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.”
The advertising director believes that an increase of advertising budget would help the movie production company to increase their reach to the public. However, there are many loopholes in the logical process preceding this conclusion. The report he mentions lacks quantification of the reviews' sample size, and he draws illogical relevance between the report and his decision to increase next year's budget.
The report contends that fewer people have attended the movies in the past year than any other year, yet it does not specify the amount of these people and the number of years the movie company has gone through. If the movie company has seen only a slight decrease in numbers, there won’t be much of a difference, nor a problem to solve in the first place. Same can be said about the number of positive reviews. If the number of these reviews are actually insignificant, the movies are perhaps not as good as the director had thought. The problem would then perhaps lie in elevating the quality of the movies instead.
Even if there is a huge difference, and that the problem does lie in advertisement for the past year, it does not indicate that this would be the problem for next year as well. There is no direct link of causality between good advertisement and high public viewers. If the movies next year are awful, no amount of advertising will bring more viewers. Perhaps more money placed in the movie production instead can bring in more viewers than the advertisements themselves. If that is the case, a higher advertisement budget would, instead, backfire on the director's wishes.
Additionally, there should be more investigation on why "specific Super Screen movies'' had higher positive views. Is it because of a movie trend that coincided with the phenomena of the time period, such as apocalypse-themed movies during the COVID pandemic? Or is it because of a favorable director or famous actor? If there had been a lack of viewers but higher positive views in the past, could it be that these audiences enjoyed watching a movie in a less-crowded setting? If that is the case, more budget on improving viewers' comfort would be more ideal.
In order to make a decision to increase the budget in marketing next year, the director will need to provide more information on the reasons for the positive views and the number of these views. A more thorough investigation of possible problems for next year’s conditions would also help make a more reliable decision. Only then will it be wise to put out money that might be better spent somewhere else.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 438 350
No. of Characters: 2091 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.575 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.774 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.646 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 144 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.857 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.213 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.306 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.523 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.104 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, so, then, well, such as, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2153.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 437.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92677345538 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74894578345 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.450800915332 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 672.3 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.5120334178 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.523809524 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8095238095 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.223670623872 0.218282227539 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.066881712347 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0621273873904 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126070869612 0.128457276422 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.055410097355 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.59 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.