5 Hours of Energy, 30 Seconds of BS

Friends,

I'm so sorry about the delay in blogging. Through some combination of work-related busyness, my girlfriend's cancer potentially returning, and an incessant desire to watch Supernatural on Netflix, my Tangent(s) sort of got pushed to the back burner. I'll try to improve, O faithful reader.

Well, on to our topic. This ad, admittedly, is old news. This misleading, comically bad commercial has been around for months, and many other bloggers and Youtubers have already reamed it. But sometimes you don't blog to be original; you blog-- sometimes anyway-- to pour out your almost limitless wrath on a terrible sector of human existence. And if any human product can be called 'terrible', surely it is this 5-Hour Energy commercial.


Maybe the most awful commercial ever
Though I do hate those Everest Institute ones where the guy assumes you're a useless degenerate

This is the point at which I would ideally post an embedded video of the commercial in question. Here's the problem... it doesn't exist online. 5-Hour Energy has pulled the commercial from its YouTube channel and its website's 'Commercials' section. All the other blogs that rant about this now have videos that simply read "content removed by user." Well, hopefully this screenshot will jog your memory:

The very beginning of this 'amazing' commercial

There are so many parts of this commercial to criticize that, to keep them straight, I'll have to go through the script, verbatim, phrase by phrase:


1. "We asked over 3000 doctors to review 5-Hour Energy. And what they said is amazing."

Given what we're talking about (a review of 5-Hour Energy), it's hard to imagine that what was said will amaze me. Here are some doctor responses that would be 'amazing':

• "5-Hour Energy consistently provides the ability to bend space-time to one's will."
• "Most 5-Hour Energy users grew a third nipple."
• "Chuck Norris takes 5-Hour Energy."

With that in mind, come on lady, what's so amazing?!


2. "Over 73% who reviewed 5-Hour Energy said they would recommend a low-calorie energy supplement to their healthy patients who use energy supplements. 73 percent."

Wait, what? THAT'S the amazing news? I was hoping to become a three-nippled Hiro Nakamura. But wait, upon further thought, the inclusion of this statistic is pretty amazing:
These doctors aren't recommending 5-Hour Energy to anyone; they're merely agreeing that if a patient is already taking an energy supplement, they can go ahead and take a low-calorie version instead. With that kind of weak, generalized parameter, the shocking question is-- Why did the other 27% say no??!

But if you think those numbers are incriminating, just wait until you read the fine print!


3. Fine print #2 (the first one doesn't say anything relevant): explanation of the survey

5-Hour Energy sent out 500 internet surveys to doctors and approached 5,000 for a face-to-face survey. So, in fact, 5,500 doctors were approached. But 2,500 of the doctors approached in person flatly refused to take part in the survey. I wonder if those doctors would recomment 5-Hour Energy? This lowers the already meaningless percentage from 73% to 40%.

But wait! It gets worse.


4. Fine print #3: confessing that recommending 'a low-calorie energy supplement' isn't the same as recommending 5-Hour Energy

This fine print reads: "Of the 73% of primary care physicians who would recommend a low-calorie energy supplement... 56% would specifically recommend 5-Hour Energy."

Wow. So, of the 3,000 doctors who would give them the time of day, only
(73%)x(56%)= 41% would actually recommend the product-- to people who are already taking energy supplements! Not to mention that if we factor in the 2,500 doctors who completely shut them down, we arrive at a whopping 22%. 22 percent.


5. Summary

So 5-Hour Energy approached 5,500 doctors to review their ingredient list. 2,500 of the docs refused, saying "You are a bunch of business-savvy quacks who are looking to use manipulative marketing to turn my medical expertise into a quick buck. Get lost! I hate your phony product!!" (I assume.)

Of the 3,000 who would play ball, 41% said that if they had a patient who was already taking energy supplements, they would recommend 5-Hour Energy. 41 percent.

Hilariously enough, there were (if you recall that big 73% number) an additional 32% who stated that they would recomment 'a low-calorie energy supplement'-- apparently just not the one called '5-Hour Energy'.


Have you seen this commercial? Any other criticisms I've forgotten?

Oh, and I guess I should ask if anyone has actually taken 5-Hour Energy? Does it work?

Jon

The Windshield Wiper Enigma, Pt. 2

Friends,

Professional bloggers roll out topical series, with a new installment each day, week, or month to keep you coming back for more. Skilled amateur bloggers write related posts in sequence with maybe a little less frequency or regularity, but a continuity that keeps their readers entertained and intrigued. I wait a year and a half to write an unexpected, unannounced follow-up piece to an inarguably pointless post.

That's what you get at Tangent Space(s). Thanks for reading anyway.


Some background information
That I would even try to bring you up to speed on this is absurd

In the calendar year of 2011, I drove my friends' SUV while they were overseas. In the spring, I noted how laughably inadequate the three windshield wiper speeds were. I blogged about it, and if you don't clearly remember that ridiculous bit of writing, I recommend you read it now.

If you're like me and too lazy to click a link, I'll give a brief summary of my findings. The three wiper settings had periods of 6.9, 1.9, and 1.3 seconds. The problem was that the first setting was almost always too slow, the second often too fast, and the third ran the risk of breaking the sound barrier and thus shattering my windshield.

Last winter I bought a car. It's a 2009, and after my old '97 and even my friends' 2005, it has been like a breath of modern, windshield-wiping air. But was I right that it's in the interval between 2s and 7s that the most useful wiper settings are found?


The Grand Experiment
In which we discover if my passionate complaining has any grounding whatsoever in reality

I knew that, with this brand new 2009 world of wiping, I'd be writing this blog entry someday. I didn't want my previous post and its numbers to make me biased, so I took some time to familiarize myself with the usefulness of the settings before I timed the periods. [Pretty crafty science-y move there, am I right?!]

My new car has 6 wiper settings. Four are grouped together, then there are two more individual settings, as follows:

1-A
1-B
1-C
1-D
2
3

The settings increase in speed, so that 1-A is the slowest and 3 is the fastest. It's a very wide spectrum, as in I could listen to an audiobook of Don Quixote between the wipes of 1-A, and Setting 3 is being researched by the military for the development of high-speed rubber blade weaponry.

At any rate, I found that I almost always use Setting 1-D. For most rains, it is the best choice. I occasionally need to up it to Setting 2, and for light sprinkles I use the slower 1 settings. So, just how fast are these settings? Drumroll please (man, people will call out for a drumroll for anything...)

1-A:  9.4 seconds
1-B:  7.8
1-C:  5.9
1-D:  3.5
2:      1.6
3:      1.2

Aha! So, at least for my visual clarity preferences, somewhere around 3.5 seconds is the most useful, versatile windshield wiper period. No wonder I was so dissatisfied when my best options were 1.9 and 6.9 seconds! Come on, car companies.


What about you? Any updates in your windshield wiper experience in the last year and a half? Any thoughts? Comments? Ideas? Limericks?

Jon