TOW #22 - "Seeing Double"

When, in the course of watching television, a commercial so powerful, impactful, and/or memorable appears, it is only justifiable to share said commercial with your friends.  In fact, the mark of a truly great commercial is the sharing of it with others.  Companies pay for consumers to watch commercials, so when consumers go out of their way to watch and share a commercial, you know that it is a quality commercial.  This kind of memorable experience is what I had when I first saw Sonic’s commercial titled “Seeing Double.”   In this commercial, two people are eating Sonic’s food with a new deal that gives customers two drinks, two sides, and two meals for $10.  Obviously, because of the theme of things being paired, they are “seeing double.”  Then, the hilarity ensues.   The two guys look to their left and see an almost identical pair of people in an identical car.  The one guy says to the other, “play it cool, see if they want to hang out.”  So the other guy looks out the window and shouts in the least “cool” way possible “hey you guys wanna hang out some time?”  The other pair of guys promptly roll up their window.  This ad is genius for two main reasons: 1) the punch line is completely unexpected; and 2) it is a creative way to sell their promotion.  The entire commercial sets the audience up to believe a regular conversation is about to commence, but instead Sonic throws the kitchen sink at the audience with a completely unexpected joke.  This makes the audience laugh, and is therefore more inclined to consider Sonic’s promotion.  This is where the second part comes in.  Sonic not only gives important information about he promotion itself, but they also relate it to the joke with the theme of “seeing double.”  This ends up linking laughter and Sonic, so the audience will be much more inclined to end up going to Sonic in the future.

TOW #21 - Why am I Right-Handed?

Are you right handed at least?  I got this question at least 25 times throughout my time wearing a sling because of my broken collarbone, and each time I put on a face of appreciation and relief as I replied “Yes, at least I’m right handed so I can still write.”  About 90% of the population is right handed, an overwhelming majority.  Simple logic, and what we are taught growing up, is that the reason is “genetics,” and we tend to leave it at that, failing to further question what “genetics” means.  In her article “Why am I Right-Handed?” Maggie Koerth-Baker writes about the much more complicated nature of the question of dexterity.  She utilizes expert authority and an interesting concept to achieve her purpose of informing the public about the interesting idea of what makes someone right-handed.

Baker, a writer and statistician, does not have the authority to speak directly about the genes and biological expertise needed to tackle this issue.  So, as a good writer always does, she finds experts and quotes them to create a strong argument.  Baker quotes Chris McManus, a scientist who was one of the first to publish the dextral/chance model.  She also gets John Armour’s opinions, who is a professor of human genetics at the University of Nottingham in the U.K.  She then has these two scientists, who have conflicting views on the controversial subject, go back and forth and create a mock debate, in a sense.  This establishes the credibility of her throughout the article.

Baker also uses a interesting concept to sell this article to potential readers.  She markets it as a new series that answers hard science questions asked by toddlers.  She says, “Sometimes, their little brains can lead to big places adults forget to explore.”  This cool idea creates what may sometimes be dry topics into something exciting, fun, and new for readers.

TOW #20 - Hockeytown Doc (first half)

I have just concluded reading the first half of the book “Hockeytown Doc: a Half-Century of Red Wings Stories from Howe to Yzerman” by Dr. John Finley.  This book is a collection of stories from the former physician of the Detroit Red Wings.  Overall, I enjoyed the first half of the book.  It provided some amazing, hilarious, and heart-wrenching stories.  I had two main takeaways: firstly, the stories Finley writes about are simply amazing and even though the writing style and flow of the book perhaps is not as good as a professional writer, the kinds of stories that are being told overshadow that fact.  Secondly, Finley does not provide a ton of background information on the Detroit Red Wings, so unless you are a Red Wings or NHL fan, this book may seem alien, which it did to me in a couple of places.

One example where it is evident that Finley is not a professional writer is in his story about concussions.  He writes, “Players who have suffered from the long-term effects of head injuries are left with permanent disabilities, so early detection, treatment and minimizing or avoiding them in the first place is of utmost importance” (Finley 57).  It is somewhat of a choppy sentence, and the use of “so” in the middle seems a little bit amateur.  He is clearly not a master of rhetoric, but he goes on to write and incredibly intriguing passage about his take on concussions.  Thus, he can hide his few flaws as a writer with his interesting character.

The other main takeaway for me was how little hockey I knew before reading this book. I found myself having to look up players, names, dates, competitions and more all the time.  But at least I knew the basics of the NHL; if someone read this book not knowing much at all about hockey, they were be incredibly confused and lost. 

I enjoyed the first half of the book and look forward to the second half…hopefully some more interesting stories will be shared.

TOW #19 - Black South Carolina Trooper Explains Why He Helped a White Supremacist

“As racial tensions in the divided south intensify…”  This sound bite sounds like something taken out of an 1875 news story, when freed slaves were just beginning to integrate into society.  Unfortunately, this headline is just as applicable to news in the summer of 2015 as it was back then.  In his article “Black South Carolina Trooper Explains Why He Helped a White Supremacist” Dan Barry effectively explores and explain a recent incident involving a Ku Klux Klan rally in front of the South Carolina state house by providing proper background information and using testimonials.

Barry has a specific job of reporting a relatively minor, although certainly with larger ramifications, event to an extremely large group of people.  He realizes that a large portion of his audience will not be aware of the incident and thus he succinctly and effectively summarizes the event.  He gives important and interesting details, but doesn’t drown the audience in minutia.  I will attempt to harness my inner Dan Barry and recapitulate this event: there was a Ku Klux Klan rally in front of the South Carolina state house.  A black state trooper noticed an older white man, donning a shirt with a swastika, suffering in the heat.  He heroically helped this man, as he would help any other civilian, and brought him to the state house to get medical treatment.  A fellow state employee snapped a picture of this incident and shared it on the internet, where it received a bunch of attention.

Additionally, Barry uses testimony from the trooper himself, Leroy Smith, in order to fully give his readers the perspective and awareness that is necessary to understand the story.  Barry quotes Smith as saying “I think that’s the greatest thing in the world — love, and that’s why so many people were moved by it” when he was asked why it went viral.  This gives the perspective of the officer as well, as Barry’s perspective as a bystander.  This contrast give a real depth of feel to the article and lets readers truly understand the incident.

*This is the fourth installment of my project of exploring Dan Barry’s writing.  Barry is, of course, a reliable source.  He is columnist for the New York Times and he writes about sports (among other things) and how they affect our lives.

TOW #18 - Doritos Ultrasound Commerical

The Superbowl is perhaps the single biggest day of the year in America.  Almost everyone watches the game surrounded by family and friends.  And while the game itself is usually very intriguing, and the halftime show is often entertaining, the main attractions are the famed Superbowl commercials.  This year, the commercials were, as a whole, disappointing.  I would consider it a down year.  However, one commercial stood out to me above the rest: the Doritos Ultrasound commercial.

The storyline of this commercial is that a man and a woman are getting an ultrasound for their child.  The man is disrespectfully eating Doritos during the ultrasound and the wife gets mad.  The man then realizes that the child seems to follow wherever he puts the Doritos.  Then, he pulls the Dorito up very quickly and the baby kicks his mother.  The mother is furious, grabs the Dorito from her husband, and throws in away.  There is a pause, and then suddenly the baby follows and leaps out of his mother.  All three in the room start screaming. 

This commercial is effective for two reasons: 1) it includes the element of surprise and 2) it appeals to a common event most of its audience has had.

The way this commercial is structured, the audience believes they have seen the climax when the baby kicks the mother.  Then, completely unexpectedly, the actual punch line is delivered.  This step beyond makes the commercial surprising and hilarious.  Without the added bit of comedy, this commercial would be good.  But with it, this is a great commercial and extremely humorous.

Secondly, this commercial appeals to a common experience that nearly everyone watching the Superbowl has had.  Even if you haven’t been the man or wife in this situation, like me, you will understand the scenario and probably have been in a hospital like this at some point.  For me, I was there when my sister was born so I still understand the commercial and it still appeals to me.

TOW #17 - The Franchise Tag

Sometimes an article is written with the sole intent to inform an audience.  That is, indeed, the case with the article I read for this week, entitled "Everything you have ever wanted to know about NFL franchise tags” by Kevin Seifert.  This is an article that came out with a clear and immediate purpose: to inform the audience about how a franchise tag works.  The NFL allows teams to start using the franchise tag today, so clearly the word will be thrown around a lot in the coming month.  Because of that, Seifert recognized that many casual sports fans will not know the full meaning of this term so he decided it would be smart to write an article that clearly and concisely explains the tag.  Without going in to too much detail, the franchise tag is basically a one year deal that NFL teams can give one of their players each year that guarantees that player stays with the team for another year.  Granted, it will be an expensive contract, because the amount must be the average of the top 5 paid players at that position in the NFL.

Seifert created a very easy to read article by using casual diction that any sports fan can understand.  You do not need to be an NFL fanatic or GM to understand what a franchise tag is by the end of the article.  This was done on purpose: if you can understand advanced NFL jargon, then you surely know what the franchise tag is and it would be a completely useless article.  Seifert did a good job of understanding his audience and crafting his article so that it fits his purpose of explaining to a casual football fan.

While this is not a life-changing article, it serves its purpose very well, and, as a reader, I can appreciate a straightforward and logical explanatory article.