Tekst 8

Can a lone blogger bring

down a business?
adapted from an article by Kevin Rawlinson
BBC News

1 It would be a nightmare for any small business: one unhappy customer

takes offence and their blog keeps popping up every time a potential purchaser
searches for the store’s name. In the past, newspaper editors acted as a check on
printed criticism. Now it’s down to unclear search engine rank calculations. In the
online age, do bloggers have too much power?
2 One Northern Irish shoe shop certainly feels that this is the case. The ordeal for the
shop – Robinson’s Shoes – started when Jesper Ingevaldsson wrote up his account
of what he called the “worst online shopping experience” he had ever had two years
ago. In his post on a forum, Mr Ingevaldsson complained that the shoes he had
bought had started to break apart. He said the store was slow to deal with his
complaint and even charged him the cost of returning them. Both parties agree that
the issue was eventually resolved. The negative review, entitled ‘Warning for
Robinson’s Shoes’, …19…. , remains second in Google’s results for searches of the
shop’s name.
3 “It is harmful to our business, about 85% of which is done online,” claims
Martin McKeown, the shop’s digital marketing executive. He admits that he has little
proof of actual lost sales. But, he adds, the store’s data indicate that “people have
clicked on our site, opened a new tab, read something else, then closed our site
down,” which he says suggests the review is …20…. .
4 One online search expert acknowledges this is not an uncommon issue.
“One bad review shouldn’t have to define your business,” says Danny Sullivan,
founder of the news site Search Engine Land. The same, he points out, is true of
social media, where a single customer with a large following can harm a business’s
reputation. “But people expect there to be negative things about businesses online.
They would almost be more suspicious if there was not,” he adds.
5 Going to court is not an option: British judges do not have the power to order
bloggers to amend their writing simply because their criticism is too effective. What
can be done is to resort to the recently established “right to be forgotten” – the ability
to force Google and other search engines to delete a link from their results in Europe.
But this can only be obtained if the blog names a specific individual who complains –
not a company – and then only under certain conditions. In fact, it might be more
effective to bypass the courts and appeal instead to the blogger’s good nature. But
even this tactic can throw up complications.
6 Martin McKeown did eventually convince Mr Ingevaldsson of the store’s case. “I felt
bad for them and didn’t think that they needed to suffer for that bad treatment of one
customer,” he explains. “But you can’t take away old threads of yourself on that
forum, and I’ve tried to contact the forum crew a couple of times to have them delete
the blog without any luck.”
7 There is little doubt that the immediate and global availability of a single negative
review, perhaps written in haste, can seriously harm a business in the age of search
engines. Martin McKeown suggests such situations could be avoided if search
engines were obliged to demote such links after six months. But the problem with
that, says Search Engine Land’s Mr Sullivan, is that Google does not necessarily
differentiate between each type of result. What would happen, he asks, if the search
engine failed to distinguish between a single negative review and a major journalistic
news story? “Would you apply a remedy that could potentially do harm?” asks Mr
Sullivan.
bbc.com, 2014

1p 16 ‘One Northern Irish shoe shop certainly feels that this is the case.’ (beginning
paragraph 2) What does ‘this’ refer to?
A ‘a nightmare for any small business’ (paragraph 1)
B ‘a check on printed criticism’ (paragraph 1)
C ‘unclear search engine rank calculations’ (paragraph 1)
D ‘bloggers have too much power’ (paragraph 1)
E ‘The ordeal for the shop’ (paragraph 2)
F ‘the “worst online shopping experience”’ (paragraph 2)

1p 17 Noem drie dingen die samen de aanleiding vormden voor Jesper

Ingevaldssons ontevredenheid over Robinson’s Shoes.

1p 18 ‘Both parties agree that the issue was eventually resolved.’ (alinea 2)
 In welke latere alinea wordt hier nog eens naar verwezen?
Noteer het nummer van deze alinea.

1p 19 Kies bij 19 in alinea 2 het juiste antwoord uit de gegeven mogelijkheden.

A consequently
B however
C likewise
D moreover
E therefore

1p 20 Kies bij 20 in alinea 3 het juiste antwoord uit de gegeven mogelijkheden.

A attracting the wrong crowd
B ignored by interested parties
C putting potential customers off
D written by a professional critic

1p 21 How does paragraph 4 relate to paragraph 3?

A it completely undermines the claim made in paragraph 3
B it denies the claim made in paragraph 3
C it further discusses the claim made in paragraph 3
D it repeats the claim made in paragraph 3

1p 22 What becomes clear from paragraphs 5 or 6?

A Internet companies get many requests from people who want to erase their digital
past.
B It is very difficult to get your own contributions removed from the internet.
C Software developers refuse to accept responsibility for abusive blogs on the
internet.
D The best way to solve internet conflicts in Europe is to start legal procedures.

1p 23 ‘“Would you apply a remedy that could potentially do harm?”’ (final sentence)
Why would the remedy be potentially harmful?
A Important information would also be lost.
B Media companies would become too powerful.
C The dependence on technology would grow.

Can changing what you eat

SAVE THE PLANET?
adapted from an article by Kitty Corrigan

1 MOST OF THE FIVE MILLION people in the UK

who are wholly vegetarian or eschew red meat
choose their diet on the grounds of ethics (intensive farming, animal welfare) or
health (high blood pressure, cholesterol). Those in the ethical camp are often
passionate about green issues, but a non-meat diet as a way to combat climate
change has only recently been suggested. A UN report, Livestock's Long Shadow,
argued that beef and dairy farming globally create more climate-changing gases (18
per cent) than the world's transport system (13 per cent). Although some have
questioned the details of this report, there is no doubt that the carbon footprint of
livestock production is hugely significant ─ and growing.

2 The Vegetarian Society (VS) claims cattle rearing causes the most environmental
damage of any non-human species, through overgrazing, soil erosion, deforestation
and emissions of methane ─ a greenhouse gas 33 times more damaging than carbon
dioxide ─ but also through the manufacture of fertilizers needed to grow the crops to
feed the livestock.

3 Soy is a mainstay of animal feed, its cultivation entailing rainforest destruction in

South America, which releases carbon when trees are chopped down. But while 90
per cent of soy is for animal consumption, it is also a staple of the vegetarian diet,
used in meat substitutes such as tofu. A study commissioned by World Wide Fund for
Nature (WWF) concluded controversially that this and other vegetarian favourites
such as chickpeas and lentils were more harmful to the environment, because of
the food miles incurred, than British-reared beef and lamb. …18…. , vegetarians
who only eat local produce but continue to eat dairy products are still contributing to
the rise in greenhouse gases; only a vegan diet (no animal products) could make a
difference in this respect.

4 The National Farmers' Union (NFU) warns that if there was a shift to a vegetarian
diet, our beleaguered farmers would go out of business and the industry would move
overseas where the ethical and animal health standards could be questionable. This
would be a threat to our food security ─ we currently produce only 60 per cent of our
food, a figure that has decreased substantially in the past two decades.

5 So is there a middle way? Research by Compassion in World Farming (CIWF)

found that reducing meat consumption to three times a week would allow animals to
be reared in free-range conditions and greener farming methods to be adopted.
"Provided land is not overgrazed, longterm pasture traps carbon and therefore
livestock farming can be a benefit. The true cost of eating too much meat is animal
suffering, environmental damage and obesity," says a CIWF spokesperson. "We
have the power to save our planet and be kind to animals. All we need to
do is change our diets to a healthier, fairer option."
Country Living, 2010

1p 17 What conclusion about vegetarianism does paragraph 1 lead up to?

A It has harmful side-effects people tend to overlook.
B It is the lifestyle chosen by a growing group of people.
C It may well contribute to improving our environment.
D It will lead to a substantial increase in traffic worldwide.

1p 18 Which of the following fits the gap in paragraph 3?

A Besides
B For example
C Therefore

2p 19 Aan welke organisatie kan elke van de volgende uitspraken gekoppeld

worden?
Kies uit: UN (alinea 1), The Vegetarian Society (VS) (alinea 2), World Wide Fund for
Nature (WWF) (alinea 3), The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) (alinea 4), Compassion
in World Farming (CIWF) (alinea 5).
1 If more and more people adopt a vegetarian lifestyle, Britain will increasingly have
to rely on imported food.
2 One of the harmful consequences of meat production is that forests are cut down.
3 The production of meat and milk is more harmful to the environment than traffic.
4 The transport of vegetarian foodcrops damages the environment considerably.
Noteer achter elk nummer op het antwoordblad de juiste organisatie.
Let op: er blijft één organisatie over.

1p 20 How does the author round off the article in paragraph 5?

A by arguing that vegetarianism is the only solution to the problem
B by presenting a compromise between two different approaches
C by promoting a revolutionary new fix for the matter discussed
D by quoting an expert who opposes the author’s view on the matter