TOW #20 - Freakonomics (IRB 3.1)

This week, I started the highly recommended Freakonomics, and I’m really enjoying it. Throughout the first part, the authors, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, introduce several social trends and spend time proving the causes for them. For example, although criminologists predicted increased crime rates over the past few decades, rates have actually decreased – Levitt and Dubner explore the reason for this. Ultimately, the authors use exemplification more immediately to correct false interpretation over certain trends, but on an extended level to show that not everything is what it seems.

An example I found particularly interesting was the story about crime rates. When crime rates decreased, the incorrect criminologists tried explaining why they were wrong, but even these explanations were incorrect. The authors attribute the actual cause of the decrease in crime rates to a court case Roe v. Wade ­­- an event which prevented the births of the group of children who would be committing crimes 20 years later. It is a bit of a difficult process to comprehend, but basically, “It’s possible that X causes Y; it’s also possible that Y causes X; and it may be that X and Y are both being caused by some other factor Z” (8). In statistics, this is known as confounding. In their exemplification – that is, the explanation of Roe v. Wade – the authors are able to connect a seemingly unrelated event to the trend. They could make all the claims that they want, and attribute the trend to anything – but their presentation of the Roe v. Wade­ case is quite convincing and offers a unique perspective on the situation.

I am looking forward to reading on in Freakonomics. The authors take a very untraditional stance on economics, and treat it as “the study of incentives” (16) and an analysis of actual events versus expected events. So far, the authors have gotten me interested in economics, because they’ve presented it in a way that does not take the expected, boring lecture route.

TOW #19 - Why the World Needs a Trump Doctrine

Why the World Needs a Trump Doctrine was all about how Trump has not made good decisions up to this point in his presidency, and how he needs to make particular decisions regarding foreign policy. I was almost getting angry as I read the article – what right did the author have to make suggestions and proclaim them as the correct courses of action? In fact, what right do any of us have to tell the president how to do his job? While I may not agree with Trump’s moral standards (to any extent), he did win the presidency, and is our president. However, after doing a bit of research on the author, Zbigniew Brzezinkski, I learned that he has a vast political background, having served as President Jimmy Carter’s principle foreign policy advisor. Clearly, Brzezinkski knows what he is talking about. Brzezinkski discusses China and Russia, the two other major military forces in the world.

While I’m sure the author knew what he was talking about, I was not too convinced as a reader. I felt that Brzezinkski was not giving enough evidence to effectively substantiate his argument. He repeatedly said that Trump “should” do this and “should” do that, but didn’t go much further than that. The article had a lot of potential, but considering Brzezinkski did not go beyond purely criticizing Trump and solely making suggestions, I was not convinced as a reader. Had the author used statistics or appealed to logos in some way, I may have been much more influenced by the article. In my opinion, considering Trump’s ego, I don’t find it worth our time trying to persuade him to change his views or implement policies which he didn’t come up with. In the end, as Brzezinkski puts it, “While we did not support Mr. Trump, he is the president of the United States. He is our president, and we want him to be a success.” This is the point that I would drive.

TOW #18 - Skittles Super Bowl Commercial

The commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8X8Ygy5VjI

The Super Bowl is the single most important football game every year – but the difference between the Super Bowl and the rest of the NFL games is the commercials. The commercials are what draw in so many viewers each year. The Super Bowl is the event during which brands release their best commercials. There are always many different types of commercials, but the ones that consistently stick out are the funny ones. This year, during one of the first breaks in the game, a Skittles commercial aired, and really caught my eye.

It took place in a (presumably) teenage girl’s bedroom late at night. Outside her window, a boy was whispering her name and throwing Skittles into her window (mimicking the cliché romance scene in movies). However, when the camera cut to inside the bedroom, the girl was just catching Skittles in her mouth. After eating a few, she moved over. Her mother then moved into her spot, caught a Skittle, and moved over. Her father followed, and then came a robber a policeman, and a gopher. It was a very unexpected twist on the cliché scene.

I thought that despite not actually concretely revealing anything about its candies, Skittles made an effective commercial that appealed to its audience. Being a food brand, it is impossible for Skittles to give television viewers an actual taste of their product. In fact, the audience can’t even get a remote idea of what it’s like to eat Skittles. So, I believe the most effective way to attract customers (without giving out free Skittles) is to create a commercial like the one played during the Super Bowl, which purely made viewers laugh. Obviously, the humor won’t make people go out and buy Skittles, but it makes people that much more likely to buy Skittles when they’re out and looking for a candy to buy. If someone is stuck between Skittles and gummy bears, there is a good chance that they recall the funny Super Bowl commercial and choose Skittles.

Skittles’ Super Bowl commercial barely even advertised the product, but ultimately, it was a success. In thirty seconds, Skittles was able to make an imprint on the minds of the Super Bowl audience – a large audience. Although Skittles was unable to give viewers a real taste of the product, it was able to produce an effective commercial.