Jump to content
13 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/54874.html

 

Topic 2: What Is Apple Hiding Now?

 

Last week, I mentioned that Forrester had released a study that showed iPod sales Free How-To Guide for Small Business Web Strategies - from domain name selection to site promotion. dropping dramatically, and I took the opportunity to rant on DRM (digital rights management), because I think downloading songs with DRM limits is stupid -- and I think the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) treating folks that actually buy their music as criminals is really stupid.

 

The Mac folks made their usual mature response, and they and several other folks pointed to a ComScore study that supposedly refuted the Forrester work.

 

As some of you know, I'm an ex-Forrester research fellow myself, and while I didn't work on the numbers side, I know the firm's methodology is solid. More important, I know Josh, the author -- he was sort of my opposite number on that side of the house -- and he typically does excellent work. ComScore, on the other hand, does custom work for vendors. What it does is valuable, but if Microsoft were to use a ComScore study to disprove an IDC or Forrester study, I doubt many would be foolish enough to believe it. I'll bet not a single Apple "journalist" actually looked up what ComScore did before avidly publishing the company's results. Suddenly, vendor-funded studies are ok?

 

This is similar to what happened a few weeks ago, when Metafacts, another -- but smaller -- numbers house, published a study with far-reaching implications, which also mentioned that Apple's installed base was around 55 years old. The study implied that Gateway was the more common brand for the younger crowd.

 

The age-55 finding seemed consistent with my own observations, given that Apple lost the education market and seems to be big with retired folks -- it is easier to use after all. This was followed by statements from analysts and Apple itself that seemed to focus on observations on people in Apple stores to refute the study.

 

I think if you compared who goes into Cadillac dealerships with who is actually driving old Cadillacs, you would also see there is a huge difference. Ever wonder what people do with their old Macs? The very fact that publications would accept challenges to a study based on observations of store traffic is, well, consistent with Apple.

 

For those of us who really follow Apple, it is common knowledge that the company you see from the CEO on down is a construct. The public "Steve Jobs" is a character created by Apple's agency played by a guy named "Steve Jobs" -- that's why Apple doesn't like the Jobs biographies -- they break the image. Had they gone the Ronald McDonald route, they could probably keep the name and change the guy.

 

The entire point isn't to disparage Apple -- it does a great job owning its identity. It is to suggest that when a company is that good about concealing things, maybe it is wise to be just a little skeptical of what it says. Remember, this is the company that said it would never move to Intel -- while it was working to move to Intel.

Hmm, kind of interesting.

Speaking on behalf of comScore, I want to categorically reject the assertion that "comScore was paid by Apple to create a fake iTunes sales report". I can assure you that, whether a study is funded by a client or not, we objectively report what our data are saying. To suggest otherwise is untrue and irresponsible.

I also want to point out that our study of iTunes' sales trends was NOT funded by Apple -- nor any other client for that matter. It was, rather, an analysis we conducted "on our nickel" using the comScore database (which, with 1 million people, is about 100 times the size of the sample Forrester used). I would further point out that the sales growth rate we reported for iTunes (up 84% in 2006 versus the seasonally equivalent year ago period) has been corroborated by independent reports from the investment banking firm Piper Jaffrey (using Apple data) and NPD the market research company. Additionally, both Nielsen SoundScan and the RIAA have published data showing that total music downloads are up about 70% this year.

Only Forrester is claiming that iTunes sales are down (by a mind-boggling 65% at that). Apple itself has strongly denied this to be the case, saying: "the conclusion that iTunes sales are slowing is simply incorrect."

 

Rather than questioning the validity of comScore's data I suggest we need to be asking what went wrong with Forrester's study.

 

Gian Fulgoni

Chairman

comScore

Then we are going to have Forrester coming over here and telling them to look at your companies fraud iPod reports.

Edited by trav1085
Speaking on behalf of comScore, I want to categorically reject the assertion that "comScore was paid by Apple to create a fake iTunes sales report". I can assure you that, whether a study is funded by a client or not, we objectively report what our data are saying. To suggest otherwise is untrue and irresponsible.

I also want to point out that our study of iTunes' sales trends was NOT funded by Apple -- nor any other client for that matter. It was, rather, an analysis we conducted "on our nickel" using the comScore database (which, with 1 million people, is about 100 times the size of the sample Forrester used). I would further point out that the sales growth rate we reported for iTunes (up 84% in 2006 versus the seasonally equivalent year ago period) has been corroborated by independent reports from the investment banking firm Piper Jaffrey (using Apple data) and NPD the market research company. Additionally, both Nielsen SoundScan and the RIAA have published data showing that total music downloads are up about 70% this year.

Only Forrester is claiming that iTunes sales are down (by a mind-boggling 65% at that). Apple itself has strongly denied this to be the case, saying: "the conclusion that iTunes sales are slowing is simply incorrect."

 

Rather than questioning the validity of comScore's data I suggest we need to be asking what went wrong with Forrester's study.

 

Gian Fulgoni

Chairman

comScore

 

Wow, robotskip, that's the first time you've actually managed to {censored} anyone IMPORTANT off, heh. Normally you're just pissing all the people who frequent this forum, but this is a new step in pissing-off for you!

 

Congrats!

 

>_>

Right, the chairman registers and makes a single post to dispel some random guy on a forum. I know some of you will believe basically anything but even this is a bit of a stretch.

 

So, I'll take reports from other companies of one which has been accused of installing it's monitoring software without user's content, paying people to participate, commonly reported as spyware and other unsavoury things.

 

Oh, and he tries to turn the attention away from Comscore, how convenient (Despite Forrester being an independent researcher and Comscore being based upon businesses). Hell, he doesn't even know the amount of people in their userbase (He says 1 million when on their site(s) they have a different number) and to add to it he doesn't even know how Comscore works (Comscore is there to do work for clients to help improve various things, or so says their site and one of their main purposes is the ability to give).

 

But, chairman regularly visit sites like this, provide false info about their own company, etc. Right ? Like trav1085 said, maybe the Forrester chariman (George Colony) will be kind enough to make an account the day I post this, make a single post (Where he happens to not know about his own company) and than disappear into the night.

 

- A tip for the marvelous Comscore chairman, get some actual accurate info about your company and try to be a little less illiterate (I hear paragraph breaks are the new rage).

Edited by robotskip

This makes me wonder. If I made a post attacking Steve Jobs directly, do you think he'll register with the forums just to reply to it? That'd be pretty cool. Maybe we can get Gates here too.

 

Oh, and it's a known statistic that the majority of statistics are incorrect. :( Most people usually compile statistics to prove a point in the first place, which means they have a biased goal. If the numbers lean away from what they tried to prove, they tend to play with the numbers a little.

Right, the chairman registers and makes a single post to dispel some random guy on a forum. I know some of you will believe basically anything but even this is a bit of a stretch.

 

As much as it would be cool for him to post here, I doubt it as well. This guys' ISP is BellSouth, and the corporate headquarters (and furthest south office) of comScore is in Reston, Virginia. Having lived most of my life 20 minutes from Reston, Virginia, I can say for a fact that BellSouth doesn't offer internet service here, unless it's dial-up (and I don't think they offer that either). Considering he's the CEO of a technology-related corporation, I highly doubt he's on dial-up. Thus, offer us proof, or begone, vile submission.

Wow, robotskip, that's the first time you've actually managed to {censored} anyone IMPORTANT off, heh. Normally you're just pissing all the people who frequent this forum, but this is a new step in pissing-off for you!

 

Congrats!

 

>_>

WOOT!!! One small step for the board (very very very small step) and one BIG step for robotskip!!!

 

It's going to be a long year :laser:

Especiallywith robotskip here... *sigh* :lol:

WOOT!!! One small step for the board (very very very small step) and one BIG step for robotskip!!!

Especiallywith robotskip here... *sigh* :star_smile:

 

Dude, sig'd. That is filled with win.

iTunes sales per ipod has been consistent at 2-4 songs per month with a slight downard trend. iPod users aren't buying more songs, there are just more iPod users over time.

 

There's an even more important question - what's the buying pattern of an ipod user? Do they buy a lot at first and then stop, or do they keep on buying over time? Until recently, it's been hard to tell. With iPod sales growing 3x year over year, at any given time most iPod owners are new owners who would be buying in either case. This year, that's changed. iPod sales are growing MUCH more slowly year over year, and more of the buyers are replacing exiting ipods, so the proportion of users who are new is much lower. If the installed base is sustaining their buying, then you should see continued sales growth. If users stop buying after the first months, then sales should drop.

 

That's exactly what the Forrester data showed.

http://www.zunester.com/2007/01/im-involve...in-dust-up.html

 

This person puts [part of the] issue a bit more 'clear' than most others.

Even more proof:

 

What really rocks is that if you compute sales per day, the 1.5B number itself (direct from Steve) confirms the study, that itunes sales dropped from Feb to Sept, as shown on the blue line below.

 

sales_per_ipod2-723007.jpg

itunes_sales_per_day-720364.jpg

http://www.zunester.com/2007/01/update-to-...h-per-ipod.html
×
×
  • Create New...