1. firstly, the numbers have a meaning - while i might not like them (and you definetely don't), they are used throughout India. If IBOS doesn't use them, then they are simply being *stupid*. It is illogical to use a system different from the country you are purporting to represent.
(from rediff.com <http://www.rediff.com/entertai/jul/18grad.htm>)

So if a stupid system is used people that use a better one
are stupid but the others are not?? Oh dear.
There is nothing wrong about trying to cover profits as well
as bo revenues. But when you do that do it right!!
How is KTH number one this week (but not last week) when
profit is the criterion? The per print gross says NOTHING
about overall profit!


Superhit: A film that earns much more than double its cost (Technically termed A11)
Hit: Film earns double the cost of the production (AI).
Semi-hit: earns a little less than double (A).
Overflow: Earns its commission and the surplus profits is called overflow which is sent to the producer (B11).
Commission earner: Got its money back (B1).
The rest: Washouts and wimps

so, there is a basis for the system, and whether you like it or not, it has to be respected.
--

There is a basis, but its use is ridiculous.
Did you ever wonder why one site has film x as a flop the
other as average, the next as hit, and the order of all
films on a top x list is not the same on all these sites?
How can this be??
If you are lucky there is a fine print that babbles about
including costs, including artistic merit too not only bo
performance etc.
The press then uses these labels of hit and flop and talk
about actors' and actresses' flops and waning popularity,
career ups and downs, and don't even mention that flop 1
made 4 times as much money than hit 2.
A reasonable system starts with bo totals and bo totals
ONLY. Once this basis is laid and documented you can move
on to including costs on various levels (from cinema owner
to film producer) and try to show profits and losses on
these various levels. Any use of terms like flop or hit
must be explained as to which level you refer to and what
actual numbers you are using. Failure to do so opens the
door to endless manipulation and lack of objectivity.
Since the costs of films are often not revealed in detail
by the producers and subject to speculation, and there are
different levels where costs and revenues apply it's a world
wide standard to report revenues as the primary basis for
any bo top x lists. In a country like India where statistics
in this sector are shaky this is of even more importance!


2. There is a way of knowing the exact numbers - adarsh, nahta, morani, and others all publish trade magazines with the detailed amounts. however, they are available only in india, and as far as i know, i have no access to them. if IBOS had access to them, i am sure they could have done a better job with their numbers; much better than simply copying indiafm's #s, and then extrapolating them, based on a grade given by an editor who can be biased.

Care to prove to us that IBOs number are copied from Indifm
(as opposed to both using numbers from a third source)?
Actually if you look at the raw numbers they seem to be
the same. Where there is a huge potential for manipulation
is the numbers for outside the centers which are 2-3 times
MORE than the reported centers.
If you want to argue that IBOS is wrong and manipulating
you have to show that their total is wrong and Indiafm's
(which they don't reveal) is right.

3. Again, as i said before, there is no single basis. so, unfortunately, it's left up to the bias of the person.

It's one thing to have problems with the basic number
of ticket sales and revenues themselves (espcially outside
of the big centers) and another to use these numbers and
twist them around to make number 'one' whatever film you
like.

4. again, where are the corrected numbers from? if they really do use trade magazines (very vague term), then could they please prove it? - scan in a page maybe, or even publish the exact name of the magazine used? this isn't hollywood, where there are billions of sites that can collaborate the data...

Sure, we all would like to know what the source of the
numbers are. But whatever numbers you use, at least state
them so people can see what you do, and use numbers that
are actually related to what you claim you report!
So KTH had the biggest per screen revenues? Nice, how does
that make it the number one film in the country?????
Piffle!


5. you misunderstood what i said. on IBOS, the numbers haven't been updated since march 9th. so, for all you know, KTH's gross could have surpassed the formers...i'm not saying that it definetely did, but it could have. however, until new numbers are shown, we have only indiafm to trust...

The difference between Khushi and KTH is ~18 Mio Rupees
(unless you dispute the raw numbers) and KTH is down
in the < 1 million rupees per week range. So KTH
can simply no longer catch up with Khushi, and not within
a week anyway.

6. there is an inflation index, but it's name isn't the one given by IBOS. so, if they forged the name, then they might have forged the numbers...

Why should they? Current numbers are not modified by the
index anyway. That happens afterwards when they enter the
raw total for a film that has run its course so it can
be compared to other older films.
It does not apply to the KTH vs Khushi issue.


7. the system they use to calculate 50s movies is the same as they use for today's movies. all i am saying is that there is no basis behind the system.

I guess you are agreeing now too that there is something
wrotten in the bo reporting state of Denmark, ahem, India.
I maintain IBO's is less wrotten than Indiafm's as far
as data presentation is concerned.

8. what do you think of variety? is it a better source? do you trust screen? if so, look at this (off a hunch, but it turned out to be true!)

first - http://ibosnetwork.com/filmbodetails.as ... %282002%29

second - http://www.variety.com/index.a....D=17499

third - http://www.screendaily.com/story.a....das&s=3

so, as is blatantly obvious the numbers IBOS used, in this case atleast, are FAKE. correct number is 2.9 - why wasn't it used?

For US numbers I trust Variety more than Indian sources.
But both depend on reports from the distributor so it's
up to the distributor to provide correct data.
I have no opinion about IBO's accuracy for out of India
data.
But once again the numbers not agreeing are symptomatic
of the state of affairs in Indian bo reporting.


--

9. i'll tell you why you should trust them. this adarsh fellow is more intouch with bwood than whoever runs IBOS. all he does is hobnob and suck up and be the little chamcha of his fav. stars.
another reason - if IBOS does really use a trade guide for sources, then it certainly uses adarsh's OWN trade mag. . so while i wouldn't trust adarash completely, i'd trust him MORE than IBOS!

I don't trust anyone implicitly. But the ones that don't
tell me what numbers actually enter their formulas and
what the formulas are I don't trust at all. And if they
use measures that are not related to their claims (e.g.
KTH has highest per screen average so it's no 1 on a
basis that uses costs and revenues) they have lost any
credibility with me.
Professional bo reporting starts with raw numbers and
their totals. Anything else has to be built onto this
basic layer. IBOS does that, Indiafm does not (in a
reproducable way).