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.
In the memo from the advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company, he is arguing for greater emphasis on advertising the movies for better reach to the public. He has based his argument on the past few years experience of the production company as it is strugling to gather a higher amount of audience for their movies. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, these questions must be answered.
First of all, the argument lacks any actual data as nothing is quantified. No data is provided regarding the actual decrease in the audience numbers. It is follows blindly the report given by the marketing department. Maybe, the decrease in audience number is very low and there is no need to worry about it as the production company may be expermenting with new genre. The production company may be focusing on some new types of movies that it has not made earlier. This could lead to the public being somewhat skeptical about going to the theaters as they don't know what to expect out of the movie right now. But, since the postive reviews by reviewers are going up (as stated in the argument), the move looks to be a good one in the longer run. Maybe it could not lead to results earlier but the move may be good enough to bring higher revenues in the near future as more people will come to witness new genres and new kind of movies.
Further, the problem could be with the quality of movies beinf produced itself. People nowadays are smart and equipped with easy access to internet and can read the review of any movie and get to know if it is worthy to be watched or not within seconds. So, the claim that people lack awarness reagrding good movies seems vague. There are many interent services like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes who review all the movies all over the globe and is available for free. So, to put up the problem in the name public's lack of awareness and not doing introspection regarding the quality of movie being made seems absurd.
Moreover, are the movie watching conditions of the past year and present even roughly comparable? Time changes anything in a blink of an eye. Before the corona pandemic broke out, anyone could go out at any time but now governments put up lockdown in many parts to stop the spread of the virus. Maybe, less audience was just beacause of the pandemic scare and now since things are getting better and people are moving out freely, the prouction company may soon see a surge in the audience coming to see thier highly rated movies.
Also, the report may hint towards a bit of corruption in the company as it is making the company allocate higher budget to advertisement even though they know that they are making highly rated movies which will eventually make people come to their theaters. Maybe the marketing department head is friends with advertising department head and wants to help him and himself financially by making absurd and vague claims which are not backed by any strong data or number. Corruption has been root of many changes in companies and this case may be another such example.
In conlusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions stated above. If the author is able to provide proper answers to the questions and offer more evidence, then it will be possible to fully evaluate if the argument holds water or not. The answers would lead us to conclude if there is a need to allocate greater share of budget next year to advertisement ot not.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 17 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 619 350
No. of Characters: 2847 1500
No. of Different Words: 303 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.988 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.599 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.427 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 200 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.808 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.743 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.654 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.256 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.256 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.074 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 558, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...cal about going to the theaters as they dont know what to expect out of the movie ri...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, moreover, regarding, second, so, then, kind of, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 92.0 55.5748502994 166% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2902.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 618.0 441.139720559 140% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.69579288026 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.98594081286 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4720322689 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 303.0 204.123752495 148% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.490291262136 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 911.7 705.55239521 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.7045465854 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.615384615 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7692307692 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.92307692308 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218360784894 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0556383389716 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.065836972327 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106598643508 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.067168493577 0.0628817314937 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.28 12.5979740519 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.