Question

請認(rèn)真閱讀下列短文,并根據(jù)所讀內(nèi)容在文章后表格中的空格里填入一個最恰當(dāng)?shù)膯卧~。

注意：每個空格只填一個單詞。

Commercial advertisement was once thought of as a technique of the marketers to inform the potential buyers about the availability of certain products. It was seen more as a medium to inform the buyers rather than persuade them to buy. The present day marketers see advertisement as a medium to damage the image of their competitors and their products. This indeed, is an undesirable and an immoral practice. Instead of speaking about their own products, these marketers speak about the drawbacks (often without any basics) of the competing products.

People watching TV advertisements would notice that there has always been an advertisement war between the marketers of different consumer goods. A few such cases are given below.

1. Parachute Coconut Oil vs. V.V.D. Gold

Some time back, the producer of V.V.D Gold Coconut Oil claimed in their TV advertisement that only their products was superior and the one sold in blue colour bottles (the reference was to Parachute coconut oil) was suitable only for un-natural hair.

2. Tata Salt vs. Captain Cook

Tata salt was first iodised (碘處理) salt marketed by an Indian Company. It has been enjoying a good and steady market. Captain Cook, another producer of iodised salt, who entered the market later, had to adopt some strategy to get control of the market. The TV advertisement of Captain Cook stressed on ‘Free flow’ of their salt when transferred to a container. The producer of Tata Salt retaliated (報復(fù)) by saying that the claim of Captain Cook was a trick and those who were quality conscious should deal with it with caution.

3. Pepsi vs. Coco Cola

Coca Cola was selected as the official soft drink for the Wills World Cricket 1996. When the cricket series was on, the marketers of Pepsi constantly advertised on TV. Their advertisement gave the idea that the cricketers preferred only Pepsi and as a matter of fact there was nothing official about it.

4. Horlicks vs. Complan

Sometime back, the TV advertisement of Complan, a health drink directly attacked Horlicks, which has been in the market for several decades. The claim of Complan was that their brand (which according to them was Brand C) has a higher percentage of ingredients (材料) compared to Brand H (reference was nothing but to Horlicks).

The above examples clearly show how the technique of advertisement is misused by some marketers to ruin the image of their competitors. This, certainly, is not a healthy trend.

Any marketer should only speak about his products and not about his competitors’ products. The awareness of consumers has certainly increased over the years and they are no longer easily taken in. There are many consumer products like salt, oil shaving blades etc. But one thing for sure is that offering the same product in a different container will not make the product different.

Mass media like Radio, Television and newspaper should not allow advertisements that tell lies. Legal regulations, in this regard, should also be made stricter.

Comparison of the past and the present of advertisements
In the past	At present
A technique mainly used for offering 1.	A trick used as a means of unfair 2.
The 3. of advertisement
4.	Products	Wrong practices
V.V.D. Gold	When V.V.D Gold attacked the one sold in blue bottles, it 5.to Parachute Coconut oil.
Captain Cook	Captain Cook stressed on their “free flow” when their product was 6.to a container.
Tata Salt	Tata salt retaliated by warning consumers to be 7.about the quality.
Pepsi	Too much advertisement on TV seemed to say that the cricketers had a 8.for Pepsi.
Complan	Brand C claimed that their product was much richer in ingredients in9.with Brand H.
Solutions	10.products. are not allowed to be mentioned in the advertisement. Stricter laws should be made to protect every producers’ and consumers’ benefits.

Answer 1