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 advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company has come to a conclusion of boosting their marketing strategies financially after having a look at the past year's movie reviews and viewership. Unfortuantely, the drawn conclusions are apparently premature and some of the weakening reasons will be elaborated.
Firstly, we do not have any idea of how old the movie production company is. In entertainment industry, it is inevitable for such bodies to gain and maintain trust in the public to attract viewership. However, the same factor does not have a crucial role to play while getting their movies reviewed, because the reviewers are expected to give their unbiased feedback, regardless of details external to the film. Maybe the company attracted more viewers out of curiosity initially but when the inquisitiveness was sated, the excitement subdued even when the quality of the movies rose.
Secondly, it is very regularly observed that reviewers and general public feedback rarely coincide. A panel of reviewers consists of individuals who are able to judge the movies from various perspectives, while the people mostly seek entertainment. A movie may have a developed plot and sophisticated actors but at the same time, it may be flagged lacklustered by the general public because of the lack of thrill and entertainment. This, in no way signifies that people had a hard time to know about the movie, rather they did not simply find the movie worth their money and held back from recommending it to others, despite its quality which needed a skilled set of eyes.
Moreover, no numbers have been presented to support the advertising director's theory. It may have happened that viewership marginally decreased while the movie reviewers showed a drastically improved response. On the top of this, no analysis of the market competition has been presented here. It may have happened that the quality of films produced by the mentioned company notably improved, but just because other such companies also underwent similar improvements, they ended up attracting interest to their movies, resulting in decrease of viewership for Super Screen.
One last argument that can be drawn to challenge the advertising director's words here, is that there may have been unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances, due to which the people could not reach the multiplexes to spend their money. Take the currently ongoing global pandemic as an example. Movie theatres are closed and companies are forced to release their movies digitally which results in unreliable viewership tally and very underwhelming monetary gains. However, such a situation is not really an obstacle for the movie reviewers to rate films. Movies would still get a deserving review, but a considerably low box office figures to show, even after spreading the word online.
Thus, it can be concluded that as effective as the advertising director's prospective step may initially sound, it happens to crumble on its own foundation upon deeper analysis. A second consideration of the idea might sound sensible, given that there would be presence of enough data and evidence to answer the above questions.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 507 350
No. of Characters: 2623 1500
No. of Different Words: 281 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.745 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.174 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.87 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 191 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 80 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.143 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.906 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.762 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.278 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.028 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 179, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...ncially after having a look at the past years movie reviews and viewership. Unfortuan...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 281, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...onclusions are apparently premature and some of the weakening reasons will be elaborated. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 60, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...y regularly observed that reviewers and general public feedback rarely coincide. A panel of re...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 369, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
..., it may be flagged lacklustered by the general public because of the lack of thrill and enter...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, first, firstly, however, if, look, may, moreover, really, second, secondly, so, still, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2686.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 507.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29783037475 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93558453391 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 285.0 204.123752495 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.562130177515 0.468620217663 120% => OK
syllable_count: 849.6 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.297397969 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.904761905 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1428571429 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.7619047619 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
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: 0.218325534543 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0594931535515 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0664938459806 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113455906122 0.128457276422 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0606690798309 0.0628817314937 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.34 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 145.0 98.500998004 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.