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 of the Super Screen Movie production company believes that increasing the amount of advertising the company does will increase the amount of people attending Super Screen produced movies. He believes this because during the past year fewer people than ever before attended Super Screen produced movies, yet the percentage of positive reviews about specific Super Screen produced movies increased over the past year. Ostensibly the extra advertising would tout the good reviews written about Super Screen movies. Before this plan is implemented, however, Super Screen needs to address some questions about its possible flaws. First of all, the company needs to ask what the actual number of people attending its movies as compared to the movies of other production companies is. The number of people going to movies may have been in universal decline. If this is the case and more people are going to see Super Screen Movies than the movies of any other production company, advertising about how fun it is to go to the movie theater may do more to boost Super Screen viewership than advertising promoting its own good reviews.
Secondly, the company needs to ask what the actual original number of positive reviews was. If Super Screen movies recieved 1% positive reviews last year and this year they recieved 2% positive reviews, getting that message to viewers is not going to increase Super Screen attendence. Making better movies would be much more likely to increase attendence rates.
Finally, Super Screen needs to ask what the relationship is between its viewers and the movie reviewers cited in the memo. Using a survey distributed to its target audience, Super Screen could determine if movie reviews have an effect on their audience's decision to go see a movie, whether movie reviewers tended to have the same taste as the target audience and exactly whether or not movie reviews are reaching the audience. Super Screen also needs to consider how its movie choices have affected the separate movie reviewer and audience populations. If the studio has switched from making mega-blockbuster action movies to more nuanced dramas, the general public may be less willing to go see their movies even though movie critics prefer the dramas to the action movies.
Finally the studio must ask whether the percentage of positive reviews is really a relevant way to measure the potential impact of movie reviews. There are dozens of movie reviewers but when deciding whether to not to go to a movie, the general public will usually pick from among the 10 most popular movie reviews. These are the reviews that will impress the public if they are included in advertising. If the most popular movie reviewers disliked Super Screen movies that a larger number of small time film bloggers reviewed positively, Super Screen needs to think of a new advertising strategy.
In conclusion, there are many questions Super Screen needs to answer before using this advertising director's plan. They need to look carefully at actual numbers, both of viewership and of positive reviews. The also need to identify the relationship that their target audience has with movie reviewers and determine how their target audience feels about their movies. Fianlly they need to take a nuanced look at the movie reviews that they use in their advertising.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 549 350
No. of Characters: 2765 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.841 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.036 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.443 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 219 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.955 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.99 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.818 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.377 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.562 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.149 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 372, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...aste as the target audience and exactly whether or not movie reviews are reaching the audience...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 652, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...tion movies to more nuanced dramas, the general public may be less willing to go see their mov...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...er the dramas to the action movies. Finally the studio must ask whether the percent...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 238, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ng whether to not to go to a movie, the general public will usually pick from among the 10 mos...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, look, may, really, second, secondly, so, as to, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2818.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 549.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13296903461 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84053189512 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49191112795 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.406193078324 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 873.9 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.0513901372 57.8364921388 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.090909091 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9545454545 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.22727272727 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 8.20758483034 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.380650010857 0.218282227539 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.132347495902 0.0743258471296 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0972765263931 0.0701772020484 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.219786364566 0.128457276422 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112008891471 0.0628817314937 178% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.7 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.