Joined: 10 Aug 2013
, given: 2
Wed exam. Pls grade my AWA. Thanks so much! Kudos for review [#permalink]
02 Sep 2013, 23:05
Advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Co.:
“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 durin gthe 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 advertizing.”
The argument motivating the advertising director's decision is flawed for several reasons. The most egregious flaw is that he takes for granted that good reviews are enough to ensure that customers will go to the movie theatres to watch movies.
Even if it is true that reliable movie reviews for most movies offered at his theaters have increase by percentage, it does not necessarily follow that these glowing reviews will translate into more success at the box office. The advertising director, at any rate, does not argue for the inference. The reason that he should not take for granted that positive film reviews are enough to boost ticket sales is because there might be other factors that curtail box office success, such as a recession, rise in ticket prices, and trends in society to watch movies on blu-ray or the internet. So, the director should strengthen his argument by answering the question of whether there are other such plausible reasons that fewer people are coming to his movie theaters. Otherwise, more advertising of good reviews would not guarantee more ticket sales.
Secondly, the director has not sufficiently made the case that the reviewers giving the positive reviewers are representative of the majority of film critics. No doubt the director cannot be expected to canvass all film reviewers in the world, but it is possible that his survey of movie reviews and their reviewers represented only a small or idiosyncratic subset of the general population of reviewers. It could be, for instance, that he only canvassed the more right-leaning reviewers, or the left-leaning ones, or even just a few art-house fim critics. Thus, the director should strengthen his case by showing that the film critics he is appealing to do indeed represent a broad range of the movie going public.
Thirdly, the director simply assumes that what movie critics like will translate straighforwardly into what moviegoers like. However, it is entirely possible that certain movies which the majority of critics reject for their inanity, such as "Dude where's my car?", turn out to be very popular movies. It is also possible that some thoughtful movies should not be successful at the box office. The director, then, should answer the question why movies that movie reviewers give the "thumbs up" to should reliably translate into success at the box office.
It may well be that the director is actually correct in his assessment that Super Screen should allocate more money to advertising. But it is apparent that his argument to that effect is flawed for the reasons given above, the main flaw being that he does not give support for the assertion that good reviews, even if better advertised, must translate into success at the box office.