The following is taken fromamemo from the
advertising director of the Super Screen Movie
"According toarecent 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 allocateagreater share
of its budget next year to reaching the public through
In the memo, the advertising director of the Super Screen movie has stated that their production company should allocate greater share of its budget to reach the public through advertising in the following year. The advertising director has reached this conclusion due to 2 assumptions. First that the quality of movies produced by them is good and second, that public has lack of awareness about these good movies. To better evaluate this recommendation, we need to answer 3 questions. This will help in deciding the budget share of the production company next year.
Firstly, the biggest leap of assumption in the passage is regarding that the movies are not reaching to prospective audiences. Was any survey conducted amongst the masses? The prompt states that the public are lacking awareness about the movies. But what if that's not the case and the public are sincerely not liking the movies? For example, the country has recently hosted The Olympics and people are quite enthusiast about sports. In such cases, a movie on sports or their favourite national sportsperson will attract more viewers (even if it has a low imdb rating), compared to a good Holocaust movie (with a higher rating).There are chances that the production company are showing their movies on the outskirts of cities (which lowers their cost), that might not be feasible for public to travel to. Are the timings of the movies released matching with the leisure time of public? The movie screens might be held after New Year. During these times, holidays are over and so the savings. Most people focus on their jobs. So even if an enthusiast might want to attend the movie, he might not be able to because of insufficient money or lack of free time.
Secondly, the inference that their movies are quite good, is higly doubted. Since the number of people who have attended the movies are quite low, the number of reviews available to them should also be lesser compared to previous years. These people might be die-hard fans of the cast or even relatives of the cast. Using a small sample set and a potentially biased one, makes the reviews groundless. Why was a poll not conducted? When there can be reviews from a wide range, this option should be excercised to get a more balanced review of their movies. This will help in narrowing down to the core problem. Quality of movies or reach to audiences.
Thirdly, has any study been conducted which has shown that increasing the advertising revenue might allow for better reach? Modern tools of advertising like Google Ads or using social media sites like Instagram, Facebook is quite cheap and allows a wider reach. The advertising team have not even mentioned their mode of reaching the public or how are they going to utilize their greater share of budget.
In conclusion, as the recommendation stands now, is seriously flawed due to its reliance on unwarranted assumptions. If the advertising directore is able to answer the questions mentioned above and provide evidence for his/her arguements, then it is possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation that a greater share should be allocated to the advertising department to reach the public.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 259, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
...awareness about the movies. But what if thats not the case and the public are sincere...
Line 3, column 624, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
...od Holocaust movie with a higher rating.There are chances that the production company...
Line 3, column 965, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...r. During these times, holidays are over and so the savings. Most people focus on...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2668.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 537.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96834264432 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81386128306 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63162688989 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 204.123752495 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493482309125 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 819.0 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 73.4959534424 57.8364921388 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.0 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5172413793 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.06896551724 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.209534308974 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0520763535142 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0570372936661 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110673026314 0.128457276422 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0677903064328 0.0628817314937 108% => OK
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.3799401198 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 12 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 539 350
No. of Characters: 2602 1500
No. of Different Words: 261 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.818 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.827 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.543 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 187 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.586 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.417 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.414 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.246 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.42 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.072 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5