Unit 3, Listening 1, Activities A and B

Listening Skill, Activity A

Page 56, 57, 60
Shaped by Change, Promoting Change

Lecturer: Hello everyone. Today I’m going to talk about one of the most important
people you’ve never heard of—Jeffrey Skoll. Everyone calls him Jeff. In
pictures, he looks like just an ordinary guy. You would never guess that his
personal wealth is several billion dollars or that he is one of the world’s most
important promoters of change.
Change has shaped Jeff’s life. He grew up as a typical middle-class kid in
Canada. But one day when he was 14, his whole world turned upside down.
He learned that his father had cancer. The terrifying1 news prompted Jeff’s
father to have a talk with his son. He didn’t really fear death, Jeff’s father said,
but he felt bad about not doing the things in life that he really wanted. After a
long time, Jeff’s father finally got better and was free of cancer. But the
difficult times taught Jeff a lesson—as Jeff puts it, “One never knows how
much time one really has.”
Jeff grew up wanting to be a writer. On camping vacations with his family, he
used to read a lot. By the time he was 13, he had read authors like George
Orwell 2and Ayn Rand3. Their stories predicted scary changes like
overpopulation, wars, and diseases. Jeff wanted to use his writing to promote
a more hopeful future. But he was very practical and aware that writing
didn’t pay very much. He changed his approach to a career. He got an
engineering degree at the University of Toronto and started a couple of
computer-related businesses. His goal was to retire someday and start
writing stories.
Although his companies were making some money, Jeff felt he needed to
learn more about business. He went to business school at Stanford University
in Palo Alto, California. He graduated in 1995 and went to work for a news-
reporting company. This seemed to be a step toward becoming a writer. In
fact, it was just a short side trip before he became a billionaire4.
At Stanford, Jeff had become friends with another student, Pierre Omidyar.
Pierre was a whiz at writing computer code. He developed a website for

1
terrifying: adjective very frightening
2
George Orwell (1903–1950): English novelist, essayist, journalist, and
critic
3
Ayn Rand (1905–1982): Russian-American novelist, playwright,
screenwriter and philosopher
4
billionaire: noun a person who has a billion dollars
 selling things by auction5, and he and Jeff spent part of their time running the
site. Eventually, Jeff quit his journalism job to become the first president of
the company that he and Pierre had put together—the tremendously
successful eBay. Two years later, he and Pierre made eBay a public company.
They became instant billionaires when the price of eBay shares soared6.
In a TED Talk, Jeff said, “For me personally, it was a real change. I went from
living in a house with five guys in Palo Alto, and living off their leftovers7, to
all of a sudden having all kinds of resources. And I wanted to figure out how
I could take the blessing8 of these resources and share it with the world.”
He often advises his audiences that everybody has the opportunity to make
change in their own way. Jeff sensed that his best tools for making change
would not be stories or newspaper articles. They would be donations and
funding arrangements. He would become a philanthropist9. He may be most
famous for a movie and TV company he founded in 2004 called Participant
Productions (now called Participant Media). Jeff had come back to his
childhood dream of telling stories. As opposed to the main goal of most film
studios, which is to make money, Participant’s aim is to tell stories that
inspire social change. They had great success with the films Syriana in 2005,
An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, and Charlie Wilson’s War in 2008—all of
which won Academy Awards.
But actually, Jeff’s first achievement as a philanthropist was to set up a
charity group called the Skoll Foundation, way back in 1999. Right after
setting it up, he hired someone who shared his views, Sally Osberg, to
manage it. Since then, the foundation has been directing money to others
who work to help the poor, fight disease, protect the natural environment,
and otherwise address social and global problems.
Jeff Skoll’s efforts are still shaping our world. He has personally changed with
time, but in many ways he is still the thoughtful Canadian kid trying to avoid
a scary future. He is using his great wealth and influence not just to manage
change but to encourage it. He has said, “There’s never one right way to make
change. One can do it as a tech person or a finance person or a nonprofit
person or an entertainment person.” Jeff has been able to promote change in
each of those ways, and more.

5
auction: noun a public sale at which items are sold to the person who
offers the most money
6
soared: verb rose very fast
7
leftovers: noun food that has not been eaten when a meal has finished
8
blessing: (n.) something that is good or helpful
9
philanthropist: noun a person who helps the poor or those in need,
especially by giving money
Unit 3, Listening 2, Activity A
Page 61

An Interview with Barbara Ehrenreich

Interviewer: So, Barbara. Welcome to Life and Times. It’s great to have you
here.

B. Ehrenreich: Great to be here, Jack. Thanks for inviting me.

Interviewer: Now, you’re famous as a journalist, and of course, you’ve written

several books based on your research. We’ll get to those in a
minute, but could you start by telling our listeners some of the
reasons why you go “undercover” for your research?

BE: Sure. Well, interviews are fine, but sometimes you need to
experience something firsthand to understand it. So I guess
what I’m saying is that being an undercover reporter is a good
way to find out what’s really going on. By putting yourself in the
situation you’re investigating, you can then write about your
experience from a more informed point of view.

Unit 3, Listening 2, Activity B

Page 62

Interviewer: I see. So, for Nickel and Dimed, where did you go undercover0?

BE: Well, the aim was to see if I could support myself in low-paid jobs,
so I worked as a waitress, a hotel housekeeper, a maid, a nursing
home assistant, and a supermarket clerk. I spent a month in each
job, working in Florida, Maine, and Minnesota.

Interviewer: Wow. That’s a lot of different jobs and places! I guess your life
changed completely during that period, right?

BE: It sure did . . . and boy, I learned a lot! It was amazing.

Interviewer: Really? What exactly did you find out?

0
undercover: adjective working or happening secretly
BE: Well, first, that it was very difficult indeed to cope, you know,
financially0, on such low wages. The rents were very high, and the
wages were so low. You know, these people really struggle. Also,
you have to be a hard worker! I mean, some of the jobs I was doing
left me feeling physically exhausted—especially when I had to
work two jobs in a day. Interviewing people is one thing, but
actually doing the job day-to-day shows you exactly how hard
these people’s lives are.

Interviewer: Mm-hm. And of course, Nickel and Dimed went on to be a very

popular book. It was a New York Times best seller.

BE: Yes. I was really surprised at all the interest. I think it really
opened people’s eyes, a firsthand account like that. You know,
people in low-paid jobs like those aren’t lazy. They work long, hard
hours just to survive.

Interviewer: Did you change your name when you went undercover?

BE: For Nickel and Dimed I didn’t change my name, but I did for my
next project, Bait and Switch. I wanted to see how easy it was for
people with pretty good jobs who became unemployed to find
another job at the same level. So, I went undercover as a white-
collar 0public relations executive0 looking for work. I tried really
hard, with a great résumé that told everyone that I had lots of
experience and all that, but I couldn’t find any work. It really
highlighted to me how hard life can be for people at all levels . . .
from unskilled manual0 workers to white-collar management.

Interviewer: Mm-hm. So, I guess in both cases, for Nickel and Dimed and Bait
and Switch, you were pleased that the changes you made weren’t
permanent? I mean, you didn’t ever want to carry on in one of
those jobs.

0
financially: adverb connected with money
0
white-collar: adjective connected with people who work in offices,
not in factories
0
executive: noun a person who has an important position as a
manager of a business or organization
0
manual: adjective using your hands
BE: No way. I just got a brief look at people’s lives there, and by the
time I finished, I realized how lucky I was. I was so relieved not to
be in that kind of situation long-term.

Interviewer: Mm-hm. Well, listeners, we’re going to take a short

break, but if you have a question for Barbara, now’s the time, so get on
the phone and call . . .

Unit 4, Listening 1, Part 1, Activities A and D

Page 79, 80

Targeting Children with Advertising

Reporter: Let’s turn first to Dr. Ann Fanton, Professor of Child Psychology at
Bakewell University. Why is there a problem with using popular
cartoon characters in advertising? It doesn’t seem harmful to me.

Ann Fanton: It’s a tricky way of turning these characters into salespeople. Like
it or not, children develop attachments to characters like Star
Butterfly or Elmo or My Little Pony. Basically, advertisers are using
kids’ cartoon friends as sales channels.

Reporter: I’ll put this to James Burney, Director of the Fairness for Children
Foundation. Isn’t that the same as having a celebrity, like a sports
star, in an ad for adults?

James Burney: Not really. Children, especially those under age eight, can’t
evaluate0 an ad critically. Adults may not be careful enough about
the advertisements they choose to watch, but they are able to think
critically about them if they want to. Making a young kid watch ads
like that is just not fair.

Reporter: Dr. Fanton, is it really all that unfair?

Ann Fanton: Yes. It exploits kids. But I’d like to mention that it’s unfair to the
families of those kids too. You might say, “Well, why don’t the
parents just step in? Why don’t they regulate their kids’ exposure
to ads?” That puts an unrealistic expectation on parents. The
average mom or dad cannot possibly monitor all the

0
evaluate: verb to form an opinion of the value or quality of
something
 advertisements that their kids see, especially in today’s media-
saturated0 environment.

James Burney: If I can just jump in here . . . Don’t forget that advertisers also
make ads that specifically tell kids to put pressure on their parents.

Reporter: Such as the familiar scenario0 in a grocery store, with kids

demanding a certain cereal or yogurt or whatever until the parent
just gives in?

James Burney: Yes, but more than that. And it’s even more than purchases of
clothes, toys, games, and so on. Some larger purchase decisions can
be heavily influenced by kids, such as where to go out for a meal or
even where to go on vacation.

Reporter: I’ve heard it has reached the point where car advertisers are
targeting children. Is that true?

Ann Fanton: I hesitate to say that, but there are no real limits here. After all,
Honda did have an ad campaign0 based on stories written by
children.

James Burney: Like Ann, I want to be careful. Let’s concentrate on the real
central issues, like the fact that ads targeted to children encourage
unhealthy diets. Plenty of studies have shown that. And I think
most of us want our kids to be kids, exploring their interests and
developing as well-rounded human beings without constant
manipulation0 by ads.

Unit 4, Listening 1, Part 2, Activities C and D

Page 80

Teacher: So, what’s your biggest takeaway? What do you remember most
strongly?

Female 1: That advertising is having scary effects on kids.

0
media-saturated: adjective phrase filled with advertising so that
no more can be held
0
scenario: noun a description of how things might happen
0
campaign: noun activities that are intended to achieve a
particular social or commercial aim
0
manipulation: noun the skillful control or use of something
Female 2: The worst effect is that advertisers use kids to talk their parents
into buying things.

Teacher: You mean that part about kids influencing restaurant and vacation
decisions? And maybe car-buying?

Female 2: Yeah.

Teacher: Let’s evaluate that claim. Do you think it’s true? I have two kids in
middle school, and I can tell you for sure that they will not tell me
what car to buy next!

Female 1: But maybe you take them into account without even knowing it.
They plant positive images about a car in your head, and when you
go to buy . . .

Teacher: I’m being unconsciously controlled by my kids! Help!

Male 2: I thought the scariest thing was about the characters kids see on
TV: Dora, Elmo, and I remember Po from the Teletubbies.

Teacher: Right. I bet a lot of you do.

Male 2: The point is these characters are like friends to kids. Then
companies just use that. They put Harry Potter on a . . . a . . . a water
bottle or something, and kids want it.

Female 1: And the parents might give in because it’s Harry Potter, a
character the parents like.

Teacher: Here’s a fact you probably don’t know: If you look at the
worldwide sales of things with characters on them, Harry Potter is
maybe about number 10 on the list, or something like that. Since
the character was introduced in 1997, total worldwide sales of
Harry Potter products have been about $20 billion.

Male 2: Just the backpacks and stuff with the characters on it, right? Not
the books or movies?

Teacher: Right. I’m only talking about money from merchandise. Can you
guess which characters were at the top of the list?

Female 2: Pokémon!
Teacher: Correct. By a mile0. Something near $60 billion. The radio show’s
point is about characters that kids get to love in entertainment
first. Then the advertising uses that good feeling to sell things.

Female 2: I know. But now I’m starting to rethink this. I LOVED my Elmo
pillow when I was a kid. What’s wrong with that?

0
by a mile: adverb phrase a lot; to a great degree
Unit 4, Listening 2, Activities A and B
Page 84

The Influence of Online Ads

Lecturer: Today I’m going to be talking about how Internet ads affect our
behavior. I’m going to talk partly about pop-ups—you know, those
ads that suddenly come on your screen when you’re trying to read
something or watch a video? Wait a minute. What’s the matter?
Don’t you like pop-up ads?

I’m not at all surprised. Almost no one likes them. We know this
from personal experience and from research evidence. For
example, one study of university students in the West African
nation of Ghana found strongly negative attitudes toward pop-up
ads. Almost all of the respondents called them “intrusive0,”
“obstructive,” and “annoying.”

Yet Internet ads are a fact of life, like mosquitoes. They may drive
us crazy0, but at the same time, we have to live with them.
Websites make money mostly through ads. Without ads, much of
the online world would disappear.

In 2017, Facebook made $40.7 billion. How much of that was from
advertising? About 98 percent. I’ll say that again. Ninety-eight
percent. All the other ways Facebook makes money—such as fees
for services, licensing agreements, and even interest0 on money in
the bank—add up to only 2 percent of the company’s revenue0.

The importance of ads to information and entertainment media is

nothing new. Ads made commercial TV possible. Newspapers and
magazines have an even longer history of depending on ads. But
the Internet has rewritten the rules. It has made targeted
advertising 0common.

0
intrusive: adjective entering into a place or situation without
being asked
0
drive [someone] crazy: verb phrase bother someone so much
that he or she cannot think properly
0
interest: noun an amount that one pays in order to borrow money
0
revenue: noun the money that one makes
0
targeted advertising: noun phrase advertising that is directed
toward someone with a known interest in the product
The ads you see on Facebook and most other online sites are
targeted. They are chosen specifically for you, based on your
tastes. How does Facebook or Google or even The Weather
Channel know your tastes? You told them—with every search,
every clicked link, and every message you sent. Do a Web search
for “bicycles.” The ads that pop up will probably have pictures of
bikes like the kind you own or the kind you want. The advertisers
have inferred your taste in bikes from your online activity.

I remember that advertisers in the old days—say, before 1997—

could not target ads very well. They tried, but they didn’t know
enough about me. Believe it or not, I could buy most things without
placing my contact information in a database. Seems old-fashioned,
right? But it gave me some privacy. Advertisers could not easily
find out what clothes I bought, what music I listened to, or which
sports teams I liked. But now, nearly every company I deal with
online knows a scary amount about me.

So how does this affect the user? Well, first of all, targeted ads
generally are effective. They lead people to buy things. So even
though you may hate them, they are not going away.

But advertisers have to be careful. Pop-ups that suddenly take over

your whole screen really do make people angry. This negatively
affects their willingness to buy. A study in Poland even showed
that pop-ups reduce a person’s ability to concentrate. These
negatives are why you see fewer full-screen pop-ups these days.
Instead you see mostly ads at the sides of your screen or banner
ads across the top or the bottom of your screen.

Some targeted online ads may actually make people feel

uncomfortable. Lisa Barnard, a researcher in New York, calls this
“the creepiness factor” in advertising. In this context, creepy means
“disturbing because it is too personal.” For example, in a study by
Barnard, subjects disliked ads for skin cream because the ads
seemed to be criticizing their skin. Creepy ads reduced—by about
5 percent—a subject’s willingness to buy a product. No advertiser
wants THAT.
 Interestingly, subjects also told Barnard that targeted ads affected
the way they use Facebook. They were less likely to use Facebook
in public—say, at a coffee shop or a library—because they didn’t
want anyone else to see which ads they got. This is probably not a
great worry to Facebook. About 88 percent of their ad revenue
now comes from ads on mobile devices like cell phones, which
aren’t as easily seen by others.

The bottom line is that targeted online advertising affects our behavior in
complex ways. Since the practice is relatively new, we know very little yet about
those effects. It’s easy to imagine that the effects will be scary, but that’s not
necessarily so.