And then, after they have interpolated both the DVD and Blu-ray sales numbers, they proceed to intentionally distort the Blu-ray numbers by converting them into misleading and inconsistent percentages and ratios.

This is what's is being said to us:

"We're trying to track DVD and Blu-ray sales. The system we have may not be totally accurate to the unit, but it's as reasonably close as we can get it. Now, we'll give you the DVD number we came up with, but we won't give you the Blu-ray number, because it's so low we'd prefer that you didn't know it. Instead, we'll tell you that the Blu-ray number is some percentage of the DVD number and let you try to figure out the math yourself. However, those percentages will be incosistent from week to week, so that the results you come up with on your own can't possibly make any logical sense.

Even though we have our own estimated number that we could give you if we wanted, this process should so confuse you that you'll give up trying to figure it out and just believe our PR people when we tell you that things are doing great."

That you would defend these stupid games is astounding. Wouldn't it be a lot easier for everyone involved if they just told us what they thought the Blu-ray sales numbers were without trying to trick us?

I think you'll find it's not what's being said, but who's saying it.

There are of course many valid criticisms against the format, and coming from many posters, it would be fine.

But we can all stop kidding ourselves - there are still a few here with a deep-seated grudge against Blu-Ray that will likely never go away, and when it comes from one of them, it just sounds like more sour grapes, whether it truly is or not. Just like there are some here who will not see the faults of Blu-Ray. Some posters will always be seen as cheerleaders and nothing more.

I've said it before - your posting history will follow you around.

I don't know what was so hard about that to miss, so I'll bold it for you.

I totally agree.

There were production issues with several 6/3 releases and Cloverfield was one of them. Some people are still waiting for their copies to ship from various online stores. It was not just Amazon either. Keep in mind Semi Pro is the #1 BD for that week and its readily available everywhere.

Very well said. :clap:

At the risk of sounding like a "cheerleader", is there a credible link (i.e., not just a blog or post on this or some other discussion forum) to back this up, or is it just speculation?

totals relative to 100 are a standard practice in statistical analysis. these totals are coming (afaik) from neilsen, who are unusual in the respect that they work closely with the studios and therefore have access to privalaged information. do nielsen release complete listings of the top 20 dvd sales each week? the interpolation of a truly independent site such as thenumber.com is a different animal, and there would seem to be nothing preventing them from doing exactly the same sort of thing with bd sales totals. their model is probably slightly more sophisticated than the one grubert is using (no offence) but in the end they are still only guessing to a large extent, for all their figures.

Again I ask, wouldn't it be a lot easier for everyone involved if they just told us what they thought the Blu-ray sales numbers were without trying to trick us?

Plain and simple: Nielsen do not monitor ALL retailers, which would mean that Nielsen would be guesstimating at best if they came up with sales figures touted as hard numbers, they would be incomplete. This was one of the main reasons why people on this board were opposing their percentage charts during the war. I find it hard to believe that the same method is now referred to as the system to use, if raw numbers are included, in light of all the criticism unleashed towards the percentage charts used currently. Hence my comments.

This should be obvious, no?

Pro-B

But more sources of numbers would give us more info that can be used to get a more accurate number. Most people that try and analyze information are happy to get more data when the existing data they have is very limited.

This should be obvious, no?

So wouldn't they monitor the same retailers as DVD making the comparison still valid?

why do you assume that they are trying to trick us. you seem to have a high opinion of the importance of us few posters on this website. i suspect the studios couldn't care one way or the other how we try to interpret their data. however it is their data, and to expect them to release information altruistically is a little naive. they don't do it for dvds and there's no reason for them to do it for bds. at most they'll release sales totals for high selling titles. that's all.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...13jun2008a.png

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...13jun2008b.png

this is exactly why they provide a comparison in percentage terms between the top 20 bds and their dvd counterparts.

Without full disclosure, the reported data often mislead or confuse the consumers.
Last week, I read an article about how basketball was the most dangerous sport in America.
I can't find that article, but here are two similar articles:
http://www.livescience.com/health/06..._injuries.html
http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercis...etball-cycling

Without knowing how many people play those sports (and for how long), we cannot conclude that basketball is the most dangerous sport. In all likelihood, football is more dangerous than basketball (more people play basketball and for longer hours, so the injury rate is lower). To further complicate this issue, we also need to consider the seriousness of the injuries.

When it comes to companies releasing data/chart/statistics, they always do whatever it takes to make the company look better. They will pick and choose and sometimes withhold or even manipulate data to make the company look its best. Some call that tricking the customer. Some call that lying. Some call that good business. I'm not trying to pick on Sony or BDA. They all do it. HD DVD was doing it all along. Samsung, Sharp, Pioneer, ... Mercedes-Benz, Pepsi, Dell, Microsoft ...

doesn't that just mean reading the information carefully and only using it for the purposes it can support? at the moment the information best provides a glimpse of the state of dvd vs bd in the top 20 and the changing landscape in that battle. sporadically studios release figures for title sales which give a moving picture of how well top selling titles are now selling. expecting anything better in any industry (that doesn't have to release figures) is highly utopian.

No, it would not be obvious. More sources using the same practice we have currently in place will only produce more speculations, not more accurate numbers. Which is the case with the chart Namja provided where one guestimate was replaced with another.

Hence...

Pro-B

How can you possibly think otherwise? If they weren't trying to trick us, why wouldn't they just give us their estimated sales numbers?

I understand why the companies do what they do. What I don't understand is why you would not only defend the practice, but continue to assert that the data compiled is somehow useful when it has been conclusively proven otherwise.

It doesn't support anything. If people here would just admit that the sales charts we've been fed are bunk and move on with their lives, we wouldn't be having this argument. But if you're going to harp on how great the sales numbers are, then you can damn well expect someone to point out the error of that assertion when the numbers compiled are so blatantly false.

One doesn't ignore/replace one piece of data when another is brought in. When one does research, they don't throw away all previous data when a new set is brought in. They include it and look at it all.

Some may get used less if it's apparent it's not that accurate. How would one get to that point? They do it by having more overall data to look at instead of less.

If one doesn't care about sources, then it's easier to get very little in terms of sources and data and then proclaim it as accurate. Unfortunately, if more data is brought in, a more accurate assessment can be made and a more realistic number can be ascertained.

Currently Nielsen wants to post raw numbers, but the BDA won't let them. This is the practice currently in place which you say doesn't work yet you also say raw numbers would do no good.

If we had more raw numbers, we could also use the percentages to an even greater degree to come up with a more accurate number. This is why when one does a research paper in school, they make you use multiple sources and not just one. Sure you could use one but that doesn't mean the data is correct. That's why you use more.

I also do realize the futility in talking with someone that thinks less data provides more accurate results. I don't expect anything to really change.

Sales figure for June so far:

42

Just as reliable. We're trying to "trick" retailers into believing we're growing at the rate we actually are.

Is that right? Isn't that the info they charge their customers lots of money for?

David Vaughn use to post the numbers and, well, some people were not foo happy with that so he stopped.

why give you something for free that they charge others for? the information is costly to compile. my grandad always used to say, "you don't get something for nothing".



only in your warped view of reality has the data been shown to be of no use. back in the real world it clearly has some use, or you wouldn't be continuously posting in this thread.


leaving aside your mischaracterisation of my position in this subject, this is a ridiculous little statement. the sales charts show only what they claim to show, and it is up to anyone reading to determine of what value that information is. if you consider them to be misleading then that must be because you think they are claiming to show something other than they are. i've seen no claim that these are sales figures, so you are clearly wrong. one of the more interesting aspects of this format war and it's aftermath is for a select group of posters to be continuously wrong on so many counts, and yet still think their opinions should hold some weight.

this is not the way statistical analysis is conducted in any reputable company. the rules of the game must be set before the players take to the field (or the data is accumulated), and the accuracy behind any information is not determined by it's similarity to other information but on the basis of it's method of gathering.