Many consumers ignore commercial advertisements In response advertising companies have started using a new tactic called buzzing The advertisers hire people buzzers who personally promote buzz products to people they know or meet The key part is that the

Essay topics:

Many consumers ignore commercial advertisements. In response, advertising companies have started using a new tactic, called “buzzing." The advertisers hire people, buzzers, who personally promote (buzz) products to people they know or meet. The key part is that the buzzers do not reveal that they are being paid to promote anything. They behave as though they were just spontaneously praising a product during normal conversation. Buzzing has generated a lot of controversy, and many critics would like to see it banned.

First, the critics complain that consumers should know whether a person praising a product is being paid to praise the product. Knowing this makes a big difference: we expect the truth from people who we believe do not have any motive for misleading us. But with buzzing what you hear is just paid advertising, which may well give a person incorrect information about the buzzed product.

Second, since buzzers pretend they are just private individuals, consumers listen to their endorsements less critically than they should. With advertisements in print or on TV, the consumer is on guard for questionable claims or empty descriptions such as "new and improved." But when consumers do not know they are being lobbied, they may accept claims they would otherwise be suspicious of. This may suit the manufacturers, but it could really harm consumers.

And worst of all is the harmful effect that buzzing is likely to have on social relationships. Once we become aware that people we meet socially may be buzzers with a hidden agenda, we will become less trustful of people in general. So buzzing will result in the spread of mistrust and the expectation of dishonesty.

The reading is about the controversy regarding buzzer. It provides three supporting ideas in order to strengthen its claims. However, the speaker says, conflicting opinions regarding buzzing is misleading. He refutes each of the written reason.

Firstly, the text asserts that consumers are unable to know the buzzers are either paid or not. But, the professor denies this and he describes, buzzers are not like ordinary and parochial marketing advertisements. The buzzers are upright their advertisements.

Second, the reading claims that the buyers of the products are less like give importance on the buzzers references. However, the lecturer refutes such kind of proposition. He explains, peoples are more likely to hear buzzers suggestions as they are often ask buzzers about services, how long the products will last etc.

Third, the written excerpt asserts that the buzzing is destructive to erode the social conformity. The point is quite preposterous and also problematic with the professor. He describes, the company will not hire buzzers if that would be the chances rather they will helpful to build good customer and seller relationship as they are more truthful and also experience with them is good.

Votes
Average: 8.5 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Comments

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, regarding, second, so, then, third, kind of

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 18.0 30.3222958057 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1035.0 1373.03311258 75% => OK
No of words: 191.0 270.72406181 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.41884816754 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.71756304063 4.04702891845 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85164939622 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 117.0 145.348785872 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.612565445026 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 306.9 419.366225166 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.3484359476 49.2860985944 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.6153846154 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.6923076923 21.698381199 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38461538462 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.1419130141 0.272083759551 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0422701364176 0.0996497079465 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0356891770551 0.0662205650399 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0789045868468 0.162205337803 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.021091694995 0.0443174109184 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 53.8541721854 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 11.0289183223 80% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.56 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 63.6247240618 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.0 10.7273730684 47% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.