High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

High Definition Media A place to discuss BD and UHD Content from physical and digital media

Like Tree254Likes

Optical (Blu-ray/DVD) and Digital (EST/UV) Sales Thread

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-28-2012, 06:23 PM   #2161  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Week Ending 03/24/12


Blu-ray unit marketshare

54.57% Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
52.49% The Muppets (Disney)
50.42% Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
38.19% The Sitter
36.41% Hop



Quote:
'The Muppets' Scores With Sales; ‘Tattoo’ Tops Rentals

28 Mar, 2012
By: Thomas K. Arnold


The Muppets

Walt Disney Studios topped the national home video sales charts the week ended March 25 with The Muppets, a family film that grossed $88.6 million in theaters and generated a surprising 52% of its first-week sales from Blu-ray Disc.

The Muppets debuted at No. 1 on both the Nielsen VideoScan First Alert sales chart, which tracks overall disc sales, and Nielsen’s dedicated Blu-ray Disc chart. The film also debuted at No. 4 on Home Media Magazine’s weekly video rental chart, behind Sony Pictures’ The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo at No. 1, Universal Studios’ Tower Heist, fresh off its 28-day kiosk moratorium, at No. 2, and the Sony Pictures comedy Jack and Jill at No. 3.

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which took in $102.5 million in U.S. theaters, debuted at No. 2 on both sales charts, moving 78% as many units as The Muppets, Nielsen data shows.

Bowing at No. 3, also on both sales charts, was Universal’s Hop, an Easter film that grossed $108.1 million at the box office.

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo generated 55% of its first-week sales from Blu-ray Disc, while for Hop the tally was 36%.

Warner’s Happy Feet Two, the No. 1 seller the previous week, dropped to No. 6 on First Alert, behind Paramount’s The Adventures at Tintin at No. 4 (down from No. 2) and 20th Century Fox’s newly released comedy The Sitter ($30.4 million box office) at No. 5.
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/res...-rentals-26811

Last edited by Kosty; 03-29-2012 at 01:47 AM..
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 01:39 AM   #2162  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Looks like a pretty good chance the better TBO this week is going to help out Blu-ray just looking at the pretty good Blu-ray unit marketshares and the Top 20 Index numbers of the first three leading titles.

Last edited by Kosty; 03-29-2012 at 01:53 AM..
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 01:51 AM   #2163  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Pretty high Blu-ray Unit Marketshare for two radically different genres with both the new suspense thrillers and the new family title The Muppets selling more than half of their units on Blu-ray.

Not bad for the comedy The Sitter or the Friday release of Hop either.



54.57% Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
52.49% The Muppets (Disney)
50.42% Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
38.19% The Sitter
36.41% Hop

42.96% Blu-ray Top 20 Sellers Unit Marketshare





Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 07:20 AM   #2164  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
mikemorel's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post

Code:
week                                  HMM TN top 10

5	02/04/12	02/05/12	34.85	34.85
6	02/11/12	02/12/12	54.45	55.24
7	02/18/12	02/19/12	46.77	20.65
8	02/25/12	02/26/12	36.94	35.54
9	03/03/12	03/04/12	35.10	45.67
 	
			208.11	191.95
Kosty insists The-Numbers data on a title by title basis is accurate. Kosty wants us to believe The-Numbers does copious and rigorous research with teams of data collectors, despite wild, random fluctuations and differences with HMM weekly data.

Kosty then posts this data on (not one, not two, not three, but) FOUR message boards, so that everyone can see the fruits of The-Numbers "research".

With only one week missing, The-Numbers blu-ray Top 10 have exceeded HMM sales for all blu-ray titles combined for the year by $28 million. HMM reported only $25 million in BD revenue the missing week.

Therefore, if Kosty is correct , one can only conclude that all 6000 titles in the blu-ray catalog have sold less than zero this year.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that. How do 6000 blu-ray titles achieve a NEGATIVE $28 million revenue over 10 weeks? It is a deep, philisophical conundrum, that mankind will undoubtably ponder for generations.

But Kosty says it is so - therefore it must be so.

Thanks, Kosty, for bringing to light the "blu-ray catalog Negative-Sales-Conundrum".

Code:
One week missing (1/22/2012)

Week	 	                       HMM  TN-Top-10 Difference

1	1/7/2012	1/8/2012	31.45	18.86	-40%
2	1/14/2012	1/15/2012	28.49	31.66	11%
4	1/28/2012	1/29/2012	33.55	35.95	7%
5	2/4/2012	2/5/2012	34.65	34.85	1%
6	2/11/2012	2/12/2012	54.45	55.24	1%
7	2/18/2012	2/19/2012	46.77	20.65	-56%
8	2/25/2012	2/26/2012	36.94	35.54	-4%
9	3/3/2012	3/4/2012	35.1	45.67	30%
10	3/10/2012	3/11/2012	42.16	76.54	82%
11	3/17/2012	3/18/2012	34.34	50.73	48%

Total	 	                       377.9	405.69	7%

Last edited by mikemorel; 03-29-2012 at 07:42 AM..
mikemorel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 07:38 AM   #2165  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,124
Default

Hey Mike, here is the missing week, as well as the weeks from last July onwards. It appears the trend is that The-Numbers and HMM sum up roughly equal to each other over time.

Code:
Num	HMM	Date

1,609.35	1,616.82	Total

419.65	403.76	Q12012
		
50.73	34.34	3/18/12
76.54	42.16	3/11/12
45.67	35.10	3/4/12
35.54	36.94	2/26/12
20.65	46.77	2/19/12
55.24	54.45	2/12/12
34.85	34.65	2/5/12
35.95	33.55	1/29/12
13.96	25.86	1/22/12
31.66	28.49	1/15/12
18.86	31.45	1/8/12
		

820.73	844.36	Q42011  [924.14 DEG]

30.78	43.84	1/1/12
35.80	113.52	12/25/11
58.95	89.31	12/18/11
66.74	78.63	12/11/11
36.99	55.52	12/4/11
47.15	88.28	11/27/11
57.57	39.27	11/20/11
102.39	54.22	11/13/11
78.27	49.94	11/6/11
78.89	50.49	10/30/11
73.45	61.00	10/23/11
51.43	46.42	10/16/11
102.32	73.92	10/9/11

		
368.97	368.70	Q32011  [421.86 DEG]

47.50	42.61	10/2/11
64.63	44.91	9/25/11
79.05	57.32	9/18/11
31.90	26.55	9/11/11
8.53	18.17	9/4/11
7.50	17.6	8/28/11
16.23	23.42	8/21/11
24.05	23.69	8/14/11
28.30	27.88	8/7/11
11.23	19.72	7/31/11
16.97	23.25	7/24/11
21.94	23.21	7/17/11
11.14	20.37	7/10/11
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 08:03 AM   #2166  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
mikemorel's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
Hey Mike, here is the missing week, as well as the weeks from last July onwards.
Wow. For an 11 week period, from 9/11/2011 through 11/20/2011, The-Numbers Top 10 blu-ray revenue exceeded HMM's blu-ray revenue for all titles EVERY SINGLE WEEK.

The-Numbers blu-ray top 10 estimate for those 11 weeks: $767.4M
HMM's estimate for all 6000 blu-ray titles for the same 11 weeks: $546.6M

The-Numbers, firing up the propoganda machine for 4th Quarter sales.

Last edited by mikemorel; 03-29-2012 at 11:34 AM..
mikemorel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 08:19 AM   #2167  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
GizmoDVD's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemorel View Post
Kosty insists The-Numbers data on a title by title basis is accurate. Kosty wants us to believe The-Numbers does copious and rigorous research with teams of data collectors, despite wild, random fluctuations and differences with HMM weekly data.

Kosty then posts this data on (not one, not two, not three, but) FOUR message boards, so that everyone can see the fruits of The-Numbers "research".

With only one week missing, The-Numbers blu-ray Top 10 have exceeded HMM sales for all blu-ray titles combined for the year by $28 million. HMM reported only $25 million in BD revenue the missing week.

Therefore, if Kosty is correct , one can only conclude that all 6000 titles in the blu-ray catalog have sold less than zero this year.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that. How do 6000 blu-ray titles achieve a NEGATIVE $28 million revenue over 10 weeks? It is a deep, philisophical conundrum, that mankind will undoubtably ponder for generations.

But Kosty says it is so - therefore it must be so.

Thanks, Kosty, for bringing to light the "blu-ray catalog Negative-Sales-Conundrum".
Rule of thumb - whatever agency presents Blu-ray is the best light is correct. It is 100% true and can never be challenged. Ever.
GizmoDVD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 12:14 PM   #2168  
Steelbook Addict
 
chipvideo's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 678
Default

Anyone who uses the-numbers data and spreads that data on 4 message boards has an agenda.
chipvideo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 12:14 PM   #2169  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

I routinely copy posts at those sites.

It take me literally seconds to mirror my data posts there when I update them so its not a problem.




In general terms, comparing magnitudes is the worse thing you can do between data bases. They will hardly ever match even between the most accurate or accepted professional data sources.

Magnitudes are always the most problematic thing you can do in comparing different data sources and its always far more problematic than looking at comparing the trends or internal comparisons within each database.

I'm sorry if there is some difficulty in getting the concept. I've tried to explain it the best I can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
Do you have any better unit sales and revenue estimates on a title to title basis?


............Crickets chirping.......


I thought not.


If you have any better information sources, feel free to share it.

Besides in this case, its not so much the magnitudes that is the issue but the percentage split between DVD and Blu-ray for the similar titles and we know that tracks pretty closely with HMM and Nielsen Videoscan. Even if the magnitudes are off they are still consistent for DVD over the long term of the TN database and they are still order of magnitude correct in any case. In the case of releases only a couple months apart in similar genres the internal comparisons of units and revenues would have an better validity as well.


They have been keeping tracks of DVD estimates since 2006 and both the POTC 4 and Transformers DOTM DVD and Blu-ray data is done in the same manner so its still apples to apples with the same order of magnitude scaling assumptions.

When you are comparing data points to data points within any specific data set its always more appropriate than trying to compare the magnitudes between different sources. Trends should match between different data sources more than magnitudes and internal comparisons within two data points will always have more validity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
The last five weeks besides the last one, the total of the TN top 10 estimates have been about 92% of the HMM total format revenues.

But I don't know the carry over handy from the earlier week handy in my data as I missed those weeks and have not loaded up your data.

There is some Sun-Sat vs Mon-Sun week difference there but it looks like The-Numbers estimates for revenues for Blu-ray are still running about 10% or more high compared to HMM is one makes the assumption that Blu-ray new releases are still about 80% of total Blu-ray format revenues.

I'm still being told the units are much closer but TN still goes more high on major releases as they still are probably overestimating Blu-ray revenues at Walmart.

But the order of magnitude difference does not matter in the POTC 4 vs Transformers DOTM comparison on the last page as both titles estimates have the same house effect magnitude bias and systemic error or methodology flaw. Still apples to apples internal to the database.

The issue is always worse when comparing magnitudes between two different databases, not using internal comparisons or looking at the trends.


Code:
week ending                      HMM  TN top 10

5	02/04/12	02/05/12	34.85	34.85
6	02/11/12	02/12/12	54.45	55.24
7	02/18/12	02/19/12	46.77	20.65
8	02/25/12	02/26/12	36.94	35.54
9	03/03/12	03/04/12	35.10	45.67
 	
			208.11	191.95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
Again the issue is the difficulty of comparing magnitudes in the estimates from any two data sources. Its always a bad idea to do that for any source, be it NPD Nielsen Videoscan iSuppli Displaysearch Rentrak, FutureSource or any other industry aggregation source. Especially true for any short turnaround or weekly results and involving Walmart with the difficulty of getting their numbers. Revenues are always more problematic than units as there are less crosschecks of the data from things like produced and shipped information that can be less restrictive than sales revenues.

Its also more valid to compare the general trends between different data sources and for data points between them that looking at magnitude variations between two different data sources.

Its clear that the house bias in the methodology between the The-Numbers revenue estimates for Blu-ray and the HMM vendor numbers for Blu-ray show a clear higher estimate for Blu-ray in the TN data with a somewhat lower bias for the HMM data which all of last year trended below the DEG data as well.

The data last year from HMM also trended low for the most accurate accepted figures we had all last year the DEG data, so its not surprising that another database like The-Numbers would trend higher than the HMM data and closer to the DEG's higher figures as well. For example in the 4Q 2011 timeframe the DEG data was 8% higher than the weekly cumulative rollup of the HMM data which means the HMM data was probably conservatively too low. The-Numbers data being higher than HMM in that period was probably more accurate or at least closer to the industry accepted DEG data which was higher than HMM.

I do understand your bias to find comfort in the lower data you could find and have skepticism over any larger sales numbers for Blu-ray or any data in general that shows Blu-ray in a positive light. If its any comfort, I think the The-Numbers data is somewhat high as well for revenues but mostly consistent but more accurate for units. I have been told that they are more accurate for title cumulative sales in the long run and for units in general as that is what there database is best designed to do in the long term lifecycle cumulative numbers. In particular I think they have difficulty in the revenue estimate of high volume skus at Walmart which is not uncommon. But again just because the magnitudes do not agree with other sources it does not mean the entire data set is invalid or that the trends or internal comparisons of data within the database is worthless or not useful.

4Q 2011 HMM BD Revenue -8.63% under DEG
3Q 2011 HMM BD Revenue -8.10% under DEG
2Q 2011 HMM BD Revenue -2.69% under DEG
1Q 2011 HMM BD Revenue -0.60% under DEG


The vast majority of Blu-ray releases in total do far less than the recent Blu-ray releases and the Top 10 titles captured by the The-Numbers Top 10 Blu-ray list. Its possible that other than the Top 10 titles still only in total do 20% of the revenues anyway so if the HMM data is 10% low and the TN data is 10% high those two databases being still reasonably accurate estimates of 10% of true would still have enough slack in the magnitudes to cover most of the non new release day and date volumes.

In any case a better determination would be made over a longer period of time and in the weeks I just looked at since Feb its a bit closer than the last couple weeks you just pointed out where it does appear at first glance that the TN estimate is much higher than the HMM vendor data.

But the trends are the same even if the magnitudes are not that consistent. Comparisons within the databases done with the same methodology still would be more valid as they would have the same house biases.

I'm sorry if you do not recognize that concept.

In any case, The-Numbers data is the only by title information we have for units and revenues and as its consistent for DVD and Blu-ray now as a long term set of published data comparisons between titles and for longer term trends that are apples to apples in the same dataset.

Last edited by Kosty; 03-29-2012 at 01:30 PM..
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 12:51 PM   #2170  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

I stated very clearly that the vast majority of the almost Blu-ray titles on a weekly basis do relatively little volumes and generate much less revenues than the most recent day and date Blu-ray releases. Most of the new release revenues is also concentrated in the Top 10 Blu-ray titles for each week that The-Numbers captures.

So the residual revenues that we are looking for after we take out and account for the Top 10 Blu-ray releases on the The-Numbers weekly list is a smaller fraction of the total. We are looking for around 20% or so of the magnitude to account for the sales of those other 6000 titles as the new releases are probably generating 80% of the revenues.

I have also quite clearly stated that these are estimates only and the magnitudes are the metric that are the most problematic in comparing with other data sources. But The-Numbers is the only source we have that is not NDA for us to openly talk about. The best use of any data from any source is to use it for relative comparisons internally to data points within the same data source or for trending over time.

I have clearly stated that I think that the house bias in The-Numbers data for Blu-ray revenues is high and that it seems likely that stems from the difficulty in getting a weekly estimate of the varied price points and revenues generated from Walmart sales for Blu-ray. Its more likely that the units are closer and their long term DVD estimates since 2006 are more accurate.

In any case, being 10% of true or the DEG data is not a bad result and we also know that the HMM vendor data last year and in years past has trended low below the DEG data as well. So if you are directly comparing with the weekly HMM estimates one should expect the The-Numbers to be trending higher than the HMM data as we know the HMM data trends low to DEG.

Quote:
With only one week missing, The-Numbers blu-ray Top 10 have exceeded HMM sales for all blu-ray titles combined for the year by $28 million. HMM reported only $25 million in BD revenue the missing week.

Therefore, if Kosty is correct , one can only conclude that all 6000 titles in the blu-ray catalog have sold less than zero this year.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that. How do 6000 blu-ray titles achieve a NEGATIVE $28 million revenue over 10 weeks? It is a deep, philisophical conundrum, that mankind will undoubtably ponder for generations.
$28 M is 6.9% of the reported $403.76 of the HMM estimate for the period.

Ignoring for a moment the issue of the different periods covered and the range offset we have the issue that the HMM data in 2011 was under DEG for the year. HMM was about 8% under the HMM data for 4Q 2011.

Any time you look at shorter periods of time you are looking at greater variations as well.

But I am not the one trying to compare magnitudes, that's always problematic. I am using the The-Numbers data here in the best way any data base of long term data should be used in relative comparisons between data points of data within the data base. Or I am using it in another valid manner in looking at the long term trends.

When I am using it as a source, its with the assumption that it is an estimate with a reasonable margin of error, in this case they only claim its within 10% accurate in any case based on the difficulties of gathering the data from Walmart and for specific titles and they openly admit and identify that their goal is less in the short term weekly results than with the longer term cumulative totals and in comparisons between titles and genres not in the weekly results.

The best use of the data is in relative comparisons and trending and any use of the magnitudes are with the understanding that it is an estimate as well. Any magnitude comparisons with other sources will always be problematic. I am using the data correctly and its you that is misusing it in comparison with another data source.

In any case, The-Numbers or Nash Information Services is not saying that the other 6000 titles are not showing any sales revenues. That's your own reality distortion field. Their Opusdata database certainly shows those titles as having additional revenues above what they have published for their weekly Top 10 Blu-ray results. They just have those totals as additional revenues and their magnitudes of total Blu-ray format sales for the period is just at a higher magnitude that HMM is estimating for the same period.

I think its probable that The-Numbers consistently is high for estimating Blu-ray revenues and especially high for estimating Blu-ray revenues for high volume titles like Twilight Saga that do a lot of unit volume at Walmart. That was also a dominant title in this period so that house effect is a bit larger than usual as well.

The usefulness of the The-Numbers data for our usage is that it is internally consistent and is the only per title data that we have for individual title unit and revenue data and it is discreet data on a weekly basis. It shows the relative relationship between titles as well.

That's the best use of it along with seeing the trends over time which match the other data sources we have.

Expecting the magnitudes of the estimates to match other data sources with different methodologies, sources and more time to gather data is not reasonable at all.

I agree with you that the magnitudes of the weekly estimates for The-Numbers trends high but the data is still useful if you use it correctly for relative comparisons between titles and trends or in giving an order of magnitude scaling to the index numbers and relationships between titles from Nielsen Videoscan that do not give magnitudes deliberately but only index numbers.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemorel View Post
Kosty insists The-Numbers data on a title by title basis is accurate. Kosty wants us to believe The-Numbers does copious and rigorous research with teams of data collectors, despite wild, random fluctuations and differences with HMM weekly data.

Kosty then posts this data on (not one, not two, not three, but) FOUR message boards, so that everyone can see the fruits of The-Numbers "research".

With only one week missing, The-Numbers blu-ray Top 10 have exceeded HMM sales for all blu-ray titles combined for the year by $28 million. HMM reported only $25 million in BD revenue the missing week.

Therefore, if Kosty is correct , one can only conclude that all 6000 titles in the blu-ray catalog have sold less than zero this year.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that. How do 6000 blu-ray titles achieve a NEGATIVE $28 million revenue over 10 weeks? It is a deep, philisophical conundrum, that mankind will undoubtably ponder for generations.

But Kosty says it is so - therefore it must be so.

Thanks, Kosty, for bringing to light the "blu-ray catalog Negative-Sales-Conundrum".

Code:
One week missing (1/22/2012)

Week	 	                       HMM  TN-Top-10 Difference

1	1/7/2012	1/8/2012	31.45	18.86	-40%
2	1/14/2012	1/15/2012	28.49	31.66	11%
4	1/28/2012	1/29/2012	33.55	35.95	7%
5	2/4/2012	2/5/2012	34.65	34.85	1%
6	2/11/2012	2/12/2012	54.45	55.24	1%
7	2/18/2012	2/19/2012	46.77	20.65	-56%
8	2/25/2012	2/26/2012	36.94	35.54	-4%
9	3/3/2012	3/4/2012	35.1	45.67	30%
10	3/10/2012	3/11/2012	42.16	76.54	82%
11	3/17/2012	3/18/2012	34.34	50.73	48%

Total	 	                       377.9	405.69	7%
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 01:01 PM   #2171  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GizmoDVD View Post
Rule of thumb - whatever agency presents Blu-ray is the best light is correct. It is 100% true and can never be challenged. Ever.
That is grossly misstating my position. I never said that.

I never have asserted the data from The-Numbers is 100% true and cannot be challenged. In fact I personally think its at least 10% high if not more for revenues for Blu-ray over time and in some weeks its far more than that above other sources.

I've been told its much more accurate for units over time and that the biggest problem they understandably have is estimating weekly revenues from Walmart especially for high volume titles. But I understand that its just an estimate with limitations and that some individual weeks are more problematic than others.

I consistently report and use the same data all the time no matter what it shows. I've reported, DEG, The-Numbers data for Blu-ray and HMM's figures every week good and bad ever since we have the data published and look at the long term trends in context.

If you find anymore weekly data sets, I'll keep track of them as well.

More data is always better.

Last edited by Kosty; 03-29-2012 at 03:34 PM..
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 01:07 PM   #2172  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipvideo View Post
Anyone who uses the-numbers data and spreads that data on 4 message boards has an agenda.
Its their data, I did not create it.

I only use it as its the only and best data we have for individual title sales on a weekly or longer term basis.

The best use of it is for internal comparisons between titles and for trending over time.

Even if the magnitudes of the estimates are problematic or have more issues in the short term use of the data in relative terms still has validity and in any case is the best data available and better than not using any data at all to support an argument or discussion.

Stating arguments based on your opinion only without any evidence to support your conclusions or assumptions seems to have an agenda as well.
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 01:21 PM   #2173  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

HMM is also consistently low compared to DEG as well.

It really seems to indicate that the The-Numbers Blu-ray estimates are consistently high to the accepted standard of DEG and the HMM estimates tend to be low in those higher volume periods.

So its likely that the unknown true magnitudes are probably in between the HMM vendor and The-Number Nash Information Services methodologies.

Its probably a fair assumption to assume that the The-Numbers revenues estimates on a routine basis are at least 10% high and can be more problematic on high volume weeks with large amounts of units sold at Walmart.

Its also probably a fair assumption that the cumulative weekly HMM vendor revenues are also somewhat low to the DEG quarterly figures as well.

The HMM data is meant and is published first as a weekly estimate and its really only me and bruceames that have keep track of it over time in cumulative terms for our discussion. The HMM data was never really intended to be used as cumulative totals, its just that HMM has accepted us doing that over time. But HMM does not even give out quarterly or annual numbers any more as it defers to using the DEG data, so our cumulative HMM totals are more informal than official anyway.

The DEG estimates and magnitudes are also not set in stone as they are estimates as well and occasionally have been revised as well in magnitude throughout the years. The HMM estimate still is slightly revised as well on a weekly basis even for last years data.

But even if the magnitudes are high or low for either the HMM or TN estimates compared to the DEG estimates, it seems that the house biases are consistent over time and over longer periods of time.



Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
Hey Mike, here is the missing week, as well as the weeks from last July onwards. It appears the trend is that The-Numbers and HMM sum up roughly equal to each other over time.

Code:
Num	HMM	Date

1,609.35	1,616.82	Total

419.65	403.76	Q12012
		
50.73	34.34	3/18/12
76.54	42.16	3/11/12
45.67	35.10	3/4/12
35.54	36.94	2/26/12
20.65	46.77	2/19/12
55.24	54.45	2/12/12
34.85	34.65	2/5/12
35.95	33.55	1/29/12
13.96	25.86	1/22/12
31.66	28.49	1/15/12
18.86	31.45	1/8/12
		

820.73	844.36	Q42011  [924.14 DEG]

30.78	43.84	1/1/12
35.80	113.52	12/25/11
58.95	89.31	12/18/11
66.74	78.63	12/11/11
36.99	55.52	12/4/11
47.15	88.28	11/27/11
57.57	39.27	11/20/11
102.39	54.22	11/13/11
78.27	49.94	11/6/11
78.89	50.49	10/30/11
73.45	61.00	10/23/11
51.43	46.42	10/16/11
102.32	73.92	10/9/11

		
368.97	368.70	Q32011  [421.86 DEG]

47.50	42.61	10/2/11
64.63	44.91	9/25/11
79.05	57.32	9/18/11
31.90	26.55	9/11/11
8.53	18.17	9/4/11
7.50	17.6	8/28/11
16.23	23.42	8/21/11
24.05	23.69	8/14/11
28.30	27.88	8/7/11
11.23	19.72	7/31/11
16.97	23.25	7/24/11
21.94	23.21	7/17/11
11.14	20.37	7/10/11

Last edited by Kosty; 03-29-2012 at 03:36 PM..
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 05:28 PM   #2174  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
Malanthius's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 843
Default

Nobody questioned how long it took you to post on all those sites. They questioned "why" you would do it knowing how inaccurate the data was.

And yes, you have made yourself very clear. You will disregard those inaccuracies. As long as they make Bluray look better. That's very clear. Here's a novel idea. How about not using data you know is grossly wrong? And how about not plastering it on multiple sites? I can see bringing it up in a discussion. But you plaster those numbers like they are fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
I routinely copy posts at those sites.

It take me literally seconds to mirror my data posts there when I update them so its not a problem.




In general terms, comparing magnitudes is the worse thing you can do between data bases. They will hardly ever match even between the most accurate or accepted professional data sources.

Magnitudes are always the most problematic thing you can do in comparing different data sources and its always far more problematic than looking at comparing the trends or internal comparisons within each database.

I'm sorry if there is some difficulty in getting the concept. I've tried to explain it the best I can.
Malanthius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 06:35 PM   #2175  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malanthius View Post
Nobody questioned how long it took you to post on all those sites. They questioned "why" you would do it knowing how inaccurate the data was.

And yes, you have made yourself very clear. You will disregard those inaccuracies. As long as they make Bluray look better. That's very clear. Here's a novel idea. How about not using data you know is grossly wrong? And how about not plastering it on multiple sites? I can see bringing it up in a discussion. But you plaster those numbers like they are fact.
Well at least on this site it has been exposed as grossly wrong. If Kosty wants to post it anyway, then all one can do is continue to point out that it's bad data. It only takes looking at the above table to see how ridiculously high and wildly inconsistent (with HMM) it is.
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:28 PM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands