“Why the Anomaly that is Super Bowl Marketing is a Justifiable Investment”

By now, we have well established that the Super Bowl is the holy grail of marketing, the championship for the battle of the brands, and the ultimate showcase of creative prowess which determines bragging rights. This American phenomenon is the exception, because it’s the one time on the calendar where viewers are mesmerized by commercials instead of tuning them out as noise. There are critical strategic objectives which can be satisfied, revolutionizing the brand in the eyes of the consumer and drastically expanding brand awareness. We know the vast benefits that well-executed marketing schemes can have for companies, especially during the Super Bowl, which initiate significant implications. The proof of effectiveness is obvious when observing statistics for the 2018 Super Bowl: • An average viewership of 103.4 million, escalating to 112.3 million at the end of the game. (Nielsen 2018) • 68% of homes with functioning T.V’s were tuned into the Super Bowl broadcast. (Nielsen 2018) • 170.7 million social media interactions across Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. (Nielsen 2018) • Digital viewership of 2.02 million viewers a minute, a streaming record. (Nielsen 2018) • Price of 30 second advertisement maximized at $5.2 million (American Marketing Association) • Aggregate Super Bowl ad spending over 52 year history (1967-2018):$6.9 billion adjusted for inflation. (AdAge 2018) Granted, there are some viable concerns associated with Super Bowl advertising. Because of immense scrutiny, marketers need to be conscious of the impact repercussions of attempting to make a statement which backfires can have. Attending to and reconciling public backlash can be difficult and can severely damage brand perception. Negative news surrounding the NFL have also been hot topics of debate recently. However, while some of these issues may erode some viewership in the short run, as 2018 statistics minimally decreased from 2017, the future trajectory of the Super Bowl is not truly threatened. Actually, the New York Times (Maheshwari, 2018) explains how “In an era of cord-cutting and ad-skipping, the Super Bowl is a sweet salve for the nation’s marketers.” Because of the evolution of on-demand, marketers are forced to deliberate if T.V. advertisements are worth it, with one exception: live sports. The Atlantic (Thompson, 2013) portrays this concept perfectly, stating “But in a time-delayed video world, the biggest games still drive dependable live audiences, making sports rights the most valuable resource in the whole TV ecosystem.” The consequence of this reality: almost no one records on-demand sports to skip the commercials because we can’t avoid the social media buzz which chronicles how games develop. Because the love for sports will never expire, the Super Bowl will never become obsolete for marketers. At the end of the day, the Super Bowl is the marketing anomaly that has solidified its stranglehold as the pinnacle of advertising. The big game is so rooted into American culture that Super Bowl Sunday has become a holiday for millions across our great nation. As CNN Money (Disis, 2018) explains, “It\u27s simple. The NFL\u27s marquee event is TV\u27s biggest game in town, and nothing else even comes close.” Marketers who need to distinguish their brand as a supreme offering to secure competitive advantage over competitors (ahem, everyone) need to seize the moment. The habitual winners of Super Bowl advertising significantly elevate their status in the hearts and minds of the American people. My declared Super Bowl advertising champion, Anheuser-Busch InBev (responsible for Budweiser and Bud Light), absolutely dominates the American beer market. Super Bowl regulars undoubtedly think of Budweiser’s “Puppy Love” (2014) spot with the legendary Clydesdales or the dramatic “Bud Bowl” (1989-91) series when they crack a cold brew. My theory: it’s no mistake that the best in the Super Bowl advertising realm is also the “King of Beers” because of their supreme strategy and execution on the marketing gridiron’s biggest stage

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

Monogenic Early-Onset Lymphoproliferation and Autoimmunity: The Natural History of STAT3 GOF Syndrome.

Background In 2014, germline signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) 3 gain-of-function (GOF) mutations were first described to cause a novel multisystem disease of early-onset lymphoproliferation and autoimmunity. Objective This pivotal cohort study defines the scope, natural history, treatment, and overall survival of a large global cohort of patients with pathogenic STAT3 GOF variants. Methods We identified 191 patients from 33 countries with 72 unique mutations. Inclusion criteria included symptoms of immune dysregulation and a biochemically confirmed germline heterozygous GOF variant in STAT3. Results Overall survival was 88%, median age at onset of symptoms was 2.3 years, and median age at diagnosis was 12 years. Immune dysregulatory features were present in all patients: lymphoproliferation was the most common manifestation (73%); increased frequencies of double-negative (CD4−CD8−) T cells were found in 83% of patients tested. Autoimmune cytopenias were the second most common clinical manifestation (67%), followed by growth delay, enteropathy, skin disease, pulmonary disease, endocrinopathy, arthritis, autoimmune hepatitis, neurologic disease, vasculopathy, renal disease, and malignancy. Infections were reported in 72% of the cohort. A cellular and humoral immunodeficiency was observed in 37% and 51% of patients, respectively. Clinical symptoms dramatically improved in patients treated with JAK inhibitors, while a variety of other immunomodulatory treatment modalities were less efficacious. Thus far, 23 patients have undergone bone marrow transplantation, with a 62% survival rate. Conclusion : STAT3 GOF patients present with a wide array of immune-mediated disease including lymphoproliferation, autoimmune cytopenias, and multisystem autoimmunity. Patient care tends to be siloed, without a clear treatment strategy. Thus, early identification and prompt treatment implementation are lifesaving for STAT3 GOF syndrome. Key word