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.
The presented memo claims that Super Screen movies have suffered from a decline in viewers over the past year. The advertising director attempts to fix the problem by proposing to invest an additional amount of budget on advertising campaigns, because he thinks the flaws of the past years can be overcome by more capillary advertisement, in order to reach a greater percentage of the public. The memo sounds wise and reasonable, however it fails to answer some questions which would help clarifying the effectiveness of the advertising director's measure.
Firstly, it is not stated neither the reason why fewer people attended Super Screen productions last year, nor if a survey in this sense has been carried out. Moreover, it is not clear whether people did not attend specifically Super Screen movies or did not go to the cinema in general. In fact, there could be several reason to explain this phenomenon. Did they think about the huge impact of new streaming platforms and services? They are registering an increasing number of subscriptions and this could have led to a drop in cinemas attendance, with a consequential damage also for Super Screen productions. On the other hand, if the drop has been registered only for Super Screen movies, did they carry out an analytical comparison between their products and the ones of their competitors? Perhaps competitors managed to better understand the audience's tastes and desires.
Additionally, the nature and kind of the "positive reviews" is not specified at all. Are they coming from experts and critics or are they a faithful expression of the public's preferences? It is not taken into account that a positive review by critics may not coincide with an enthusiastic welcoming by audience. Therefore, a more thorough description of such reviews and a detailed account of where they have appeared would be useful to evaluate the actual impact they could have had. They could have appeared on sectorial journals and this would prove the director's memo right in that they should put effort towards reaching a greater share of the prospective public. On the contrary, if reviews are already available to the majority of the public, there would be no point in trying to expand their availability.
Finally, the advertising director writes only about allocating a greater share of the budget to advertising, reducing everything to a matter of money and investment. What about rethinking instead the present campaign? Advertisements could have been misplaced, or perhaps they are addressed to a part of the audience which is already aware of the quality of Super Screen productions. Increased funds may not be necessary if a re-targeting of advertising objectives is accurately carried out. Perhaps Super Screen could try to reach younger generations, that are not used to attend cinemas; or maybe, they should try to aim for more efficient social networks campaigns, instead of relying on traditional advertising methods, such as TV and billboards.
To sum up, the director's memo is not completely out of context, but it should address more precisely some questions in order to sound more substantiated and solid in its recommendation. Maybe the abovementioned questions and answers have already been analyzed, but considering them as assumptions may be misleading for the reader. Therefore, a more detailed decription of the proposed measure would provide better evidence for the reached conclusion.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 394, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ach a greater percentage of the public. The memo sounds wise and reasonable, howeve...
^^^
Line 1, column 490, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to clarify' or 'clarify'.
Suggestion: to clarify; clarify
... answer some questions which would help clarifying the effectiveness of the advertising di...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 313, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun reason seems to be countable; consider using: 'several reasons'.
Suggestion: several reasons
...ema in general. In fact, there could be several reason to explain this phenomenon. Did they th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 568, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...orial journals and this would prove the directors memo right in that they should put effo...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 16, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
... TV and billboards. To sum up, the directors memo is not completely out of context, ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, thus, in fact, in general, kind of, such as, on the contrary, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 55.5748502994 140% => 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: 2928.0 2260.96107784 130% => OK
No of words: 555.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27567567568 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85370353223 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02572043873 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 280.0 204.123752495 137% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504504504505 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 906.3 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.3409855296 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.0 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.125 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.04166666667 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.20758483034 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.211190390788 0.218282227539 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0588010573779 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0783880927265 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11834318352 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0816847589615 0.0628817314937 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 98.500998004 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.