Pizza Hut is rethinking its contest daring people to ask "Sausage or Pepperoni?" at the presidential debate Tuesday.

After the stunt triggered backlash last week, the company says it's moving the promotion online, where a contestant will be randomly selected to win free pizza for life.

The pizza delivery chain had offered the prize — a pie a week for 30 years or a check for $15,600 — to anyone who posed the question to either President Barack Obama or Republican candidate Mitt Romney during the live Town Hall-style debate.

But blogs and media outlets immediately took the pizza delivery chain to task for trying to capitalize on the election buzz by injecting itself into the process.

A Pizza Hut spokesman says in an email that moving the contest online was a "natural progression of the campaign" after people got excited about the idea and "wished they could get in on it."

Pizza Hut, a unit of Yum Brands Inc., says it will still honor the prize if someone poses the question live at the debate. But it's encouraging everyone to participate in the new online version, where contestants must enter their email addresses and zip codes to be eligible. The company did not say whether it would award two prizes if someone does ask the question.

The change comes after Pizza Hut's stunt became the butt of jokes last week.

In a segment on Comedy Central's "Colbert Report," host Stephen Colbert asked, "What could be more American than using our electoral process for product placement?"

Colbert said the prize for a free Pizza Hut pie every week meant that "if you eat one of their pizzas every week, you will die in 30 years."

The blog Gawker wrote about the stunt under the headline, "Want Free Pizza Hut Pizza for Life? Just Make a Mockery of the American Democratic System on Live TV." The site wrote that all the contestant had to do was "embarrass themselves on live television before the President of the United States and millions of their fellow Americans."

Pizza Hut's stunt comes as TV audiences have become increasingly resistant to traditional commercials. As marketers look for new ways to engage viewers, the presidential election has presented a rare opportunity.

Earlier this month, an estimated 67.2 million people watched the first debate between Obama and Romney. That made it the largest TV audience for a presidential debate since 1992, according to Nielsen's ratings service.

This isn't the first time a promotion tied to current events has backfired. Last year, Kenneth Cole compared the Arab Spring uprisings to a frenzy over the U.S. designer's spring collection; the company later apologized.

More money news:

• Middle class a state of mind, readers say
• Tiny New York apartment is home sweet home
• 'Broken heart' and other fake sick day excuses
• Video: Walmart takes aim at Amazon
• Sign up for our TODAY newsletter

Follow TODAY Money on Twitter and Facebook

The big question in this presidential election has been which candidate – President Barack Obama or challenger Mitt Romney – can do the best job fixing the ailing national economy.

But new research suggests that nearly half of all Americans think neither candidate will have much effect on their personal financial situation.

The new survey, released Monday by Bankrate.com, finds that 45 percent of adults nationwide don’t think the choice of president will make much of a difference to their finances.

Another 29 percent said they thought their personal situation would be better under Obama, while 20 percent said their personal situation would be better if Romney wins the election.

The survey of about 1,000 people, which was conducted Oct. 4-7 and has a margin of error of 3.7 percent, shows a significant shift in favor of Obama since June.

Back then a similar Bankrate poll found respondents were equally split, at 21 percent, on whether they’d be better off financially with Obama or Romney. In the June poll, slightly more people also said it didn’t matter much to their personal finances who won.

The pessimism about the ability of the president to affect one’s personal finances is surprising, said Erik Snowberg, professor of economics and political science at the California Institute of Technology.

“I’m surprised because they’re right,” said Snowberg, who has done extensive research on people’s perceptions of the economy and their voting habits.

He said research has shown that the president’s party affiliation has a minimal effect on the stock market, a key vehicle for improving financial measures like retirement savings. Politics also don’t seem to make a huge difference in moving the unemployment rate, he added.

Still, the Bankrate poll did show a contradiction: Despite their skepticism about whether the president can help them personally, more than six in 10 people said their personal economic situation is a key factor in their voting decision.

Claes Bell, a senior analyst for Bankrate.com, said he thinks there is widespread pessimism about whether anything will help after five years of difficult economic times.

“I think people are maybe feeling a little bit discouraged at this point and wondering whether either candidate has a policy prescription that’s going to work, or even if a policy prescription can do anything at all to improve the financial position of the average American,” he said.

Those who said they were doing better financially than a year ago were more likely to say they’d do better under Obama. Those who reported being worse off financially than a year ago were more likely to say they’d do better under Romney.

“You’re seeing the effects of people’s own personal financial outcomes influencing their vote,” Bell said.

Snowberg, the Caltech professor, said that when pollsters ask about economic issues like this so close to the election, people’s more general feelings about the candidates tend to come through.

“They know that what you’re actually asking them is a political question and so they answer them as if you’re asking them, ‘Do you like Obama or Romney better?’” he said.

Snowberg doubted that last Friday’s unemployment report, which showed a substantial drop in the unemployment rate to under 8 percent, is having a big impact on people’s feelings.

His research has shown that people tend to judge the employment situation based on their own experience, rather than more general data. For example, they tend to think the unemployment is higher if they are unemployed themselves, or if they are in a group, such as low-skilled workers, that has more trouble finding work.

“Really what matters for people is how they perceive the economy is going,” he said.

Related:

Jobless rate drop no big surprise, despite political racket

Middle class, whatever that is, targeted by candidates

Presidential election turns personal for many swing state voters

Courtesy 7-Eleven

Blue cups are more popular than red cups by a 60-40 margin.

To figure out whether President Barack Obama will win re-election, don't bother consulting costly scientific polls. Just check out the self-serve coffee at your local 7-Eleven convenience store.

As it has done in every presidential election since 2000, the convenience store chain is selling red and blue to-go coffee cups marked with the names of the major party candidates, as well as regular, unmarked cups for undecided voter in its "7-Election."

So far Obama is ahead nationally by a wide 60-40 margin, although more scientific polls have the national race as virtually a dead heat. In the closely contested swing state of Ohio, where both candidates are campaigning heavily this week, the coffee cup poll favors the incumbent 57 to 43, with undecided coffee drinkers excluded.

Even though the poll bills itself as "unabashedly unofficial and unscientific," it has accurately predicted the winners since it began in 2000. Not only that, the results have hewed within 1 percentage point of the final popular vote. In 2008, Sen. John McCain got 46 percent in the 7-Election and 45.7 percent in the real election, while Obama got 52 percent of the coffee cups and 52.9 percent of the actual votes. In 2004, President George W. Bush beat Sen. John Kerry in the 7-Election 51-49, compared with 50.7 to 48.3 in the real polls.

Likewise the chain's coffee cup sales had Bush beating Vice President Al Gore in 2000 by a percentage point, while U.S. voters put Gore ahead by 0.5 percentage point in the popular vote. Still, the 7-Election did better than many major media outlets, accurately calling the race for Bush, who ultimately won by Supreme Court decision.

Other cheeky polls also point to a second term for Obama. "Chia Obama," for example, is outselling its Romney Chia planter counterpart, and Obama Halloween masks are also outselling their Republican counterparts.

One reason for the 7-Eleven poll's accuracy could be its large sample set in the millions, compared with 1,000 to 2,000 adults in typical scientific polls. The 7-Election surveys have held up even though customers are allowed to "stuff the ballot box." Each cup purchase, even from the same customer, counts as a vote.

During the chain's Sept. 28 free coffee day, New York looked like a shoo-in for Obama, at least from the 42nd Street location in New York City's Times Square. "It was crazy," 23-year-old cashier Brian Moravec told NBC News. "I had a table stacked with all the cups and nine out of ten people went for the Obama cup." As for the Romney one, people were saying, "Don't even give me that cup," the cashier said.

So which cup does Moravec take? "The courtesy cup. I don't even have time to get into politics," he said with a laugh as he moved to ring up a lottery ticket for another customer.

Those political junkies who do have time to track the voting can rack the results at 7-Election.com for both national and state-by-state results.

Neither campaign's press offices responded to a request by NBC News for comment.

More money news:

• China-Japan feud could ripple through world economy
• Wendy's has fastest drive-thru, study finds
• Apple shares tumble; analysts still bullish
• Older workers not 'stealing' jobs after all
• Video: Runway style at department store prices
• Sign up for our TODAY newsletter

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images

Malia, second from left, and Sasha Obama will have a well-funded education. Their parents have invested between $100,000 and $250,000 in a 529 college savings plan for the two girls.

President Barack Obama and his family appear to have gotten a bit wealthier over the past year, but they are taking few chances when it comes to investing their millions.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, had assets valued between $2.8 million and $11.8 million in 2010, according to their recently released financial disclosure report (.pdf file). That range was higher than what they reported for 2009, when their disclosure form reported assets between $2.3 million and $7.7 million.

(The Obamas are allowed to be somewhat vague about their financial situation, hence the wide range in values.)

The bulk of the Obamas' wealth is invested in about the most conservative way possible, helping to fund the ballooning federal debt by buying Treasury securities, which currently pay from about 0.25 percent annually for short-term bills to a bit over 3 percent for 10-year notes.

The couple has between $1.1 million and $5.25 million invested in Treasury bills. An additional $1 million to $5 million is held in Treasury notes.

Other highlights:

• The president had between $250,001 and $500,000 in his JPMorgan Chase checking account.
• The Obamas aren't playing it crazy when it comes to stocks — between $200,000 and $450,000 is invested in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund.
• Royalties from the president's two books — "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" — totaled between $1 million and $5 million last year. In comparison, his annual salary is $400,000.
• The couple's children will have a well-funded education. Between $100,000 and $250,000 is invested in a 529 plan for  daughters Sasha and Malia.

Reuters

House Republican leader John Boehner breaks into tears during a speech as he addresses supporters at an election night rally in Washington, Nov. 2.

The nation’s incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner, may be as well known for his penchant for getting weepy as for his policy positions.

But just because Rep. Boehner has found career success while crying doesn’t mean that you should give it a try.

Workplace consultant Jodi Glickman writes in the Harvard Business Review blog Monday that crying at work is definitely not OK, and especially not in front of your boss.

In the blog post, called “How Not to Cry at Work, Even if John Boehner Does,” Glickman writes:

“There are three key differences between John Boehner and the rest of us above-average professionals looking to progress in our careers: First, he's the boss, second he's not crying about workplace issues, and third, he's old (or older, depending on where you sit).”

Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, has made news since the November elections not just for crying on national television, but also for talking about how he is an emotional type of guy who gets a little verklempt about a lot of things.

Of course things sometimes happen at the office that make you want to cry, Glickman notes.

But instead of adopting Boehner’s weepy habits, she recommends that you find a way to flee the scene as quickly and politely as possible, then find a place where you can cry in private.

Once you’ve regained your composure, Glickman recommends speaking calmly with the person, or about the situation, that drove you to tears.