Every year, Americans come together to watch one of the biggest annual television events ever. The Superbowl. And to match the huge viewing numbers, are the massive companies spending millions upon millions just to advertise during the venue. These commercials have gained huge popularity for their funny and edgy antics to get the attention of the consumer. But contrary to the massive amounts of exposure they receive, does the advertising actually produce revenue for the companies?

A study by a marketing company is aimed at tracking the effectiveness of these ads every year. This study was done for the 2015 Superbowl, which also makes this study very pertinent to companies looking to advertise for the venue next year. The study was done by tracking a consumer over a period of time before and then after the Superbowl. They then used the individuals purchase intentions and relates it to ad engagement. Their results found that the consumers were less engaged by up to 25% from 2014 advertisements. Consumers also forget 75% of the companies that advertised during the game. This is certainly concerning when these major companies correlate these huge advertisements to increased sales or branding.

A lot a data continues to surface about the results of these ads, and the amount of people who buy a product or recognize a brand continues to decline. The main reason these companies pay the premium for these commercials is simple. They are a sure way to reach millions upon millions of people at once, with a majority of them actually watching the commercials. A reason the ads may not be successful in the actual causation of sales is the actual context of the commercial. Even though you may laugh at one or fall in love with another, doesn’t mean you will actually buy a product because of the commercial. Also, many people will argue that these big companies are just building their brands. However that has not shown over the long tern success for past games. There are too many variables and unclear effects of the ads. I could even see how reverse causation could come into affect; the increased sales for a company cause them to have enough money to have a Superbowl ad. However, that would be hard to prove because they could not happen simultaneously.

So should a company spend upwards of 4 million dollars on a Superbowl ad? I think it is solely up to their own marketing decisions. The ads do continue to increase in price, but that may change as demand slows as well. I think under no possible circumstance the ads pay for them self in being the cause of increased sales by looking at the data and using factual evidence.

Every employer wants to get the most out of their employees, saving both time and money as production increases. Each year employers spend a lot of effort into finding the best environment to make the most out of their biggest asset; the employee. One of the factors that many people may not even realize is the temperature. Research has shown productivity correlates with the temperature of the office for workers. If true, this could save companies over harming their production over a few degrees.

The prominent study on the affect of temperature and productivity was done by Cornell. I was also able to find the exact information and results directly from Cornell. It is known that they used keyboarding as the measure of productivity and measured said productivity at different office temperatures. The setting of the study was at an insurance office. Researchers found that the optimal room temperature is 77 degrees. They also tested for the productivity lost over certain increments of temperature changes. For example, if the room temperature was 68 degrees, they found productivity dropped 44 percent. If proven, the results  from the temperature drop could have a huge impact on companies.

I think that the research clearly has no proof of this concept or as to why their theories on the exact temperature are correct. In this scenario the X variable is the temperature where as the Y variable is the productivity. I think if could be very easy for a third variable Z to come into play. One of the possible variable is the season and time of year. The season could increase productivity by making workers happier, and chance the temperature through climate, for example. Also, I think that the productivity due to temperature is very subjective to the study. I work better in a colder environment and dislike warmer classrooms. I would be curious to know if this theory also translates to classroom temperature as well as an office.

Overall, there is not any proof of a causal relationship between temperature and productivity. However, if the study was done well we could assume the theory could be true. In actually implementing a change or regulation for office temperature there would need to be possibly a larger study measuring productivity across more jobs and offices and show more data.

When most of us think about getting a job in the future, we have a usual notion of seeing ourselves sitting in an office somewhere, hopefully lucky enough to have our own cubicle. However, more and more workers are beginning to work from home over the past decade, and it has people wondering; is working from home more of less efficient? According to numerous studies, it is been shown to actually improve efficiency and work better than a traditional office space! This data is certainly not in line with what someone might think about a home environment. No supervision? More distractions? Seems implausible right?

To reach an answer we first  must look at the studies made about this claim. Much of the research done is within a business itself, often to show the upper level management the affects of working at home. One company looked at the number of calls the different workers took from the different environments. They gave their employees the opportunity to volunteer to work at home for nine months. They then chose half of the volunteers and allowed them to work from home, and kept the other half in a traditional work environment. Their results showed a 13.5% increase in the amount of calls taken. They benefits shown also included an increase in employee satisfaction and a decrease in turnover rate (employees who quit). The company also saved thousands per employee on office space and furniture.

The results of the company certainly are intriguing. If true, they could be replicated across many company platforms and revolutionize the way companies work, literally. However the study was only within a very specific company and focuses only on one part of their productivity. By looking at their data, it does seem plausible their X variable (work at home) does in fact cause Y (increased productivity). However there is no proof of causation in their study. Their study was not randomized, and they took volunteers that already wanted to work at home. This may show how they already want to work at home, therefor their productivity will increase no matter what. Or, these individuals may be affected by another variable that affects both X and Y. There is not enough concrete evidence to assume this is true.

Many people and business owners are still skeptical. For example, Marissa Mayer, the executive of Yahoo, recently decided that all employees must come into and work from an office, or they can quit. For such a drastic move it is easy to assume they have put a lot of thought into the decision. Also, there could be downsides to this in some industries as opposed to others. The rate of promotion for employees out of the office also dropped. What should a business do in this battlefield of pros, cons, and unproven results? I think it largely depends on the business and their own decisions. If they feel the previous research fits their model then they could use it to influence their decisions and review their actual results. Or they could make decisions on their own such as the Yahoo example. What do you think is the right place for workers?

What if I told you that we are less ethical than those older than us? Most individuals would more than likely be offended and try to defend themselves in one way or another. They may claim they never even partake I decisions that question ethics. However, according to several studies, age correlates to ethics. This is shown within business ethics scenarios as well as within consumer ethics.

The first study focuses on the business ethics or an anonymous group of 2,196 students enrolled in a business college. Their goal was to determine if age was a factor of ethical conduct. To determine their results, the participants were involved in a survey which determined the ethics of their decisions in certain situations. The surveys were then broken up into different age groups and scored based on their answers. The outcome showed the oldest age group made the most ethical decisions, followed by every age group in descending order to the youngest, who made the least ethical decisions.

The next study focused on the ethics of age groups in consumer scenarios. The specific instance used was of shoplifting statistics by age. The research was done using several statistics for shoplifting and applying them to ethics. They concluded the age of a consumer does affect their chances of shoplifting, and are more likely to engage in shoplifting at a younger age.

Both articles of research I looked into showed some type of correlation between the two. So what? I think that both studies into the ethics of age have little merit in the actual studies themselves. The first has a large red flag for me in the fact it was a student survey! Not many 40+ year old adults are enrolled in college. Therefore, I think the data is skewed toward the younger age, without a truly random survey because of the population itself. The second does not take into account the hundreds of other factors that could take part in their research; economics of the family, geographical location, and gender to name a few. Reverse causation can also be ruled out in both scenarios due to logic.

However, there is a large quantity of research and books showing how the two relate. The argument also does have logic behind it, in that the younger the person the less educated they may be about ethics and the consequences of certain actions. May other people tend to agree with these opinions as well. I think there is certainly not proof of causation let alone a proven mechanism which could cause this. What do students currently in this demographic think?

Usually fast food within the United States is given a connotation of obesity and unhealthiness. As a child and to this day I will try to limit my fast food consumption because of these assumptions. However I ever asked why it was bad or how exactly it could cause obesity. That is exactly why my interest was sparked when I came across a study that actually observed how it can be a positive idea. It specifically cited how fast food could be used after a workout to aid in muscle recovery. So I asked myself, how exactly can we benefit in a health perspective from fast food?

According to a recent study, there could be a benefit to eating fast food after a workout. Most people who are active or go to the gym are familiar to the idea of post-workout recovery such as eating and drinking. Many product lines and brands have emerged just for this market in the common forms of energy bars, drinks, and supplements. Each product aims to help an individual recover, “known as glycogen resynthesis.” The study aimed to see if there was any difference between these sports foods and a typical fast food meal in how they aid in post-workout recovery.

One of the most important aspects of research is how it is conducted and how the researchers came to draw their conclusions. They had eleven male test subjects complete a 90-minute workout in “randomized, counterbalanced order.” Then they participants were studied over a four hour recovery period. During this period the individuals were given a supplement of either fast food or a sports food. The researchers then took samples from the subjects to see the difference in several bodily responses to the workout. The exact measurements and details of what they measured are all found on the summary of the research.

In the end the study concludes that the fast food had very similar results in recovery as the sports foods did. I can come to believe this, as it seems somewhat logical. However the biggest red flag to me is the sample size. Eleven men is an extremely small number to base an entire thesis on. Also, it was on a single day and only a certain exercise. The results of the muscle recovery also does not account for the other factors that play into a recovery. These concerns and more are shared by others as well. The other idea to consider is that the fast food had the same effects as a meal would have for the participants, except the fast food is less healthy in other way even though it could have the same amount of calories.

In the end I believe the study could have some merit in correlation of fast food and sports food recovery. However I think that the idea of everyone buying a fast food meal after a workout is subjective to how you view the study. Personally I do not think the benefit of eating the food (taste possibly?) would outweigh just eating a full normal healthy meal or using sports supplements. What do you think?

Combining the gym and fast food in a comical light can also be an odd sight.

Photo 1 – http://www.cafeexpressdavenport.com/fast-food-healthy

Photo 2 – http://www.beginnerfitness101.com/why-you-need-to-avoid-fast-food/

Hello everyone, my name is Dan Shurtleff and I am from Tunkhannock, PA. I decided to take this course because I was intrigued to learn more about science in an analytical and deeper sense than is portrayed to us within society everyday. It will also complete my science general education credits.

I am not planning to be a science major because I have found a love for business over the past several years. I have started my own business and plan to major in Corporate Innovation & Entrepreneurship and wish to one day own a large business in the auto industry. here at Penn State! I am not being a science major because I feel I have found a path that pursues my interests and I will enjoy throughout my career.

I love adventuring and exploring and love the western states, especially Colorado and New Mexico for their natural beauty and adventurous lifestyle. Below is a picture from one of my adventures!