The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company.
"According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased during the past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In this memo the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company recommends that in order to increase the cinema attendance of its movies the company should allocate more of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. To support this recommendation he points out that the number of people attended Super-Screen-produced movies decreased last year while the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific its movies increased which suggests that these positive reviews are not reaching enough to prospective viewers. The director’s argument, however, is not persuasive from several aspects.
Firstly, the company must consider whether the proportion of viewers attended its movies among all the production companies last year saw a rise, for the reason that the whole industry may suffer a recession due to economic depression which could result in less individual spending for entertaining. If this is the case, it seems unnecessary for Super Screen to pour more fiscal resources into advertising its own films because this increased proportion is compatible with its raised percentage of positive reviews. Secondly, the company need to figure out how many percent of positive reviews had increased and what the initial percentage was during the past year. For example, if Super Screen’s movies received 1% of positive reviews initially and thus even a 10% increase through last year is meaningless, which only reveals the poor quality of Super Screen’s movies.
Even assuming that the positive reviews of Super Screen’s movies raised evidently and played a dominant part last year, the company have to ask whether there is a positive correlation between critics’ reviews and people’s desire to watch its movies. Sometimes, people’s desire to see a film have little to do with reviewer’s opinions, other factors such as a strong cast and the sheer popularity of the novel from which a movie adapted etc. Furthermore, critics’ taste of a movie may vary greatly from common audience, for example a mega blockbuster with spectacular special effects can often rule the box office while critics even disdains to talk about it. Finally, even assuming that positive reviews do promote a movie’s box office, Super Screen must ask where these reviews are from. If the increase of positive reviews came from many obscure critics and several most famous reviewers criticized its movies harshly, then public opinion would surely be deeply influenced by those powerful establishment, thus Super Screen needs to think of a new advertising strategy.
In conclusion, the advertising director’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the Super Screen Company needs to figure out the change of the percentage of audience attended its movies among all the movie companies and the actual number of positive reviews last year. Most importantly, the company must identify the relationship between reviewers’ reviews of a movie and people’s desire to watch that movie. Only in this way can Super Screen find an appropriate and effective strategy of advertising.
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'while', 'for example', 'in conclusion', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.284722222222 0.25644967241 111% => OK
Verbs: 0.123263888889 0.15541462614 79% => OK
Adjectives: 0.105902777778 0.0836205057962 127% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0451388888889 0.0520304965353 87% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0243055555556 0.0272364105082 89% => OK
Prepositions: 0.114583333333 0.125424944231 91% => OK
Participles: 0.0225694444444 0.0416121511921 54% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.07197839 2.79052419416 110% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0277777777778 0.026700313972 104% => OK
Particles: 0.00520833333333 0.001811407834 288% => OK
Determiners: 0.0954861111111 0.113004496875 84% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0173611111111 0.0255425247493 68% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0121527777778 0.0127820249294 95% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3183.0 2731.13054187 117% => OK
No of words: 490.0 446.07635468 110% => OK
Chars per words: 6.49591836735 6.12365571057 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70488508055 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.430612244898 0.378187486979 114% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.334693877551 0.287650121315 116% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.234693877551 0.208842608468 112% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.144897959184 0.135150697306 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07197839 2.79052419416 110% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 207.018472906 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485714285714 0.469332199767 103% => OK
Word variations: 56.1753347105 52.1807786196 108% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 20.039408867 80% => OK
Sentence length: 30.625 23.2022227129 132% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.6052605117 57.7814097925 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 198.9375 141.986410481 140% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.625 23.2022227129 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.0 0.724660767414 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 64.0943877551 51.9672348444 123% => OK
Elegance: 2.18918918919 1.8405768891 119% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.524847424453 0.441005458295 119% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.136089265295 0.135418324435 100% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.087933683281 0.0829849096947 106% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.566986459755 0.58762219726 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.141407733279 0.147661913831 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.24215455028 0.193483328276 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.083142087159 0.0970749176394 86% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.527208855159 0.42659136922 124% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0489781243068 0.0774707102158 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.419750298271 0.312017818177 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0527638279113 0.0698173142475 76% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.33743842365 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.87684729064 44% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 11.0 6.46551724138 170% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.