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.
Both reading and lecture focus upon the debate on the company's markers called, "buzzing". A tactic for advertising products by people who are satisfied with them. The author put forward which is disregarded by the speaker. The lecturer states a few counterpoints to advocate her opinion.
First, according to the author, buzzers are completely had information about products, and the person who gives advertisement is being paid to sell the product. On the other hand, the speaker states that this claim is truly wrong and buzzers are not ordinary people. They are who used the products before and telling the facts to the customers.
Second, the author claims that consumers listen to the buzzers less, because they assume that buzzers only on guard to reply and illustrates descriptions about the products. On the contrary, the lecture professes that the fact is, there are many people who ask lots of questions about products, prices, services, and If the buzzers do not answer good, they cannot sell the product.
Lastly, the passage advocates that buzzers have deep social relations and in this case, people are less likely to trust them. Conversely, the author rebuts the statement saying that buzzers recruiting is not based on their social relationships and If the product is bad, the company would not recruit the buzzers and they are good experienced and trustful people.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Because the world is changing so quickly people now are less happy or less satisfied with their lives than people were in the past Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 60
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is more enjoyable to have a job where you work only three days a week for long hours than to have a job where you work five days a week for shorter hours 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Young people today have no influence on the important decisions that determine the future of society as a whole Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 73
- Every year forest fires and severe storms cause a great deal of damage to forests in the northwestern United States One way of dealing with the aftermath of these disasters is called salvage logging which is the practice of removing dead trees from affect 78
- Starting in the 1960s and continuing until the 1980s sailors in Russian submarines patrolling the North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean would occasionally hear strange sounds These underwater noises reminded the submarine crews of frog croaks so they called the 70
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, if, lastly, second, so, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
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: 1175.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 226.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19911504425 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87727950738 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7444081651 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.579646017699 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 348.3 419.366225166 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.0455791271 49.2860985944 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.818181818 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5454545455 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.45454545455 7.06452816374 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.271057410625 0.272083759551 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.096022042014 0.0996497079465 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.077062119107 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153913520903 0.162205337803 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0258094553684 0.0443174109184 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.