#CommercialBowlSunday

It's every sports fan's favorite day of the year: Super Bowl Sunday. Even if you don't watch football games every week, like my brothers do, this special sunday is still an event that even non-football fans enjoy. Whether it's the half-time show, the puppy bowl, or the actual game itself, there is one thing that almost everyone loves--the commercials. While the majority of television viewers would complain about commercials interrupting their favorite shows every other day of the year, viewers can't wait to watch them today. And why is that? Maybe because commercials are priced at the low cost of $4.5 million dollars per 30 seconds. 

$4.5 million dollars per 30 seconds of an advertisement equals $150,000 per second of airtime. That's much more than the average salary one makes per year. Granted, these are huge industries that are airing these commercials, but that is still a lot of money for one ad. Why do companies pay this much for such a little amount of time? Easy answer: the viewers. Over 100 million Americans tune in to watch the game, and without fast forward options available while watching live, viewers are forced to watch. 

With lots of money comes lots of power for these advertisers. How they chose to use their airtime, however, is disappointing. We all know the types of commercials that will be on this year: the cute kids and animals, the partying, the cameos from famous actors, and of course the sexual ones. Women are used to sell products in media constantly, as we see on television everyday, and the commercials during the super bowl are no exception. In fact, numerous commercials get banned before they even air! Companies spend huge amounts of money making these elaborate and inappropriate ads, pushing the limits, yet the commercials don't even make it because they are "too sexual". So, some advertisers go the different role, the opposite role for women: the wife. We see them in the kitchen, cooking or cleaning, getting ready for their husband's football party. In an SNL clip recently aired, they spoof on these types of commercials. 

This clip obviously takes it to a new level, but I still think it is relevant to commercials we see today. It startles me how even in 2015 we still have commercials where women are either being used as sexual objects or house keepers. Will we ever find a new role for women in commercials?

Facebook Likes Could Potentially Make or Break You

"Be careful with what you post online" is a common phrase I hear from my parents, teachers, employers--basically all adults I encounter in my life. I think we hear this phrase extremely often in our world today, since social media is such a big influence in our lives. Seniors even change their names on Facebook so colleges can't find them (or so they think). But now, posting may not be the only thing that can determine your job or college; your likes can have a big impact as well.  

In a recent study, researchers used a computer model to see if they could read someones personality based on their Facebook likes. They had their test subjects fill out personality reports on themselves to test out the accuracy of the machines, and sure enough, the computers filed very accurate matches to a subject's personality. In addition to predicting one's personality, they could also predict the average life outcome of that person, like health or political views. Researchers argue that this could potentially be the future of recruitment for companies. 

I'm not sure how I feel about this new tactic for hiring processes. I agree that employers should be able to know a lot of information about the person they are potentially hiring, but I don't know if stalking them on Facebook is the right way to do that. If someone likes a lot of rap music, for example, does that  reflect a certain way on their personality or work ethic? I listen to songs with explicit lyrics, but that doesn't mean I swear all the time. I believe that the computer programs really work, if fed enough likes, to gauge a person's personality, but I still think face to face interviews and conversations are the way to go. People make mistakes all the time. I don't think one "like" should determine one's fate, and I don't think employers should judge potential employees based on their personal lives. 

"Rich People Problems"

In American Studies, we frequently discuss our community around us and how we differ from the rest of the world. We live in the "bubble", and live in an affluent community. At our school, there is thousands of students filled with anxiety and stress, especially now, right before finals week. We compete, we struggle, and we definitely don't always feel like we're in the top one percent. So when I was flipping through the news and saw an article titled "Growing Up on Easy Street Has Its Own Dangers", I decided to read on. 

This article starts with the story of a 30-year-old man who killed his father after a disagreement on the allowance he was given. My first reaction: wow, that guy must be pretty crazy. My second reaction: what thirty year old still receives an allowance from his parents? I asked my parents if they would think about giving me an allowance when I'm thirty, and they laughed in my face. I found the second part of the article more interesting than that story, however, because it talked about how studies have shown that children from affluent families often have "higher rates of depression and anxiety and elevated levels of substance abuse and certain delinquent behaviors". This is shocking to me; you would think that it would be the exact opposite! Children from affluent families, who live in suburbs probably similar to ours, have more resources and opportunities, in my opinion, than others of poorer communities. So why is it that they are the ones that fall victim to these mental disorders?

Suniya Luther, a psychologist, supported this idea by data from low-income families compared to high-income families. Teenagers of high income families have more pocket money, therefore money to spend on drugs and alcohol, and usually have the means of getting to places where they can buy it from. After reading this study, I thought about the argument more and understood her idea. However, I don't agree with this completely because I think that there are different kinds of stress and mental disorders that face low-income and high-income families. The kids come from completely different backgrounds, so I don't think it's easy to compare the two. I definitely don't think it's okay to say that children coming from wealthy families don't have any problems compared to others. The phrase "money buys happiness" is false; everyone has problems, and money isn't the driving variable that causes one to have more or less problems. I feel like the "rich kids" usually get made fun of the most for their "false" problems, whether it's on social media or in real life. Why do you think children from wealthy families are seen to have smaller problems in comparison to those from poorer families? 

Robot Cars

When I was going to pick up my brother last night, my car made a mini doughnut on the street due to the enormous amount of ice on the roads. I'm sure most people in the area have been experiencing car difficulties since it seems like we might be having our second polar vortex in two years. This morning, I found an interesting article about the concept of self-driven cars. Sorry, what?

Recently, Audi released an experimental A7 Sedan equipped with piloted driving capabilities. They sent journalists to test out these self-driven cars by having them travel 550 miles, from Silicon Valley to Las Vegas. The process included a day of training before even getting in a car, resulting in the journalist's receiving their licenses for driving an autonomous vehicle. One journalist reflected on the experience saying it was "mundane, almost boring" in his reflection on the trip. He also remarked that if it didn't have the Audi Piloted Driving on the side of the car, one would never know that it in fact was that--people would think of it as just another car. The car drives smoothly, keeps you square in the lane,  and speeds up when necessary; everything you would want your car to do if you were the one driving it. In order to gain control of the car again, all you have to do is grab the steering wheel or tap the brake.  This seems great and all, but what's the point? Why do we need a car to drive itself, what's the benefit?

It turns out that Audi isn't the only car company discussing the possibility of making a self-driven car. Google started the trend, creating a car without a steering wheel even, and other companies are deciding whether or not to try and compete. It seems as though none of the companies, even Audi, necessarily want to produce a robot car, but none want to fall behind technologically to Google either. However, Toyota says they refuse to fall victim to this idea: "Toyota firmly says that computer technology exists to compensate for the driver's incompetence; not accommodate his desire to be doing something else". I think Toyota actually makes a good point here; if the reason for making this driverless car is to multitask, then I don't think it's safe or necessary.

Many driving injuries result from drivers not paying attention to what they're doing. Either they're talking on the phone, texting, applying makeup, or other simple tasks that they believe they can do while safely driving. The reality is, this leads to dangerous behavior. The point is, I don't see why we should endorse this. By making a car that is basically hands-free, it would cause drivers to be more careless on the roads, even if the technology is so good that they don't need to be physically steering. Drivers still need to be aware and alert while driving, or else there will be even more accidents than there are today. I don't know if this trend will become larger and more companies will start making driverless cars, but I don't think it would be a good idea.

In one of the Back to the Future movies, they said in 2015 there would be hover cars. Maybe the movie wasn't so off after all. What do you think? Should there be driverless cars on the roads?

"Entertainment" Today

Over winter break, I watched a lot of television. And by television, I mean I watched Grey's Anatomy on Netflix for hours at a time. Before Grey's, I had never watched a hospital based television show in my life, but now I could see myself watching another one once I finish it. This is why, when I was scanning the news over the weekend, an article about NY Med (a medical documentary television show filmed in New York Presbyterian Hospital in New York City) caught my eye. 

NY Med is a series and follow-up of sister shows like Hopkins and Boston Med, all real-life footage and stories about patients that enter their hospitals. It aired in 2012 and has had two seasons so far. The show has had mixed reviews, with medical groups worrying about patients privacy. There have been many laws and rules set by hospitals to protect their patients, however the AMA (American Medical Association) has worried that shows like NY Med potentially exploit patients and their families who aren't typically in the position to make decisions on whether or not they are allowed to be filmed. Terence Wrong, executive producer of NY Med, believes that the show inspires potential future doctors and educates the public on doctor's work. Like I said before, I have witnessed many surgeries and traumas before on the screen, but that doesn't make me more inclined to be a surgeon at all. 

A cameraman recording a surgery for NY Med

The article tells the story of a family who was featured on NY Med without their consent. Mark Chanko, Anita Chanko's husband, died in 2011 when hit by a garbage truck while crossing the street. Anita and her family were immediately rushed to NY Presbyterian Hospital where he had been brought to say their goodbyes. Little did they know that he was being filmed during his traumatic death. When Anita was watching the show months later, she immediately recognized her husbands voice and knew it was his story they were showing, without asking her if they were allowed to film. 

The family suffered greatly after hearing this news and having to relive Mark's death, so they filed complaints against the hospital and television show. In 2013, New York ruled that the hospital had violated Chanko's rights, but when Chanko's family sued the show, doctor, and hospital, they were dismissed. In court, the show claimed that since NY Med is "produced by it's news division", it's protected by the first amendment. The NY Presbyterian hospital argued that the state did not have any privacy rights against this case, and that Chanko's privacy rights ended when he passed. So basically when our loved ones die they lose all their rights? I don't think thats right at all. 

In my opinion, I think it was wrong to exploit Mark Chanko and his family on national television without their consent. Even though they blurred out his face and made him "unrecognizable", the show should have asked before airing. I think this also dives deeper into our countries privacy laws. We should feel safe and protected with regards to our privacy, but I think this show may expose patients when they are in critical conditions and possibly can't make these decisions. They shouldn't have to wonder if someone is filming them during surgery; I know I wouldn't want someone filming my intestines. And who wants to see that? Why do we want to watch people suffering in hospitals? This relates back to my previous blog post about America's obsession with death and murder; it seems like that is all we hear and watch on the news. How is this show considered entertainment?

The Serial

A couple of weeks ago, my consumer seminar teacher walked in the classroom raving about a podcast called Serial that she had just started listening to. I thought it was a little odd that she was listening to one, since I couldn't remember the last time I had heard of anyone listening to a podcast. The week after, at least three students in the class mentioned that they had started listening to the podcast as well and had immediately become obsessed with it. When I researched this further, I found that each episode of Serial has over 2.2 million listeners. Now I was intrigued; what is this podcast? And why does it attract so many viewers? 


Serial is a non-fiction story that has released one episode per week since October, produced by the public radio show This American Life. The podcast follows the story of reporter Sarah Koenig's year-long investigation into a 1999 murder case of former high-schooler Hai Min Lee. Koenig revisits the case, talking to family, friends and Adnan Syed, the man found guilty of the murder (Lee's high school boyfriend). The podcast has been surprisingly successful, which brings me back to my previous question: why are Americans so obsessed with this murder case?


The article states that the podcast may have such high ratings for many reasons, but one main reason is that listeners want to know if Syed is guilty or not guilty. The story is also non-fiction, which adds to the attraction, and you can download and listen to it whenever you please. In today's world, accessibility is key. I think another main reason is the fact that it's about a murder. As Americans, we are infatuated with crime television shows. In addition to it dominating the news programs, television seems to be flooded by shows like Law & Order and too many CSI's to count. In fact, 42% of jobs on network television dramas are related to crime and punishment. Is the podcast so popular right now because of our criminal obsession? Will it be as successful next year if it's not about murder? In my opinion, I don't think it will be as popular next year if it's not about a murder. I think viewers would not be as interested in the story without knowing it involves someone dying or going to jail. 

I also wondered about the style of the storytelling, and if that had any impact on the popularity. As I mentioned before, a new episode is released once a week, and Koenig chooses to release certain information each episode. She wants to make sure viewers keep coming back to listen to her story. "Koenig is not just a journalist trying to get to the heart of a story — she is every one of us listeners at home." I find this really interesting because although I have not listened to the podcast (yet), it explains how great of a story teller she is. She is a journalist, but she appeals to viewers, and makes viewers identify with her. The more we like the storyteller, the more likely we are going to listen. 

There seems to be a combination of factors that make this podcast be the "it" show of this year. The intrigue of a non-fiction crime, the popularity and convenience of the podcast, and the exciting story telling of the narrator all make for a riveting show. However, I think our society's morbid fascination with murder is a little frightening. 


So what do you think? Will this podcast maintain its high ratings next year with a different story, possibly one not about murder?

The Digital Girl Scout Cookie

While babysitting over Thanksgiving break, I came across something I hadn't seen in months - Thin Mint Girl Scout cookies. I couldn't believe it; I thought Girl Scout cookies in my area were a rare sight most of the year. I only ever had the cookies when my old neighbor would ring our doorbell once a year offering us the brochure. Sometimes I would see their booth set up next to the local grocery store, but that was still fairly rare. So when I was reading The Week recently and I saw an article about Girl Scouts, I was immediately intrigued, especially when I read the title: "Why e-commerce for Girl Scout cookies is a bad idea". Girl Scout cookies have taken to the internet. 

The Girl Scouts announced that starting in January, they will begin to selling and delivering their products online, calling it a "digital cookie". The program expects to have over one million scouts using the digital cookie, instead of selling it "the old-fashioned way". The article I read argues that the digital cookie won't teach Girl Scouts the same business lessons they received by physically selling them. The Girl Scouts Corporation, "the digital program will teach scouts the value of e-commerce". The girls will have to invite and contact relatives and friends in order for them to be able to place an order on their website. Even better, there's an app for that. 

I think that there are many benefits to this, but ultimately I think there is also a big loss. I can see why Girl Scouts wants to make the switch to technology, because it's more modern and accessible, but I think it changes the image of the scouts. In the article, I think the author makes a great point when she mentions that young girls already know how to use the internet; they've grown up with it, and their arguably better than adults. So when the Girl Scouts of America say that they are trying to teach girls how to do something online, it doesn't mean much. It won't be hard for these girls, and they probably won't learn as much as they did by having to budget their time and figure out how to raise a certain amount of money. The scouts are being lazy. They have to create their own website and email their relatives, but in comparison to actually physically selling the cookies it's a lot less work.  Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to be able to order my cookies online instead of having to wait for someone to show up at my door, but I don't think this is the best idea for the scouts. 

What do you think? Does it change the scout's values by making the cookies available to buy online?