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 passage is about stating three main criticism of buzzing, an approach to marketing new products. The speaker, however, disagrees with the idea, and casts doubt on the reasons mentioned in the reading passage.
To start with, the reading part argues that customers should be aware of the fact that if a person is getting money to advertise a specific product, because every one expect the truth from their friends and families. In contrast, the lecturer who is a part-time buzzer maintains that buzzers do not give a wrong impression. In fact, they get indeed paid, but they just use the product and share their experience of using it with other people. So, people would find out how is the product in real.
The second issue raised by the reading is that consumers will not ask many questions about the product due to the fact that they are not aware they are listening to an advertisement. On the contrary, the speaker outlines the fact that it is vice-verse. Since the consumers do not know that is speaking to a buzzer, they ask many questions about the price, services and how long have been used by the person. As a result, if the product is not good enough, people will not buy it simply.
Finally, the reading stands by the view that such advertising strategies will make harm to interpersonal relationships, and it is the worst of all. Conversely, the lecturer dismisses this issue by mentioning the fact that if the product has acceptable quality, people will end up being more trustful and open to meet new people. it is obvious that a bad product could not be recruited and advertised.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 498, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ld find out how is the product in real. The second issue raised by the reading i...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 21, column 330, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
...e trustful and open to meet new people. it is obvious that a bad product could not...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, however, if, second, so, in contrast, in fact, as a result, on the contrary, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1355.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 281.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82206405694 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58879614452 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555160142349 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 397.8 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.1513884848 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.230769231 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6153846154 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.92307692308 7.06452816374 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.226003645846 0.272083759551 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.070235046486 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0492373146163 0.0662205650399 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120281574344 0.162205337803 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0530396394704 0.0443174109184 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 53.8541721854 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.