“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.”
From the given statement from a memo by the advertising director of the SUper Screen Movie Production Company it can be learnt that during the past year fewer people attended their movies than any other year. But the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers increased. Stating this the director said that this clearly indicates that their contents are of good quality but their advertising strategy is not reaching the people. So they need to allocate more budget for advertising. But it does not clear the argument propelry. Some points should be clarified to confirm the validity of this argument.
Firstly, one thing should be noticed if the overall scenario of the city is still the same like other years. It should be noticed whether the ticket price is still the same or not. If the ticket price has become higher, than it may be a cause for reluctance of the audience to attend the movies.
The reviewers are giving good reviews about the cinema. Based on this it is said the the quality is good. But it should be examined whether the topic or subjects of the contents are of the audiences' interest. Often a good quality content can not attract the audience because the subject may seem less interesting to the audience. So, a survey on the interest of the target audience and evaluate the produced the contents according to the survey may give a proper scenario.
Another thing should be pointed out is that the authenticity of the reviews. There are many reviewers who are venal and give good reviews based on their personal benefit. Sometimes this reviewers have predilection towards some producers, director or artists which also lead them to give biased reviews. So, the authenticity of the reviews should be carefully assessed which may help the related people to understand about the quality of their works properly.
Before allocating a greater share of the budget for the advertising, these points should be clarified. After that a proper advertising stratgey should be made after evaluating the last year's strategy, that may help to find out any flaws in the last year's strategy if there was any.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-25 | rubelmonir | 16 | view |
| 2023-07-25 | rubelmonir | 60 | view |
| 2023-07-23 | Mizanur_Rahman | 50 | view |
| 2023-02-14 | tedyang777 | 60 | view |
| 2022-11-13 | barath002 | 58 | view |
- 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 actu 53
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation and not competition 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 360 350
No. of Characters: 1734 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.356 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.817 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.456 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 129 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.589 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.533 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.093 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 82, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...ut the cinema. Based on this it is said the the quality is good. But it should be exami...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 82, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...ut the cinema. Based on this it is said the the quality is good. But it should be exami...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 182, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ed on their personal benefit. Sometimes this reviewers have predilection towards som...
^^^^
Line 9, column 186, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...hould be made after evaluating the last years strategy, that may help to find out any...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 250, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
... help to find out any flaws in the last years strategy if there was any.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, may, so, still, then, another thing
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1775.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 360.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93055555556 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52450795841 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.491666666667 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 554.4 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.7855724536 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.75 119.503703932 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.3 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => 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: 0.220907321854 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0667335900151 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.119153987951 0.0701772020484 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113900740129 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.109663013599 0.0628817314937 174% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 14.3799401198 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.