron is apparently willing to drive to attend a drive-in theatre. This distance, 8.8 miles (7.4), indicates the strong attraction which drive-ins represent to their patronsepatrons who in most cases could attend one or more conventional theatres closer to their homes. As was true in 1949, weekday first-performance patrons do not come from as far away as do most weekend and second-performance patrons. It would appear, however, that a significant share of all patrons represents the non-conventional theatregoing public, a fact indicated by the data regarding age, family status, attendance, and theatre and product preference.

The data concerning attendance originating from within and without the cities, limits indicate that suburban and rural patrons from outside the cities limits attend drive-in theatres particularly on weekends, a course of action which is logical in View of the time and distance factors. As a partial result, average distances travelled are greatest for weekend performances, although it can also be expected that patrons from within the cities are willing to drive further during weekends when the time, work, and school factors are not so important.

While there probably has been no actual decrease in the numbers of patrons who attend drive-ins exclusively during the summer, there has been a small decrease percentage-wise, from 30% of all patrons in 1949 to 28.5% in 1950. As might be expected, such patrons are predominant during first performances when family patronage is relatively great. In a further effort to uncover evidence regarding the sharing of patronage between conventional and drive-in theatres, patrons were later asked which type of theatre they attend "most often." In reply, 51% (41.8%) of all patrons named drive-in theatres. Accordingly, neighborhood theatres dropped to 35% (42.8%), and "loop," first-run theatres to 14% (15.4%). As a result of the comparative gain made by drive-in theatres, approximately 62.5% (58%) of the average patronls total movie attendance during the summer took place at drivein theatres.

Although it appears that neighborhood theatres lost somewhat more patronage to drive-in theatres than did "loop," firstrun theatres, the time of performance data indicate that the opposite is more nearly the truth in the case of weekday

MOST OFTEN MOST OFTEN MOST OFTEN DRIVE-IN TNEATRES NABE. TNEATRES DOWN TOWN FIRST RUNS



FIGURE 9. Analysis of type not theatres "most oiten" attended by the drive-in patrons studied in 1950 (open graph) as contrasted to 1949.

second-performance patrons and weekend flrst-performance patrons. The explanation for this may lie in part in the defection of some youthful patrons and some family groups who previously attended 2100p," first-run theatres during such periods.

However, the usually reliable data regarding percentage of drive-in attendance to total attendance permit the general conclusion to be drawn that firstperformance patrons, whether found at drive-ins on weekdays or weekends, are measurably more faithful outdoor theatre patrons than are those found attending second performances. The least

FIGURE 10. Relationship of television sets owned by the drive-in patrons studied dun'ng 1950 (open graph) as contrasted to 1949 (shaded graph).

00 No? OWN A T.V. SET



13'!
1950-51 Theatre Catalog, 9th Edition, Page 151