Effectiveness of Billboards

In class recently, we have been discussing the different methods of advertising. Billboard advertising is very common; I see it on roads and highways. I generally only get a 2-4-second glance at each billboard, so I never really understood why people think they are effective. Our class discussion on billboards, as well as my skepticism, got me to do some research, and I have concluded that they are indeed effective.

I read an article written by Stephen Rampur entitled "Billboard Advertising Effectiveness". Advantages are discussed in the article, including the fact that many major businesses consider this form of advertising because of its "cost effectiveness and saving". Also, because of billboards' "colorful, innovative, and catchy product and service advertisements", billboards "create a brand awareness and a strong name recognition among passers-by". Not only are they economically beneficial to the companies, but billboards also really do capture the driver's attention, even though they are generally seen for only about 2-4 seconds. I can especially see how the ones advertising food are effective; if someone is hungry and there is a big McDonald's billboard, then the person may very well think, "hmm...I want McDonald's now". Also, the billboards advertising TV shows can be very catchy. I remember once I think I saw a catchy one that was somewhat funny, advertising the Bernie Mac Show or something like that.

Well, I guess I was wrong; billboards really are effective. What do you think?

Second-Hand Smoking: Fact or Fiction?

There are many people in America whose agenda is to condemn smoking. Now, it's not debatable that smoking is unhealthy, but when people start bringing up second-hand smoking, that is completely different.  The whole idea of second-hand smoking has never been proven, and although it is a possible hypothesis, some people have completely overreacted. For instance, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle outlawed smoking in every Wisconsin restaurant because he believes that smoking is not only harmful to those who smoke but also to people in the same environment. I believe that second-hand smoking is a myth, and it annoys me how people hype it up.

I read an article from ABC News entitled "Myth: Secondhand Smoke Is a Killer" written by John Stossel. According to the article, "[T]hey studied people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some of the studies found no effect. Nevertheless it's been enough to launch a movement to ban smoking most everywhere". Clearly, although few people may have been affected by second-hand smoking, there is not enough scientific data to prove that it's harmful in general. And, just like anything in life, there are people who exaggerate the dangers and actively try to ban smoking in public places. To support this assertion with specific studies, I read another article written by Michael Shaw entitled "Up In Secondhand Smoke: What Does Science Tell Us?". Scientists conducted a 39-year study on second-hand smoking, which involved 118,094 adults. They focused on over 35,000 who never smoked themselves but had a spouse with known smoking habits. And according to the article, the scientists concluded that "the results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality". The article also stated that the relation between exposure to smoke and heart disease and lung cancer "may be considerably weaker than generally believed".

I admit that smoking is unhealthy. But, as the evidence presented in this blog supports, it is unfair to ban smoking in public places because of the belief that smoking has a powerful effect on those in the vicinity. I think that second-hand smoking is largely a myth and that it's unfair of Doyle to ban smoking in restaurants in Wisconsin.

What do you think?

Gambling

When I was walking down the hall the other day, I heard some students talking about how they can't wait until they will be able to gamble. This reminded me of my personal beliefs on gambling: I think that it's wrong because it feeds on human greed and encourages people to place their trust in possessions. Plus, not many people benefit from gambling; more people end up losing their jobs, homes, and in some cases even lives due to gambling. It is for these reasons that I believe that casinos should be closed.

I read an article by Roger Dunstan, entitled "Economic Impacts of Gambling." Although he talks about the few benefits of gambling, such as the fact that building a casino can create more jobs, he discusses the many cons of gambling. For one, locally-owned business can easily go bankrupt because consumers and tourists have changed their monetary focus on casinos. Also, these casinos buy more out-of-state products than the businesses they replace. Another important fact is that casinos lead to increased social costs (such as police), as well as the costs of problem gamblers. Additionally, many families are broken and lives are ruined because of someone's gambling addiction and greedy belief that he/she can be fulfilled by a jackpot.

I think that the cons of gambling outweigh the pros. Although some jobs can be created, I do not believe that this is the best way. According to a commentator after the mayor of Chicago proposed a gaming project that was supposedly meant to help our economy, "We could create plenty of construction jobs by building brothels and opium dens." Clearly, he is being sarcastic. What he is saying is in agreement with my argument; just because jobs can be created doesn't make it right!

What do you think?

What is the best form of assessment?

I have been in school for quite some years now, and I have been exposed to many, many different forms of assessment: tests, quizzes, papers, projects, presentations, and even laboratories. Having been doing all of these for so many years, I have been thinking a bit...what is the BEST form of assessment?

Personally, I believe that the best form of assessment is a toss between non-multiple-choice tests and essays. The reason I say non-multiple-choice tests is because, in many cases, multiple-choice tests are nothing but tricks; they don't assess your knowledge, but they assess your ability to memorize really in-depth details. Free response tests are generally more broad but at the same time can be challenging. Also, in terms of essays, it is really important to take a rational stance and support your claims with evidence in an organized manner. Making an argument is a great form of assessment, to see how well the student can support what he/she is saying.

In many cases for projects, the more time spent is directly correlated with the overall grade. There have been projects on which I have spent hours on end and, consequently, received a good grade. Projects embrace creativity and can be very tedious. Although some people think that they are fun, I do not believe that these are the best form of assessment. Presentations are a nice way to introduce a certain topic (i.e., give a presentation on photosynthesis before you start studying it), but generally do not take as much thought as essays.

What do you think?

Were the Copenhagen climate talks a success or a failure?

I was thinking a little bit about the Copenhagen climate talks and their outcome. They were more prevalent in the news a few months ago, but some people still value their importance. These talks raised many controversial viewpoints from both Democrats and Republicans. Were the Copenhagen climate talks a success or a failure?

Personally, I believe that they were a failure. For one, they did not unite the two parties; it is even arguable that they split them apart even farther. Many Republicans believe that the statistics given on "global warming" were fudged; in fact, professors and scientists at a university in the United Kingdom have been researching the "global warming" facts presented to assess their validity because they are doubtful. This led to a sense of mistrust, the opposite of the initial goal of the talks. Additionally, the talks did not unite different countries together; they did just the opposite. According to the Financial Times, dated December 4, 2009, the environmental minister of India noted that he wants to improve the environment only for India's own self-interest. He said, "Forget Copenhagen. Forget the United States". Undoubtedly, he does not want to collaborate with other nations.

What do you think?

Should Blacks Be Given Reparations?

Yesterday in American Studies we discussed the whole concept of "reparations." I learned that reparations are not necessarily monetary. I found this subject very interesting and gave it some more thought.

My personal intake is that blacks should NOT be given monetary reparations. Would the point of giving them monetary reparations be to "pay off our guilt" (give them money to make us feel less guilty), or to actually help them? You see, the first possibility is to simply give them money so that we don't feel guilty anymore. Personally, I believe that this is an insincere way to apologize. For instance, if you get into a fight with your friend and really hurt his/her feelings, you don't just buy him/her a gift to make up for what you did wrong. The second possibility is to try to help the blacks in America by giving them reparations. Although this is good intent, I do not believe that it would end up working out as one may expect. Look at all of the welfare programs - I have not seen a ton of people benefit from these.

Slavery is a horrible aspect of our nation's history, and it should never be forgotten. But I believe that there are other ways to make it up to black Americans that don't involve giving them money. I have seen many benefits from affirmative action, for example. I also believe that slavery should be taught in schools and that museums should be made in recognition of slavery (like the Holocaust). This should raise people's awareness of the evil ways that blacks were treated and should hopefully stop the racism to a degree.

What do you think?

Is the US auto industry dead?

Over the last few months, many newspapers and journals have been shifting their focus to America's auto industry. There have been studies relating to costs, benefits, profits, etc. for each American car company (Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler). At the peak of the recession, General Motors and Chrysler were really down in the dumps and accepted government money, but Ford was always relatively strong and rejected any aid from the government. All of this raises the question, is the US auto industry dead?

Personally, I believe that the answer is NO. I have seen immense improvement in Ford (who wasn't even that bad to begin with) and especially GM. For one, according to the Wall Street Journal, Ford has lowered the cost of many of its vehicles, which has led to more cars being bought. Ford clearly understands that in such a recession people don't want to spend so much unnecessary money on a car. Consequently (and also according to the Wall Street Journal), Ford's annual profit for the year 2009 was $2.7 billion, compared to a LOSS of $14.7 billion the previous year. Wow! Ford's great techniques have really helped them! Additionally, GM has really improved, especially due to the fact that just last week they finally sold Saab to Spyker (a Dutch sportsmaker). According to the Financial Times, this trade resulted in GM obtaining $74 million up front, as well as $326 million in preferred shares. This money can really help General Motors. Also, many people refer to Buicks as "old people cars." Well, Buick was aware of this and, in order to gain more customers, has recently changed the design of many of its cars. For instance, they have made the new Lacrosse and Lucerne as European-looking sports sedans. Now, which is more appealing to the average American family, an "old person's car" or a European-looking sports sedan? I'd go with the sedan. This change in design has additionally helped GM, Buick specifically, gain more publicity.

What do you think?