According to a recent report by 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 last year. Clearly, the content of these reviews is not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not in the quality of our movies but with public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater quantity of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising.
The argument makes a case for an increase in the share of the budget allocated for advertising in the Super Screen Movie Production Company. The memo states that fewer people have watched this production company's movies in the past year but the percentage of positive reviews have increased, and based on this fact, argues for a greater share in the budget for advertising. On deeper analysis, this argument is rife with unwarranted assumptions without any data or studies to back them up.
Firstly, the reason why fewer people attended the movies has been assumed to be lack of advertising. It can be due to a host of other reasons. The number of movies produced in the last year has not been specified in comparison with the other years. In fewer movies were produced, the decline in the number of viewers is not surprising. In this case the total viewers reduced even though the average per movie might have stayed the same. Even the percentage of positive reviews can be misleading depending on how it is calculated. A few exceptional movies along with a few flop ones would end up producing the same percentage of positive reviews as the case if all the movies received mixed reviews. But the viewers' reaction would be different in both cases. Thus it would have been helpful to provide such additional statistics to back up the claims in the memo in order to lend it some more credibility.
Further, it concludes that the contents of positive reviews are not reaching enough prospective viewers, and thus the viewership is decreasing. It is plausible that there was an increase in online piracy of movies in the last year, leading to a decrease in the number of movie-goers for all the shows. If movies were readily available free of cost, people would have been tempted to watch them at home rather than in a theatre. Then the problem would not be specific to Super Screen Production Company, and spending more on advertising would not help. Research on the topic of piracy before drawing such a conclusion would have helped the company to filter out its possibility.
Another seemingly logical conclusion is that allocating a greater share of its budget next year will help the production company to retain or increase viewership. This could prove overly optimistic if the quality of movies is not retained. Positive reviews have increased for the current year, but nothing can be said about the upcoming projects without data about its cast, genre and storyline. If the reviews turn out to be negative, excessive advertising could even hurt the company's prospects instead of helping them.
In summary, the production company may decide to increase the portion of its budget assigned to advertising, but this memo does not make a convincing case for the same. It has made assumptions, which, if prove to be unwarranted, would lead to a loss of money for the company.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-24 | Cynic | 43 | view |
| 2019-12-14 | nimesh94 | 42 | view |
| 2019-12-14 | mcmaster | 33 | view |
| 2019-12-10 | pooja.kakde@gmail.com | 59 | view |
| 2019-11-28 | a251ravind | 63 | view |
- Those who see their ideas through, regardless of doubts or criticism others may express, are the ones who tend to leave a lasting legacy. 16
- Those who see their ideas through, regardless of doubts or criticism others may express, are the ones who tend to leave a lasting legacy. 50
- According to a recent report by 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 act 82
- Understanding the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership. 50
- SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp's original headquarters. Moreov 68
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 490 350
No. of Characters: 2342 1500
No. of Different Words: 226 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.705 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.78 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.578 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 167 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.304 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.734 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.565 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.296 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.487 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 708, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'viewers'' or 'viewer's'?
Suggestion: viewers'; viewer's
... movies received mixed reviews. But the viewers reaction would be different in both cas...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 759, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ction would be different in both cases. Thus it would have been helpful to provide s...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, may, so, then, thus, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2397.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 490.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89183673469 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70488508055 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66392516652 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465306122449 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 758.7 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.6839912688 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.217391304 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3043478261 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.4347826087 5.70786347227 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.28845683344 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0836040017664 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.065449092632 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155739117983 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0847399778396 0.0628817314937 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.