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.
Listening
Hi, my name is Bill. Um, I was talking your professor in the subway about the great phone service that I was using. And it turned out we’re both interested in marketing. So he asked me to talk in his marketing classes. You see, I am a buzzer, part time, you know. During the day, I’m a student just like you. Now, I read that piece attacking buzzing, it is really misleading. How would it describe buzzing leading a lot, and gives a wrong impression?
First, it makes it sound like buzzers don’t tell the truth about the products they’re buzzing. That’s not true. How buzzing works this. Companies find people who use their products and who really think product is good. So buzzing is not like ordinary advertisement where an actress is paid to read some lies. Um, yes, I get paid for telling you what I am thinking, but you get the truth from buzzers. I really do think my phone service is great. That is why the company hired me.
Second, the reading makes it seem that when a buzzer talks to someone, the person believes whatever they hear from the buzzer. Not true. In fact, the opposite is true. People I talk to ask a lot of questions about the products I buzz, that is about the price, service and how long I used the product. If I don’t have good answers, they won’t buy the products.
Finally, if you believe what you read, buzzing will destroy civilization, that is stupid. If a product is bad, the company can’t recruit buzzers. So what you get from a buzzer is not only sincere but is likely to be about a good product. If you try the phone service I use, you’re gonna love it. So people who try buzzed products are going to have a good experience. So end up being more trustful and open up to people.
The reading passage and the lecture both discuss the kinds of strategy that is used for advertizment by a company, Buzzing. In the reading part, the author mentions that buzzering make variety of problems in the society; in the listening part, however, the speaker who is a buzzer challenges what thauthor states and rebutes the reasons.
To begin with, as mentioned in the article, the author sets forth that we expect true from people that speak with us and we should know whether a person is paid to give their opinion about the product or not. Nevertheless, in the listening part the speaker refutes the reasons asserting that the author probebly missleaded the point, a individual who is buzzering a good, he/she actually like the product and a company hire them based on this idea and they will tell us a truth and exact feeling about a product. There is no act on this like a actor who is paid to memorize lines and act for this. Therefor, you can trust to a buzzer.
Secondly, the author points out that we might accept a buzzer, if we do not know them about a labale for a decvice and it may harm a consumer by the claims. Nonetheless, the speaker flatly contradicts the idea and contends that consummers ask a variety of question and they have to answer them to persuad them to buy a thing, asd if they do not ansswer them complitly, they might reject them.
Finally, the author claims that it has negative effect on social interaction and relationship, because of the reducing trustworthy in society. In contrast, the lecturer is of the opinion that if a person love a product, for ecnstance, a cellfone device, they might advertize it and they speak based on experiment, hence they would be openly to the people.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-24 | Shiimaaa | 70 | view |
| 2019-09-18 | farshad_hom | 60 | view |
- TPO-15 - Integrated Writing TaskThe cane toad is a large (1.8 kg) amphibian species native to Central and South America. It was deliberately introduced to Australia in 1935 with the expectation that it would protect farmers' crops by eating harmful i 80
- TPO52IntegratedTask Asteroids are large space objects made of rock and ice There are hundreds of thousands of asteroids in our solar system Though we often hear ideas about establishing colonies of humans to live and work on our Moon or our neighboring pl 86
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The most important ways to improve the people s health is to clean the environment 76
- TPO 53 Writing Integrated Many countries require cigarette smokers to pay particularly high taxes on their purchases of cigarettes similar taxes are being considered for unhealthy foods The policy of imposing high taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy p 80
- In 1995 a microscopic fungus called phytophthora ramorum, or P. ramorum, was first detected in the forests of the western United States. P. ramorum infects trees and causes particularly serious damage in oak trees: in many infected oaks, leaves wither rap 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 335, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...e author probebly missleaded the point, a individual who is buzzering a good, he/...
^
Line 3, column 543, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...a product. There is no act on this like a actor who is paid to memorize lines and...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 15.1003584229 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 43.0788530466 88% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 52.1666666667 67% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1428.0 1977.66487455 72% => OK
No of words: 306.0 407.700716846 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.66666666667 4.8611393121 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.48103885553 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58042493572 2.67179642975 97% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 212.727598566 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.539215686275 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 436.5 618.680645161 71% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.51630824373 92% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 10.0 3.08781362007 324% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 20.6003584229 49% => 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: 30.0 20.1344086022 149% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.4967113368 48.9658058833 152% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.8 100.406767564 142% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.6 20.6045352989 149% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.4 5.45110844103 227% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 11.8709677419 42% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141876895264 0.236089414692 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0498837754214 0.076458572812 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0360396509655 0.0737576698707 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0821886182752 0.150856017488 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0175660935277 0.0645574589148 27% => 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: 15.9 11.7677419355 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.95 58.1214874552 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 10.1575268817 124% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.4 10.9000537634 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.01818996416 111% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 86.8835125448 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.002688172 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.0537634409 139% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.