Originally Posted by kdragon
While trying to mail those documents to you, I ran into difficulties with the mail server!!! They are only
about 5MB each, word documents. No wonder MS went XML in Office 2007.
Anyway, I decided to convert them into PDF (I wanted to keep them in the form I received, but I have no choice right now). Instead of sending them to you, I am posting them here. I will try again later to send the original word documents to you.
Here they are:
I guess now I wonder when Amazon.com started contributing to Nielsen, if they indeed do so. Here is a 2001 article originally from the Hollywood Reporter. The bold emphasis added by myself.
'The Mummy' vs. 'Menace': That's a wrap
Nov. 01, 2001
By Brett Sporich
An independent review of first-week DVD sales shows that 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment's "Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace" did not break the first-week DVD sales record set by Universal Studios Home Video's "The Mummy Returns."
Despite a Fox news release and related stories in the media claiming that "Menace" had broken "Mummy's" record, VideoScan research shows that the "Menace" DVD came up short in a first-week sales comparison.While VideoScan does not take into account Wal-Mart, Toys 'R' Us or Amazon.com
, "Mummy" outsold "Menace" by 2-to-1 in their respective first weeks at Wal-Mart and Kmart, industry sources said. "Menace" DVD sales did top "Mummy" on Amazon.com.
Overall, DVD sales show that while "Mummy" continues to lead in total sales, "Menace" is gaining ground quickly, taking the top DVD sales slot for the week ending Oct. 21, and it leads VideoScan's First Alert DVD sales chart for the week ending Oct. 28.
Fox's Eddie Murphy starrer "Dr. Dolittle 2" topped the video rental chart its debut week, earning an estimated $7.3 million after five days on rental shelves, Video Store magazine research shows.
"Mummy" placed second on the rental chart, earning more than $7 million last week, for a cumulative total of $38.1 million.
Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment's debut of "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" was the third most-rented video last week, earning $5.2 million after five days on rental shelves.
VideoScan is a service of VNU and ACNielsen that collects VHS and DVD sales data from a sampling of all categories of retail stores. VideoScan charts do not include sales data from Wal-Mart, Toys 'R' Us or Amazon.com. Most other sell-through retailers are represented.
Video Store magazine, a leading business-to-business weekly serving the home entertainment industry, compiles and analyzes VHS and DVD rental data through an interactive methodology using a multisource predictive model with data from a statistically significant national sample of video retailers."
Other articles from 2002 and 2003 also state Amazon does not contribute to Videoscan. The reason I find it hard to believe is because I was told last fall by an Amazon employee at their Lexington, KY wharehouse facility that their sales are not reported to Videoscan. This makes me wonder if maybe they started in Jan. 2007 or something recently, if these documents are legit. If so, a big chunck of sales could have not been reported.
EDIT: Looking back through some trade publications, I found a 2003 article that stated Toys R Us was following in Wal-Mart's footsteps and discontinuing to supply data to organizations like ACNielsen and NPD. I also found 2003 and 2004 articles from the Hollywood reporter that says that Toys R Us does not supply data to Videoscan. They are on the list, so did they just do a 180 after making a big fuss about it in 2003?
Also, why does the list say updated February 2006 at the top, but then a couple of lines later, it says October 2006? Which is it? Doesn't seem like a very good marketing document with such a glaring error. Also, why is a place like Nobody Beats the Wiz still listed? The list states included until 4/20/03. If the list was updated multiple times since then, all the way through 2006, why was it not removed (shoudln't Wal-Mart be on here if everyone who has ever contributed is listed)? Even further, this list contains businesses that don't even sell products, like Ntunes.com, an online marketing service. Ntunes (a Nsyndicate company) and Nsyndicate.com used to create private label stores and sell items (including DVD's) on commission. I say "used to" because that was back in 2000. They have since went out of business and the Ntunes domain was purchased by a marketing company. The Nsyndicate domain name is still for sell. So how are they on an "updated" list? There are also several typos and a few .com domains that don't work (for example, there is no lonestarmus.com domain but, there is a lonestarmusic.com, so is it a typo or was there a lonestarmus.com site that has since went out of business). These are just a few that I caught without doing any kind of in depth checking.
So why all these errors if this is an "updated" marketing document? This document is starting to look like an old document with a few obvious errors corrected, like deleting Wal-Mart (which would have appeared in the blank space after Target on Page 1 , Column 1), change the date and pass it off as new. If this is really a marketing document for Nielsen, it is one of the worst ones I've seen from a multi-million dollar company.
There is something very fishy about this "official" list.