The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Superior Screen Movie Production Company.
"According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended the 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."
The advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company sent out a memo to allocate a greater share of its budget next year for advertising to the public. He/she has arrived at this conclusion based on a recent report from the marketing department that claims fewer attendees arrived at their movies last year, despite the percentage of positive reviews. However, before this decision can be properly evaluated, three questions must be answered.
Firt of all, how could the fewer attendees be justified as due to a lack of public awarensess? In other words, could there not be an external factor that led to a reduced audience? It could be possible that there has been an increased interest among the public for home theatres, resulting in lesser turnout during their public screenings. There is a potential that services such as food and seating at theatres has not been upto the mark, discouraging people from attending screenings. If any of the above scenarios hold merit, the advertising director's claim does not hold water.
Secondly, could there not be other interpretations of a greater percentage of positive reviews? Perhaps, only viewers who develop a slight liking for the movie, end up rating it. 3 out of 5 stars might be considered positive, though the percentage of 5 star ratings might have dropped considerably. The average merit of the content might only be attracting a selected number of viewers, unlike a blockbuster movie. Should this interpretation be true, the argument posed by the director is significantly weakened.
Additionally, should we not take into account the implications of increasing the budget for advertising? It is probable that due to a trimmed budget allocation for content creation, the quality of movies might drop, causing a decline in audience turnout. If this situation occurs, the decision of the advertising director might backfire.
To conclude, the recommendation, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company is able to answer the three questions and offer more evidence(perhaps in the form of a survey covering feedback for other production companies as well), then it would be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation to allocate greater budgets for advertising to the public.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-06-03 | ayushjhaveri | 58 | view |
- Critical judgement of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field 58
- Company management should conduct routine monitoring of all employee e mail correspondence Such monitoring will reduce the waste of resources such as time and system capacity as well as protect the company from lawsuits 54
- Colleges and universities should require their students to spend at least one semester studying in a foreign country 54
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 54
- The best way for a society is to prepare its young people for leadership in government industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation not competition 70
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 385 350
No. of Characters: 1971 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.43 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.119 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.974 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.389 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.673 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.389 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.291 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.532 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, second, secondly, then, well, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2027.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 384.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27864583333 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4267276788 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0513977739 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.549479166667 0.468620217663 117% => OK
syllable_count: 629.1 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.5719929619 57.8364921388 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.611111111 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3333333333 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.66666666667 5.70786347227 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210088790771 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.055310218158 0.0743258471296 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0775347827297 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120598125085 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0984774402166 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.