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 ot

In the memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company, the advertising director recommends allocating a bigger quantity of its budget to advertising in order to attract more viewers. The advertising director reaches this conclusion by citing increased positive reviews in the past year, so the present reduction in movie views is due to a lack of public awareness of the quality of their movies. However, before the advertising director’s recommendation can be properly evaluated, three questions must be answered.

First, what was the scope and validity of the report from the marketing department? The author claims there was a drop in the number of people who attended Super Screen movies, but doesn’t provide exact figures to properly analyze this. It is possible that 500,000 people attended Super Screen movies two years ago, and last year, 499,990 people saw their movies. If this is true, then there’s no significant decline in their number of viewers. It’s also possible the report doesn’t capture all Super Screen movie viewers–perhaps, two years ago, 100% of their viewers were accounted for, and last year year, only 30% of their viewers were accounted for, resulting in an inaccurate report in the drop of viewers. If any of these hold merit, then the advertising director’s recommendation is weakened.

Secondly, what was the exact percentage increase in the positive reviews by movie reviewers? To determine if the quality of recent Super Screen movies are actually good, we need to know how much they have improved. While it’s possible the positive reviews increased significantly–say from 50% to 77%, it’s also possible that in the past year, the positive reviews only increased from 10% to 13%. We just don’t know. Sure, a 3% increase is still an increase, but it’s still significantly low in terms of quality. People are most likely not going to see a movie rated 13/100. If the latter is true, the advertising director’s recommendation is seriously undermined.

Lastly, what are the interests of prospective viewers? Let’s assume for a moment, that Super Screen movies have actually increased in quality. Here, the advertising director wrongly assumes the lack of public awareness as the cause of the decline in movie viewership. What if that’s not the case? What if people know the movies are good, but are just not interested for other reasons? Perhaps Super Screen movies don’t feature any established actor or actresses and people like to see familiar faces in movies. Or perhaps, Super Screen movies are mostly in one genre say Sci-Fi, and people tend to favor romance movies over Sci-Fi. If any of these are true, then the advertising director’s recommendation doesn’t hold water.

In conclusion, the advertising director’s recommendation, as it stands, is deeply flawed because it based on several unwarranted assumptions. To properly evaluate the author’s recommendation, he/she needs to provide detailed answers to the above questions. Only then can we know the viability of the author’s recommendation.