In another attempt to make matters seem worse than they truly are, USA Today posted a brief article on how "Americans" feel about the political situations currently on the table. I put "Americans" in quotes (again) for one simple reason: the poll presents itself as being representative of all Americans, when in reality it is only a very small percentage of the entire population. (The side note in the left margin of the above mentioned article shows that only 1,005 adults were polled in this survey).
I believe that what the writer(s) of these kinds of articles are banking on is that readers (unlike me) will simply focus on the bold print and ignore the small boring print. If such is this case, then the article appears to be saying something completely different--i.e., two-thirds (an ironic number, oddly enough) of this entire country are not optimistic about how things are going. If that were truly the case, then the 200,778,326* people expressing their dissatisfaction is a significant voice--and one that should be heard with great concern. But, only 1,005 people were polled, and two-thirds of that number is 670.335 (obviously the ".335" can be ignored), which translates into only about 1/450,000 of the total population.** Not nearly as impressive.
The language/rhetoric used in such articles can be misleading if one is not careful. Throughout the article, in conjunction with the notion of "two-thirds", the writer(s) use other terms to further the illusion--e.g., "most", "Americans", "the nation", "public", etc. This is not to suggest that the 1,005 polled are not American or not a part of this nation or not a part of the public; it is only suggesting that these 670 only represent 670 positions of the 301,016,980 people within this country. This is also not suggesting that these 670 positions are insignificant and should therefore be ignored simply because they are few; it is only suggesting that they not be considered definitively representative of the entire country. If the writer(s) of USA Today want to show that two-thirds of this country are dissatisfied with the status of various political issues, then survey the entire population of this country and see what happens.***
Statistical analyses, if not seen in their proper context, can be misleading. It is crucial for us readers of such polls not to overreact and/or believe the (false) reality being presented by such analyses. When an article, such as the one in question, says something like "Two-thirds think country headed down wrong track", we must see what that number actually represents instead of believing that actually two-thirds of this country hold that position. It would easy for us to read such a headline an be sucked into the conclusion: "Wow, if that many people are dissatisfied with the President and his agenda; then he must be doing something wrong"; when in reality, it is only 670 people who are dissatisfied. Therefore, the above conclusion would be a bit hasty to make. So don't make it, and realize why it would be bad to make it.
________________________________
* This figure is based on the population of America being 301,016,980, as of 11:30am on 22-Jan-07--according to the US and World Population Clock. It is understood that this number would be smaller given other key variables (noted below).
** Granted, there are a number of variables to consider--i.e., age, race, gender, social status, geographical location, political ties, etc.
*** Well, obviously survey those who are able to respond to such surveys.
22 January, 2007
10 January, 2007
I am so glad that sex does not sell*
Recently, while carrying out my normal morning routine, I came across this rather disturbing picture used to promote a rather mundane service. At first, I honestly thought it was another one of those promotions for finding "hot singles" in my area; so I ignored it. But when I took a second look, I saw that it was not soliciting hot singles in my area; it was (as you can see) an add for finding individuals to be "secret shoppers". Is the secret shopper industry in such a dire need that the marketers must resort to using such tactics to recruit new employees? Or is such an approach simply indicative of how marketers seek an audience with people within our society? Exploitation of women for the sake of marketing a new product is a sad commentary for our society. (Please know that I am not relegating this problem only to the US; it is a global trend). This trend can be found when promoting all kinds of products--e.g., Mach-3 razors, Arby's 5-for-$5, etc. I am not quite sure, in light of this problem, which disturbs me more: that such tactics are "normal" (if not acceptable), or that women allow themselves to be exploited for such purposes. I am sure there is all kinds of rhetorical moves made when soliciting the help of young attractive women that make it seem as though they are being honored and performing a valuable service. But five minutes of reading between the lines would reveal the true rhetoric being presented. What can be found between the lines is anything but honorable and it quite insulting.
Marketers know that sex sells, and such a mentality pervades the vast majority of social life. This raises another question that ultimately disturbs me. What's worse: the fact that sex sells and marketers exploit that to the extreme, or that there is an underlying assumption that presupposes a lack of interest in a product (from the consumer) unless it is presented in a sexual way? In other words: is our society conditioned to desire things only when they are sexually alluring? Whatever happened to something being desirable simply based on the merits of the product itself?
___________________________
* Stated with the most sarcasm I can muster.
09 January, 2007
pills are not (always) the answer
Amidst the barrage of other "get fixed quick" medicines is yet another weight loss pill guaranteed (with pretty much the same guarantee as all the others) to help reduce weight and body fat. The wonderful miracle pill: Lipozene. One brief comment before getting into the heart of this post: it may be clinically proven to do what it does--i.e., reduce weight and body fat (though I personally have my doubts)--but it has yet to be proven what it will do to one's body 10 or 15 years down the road. (Of course, that's pretty much the same nagging question yet to be answered by the makers of all the other "get fixed quick" meds).
Here's my problem with this new (non-)wonder drug: Within the sales pitch, by the seemingly nice lady on the video, is a short blurb about an "amazing" perk with Lipozene. If we take this pill, then we do not have to change our lifestyle--we can continue eating as we have been. As long as the we take Lipozene, we have nothing to fear about eating what we want. Another implication within this is that we do not have to join a gym or (more pointedly) get off the couch and do something. That, to me, is absolutely asinine! The lifestyle is more than likely the leading cause of why some of us added on the pounds in the first place. To say that a lifestyle change is not needed, while certainly an enticing plug, is not going to solve the primary problem.
The primary problem is that we need to acknowledge the cause for the extra poundage--i.e., not eating well, not exercising, being flat out lazy, etc--and change those habits. There are more established findings that general exercise and eating well have significant results on the whole person. And here's the greatest part about making such lifestyle changes: it's cheap!! In fact, for the most part, it's free!! Lipozene cannot guarantee to save us money--mainly because they want our money. When it comes down to the bare bones, they could honestly care less about us losing any weight. Their primary concern is to convince us to buy their product (for nearly the rest of our lives) so that they can make a ton of cash.
And that's just it--if we want to maintain the results, we have to keep buying the product (for $29 a pop). And if the maximum dosage is taken (6 pills per day), one bottle is only going to last 10 days. Now they may try to sucker us in by giving us a free bottle when we buy the first one ("oh wow; gee thanks! . . .), but that is only a one-time deal (. . . jerks"). And if one bottle only lasts 10 days, that means at least 3 bottles per month for 12 months, which obviously translates into 36 bottles per year for $29 each, giving us a grand total of: $1,044 per year. (Keep in mind: if we want to maintain the result they promise, we have to keep buying the pills). My basic one-year membership to Gold's Gym: $469 (beat that Lipozene).* Even if we choose not to pay for a gym membership, there are many websites (including Gold's Gym, for example) that have information on things that can be done around the home--for free!
If we are completely honest with ourselves, we would realize the really bad logic within the rhetoric of commercial advertising. Their whole job is to make their product sound/seem beneficial and worthy of the consumer's hard-earned money. Try this experiment the next time you're watching TV (especially if you watch late-night TV):** listen to the list of perks given or arguments for why you should buy certain products. I guarantee you that they will be nearly parallel to other products that promote the same concept. (This especially applies to info-mercials where each product [most notably exercise machines of some kind] uses a standard list of comments). The industries who use this rhetoric are truly only concerned about getting money. But here's the thing: buying their product is not always going to solve the problem.*** In fact, buying their product may generate other problems (e.g., financial troubles due to buying stupid products); though if you watch TV long enough, there may be another product to help with the new problems--one that is "guaranteed" to help. It's a meaningless and vicious cycle that can be avoided.
__________________________________
* I have recently cancelled my membership--not because it interfered with my lifestyle, but because I realized that I could general stuff around the house (for free) and get nearly the same results.
** Another experiment to do with late-night TV is to notice the kinds of commercials shown at that time in relation to those shown during the day.
*** I openly admit that there are some medication that are needed in order to help alleviate/regulate various struggles (e.g., clinical depression); but this does not necessarily apply across the board--especially weight loss.
Here's my problem with this new (non-)wonder drug: Within the sales pitch, by the seemingly nice lady on the video, is a short blurb about an "amazing" perk with Lipozene. If we take this pill, then we do not have to change our lifestyle--we can continue eating as we have been. As long as the we take Lipozene, we have nothing to fear about eating what we want. Another implication within this is that we do not have to join a gym or (more pointedly) get off the couch and do something. That, to me, is absolutely asinine! The lifestyle is more than likely the leading cause of why some of us added on the pounds in the first place. To say that a lifestyle change is not needed, while certainly an enticing plug, is not going to solve the primary problem.
The primary problem is that we need to acknowledge the cause for the extra poundage--i.e., not eating well, not exercising, being flat out lazy, etc--and change those habits. There are more established findings that general exercise and eating well have significant results on the whole person. And here's the greatest part about making such lifestyle changes: it's cheap!! In fact, for the most part, it's free!! Lipozene cannot guarantee to save us money--mainly because they want our money. When it comes down to the bare bones, they could honestly care less about us losing any weight. Their primary concern is to convince us to buy their product (for nearly the rest of our lives) so that they can make a ton of cash.
And that's just it--if we want to maintain the results, we have to keep buying the product (for $29 a pop). And if the maximum dosage is taken (6 pills per day), one bottle is only going to last 10 days. Now they may try to sucker us in by giving us a free bottle when we buy the first one ("oh wow; gee thanks! . . .), but that is only a one-time deal (. . . jerks"). And if one bottle only lasts 10 days, that means at least 3 bottles per month for 12 months, which obviously translates into 36 bottles per year for $29 each, giving us a grand total of: $1,044 per year. (Keep in mind: if we want to maintain the result they promise, we have to keep buying the pills). My basic one-year membership to Gold's Gym: $469 (beat that Lipozene).* Even if we choose not to pay for a gym membership, there are many websites (including Gold's Gym, for example) that have information on things that can be done around the home--for free!
If we are completely honest with ourselves, we would realize the really bad logic within the rhetoric of commercial advertising. Their whole job is to make their product sound/seem beneficial and worthy of the consumer's hard-earned money. Try this experiment the next time you're watching TV (especially if you watch late-night TV):** listen to the list of perks given or arguments for why you should buy certain products. I guarantee you that they will be nearly parallel to other products that promote the same concept. (This especially applies to info-mercials where each product [most notably exercise machines of some kind] uses a standard list of comments). The industries who use this rhetoric are truly only concerned about getting money. But here's the thing: buying their product is not always going to solve the problem.*** In fact, buying their product may generate other problems (e.g., financial troubles due to buying stupid products); though if you watch TV long enough, there may be another product to help with the new problems--one that is "guaranteed" to help. It's a meaningless and vicious cycle that can be avoided.
__________________________________
* I have recently cancelled my membership--not because it interfered with my lifestyle, but because I realized that I could general stuff around the house (for free) and get nearly the same results.
** Another experiment to do with late-night TV is to notice the kinds of commercials shown at that time in relation to those shown during the day.
*** I openly admit that there are some medication that are needed in order to help alleviate/regulate various struggles (e.g., clinical depression); but this does not necessarily apply across the board--especially weight loss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
