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

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource > High Definition DVDs & Movies > High Definition Media
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 RSS - High Definition Media

Like Tree249Likes

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

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-14-2012, 06:07 PM   #3286
Super Moderator
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,083
Default

So what about that list of $50-$100 million titles that is chock full of Blu-ray favorable titles compared to last year? Is that why you're not counting them? Do they not cancel out the bias in the $100 million+ list? After all, we just what two $70 million titles can do to two $100 million plus titles.

Why are these butt-kicking titles not on your list?
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 06:09 PM   #3287
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
So when you are going to update your $100 million list that you claim is the best variable? Better than my $25+ million AND the TBO. Are you going to make an exception for John Carter?
I did not realize it was going to be something that I was going to update each week. We haven't got the revenue results for 6/10/12 yet in yet.

I like all of the various ways we have looking at the data , including toal cumulative TBO and $25 M titles. $25 M is a good break for seeing titles that have national impact on home video sales.

I liked $100 M as it was fairly simple and explained the results we have seen so far better than some other variables.

John Carter and Act of Valor at $70 M or so box office would not make an $100 M list at any rate.

Perhaps after we get the results in for next week, I'll look to see if there are other logical breaks in the box office performance that are more inclusive than $100 M but more discriminating than $25 M that are explanatory to the results we have seen.

But as the year goes along and we get more variability in releases and more genres and box office performing titles in the mix its all going to converge a lot by the end of the year no matter how we sort the data anyway.
__________________
.
"A lot of good arguments are spoiled by some fool who knows what he is talking about." - Miguel de Unamuno

"I understand the concept of optimism. But I think with me what you get is a lack of cynicism." - Tom Hanks

"I don't think you lead by pessimism and cynicism. I think you lead by optimism and enthusiasm and energy." - Patricia Ireland
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 06:14 PM   #3288
Super Moderator
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
I liked $100 M as it was fairly simple and explained the results we have seen so far better than some other variables.
But that's not the case at all when you bring in the missing evidence. The $50-100 million list together with the $100 million plus list clearly shows a balanced genre and strength mix so that the TBO can be taken at face value.

Your exclusion of these titles by portraying only the $100 million list as representative is very misleading. Cherry picking at its finest.
chipvideo likes this.
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 06:16 PM   #3289
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
So what about that list of $50-$100 million titles that is chock full of Blu-ray favorable titles compared to last year? Is that why you're not counting them? Do they not cancel out the bias in the $100 million+ list? After all, we just what two $70 million titles can do to two $100 million plus titles.

Why are these butt-kicking titles not on your list?
...err, they were on a list I made. Just not on a $100 M + plus list as they did not reach that threshold of performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
But that's not the case at all when you bring in the missing evidence. The $50-100 million list together with the $100 million plus list clearly shows a balanced genre and strength mix so that the TBO can be taken at face value.

Your exclusion of these titles by portraying only the $100 million list as representative is very misleading. Cherry picking at its finest.
But those two lists combined do not explain the results we have seen now do they?

What is this accusation of my motivations here? I created that table as well when we were talking about the data.

How is it cherry picking if I'm offering an explanation by use of that grouping of major releases that is a better explanation for the results we have seen so far this years than some of the facts you have presented? I'm not sure that I ever stated that the $100 M list by genre and Blu-ray marketshare was "more representative".

I think I have simply stated what seems obvious to me that it at the time was offering a better explanation for the results we have seen to date in the year than the lists you were showing. Of course an all inclusive list is "more representative" if its a census of everything, but that does not make it better correlated to the results we have seen this year.

You are the one who keeps saying words to the effect that you are perplexed that the Blu-ray or DVD sales performance this year does not match the cumulative TBO or longer lists we have talked about, not me. Its not my fault that the list of $100 M titles and genre's and their BD marketshares is better correlated to the results we have seen than the broader lists.

The issue was what grouping was more explanatory to the results we have observed this year. That list and the $25 M list as well as the all TBO were simply not as well correlated to the results we have seen so far this year as much as the over $100 M list was.

Its you that has this obsession with using TBO as a predictive factor for home video performance, not me. Its simply not as simple as you want it to be in explaining home video results with adding up the cumulative TBO or using any grouping of similar performing titles.

The box office performance of a particular title gives broad performance indicators to how it will perform on how video but its not the only factor by any means.
__________________
.
"A lot of good arguments are spoiled by some fool who knows what he is talking about." - Miguel de Unamuno

"I understand the concept of optimism. But I think with me what you get is a lack of cynicism." - Tom Hanks

"I don't think you lead by pessimism and cynicism. I think you lead by optimism and enthusiasm and energy." - Patricia Ireland

Last edited by Kosty; 06-14-2012 at 07:21 PM..
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2012, 08:43 AM   #3290
Super Moderator
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
...err, they were on a list I made. Just not on a $100 M + plus list as they did not reach that threshold of performance.
You mean the list I made that you color coded? And collectively they did almost reach the level of performance of the $100 million plus list.

Quote:
But those two lists combined do not explain the results we have seen now do they?
Why don't they? Those two lists combined show a balance genre mix, but apparently that's not the result you're looking for.

Quote:
What is this accusation of my motivations here? I created that table as well when we were talking about the data.

How is it cherry picking if I'm offering an explanation by use of that grouping of major releases that is a better explanation for the results we have seen so far this years than some of the facts you have presented? I'm not sure that I ever stated that the $100 M list by genre and Blu-ray marketshare was "more representative".
You said it was a few times, that it was more representative than using the $25 or $50 million plus lists (as those "tiny" titles were misleading) or the TBO or both.

Quote:
I think I have simply stated what seems obvious to me that it at the time was offering a better explanation for the results we have seen to date in the year than the lists you were showing. Of course an all inclusive list is "more representative" if its a census of everything, but that does not make it better correlated to the results we have seen this year.
Blu-ray's growth has been in decline for two years. This year is no exception. That sounds like a logical explanation to me. It's DVD's performance that seems to defy explanation. Blu-ray is normal or just slighty below normal. Perhaps DVD just had a really bad Q1 last year. After all, it was down 30% YoY for the quarter. I'm not seeing anything in the genre mix as being bias against Blu-ray. At least not when you look at the bigger list and account for the BO weight of each title (which I did in an earlier post).

Quote:
You are the one who keeps saying words to the effect that you are perplexed that the Blu-ray or DVD sales performance this year does not match the cumulative TBO or longer lists we have talked about, not me. Its not my fault that the list of $100 M titles and genre's and their BD marketshares is better correlated to the results we have seen than the broader lists.
Using the $100 million plus as an example why the Blu-ray and DVD growth are not that far apart would be legit if the $50-$100 million titles weren't so heavily biased in favor of Blu-ray. Besides, we just got two $70 million titles that outsold two more $100 million titles. You have to look at the bias of all the titles, not just the top few and then just assume the rest are not bias the other way or that the bias is not significant.

Quote:
The issue was what grouping was more explanatory to the results we have observed this year. That list and the $25 M list as well as the all TBO were simply not as well correlated to the results we have seen so far this year as much as the over $100 M list was.

Its you that has this obsession with using TBO as a predictive factor for home video performance, not me. Its simply not as simple as you want it to be in explaining home video results with adding up the cumulative TBO or using any grouping of similar performing titles.

The box office performance of a particular title gives broad performance indicators to how it will perform on how video but its not the only factor by any means.
You're the one who coined the term "box office matters", did you not? I haven't heard you use it hardly at all this year. Maybe you should change it to "over $100 million box office matters"?

Again, you're trying to find the answer to the small BD-DVD YoY delta in the genre bias against Blu-ray. When you look at the big picture, you'll find it is not there. It's probable that DVD just had an unusually steep fall last year and that the growth decline is stabilizing.
chipvideo, Dave J and Malanthius like this.

Last edited by bruceames; 06-15-2012 at 09:03 AM..
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2012, 10:47 AM   #3291
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

It seems clear that you will see what you want to see anyway.


Quote:
You're the one who coined the term "box office matters", did you not?
Box office certainly matters and so does the strength and genre mix of the releases. I usually have said IIRC "releases matter" to show that. The TBO clearly matters when its a huge discrepancy as we have seen in the 2Q statistics to date as that overcomes the nuances involved with individual releases.

This week with Act of Valor and John Carter and Safe House is the first time all year that we have seen a group of Blu-ray friendly genre movies with reasonable box office performance get released on home video. The only other really strong Blu-ray title with MI4 was all by its lonesome.

It will be interesting to see what the results will be in the next few weeks when this weeks releases second sales week cascade onto Sherlock Holmes release week and beyond.

The simple fact remains is that the census of the better performing titles by market share and genre gives a better explanation for the observed results we have seen this year than the more inclusive more balanced listings of all the cumulative TBO or the $ 25 M titles.

Like I said, the TBO is just one factor to consider. The next few weeks will probably show that clearly as the TBO is not going to change much but the strength and genre of titles will probably affect the statistics anyway.
__________________
.
"A lot of good arguments are spoiled by some fool who knows what he is talking about." - Miguel de Unamuno

"I understand the concept of optimism. But I think with me what you get is a lack of cynicism." - Tom Hanks

"I don't think you lead by pessimism and cynicism. I think you lead by optimism and enthusiasm and energy." - Patricia Ireland
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2012, 11:26 AM   #3292
Super Moderator
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
It seems clear that you will see what you want to see anyway.
At least I'm looking at the entire picture.

Quote:
Box office certainly matters and so does the strength and genre mix of the releases. I usually have said IIRC "releases matter" to show that. The TBO clearly matters when its a huge discrepancy as we have seen in the 2Q statistics to date as that overcomes the nuances involved with individual releases.
Sounds to me like you think box office matters more when it's down than when it's up (like in Q1).

[/quote]
The simple fact remains is that the census of the better performing titles by market share and genre gives a better explanation for the observed results we have seen this year than the more inclusive more balanced listings of all the cumulative TBO or the $ 25 M titles.[/quote]

That is your opinion, and it is false. Using the more inclusive list and accounting for the relative BO strength of each movies is the only way to get a complete picture of the box office effect.

Quote:
Like I said, the TBO is just one factor to consider. The next few weeks will probably show that clearly as the TBO is not going to change much but the strength and genre of titles will probably affect the statistics anyway.
And you have already stated that TBO is not as important as the list of $100 million plus movies. Again, that's your opinion. I think most people would agree that it's better too see the whole forest rather than just the tallest trees. After all, there are only a few tall trees, but many smaller ones.
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2012, 11:51 AM   #3293
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

I not sure if I said that $100 M titles are "more important" as much as they explain more the home video performance we have seen more than the more comprehensive lists we can create.

The total TBO does not differentiate on the relative strength and genre of the titles either which are important variables on how a given title performs on home video.

For example, titles under $25 M or especially under $10 million do not contribute many units sold at all relative to larger titles but they incrementally add to the TBO strength. Some titles effectively hit a sweet spot where their box office performance more effectively translates into home video sales results. Other titles , say with a lot of 3D ticket bonus revenues or a lot of cult following fanboy or fangirl repeat viewing "waste" a lot of their theatrical box office strength as those factors do not affect butts in seats or more individual consumer demand for the numbers of interested consumers.

The TBO is important but its a rough predictive variable factor for home video sales at best. Its a clue and not much more. Its really only predictive when its at one extreme or another.
__________________
.
"A lot of good arguments are spoiled by some fool who knows what he is talking about." - Miguel de Unamuno

"I understand the concept of optimism. But I think with me what you get is a lack of cynicism." - Tom Hanks

"I don't think you lead by pessimism and cynicism. I think you lead by optimism and enthusiasm and energy." - Patricia Ireland
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2012, 05:23 PM   #3294
Super Moderator
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
I not sure if I said that $100 M titles are "more important" as much as they explain more the home video performance we have seen more than the more comprehensive lists we can create.

The total TBO does not differentiate on the relative strength and genre of the titles either which are important variables on how a given title performs on home video.

For example, titles under $25 M or especially under $10 million do not contribute many units sold at all relative to larger titles but they incrementally add to the TBO strength. Some titles effectively hit a sweet spot where their box office performance more effectively translates into home video sales results. Other titles , say with a lot of 3D ticket bonus revenues or a lot of cult following fanboy or fangirl repeat viewing "waste" a lot of their theatrical box office strength as those factors do not affect butts in seats or more individual consumer demand for the numbers of interested consumers.

The TBO is important but its a rough predictive variable factor for home video sales at best. Its a clue and not much more. Its really only predictive when its at one extreme or another.
Fortunately it's not at one extreme or the other, so it is predictive. Furthermore, the strength and mix for this time of year is normal. You seem to be going a little out of your way to discredit TBO or at least downplay it. Perhaps it's because the forecast is for BO to be up in the next few months and you won't need it as an excuse nor want to credit box office for any improved BD performance. But be careful because it won't be sustainable and you'll be wanting to reach for that card in your back pocket when it's down again.

And speaking of throwing metrics under the bus, I noticed at HTF that you're essentially equating the accuracy of HMM to The-Numbers. That's doing a serious disservice to your friends at HMM.

Last edited by bruceames; 06-15-2012 at 05:31 PM..
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2012, 06:16 PM   #3295
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
Fortunately it's not at one extreme or the other, so it is predictive. Furthermore, the strength and mix for this time of year is normal. You seem to be going a little out of your way to discredit TBO or at least downplay it. Perhaps it's because the forecast is for BO to be up in the next few months and you won't need it as an excuse nor want to credit box office for any improved BD performance. But be careful because it won't be sustainable and you'll be wanting to reach for that card in your back pocket when it's down again.

And speaking of throwing metrics under the bus, I noticed at HTF that you're essentially equating the accuracy of HMM to The-Numbers. That's doing a serious disservice to your friends at HMM.

I have been saying for months now that the TBO will rise this year as the 2012 theatrical releases hit home video. Of course better releases will help the Blu-ray and home video sales number as the year moves along, just like they helped the early 1Q numbers. Releases matter.

That's why I think predicting that Blu-ray will only be at 10% YoY growth at the end of the year as some of the gang here has stated, is premature and kinda silly. Just looking at the 2012 releases in the pipeline show that the current massive 2Q TBO deficit is not going to be sustained.

BTW I have no idea what they obsession is with you guys calling every discussion or analysis of things an "excuse".

That seems to be a cop cop out in the discussion and a symptom of your biases and assumptions that tends to make any point of view that differs from your own suspect.

I simply think that box office performance is one major factor for home video performance and is certainly important in the longer term or longer time frames, but its a poor determinant of box office performance by itself in shorter time periods or in this seasonal time of the year. Especially if you are just looking at it in isolation as you seem to want to do lately without regard to genre or differentiating between the different class of releases.
__________________
.
"A lot of good arguments are spoiled by some fool who knows what he is talking about." - Miguel de Unamuno

"I understand the concept of optimism. But I think with me what you get is a lack of cynicism." - Tom Hanks

"I don't think you lead by pessimism and cynicism. I think you lead by optimism and enthusiasm and energy." - Patricia Ireland
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2012, 06:28 PM   #3296
Super Moderator
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
I have been saying for months now that the TBO will rise this year as the 2012 theatrical releases hit home video. Of course better releases will help the Blu-ray and home video sales number as the year moves along, just like they helped the early 1Q numbers. Releases matter.

That's why I think predicting that Blu-ray will only be at 10% YoY growth at the end of the year as some of the gang here has stated, is premature and kinda silly. Just looking at the 2012 releases in the pipeline show that the current massive 2Q TBO deficit is not going to be sustained.
I don't know what the box office YoY is going to end up. But under the par box office conditions we have now, growth is 10%. Any prediction I (and the others as well) would have made would have been made under par conditions. Obviously if the box office is up, then Blu-ray will be up more than 10%. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, but growth fueled by unusual box office conditions is not really true growth unless the BO growth is sustainable (which we know it's not).
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2012, 06:39 PM   #3297
Super Moderator
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
BTW I have no idea what they obsession is with you guys calling every discussion or analysis of things an "excuse".

That seems to be a cop cop out in the discussion and a symptom of your biases and assumptions that tends to make any point of view that differs from your own suspect.
I'm not copping out of any of the discussion that I'm aware of. You seem to be getting a little defensive regarding a relatively tame word. And actually they are excuses, but if the word bothers you so much I can use a euphemism.

And if anybody overuses not-so-flattering words or phrases, it would be yourself, especially with "biases and assumptions".
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2012, 06:42 PM   #3298
Super Moderator
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
I simply think that box office performance is one major factor for home video performance and is certainly important in the longer term or longer time frames, but its a poor determinant of box office performance by itself in shorter time periods or in this seasonal time of the year. Especially if you are just looking at it in isolation as you seem to want to do lately without regard to genre or differentiating between the different class of releases.
That's a gross understatement. Box office performance is THE major factor. You wouldn't be downplaying it if box office were down 8% for the year. You certainly didn't downplay TBO last year (except in Q3).
chipvideo likes this.
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2012, 06:43 PM   #3299
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 44,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
BTW I have no idea what they obsession is with you guys calling every discussion or analysis of things an "excuse".

That seems to be a cop cop out in the discussion and a symptom of your biases and assumptions that tends to make any point of view that differs from your own suspect.

I simply think that box office performance is one major factor for home video performance and is certainly important in the longer term or longer time frames, but its a poor determinant of box office performance by itself in shorter time periods or in this seasonal time of the year. Especially if you are just looking at it in isolation as you seem to want to do lately without regard to genre or differentiating between the different class of releases.
When you say that a genre is not BD friendly, that IMO is an excuse. ALL movies look better in high definition. That is a fact and not an opinion.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2012, 08:00 PM   #3300
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,448
Default

What exactly does "not BD friendly" mean?
morriscroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource > High Definition DVDs & Movies > High Definition Media
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 11:29 PM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2004 - 2008, High Def Forum