Wow!
Every once in a while, a new spin/scam on Hollywood emerges… and this weekend, we saw one come to life on our very own Hot Blog. I think it deserves its own section. (sunlight.. disinfectant… etc)
There is a company called Michael Adams & Associates that is attempting to claim that they can consult a script to profitability. They have a formula!!!
Besides being an extraordinary bucket of gobbledygook full of non-statistical statiscial analysis, they run the very popular scam of “forecasting” after movies are in theaters…
“The Motion Picture Performance Index forecasts are released on this site before 6 am, Pacific Standard Time on the day after the wide-release opening of any film playing in a minimum of 500 theaters in the United States.
Forecasts are available on this website BEFORE studios can publish box-office dollar revenues on each new film, insuring that forecasts come from our product playability data and not from studio box-office reports.”
Did anyone tell these guys that studios don’t “publish” Friday numbers, though tracking of estimated grosses starts coming in around noon p.s.t. and continues all afternoon?
They explain…
“MAA forecasts are generated through discrete reviews of script construction, story line and the expected casting, plus an analysis of the inherent production component formulations, and a calculation of income possibilities BEFORE the film goes into pre-production.
Though compatible with other methodologies, MAA forecasts are not generated by random audience research, celebrity polls, pre-production test marketing, comparative dollar forecasting, or genre-oriented
projection models. We do not use pre-screening data or other methods which are used too late to eliminate production errors.
MAA uses 1. cinematic archetypal performance modeling, 2. proprietary psychometric algorithms for numerical valuations, and 3. graphic audience response technology to predict playability and build the successful word-of-mouth that generates domestic audience attendance and world-wide profits as well.”
Then they claim:
“The current forecasting ability of the MP4I™ is 92.96% accurate year to date.”
In other words, they missed 7% already, despite not predicting – and this is a killer – whether a film will go into profit via the domestic box office ONLY until after grosses come in from Friday afternoon… numbers which will give you 90% accurate weekend numbers and can be built out into a long-range estimate from there. Of course, we’re only into the first weekend of March, so none of the films being tracked are even out of domestic release yet.
But this is not all…
I stand by this… anyone who tries to determine the fiscal success or failure of a film based on a screenplay alone is either a charlatan or a moron. It is trecherous to try to speak to fiscal success based on a finished picture most of the time! But a screenplay? And worse, do these guys have any idea what draft of the screenplay they are reading?
Moreover… no one in the film world calculates profitability based on domestic box office alone anymore… no one. Even if you did just stick to domestic numbers, these guys take no account of foreign territory pre-sales or investments… it would seem because they don’t quite understand that they exist.
AND they are guessing at budgets with remarkable inaccuracy.
But otherwise… this is a great deal.
These guys have been posting on the blog for a while… seem like nice enough, smart enough people. But this “consulting business” would be the dictionary definition of “showbiz bullshit.”
Michael Adams may not know this, but there are guys and gals at every studio and every film finance company that calculates the elements on every film before green lights too. There are people who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year because they understand the real value of talent in international markets… and they still are wrong all the time. And every studio has what are called “ultimates,” which are predictive of total revenue from their films, which start before production and are adjusted as circumstances warrent. But these estimates are remarkably accurate… even when they are negative about the product.
When I looked at the site, I thought perhaps it was satire. But it takes itself way too seriously for that, it seems.
Hollywood. Go figure.
Your disagreement is welcome. Your laughter is expected.
But I offer this to Michael Adams & Assoc… I will commit my resources to a weekly look at the forecasting of this wannabe business. I have only one rule… forecasts by 11p Thursday night. I will gather and publish these predicitions. I will be your vessel… and if you are for real, it’ll be great for you… and if you aren’t, it’s back to Starbucks in record time.
Dave, two questions:
1. Are you really, really sure you want to encourage this sort of thing?
2. Can anyone start planting plugs for their products and services on this blog? Because I would like to post a link to Amazon.com for my book. Or at least hype my lawn-moving service.
It has been my experience that “put up or shut up” tends to result in the latter far more often than the former.
OK, but don’t complain if we start seeing links to porn sites and overseas pharmacies in the blog here.
Dave you’re killing me – I’m all out of venom from those last posts on MAA. However they should know that there is a MAA strategic planning business in the UK (same name) and I’ve informed them about this US company in case they worried they’re rep may be tarnished.
ps – Groucho my Wonder Cat says “$37-39m” opening weekend numbers for Hitchikers. He takes Paypal donations if anyone is interested.
my psychometric algorithm predicts that butter doesn’t melt in the mouths of people who are trying to sell something that isn’t necessary to decision-making persons of avg. or above IQ.
On the other thread, it was also apparent that pickpockets seldom work alone and often under different names.
With the exception of My Best Friend’s Wedding and a couple odd others, most predictive/market tests don’t significantly change the box office outcome, do they? They just drive up the overall cost of a movie.
But heck America is the home of selling products that aren’t needed. Look how profitable Pet Rocks were for a short time.
David: Notice that it’s Michael ADAM & Associates, not Michael Adams. I wonder if he’s the same Michael Adam who has directed and produced such great titles as “Backseat Driver #13,” “Backseat Driver #15,” “Hand Job Hunnies #1,” “Finally Legal # 3,” and others? http://www.searchextreme.com/directors/Michael_Adam/88820306841/
Or perhaps he’s http://www.michaeladam.com/ . If so, it’s nice to know that “[a]s of November 20th, 2004, I have officially retired from escorting. This means, of course, that I am no longer available to schedule sessions.” 🙂
I googled Michael Adam and Associates, and could find no mention of the site or the company. Hmmm…
You mean… Jeff Gannon is changing businesses???
Interesting, so you’re saying this guy want from sucking cocks for cash to selling crocks for cash? Sounds like a smart business decision. Next thing you know he’ll be sucking Joe Roth’s cock in the morning then counting his cash in the afternoon. Or doesn’t Joe already have a guy for that?
David: The Jeff Gannon comparison did come to mind, actually. Maybe there’s some sort of conspiracy amongst “retired” male escorts, and they’re secretly plotting to take over the world. First the press corps, now the film business…TV should be next. Control the media, and you’ll control the masses! 🙂
Sherry Lansing would’ve made these guys rich.
WOW!
Your responses have been awesome!
And they are truly appreciated. It’s exactly what we were wondering about.
(How would the public react to exposure to film component formulation technology?)
But man, I never thought it would be so intense!
It’s amazing how aggravated or excitable you guys are…
especially over something you think or believe doesn’t really even exist or is possible in the first place.
Just Amazing!
What possible difference could it make to your lives personally?
Why does this affect you so? What are you scared of?
Please, just as an experiment…
Pretend for a moment, that it is true. Would that be a bad thing?
And again, thanks for the feeding back!
(I really wish I was at liberty to address your mis-understandings, or your mis-informed accusations here, but the logically definitive answers that truly explain the workings of the program are extremely confidential. ALL of your concerns are very justifiable based on what little you’ve been allowed to see.) What you saw or may be allowed to see in the future is just a facade. (The public would never be allowed to have the real information about the system to investigate. It would obviously cause them too much concern – like it has you.) To assume that you have all the answers on just what you’ve seen is really juvenile.
But let me assure you that the system goes way beyond U.S. profitability. The formulations predict global profitability and sell-through as well – we just didn’t want to make it more difficult for the public to understand. It gets pretty complex.
Can you imagine how wigged out the studios would become if we were broadcasting the forecasts before the films were released and the detrimental effect it would have on their marketing attempts. And if we really were using the same tracking systems you say never work anyway, how could we be right on more than 92 out of 100 films (so much greater at our accuracy than the trackers are)?
Formulations are flexible and plastic, so no one can be 100% all the time. The audience evolves which precludes concrete perfection.
Besides, it’s not the studios who employ us…it’s the financiers who bankroll those studios that hire us. (And again, wish I could show you THEIR badges, but they have to remain completely confidential as well.)
And I know that if you are all intelligent enough that were you more accurately informed (rather than jumping to conclusions over what little facade the public is allowed to see), I think the system would put you at ease. I think you would be impressed – especially if you were risking hundreds of millions of dollars of your own money. You would be shown the exact proofs. Sorry I can’t do that here.
It’s been fun. And thanks for the space on your site. But you really should be moving on now…
Oh,
and one more thing.
Those budgets that YOU assumed we are guessing at as the real budgets?
They ARE NOT an estimation of the film’s actual budget…
They are the budget limits — the average for those types of pictures that compute success. Those numbers are used as a mean average so we can evalute profitability from the stastical perspective.
Just a little FYI…
Thanks!
Sorry…statistical. Typing too fast.
“Michael”: If this system with which you claim to be associated is legitimate, why are there no references to your company anywhere online? Is your name Michael Daviyd or Michael Adam–or neither?
I worked in an executive capacity for an international film financing and distribution company for 3 1/2 years. I’ve never heard of you, your methods, or your company.
If it’s only the “financiers behind the studios” who hire you, why are you wasting your time on the lowly public at a site such as this one?
I don’t think you’ve gotten anyone particularly excited or enraged here. My guess is that most people here, like me, are just laughing at you, quite frankly…
Thanks for your feedback michael. Every heard the term, glutton for punishment? I think you answered most of our questions by not answering a single one of them. Here’s some quick fire answers to yours..
What possible difference could it make to your lives personally?
NOTHING WE JUST HATE YOU PERSONALLY
Why does this affect you so? What are you scared of?
NOT MUCH, CURIOUS TO SEE HOLLYWOOD’S ANSWER TO NIGERIAN SCAMS
Pretend for a moment, that it is true. Would that be a bad thing?
MY IMAGINATION DOESN’T ALLOW FOR SUCH PERMUTATIONS
How would the public react to exposure to film component formulation technology?
MICHAEL IT IS TRULY DISTURBING NEWS. SOCIETY COULD COLLAPSE – IT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF ALIEN LIFE COMING TO EARTH.
The only ‘badges’ you’ll see boyo are the ones being held up by Feds.
Just a little FYI.
My offer stands… I don’t need a tour behind the curtain of your proprietary Oz… just your predictions, based on your system, before numbers start coming in on Friday afternoon.
Actually, in theory and apparent practice, you should be able to give me the answer to any movie in production, months in advance of its release. But that would actually be a test of your “product.” Avoid that at all costs.
And The Pacifier “script DID NOT contain any film component formulation errors”? None? Well, I guess it is on its way to $200 million. How do you distinguish one set of errors or error-free-ness from another? Did Spider-Man 2 have anti-gravitational film component formulation errors?
JBD is a little harsh, per his norm. But he is right… we don’t like con artists. And like the local law in the old west, when you come into our town and try to con people… even corporate, wasteful studios… you’re gonna get ridden out of town on a rail.
See ya.
Once again, the intensity of your negativity is really amazing to me. Thank you for insisting on asking me questions I am contractually obligated not to answer. Get a clue!!
I thought that if you thought that this thing was truly bogus — it would have been a forgettable issue by now.
It was just a test of your reaction. But its getting redundant. Your reaction is noted.
I guess I’ll never work in this town again huh! (……oh please!)
Now let it go. I think I hear your wives calling…
Michael: Do you care to respond to any of the points/questions that I brought up in my last post?
Dave, I promise this is the last post from me in regards to this dork. Why would any asshole ‘test’ his scheme for a reaction on a public blog? Here’s three simple words that explain why MAA (reality 1 guy and his PC) are so fucking pathetic –
A PHONE NUMBER. Just something every credible business has!
Most credible businesses also have email addresses that are not @aol.com.
Oh come on Eric several people use Aol.com for
their business websites. You know, like those
business that involve wind-surfing, wife swapping,
needle point, cinematic cat photography, b-i list
celebrity homepages, and MUCH MUCH MORE!
Nice to know that an outside agency can offer the
studios a service they already do for themselves.
Maybe one of us fine folks should get in bizzzness
for ourselves by selling to the studios our very
own 20-something executives.
The Orginization for the Orginized (registered trademark
except in Guam) here by offer the major studios,
newmarket, and LGF our 20-something exec. They
come in four styles: Overcompensating homosexual
male: This guy likes to act like he loves the ladies
but he sure does love the fellas. His overcompensating
aside, this guy will work 90-hours a week, and has
a 94.88 accuracy when it comes to accepting pitches
and greenlighting films that will garner at least
a 20 million dollar openning weekend.
Our next male exec, irrational male comes with
frosted hair and/or a receding hairline. He smokes,
drinks, and enjoys illicit drugs 4 out of the 7
days in the leg. Unlike our previous male model,
this type only has an 87.49 percent accuracy rate
due to his prepencity to gamble on such projects
as Snow Dogs, Extreme Ops, and any film starring
David Arquette or his wife.
Our final two exec models are female and come in
hetero or lesbian variety. Botn garner the highest
accuracy rate than either male exec (97.39) but
are female. Thus making their job much more difficult
due to the male dominated workplace and/or the
ridiculous attitudes in said work place.
Trust the Orginization for the Orginized to give
you the best EXECUTIVE TALENT money can buy! If
you act now! We guarantee each exec will come
with his or her’s very own IVY LEAGUE DIPLOMA!
Of course it will be for something that will not
help them in the entertainment world, but who cares?
It’s all about the show!
One has to have worked in this town to not work in it again.
Perhaps you have and we are all misjudging you.
But the reason this continues is that you keep slinging the same hash and taking the comedically arrogant position that “you people just can’t understand.”
Most of us understand. And that is the problem with your claims.
I can’t speak for everyone on this board, but my daily work is to sort out the liars from the really good liars. I spend most of my time talking to people who are “contractually obligated not to answer.” And none of them is as unforthcoming as you.
(There are some truh tellers and they are my favorite people… but they are rare.)
It’s a funny thing about Hollywood… there are plenty of scammers, but if you can’t put up, everyone knows you aren’t for real. Sorry…
DP writes: “And like the local law in the old west, when you come into our town and try to con people… even corporate, wasteful studios… you’re gonna get ridden out of town on a rail.”
Speaking of the old west, DP, any co–suckers here watch the season premiere of Deadwood tonight? 🙂
I know I did. Youve got to support a gay cowboy
and a foul-mouth Englishman, because HBO have yet
to renew the best show they have on their network.
HOOAH!
want the forumula to a great script? real easy. a great story! wow!
Hey Bob, if it’s that easy, you must have written a few yourself. When’s your next film coming out? What exactly is the “great story” formula, anyway? Is it Sid Field + Roland Barthes = Casablanca or T/7 + p9 > Stepford Wives? Just wondering… 😉
exactly my point, jerk. there is no formula to movie writing except for a great story. so next time u wanna try and be comical and funny, maybe u should check again before posting. only the lame are like u, “llyod”
You know his buzz word generator was working over time, although he couldn’t possibly ever be sucessful without using the word synergy, the industry loves that word even today. Shame too, his scam probably would have worked.
Gentlemen, this is crazy.
I guess you just don’t want to let it go so I will try to quickly wrap it up for you. Also, I have written you a nine-page response to your barrage and I will send any of you a copy of it, if you will be so kind as to e-mail me a request at our business e-mail address. Or you may call me during the week at my business phone number.
The business e-mails and phone were sitting right in front of you the whole time. If you had just taken the time to really examine the links I left on the blog, you would have seen them. In fact, if you had just taken your time and really examined the entire web site, all your silly accusations and derisions would have been obviously unnecessary.
Call me at 310.777.8330, or e-mail me your request for the document to Michael@MAAforecast.com or MichaelDaviyd@MAA-losangeles.com and I will reply promptly.
That’s right…
I’m not just one guy at his computer with an AOL account like you guys. I was at home for the weekend and using my AOL was just more convenient than having to go through all the security we use in our business communications.
Poland … you immediately, illogically, and unfairly labeled us a scam.
Did you really THINK that logic out first? C’mon Dave! If we really were a scam, why would we risk exposing ourselves to you and your minions like this? Why would we risk public humiliation or criminal exposure by putting our website and our business model on your blog site, and then invite your professional examination. Not to mention the challenge of the intense scrutiny of such a notoriously scathing motion picture blog site!
Please, get real! No scammer ‘INVITES’ scrutiny. They avoid it!
And just because we were honest enough to protect the contractual exclusivity and non-disclosure agreements we have with our clients, you irrationally accused us of hiding something. DID you really expect us to break our contracts just to DEBATE THEM with bloggers?
Think Poland!
Why would anyone trying to scam writers or producers, tell YOU about their operations? You’re an investigative journalist for heaven’s sake! Why would scammers risk putting themselves before that?
Reverse psychology? (It just wouldn’t be worth it.)
It’s not like scam artists are just dying to get on your site … is it?
You and I both know how small this town is.
If this process couldn’t stand up to scrutiny, we would have been “rode out of town on a rail” years ago when we started testing it. Think. If we were a scam, you could just set up a shell company and run a scam back on us. It would be easy to expose us if we were a scam! C’mon try!
You really don’t WANT to believe that cinema experiences are so objectively and scientifically quantifiable. I know, it’s hard to believe such accuracy honestly exists in THIS town…but it does. (And for just that reason, we have numerous third party references to vindicate and validate it with complete objectivity and integrity.)
You’re probably just going to say that they‘re all lying too, huh …
Do you really think that the producers, directors, and writers in this town are really so stupid they would just take someone’s word for the process, without scrutinizing it and vindicating it completely? Did you think they would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in us just because we are such good scammers?
Don’t you think all those people who really know all those numbers by heart – and have been in this business even longer than you – would have already asked us these tons of questions? Don’t you think they would bother to watch us work?
Of course they do! That’s why we’ve been working on this for two decades! (We just hoped YOU would have been a little less insecure and opened your eyes a little more.)
We are counting on (ALWAYS counting on) being scrutinized and micro-scoped by every client we work for. Surely you can understand that. We verify our forecasts with solid, re-constructable formulations. Can you do that with forecasts you make…or are your forecasts just guesstimating and faulty opinion like you accused us?
If you had checked the date the website was initiated on a ‘WHOIS’ internet database, you would have seen that we have been publishing these forecasts publicly yet privately on the web (for industry people to validate) for two years now on the current address, and three years on another before that.
Do you really think we haven’t been through this scrutiny before? Do you honestly think you’re the first or the only person to be suspicious or to assume this incredibly hard to believe paradigm doesn’t exists? Please! We’ve been scrutinized by the best! (Scrutinized with an honest, hard look, just as we should be … constantly.)
So why haven’t you heard of us before?
Because once a client is satisfied this is real, they refuse to tell anyone else about it. They do that, so they can keep this fantastic edge on the competition for – and to – themselves, so they can make the most of it. They want it to work only for their productions, and not have it bought-out by other, richer client. Most of them pay us extra just to keep our mouths shut about working for them as well. (They don’t want us using them to make our product look good to their competitors, and in turn probably causing their films to garner negative press about being “formulaic”.) I know a guy like you gets that…
And that’s totally understandable – and we willingly agree.
(If we were teaching you the formulations, you would want us to keep our mouths shut too, wouldn’t you?)
It’s a creative, yet very protective and selfish industry. Just the nature of the beast I’m afraid.
You accused us of having access to the box-office cash register financial reports that only a few vendor service companies collect on Friday, and of using it to generate the forecasts. David, you couldn’t be more wrong. (If we were doing that … we could be correct 100% of the time … and not just 92%.)
Anybody who is actually working the financial end of the business (instead of just reading and writing about it) knows that NOBODY BUT THE STUDIOS and the distributors of current films being exhibited are given access to the computer generated income data from the theater chain box-offices on opening days. (And a few of these people can’t even get at it before midnight.)
Everyone else in this business has to wait till the next day to get dollar amounts – just like we have to. And even some portion of those amounts are just ‘estimated’ dollar amounts. Not all cinemas report on the weekend … and their accuracy would be miserable to try to forecast positive word-of-mouth from.
Or maybe you meant that you think we can survey the public in attendance of a majority of screens in America and that we use those surveys to estimate grosses… Or that we contract that kind of data from other companies like TES or NRG or MarketQuest. That data doesn’t even work for the studios forecasts, why would we use it?
David, we can simply and honestly tell you that we DON’T use any outside sources of box-office data on opening day. And we can prove it to you – but you probably really wouldn’t want us to would you?
HERE’S THE FACTS.
We don’t use any other data source or reference other than our own analysis that is derived from our own methodology and posted BEFORE the numbers are released. We never have, and we never will. Period. Pure and simple.
Besides, we wouldn’t trust anyone else’s data even if we were shown it before-hand. All the tracking services have lousy accuracy percentages and can’t nearly predict word-of-mouth as correctly as we can. Even YOU say so.
LISTEN … HERE’S AN OFFER FOR TO YOU!
We’ll gladly contact any of those companies for you – and have all of them notarize and certify in print, and on-line, that MAA does NOT use their services, nor have we ever, nor will we ever. Just give us a list.
(And if you’re jumping to conclusions that we are going through some ‘third party’ to gather numbers … just find those numbers somehow and compare those tracking numbers and their forecasts to ours.) They are so much lower than us that we would NEVER trust their projections. (If we did that we would be just as inaccurate and as irrational as you have always said those companies are.)
It’s just ludicrous, David, that you would accuse us of cheating to be this accurate, by employing the same silly, inaccurate, faulty forecasts you’ve always complained of from those other tracking companies.
You also claimed that we had “missed 7% of the forecasts already” as if we had only got started for the year, like our 93% accuracy was temporary and would diminish more as the year progressed. What you didn’t understand is that was our OVERALL accuracy for the ENTIRE YEAR TO DATE. Our accuracy for all the years we’ve been doing this combined is 95%! And that number has consistently been within 1% of the end-of the year accuracy for the last five years (during both forecasting profitability of wide-release pictures, and during beta-testing of the product we’ve been demonstrating to financiers since 1995.)
OK …you obviously don’t want to believe that forecasting can be accomplished at “the script level”.
(You like to write scripts and you don’t want some company interfering and determining your creative capacity to formulate the script.) I understand. But then, you are facetious enough to ask us if we know WHICH draft it is.
Oh, of course we do!
You would have known that if you had studied the web site!
What YOU didn’t read well enough on the site was that we start with the first draft and track the additional formulations all the way through to the end of the entire production!
It all depends on the client. And if you had studied first, you would have understood that methodology of ours before asking such a goofy question. But we understand. It’s not a ‘touchy-feely’ enough paradigm is it?
You said that “no one in the film world calculates profitability based on domestic box office alone anymore”.
Did you assume we meant net profit?
David, we have always referenced what we mean by profit, as the cost of the negative subtracted from the North American gross. This is the first and most concrete benchmark in the film business that there is to judge how well a film is performing by, and how good it is at generating profitable word-of-mouth. (You know…“If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere”.)
All of our clients use U.S. gross as a yardstick, and all of our non-clients wish they could – but unfortunately it becomes too disappointing to their corporate parents if they do, so they hide behind the ever un-trackable and venerable conversion ratios, to cover their errors in creating a lack of U.S. audience interest.
Plus, you are neglecting to consider the huge number of wide-release films that NEVER go world-wide, and don’t have much sell-through on DVD or VOD either. Their ONLY barometer is domestic box-office profit. (That’s their bottom line, and the same one all the industry trades use to first report performance as well.)
Yah right, nobody uses it – but EVERYBODY watches it!
You say “these guys (meaning MAA) take no account of foreign territory pre-sales or investments”.
(And you say it like it’s a bad thing.) But THAT’S absolutely right! That’s not our job. We’d never use those kind of excuses to smokescreen a faulty product like other people do.
If we were projecting TOTAL PROFITS from the total gross then we would have to do that. But we DON’T predict the total gross of any film. We only predict ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on North American profitability, and on just approximate international grosses. If a producer or financier succeeds in just those two areas of revenue … they are in financial heaven.
We show them how their films can do that. (Sometimes they listen, and sometimes they don’t, but they’ve always wished they had when they didn’t. ‘Irish Jam’ and ‘Retirement’ are a couple of those ‘wish they’d listened’ examples.)
We ONLY forecast the percentage of North American receipts as compared to the budget. That’s all. We aren’t supposed to consider the rights to any other territory beforehand. That’s all money in the bank you can count on AFTER you’ve cleared a profit at the North American box-office. (Otherwise, it just has to go back into production costs, and since we don’t have access to all that data and not everybody does it anyhow, it would be a silly standard to try and enforce, don’t you think?)
You also assumed we were guessing at the budgets that are not reported, and not doing a very good job of it.
Did you assume that all our guesses were the same for the same genres and that made them bad guesses?
The number we put up, when we don’t have a validated budget, is the AVERAGE for a profit making film of that genre from the previous year. It’s just an average, not a specific guess. (If we were specifically guessing did you think we would guess the same exact number for all those films?) Your emotions got in the way of your reason that time, and you failed to analyze the data correctly. (So you guessed wrong, about our guesses.)
David, did you really think that we may NOT know about the “people who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year because they understand the real value of talent in international markets… and they still are wrong all the time.” Are you serious? Of course we KNOW! Those are some of the same people we try to help. Then you go on to say that their “estimates are remarkably accurate… even when they are negative about the product”. So are they still wrong all the time or remarkably accurate all the time?
We know about those ‘ultimates’. We see them published in the same trades or on the same websites or hear about them from the same insiders that you do. And as you know, they are wrong almost half the time.
But you did challenge us to prove we can forecast by publishing forecasts a day before the opening. The fact you overlook is that we do so whenever we can without violating contracts. Some of our forecasts right now are five MONTHS ahead of the opening! Some aren’t even on the calendar yet! Anytime you are ready to make good on your half of the bargain just give us a call.
Like you, we are not ALWAYS privy to every, single page of every film script, or each production meeting before a film opens at the theater. (Nobody in this town is.) OK, maybe the MPAA ratings board, but that’s it. (And they are all clammed-up tight.) So some forecasts can’t be generated till we actually screen the film on opening day. And how many competing studios want us to see their films early and forecast this data to the public before opening day? NONE! (So we don’t get invited to every screening before opening day, unless we have already worked on the script and/or the production formulations – or unless we get lucky.)
So you offered to be our vessel if we could, but I don’t hold you to it. I seriously think you would find whatever way you could to decline. Besides, it wouldn’t really be very objective or professional for a journalist to take up the cause of a profit-making, production oriented financial concern, now, would it?
So because we did not address that, or any other of these questions or accusations, you and many of your intolerant bloggers ‘summarily dismissed us’, thinking that this proved we were a scam. Because we chose not to respond to uneducated questions, you think WE are uneducated. Because we chose not to attack the disbelievers, you think WE are dis-believable. Pretty silly, huh?
We did not address your questions specifically, or immediately, because of how long it takes to do so. (See how long this is?) We have to pre-empt every possible conclusion or misjudgment as we explain and that gets really tedious. And besides, the emotions of your respondents are too fragile and reactive to deal with it. It would have been a waste…or the length of this fuller explanation would have been censored, and nobody would be allowed to read it. (We still run that risk here anyway.)
JPritchett asked if our Michael Adam was “the same Michael Adam who has directed and produced such great titles as “Backseat Driver #13,” “Backseat Driver #15,” “Hand Job Hunnies #1,” “Finally Legal # 3,” and others”?
No, he is not the same person silly girl. Nor is he the retired escort. (I think escorts never retire…)
That was just a bad guess I’m afraid Prichett. Michael Adam is actually a biometric expert running another division of this technology for several other corporate applications in Colorado.
JPritchett also wanted to know why there are no references to our company published anywhere.
That should be obvious by now, yes? We like to stay under the radar, so that our clients are protected. Could you imagine you finding out who they are, and thinking they are stupid too, and that they are needing to be warned about this horrible scam? And then you’d be bothering them with more of your sillyness? Ouch! (Sure, we had to expose ourselves to you, in order to test the public reaction for this system, but it wasn’t a loss.)
And the reason you never heard of us (while you say you worked in film financing) is because there are too many potential clients to see and we just can’t talk to every single one of them. You know how transient the finance business is when you are working with private investors. Big companies just take you for your collateral and could care less if the film actually profits. Private funds and overseas investors are the types of financiers we work for. (Were you one of them? NOT!) In fact we work with very few clients at one time. The work is very time intensive.
And the reason we didn’t show up on your Google search Pritchett, is because we don’t want to show up on Google. Get it? Keeping us low key prevents the mass audience from losing their illusions about the magic of Hollywood. (The same illusions Poland is trying to hold on to…although he is making sure that we end up on Google, which is OK too, it’s just a small page.) But, we’ve received nothing but positive e-mails from posting.)
(Poland jumped back in the discussion at this point and implied that we were con artists and that we were avoiding him in not giving him predictions months in advance.) Check the website Dave!
Forecasts ‘MONTHS in advance’ are on the site and still you don’t call me! (Well, not lately anyway.)
Dave, you also asked how we “distinguish one set of errors or error-free-ness from another?”
That answer is on the website too. It’s far too technical and too lengthy to go into here. Read all data on the website. (Especially the smaller print that most never bother to follow up on.) It’ll take some effort on your part, but then nothing valuable ever came for free.
I regret that you implied that we are liars, Dave.
I had thought better of you than that. You and I could have been ‘favorite people’…if you had first been honest with YOURSELF, and then, honestly studied us. (I would have liked for you to understand the truthfulness of this paradigm, and the realities contained within it.)
But we ARE true.
Our silence to your accusations was patience, not avoidance or denial.
(And the component formulations are real. The evidence is there for those clients who are qualified to see it.)
I’m sorry a few of your people got vindictive. (It spoiled it for the rest of the folks interested on the blog.) The behavior of a few, intimidates many from responding (out of fear of being chastised too). I would have liked to help them understand there, but it’s just as well. They write to me now without fear.
And I’m really sorry Dave that you are so vehemently opposed to the possibility of a truly accurate and concise way of producing profitable motion pictures. I had secretly hoped that it wouldn’t happen that way, so we could share our knowledge, experiences, and some details too. (I feel like saying ‘take your head out of the sand’, but I honestly can’t. That would be mean and unfair.) Let me just say, don’t jump to conclusions. Stay calm.
But who knows?
Maybe now that you’ve had time to watch the forecasts ‘MONTHS ahead of time’, you could get honest. (By the way, those monthly forecasts are on film productions we executed through third parties and that we are not under any contractual obligation to protect.) Just so you don’t jump to any conclusions about how well we protect our clients. (But, I’m not going to dwell on it anymore because that would just waste time.)
Between you and me David, (because I don’t really think this epistle will ever get to your website)…if you would like to get together privately sometime and really learn about the system … just drop me a line. We have coffee at Starbucks. (But remember, I drink hot chocolate.) And yes, the fencing was fun, I’ll admit I enjoyed THAT weekend on the net.
But for now, I answer you in the most dignified way I can.
When there is no one around to despise the right answers.
Yours Truly,
Michael Daviyd
VP Michael Adam and Associates
Gentlemen, this is crazy.
I guess you just don’t want to let it go so I will try to quickly wrap it up for you. Also, I have written you a nine-page response to your tirade and I will send any of you a copy of it, if you will be so kind as to e-mail me a request at our business e-mail address. Or you may call me during the week at my business phone number.
The business e-mails and phone were sitting right in front of you the whole time. If you had just taken the time to really examine the links I left on the blog, you would have seen them. In fact, if you had just taken your time and really examined the entire web site, all your silly accusations and derisions would have been obviously unnecessary.
Call me at 310.777.8330, or e-mail me your request for the document to Michael@MAAforecast.com or MichaelDaviyd@MAA-losangeles.com and I will reply promptly.
That’s right!
I’m not just one guy at his computer with an AOL account like you guys. I was at home for the weekend and using my AOL was just more convenient than having to go through all the security we use in our business communications.
Poland … you immediately, illogically, and unfairly labeled us a scam.
Did you really THINK that logic out first? C’mon Dave! If we really were a scam, why would we risk exposing ourselves to you and your minions like this? Why would we risk public humiliation or criminal exposure by putting our website and our business model on your blog site, and then invite your professional examination. Not to mention the challenge of the intense scrutiny of such a notoriously scathing motion picture blog site!
Please, get real! No scammer ‘INVITES’ scrutiny. They avoid it!
And just because we were honest enough to protect the contractual exclusivity and non-disclosure agreements we have with our clients, you irrationally accused us of hiding something. DID you really expect us to break our contracts just to DEBATE THEM with bloggers?
Think Poland!
Why would anyone trying to scam writers or producers, tell YOU about their operations? You’re an investigative journalist for heaven’s sake! Why would scammers risk putting themselves before that? Reverse psychology? (It just wouldn’t be worth it.)
It’s not like scam artists are just dying to get on your site … is it?
You and I both know how small this town is.
If this process couldn’t stand up to scrutiny, we would have been “rode out of town on a rail” years ago when we started testing it. Think. If we were a scam, you could just set up a shell company and run a scam back on us. It would be easy to expose us if we were a scam! C’mon try!
You really don’t WANT to believe that cinema experiences are so objectively and scientifically quantifiable. I know, it’s hard to believe such accuracy honestly exists in THIS town…but it does. (And for just that reason, we have numerous third party references to vindicate and validate it with complete objectivity and integrity.)
You’re probably just going to say that they‘re all lying too, huh …
Do you really think that the producers, directors, and writers in this town are really so stupid they would just take someone’s word for the process, without scrutinizing it and vindicating it completely? Did you think they would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in us just because we are such good scammers?
Don’t you think all those people who really know all those numbers by heart – and have been in this business even longer than you – would have already asked us these tons of questions? Don’t you think they would bother to watch us work?
Of course they do! That’s why we’ve been working on this for two decades! (We just hoped YOU would have been a little less insecure and opened your eyes a little more.)
We are counting on (ALWAYS counting on) being scrutinized and micro-scoped by every client we work for. Surely you can understand that. We verify our forecasts with solid, re-constructable formulations. Can you do that with forecasts you make…or are your forecasts just guesstimating and faulty opinion like you accused us?
If you had checked the date the website was initiated on a ‘WHOIS’ internet database, you would have seen that we have been publishing these forecasts publicly yet privately on the web (for industry people to validate) for two years now on the current address, and three years on another before that.
Do you really think we haven’t been through this scrutiny before? Do you honestly think you’re the first or the only person to be suspicious or to assume this incredibly hard to believe paradigm doesn’t exists? Please! We’ve been scrutinized by the best! (Scrutinized with an honest, hard look, just as we should be … constantly.)
So why haven’t you heard of us before?
Because once a client is satisfied this is real, they refuse to tell anyone else about it. They do that, so they can keep this fantastic edge on the competition for – and to – themselves, so they can make the most of it. They want it to work only for their productions, and not have it bought-out by other, richer client. Most of them pay us extra just to keep our mouths shut about working for them as well. (They don’t want us using them to make our product look good to their competitors, and in turn probably causing their films to garner negative press about being “formulaic”.) I know a guy like you gets that…
And that’s totally understandable – and we willingly agree. (If we were teaching you the formulations, you would want us to keep our mouths shut too, wouldn’t you?) It’s a creative, yet very protective and selfish industry. Just the nature of the beast I’m afraid.
You accused us of having access to the box-office cash register financial reports that only a few vendor service companies collect on Friday, and of using it to generate the forecasts. David, you couldn’t be more wrong. (If we were doing that … we could be correct 100% of the time … and not just 92%.)
Anybody who is actually working the financial end of the business (instead of just reading and writing about it) knows that NOBODY BUT THE STUDIOS and the distributors of current films being exhibited are given access to the computer generated income data from the theater chain box-offices on opening days. (And a few of these people can’t even get at it before midnight.)
Everyone else in this business has to wait till the next day to get dollar amounts – just like we have to. And even some portion of those amounts are just ‘estimated’ dollar amounts. Not all cinemas report on the weekend … and their accuracy would be miserable to try to forecast positive word-of-mouth from.
Or maybe you meant that you think we can survey the public in attendance of a majority of screens in America and that we use those surveys to estimate grosses… Or that we contract that kind of data from other companies like TES or NRG or MarketQuest. That data doesn’t even work for the studios forecasts, why would we use it?
David, we can simply and honestly tell you that we DON’T use any outside sources of box-office data on opening day. And we can prove it to you – but you probably really wouldn’t want us to would you?
HERE’S THE FACTS.
We don’t use any other data source or reference other than our own analysis that is derived from our own methodology and posted BEFORE the numbers are released. We never have, and we never will. Period. Pure and simple.
Besides, we wouldn’t trust anyone else’s data even if we were shown it before-hand. All the tracking services have lousy accuracy percentages and can’t nearly predict word-of-mouth as correctly as we can. Even YOU say so.
LISTEN … HERE’S AN OFFER FOR TO YOU!
We’ll gladly contact any of those companies for you – and have all of them notarize and certify in print, and on-line, that MAA does NOT use their services, nor have we ever, nor will we ever. Just give us a list.
(And if you’re jumping to conclusions that we are going through some ‘third party’ to gather numbers … just find those numbers somehow and compare those tracking numbers and their forecasts to ours.) They are so much lower than us that we would NEVER trust their projections. (If we did that we would be just as inaccurate and as irrational as you have always said those companies are.)
It’s just ludicrous, David, that you would accuse us of cheating to be this accurate, by employing the same silly, inaccurate, faulty forecasts you’ve always complained of from those other tracking companies.
You also claimed that we had “missed 7% of the forecasts already” as if we had only got started for the year, like our 93% accuracy was temporary and would diminish more as the year progressed. What you didn’t understand is that was our OVERALL accuracy for the ENTIRE YEAR TO DATE. Our accuracy for all the years we’ve been doing this combined is 95%! And that number has consistently been within 1% of the end-of the year accuracy for the last five years (during both forecasting profitability of wide-release pictures, and during beta-testing of the product we’ve been demonstrating to financiers since 1995.)
OK …you obviously don’t want to believe that forecasting can be accomplished at “the script level”.
(You like to write scripts and you don’t want some company interfering and determining your creative capacity to formulate the script.) I understand. But then, you are facetious enough to ask us if we know WHICH draft it is.
Oh, of course we know!
You would have known that too if you had studied the web site! What YOU didn’t read well enough on the site was that we start with the first draft and track the additional formulations all the way through to the end of the entire production!
It all depends on the client. And if you had studied first, you would have understood that methodology of ours before asking such a goofy question. But we understand. It’s not a ‘touchy-feely’ enough paradigm is it?
You said that “no one in the film world calculates profitability based on domestic box office alone anymore”.
Did you mistakenly assume we meant net profit?
David, we have always referenced what we mean by profit, as the cost of the negative subtracted from the North American gross. This is the first and most concrete benchmark in the film business that there is to judge how well a film is performing by, and how good it is at generating profitable word-of-mouth. (You know…“If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere”.)
All of our clients use U.S. gross as a yardstick, and all of our non-clients wish they could – but unfortunately it becomes too disappointing to their corporate parents if they do, so they hide behind the ever un-trackable and venerable conversion ratios, to cover their errors in creating a lack of U.S. audience interest.
Plus, you are neglecting to consider the huge number of wide-release films that NEVER go world-wide, and don’t have much sell-through on DVD or VOD either. Their ONLY barometer is domestic box-office profit. (That’s their bottom line, and the same one all the industry trades use to first report performance as well.)
Yah right, nobody uses it – but EVERYBODY watches it! Everybody!
You say “these guys (meaning MAA) take no account of foreign territory pre-sales or investments”. (And you say it like it’s a bad thing.) But THAT’S absolutely right! That’s not our job. We’d never use those kind of excuses to smokescreen a faulty product like other people do.
If we were projecting TOTAL PROFITS from the total gross then we would have to do that. But we DON’T predict the total gross of any film. We only predict ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on North American profitability, and on just approximate international grosses. If a producer or financier succeeds in just those two areas of revenue … they are in financial heaven.
We show them how their films can do that. (Sometimes they listen, and sometimes they don’t, but they’ve always wished they had when they didn’t. ‘Irish Jam’ and ‘Retirement’ are a couple of those ‘wish they’d listened’ examples.)
We ONLY forecast the percentage of North American receipts as compared to the budget. That’s all. We aren’t supposed to consider the rights to any other territory beforehand. That’s all money in the bank you can count on AFTER you’ve cleared a profit at the North American box-office. (Otherwise, it just has to go back into production costs, and since we don’t have access to all that data and not everybody does it anyhow, it would be a silly standard to try and enforce, don’t you think?)
You also assumed we were guessing at the budgets that are not reported, and not doing a very good job of it.
Did you assume that all our guesses were the same for the same genres and that made them bad guesses?
The number we put up, when we don’t have a validated budget, is the AVERAGE for a profit making film of that genre from the previous year. It’s just an average, not a specific guess. (If we were specifically guessing did you think we would guess the same exact number for all those films?) Your emotions got in the way of your reason that time, and you failed to analyze the data correctly. (So you guessed wrong, about our guesses.)
David, did you really think that we may NOT know about the “people who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year because they understand the real value of talent in international markets… and they still are wrong all the time.” Are you serious? Of course we KNOW! Those are some of the same people we try to help. Then you go on to say that their “estimates are remarkably accurate… even when they are negative about the product”. So are they still wrong all the time or remarkably accurate all the time?
We know about those ‘ultimates’. We see them published in the same trades or on the same websites or hear about them from the same insiders that you do. And as you know, they are wrong almost half the time.
But you did challenge us to prove we can forecast by publishing forecasts a day before the opening. The fact you overlook is that we do so whenever we can without violating contracts. Some of our forecasts right now are five MONTHS ahead of the opening! Some aren’t even on the calendar yet! Anytime you are ready to make good on your half of the bargain just give us a call.
Like you, we are not ALWAYS privy to every, single page of every film script, or each production meeting before a film opens at the theater. (Nobody in this town is.) OK, maybe the MPAA ratings board, but that’s it. (And they are all clammed-up tight.) So some forecasts can’t be generated till we actually screen the film on opening day. And how many competing studios want us to see their films early and forecast this data to the public before opening day? NONE! (So we don’t get invited to every screening before opening day, unless we have already worked on the script and/or the production formulations – or unless we get lucky.)
So you offered to be our vessel if we could, but I don’t hold you to it. I seriously think you would find whatever way you could to decline. Besides, it wouldn’t really be very objective or professional for a journalist to take up the cause of a profit-making, production oriented financial concern, now, would it?
So because we did not address that, or any other of these questions or accusations, you and many of your intolerant bloggers ‘summarily dismissed us’, thinking that this proved we were a scam. Because we chose not to respond to uneducated questions, you think WE are uneducated. Because we chose not to attack the disbelievers, you think WE are dis-believable. Pretty silly, huh?
We did not address your questions specifically, or immediately, because of how long it takes to do so. (See how long this is?) We have to pre-empt every possible conclusion or misjudgment as we explain and that gets really tedious. And besides, the emotions of your respondents are too fragile and reactive to deal with it. It would have been a waste…or the length of this fuller explanation would have been censored, and nobody would be allowed to read it. (We still run that risk here anyway.)
JPritchett asked if our Michael Adam was “the same Michael Adam who has directed and produced such great titles as “Backseat Driver #13,” “Backseat Driver #15,” “Hand Job Hunnies #1,” “Finally Legal # 3,” and others”?
No, he is not the same person silly girl. Nor is he the retired escort. (I think escorts never retire…) That was just a bad guess I’m afraid Prichett. Michael Adam is actually a biometric expert running another division of this technology for several other corporate applications in Colorado.
JPritchett also wanted to know why there are no references to our company published anywhere.
That should be obvious by now, yes? We like to stay under the radar, so that our clients are protected. Could you imagine you finding out who they are, and thinking they are stupid too, and that they are needing to be warned about this horrible scam? And then you’d be bothering them with more of your sillyness? Ouch! (Sure, we had to expose ourselves to you, in order to test the public reaction for this system, but it wasn’t a loss.)
And the reason you never heard of us (while you say you worked in film financing) is because there are too many potential clients to see and we just can’t talk to every single one of them. You know how transient the finance business is when you are working with private investors. Big companies just take you for your collateral and could care less if the film actually profits. Private funds and overseas investors are the types of financiers we work for. (Were you one of them? NOT!)
In fact we work with very few clients at one time. The work is very time intensive.
And the reason we didn’t show up on your Google search Pritchett, is because we don’t want to show up on Google. Get it? Keeping us low key prevents the mass audience from losing their illusions about the magic of Hollywood. (The same illusions Poland is trying to hold on to…although he is making sure that we end up on Google, which is OK too, it’s just a small page.) Yet, we’ve received nothing but positive e-mails from the posting.
(Poland jumped back in the discussion at this point and implied that we were con artists and that we were avoiding him in not giving him predictions months in advance.) Check the website Dave! Forecasts ‘MONTHS in advance’ are on the site and still you don’t call me! (Well, not lately anyway.)
Dave, you also asked how we “distinguish one set of errors or error-free-ness from another?” That answer is on the website too. It’s far too technical and too lengthy to go into here. Read all data on the website. (Especially the smaller print that most never bother to follow up on.) It’ll take some effort on your part, but then nothing valuable ever came for free.
I regret that you implied that we are liars, Dave.
I had thought better of you than that. You and I could have been ‘favorite people’…if you had first been honest with YOURSELF, and then, honestly studied us. (I would have liked for you to understand the truthfulness of this paradigm, and the realities contained within it.)
We are honest and true.
Our silence to your accusations was just patience and understanding, not avoidance or denial.
The component formulations are real. (The evidence is there for those clients who are qualified to see it.)
I’m sorry a few of your people got vindictive. (It spoiled it for the rest of the folks interested on the blog.) The behavior of a few, intimidates many from responding (out of fear of being chastised too). I would have liked to help them understand there, but it’s just as well. They write to me now without fear.
And I’m really sorry Dave that you are so vehemently opposed to the possibility of a truly accurate and concise way of producing profitable motion pictures. I had secretly hoped that it wouldn’t happen that way, so we could share our knowledge, experiences, and some details too. (I feel like saying ‘take your head out of the sand’, but I honestly can’t. That would be mean and unfair.) Let me just say, don’t jump to conclusions. Stay calm.
But who knows?
Maybe now that you’ve had time to watch the forecasts ‘MONTHS ahead of time’, you could get honest. (By the way, those monthly forecasts are on film productions we executed through third parties and that we are not under any contractual obligation to protect.) Just so you don’t jump to any conclusions about how well we protect our clients. (But, I’m not going to dwell on it anymore because that would just waste time.)
Between you and me David, (because I don’t really think this epistle will ever get to your website)…if you would like to get together privately sometime and really learn about the system … just drop me a line. We’ll have coffee at Starbucks. (But remember, I drink hot chocolate.) And yes, the fencing was fun, I’ll admit I enjoyed the weekend on the net.
But for now, I answer you in the most dignified way I can.
(When there is no one around to despise and deride the correct answers.)
Yours Truly,
Michael Daviyd
VP Michael Adam and Associates