The advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company in a memo says that, the movie failed to make a blockbuster hit because the publicity done through advertisements was not enough as it didn't reach the public well. So he proposes that the budget for advertising should be increased next year. To support his argument he provides the evidence that though the movies of this year received positive comments, it did not reach the viewers. Though the underlyong issue certainly has merit, because of lack of evidence, weak assumptions, and vague language the advertising director's argument is unsubstantiated and is deeply flawed. Some of the fiws in author's argument are as follows
To start with, the author fails to clarify if the people whp attended Super Screen produced movie this year, which are said to be fewer in count, are whether the cast and crew of the movie and their families itself or the general public viewers. For example, thought the publicity and promotions done where enough, may be the cast of the movie had not performed well or are not well known among the audience. This would snake the movie a failure even after aple amount of advertising done for the movies.
Additionally, the author fails to consider the change in viewers interest over a year. He does not give proper evidence if the movies made this year were of the genres that are currently in trend and of the viewers interest. Even if the movie was of the desired interest, he does not give proper evidence of whether the movie promotions attracted the target audience. Say, for an action movie to grab maximum attention among the public its promotions should be in such a way that they also depict what the movie is about and hence, grab the attention of public with the interest in action movies say, the teenage boys.
Finally, the director claims that though the reviews were positive they did not reach the audience. This can definately be the case whereein the reviews that the director is mentioning were from the film makers themselves and the reviews that reached public were from the general public and those reviews were not necessarily positive. This situation, must have lead people to lose interest in the movie although the advertising done were amazing.
Although the given argument is categorically unconvincing, the director could strengthen his position were he is claiming that the budget should be increased for advertising for a movie to be success. If he gives a proof that the flaws were not in the movies' screenplay and performance and proves that if the publicity and advertising is made in a greater scale, the movies are sure to be a success, then the arguments reasoning would be significantly improved. However, without these changes, the argument is implausible and the reasoning is faulty.
In conclusion, the director presents an interesting but flawed argument. Had the director presented the data mentioned above, the argument would have been persuasive. As it stands however, the director's argument is too weak to be true. Hence, I remain unconvinced.