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.
There are many loopholes in the recommendation given by the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Company.
Firstly, fewer people attending the Super-Screen produced movies during past years does not account for people attending movies in the upcoming years. Maybe the entertainemnt tax on movie tickets was higher in previous year than this year so it discouraged people from attending movies altogether. Therefore, allocating a greater share of budget to advertising will reap no results in this regard.
Secondly, we cannot conclude anything substantial from the perentage of movie reviews given. More information is required to actually compare the positive word of mouth about Super Screen movies. It is possible that the number of movie goers decreased but the review was not positive. The calcuation in this manner will reveal skewed results. Thus, allocating a greater share of budget to advertising will also not help.
Even if the advertising budget receives an increment from previous years it does not guarantee that the content of upcoming movies will pertain to the tastes and preferences of the consumer. Here, good quality movies are sujective to the likings and disliking of the final customer. Morever, we cannot conclude that lack of awareness is the only cause of people not attending Super Screen- produced movies. Maybe these movies are facing competition from movies being telecast on television ever weekend. This invariably will reduce the number of people coming to attend Super Screen- produced movies.
All these factors have no direct link to the advertising budget of Super Screens. In conclusion allocating a greater amount of money to reach out to public will not make much sense for the Super Screen Movie Company.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 279 350
No. of Characters: 1450 1500
No. of Different Words: 148 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.087 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.197 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.621 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 118 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 75 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 55 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.438 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.232 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.571 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 13.6137724551 22% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1498.0 2260.96107784 66% => OK
No of words: 279.0 441.139720559 63% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36917562724 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08696624509 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68049561055 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.534050179211 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 460.8 705.55239521 65% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.1305321112 57.8364921388 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 93.625 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4375 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.125 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.428872012718 0.218282227539 196% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.137828431575 0.0743258471296 185% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100015538483 0.0701772020484 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.262047026003 0.128457276422 204% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0892918867719 0.0628817314937 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.57 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 98.500998004 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.