Spidey BluRay sales disapointing.

[Groundbeef]

Sony said that Spiderman 3 sold 130K units in the first 6 days. Apparently this doesn't take into acount any of the 40GB bundled units of the PS3 that included a copy of the web crusader.

This is less than the 190K of Transformers, although there is some dispute to those actual sales #'s as well.

Article here:

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6498744.html

[PeruvianSkies]

Sony said that Spiderman 3 sold 130K units in the first 6 days. Apparently this doesn't take into acount any of the 40GB bundled units of the PS3 that included a copy of the web crusader.

This is less than the 190K of Transformers, although there is some dispute to those actual sales #'s as well.

Article here:

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6498744.html

Being as just how bizarre, wacky, and disappointing this third entry was, it's not that surprising.

[bobsticks]

Perhaps the relatively sluggish sales could be thought of not as a resultant of any format issues but a sign that Topher Grace shouldn't ever be cast as anything more manly than his Mr. 70's Cotton Candy Ass role.

[PeruvianSkies]

Perhaps the relatively sluggish sales could be thought of not as a resultant of any format issues but a sign that Topher Grace shouldn't ever be cast as anything more manly than his Mr. 70's Cotton Candy Ass role.

That was just one of the several problems with the film, compliment that with the awkward moments where we see Toby dancing, if he would have done a Saturday Night Fever impression one more time I was about to vomit on the screen.

[bobsticks]

Absolutely, blech...

[PeruvianSkies]

Absolutely, blech...

That series went downhill even further than X-MEN.

[Scott W]

Perhaps the relatively sluggish sales could be thought of not as a resultant of any format issues but a sign that Topher Grace shouldn't ever be cast as anything more manly than his Mr. 70's Cotton Candy Ass role.

Reminds me of Ronny Howard(Opie,Richie Cunningham)

[Mr Peabody]

According to Blu-ray.com 130,000 in the first 6 days is still 15,000 more than Transformers in the same time frame. 400,000 was shipped to retailers. Sony don't seem to think it's disappointing.

It looks like this is the same article, I wonder where they got the 15k less figure. It really puts things in perspective when you see how many standard DVD's were sold of this movie.

[PeruvianSkies]

According to Blu-ray.com 130,000 in the first 6 days is still 15,000 more than Transformers in the same time frame. 400,000 was shipped to retailers. Sony don't seem to think it's disappointing.

It looks like this is the same article, I wonder where they got the 15k less figure. It really puts things in perspective when you see how many standard DVD's were sold of this movie.

Here is something else to consider....

A movie like SPIDER-MAN 3 has a large demographic of fans, both child and adult. My sense is that people buying the movie now would mainly be adults who have money and can afford to buy the film, but I know that this will be on most kids Christmas list this year, therefore it's more likely that sales on this title in DVD format will peak around that time of year, whereas the adults buying it now are more likely to be going with the Blu-ray, but even so there aren't that many people out there who are solely buying one way or another just yet. If you have a Blu-ray player and a title comes out that you want to buy, you are certainly likely to get it on Blu-ray, especially a title that is more action-oriented. However, if a title is only coming out on DVD and not an HD format just yet, you probably will get it on DVD even if you have HD equipment if you really want the movie.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

According to Blu-ray.com 130,000 in the first 6 days is still 15,000 more than Transformers in the same time frame. 400,000 was shipped to retailers. Sony don't seem to think it's disappointing.

They are not disappointed at all. The transformer 115k is an estimate, not an exact figure. Videoscan only reported 73k in a week, which is far short than the 100k Paramount reported in a single day.

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/11598.cfm

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.co...at-stupid-lie/

Spiderman has definately sold 130k in one week, and that has been confirmed by videoscan/NDP, sony is pleased by this saying these words in that article

Sony executives said Spider-Man 3 Blu-ray is doing a bang-up job at retail.

It looks like this is the same article, I wonder where they got the 15k less figure. It really puts things in perspective when you see how many standard DVD's were sold of this movie.

They are getting the 15k less from the fact that spidey sold 130k, and transformers sold an estimate(not confirmed) 115k.

Keep in mind, DVD 18 months after it hit the streets was not selling 130k on any title it released. It did not see those kinds of numbers until 2-3 years after it was released.

I do not understand how the OP got the title of this thread off of that article, unless he is talking about DVD sales, not bluray.

[nightflier]

Keep in mind, DVD 18 months after it hit the streets was not selling 130k on any title it released. It did not see those kinds of numbers until 2-3 years after it was released.

This kind of comparison is total hogwash. Not only is the Internet (which wasn't at all what it is today, then) a huge source of sales, but it is also a huge source of info about movies from reviews to promotional materials, and yes, even to sales figures. To compare numbers for this medium to how a product a decade and a half ago progressed is just asinine. Just stop it already - it's just plain childish.

With regard to Spiderman, maybe so many people saw it in the theater, and didn't care for it enough to see it again. I agree that Topher isn't exactly a box-office draw, either. Of course, it's not like Dunst, McGuire, Haden-Church and the bunch are exactly stellar performers either - what is this, a teeny-bopper-child-star-has-been reunion? Mybe lil't should do a cameo in Spidy 4?

[musicman1999]

It was only a decade ago, and i believe he was attempting to show that Bluray is achieving market penetration faster than DVD did.

bill

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It was only a decade ago, and i believe he was attempting to show that Bluray is achieving market penetration faster than DVD did.

bill

Thanks musicman. After a while you get tired of explaining things to people who cannot grasp even the most basic of information.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This kind of comparison is total hogwash. Not only is the Internet (which wasn't at all what it is today, then) a huge source of sales, but it is also a huge source of info about movies from reviews to promotional materials, and yes, even to sales figures. To compare numbers for this medium to how a product a decade and a half ago progressed is just asinine. Just stop it already - it's just plain childish.

DVD is only a decade old. The internet existed then, there were online stores then, there was online advertising then because we saw it here on this website. DVDfile, the digitalbits as well as the hometheater forum were all doing reviews and promotions, and yes there were even sales figures announced back then. You do not have a good grasp over what is being done today, you sound like you have no idea what was going on back then as well. The only thing you have proven time and time again, is your ignorance has been long term.

With regard to Spiderman, maybe so many people saw it in the theater, and didn't care for it enough to see it again. I agree that Topher isn't exactly a box-office draw, either. Of course, it's not like Dunst, McGuire, Haden-Church and the bunch are exactly stellar performers either - what is this, a teeny-bopper-child-star-has-been reunion? Mybe lil't should do a cameo in Spidy 4?

Oh gosh, another one of your maybe's. If a bluray sells 130k of Spidey on a new format only 18 months old, apparently somebody wanted to see it again. Interestingly enough, the box set sold a little over 54k in a week by itself at an average of $64, which by the way was more than HD DVD sold of matrix in a month.

If I do a cameo, it would feature me uncovering the spread of FUD from an airheaded criminal named nighliar.

[Woochifer]

This kind of comparison is total hogwash. Not only is the Internet (which wasn't at all what it is today, then) a huge source of sales, but it is also a huge source of info about movies from reviews to promotional materials, and yes, even to sales figures. To compare numbers for this medium to how a product a decade and a half ago progressed is just asinine. Just stop it already - it's just plain childish.

Decade and a half? You mean the DVD was introduced in 1992? Might want to check your facts before you go questioning someone else's.

How is the comparison "asinine"? Looking at market penetration rates for video formats is a very valid measure, especially considering that the exact same sources for tracking sales data were already in place back when the DVD was introduced. We're talking about an apples to apples comparison, since the market data coverage was similarly high in 1997 as it is now.

So what if the Internet has more of a presence now? Consumers still have to make the ultimate decision whether or not to support a format no matter what avenue they choose to make that purchase.

As a purchasing mechanism, there is a greater proportion of commerce that occurs online, but much of that has been at the expense of B&M retailers. In another thread, I indicated that the number of music retailers declined from about 8,000 in 1998 to 5,500 in 2005. In that case, the massive shift of music purchases online has not resulted in an overall growth in the market.

You might have made a better case for yourself if you'd indicated that the home video market has largely shifted from a rental driven business model to one driven by purchases. As it stands, your points about the Internet's influence on the overall market direction are rather tunnel visioned and off base.

With regard to Spiderman, maybe so many people saw it in the theater, and didn't care for it enough to see it again. I agree that Topher isn't exactly a box-office draw, either. Of course, it's not like Dunst, McGuire, Haden-Church and the bunch are exactly stellar performers either - what is this, a teeny-bopper-child-star-has-been reunion? Mybe lil't should do a cameo in Spidy 4?

As with 300, you've chosen to presume that there's some kind of disconnect between box office returns and home video sales. And once again, you've presumed that your opinion of a movie somehow correlates with what other people pay money to rent or purchase.

[bobsticks]

Not for nothing, and I agree with what you're saying about market penetration and timelines Wooch, but isn't hard to actually have any conversation about first-week sales for these two movies specifically? I mean given that there was a shortage of release week units for Transformers it's gotta be hard to gauge consumer intent.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Decade and a half? You mean the DVD was introduced in 1992? Might want to check your facts before you go questioning someone else's.

How is the comparison "asinine"? Looking at market penetration rates for video formats is a very valid measure, especially considering that the exact same sources for tracking sales data were already in place back when the DVD was introduced. We're talking about an apples to apples comparison, since the market data coverage was similarly high in 1997 as it is now.

So what if the Internet has more of a presence now? Consumers still have to make the ultimate decision whether or not to support a format no matter what avenue they choose to make that purchase.

As a purchasing mechanism, there is a greater proportion of commerce that occurs online, but much of that has been at the expense of B&M retailers. In another thread, I indicated that the number of music retailers declined from about 8,000 in 1998 to 5,500 in 2005. In that case, the massive shift of music purchases online has not resulted in an overall growth in the market.

You might have made a better case for yourself if you'd indicated that the home video market has largely shifted from a rental driven business model to one driven by purchases. As it stands, your points about the Internet's influence on the overall market direction are rather tunnel visioned and off base.

And Wooch, I might add along with your comments about the shift from rental to purchases, that sales have also shifted from B&M to online. Somehow he thinks that the world has so drastically changed in the last 10 years, that nothing can be compared to anything. The only thing that has really changed is that folks have moved from purchasing at B&M stores, to purchasing online in big numbers. Everything else has remained pretty much the same.

As with 300, you've chosen to presume that there's some kind of disconnect between box office returns and home video sales. And once again, you've presumed that your opinion of a movie somehow correlates with what other people pay money to rent or purchase.

And he calls me arrogant!

[Mr Peabody]

I've been there already. I'll have to buy a SD of Transformers and probably will buy movies for the kids on SD. I will probably do more renting than buying until I see what happens with the format. With computer drives, Hitachi's BR camcorder and such, I think BR will be here to stay even as a niche but there are so many other formats that died. I just don't want to get stuck with a bunch of movies I won't be able to watch down the road. If I do buy any movies for, my, collection it will be BR though.

[nightflier]

Lil't, you are full of crap. To suggest that the internet was anything like it is today in 1997, is just nonsense. You may wish it to be so for your argument, but that's just ignorant. I was very active in the internet in 1997 and I can tell you the marketing that we see on the internet today didn't exist then. You're full of it. If anyone doubts that they can just look at how many more people are on the internet today than there were then, or how much more sales are generated today, or how much more effective advertising has become, or if you really want to be specific about it, how many more millions of DVD sales occur today than they did back then. The simple fact is people didn't shop online then like they do today. There is nothing you can say to convince anyone that this is a valid comparison, give it up, already.

Regarding your view of Spiderman, it still does not change the very real possibility that this sequel wasn't enough to get people to pay to own it at the same rate that they did for Spiderman 1 or 2. As a sequel it underwhelmed, even if sales were enough to satisfy the studio execs. Let's just say this movie won't go down in history as one of the classics.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Lil't, you are full of crap. To suggest that the internet was anything like it is today in 1997, is just nonsense. You may wish it to be so for your argument, but that's just ignorant. I was very active in the internet in 1997 and I can tell you the marketing that we see on the internet today didn't exist then. You're full of it. If anyone doubts that they can just look at how many more people are on the internet today than there were then, or how much more sales are generated today, or how much more effective advertising has become, or if you really want to be specific about it, how many more millions of DVD sales occur today than they did back then. The simple fact is people didn't shop online then like they do today. There is nothing you can say to convince anyone that this is a valid comparison, give it up, already.

Nightliar, DVD was just starting in 1997, or course they were not selling in the millions back then. And sorry, amazon was selling millions of VHS tapes online. Nobody said the internet was back then what it is now, that is your magic ability to read far into what is said.

Where you here in 1997? No you were not. They were advertising DVD, VHS and Laserdisc titles on this very site. DVDfile, the Digitalbits and HTF were all around. All had advertising of VHS, DVD and Laserdisc on their websites. They also did reviews, and had online promotions as well. The same vehicles for marketing disc to online customers were there, including the abiltity to order via Amazon.com. Amazon started offering VHS and Laserdisc in 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com

The amount of volume generated at that time is immaterial. The vehicles were there, and they were advertised. So before you start another endless debate on manutia, perhaps you need to educate your uneducated butt.

Regarding your view of Spiderman, it still does not change the very real possibility that this sequel wasn't enough to get people to pay to own it at the same rate that they did for Spiderman 1 or 2. As a sequel it underwhelmed, even if sales were enough to satisfy the studio execs. Let's just say this movie won't go down in history as one of the classics.

I do not want to read anymore of you unsupported gut bull crap. The studio is happy with its performance so far, and what you have to say about it is not going to change a damn thing. This is why you are here foaming at the mouth over small crap, and they are running movie studios.

Just when one thinks that you have exahausted all the ways to look like a fool, you invent more by just continually posting uniformed, and unresearched cow plop.

[nightflier]

Nightliar, DVD was just starting in 1997, or course they were not selling in the millions back then. And sorry, amazon was selling millions of VHS tapes online. Nobody said the internet was back then what it is now, that is your magic ability to read far into what is said.

Hey, you're the one who's comparing DVD sales in 97 to BR sales today and wanting to minimize the impact of the Internet in the discussion. Total hogwash. You can spin it any way your want, the fact is that everything from sales methods to advertising to reviews was entirely different back then. There are far too many factors that are different: HDDVD and BR are in a dead heat (DVD wasn't in such a situation), the fact that video piracy is entirely different today then it was then, the many more ways people can buy and/or rent movies today, the speed at which information about movies spreads today (i.e well before release) compared to back then, to just name a few examples. You want something more tangible, how about this one: the number of movie previews that are being watched online compared to back then - there were only a handful of QuickTime downloads back then and the size/quality/speed was far too much trouble for most people to take the time.

To make this comparison is, if not entirely invalid, at the vary least narrow and simplified. This is a comparison that cannot be made because it's not possible to quantify the impact that the Internet has had on any of these formats. To take your counterpoint as an example: if there is more purchasing done online today (which we both agree on) how can you know what factors led to that? Are you including everything? No it's just not possible. It's a weak comparison to make and you know it, everyone knows it. So just give it up already.

Oh, and by the way, I do believe I wandered over here back then too. Didn't set up an account, but I've done my share of browsing around.

Now Wooch, I'm not trying to get into it with you, but you can't possibly support this. I mean I know you and lil't and buddies an all, but you've got to cut your losses when you still can. Apples to apples? More like apples to bananas. It just not possible to compare the two trends considering all the factors you would have to control for in this example. It's just not an argument that be made scientifically or academically.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hey, you're the one who's comparing DVD sales in 97 to BR sales today and wanting to minimize the impact of the Internet in the discussion. Total hogwash. You can spin it any way your want, the fact is that everything from sales methods to advertising to reviews was entirely different back then. There are far too many factors that are different:

You are just wrong, Wooch and I have both pointed this out to your hard head.

Internet advertising was as widespread then as it is today. It is the exact same model. Now if you are referring to VHS, then you have an arguement. Advertising to reviews was around then, absolutely nothing with the exception of consumers moving to the internet to shop has change. Why are you too stupid to realize this? In case you have lost more of your good brain cells, DVD had VHS to compete with, and DVD was not a certain winner either. Stop trying to re-invent history.

HDDVD and BR are in a dead heat (DVD wasn't in such a situation)

No they are not. BR has sold far more discs and has far larger a player base than HD DVD. HD DVD has a world wide base of 420k players, and 250k in HD DVD drives. Bluray has 5.5 million PS3, and 350k in standalones, and another 200K in Bluray drives sold. BR is leading HD DVD in year to date sales are 64-36% in favor of Bluray, and since inception has bluray at a 61-39 lead. This is not what anyone would call a dead heat. And please do not bring in market share in comparison to the DVD. VHS once had a much larger market share than DVD, and DVD overtook it.

the fact that video piracy is entirely different today then it was then

Video piracy plays no role in this, and there is no evidence that video piracy has effected any sales of any disc. I have already shown links that disprove your theory on this in another thread. The more you harp on a shot down theory, the more foolish you look.

, the many more ways people can buy and/or rent movies today,

What does this have to do with anything? We are talking movie purchases, not renting stop trying to spin. Remember, as I pointed out to you, Amazon was around back then, and so was the ability to purchase online. HTF had an online store, as did Widescreen Review, the Audioholics, AVS, this very website had links to various online stores. You could shop online then,and you can now. You still have not proven your point. Nothing has changed THAT much, except people buying sources, they have moved to the internet, and that is it. Let's see who was around back then and today.

Blockbuster was here back then, and now.
Netflix, started back in 1998 and still here.
Amazon, Started in 1994, and still here today.
Audioreview, HTF, Audioholics, Widescreen review, DVDfile, The digitalbits, all around back then, still here today.
Online advertising, was there back then, and here today.
Online promotions tied to reviews was there back then and here today.
Purchasing online was around back then, and here today.

the speed at which information about movies spreads today (i.e well before release) compared to back then, to just name a few examples

Bull**** nightliar, plain bull. If the internet was around then as it is now, where is your proof that information spread faster? Where is a link that proves this, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF. If you have decided that you do not have to provide proof, then shut the hell up and go about your business, you have no argument. We knew about DVD, VHS and Laserdisc titles before they were released. Advanced copies were sent to review sites then, and they are now. These reviews were posted on review sites long before the title was released just like they are now.
When DIVX died, it was all over the internet the same day they closed shop. When Paramount went HD DVD exclusive, we knew once the ink dried.

. You want something more tangible, how about this one: the number of movie previews that are being watched online compared to back then - there were only a handful of QuickTime downloads back then and the size/quality/speed was far too much trouble for most people to take the time.

There is no evidence that movie previews push sales even today. It just stimulates interest, just the same as a movie review in advance of a release does. Majoring in minors again, damn this is getting old as hell.

To make this comparison is, if not entirely invalid, at the vary least narrow and simplified. This is a comparison that cannot be made because it's not possible to quantify the impact that the Internet has had on any of these formats.

So the internet was not around in 1997? Do you think before you post???

To take your counterpoint as an example: if there is more purchasing done online today (which we both agree on) how can you know what factors led to that? Are you including everything? No it's just not possible. It's a weak comparison to make and you know it, everyone knows it. So just give it up already.

We already know the factors that lead up to it, and the proof is in the fact that there are far fewer B&M stores selling media on disc than there was back then. When people got hip to the fact that they did not have to get into their cars, drive to a store, pick out what they want, wait in line at the register, and come home, all of which takes a great deal of time, they chose the convience of point and click. It was simple convience. You shop online, point and click, and wait for your package. No gas used, no traffic, no crowds, easy peasy. This is tied exactly to the fact that as online purchasing has grown, B&M stores have lost business to online and that is it. The direct tie is there, and only those as blind as Ray Charles could miss it. Oh,but you do not believe in facts and figures, just your gut and what you think.

Oh, and by the way, I do believe I wandered over here back then too. Didn't set up an account, but I've done my share of browsing around.

Right, and I walk the moon with the guys from Appollo 11, they did not see me, but I was in the chair right next to Buzz. He never saw me, and I did not check in with flight control, but I was there though. Sheesh....Right, I do believe.

Now Wooch, I'm not trying to get into it with you, but you can't possibly support this. I mean I know you and lil't and buddies an all, but you've got to cut your losses when you still can. Apples to apples? More like apples to bananas. It just not possible to compare the two trends considering all the factors you would have to control for in this example. It's just not an argument that be made scientifically or academically.

What a whiney plea. Maybe you should follow your own advice, cut your losses, and go back to inventing a history that never happened. Maybe if you took up scuba diving, you could rescue a bunch of soggy bluray or HD DVD players from davy jones locker so prices could stabilize again. LOLOLOL, you are such a joke man.

[nightflier]

Internet advertising was as widespread then as it is today.

Is that really true? No it's not - not by any measure.

Now if you are referring to VHS, then you have an arguement.

Of course I have an argument. Thanks for agreeing.

Advertising to reviews was around then, absolutely nothing with the exception of consumers moving to the internet to shop has change.

I'm not saying those factors were not around back then, but they had far less market penetration. The internet today accounts for far more sales than it did then. It's quite simple math really.

BR has sold far more discs and has far larger a player base than HD DVD....This is not what anyone would call a dead heat.

This is just your interpretation. Apparently the execs at Sony don't even agree with you. DVD's competition with DIVx was nothing like the competition between BR & HDDVD. So yes, this current format war makes the comparison with DVD very weak indeed.

Video piracy plays no role in this, and there is no evidence that video piracy has effected any sales of any disc.

Well, not if you listen to the MPAA and RIAA. Yes, there are articles that say that piracy has had little impact, perhaps even boosting sales, but there is no way to know for sure because piracy isn't measured. There are no Nielsen's or NDP ratings for how much video is not purchased because of piracy. And since movie piracy via the internet is far more prevalent today than it was in 1997, one can't make the argument that the adoption rate of BR/HDDVD is or is not being impacted more than DVD was. Piracy is an unknown that makes the comparison between the formats murky.

What does this have to do with anything? We are talking movie purchases, not renting stop trying to spin.

When people rent, it's pretty much a try-before-you-buy option for them. If the movie is very entertaining people will buy it too, but movies that don't measure up won't have the same sales figures. So the real question is how much have rentals affected the sale of DVDs and also the sale of HDDVD/BR? Another factor that sales figures really don't account for. Sales figures only give us so much information.

Remember, as I pointed out to you, Amazon was around back then, and so was the ability to purchase online.

Amazon was selling far more books than movies back then. Today, the opposite is true. This is a perfect example proving my point that the Internet has had a substantial impact on movie sales so that the comparison with 1997 is weak.

HTF had an online store, as did Widescreen Review, the Audioholics, AVS, this very website had links to various online stores. You could shop online then,and you can now.

So? I never said they were not around. But if you look at sales figures, you'll also see quite obviously that people are buying a whole lot more movies through these sites now than they did then. You're only proving my point that the Internet invalidates your comparison between DVD and BR/HDDVD.

Nothing has changed THAT much, except people buying sources, they have moved to the internet, and that is it.

And that is significant to the comparison, or do you not see that?

Blockbuster was here back then, and now. - they were not online, were they?

Netflix, started back in 1998 and still here. - they were just starting out. Their current business has mushroomed now, hasn't it?

Amazon, Started in 1994, and still here today. - See above.

Audioreview, HTF, Audioholics, Widescreen review, DVDfile, The digitalbits, all around back then, still here today. - Yes, and if you look at website traffic, you'll also notice how much more popualr those sites are now than they were in 1997.

Online advertising, was there back then, and here today. - Far more pervasive today and also much more sophisticated using back-end technologies that were not even developed then.

Online promotions tied to reviews was there back then and here today. - See my last comment.

Purchasing online was around back then, and here today. - Never said otherwise, but look at sales figures: exponential growth.

If the internet was around then as it is now, where is your proof that information spread faster?

Well the most obvious is that more people have broadband now than they did then. Also, websites are programmed in ways that target and conform to user preferences and cross-linking-licensing-advertising is far more sophisticated and pervasive today than it was then. This makes information, especially sales-driven information much faster to get to intended audiences. Server hardware and software also makes the Internet faster and more commercially responsive, even if it may seem from your perspective that the Internet has slowed down (and actually even on your desktop, it hasn't).

One very simple example from Amazon is the inclusion of the "would-you-like-fries-with-that" suggestive sales technologies that the site has added that tell you what you might also like to purchase. Amazon has done extensive research into this and found that this is a substantial source of additional sales. That technology was not half as sophisticated in 1997.

Finally, searches are far more sophisticated today using code that is more geared towards sales than you actually finding the relevant information. When you type a search term in Google today, do you know how much is being tracked about that search and subsequent clicks as a result of that search? Well, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that this is far more complex than it was in 1997.

So if you can't see this, and I doubt this is an area you have much interest in anyhow, why don't you "shut the hell up and go about your business." You may know a thing or two about movie sales figures and have some insider secrets, but don't try to lecture me about the Internet and the underlying technologies. That's what I do on a daily basis.

We knew about DVD, VHS and Laserdisc titles before they were released. Advanced copies were sent to review sites then, and they are now. These reviews were posted on review sites long before the title was released just like they are now.

Well here's a perfect example of how piracy has a major impact on the dissemination of information about new movies. The number of popular movies that are bootlegged and distributed over the internet well before even the reviewers get their hands on them is far greater than it was in 1997. Oh, and no they are not HD quality at that point either, but the plot lines, character development, and conclusions are known to the hacker community well before they are to the public.

You don't travel in those circles, so you don't know about this. Heck, you would rather believe this doesn't even exist, I'm guessing. Well, sorry to drive another truck through the hole in your argument again - it's just that you don't want to consider anything that doesn't agree with it. Just ask yourself how many people saw 300 before it was released? Do you really think that your tiny circle of privileged reviewers were the only ones? 'Come on, this is a movie that was at the top of the hacker lists everywhere. Now the next question is how much did that affect sales? You'll probably say something like hardly at all, right? Well how would you know? After all, you are so far removed from that crowd... Well I'm not. I may not be pirating movies (no real desire to), but I do read what's online - and it's not what you're reading.

There is no evidence that movie previews push sales even today.

Then why do they keep making them? That's like saying there is no evidence that advertising works. Are you really going to go out on that limb?

So the internet was not around in 1997?

How the hell did you get that from what I wrote? I was there, and probably a lot more active than you were. And don't give me any more of your stupid crap about how I wasn't on AR back then. I was very much here, I just didn't have a tremendous interest in HiFi back then. Hell, I've been reading stuff online before you even had a computer, so don't try and one-up that one. I've been reading posts online when the whole Internet was text-only and it had just been made available to my school. Don't tread where you don't have an advantage, lil't, you'll get squashed.

When people got hip to the fact that they did not have to get into their cars, drive to a store, pick out what they want, wait in line at the register, and come home, all of which takes a great deal of time, they chose the convience of point and click. It was simple convience. You shop online, point and click, and wait for your package. No gas used, no traffic, no crowds, easy peasy.

You're proving my point.

This is tied exactly to the fact that as online purchasing has grown, B&M stores have lost business to online and that is it.

Oh, don't even go there. You're arguing from the gut, now, and you know it. If this is the crux of your argument, show me some sales figures that B&M sales dropped off at the same rate as online sales grew. I seriously doubt you'll find them. I'd wager that online sales grew much faster for the simple reason that it's a lot easier. Don't agree? Then show me the numbers.

Oh,but you do not believe in facts and figures, just your gut and what you think.

Well, show me some sales figures. If I'm wrong about this, I'll cop to it. I don't have a problem doing that, unlike you.

Right, and I walk the moon with the guys from Appollo 11, they did not see me, but I was in the chair right next to Buzz. He never saw me, and I did not check in with flight control, but I was there though. Sheesh....Right, I do believe.

Yeah, real mature. I was here. What do I need to do to prove this? I don't remember much. I remember that the forum was called TechTalk or something like that. I vaguely remember someone named Dr. T, I guess that was you (figures)? Some other names that come to mind: Flying Dutchman, Rex, come guy named Vic. I can't remember much else. It's been a long time. Now stop trying to be such a pr*ck and stay on point. You're starting to sound like a child again.

What a whiney plea.

Hey, I'm not trying to get into it with Wooch. At least he doesn't litter his posts with insults and childish remarks. I guess he must be the mature one on your team - do you pick up his laundry, too? I haven't always agreed with Wooch, but I respect his input. I just can't figure out for the life of me why he would hang out with you. It's kind of a mystery really, and apparently others here are wondering the same thing. Do you have something unpleasant on him? Wonder what that's all about.

First off, no matter what you say about the shifts in the market, the bottom line remains the same -- how many unit sales are made within a given time period.

Let's remember what we're talking about. Lil't said that BR/HDDVD sales had grown faster than DVD sales. Of course the numbers bear that out, but to suggest that this is somehow an indication of the strength of these new formats compared to DVD is nonsense. The environment is entirely different.

And the tracking trend data is collected using very much the same point-of-sale methodology that was in use when the DVD was introduced. The very same Videoscan data that was used to track the DVD format's adoption rate is now being used to track the Blu-ray and HD-DVD adoption rates. How's this an invalid comparison?

Look I never argued against those numbers, but I'm arguing that this is not only an indication of the superiority of these formats in the marketplace (over DVD). There are far more factors involved - most importantly the impact of the Internet.

You say that the internet is now a more important sales avenue than in 1997. Well, guess what the Videoscan data does cover online sales.

No argument here.

Like I said, you can make a market-driven argument as to why the adoption rates are higher now than at the same point in time when the DVD was introduced (i.e., the DVD entered the market when home video revenue was driven by rentals, while Blu-ray and HD-DVD enter a market driven by sales)

That's one of my premises, yes, thanks for repeating it.

But, the finding remains the same -- HD optical adoption has occurred at a faster rate than the DVD.

Again, no argument here.

Saying that this is not an argument that can be made "scientifically or academically" presumes that adoption rates therefore can only be argued based on hearsay and presumptions.

You're not reading what I posted. I said that the internet affected sales to a far greater extent - even if you consider the decline in B&M stores. If that is what you and lil't are trying to argue, I challenge you to point out the opposite. The impact of the internet, including those factors that are not accounted for in official sales figures, make the comparison with DVDs, when internet sales/advertising/technologies were in their infancy, a stretch. I really don't think this is hard to understand:

The growth of sales of DVDs cannot be accurately compared with the growth in HDDVD/BR.

We're talking about 15 years for technologies to change/mature/improve. There are just too many factors that muddy the comparison. You want to argue otherwise, be my guest. You may be able to make a tacit approximation, but it is far from a complete picture of what is and will be happening in the current format war. The disagreements about BR or HDDVD standings, notwithstanding.

Are you both really going to tell us that the growth of DVDs 15 years ago is comparable to the growth in BR/HDDVD today? You've got to be kidding me.

[Woochifer]

Now Wooch, I'm not trying to get into it with you, but you can't possibly support this. I mean I know you and lil't and buddies an all, but you've got to cut your losses when you still can. Apples to apples? More like apples to bananas. It just not possible to compare the two trends considering all the factors you would have to control for in this example. It's just not an argument that be made scientifically or academically.

If anyone needs to cut their losses, it's your rather questionable grasp of why the market data is indeed comparable. First off, no matter what you say about the shifts in the market, the bottom line remains the same -- how many unit sales are made within a given time period. And the tracking trend data is collected using very much the same point-of-sale methodology that was in use when the DVD was introduced. The very same Videoscan data that was used to track the DVD format's adoption rate is now being used to track the Blu-ray and HD-DVD adoption rates. How's this an invalid comparison? The transaction units are basically the same, and the market coverage is also roughly the same. You say that the internet is now a more important sales avenue than in 1997. Well, guess what the Videoscan data does cover online sales.

Like I said, you can make a market-driven argument as to why the adoption rates are higher now than at the same point in time when the DVD was introduced(i.e., the DVD entered the market when home video revenue was driven by rentals, while Blu-ray and HD-DVD enter a market driven by sales) But, the finding remains the same -- HD optical adoption has occurred at a faster rate than the DVD. Saying that this is not an argument that can be made "scientifically or academically" presumes that adoption rates therefore can only be argued based on hearsay and presumptions. This sounds more like obfuscation when an argument is not supported by facts.

[PeruvianSkies]

. I mean I know you and lil't and buddies an all, but you've got to cut your losses when you still can.

Oh I'd say more than just buddies.