I don't know high level math or statistics and wanted to ask about the math in a recent online article. The website 'TheMarySue.com' has an article saying:
ON AVERAGE, THE TOP WOMEN-LED FILMS OF 2013 GROSSED HIGHER THAN MALE-LED FILMS
and then references this article that did the math:
"Women-Centric Films Out-Gross Male-Centric Films on Average: Twist!"
In that article the way the author determined that "Actress-centered movies out-grossed actor-centered movies by almost exactly one-third!" was by using the following:
- Total gross of all the top 100 movies in 2013: \$10.039 billion.
- Total gross of 15 actress-centered movies: \$1.908 billion.
- Total gross of 79 actor-centered movies: \$7.525 billion.
- Average gross of actress-centered movie: \$127 million.
- Average gross of actor-centered movie: \$95 million.
The author says 15 movies of 2013 had a female lead in his view, 5 were 'neuter' and 79 had a male lead.
I am not trained in statistics but it seemed to me that the author didn't apply math correctly. For example, I used his same logic to show that movies with numbers in the title grossed more than title without numbers:
- Total gross of all the top 100 movies in 2013: \$10.048 billion.
- Total gross of 18 number-included-titled movies: \$2.110 billion.
- Total gross of 82 letters-only movies: \$7.938 billion.
- Average gross of number-included-titled movies: \$117 million.
- Average gross of letters-only movies: \$96 million.
I would think that does not show that movies with titles that had numbers were correlated to higher-returns, but a lot of people are telling me that I am wrong and that the argument made in the article based on the data is "sound" and "solid." One person on the comments section of TheMarySue says:
Yeah, I was really happy about the article until I got to their statistics and realized the logic was flawed. :(
More films on the lower end of the spectrum means the average gets pulled lower.
So I am confused because everyone else says the logic and the applied statistics is sound. :(
I don't have a preference of gender lead roles in movies. I thought the division of gross revenue to argue that those movies had some special quality was incorrect. I am trying to answer the question:
"What affect does a male lead or female lead have in the gross revenue of a movie in top 100 films of 2013?" by limiting myself to that writer's data.
How I am wrong in the application of division to create a sound argument for their premise so I don't make that mistake again? Also, what kind of math or techniques should be used to answer that question? Thanks!