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 Tree260Likes

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

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-26-2012, 01:37 PM   #3316  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
mikemorel's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 884
Default





So that was like $640 million in Box Office?

Last edited by mikemorel; 06-26-2012 at 02:16 PM..
mikemorel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 06:00 PM   #3317  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,128
Default

Updated thru week ending 6/16/12
Table of Blu-ray sales (HMM and DEG)
numbers are in (revenue) millions.
Weekly figures are from HMM (Home Media Magazine

Code:
2012 HMM    3404.72    -5.3%    2581.03    -9.8%     823.89   12.3%    24.2%    4251.8  4151.0										
Week Date      OD     OD YoY      DVD    DVD YoY       BD    BD YoY  BD Share  TBO2012 TBO2011										

Q2 HMM      1393.84   -10.6%    1049.25   -14.1%     344.79    2.3%    24.7%    1857.1  2014.6

24  6/16     160.13     5.6%     113.84    -1.9%      46.29   30.2%    28.9%     275.1   208.2
23  6/9      151.52    14.4%     105.51     1.2%      45.61   61.4%    30.2%     370.6   305.0
22  6/2      111.57    -6.5%      85.76   -11.7%      25.81   16.4%    23.1%      36.1    15.8
21  5/26     109.16    -5.2%      82.48   -10.8%      26.88   17.7%    24.6%     179.2   154.4
20  5/19     109.04    -3.6%      82.49   -11.1%      26.55   30.7%    24.3%     200.0    99.9
19  5/12     121.91     8.4%      92.63     1.6%      29.28   37.8%    24.0%     187.4   155.6
18  5/5      107.56   -11.5%      84.66   -14.4%      22.90    1.5%    21.3%     104.9   148.6
17  4/28     103.68    -4.1%      78.66   -10.5%      25.02   23.5%    24.1%      67.6     0.0
16  4/21     109.99   -50.1%      81.31   -53.3%      28.68  -38.1%    26.1%     231.7   184.9
15  4/14     107.78   -42.5%      85.63   -37.4%      22.15  -56.2%    20.6%      51.3   314.8
14  4/7      201.90    13.9%     156.28    20.0%      45.62   -3.0%    22.6%     153.2   427.4

Q1 DEG      2060.00    -0.4%    1559.39    -6.1%     500.61   23.0%    24.3%
Q1 HMM      2010.88    -1.2%    1531.78    -6.6%     479.10   20.9%    23.8%    2394.7  2136.4

13  3/31     155.29   -19.9%     120.32   -17.4%      34.98  -27.6%    22.5%     168.6   319.2
12  3/24     148.56     8.5%     108.20    -2.8%      40.36   57.9%    27.2%     353.9   219.4
11  3/17     146.48     4.6%     112.13    -1.4%      34.34   30.2%    23.4%     276.1   154.2
10  3/10     165.27     9.5%     123.11     2.7%      42.16   35.7%    25.5%     216.0   177.1
9   3/3      150.39   -14.0%     115.29   -13.4%      35.10  -15.7%    23.3%      67.0   112.3
8   2/25     158.98    -2.2%     122.04    -7.3%      36.94   19.4%    23.2%     272.1   258.0
7   2/18     207.15    18.9%     160.38    10.4%      46.77   61.7%    22.6%      16.4    86.2
6   2/11     205.54    19.4%     151.09     3.1%      54.45  104.2%    26.5%     316.5   224.0
5   2/4      144.90    -8.6%     110.25   -16.0%      34.65   27.1%    23.9%     118.5    23.0
4   1/28     131.95   -13.6%      98.40   -20.2%      33.55   14.2%    25.4%     226.3   201.2
3   1/21     129.39    -2.4%     103.53    -4.9%      25.86    8.9%    20.0%     112.7    60.7
2   1/14     128.65    -5.1%     100.16    -7.7%      28.49    5.6%    22.1%     143.4   116.2
1   1/7      138.33    -8.0%     106.88   -11.6%      31.45    7.0%    22.7%     157.7   134.3

2011 DEG    8951.80   -13.2%    6851.80   -19.5%    2150.00   19.4%    24.0%    
2011 HMM    8604.20   -13.9%    6608.28   -20.3%    1995.92   17.7%    23.2%    9936.0 10820.9																			

Q4 DEG      3338.95   -11.0%    2464.81   -16.5%     924.14   15.5%    27.7%
Q4 HMM      3125.11   -12.4%    2280.75   -19.5%     844.36   15.1%    27.0%    3698.4  3932.2

52  12/31    174.13   -25.6%     130.29   -28.7%      43.84  -14.7%    25.2%      64.3    95.9
51  12/24    482.11   -13.1%     368.59   -16.9%     113.52    2.2%    23.5%     205.6   303.6
50  12/17    369.89   -23.4%     280.58   -26.8%      89.31  -10.1%    24.1%     360.7   635.3
49  12/10    322.48   -14.5%     243.85   -18.6%      78.63    1.5%    24.4%     624.8   535.6
48  12/3     229.49   -23.3%     173.97   -27.5%      55.52   -6.2%    24.2%     282.0   496.0
47  11/26    388.67   -12.4%     300.39   -16.5%      88.28    5.0%    22.7%     194.5   185.3
46  11/19    166.84   -14.3%     127.57   -18.0%      39.27    0.5%    23.5%      41.6   359.0
45  11/12    183.17     2.5%     128.95   -12.0%      54.22   68.3%    29.6%     422.9   251.3
44  11/5     167.53   -16.8%     117.59   -22.8%      49.94    2.0%    29.8%     335.6   414.9
43  10/29    147.15    11.2%      96.66   -11.3%      50.49  115.6%    33.6%     204.5   108.7
42  10/22    156.94     9.5%      95.94   -17.1%      61.00  120.8%    38.9%     370.0    56.0
41  10/15    152.92    -2.4%     106.50   -14.1%      46.42   42.2%    30.4%     343.3   233.0
40  10/8     183.79     9.3%     109.87    -9.4%      73.92   57.7%    40.2%     248.6   257.6

Q3 DEG      1742.79    -4.0%    1320.93   -14.7%     421.86   58.0%    24.2%
Q3 HMM      1667.09    -4.9%    1298.39   -13.9%     368.70   49.9%    22.1%    1806.3  1609.5										

39  10/1     152.58   -14.3%     109.97   -20.4%      42.61    7.1%    27.9%     352.1   382.7
38  9/24     153.60     5.0%     108.69   -12.5%      44.91  103.6%    29.2%     169.3   112.5
37  9/17     164.69    14.0%     107.37   -14.2%      57.32  197.2%    34.8%     190.8   165.2
36  9/10     128.84     0.0%     102.29   -10.5%      26.55   82.9%    20.6%     189.3    60.3
35  9/3      119.04    -9.5%     100.87   -13.7%      18.17   23.5%    15.3%      65.6    95.1
34  8/27     109.34   -13.1%      91.74   -16.6%      17.60   11.5%    16.1%      12.6    45.3
33  8/20     124.53    -4.4%     101.11   -12.8%      23.42   63.3%    18.8%     100.8    81.2
32  8/13     122.13    -1.8%      98.44    -9.5%      23.69   51.8%    19.4%     118.0   143.9
31  8/6      139.66     1.4%     111.78    -3.6%      27.88   27.9%    20.0%     189.8   133.5
30  7/30     108.78   -18.3%      89.06   -20.2%      19.72   -8.7%    18.1%      56.8   177.2
29  7/23     120.50    -1.9%      97.25    -9.4%      23.25   49.9%    19.3%      88.3    72.7
28  7/16     118.09    -4.8%      94.88   -13.5%      23.21   61.7%    19.7%     267.8    94.7
27  7/9      105.31   -16.7%      84.94   -22.7%      20.37   22.9%    19.3%       5.1    45.2										
		
Q2 DEG      1831      -15.0%    1434      -18.8%     397       9.4%    21.7%
Q2 HMM      1791.55   -12.2%    1402.94   -16.7%     388.61    9.1%    21.7%    2314.8  2422.0

26  7/2      127.11   -12.3%      96.32   -21.6%      30.79   39.4%    24.2%     102.3   181.4
25  6/25     123.25    -7.7%      98.18   -12.8%      25.07   20.1%    20.3%     205.4    85.8
24  6/18     149.89   -11.2%     114.68   -17.7%      35.21   19.5%    23.5%     208.2   142.8
23  6/11     130.81   -13.6%     103.23   -18.6%      27.58   12.3%    21.1%     305.0   152.6
22  6/4      118.16   -34.1%      96.17   -32.8%      21.99  -39.1%    18.6%      15.8   386.8
21  5/28     113.83   -16.6%      91.37   -22.9%      22.46   24.9%    19.7%     154.4    87.9
20  5/21     111.98   -15.2%      91.84   -18.9%      20.14    7.2%    18.0%      99.8   185.7
19  5/14     111.02   -23.6%      90.00   -26.8%      21.02   -6.2%    18.9%     155.6   113.6
18  5/7      122.05   -25.2%      99.74   -29.5%      22.31   -7.7%    18.3%     141.5   106.1
17  4/30     106.99   -40.6%      86.94   -39.6%      20.05  -44.5%    18.7%       0.0   120.5
16  4/23     217.30    -8.3%     171.47    -0.3%      45.83  -29.4%    21.1%     187.5   841.3
15  4/16     184.50    48.7%     134.40    24.8%      50.10  205.3%    27.2%     314.8     8.1
14  4/9      174.66    21.6%     128.60     5.9%      46.06  107.5%    26.5%     424.5     9.4
										
Q1 DEG      2068      -20.0%    1661      -25.0%     407      10.0%    19.7%		
Q1 HMM      2020.45   -23.2%    1626.20   -28.4%     394.25    9.4%    19.5%    2116.5  2857.2

13  4/2      192.11   -36.0%     144.16   -44.6%      47.95   20.1%    25.0%     300.9   461.1
12  3/26     135.54   -49.8%     110.21   -50.9%      25.33  -44.1%    18.7%     218.0   335.6
11  3/19     138.72   -46.5%     112.58   -49.6%      26.14  -27.1%    18.8%     154.2   534.3
10  3/12     146.96   -24.4%     116.11   -30.8%      30.85   16.5%    21.0%     177.0   247.2
9   3/5      174.59    -7.2%     132.93   -15.4%      41.66   34.1%    23.9%     112.3   258.8
8   2/26     160.96     4.5%     130.35    -2.5%      30.61   50.7%    19.0%     258.0    74.9
7   2/19     172.68    -8.1%     143.99   -12.7%      28.69   25.0%    16.6%      86.2    80.1
6   2/12     172.00   -19.4%     145.34   -23.1%      26.66    8.9%    15.5%     224.0   211.0
5   2/5      158.26   -16.7%     131.08   -20.8%      27.18   11.1%    17.2%      23.0   114.6
4   1/29     151.21   -14.6%     122.05   -20.9%      29.16   27.6%    19.3%     201.2   151.6
3   1/22     131.62   -16.3%     107.98   -21.0%      23.64   14.8%    18.0%      60.7    61.0
2   1/15     135.49   -17.3%     108.51   -23.9%      26.98   27.0%    19.9%     143.3   137.8
1   1/8      150.31   -14.1%     120.91   -19.5%      29.40   18.6%    19.6%     157.7   189.2

OD = optical disc (DVD + Blu-ray)
YoY = year over year percentage change
TBO = total box office
BD = Blu-ray
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 06:11 PM   #3318  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemorel View Post




So that was like $640 million in Box Office?
Yep. Not only that, $604 million of that was in Blu-ray favorable action movies. So plenty of the kind of food that Blu-ray likes.
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 07:08 PM   #3319  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,128
Default

Top titles (over $25 million BO) the last 2 weeks. All Blu-ray favorable except for Good Deeds. Note the average share well over 50%.

Now the BD favorable scales YoY are definitely tilted in favor of this year.

Code:
Share  Boxoffice  Genre               Title
54%	$186.8	Action	Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
54%	$126.2	Action	Safe House
40%	$100.4	Action	Journey 2: The Mysterious Island
59%	$70.0	Action	Act of Valor
60%	$69.1	Action	John Carter
49%	$51.5	Action	Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
21%	$35.0	Comedy	Good Deeds
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 10:34 PM   #3320  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,128
Default

Just because I was getting bored, I thought I'd check on the progression of The-Numbers cartoonish figures. They started providing top 10 Blu-ray data on May 1st of last year, so now we have several weeks of YoY "data" to see how much over last year they are reporting their own figures, versus that of HMM.

Code:
Total	$320.3	127.8%	$248.3	2.3%

Date	TN_rev	YoY	HMMrev	 YoY

6/17	$77.8	217.8%	$46.3	30.2%
6/10	$79.1	202.9%	$45.6	61.4%
6/3	$30.2	102.3%	$25.8	16.4%
5/27	$30.4	77.5%	$26.9	17.7%
5/20	$26.0	85.7%	$26.6	30.7%
5/13	$31.5	202.6%	$29.3	37.8%
5/6	$18.9	44.7%	$22.9	1.5%
4/29	$26.4	28.9%	$25.0	23.5%
The_Numbers has reported a whopping increase of 127.8% on the top 10 Blu-ray titles vs. last year, while HMM shows a mere 2.3% increase in all titles.

The_Numbers shows sales revenue that is 29% higher than HMM during this time, even though TN (The_Numbers) is only top 10 data and HMM is for ALL BD titles.

The last 2 weeks alone has TN revenues over 70% higher.
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 07:57 PM   #3321  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

One thing that occurs with the HMM revenue and unit sales week being on a different date range (Sun-Sat) as opposed to the normal (Mon-Sun) reporting week that everyone else uses (Nielsen Videoscan, Rentrak, CEA The-Numbers) is that a normal Tuesday or Friday has one less major sales date in its release week to make an impact, as that first Sunday gets shifted to the following week in the HMM statistics.

That has more of an impact when at least 1/6th or a lot more of a major hot tentpole or well performing Blu-ray title is being compared to a slower period in the year before.

The general effect is that some of the YoY gain or bounce is artificially spread into the second week of release from the release week and blends the two together. The net effect is that there is an artifact there in the HMM unit and revenue reporting that tends to moderate the YoY gain that Nielsen Videoscan, Rentrak and even The-Numbers picks up. In this case its HMM that actually is the outlier in the YoY gain percentage, not The-Numbers.

The revenue estimates for The-Numbers for release week still trend high for release week, but the units for release week and cumulative are loser than you think for the reported figures from Nielsen Videoscan.

As usual, I think (and others as well) think the HMM vendor somewhat underestimates Blu-ray revenues and the The-Numbers overestimates them and the real true number is somewhere in between.

Both the reporting day offset, the effect of normal estimation error and the house effects of those estimates also get exaggerated in the comparisons when their are major high volumes titles being in the mix.

Just from the reporting day offset issue, the The-Numbers data should close back to the HMM data, or the other way around when the next week 6/23 / 6/24 comes around or in a week or two later when HMM's stats include the first release Sunday of the last week in the major new release cascade sequence and The-Numbers gets more data in the following weeks to adjust the major title's Walmart sales performance.

Any comparison between two databases or sources is always better over longer periods and for trends not magnitudes especially when they have short term reporting period offset. The-Numbers has one more major sales day and HMM less for a major new release in the weekly comparisons so the YoY percentages are kinda apples and oranges anyway.

Just having six new release sales days instead of five (with the extra being a weekend shopping day) means you would expect The-Numbers to have the release week figures 20% higher than HMM anyway for a major titles release week even if they were estimating things the exact same way, which of course they are not.
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:00 PM   #3322  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
Just because I was getting bored, I thought I'd check on the progression of The-Numbers cartoonish figures. They started providing top 10 Blu-ray data on May 1st of last year, so now we have several weeks of YoY "data" to see how much over last year they are reporting their own figures, versus that of HMM.

Code:
Total	$320.3	127.8%	$248.3	2.3%

Date	TN_rev	YoY	HMMrev	 YoY

6/17	$77.8	217.8%	$46.3	30.2%
6/10	$79.1	202.9%	$45.6	61.4%
6/3	$30.2	102.3%	$25.8	16.4%
5/27	$30.4	77.5%	$26.9	17.7%
5/20	$26.0	85.7%	$26.6	30.7%
5/13	$31.5	202.6%	$29.3	37.8%
5/6	$18.9	44.7%	$22.9	1.5%
4/29	$26.4	28.9%	$25.0	23.5%
The_Numbers has reported a whopping increase of 127.8% on the top 10 Blu-ray titles vs. last year, while HMM shows a mere 2.3% increase in all titles.

The_Numbers shows sales revenue that is 29% higher than HMM during this time, even though TN (The_Numbers) is only top 10 data and HMM is for ALL BD titles.

The last 2 weeks alone has TN revenues over 70% higher.
You really have to see how the next week adds into the HMM revenue estimates to see if it catches up somewhat as the HMM data range is counting one less sales day for Sherlock Holmes.

Plus The-Numbers on all of those weeks is comparing different periods this year and last year than the quirky HMM revenue range week. So the percentage for HMM is adding into last year one less high sales day (final Sun) into the top of the equation and one less low sales day from last year (first Sun) in the bottom of the calculation in that range.

The CEA and Nielsen Videoscan also have larger weekly YoY numbers than HMM does as the weird Sun-Sat range that HMM has has the artifact of blending weeks together more in the YoY comparisons, especially in seasonal periods like we are in now where the genre, release strength and box office comparisons can vary hugely from week to week both in the new week from this year and the old week being compared from last year.

Last edited by Kosty; 06-27-2012 at 08:07 PM..
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:22 PM   #3323  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
One thing that occurs with the HMM revenue and unit sales week being on a different date range (Sun-Sat) as opposed to the normal (Mon-Sun) reporting week that everyone else uses (Nielsen Videoscan, Rentrak, CEA The-Numbers) is that a normal Tuesday or Friday has one less major sales date in its release week to make an impact, as that first Sunday gets shifted to the following week in the HMM statistics.

That has more of an impact when at least 1/6th or a lot more of a major hot tentpole or well performing Blu-ray title is being compared to a slower period in the year before.

The general effect is that some of the YoY gain or bounce is artificially spread into the second week of release from the release week and blends the two together. The net effect is that there is an artifact there in the HMM unit and revenue reporting that tends to moderate the YoY gain that Nielsen Videoscan, Rentrak and even The-Numbers picks up. In this case its HMM that actually is the outlier in the YoY gain percentage, not The-Numbers.

The revenue estimates for The-Numbers for release week still trend high for release week, but the units for release week and cumulative are loser than you think for the reported figures from Nielsen Videoscan.

As usual, I think (and others as well) think the HMM vendor somewhat underestimates Blu-ray revenues and the The-Numbers overestimates them and the real true number is somewhere in between.

Both the reporting day offset, the effect of normal estimation error and the house effects of those estimates also get exaggerated in the comparisons when their are major high volumes titles being in the mix.

Just from the reporting day offset issue, the The-Numbers data should close back to the HMM data, or the other way around when the next week 6/23 / 6/24 comes around or in a week or two later when HMM's stats include the first release Sunday of the last week in the major new release cascade sequence and The-Numbers gets more data in the following weeks to adjust the major title's Walmart sales performance.

Any comparison between two databases or sources is always better over longer periods and for trends not magnitudes especially when they have short term reporting period offset. The-Numbers has one more major sales day and HMM less for a major new release in the weekly comparisons so the YoY percentages are kinda apples and oranges anyway.

Just having six new release sales days instead of five (with the extra being a weekend shopping day) means you would expect The-Numbers to have the release week figures 20% higher than HMM anyway for a major titles release week even if they were estimating things the exact same way, which of course they are not.
Wow, did you just blame the enormous discrepancy on the Sunday offset? You can't be serious. That is eight weeks of cumulative data, not one week.

The units are the lion's share of the error. According to my spreadsheet, TN per title revenue estimates appear to be only about 10% high on average.

Look at the eight week cumulative figures above:

TN-->$320 million
HMM-->$248 million

Let's estimate that HMM is running 10% lower than DEG. That would make it:

TN--> $320 million
HMM-->$273 million

Historically, 85% of the Nielsen top 20 Blu-ray sales occur in the top 10 positions (or close to it). By our consensus that about 70% of Blu-ray's sales come from the top 20, that would make the top 10 about 60% of all Blu-ray sales (.85 * 70%).

60% of HMM's (adjusted for DEG) $273 million is $164 million. That's about where TN should be for those eight weeks (in that ball park). But since TN is estimating selling price per title about 10% high, adding that 10% gives $180 million.

TN is reported $320 million, not $180 million. So it's reporting units about 78% high per the above estimates.

No, the problem is exaggerated UNIT estimates, and it's high time you accept that fact. In the face of the enormous discrepancies that always exist and tend to get worse, not to realize this is like turning a blind eye. How obvious does it have to be? Sunday offset? Really?!
chipvideo and Dave J like this.
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 09:40 PM   #3324  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

The last two weeks in the The-Numbers and HMM estimates include very high volume Blu-ray titles and dominate the statistics in that period. That's were sixty million of the variance is concentrated.

Let's see if HMM catches up in the next few weeks, shall we.

Last edited by Kosty; 06-28-2012 at 12:36 AM..
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 09:47 PM   #3325  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Also, The-Numbers has also made some significant errors or over estimations in the units and revenue estimates in the past for some high volume Blu-ray titles that they later have to adjust in subsequent weeks. Thor comes to mind last fall.

That certainly can be the case as well this week.

Its not just the Sunday offset but that's always a factor in the week to week YoY calculations and its more a factor in some weeks like this one where there is a very high volume title in that offset day.

Over time, the The-Numbers unit estimates match very well with the extended Nielsen Videoscan database and first report data although like in any comparisons between data sources the shorter terms you look at the more problematic it becomes and trends are always more reliable than magnitudes.
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 10:13 AM   #3326  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
The last two weeks in the The-Numbers and HMM estimates include very high volume Blu-ray titles and dominate the statistics in that period. That's were sixty million of the variance is concentrated.

Let's see if HMM catches up in the next few weeks, shall we.
Catch up? Are you kidding me? The_Numbers is higher than HMM for the full 60 week period since they started posting top 10 Blu-ray figures. TN is actually pulling away, not catching up. The difference between them is getting progressively worse. It was bad last year, but this year...wow.

Besides, HMM needs to more than just "catch up". It should be 50% higher than TN.
chipvideo, Dave J and Malanthius like this.
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 10:19 AM   #3327  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Novato, CA
Posts: 17,128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
Over time, the The-Numbers unit estimates match very well with the extended Nielsen Videoscan database and first report data although like in any comparisons between data sources the shorter terms you look at the more problematic it becomes and trends are always more reliable than magnitudes.
Of course the ratios match up well. That's because they use them as a cheat sheet. They line up to within 1 percent or so. No way that's a coincidence, especially considering how overblown their magnitudes are. If there units are so far off, obviously there ratios would all over the place compared to Nielsen if they didn't use them as a cheat sheet.

Besides, there is no Nielsen magnitude to compare so I don't see what your point is because I was discussing magnitude (total revenue), not how well the ratios match up.
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 12:18 PM   #3328  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
mikemorel's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
Catch up? Are you kidding me? The_Numbers is higher than HMM for the full 60 week period since they started posting top 10 Blu-ray figures. TN is actually pulling away, not catching up. The difference between them is getting progressively worse. It was bad last year, but this year...wow.

Besides, HMM needs to more than just "catch up". It should be 50% higher than TN.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
Of course the ratios match up well. That's because they use them as a cheat sheet. They line up to within 1 percent or so. No way that's a coincidence, especially considering how overblown their magnitudes are. If there units are so far off, obviously there ratios would all over the place compared to Nielsen if they didn't use them as a cheat sheet.

Besides, there is no Nielsen magnitude to compare so I don't see what your point is because I was discussing magnitude (total revenue), not how well the ratios match up.
This is hilarious. "The Numbers Fanboy Fantasy Fraud" (TNF3) has been pointed out to Kosty on numerous occasions. Yet he goes on defending this fraud on five different message boards...because on 4 of the five boards, people actually believe him.
chipvideo and 1stSilverado like this.
mikemorel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 03:28 PM   #3329  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
Catch up? Are you kidding me? The_Numbers is higher than HMM for the full 60 week period since they started posting top 10 Blu-ray figures. TN is actually pulling away, not catching up. The difference between them is getting progressively worse. It was bad last year, but this year...wow.

Besides, HMM needs to more than just "catch up". It should be 50% higher than TN.
It should not be expected to be that much higher, in the long term nor certainly with incomplete data with a extremely high volume sales week in the last reporting period.


The last two weeks which is including that major sales day is a substantial part of that entire period. 45 days of it have modest revenues and the last two weeks are substantial. Some of that will catch up when we get the next week in the HMM data.

Why you always want to treat all weeks equal when some obviously have more volumes than others and more effect on the data is beyond me.

Most of the earlier weeks have much smaller revenues so the effect of the incomplete HMM data for the Sherlock Holmes week compared to the Nielsen Videoscan or The-Numbers data is exaggerated here as a percentage. Just at a glance you can clearly see that the other weeks besides the last two has nothing like that variance.

The percentage growth numbers are irrelevant and useless for comparison as they are not using the same date ranges as the HMM and the the-Numbers data has different reporting periods.

Looking at the weeks where we have complete data captured by both data sources using the different date ranges you can clearly see that there is not anywhere near that variance between the two sources.

Once again, its the trends that are most important here not the magnitudes anyway in comparing any two different data sets. That's a basic principle in looking at any industry data - the magnitudes are the toughest thing to get right in the modeling but the trends over time should be similar. In this case, its reasonable to assume that both data sources have a margin of error that can be around 10%.

We know that HMM's data vendor routinely is lower than the DEG quarterly estimates of around 10% as they were of last year. HMM themselves understands that there data is probably low. We can assume that the The-Numbers data is also high to the DEG data based on the quarterly reports and our comparison with the weekly offset to the tracking HMM weekly data. That seems reasonable enough that the TN data is 10% or so high especially with high volume weeks where a lot of units are sold at Walmart because of the inherent and admitted difficulty of estimating the revenues generated at Walmart stores which do not play nice with data aggregators. So if we assume HMM is roughly 10% low and TN is 10% high we can roughly approximate that a truer value would be roughly in the middle between the two sources, which is useful information as a whole.

Also, the magnitudes of The-Numbers revenue data may be consistently high as also may be the unit data, but its the only source of routinely reported unit and revenue data we get with assigned numbers for the estimates, not just relative index numbers and its using the same date range as the Nielsen Videoscan first alert data. Since its also apples to apples in methodology to other DVD and Blu-ray titles in the TN database its also useful for comparisons between titles as well.

We also know that TN data is more reliable for cumulative totals than short term periods such as the release week estimates as that is how their methodology is designed and database is created to do.

You seem hung up on the magnitudes or short term comparison periods and expect that two different sources should match in magnitude closer in the short term. That's unrealistic.




Code:
Date	TN_rev 	HMMrev
	
      (Mon-Sun)(Sun-Sat)

06/03	$30.2 	$25.8	 

05/27	$30.4	$26.9 
05/20	$26.0 	$26.6	 
05/13	$31.5 	$29.3	 
05/06	$18.9 	$22.9
	 
04/29	$26.4	$25.0
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 03:32 PM   #3330  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
Of course the ratios match up well. That's because they use them as a cheat sheet. They line up to within 1 percent or so. No way that's a coincidence, especially considering how overblown their magnitudes are. If there units are so far off, obviously there ratios would all over the place compared to Nielsen if they didn't use them as a cheat sheet.

Besides, there is no Nielsen magnitude to compare so I don't see what your point is because I was discussing magnitude (total revenue), not how well the ratios match up.
There is magnitudes by title for each week and cumulative totals for the Nielsen Videoscan data and first alert report data.

You just never see it because all HMM openly publishes is the index numbers and marketshare values.

The-Numbers and Nielsen Videoscan first alert marketshare and relative index values should be close because they are both using the same date range of Monday to Sunday. Its the HMM data that is non standard using the Sunday through Saturday reporting period range and having one less sales day for a new release, the above average weekend sales day of Sunday in the captured range of the report.

The-Numbers and Home Media Magazine's revenues and units should not match each week because they are using different date ranges and the wide variation in the release strength each week means significant fluctuations from week to week.

Last edited by Kosty; 06-28-2012 at 03:37 PM..
Kosty 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 01:51 AM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands