Many consumers ignore commercial advertisement. In response, advertising companies have started using a new tactic, called “buzzing”. The advertisers hire people-buzzers-who personally promote (buzz) product 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 have 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, the reading and the lecture, talk about a new advertising technique called Buzzing. While the lecture claims that it could bring a lot of drawbacks and cites three of them, the lecturer has a counter opinion. he says that this promotion tactic had been misunderstood and refute each reason presented in the test, casting doubts in the author's beliefs.
Firstly, those who disapprove that tactic argue that clients should know if someone have been paid to promote a product. However, the lecturer disproves this argument by saying that, actually, people who hired for this kind of job are clients who have a positive opinion about the product or service offered . it is true that they receive a check for that, but the opinion that they give is completely true.
Secondly, the article points out that how buzzers do not say that they are promoting products, people listen their argument without been critics and do not inquire them to much. Nonetheless, the orator mentions that, in fact, it is fairly common that people ask many questions about the product, like the price, the condition of the service or how long has he used it and if he doesn’t have convincing answers they do not buy the product.
Finally, the author remarks the negative effects of that practice on the social relationships, owing to, once people aware about the situation, they become reticent of other people’s opinion about the product. Notwithstanding, the professor highlights the weakness of this point saying that, if the product’s quality is deficient, no one will be willing to promote it. Therefore, the information that you get from a buzzer is accurate and a product with a high quality.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-14 | aldo.vega05@gmail.com | 90 | view |
| 2019-05-07 | manhhieu2001 | 80 | view |
| 2019-04-01 | moath322 | 78 | view |
- Doubts among scholars about the accuracy of the Chevalier’s memories. 80
- Function of the buildings in Chaco Canyon’s settlement. 86
- The United Kingdom (sometimes referred to as Britain) has a long and rich history of human settlement. Traces of buildings, tools, and art can be found from periods going back many thousands of years: from the Stone Age, through the Bronze Age, the Iron A 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Most advertisements make products seem much better than they really are. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 73
- The 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 insects. Unfortunately, the toad 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 216, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: He
...em, the lecturer has a counter opinion. he says that this promotion tactic had bee...
^^
Line 5, column 85, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'someone' must be used with a third-person verb: 'has'.
Suggestion: has
...gue that clients should know if someone have been paid to promote a product. However...
^^^^
Line 5, column 308, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ion about the product or service offered . it is true that they receive a check fo...
^^
Line 5, column 311, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
... about the product or service offered . it is true that they receive a check for t...
^^
Line 9, column 170, Rule ID: TO_TOO[2]
Message: Did you mean 'too'?
Suggestion: too
...ut been critics and do not inquire them to much. Nonetheless, the orator mentions ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, in fact, kind of, it is true
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 : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1431.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 282.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07446808511 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70307628152 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.606382978723 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 423.9 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => 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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.446115598 49.2860985944 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.090909091 110.228320801 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6363636364 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.1818181818 7.06452816374 172% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.258207771307 0.272083759551 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0887729238462 0.0996497079465 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0484524553208 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144401992445 0.162205337803 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0371732570491 0.0443174109184 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.