Is Big Sugar the Next Big Tobacco?

Good Evening Ladies and Gentleman. Welcome to Late Night Critic.

In the last few days I've had some deep discussions with my fiancé about Big Sugar. She thinks it is the next Big Tobacco, I feel it should be looked at in a different manner. We usually get pretty stubborn so I did some research of my own; and I still feel the same way. While some of the Big Sugar points are true, it doesn't need to be treated as Big Tobacco was.

Sugar doesn't affect the people around the consumer.

When people smoke tobacco, it directly affects all individuals who are near the cigarette. Second-hand smoke is known to cause many illnesses, from ear infections and pneumonia in children to lung cancer and heart disease in adults. This is part of why Big Tobacco was so important to bring down. However, with Big Sugar there is no similar problem. Consuming sugar doesn't affect those around you, outside of a possible increase in energy. There is no such thing as second-hand sugar, and there never will be (hopefully).

Sugar can be consumed in moderation without negative consumer impact.
As my grandfather grew up he lived by one rule, "consume only in moderation". And to this day he has lived a healthy life, he has even outlived all other members of my grandparents. I try to live my life by this rule as well. David Katz recently wrote an article for the Huffington Post rebutting a statement made by a UCSF professor that all sugar was evil and fructose was at the root of it all. However this has been proven wrong before, and he has no real data to back his statements up with (so I'm not sure why he says anything at all). David goes on to agree that processed sugars may be more harmful; but that fructose, found naturally in fruits, is not a harmful substance. Even health.gov points out that it isn't sugar that causes diabetes or hyperactivity, it's obesity. Obesity is a result of consuming too many calories without burning any off. While removing sugars from your diet may look good on paper, if you still consume the same number of calories, no change will occur.

Alternatives to natural sugar are manufactured and not well tested.

One reason for the use of sugar substitutes is to lower the calorie intake. That is a fine use of sugar substitutes, however they too must be consumed in moderation. Many people have recently been linking all sugars together, in the effort to negatively define sugar. What most articles hide in their stories are that the alternatives to sugar aren't much better, and sometimes contain chemicals that do more harm than good. Near the bottom of a report on sugar it's noted that manufactured varieties are the main issue, while natural sugar isn't bad (again, in moderation). The problem here is that people see "sugar is evil" and don't read into the articles, thus they believe all sugars are evil. In a discussion about the faux-sugars that are being created to replace the "unhealthy" natural sugar my doctor stated that "the faux-sugar contains so many chemicals that they become less healthy than natural sugar". 

With these three points I can say that Big Sugar doesn't need to be attacked as Big Tobacco was. Sugar may not be healthy when consumed in large quantities, or when it is processed into other foods. But natural sugar can still be part of a healthy lifestyle when consumed in moderation. My opinion on the proposed advertising restraints and removal of inviting packaging? Not necessary. People who wish to take care of their health will do so, and know what they should and shouldn't eat. For the people who only eat junk food, that is their own fault. People always need an excuse for their own mistakes, much like when McDonald's was sued over hot coffee. This anti-sugar fad is just that, another excuse for people who are obese and have health problems. Hopefully, it all dies down soon and the world can find something else to blame their problems on.

Best Business Blunders

Eating healthy costs too much!
This week our Best Business Blunder comes more from an industry than a company. It's also a nice continuation of the story above. One of the biggest causes for obesity in America is the lack of available healthy food options for reasonable prices. With the lower-middle class growing in America, a change needs to be made to make healthier food cheaper and thus more accessible for a greater percentage of our country. A recent study shows that it really is more expensive to eat healthy, by about $550 a year. While, in the grand scheme of life this may not seem like much money, when a family is living paycheck to paycheck it is near impossible to meet these high prices.
There is some good news however, bottled water has been seeing a steady increase in consumption in America. By the end of the year, soda pop may be out bought in most convenience stores!

So what is the lesson learned? If the world wants change in American consuming habits, the pricing levels of unhealthy goods need to be adjusted to encourage that change.

Thank you for reading,

AO

Bro-surance and Obama-care

Good Evening Ladies and Gentleman. Welcome to Late Night Critic.

I'm not much interested in talking politics. I try to stay out of those conversations when I can. Why? Well to start it's one of the Forbidden Three topics besides sex and religion. But mostly I just don't bring it up because someone always has a different opinion than the person next to them. However, I am going to slightly break that rule this week and discuss with my internet followers the new campaign in support of Obama-care.

I haven't followed the day-to-day debate surrounding Obama-care. But it is impossible not to notice the great divide between supporters and opposer's. While it is easy to find stories on those who challenge Obama-care (Forbes), the supporting factions have been slow to start up. Personally, I feel their website crashing during the first day of launch was a horrible way to start. That doesn't inspire faith in a new system. A program that says they pride themselves on ease of use, needs to work.

Above is one of the examples of the advertising campaign started in Colorado to rally the youth to sign up for insurance. I chose, what I feel, was the most tame of the print ads created for Obama-care (for the entire selection of advertisements just click the picture above!). The advertisements are attracting attention, but not of the most wholesome kind. The Huffington Post touches on the awkwardness of some of the images and slogans. Going as far as a woman stating it is easier to get birth control, thanks to her insurance, than getting a hot man between the sheets.

I will admit that the shock factor of an advertisement is important in drawing the initial attention of a consumer. Nonetheless, a government based insurance company such as Obama-care needs to be careful of the sorts of messages they are sending out. There have been enough sex scandals and too many politicians speaking wrongly of the pregnancy and the female body in general. Let's leave that stuff out of the advertising, yeah?

While the "Do You Got Insurance?" slogan is a play off of the old Got Milk? campaign, I feel like the connection isn't quite there. Many Americans took to Twitter to post their opinions of the ads, and they were mostly negative. Improper use of English was a major point, should our government be promoting "Brosurance" or "got" when we all know it should be "have"?

While I feel the advertisements weren't properly thought out before being released, I do think there are some positives to be found. For one, the advertisements utilize multiple forms of appeals to the general public. Most notably are the rational appeals, as most of the advertisements are based around the idea that we all need insurance. Basically the idea is "insurance is easy to get and crazy not to have, so why not get it?". There are also uses of emotional and humor appeals, along with a few appeals to sexuality. With the base use of logic, and then the added use of humor, emotion, or sex the advertising campaign is sort of like a one-two punch.

They also did a great job concentrating on the use of the "average Joe", just a typical person, being portrayed in every version of the campaign. This allows the general consumer to connect more easily to the situations being portrayed. The use of an "average Joe" coupled with the "Slice-of-Life" setting was another great combination for the Obama-care advertisers to use. With the "Slice-of-Life" setting and the "average Joe" being portrayed the consumer can truly connect to the every day situations being described. Which, if the slogans are properly created, will push the consumer to buy insurance.

This campaign works because they are consistent with their use of visuals and taglines throughout the whole series of ads. This is despite the differing situations and demographics every ad is aimed towards. They are simple, and yet consumers are still able to discover the selling point, to buy insurance. Through these few key methods of advertising Obama-care created an effective campaign. 

Obama-care's advertisements use some great traditional marketing techniques, but they went about them the wrong way. I think they may be discussed openly in groups of people, but they won't be received the way they were meant to be. Do you think they were spot on with this campaign? Or does Obama-care need to rethink and create a different more modest campaign? Your thoughts in the comments below!

Best Business Blunders

BP Oil Company

I figure since I'm breaking my "no politics" rule above I may as well continue the trend in BBB. So let's look at the BP Oil Spill of 2010!

Now we all now that BP majorly screwed the pooch, and have paid the fines. But what's interesting is their lack of remorse these days. Recently articles have been popping up about their reactions to the class-action lawsuit that is being decided on within the next few weeks. This lawsuit allows every single affected party of the spill to be included in one massive case, for the sake  of efficiency and ease of measurement, and will determine the total fine for damages BP will have to pay.
The problem here is, BP has taken to posting some of the parties requests that they feel shouldn't be involved in the class-action lawsuit. While they have been posting these specific requests for damages to be paid, they are also asking the government to reduce said fines. Now ask yourself this, if you were running a company that was behind the largest oil spill ever and caused major environmental destruction, would it seem fair to mock those who you have negatively impacted?
The good news is that their appeal failed. So BP Oil is just going to have to suck it up and pay the fines for their mistake. Below is a picture of the spill from space, and a happy turtle after being cleaned.

The lesson here is pretty obvious. Don't cause one of the worst man-made environmental disasters ever and a few short years later, act as if you are the victim. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Thank you for reading,

AO