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 lecturer and the reading are both about an advertising technique called buzzing. The writer feels that buzzing is not a good approach for advertising with three reasons that are mentioned in the reading. However, the lecturer opposes the writers critics with following arguments.
First, the reading states that people need to know if a person is praising a product for payment or he is really expressing true feelings in order make a right decision. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that not only buzzers are not paid to read from a prepared line companies hire those who have used their products and asks them to just talk about their own experience.
Secondly, the writer suggests people listen to individuals less critically than advertisements since the public advertisements are know for exaggeration. The lecturer contradict this idea by talking about his own experience. He points out that it is a wrong belief and the customers asks a lot of questions. He elaborates it by mentioning that if a buzzer do not have the answers the customer will not buy the product.
Finally, the reading states that the worst impact of buzzing is on social relationships. The reading talks about lost trust between individuals as consequence of fake advertising. The lecturer posits that the products must be good enough in order to recruit buzzers. So the better the quality of a product, the more buzzers for advertisement and as a result you probably face a good product from a buzzer.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 132, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'known'.
Suggestion: known
...nts since the public advertisements are know for exaggeration. The lecturer contradi...
^^^^
Line 5, column 168, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'contradicts'.
Suggestion: contradicts
...are know for exaggeration. The lecturer contradict this idea by talking about his own expe...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, talking about, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1268.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 253.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01185770751 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98822939669 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85752436284 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581027667984 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 385.2 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => 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: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.5594766432 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.5714285714 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0714285714 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.07142857143 7.06452816374 86% => 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 : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.20674057073 0.272083759551 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0618584794254 0.0996497079465 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0576859386145 0.0662205650399 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123002466207 0.162205337803 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0213030546295 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: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => 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.