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 07-02-2012, 09:10 AM   #3361  
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
We would expect that the index numbers and Blu-ray and DVD marketshares would closely match between The-Numbers and the HMM reported Nielsen Videoscan first alert report and Rentrak Video Essentials because they use the same reporting period range of Monday through Sunday.
They are essentially the same because Nash is copying the NV indexes for his own use. That would be obvious to any competent statistician.

Quote:
The revenue estimates from the HMM vendor each week is the data oddball on a weekly basis because using its non standard Sunday though Saturday week blends the two weeks together and tends to moderate the impact of the YoY percentage comparison, especially when its high volume week in this year being compared to a low volume week the year before and the following week has significantly different volumes. The comparison then becomes apples to oranges.
You would love for it to be apples vs. oranges but the significance of the one day offset diminishes with each consecutive week compared. I compared a full year of data, which reduces the impact down to less than 2% of what a one week comparison is.

Give it up Kosty, the jig is up. You're not fooling anyone around here.
Dave J and 1stSilverado like this.
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 09:16 AM   #3362  
Destination: Danger!
 
Dave J's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
That's the stupidest scoring system I've ever seen. A -1 score if your movie doesn't gross $100 million, but +3 if it does. It looks like Nash is even more hung up on this "mythical" $100 million marker than you are. Wow. I guess if an actor appeared in more movies in the 90's or earlier then he/she is screwed as far fewer films made it to $100 million.

In the last two years, 30 films have grossed over $100 million, and this year 12 so far. Last decade there was 24 per year, in the 90's there were 13 and the 80's only 4.5. Clearly $100 million films are getting more commonplace every year, so without accounting for inflation the scoring system is totally worthless when applied over an extended period of time.

So of course Bruce Willis and other highly bankable stars of the 80's and 90's are going to have a lot of "-1s". I guess there weren't enough "quality" films back then, LOL. What an overly simplistic and assumptive way to grade box office power. But then, what do you expect from a guy who runs a site like The-Numbers? Something dumb like this is exactly what I would have expected.
The Numbers data is terribly unreliable. There is no question.

Why some insist on still using it is perplexing but they shouldn't be suprised when very few people give it any consideration. Accuracy is the selling point in forecasting not how many times someone is quoted in news articles.
bruceames likes this.
Dave J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 09:35 AM   #3363  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave J View Post
The Numbers data is terribly unreliable. There is no question.

Why some insist on still using it is perplexing but they shouldn't be suprised when very few people give it any consideration. Accuracy is the selling point in forecasting not how many times someone is quoted in news articles.
Exactly. The data is what it is. And if it's running about 70% higher than it should be, with impossibly sharp spikes on strong box offices week (indicative that the figures are highly inflated), then no amount of spin/article quoting can hide that fact. Besides, one of the articles was actually damaging to his credibility. A real "numbers" guy would have laughed at that scoring system.
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 09:56 AM   #3364  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

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

BTW, in that table above, the average difference between the adjusted HMM (weighting 20% for Sunday and shifting it to the previous week) and the actual HMM is only $1.4 million, or 4.1% of the average of $33.8 million per week. The max was $4.69 million and the standard deviation $1.27 million. Certainly not a big difference on a weekly basis.

When it's applied over a 23 week period, then it's simply the difference between the first and last Sundays in the period. Using 20% as an estimator for Sunday, that's $0.59 million - $0.14 million = $0.45 million.

$0.45 million spread over a total of $780 million is a difference of only 0.05%! Clearly the signifance of this offset goes down to near zero when comparing many weeks at a time, which is what I was doing all along.
Dave J likes this.

Last edited by bruceames; 07-02-2012 at 05:01 PM..
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 04:56 PM   #3365  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
Malanthius's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
Here's an Associated Press article from last year where Bruce Nash and The-Numbers is mentioned alongside with Tom Adams a well respected DVD and Blu-ray sales and media retail analyst for IHS Screen Digest who previously was the owner and founder of Adam's Media Research .

That's what I get from just doing a quick search.

It seems that someone who routinely quoted in publications such as those is just not making something up or taking data straight off the Nielsen Videoscan first alert report.

http://lubbockonline.com/entertainme...vies-dvds-drop
“The DVD buying boom covered up a lot of sins in the middle part of the last decade,” said Tom Adams, principal analyst and director of U.S. media for IHS Screen Digest.

But the curtain is falling on the DVD era. IHS said U.S. video disc sales fell from $10.3 billion in 2004 to $7 billion last year.

The popularity of low-cost rental options, such as Netflix and Redbox, along with the ease of piracy, has cut into DVD sales, making it tougher to profit from the movie business. Blu-ray disc sales and gains in digital purchases haven’t made up for the shortfall."

Obviously when he's talking about DVD here he is also talking about Bluray right? I know how you like to let us know what people really meant.
Malanthius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 05:01 PM   #3366  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malanthius View Post
“The DVD buying boom covered up a lot of sins in the middle part of the last decade,” said Tom Adams, principal analyst and director of U.S. media for IHS Screen Digest.

But the curtain is falling on the DVD era. IHS said U.S. video disc sales fell from $10.3 billion in 2004 to $7 billion last year.

The popularity of low-cost rental options, such as Netflix and Redbox, along with the ease of piracy, has cut into DVD sales, making it tougher to profit from the movie business. Blu-ray disc sales and gains in digital purchases haven’t made up for the shortfall."

Obviously when he's talking about DVD here he is also talking about Bluray right? I know how you like to let us know what people really meant.
So why is it that the DEG shows DVD sell-through topping out at $16.6 billion in 2006?

http://www.dvdinformation.com/News/p...008yearEnd.htm

CES 2007 for 2006 EOY numbers:

http://www.dvdinformation.com/News/press/CES010807.htm
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 05:02 PM   #3367  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
Malanthius's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post
Bruce Nash is a "Blu-ray Fanboy"?

You know I was talking about Strowbridge and his editorials. You're so silly Kosty.
Malanthius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 05:20 PM   #3368  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
Malanthius's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
So why is it that the DEG shows DVD sell-through topping out at $16.6 billion in 2006?

http://www.dvdinformation.com/News/p...008yearEnd.htm

CES 2007 for 2006 EOY numbers:

http://www.dvdinformation.com/News/press/CES010807.htm
I don't know?! Maybe Kosty does.
Malanthius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 06:16 PM   #3369  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
So why is it that the DEG shows DVD sell-through topping out at $16.6 billion in 2006?

http://www.dvdinformation.com/News/p...008yearEnd.htm

CES 2007 for 2006 EOY numbers:

http://www.dvdinformation.com/News/press/CES010807.htm
Take what the IHS says with a grain of salt and go with the much more accurate DEG.

I don't why the IHS would say disc sales were $7 million last year, because in October last year they said disc sales were already $4 billion in just the first half of last year. Go figure, but there's probably a good reason why we don't discuss IHS data much here.

http://www.isuppli.com/Media-Researc...al-Videos.aspx
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 06:17 PM   #3370  
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
 
bruceames's Avatar
 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malanthius View Post
I don't know?! Maybe Kosty does.
If so, then I'd like to know myself.
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 08:56 PM   #3371  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceames View Post
They are essentially the same because Nash is copying the NV indexes for his own use. That would be obvious to any competent statistician.
That is simply not true.

Here is the week of 06/10/12 John Carter Act of valor release week with the comparison between the index numbers of the Nielsen Videoscan first alert report and The-Numbers Blu-ray Top 10 list.

They are similar but not identical.







They should be similar as they are using the same reporting period o of Monday through Sunday unlike the outlier of the HMM revenue and unit data which uses the blended weeks of Sunday through Saturday.

They generally vary more when its high volume titles that sell a lot of Walmart units.


Quote:
You would love for it to be apples vs. oranges but the significance of the one day offset diminishes with each consecutive week compared. I compared a full year of data, which reduces the impact down to less than 2% of what a one week comparison is.
It still heavily impacts the week to week percentages as their is massive variations between the release strength of adjacent weeks this year and last.

Quote:
Give it up Kosty, the jig is up. You're not fooling anyone around here.
You have a bad habit of discounting totally any data that does not support your personal assumptions and also expect different data sources to match more than its reasonable that they should.
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 08:57 PM   #3372  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malanthius View Post
You know I was talking about Strowbridge and his editorials. You're so silly Kosty.
I see.

Then you were just wrong in saying he runs The-Numbers.
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 09:32 PM   #3373  
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
That is simply not true.

Here is the week of 06/10/12 John Carter Act of valor release week with the comparison between the index numbers of the Nielsen Videoscan first alert report and The-Numbers Blu-ray Top 10 list.

They are similar but not identical.



I said they were "essentially" the same, meaning very close. Not exact of course (that would be cheating for sure, like Biff turning in Marty's Dads homework in his handwriting), but way too close to be derived from an independent source. They were copied and tweaked to look like they weren't copied.


Quote:
They should be similar as they are using the same reporting period o of Monday through Sunday unlike the outlier of the HMM revenue and unit data which uses the blended weeks of Sunday through Saturday.

They generally vary more when its high volume titles that sell a lot of Walmart units.
I haven't checked lately (but then why should I check on known bad data?), but when I did TN ratios were consistently close regardless of whether the week was high volume or not. Do you have a table showing otherwise? I'm tired of having to come up with the heavy data all the time.

Quote:
It still heavily impacts the week to week percentages as their is massive variations between the release strength of adjacent weeks this year and last.
You're the only one looking at the week to week percentages. I was looking at two groups: the prior 52 weeks AS A WHOLE, and the first 23 weeks of this year, AS A WHOLE. This whole focus of yours on individual weeks and Sunday offsets is an awfully weak smokescreen to deflect from the conclusive and valid results of the comparative data sets as a whole. You're looking at trees while I'm looking at the forest.

Quote:
You have a bad habit of discounting totally any data that does not support your personal assumptions and also expect different data sources to match more than its reasonable that they should.
I did not discount it lightly. It was with reluctance that I did as it's in my best interest to have as much valid data at my disposal as possible. Not having TN data available to prove any points I may have is a disadvantage. But as anyone can see, the data is so far off from that of trusted sources, that anyone reasonably competent in math would have no choice but to totally discount it (given that they feel the DEG/HMM data is trustworthy). I am unsure whether you are of this group, or whether having it at your disposal is so much in your best interests, that it blinds you as to how bad it really is.
bruceames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 10:08 PM   #3374  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

I'm not blind to the discrepancies nor to the issues involved here.

I just think that you epect that things should be closer than than are over the long term than they are and you have a few poor assumptions that are leading you astray.

As I said, the index numbers and marketshares should be close between the two sources as they are looking at the same intervals and sampling would get those ratios more or less the same no matter what the magnitude.

But the magnitudes are always the issues between two sources and its especially difficult with packaged media revenues because Walmart is so much of the market and Walmart does not play well with others.

Last edited by Kosty; 07-02-2012 at 11:21 PM..
Kosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 11:22 PM   #3375  
Home Theater Enthusiast
 
Kosty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
I said they were "essentially" the same, meaning very close. Not exact of course (that would be cheating for sure, like Biff turning in Marty's Dads homework in his handwriting), but way too close to be derived from an independent source. They were copied and tweaked to look like they weren't copied.
Really? You honestly feel that they just fake the numbers like that each week?

Then why are some weeks closer and some weeks farther apart?

Then why are there such random variations there between titles?

Have you ever heard of Benford's Law? That gives a clue of faked random numbers and The-Numbers data does not show any signs of that in its variations from Nielsen Videoscan or raw numbers for the percentages or index numbers. The weekly variations also a random with some weeks being much closer for the marketshare or index numbers of the leading titles and others being further apart. There is no sign they are not independently derived.

That being said, if The-Numbers does get the Nielsen Videoscan numbers and again their unit and revenue figures do not exactly match Nielsen Videoscan first alert units and revenues anyway for the Top 10 titles either, they should use them for a sanity check on their own calculations.




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 01:31 AM.



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