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.”
It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the recommendation that Super Screen Movie Production Company should allocate a greater share of its budget next year fro advertising. It presents a few pieces of evidence suggesting that the movies be advertised better. However, in doing so, several questions have been left unanswered that are crucial to evaluaitng the recommendation. The claim could end uo being fragile, or it could be somewhat valid. We need to accumulate more information before adopting the recommendation as allowing for a higher budget for advertising should be treated with caution.
Firstly, stated in the memo is the fact that fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. But it is assumed that the drop is significant enough to warrant launching an advertising campaign. The question that needs to be answered in this respect is what is the exact number of the people who attended their movies last year and what is the count for the current year. Is there a huge gap between the two that needs to be explained. If it is huge, the company can proceed to investigate the cause of this discrepancy. If not, a minute drop can be attributed to other factors such as a another production company producing better movies, or an ongoing controversy against Super Screen that could help explain the drop. Hence, the recommendation would be more convincing if the author provided information about the exact figures, and the drop in viewers.
Additionally, the advertising director cites that the precentage of positive movie reviewers has increased during the past year. But what was the percentage of positive reviews last year? How much has it increased? How many movie reviewers actually reviewed the movie? Does this percentage of positive reponses from the reviewers equate to those from the viewers? A number of such questions come to mind that give enough reason to doubt the conclusion. An 80% positive response is meaningless if only 3 reviewers were considered. And similarly a 50% increase can go from 40% to 80% for a 3 reviewer group. These statistics do not buttress the recommendation. A full fledged survey of the audience is a possible solution to better look at the response from the audience.
Finally, the author readily claims that better advertising is sure to burgeon audience views. Not only is it incorrect to assume an increase in the views with just better advertising, it also falls prey to following an unreliable line of reasoning. Is advertinsing the only problem the Super Screen Movie Production Company is facing? It could be anything else as the support provided for insufficient advertising is untenable. If word of the movies didn't reach the audience this year, how did the viewers know about them in the earlier years? Perhaps the audience did know about them, but were unhappy with some other aspect of the movies released in the past year. An extensive study of previous and current viewer and advertising patterns would help answer these questions.
The conclusion is ineluctable viewed in light of the pointed issues. The questions raised are paramount to assessing the recommendation of employing an advertising campaign. The company needs to figure out the cause of the drop of movie viewers during the past year to chalk out a more effective strategy to tackle the conundrum.
| 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 |
- The perceived greatness of any political leader has more to do with the challenges faced by that leader than with any of his or her inherent skills and abilities 79
- 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 59
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same curriculum until they enter college 54
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 32 15
No. of Words: 559 350
No. of Characters: 2764 1500
No. of Different Words: 269 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.862 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.945 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.811 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 199 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.469 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.102 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.242 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.424 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.069 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 174, Rule ID: FOR_FRO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'for'?
Suggestion: for
...a greater share of its budget next year fro advertising. It presents a few pieces o...
^^^
Line 3, column 612, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... be attributed to other factors such as a another production company producing be...
^
Line 7, column 451, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ing is untenable. If word of the movies didnt reach the audience this year, how did t...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 175, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...n of employing an advertising campaign. The company needs to figure out the cause o...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, look, similarly, so, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2835.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 558.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08064516129 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86024933743 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87415028164 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 275.0 204.123752495 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492831541219 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 873.0 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 19.7664670659 162% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.6409463895 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.59375 119.503703932 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4375 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.9375 5.70786347227 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 21.0 8.20758483034 256% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.296185886002 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0686561620284 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0863040202716 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149756837312 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0422602515985 0.0628817314937 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.3799401198 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.