quality is based on perception and nothing more. just because you perceive something as good doesn't mean it is.

alot of people have bad taste and don't know it. alot of people perceive high quality as something that sucks; especially someone that does not have diverse taste.

@Vlad321: porn as a genre may be highly successful, but individual films do not generate much revenue in comparison to films released in mainstream theaters, or even indie titles for that matter.  But someone already pointed that out.

As for the other things you have mentioned, the TARDIS cookie jar needs not a response but it shall get one anyway.  The purpose of a cookie jar is to hold cookies, it is not a form of entertainment.  Doctor Who is a form of entertainment however, and sales of its merchandise contribute to the success of the franchise and series.  If someone hated Doctor Who they likely wouldn't buy it, perhaps preferring an R2-D2 cookie jar instead, contributing to the success of Star Wars.  Formula works.

Then your acceptance of quality referring to Heart of Darkness and Shakespearean sonnets, while also admitting enjoyment of RA Salvatore's work.  It is entertaining enough for you even though it isn't the most entertaining.  It lacks all the qualities you seek but possesses enough.  If you were only alone.  Many love his work, many hate it, including my friends who have an irrational hatred towards Drow.  Or perhaps a rational hatred now that I remember what Drow are like.  Anyway. 

Since your opinion is just one among many, its quality is measured by its cumulative success in sales.  Weighed against other books, say, Lord of the Rings, which is far more successful, it is easy to say it is of less quality than Tolkien's masterpiece.  Your personal, individual opinion is irrelevant against cumulative data.  If his stories managed to somehow outsell Harry Potter, what you recognize as quality would not be aligned with what the masses consider quality, and that's a more definitive verdict, weighed by how much the population is willing to spend.

Were you willing to spend money on Shakespeare or Heart of Darkness?  If so, you have already supported its financial success and have voted with your wallet.  If not, you have already acknowledged that your personal tastes do not reflect the quality of the work, quality determined by the masses' spending habits.  I recognize that it is quality even though I do not enjoy it.  But if it didn't have that selling power, then it would not have been quality.  I would have simply believed it so by judging it on certain traits, traits that are not enough to be considered objectively good, my opinion drowned out by the many.

Your opinion of Transformers is exactly that: your opinion.  A droplet in a sea of people who continue to spend money on it.  Your opinion is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, as is mine when I choose to spend money on things I like.  I think Firefly is one of the greatest tv shows of all time.  Many people do.  But not enough for some piece of goh seh at Fox to greenlight a second season.

The test of time is the most accurate assessment, that much I can agree.  But that's because it has far, far more data than works of recent years. 

@maverick: glad to see you have an opinion.

@Xenostar: never said the rings were the same price; their artistic merit prevents that from being so.  If their value was determined solely by the mass of the precious metals and stones, their price would be determined by the stock market.  Quality of the artistic slant creates variation in the price, which I have said. Poorer quality shapes and designs will cost less than a ring with a higher quality design, base value determined by the scientifically measurable attributes of the jewelery. When the base value is lower, people will be swayed by the aesthetics of the ring.

Something would not be marketed aggressively if no one had faith that they'd earn back their investment;  it lacked a certain something, no one would be impressed enough to invest their money into it.  If Microsoft dumps ten million into a marketing campaign for Halo, that means that Halo was worth at least ten million dollars of their money, and that coin is considered when the formula is applied.  Units are not being sold in marketing campaigns; ideas are.

When marketing campaigns fail it is either due to a lack of faith in what they are investing in (the lack of money put into it conforming to the formula) or the People are not won over in spite of the marketing, bringing a swift halt to the money being spent in the name of the entertainment, again reinforcing the legitimacy of the formula.  If people genuinely loved something that had not been marketed, it would still sell due to positive word of mouth.  Happens all the time.  That's how I wound up watching Primer, despite it having the look of something I could film in my own garage.

Of course not all things are equal.  The traits which contribute or detract from the quality of a work are not equal; the overall balance in the end is what determines our enjoyment, enjoyment which is measured by the amount of money enchanged in its name. 

@d21lewis: Art: Michael Jackson was widely recognized as a talented individual that produced quality work and delivered in live performances, and that's in spite of being a lightning rod for scandal and accusations of pedophila.  It comes as no surprise that people would spend that much money on his art, and because people do it is indicative that it is quality.  Of course it has something to do with who he is, but if he was an untalented hack the end result would have been very different.  Just because you don't believe a piece of art is worth that much doesn't mean that it's not worth that much, something I learned in art class.

Music: Green Day was/continues to be fantastic.  They are a highly successful band and new fans still dig up their older hits and love them.  Their merchandise continues to sell and their concerts continue to sell out.  Comparatively speaking, few pop stars of boy bands of the '90s can claim the same, but Justin Timberlake still draws crowds and appears in successful movies.  This is indicative of the quality of his art.  After all, the mob has spoken.  He was not a member of the more obscure boy bands that failed to entertain as many, boy bands that Green Day has perhaps now overshadowed. 

People are getting really hung up on comparing two entertainers or works of entertainment that are both successful enough to be considererd quality.  I wonder how people would argue if they were trying to compare a commercial failure to mainstream success.  Undoubtedly their opinions would be trumpeted as fact.

EDIT: Billy Madison FTW

You know, Mark Wahlberg appears in a lot of good movies, too. That doesn't mean he was an amazing musician. C'mon, Feel the Vibration! C'mon, C'mon! Feel it! Feel it!

Nice way to dodge the porn question, because I already replied to the exact same thing you brought up. Porn as entertainment sells more than any other entertainment. Answer me how it is of higher quality than the other entertainment media.

The rest of what you wrote is fairly nonsensical. I also paid for Transformers, and it still remains the bucket of shit it is. Because I paid and was entertained by Salvatore, it doesn't mean his books weren't shitty as hell. It is beyond idiotic to measure Shakespeare or Salvatore or Transformers or Heart of Darkness by sales because they can get sales while being incredibly bad, or not get sales while being extremely good. Since those 2 options exist, your whole argument crumbles and becomes pointless.

I dodged nothing.  Porno moves and mags do not outsell mainstream movies and mags.  The ones that sell the most within that genre are the ones with the better photgraphers, writers and models than their counterparts.  Those who appreciate blurry, pixilated, messy images of unhealthy people are in the minority compared to those that prefer shots with someone who knows cameras and film with pretty people in the frames.  Thus those do better.   And while porn enjoys a massive audience, people are less likely to spend as much money on it versus other forms of entertainment. 

You paid for Transformers.  In your opinion, it is a bucket of shit.  So I imagine you didn't buy the Blu-Ray, rent it, plaster you walls with posters or badger your friends into doing the same, so you cast your ballot with your wallet.  But many did.  And since money is objective, your subjective opinion holds less value.  RA Salvatore's work succeeded in entertaining you and many others, so it rightfully has earned its commercial success and that makes it objectively good no matter what you think of it. If it is objectively terrible it will not succeed.  It is objectively good, it will.  And by following the money, Quality can be measured.

At this point you have exhausted so many failed arguments to the contrary that I will not correct any subsequent deficiencies in your logic.  Deny the formula if you wish.  Your opinions do not define reality; an uncomfortable truth that I honestly expect no one to adopt.

Marketing teams. The hype surrounding a product can cause it to sell regardless of its quality.

I decided that this post didn't really bring anything to the argument, didn't entertain, and in a way insulted the OP in a way that isn't usually my style.  So, post deleted.  Instead, you get this video from college humor.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbG3KNpytYQ

/thread.

I can't believe anyone would actually think this, it seems more than a bit silly. Marketing and timing have a much greater effect than pure product quality. There are countless films that have great acting, script and generally have artistic merit that very few people see because they're not marketed and no one knows about them. The wealth of quality indie titles (in all entertainment mediums) that go unnoticed due to a lack of marketing budget or not knowing the right people is astounding.

And whilst everyone can have an opinon, an informed opinion carrys more weight when determining quality.

Ok, maybe you have failed to read what I have said so I will make it clearer to you. I am not talking about a movie or a magazine, I am talking about pornography, the entire medium. Alright, now did that clear it up for you?

As for the second paragraph, it seems like it's another nonsensical argument. I know plenty of people who saw Transformers, and yet it is still viewed as a bucket of shit by all of them. If sales = quality, then that would not have happened. Your logic in this is so laughably bad that I  am starting to think my hamster will understand this better.

P.S. I am still awating on a response that pertains to marketing and other real world limitations.