# Why measure movie sales in terms of $? Why not in terms of actual tickets sold? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 2, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-measure-movie-sales-in-terms-of-why-not-in-terms-of-actual-tickets-sold/216543 "2003-12-02T18:30:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Llardball](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f6c823/32.png) [@Llardball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llardball)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-measure-movie-sales-in-terms-of-why-not-in-terms-of-actual-tickets-sold/216543/1 "2003-12-02T18:30:23Z")
I’ve never understood this. If everyone in the entire world went to see Last Action Hero at 1 pm (the matinee price, say $4.00 for instance), then it’s gross sales are going to be roughly 4/7ths that of any other movie that everyone in the entire world went to see at night (for $7.00). This is of course assuming the ticket sales were equal. So for all we know, Last Action Hero (that absolute atrocity with Arnold Schwarzenegger for those of you who don’t quite remember) could have outperformed the original Star Wars, but we don’t know that because of this monetary discrepancy. I am of course being facetious with this example, but my point is that they should just measure movie sales based on **number of tickets** , not **the gross sales**. In a few years (maybe ten or so), a mediocre movie is going to outsell (outgross, rather) the original Star Wars simpy due to inflation. But, we can see that these new movies clearly aren’t outpacing Star Wars in number of tickets sold. So what the hell’s the deal? Do we measure in dollars just to make our eyes light up at that astronomical figure? Hell, I can make a shit movie on my own watch (kind of reminds you of Blair Witch, doesn’t it?) and charge a few of my idiot friends 100 million bucks apiece, and bam, I’ve outgrossed everybody. But I only sold four tickets. So what gives? ---
**Author:** ![In\_Conceivable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4bbf92/32.png) [@In\_Conceivable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/In_Conceivable)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-measure-movie-sales-in-terms-of-why-not-in-terms-of-actual-tickets-sold/216543/2 "2003-12-02T18:33:29Z")
But, In ten years the population will be higher and there will probably be more movie theaters so I am not sure that the number of tickets sold will be any better then the dollar value. At least we can fairly simply adjust the dollar value for inflation. ---
**Author:** ![Standup\_Karmic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac91a4/32.png) [@Standup\_Karmic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Standup_Karmic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-measure-movie-sales-in-terms-of-why-not-in-terms-of-actual-tickets-sold/216543/3 "2003-12-02T18:41:45Z")
AFAIK, the numbers that you refer to are those promoted by the industry itself. The number we are fed are those that are meant in part to impress. It is in their best interest to continue having new movies outperform old movies, as that is actually “news” and can be used as a marketing ploy. I suspect that the internal numbers used by analysts within the industry to guage its health, future trends, etc. use numbers that are more reliable for actual study and interpretation. This of course, assumes that there exist such business analysts, a proposition put into serious question y of the sheer existence of movies like Waterworld, Ishtar, and the one you mention. ---
**Author:** ![Llardball](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f6c823/32.png) [@Llardball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llardball)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-measure-movie-sales-in-terms-of-why-not-in-terms-of-actual-tickets-sold/216543/4 "2003-12-02T18:43:35Z")
In Conceivable, that’s kind of a weak argument though, because the whole point of measuring the movie sales is to see how many people are going to see it. If it’s absolute drivel, you get ticket sales consisting of Albert and Martha Bevington of Omaha, Nebraska, who thought they were going to see Grumpy Old Men III, whereas if it is a good movie, you get ticket sales in the say, tens of millions. The fact that there are more people and more theaters doesn’t really affect movie sales. Inflation rises pretty rapidly, but the population takes many many years to increase significantly (at least in an industrialized nation such as the US, but then again, we don’t see much of the gross sales funneling in from Sub-Saharan Africa). ``` Llardy McLlardson ``` ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-measure-movie-sales-in-terms-of-why-not-in-terms-of-actual-tickets-sold/216543/5 "2003-12-02T19:28:46Z")
The difference in prices between matinee and evening performance is not a real factor. If a movie is drawing, people will go to matinees and evening performances and the difference in prices is a wash. Matinees also are often less well attended. I’d guess that the ratio of money taken in at a matinee to money taken in in the evening is pretty much constant. If a movie fails to draw in the evening, it’s not going to draw much better during the day. (Out-and-out children’s shows might be an exception.) Remember, too, nowadays there is usually only one matinee showing a day (if that), and several full-price shows. ---
**Author:** ![tanstaafl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ba8739/32.png) [@tanstaafl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tanstaafl)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-measure-movie-sales-in-terms-of-why-not-in-terms-of-actual-tickets-sold/216543/6 "2003-12-02T19:54:38Z")
Plus there is the fact that the studios are businesses and therefore are more concerned with the dollar count than the ticket count. Suppose there were two movies. One had 50 million viewers at $10 a ticket and the other movie had 100 million people go to see it at the $4 matinee. I suspect they would be happier with the movie that the smaller number of people saw, given that they got an additional $100 million from it. ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-measure-movie-sales-in-terms-of-why-not-in-terms-of-actual-tickets-sold/216543/7 "2003-12-02T20:19:15Z")
Do the movie studios even know admissions? They know gross, because they have to in order to get their cut. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-measure-movie-sales-in-terms-of-why-not-in-terms-of-actual-tickets-sold/216543/8 "2003-12-02T20:53:19Z")
Also, bear in mind that Hollywood is built on hyperbole. They DEPEND on inflation to give the illusion of how they are better businessmen they are than their prececessors. “See? Grumpy Dead Men III is a better movie than Citizen Kane because it took in $100,000,000 its first weekend!” ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2003, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-measure-movie-sales-in-terms-of-why-not-in-terms-of-actual-tickets-sold/216543/9 "2003-12-02T21:00:41Z")
> [@](#): > > In Conceivable, that’s kind of a weak argument though, because the whole point of measuring the movie sales is to see how many people are going to see it. That’s where you’re wrong. The whole point–did you forget that we’re talking about Hollywood?–is which one made more money. Period. You really aren’t supposed to infer anything else from it. Would the studios care if Return of the King were only released in one theater in each country, for one showing, and each person who saw it had to pay a million dollars? Somehow I doubt it, as long as they got their money. The whole thing is a crass commercial enterprise, and they’re not fooling themselves about it. ---
**Author:** ![boofy\_bloke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@boofy\_bloke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boofy_bloke)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-measure-movie-sales-in-terms-of-why-not-in-terms-of-actual-tickets-sold/216543/10 "2003-12-03T09:12:08Z")
The distributors get a whole heap of information from the exhibitors (cinemas) which tells them everything about the number of people who saw each film, in which cinema, at what time, etc. They then choose the most impressive figure and use it in advertising so that everyone thinks their film is worth seeing because everyone else is seeing it. The industry has long known that the best way to sell a film is by getting good “word of mouth”, hence the inordinate number of “sneak previews” that come out before the film is officially released. When films from different eras are compared in the industry the dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation. No-one ever releases the number of tickets sold because its going to be at least one decimal place less impressive (assuming a $10 ticket). ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-measure-movie-sales-in-terms-of-why-not-in-terms-of-actual-tickets-sold/216543/11 "2003-12-03T11:41:25Z")
In film trade magazines, you might get more variables to assess. Atleast in Indian publications, you do, viz. like [here](http://www.planetbollywood.com/BoxOffice/b091803-102730.php) (I’m not sure what the percentages mean, I assume they mean percentage of maximum possible revenue) ---
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-measure-movie-sales-in-terms-of-why-not-in-terms-of-actual-tickets-sold/216543/12 "2003-12-03T14:17:18Z")
Plus, especially with larger productions (especially action oriented), studios usually float the rough cost of production to impress moviegoers with the resources spent on effects, etc. It makes sense to speak about revenues in that case, to see whether the studio has covered its costs. Example- Titanic cost 50 trillion dollars to make…telling me that 25 million people went to see it dopes not tell me whether it was worth making for the studio. But if it made 100 trillion, then I can infer that the studio’s investment paid off.