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.
As per a memo drafted by the advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company, it would serve the company well to allocate an increased share of its budget for next year to marketing their movies to the general populace. This is based on the results from a recent report conducted by their marketing department which states that despite a rise in positive reviews by movie reviewers of certain Super screen movies, there has been a decline in the number of people attending movies produced by Super Screen. In arriving at the aforementioned recommendation contained in the memo, the advertising director assumes that the decrease in the number of persons attending Super Screen produced movies is due to an absence of public awareness about the availability of superior quality movies produced by Super Screen fuelled by lack of promotion and advertising of good reviews. In order to determine if the recommendation is viable, three pertinent questions must be answered first.
Firstly, does the general public value the opinion of movie reviewers? Do they base their movie watching decisions on the reviews provided by film critics? In a scenario where the general public does not care for the opinion of the movie reviewers, promoting and publicising positive reviews will have little bearing on changing peoples’ minds. For instance, superhero movies are usually not well reviewed by critics, however they go on to become superhits. They receive widespread viewership and ticket sales despite negative and often acerbic reviews. Thus this strategy of assigning a higher budget to publicise positive reviews given by movie reviewers may be counterproductive. It may further drive people away from movies produced by Super Screen. In such a scenario, a survey analysing the correlation between positive movie reviews and probability of watching a particular movie may provide better insight.
Alternatively, does allocating a larger part of the budget to advertising have an impact on the quality of movies produced by super Screen? If this means reducing the amount allotted for development of the script, direction and production of the movie itself, there exists a probability that the quality of the movie itself takes a nosedive. Consequently they may not be reviewed as well by Film critics, thus rendering useless the entire need for better promotion of positive reviews of movies produced by Super Screen.
Lastly and most importantly, does the general public prefer watching movies on streaming services and platforms instead of visiting cinema halls? Take for example the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on movies and movie goers. A record number of people began to stream content including movies online, in the comfort and safety of their own homes, thus eliminating the need to visit crowded and potentially germ induced cinema halls. This trend has continued after the pandemic as well. In such a situation a marketing blitz will have a net zero effect in bringing more people to theatres to attend movies, including those produced by Super Screen.
Thus, the recommendation made by the advertising director of the Super Screen needs to be substantiated with more concrete proof. In its current state it suffers from the severe infirmities. If the questions raised above are discussed and answered, then it will be possible to determine if increased publicity of good reviews will positively impact the number of persons attending movies produced by Super Screen.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-29 | Eurus Psycho Version | 55 | view |
| 2023-08-21 | riyarmy | 54 | view |
| 2023-08-14 | Saket Choudhary | 68 | view |
| 2023-08-13 | Fahim Shahriar Khan | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-11 | Tanvi Sanandiya | 55 | view |
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 557 350
No. of Characters: 2889 1500
No. of Different Words: 257 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.858 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.187 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.759 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 244 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 172 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 117 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.217 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.23 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.652 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.502 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.051 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 810, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y of superior quality movies produced by Super Screen fuelled by lack of promotio...
^^
Line 3, column 19, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...e answered first. Firstly, does the general public value the opinion of movie reviewers? D...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 181, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...y film critics? In a scenario where the general public does not care for the opinion of the mo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 555, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ite negative and often acerbic reviews. Thus this strategy of assigning a higher bud...
^^^^
Line 5, column 331, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...t the quality of the movie itself takes a nosedive. Consequently they may not be reviewed ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 343, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Consequently,
...y of the movie itself takes a nosedive. Consequently they may not be reviewed as well by Fil...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 39, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... Lastly and most importantly, does the general public prefer watching movies on streaming ser...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, so, then, thus, well, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 87.0 55.5748502994 157% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2952.0 2260.96107784 131% => OK
No of words: 557.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29982046679 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85807034144 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82688485324 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 257.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461400359066 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 937.8 705.55239521 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.8331418736 57.8364921388 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.347826087 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2173913043 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.47826086957 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.20758483034 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37444646436 0.218282227539 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118043640065 0.0743258471296 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106967148159 0.0701772020484 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.239179736388 0.128457276422 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.111215160365 0.0628817314937 177% => 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: 8.74 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 138.0 98.500998004 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.