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 article states that buzzing should be banned because it generates a lot of controversy and provides three reasons of support. However, the student explains that the article is misleading people, giving a wrong impression about buzzer, and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading states that consumers should know when a person is being paid to praise because buzzers could give incorrect information about the buzzed product. The student opposes this point by saying that the claim about buzzers do not tell the truth is not true. He explains that buzzing is not an ordinary type of advertising. People will always get the truth from the buzzers because they will only advertise from a company if they really believe in their products. Also, he gives his own example; he is a buzzer of a cellphone because he truly believes that it is a good product.
Second, the article claims that consumers listen buzzers less critically than they should because they are just private individuals. However, the student contends that in fact it is the opposite. Since buzzer are normal people, consumers can ask a lot of questions about the products or the company's services. So, if they do not believe in the answers, they will not buy the product.
Third, the reading avers that people expect that buzzers spread mistrust and dishonesty. Conversely, the buzzer refutes this point by stating that the claim about buzzers destroying civilization is not true either. If companies know that their products are bad, they will not hire buzzers because businesses know that the buzzing will reflect the quality of their products. In that way, people can trust buzzers because they are always advertising good products.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-30 | haoboooo | 68 | view |
| 2019-10-23 | maryam_torabi | 71 | view |
| 2019-09-18 | farshad_hom | 80 | view |
| 2019-08-13 | Zakara21 | 83 | view |
| 2019-06-13 | LGI | 73 | view |
- It has recently been announced that a new movie theater may be built in your neighborhood. Do you support or oppose this plan? Why? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer. 70
- The following appeared as part of an article in a business magazine."A recent study rating 300 male and female Mentian advertising executives according to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed an association between the amount of sl 42
- As early as the twelfth century A.D., the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico in the American Southwest were notable for their "great houses," massive stone buildings that contain hundreds of rooms and often stand three or four stories hig 78
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?It is more important to keep your old friends than it is to make new friends.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
- Zoos are sometimes seen as necessary but not poor alternatives to a natural environment Discuss some of the arguments for and or against keeping animals in zoos 40
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, first, however, if, really, second, so, third, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => 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: 1446.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09154929577 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47900327764 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489436619718 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 424.8 419.366225166 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.0330385002 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.4 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9333333333 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.8 7.06452816374 68% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216392535079 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0784717109466 0.0996497079465 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.055481247486 0.0662205650399 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138883738771 0.162205337803 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0690316937017 0.0443174109184 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => 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: 12.24 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.