Lots of comments on the stats in yesterday's blockbuster post. Here's some additional data and other responses:
Second, some of you wanted more detail on the blockbuster share of box office data. Here it is, year by year, with a linear regression to show the trend:
Third, many of you noted that domestic theatrical revenues are now just a minority share of most films' business, which is true. But it's a very good proxy for how those other businesses will do, because how well a film does in theaters heavily influences how well it will do in DVD and abroad. In other words, it's a safe bet that the directional trends of blockbusters as a percentage of the overall business that we're seeing in theaters are showing up in those other markets, too.
Finally, Nat Dykeman queries my assertion that there's more music out there than ever before.
During the same time that labels were crying that people were downloading their cds, and revenue was down 8%, they were quietly cutting the number of cds produced by up to 20%. Personally, I think if you cut your expenses by 20%, and your sales drop 8%, you're doing better than before.
Another example of seeing the world through the lens of the music labels, I'm afraid. MySpace has hundreds of thousands of tracks that were never released by music labels, CD Baby has many thousands of bands who have never been signed, and likewise for the peer-to-peer networks. It's not clear whether Nat is referring to the number of CDs manufactured for each band or the number of bands signed and released. Obviously the former isn't meaningful in this discussion, and I've addressed the latter above.
Just to repeat, most bands aren't signed to major labels. Now that there are ways other than the labels to distribute music, such as those I've mention above, that's no longer a barrier to finding an audience. That's why there's more music than ever out there, even as the music industry--defined narrowly as the labels--shrinks.