According to a recent report by 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 act

At first glance, the advertising director's idea of inesting more to attract public towards their movies seems plausible. However when his reasoning is put in scrutiny one might posit that his argument is rife with assumptions and loopholes.

To begin with, it has been claimed that, per theri marketing department report, only few people watched Super screen produced movies last year. However we haven;t been intimated abut teh prepartion of report. How many people were asked whether they watched the movie or not. Did they covere complete mob or just a few. If their report is based on only few people's response then the report is dubious. Whatif many people watched the movie but only few of them were among the people who were reviewed regarding movie. I would thus suggest they need to have a thorough analysis and finalize a report which takes in consideration many viewers response.

Going further, it has been mentined that the percentage of positive reviews proliferated. Here again one can't rely on the movie reviewers. They may have been provided money or some other benefit by movie company to give positive reviews just to produce a positive aura regarding the movie in people minds. Along with that it's mentioned that positive reviews about specific movies increased. There's flaw in this. One can claim that only few movies, probably one or two, might be good and rest all are wanting in quality. Why would people go an dwatch movies which are bad in quality. If few movies turnout to be bad people's lose their interest in other movies from same production. In such a case Super Screen production movies are definitely going to see a fall in viewers number.

Additionally, the memo says that the contents of the reviews are not reaching the viewers. Well again, we can imply here that the reveiews might have reached the viewers, but the situations would have precluded amssing more viewers. We don't know what's the situation here, whatif last year wasn't good. People didn't make much ofgood income due to unfavorable market and that's why people decided to spend more on movies and rather first focus on their other needs. So I would say that first this information should be gathered. Probably when the things are good again, people will again start spending more in movies.

Again, it's mentioned that it;'s due to lack of public awareness regarding availability of good quality movies athey should ficus on investing more on advertising. As I mentioned earlier as well, how can one claim that their quality of movie is good, it's people who decide a movie's quality. A production might put a lot of efforts and might find their movie good enough to earn huge profits, but its at viewer's discretion to decide the fate of a movie. Here it's high chaces that their movie quality lack to enthrall viewers. So I would say teh production company should focus more on their movie quality.

With the reasons above and the provided flaws in directors claims one can assert that a lot of information needs to be gathered before coming to a conclusion. Investing more in advertising and less in quality of movie might further degrade their quality which is likely to have bad results down the road.