Talk:Sales Analysis
~~~~) at the end of your comment.General discussion
Inviting numbers check, clarity check (is what's written and do the charts and graphs make sense?), questions, comments etc. on this topic. Not sure where to link this one either to the wiki. Given some people's sensitivity about sales as a topic, would like to make sure it's reasonably in good shape before making it public. --randomanon 03:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- At a glance, the projection and charts look rather solid and easy to understand to me. Best linked in the Articles category? One thing that I think could be improved on would be transforming the image with the current sales into a sortable wiki-table. (it might be easier to read?) --Knon 07:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Does someone know how to make a sortable wiki-table? That is well beyond my abilities with wiki. --randomanon 11:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- When you start your table, write:
{|class="wikitable sortable". Then create your table like any other table (start a cell with|, make a new row with|-, close the table with|}). See here for an example (with a little more formatting;!creates a header cell) --Homerun-chan 11:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- When you start your table, write:
- I agree. It's time to move this piece from your talk page to its own analysis section. - Prima 07:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Does someone know how to make a sortable wiki-table? That is well beyond my abilities with wiki. --randomanon 11:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- In terms of readability, maybe a good improvement would be to add graphs of the different tables? I for one find the figures easier to interpret as a graph than as a table.
Regarding the categorization, I'd add this article in Category:Articles at least. Maybe link it from the Products page too? (add a "See also" section or something --come to think of it, that's where the links to Merchandise, Fanworks and Teasers and Commercials would belong too) --Homerun-chan 10:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)- Yes, I can make graphs of these too. That's not a problem. I'll wait a little to see if anyone has feedback on the data first before making graphs. And wherever people want to link it from is fine by me. This will be the permanent page I'll be updating for sales statistics and analysis going forward, rather than my talk page. --randomanon 11:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Trying to make the table here before deciding what to do with it. If someone can think of a way to improve it, please feel free to change it. My thinking is it's a big table and going to only get bigger with 6 volumes and 32 weeks of sales eventually. So it will go on it's own page and be linked from the main page. Also, not as flexible in format and more difficult to maintain than what I'm doing in Excel and copy/pasting as a pic to the wiki. More importantly, is the table useful enough to want to maintain? --randomanon 13:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- The good part about the table is that ... well ... it's made of text, making copypasting/editing easier for the viewers. Also, since it's sortable, you can sort it however you want (masaka!). The "collapsible" property should also make it possible to hide the table, but for some reason it doesn't seem to work. That being said, I don't think I will use it for anything else than reading, so I'll let other people answer... --Homerun-chan 13:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, if it's collapsible that would be useful...I probably messed up the code somewhere since I didn't even know it could do that. Anyone know how to fix it? --randomanon 13:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nice Homerun-chan, you got it to work. OK, I'll mess around with that this weekend. --randomanon 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, if it's collapsible that would be useful...I probably messed up the code somewhere since I didn't even know it could do that. Anyone know how to fix it? --randomanon 13:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Table layouts
Version 1
Madoka - Current Running Total for All Volumes
Last Updated: July 7, 2011
Current Avg Sales Per Volume: 71,264
| Volume | BD Total | DVD Total | Running Total | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Volumes (Last Updated: July 7, 2011) | 213,791 | 181,721 | 32,070 | Totals do not include DVD sales for latter half of year. These will be accounted in the end-of-year adjustment and reported then. |
| Volume 3 (Released June 22, 2011) | 55,006 | 9,490 | 64,496 | |
| Vol. 3 Week 01 | 51,840 | 8,528 | 60,368 | |
| Vol. 3 Week 02 | 3,166 | 962 | 4,128 | |
| Volume 2 (Released May 25, 2011) | 71,752 | 60,714 | 11,038 | |
| Vol. 2 Week 01 | 53,715 | 9,574 | 63,289 | New #1 BD sales record, 2% increase over Volume 1, Week 1 sales. |
| Vol. 2 Week 02 | 3,607 | 1,091 | 4,698 | |
| Vol. 2 Week 03 | 941 | 373 | 1,314 | |
| Vol. 2 Week 04 | 627 | 627 | DVDs not reported in this and following weeks. The sales will be accounted for in the end of year adjustment. | |
| Vol. 2 Week 05 | 1,212 | 1,212 | Increase in sales possible due to a record Nico broadcast of almost 1M viewers on a re-run marathon [1] | |
| Vol. 2 Week 06 | 612 | 612 | ||
| Volume 1 (Released April 27, 2011) | 66,001 | 11,542 | 77,543 | |
| Vol. 1 Week 01 | 52,944 | 9,097 | 62,041 | |
| Vol. 1 Week 02 | 4,823 | 1,198 | 6,021 | |
| Vol. 1 Week 03 | 1,485 | 456 | 1,941 | |
| Vol. 1 Week 04 | 835 | 835 | DVDs accounted for in the 791 mid-year adjustment for weeks 4-7 | |
| Vol. 1 Week 05 | 2,201 | 2,201 | Increase due to influx of buyers purchasing volume 1, following the end of a recall period on this volume due to a couple errors. | |
| Vol. 1 Week 06 | 1,079 | 1,079 | ||
| Vol. 1 Week 07 | 600 | 791 | 1,391 | Added DVD sales of 791 per mid-year adjustment [2] |
| Vol. 1 Week 08 | 464 | 464 | DVDs not reported from this week on, but will be at end-of-year adjustment | |
| Vol. 1 Week 09 | 1007 | 1007 | Increase in sales possible due to a record Nico broadcast of almost 1M viewers on a re-run marathon [3] | |
| Vol. 1 Week 10 | 563 | 563 |
Version 2
To avoid having a single table become too big, how about having one for each volume? Of course, it probably depends what's more important for the article, having an overview of each volume, or all volumes together? Something like this: --Knon 13:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Both are important, I think. Eventually I see it having to be different tables for each volume for maintenance. It will still take up so much space either way that this will need to go on it's own page. Even with my excel image, eventually I'll have to put just a summary table on the main page and link to a separate page for detailed numbers. --randomanon 13:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just had a thought, is there a way to put separate tables next to each other so like what you have for volume 1, do the same for volume 2 and 3 as tables next to it? --randomanon 13:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- How about putting a table and its graph next to each other? Something like what's on the Population dynamics page (graph on the left, parameters on the right)? That way, there won't be too much unused space, and the viewer has all the data at the same place --Homerun-chan 13:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)~
- Update: just tried with a random graph as a mockup (
[[File:Matlab populations 2.png|thumb|right|500px]]), and I think it might work. I also think it's important to have everything on the same page; I don't think the visitor who wants to learn about the sales will want to go through multiple pages, while page length isn't really an issue (see Population dynamics, it's quite long with lots of pictures, but that didn't prevent it from being quite popular) --Homerun-chan 13:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)- That's an option but I think if possible to have tables next to one another, or some kind of divider to give illusion of multiple tables (hah guess I answered my own question there..just make a blank column as a divider--but if there's a better way, I'd like to know), it's better for saving space. When it becomes 32 weeks of data, the graph won't take up much of the excess space to the right of it. --randomanon 13:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I was basing my thought off Knon's alternative (making one table per volume). See also my update above. --Homerun-chan 13:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- It would likely be 32 weeks of data for Volume 1. Other volumes will likely have less, but something like 20+ weeks would be normal. Also, long term it would just be a reference table for someone to see the drill-down data. When it becomes cumbersome, the front page will only have a summary table and graph. But for the detailed page, it's still useful to conserve space with that much data. --randomanon 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Err, yeah right. Forgot the sales for vol.1 don't stop when vol.2 comes out. Well then, having a 32-rows table for vol.1, 28-rows table for vol.2, etc. may be a bit too much indeed. Then I'd just show the graphs (and maybe a table with the first 4 weeks or so) here, and put the whole tables on different pages indeed. Or if we can make it work, use collapsible tables (which would be collapsed by default) --Homerun-chan 14:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps the collapsing attribute needs to be enabled somewhere? Collapsing the weeks when it becomes too long does sound like the best way to keep it manageable. --Knon 14:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- You were right, collapsible tables is apparently not a native function. Anyway, now it's enabled --I'll try to make it look a bit better, but at least it works :) --Homerun-chan 16:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps the collapsing attribute needs to be enabled somewhere? Collapsing the weeks when it becomes too long does sound like the best way to keep it manageable. --Knon 14:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Err, yeah right. Forgot the sales for vol.1 don't stop when vol.2 comes out. Well then, having a 32-rows table for vol.1, 28-rows table for vol.2, etc. may be a bit too much indeed. Then I'd just show the graphs (and maybe a table with the first 4 weeks or so) here, and put the whole tables on different pages indeed. Or if we can make it work, use collapsible tables (which would be collapsed by default) --Homerun-chan 14:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- It would likely be 32 weeks of data for Volume 1. Other volumes will likely have less, but something like 20+ weeks would be normal. Also, long term it would just be a reference table for someone to see the drill-down data. When it becomes cumbersome, the front page will only have a summary table and graph. But for the detailed page, it's still useful to conserve space with that much data. --randomanon 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I was basing my thought off Knon's alternative (making one table per volume). See also my update above. --Homerun-chan 13:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's an option but I think if possible to have tables next to one another, or some kind of divider to give illusion of multiple tables (hah guess I answered my own question there..just make a blank column as a divider--but if there's a better way, I'd like to know), it's better for saving space. When it becomes 32 weeks of data, the graph won't take up much of the excess space to the right of it. --randomanon 13:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just had a thought, is there a way to put separate tables next to each other so like what you have for volume 1, do the same for volume 2 and 3 as tables next to it? --randomanon 13:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
| BD | DVD | Total | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 01 | 52,715 | 9,097 | 62,041 | |
| Week 02 | 4,283 | 1,198 | 6,021 | |
| Week 03 | 1,485 | 456 | 1,941 | Breaking the 70k mark in only 3 weeks. |
| Week 04 | 835 | N/A | 835 | DVDs accounted in the mid 2011 adjustment. |
| Week 05 | 2,201 | N/A | 2,201 | DVDs accounted in the mid 2011 adjustment. |
| Week 06 | 1,079 | N/A | 1,079 | DVDs accounted in the mid 2011 adjustment. |
| Week 07 | 600 | N/A | 600 | DVDs accounted in the mid 2011 adjustment. |
| Week 08 | 464 | N/A | 464 | DVDs accounted in the mid 2011 adjustment. |
| Week 09 | 1,007 | N/A | 1,007 | Increase in sales, possible Nico broadcast bump. |
| Week 10 | 563 | N/A | 563 | |
| Total: | 77,543 |
Version 3
If it helps with anything, tried arranging a per-volume table to look a bit better with the collapsible table and also using Homerun-chan's population graph as a test. --Knon 20:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not bad, but I see a few things to change on the aesthetic side. Mostly the fact that all those grey boxes inside one another doesn't make it as easy to read as it might be. I hope you don't mind if I play around with it a bit? --Homerun-chan 21:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- It does indeed look a lot better now. --Knon 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Made a few changes to Knon's layout. On a slightly off-topic note, I'll be afk for the next few days so I'll leave the brainstorming to you. Since the code is getting more and more complicated, I propose we make a template off it once we're settled (or when I come back). I wouldn't want randomanon or other contributors's head to explode because they tried too hard to find their way in the code --Homerun-chan 21:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I like it, it looks good. I'll wait on the template before I mess around with things. Need a break from number crunching anyways. --randomanon 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I added some charts. Still need to do the ones for the first chart for weekly sales but that requires me to mess around with these wikitables. Are they finished and set as templates I can use? --randomanon 05:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I like it, it looks good. I'll wait on the template before I mess around with things. Need a break from number crunching anyways. --randomanon 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Template
Phew, just finished making templates for the sales tables. You can now use Template:Sales/Header, Template:Sales/Row and Template:Sales/Footer to input the sales data. Either read the docu I wrote on the template pages, or take a look at the page I used for testing, which should have all possible uses for the templates. Hope it helps! --Homerun-chan 21:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sales ranking analysis in wikitables
Here's a wikitable of File:Sales Ranking Analysis 2.jpg based on what we did for the sales by week:
| TV series Volume 1 DVD+BD Sales Ranking (2000-2011) Last updated on: July 21, 2011
|
|---|
| # | 1st Wk | Total | Follow-On | % Diff. | Titles |
| 1 | 44,885 | 82,803 | 37,918 | 45,79% | Bakemonogatari |
| 2 | 62,027 | 78,237 | 16,210 | 20,72% | Madoka Magica (still in progress) |
| And so on for every show | |||||
| AVG | 38,39% | (Of finished series sales, i.e. not including Madoka) | |||
| MEDIAN | 39,08% | (Of finished series sales, i.e. not including Madoka) | |||
TODO: fix the sorting with a hidden key for the last rows
Of course, I'll make a template off it too when we're settled. --Homerun-chan 20:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to say this after you put the work into it but as I'm comparing it to the copy/pasted table, I'm not really seeing a benefit to it like I did with the sales tracking tables. The copy/paste one seems more attractive to me and it's easier for me to maintain. I think the other tables are fine but maybe the table design you came up with could be useful for other things, like the math page. --randomanon 20:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the benefit I see at using wikitables is the same as the sales tracking tables: users can copypaste, sort or even edit the table if they want to. All sort of things they can't do with a screencap. In this case, it seems pretty useful to me as there are plenty of criteria the table could be sorted by. Now if the problem is merely of aesthetics, it's something we can fix with contributors having better taste than myself. --Homerun-chan 21:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I saw the sales table with growing numbers to make sense that users will want to sort it. I don't want them editing the table. It's a pain as it is to keep track. For copy/paste, well I guess that's fine. I'll get around to it but not for a while. I have a few projects I'm working on content/analysis that I think take priority, plus my usual information-gathering activities. --randomanon 01:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the benefit I see at using wikitables is the same as the sales tracking tables: users can copypaste, sort or even edit the table if they want to. All sort of things they can't do with a screencap. In this case, it seems pretty useful to me as there are plenty of criteria the table could be sorted by. Now if the problem is merely of aesthetics, it's something we can fix with contributors having better taste than myself. --Homerun-chan 21:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Page version 2
OK, just finished Version 2 with major edits to the text, added graphs and the new wikitables at the top. Feedback? Recommendations on further improvements? --randomanon 16:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I just skimmed through the page after almost 2 weeks of absence, and I have to admit it looks quite awesome. The wikitables at the top look good, and these collapsible graphics help interpret the data pretty well. As it has been quite a while since we discussed it, I don't remember what you've decided to do in the end, but if I were you I'd also typeset the remaining tables as wikitables (I'm coming back home on Saturday so if you have questions about formatting we can look into it then). Also, answering your question above, I didn't do anything about the templates yet since I just found an Internet connection now, but I'll do that on Saturday or Sunday too. --Homerun-chan 18:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I probably could (and should) for the others but I've been too lazy/technically challenged to revise it to fit the other table formats. The 10 week table will also need to be revised when I decide to update it at...either the 15 or 20 week mark, depending on how sales look. --randomanon 19:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed a problem with the layout on smaller screens (and by "small", I don't even mean notebooks, I noticed the problem on a Macbook Pro I hijacked): when there's a screencapped table and a graph side by side, the graph is displayed below the table, as the browser window is not large enough to display them correctly. I see some workarounds, but you probably won't like them:
- use wikitables for the data and set them to the correct width, putting the graph on a separate cell inside the table (cf the general sales tables). I already know your opinion on that one.
- reduce the size of the pictures. Reduces readability at the same time, and doesn't solve the problem (macbooks may display the page correctly, but notebooks probably won't, let alone even smaller screens)
- put both images in cells of an invisible table. Modern browsers should display this correctly, but it's ugly as fuck code-wise, and is harder to maintain.
--Homerun-chan 21:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I actually do my work off a laptop and don't see a problem. Maybe it's a resolution thing. In any case, is there a solution that wouldn't make things uglier either for us or for everyone? Seems like while it's annoying the graph is below the table, all it does it make it ugly for only for a small number of people. --randomanon 01:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Her Poofiness Madoka
Jesus Christ randomanon you went all out on this one.
ほむほむ - 02:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah well, I started this back the first week of sales. Or even before that with pre-sale estimates. It was all buried in my talk page. So it was mostly done when I dropped it on this page and just fixed up the text and made some graphs. Other people made the cool charts and I merely input the numbers. You like? Or more importantly, is it clear and does it make sense? Hard for me to judge because I'm so use to looking at these numbers. --randomanon 02:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- With numbers like these they have to be fools not to make a second season. --Mutopis 05:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing more I like than numbers, especially well researched and organized ones like these. - Prima 06:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, thanks. It's very simple calculations so the focus is to make it presentable to even a casual reader who doesn't follow sales data. I welcome any feedback for specific changes or improvements. My next step that I'm considering after this is a page dedicated to indications of Madoka's popularity. Basically tracking signs of it breaking out of the mold of the average anime to more mainstream popularity and possibly holding some social/cultural significance in the future. --randomanon 07:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Manga sales
For completeness' sake, should the sales data for the various manga volumes also be added somewhere? --Knon 02:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to do so, if you like. --randomanon 06:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Compiling data here before moving to main page: --Knon 20:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Movie Ticket Sales
When the movie hits theaters, I hope we get info regarding ticket sales. I am sure it would sell well but I am sure some fans would like the info and even compare ticket sales too... --Mutopis 06:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)