When is it okay to use bad grammar in advertising? I’d like to think we have free range and can be as creative as possible, but just because I feel that way, doesn’t mean it’s right.

Recently, I’ve come across two ad campaigns by Fortune 500 companies using the “word” funner. Funner is often misused in day to day conversation (even I’m guilty at times), but according to Merriam-Webster, funner is definitely not a word. That said, I continue to notice the use of the word in advertising on a daily basis.

I was walking through my local Target store when I spotted a large banner that read “Make Summer Funner” – I couldn’t believe the mega-retail store conglomerate would support such a grammatically incorrect advertisement. A few days later, I saw a :30 TV commercial using the same debatable phrase.

Target has always been known for its fun and out of the box campaigns — the holiday Tip Campaign featuring Maria Bamford, and the unforgettable Hello, Goodbuy Campaign from 2007 are two of my favorites, but it’s hard to understand why the major brand would promote and encourage such horrible grammar.

The initial draw behind the campaign makes sense — summer and funner rhyme. The phrase also has a young and playful ring to it, which is perfect for the summer months when kids are out of school and families are generally having more fun. The overall creative is compelling and catches your attention, especially when the boogie boarder jumps into the kiddy pool. Yet, why did Target choose to incorporate a grammatically incorrect statement? Does the phrase ruin a perfectly good commercial? Technically, the campaign could have achieved the same positive reaction by saying “Make Summer More Fun.” This leads me to believe the phrase was used purposely to spark conversation about the use of the word and also work with the playful visuals of summer fun throughout the campaign.

On the flip side…

Yahoo was actually called out for the use of bad grammar in its “Fast is Funner” campaign. Yahoo launched their new email program (which is 2 times faster than their previous one) with this campaign – ultimately receiving a lot of backlash for it, even having to pull it off the internet after the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned the ad.

The problem with this campaign wasn’t just that it was grammatically incorrect, but also because the ads incorporated an image that angered a lot of people. The image portrayed two young women driving a convertible down an open road. People interpreted this as Yahoo promoting fast driving and the idea that the faster you drive, the more fun you will have. The disconnect is not just with the improper use of the word funner, but also gives the phrase a negative connotation of driving fast and having fun. A bad combination and disconnect all and all.

Ultimately, both Target and Yahoo had good concepts behind these campaigns, but the main difference between the two comes down to the delivery. Target was not scrutinized for its use of funner because its visual made sense with the copy. The phrase “Make Summer Funner” was in line with the concept behind the creative. Yahoo, however, provided an image that was disjointed with its tagline “Faster is Funner”, hence the backlash the campaign suffered thereafter.

What are your thoughts on using bad grammar in advertising? If the visual is compelling enough, should the words and grammar matter?

The main objective in a marketing campaign is to grab the consumer’s attention. There are all sorts of ways to accomplish this, including a tried and true favorite – controversy. A controversial ad campaign compels people to react and usually results in lots of buzz, both positive and negative. Some of these controversial campaigns work well. Others, not so much.

The most common mistake we see with controversial creative is that the campaign doesn’t match the brand it is trying to advertise. And controversy just for the sake of controversy is generally not well received. Allow me to illustrate my point:

I came across this interesting campaign while checking out Chill Out Point, a blog that discusses interesting advertising campaigns and the art and design industry. Even though this campaign is a few years old, I had never seen it before and it really caught my attention. It is the Obesity is Suicide advertising campaign created by Brandon Knowlden, an art director from Struck Creative.

I have to commend Brandon on the creative. These ads certainly garnered an emotional reaction from me. After looking at all these ads side by side, I wondered, what in the world was the point of these ads ? My initial thought was that they must be for a public service campaign for The Obesity Society or The American Heart Association. The creative was perfect for a campaign like that – very controversial and in-your-face, the ads drove home the message that eating poorly is essentially killing yourself.

When I saw what these ads were actually for, I became upset. This was far from a public service campaign aimed at informing people about the risks of obesity. Instead the campaign directed people to a website for William S. Peters, M.D., a doctor who performs bariatric surgery (a procedure where the size of a person’s stomach is reduced so they eat less). When I thought these ads were encouraging people to get healthy by eating right, the bold, in-your-face message was appropriate. But when I realized that in actuality, these ads were threatening people with death by obesity (while offering a solution that had nothing to do with living a healthy lifestyle) I was a little shocked.

Upon further research, I was relieved to read that these ads never ran anywhere. In fact, it turns out that the doctor was in no way associated with these ads at all. Brandon had created these ads for his own portfolio and without the doctors knowledge. However, it’s still a perfect example of how creating a controversial campaign that is inappropriate for your brand can have a negative effect. Both Brandon and the doctor pissed a lot of people off and were openly criticized for their lack of tact.

Overall, the creative was compelling, intriguing and definitely controversial. And if Brandon’s only objective was to create a name for himself, he likely succeeded. But, it is also a good reminder for marketers about the importance of matching the creative to the brand.

Everything aside, it is sad to see such a compelling concept go to waste. With all the buzz about these, I do wonder if a more appropriate client (er a public service company) will ever pick these ads up. What do you think?

When beginning work on a new campaign, two of the most crucial things you need to determine before starting is who your target audience is and what you want them to do (your goal). The answers to those two questions will inevitably drive the thought process behind the concept.

The final creative will vary based on the client’s needs/goal, budget and brand category; and of course the creative team that concepts and executes the pieces. These elements will also drive the strategy behind what medium(s) you use to convey this message and when.

For certain brand categories such as alcohol, appliances and jewelry, for example, certain media buys make perfect sense and should be obvious to anyone working on that account — from account coordinator to media planner to creative director. It drives your message (what you want them to do) right to your target audience. The obvious media buys per category are:

Alcohol: Commercials during sporting events, billboards by liquor/grocery stores, print ads/coupons in college newspapers.

Appliances: Commercials during food/home improvement shows, print ads in home improvement/lifestyle publications, direct mail (for sales).

Jewelry: Commercials during romantic holidays (during male-oriented shows) or movies, print ads focusing on weddings and engagements, or Facebook advertising directed towards men who are in are a relationship.

All campaigns, despite the product, incorporate some of the obvious media buys that are perfect for that brand. Those will reach your core target audience. It’s the strategic buys that go outside the box that reach those potential new consumers that are within your target audience as well as some that don’t currently fit your demographic that can truly bring you the return on the investment you are looking for.

The other night, while watching a 10:30 p.m. episode of Sex and the City on the Style Network, a commercial ran that really caught my eye. It wasn’t a brand you would expect to see during a show about women, sex and dating. The :30 commercial was for Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes.  Cereal commercials (which frequency has increasingly declined over the last ten years due to so many imitation brands coming out) as a whole have always been geared towards kids and families. That’s because it’s a cereal that has been known for kids or a family to eat in the morning. Lets just say Sex and the City is not a show families watch together.

At first glance, it seemed as if this had been a mistake — either the media buyer had bought the wrong time slot or the station ran this commercial by mistake. Then the reasoning behind this particular buy became apparent. Frosted Flakes were an extremely popular cereal while I was growing up. We all knew the “They’re Great” tagline and the Tony the Tiger theme song (which shockingly I still do remember).

Their marketing agency wasn’t trying to reach their already core audience or potential new consumers, they were trying to reach those that consumed this product back when they were kids. Very smart. See, my generation is now at the age where they themselves may have children. This brand resonates as childhood memories with these adults and parents want their children to experience things they did when they were their age.

Now, why show this during Sex and the City?

1) It’s 10:30 p.m. – the kids are asleep so you don’t have to worry about them seeing anything inappropriate.

2) It’s demographic skews highly female. In a family, the female makes the bulk of the grocery purchasing decisions.

3) It reaches their desired age range: 24 to 34.

I’m curious to see if these types of buys for Frosted Flakes pop up during other shows that resonate with this type of audience. What do you think? Are there any other brands that you’ve seen lately that don’t necessarily fit the obvious media buy, but resonate with a childhood memory or something you used to consume/purchase?

For decades, celebrities have been paid a fortune to promote a specific brand or product. It used to be plain and simple – a celebrity promotes a product, you go and buy that product. Now, not so much. Celebrities can’t just say a product is the best and expect you to purchase it. Consumers want to be entertained. To do this, some companies that currently use celebrities to endorse its brand are creating YouTube videos, all in hopes of making the video go viral.

Last week, a video Jen Aniston made for SmartWater launched. It was titled: Jennifer Aniston Goes Viral – SmartWater. While its true that you can’t force a video to go viral, SmartWater proves that you can combine many elements of other successful viral video with the intention of creating creative that is so good, your fans will spread it for you.

The video that SmartWater created shows Jen and her team of three guys coming up with “viral” ideas to help convince consumers that SmartWater is the “smartest, best tasting water that’s out there.”

In no time, it was an instant hit. In just one week alone, the SmartWater video has generated over seven million YouTube hits.

How did they do this? They did this by being systematic in their approach. They did their research on what would catch their target market’s attention. They couldn’t just create this video without a particular audience in mind. They needed people they knew would watch it and then share it. The most common videos that are shared via YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have one or all four for the following components:

1) It’s full of humor.

2) It has a good looking girl/guy.

3) It’s short, fast-paced and to the point.

4) It has music.

SmartWater incorporated all four of these components into this short three minute video. Some of the carefully crafted ways they incorporated these four components are:

• The dancing babies. We all remember the dancing baby aka Baby Cha-Cha from the Blockbuster commercials in the mid-nineties. This quickly became a huge internet phenomenon and was one of the first ever viral videos. Jen and her team then had the children dance provocatively all in the efforts to get more views. Sparking a conversation, especially a controversial one, is a great way to increase the number of views. Humor and music, check.

• The Double Rainbow Guy. He became a hit overnight. Sure, it helped he was featured on Tosh.O (a television show on Comedy Central that makes fun of people/ideas in internet video clips). They spoofed him as the parent of the dancing babies and encouraged him to drink SmartWater so he wouldn’t hallucinate those double rainbows anymore. Humor, check.

• In the closing of the video, they suggest naming the video “Jen Aniston Sex Tape.” This is smart for two reasons. At first I just though it was because sex sells. Then, I read an article in the New York Daily News and Shari Weiss made an excellent point – consumers will have a field day with this title, but so will the search engines. As of now, there are over 33 million search results for “Jen Aniston Sex Tape.” Hot girl and humor, check.

The overall concept behind this is great. It was interesting, funny, fresh and has definitely achieved SmartWater’s goal of wanting it to go viral. Its also sparked a lot of chatter about Jennifer Aniston, but what will this actually do for SmartWater’s brand? Will sales increase? I don’t think so. I have to disagree with Sara Marie Watson. She compares this to the Old Spice commercials, which so far has generated a 107% increase in sales of its body wash. The Old Spice videos show what the body wash will do for you. The SmartWater video doesn’t provide any information on what it can do for you.

What do you think? In the long run do you think this was a smart move for SmartWater and Jen Aniston?

It’s well-known that advertisers like to use celebrities to endorse brands and, in theory, it makes sense. People look up to celebrities and want to be like them, so when they see someone they admire associated with a certain product, they may be more apt use or buy that product.

If you are an advertiser looking to capitalize on a celebrity endorsement, there are two main questions you’ll want to ask yourself:

1) Is the celebrity you chose the right fit to reach your desired target audience?

2) Are people going to believe that this celebrity actually uses or likes this produce? Advertisers need to make it convincing. They need to make the audience believe that the celebrity is in this commercial for something other than the million dollar paycheck. If the product advertised is on the less-expensive side, the chances of the ad being persuasive dramatically decreases. Everyone knows celebrities have a lot of money and aren’t shopping through the bargain bin.

Out of the thousands of brands that have used celebrities, there are three brands that illustrate these points best. Below is an example of a brand who has done this completely right, one that has done it half-way right and one that was not right at all.

1. Let’s start with the brand whose celebrity choice doesn’t make any sense — Sketchers Shape-Ups

When the product first launched, they focused on reaching young women with the message that just by walking in this shoe, you can have nice, tone legs and a great backside. How nice, something that helps you get a better body without the effort. It reached at least one person in its target audience, it got my roommate (a women in the target audience) to purchase the product, and without using a celebrity to endorse it.

Then last year, they decided to incorporate a celebrity into the campaign and they chose Joe Montana. Really, Joe Montana for Shape-Ups?

It is hard to see how Joe Montana would be the right celebrity choice to reach the brand’s target audience. Sure, some woman watch football, but this type of commercial, with an older, male football icon, is not what will persuade its audience to purchase. It also dictates away from Shape-Up’s message — get a better body without the effort. Showing Joe Montana playing football does quite the opposite. It just seems like a complete disconnect between what the brand is and who the brand is trying to reach.

Not to mention the fact that Joe Montana is worth quite a lot of money. The commercial does not convince me that he actually wears these $100 shoes when he goes on walks. If his knees are in pain, wouldn’t he have custom shoes made?

Shape-Ups did make a switch and use Kim Kardashian in its Super Bowl commercial on Sunday. Maybe they felt she was the better suited celebrity for this, or better yet, more attractive and appealing to the core audience – the males that watch the game. Yet, Joe Montana still is the main celebrity representing their brand. Even though Kim Kardashian appeared during the Super Bowl, Joe Montana did as well. He wore a Shape-Ups polo while commentating during the All-Star Challenge, which featured quarterbacks from top universities competing in a competition. Oddly enough the competition was sponsored by Shape-Ups. Once again, a major disconnect between the brand and their target audience.

2. Now let’s looks at a brand that is half-way there – Garnier Haircolor

Sarah Jessica Parker is the perfect celebrity for Garnier’s target audience. This product is made primarily for women who might be going a little gray and need to start covering it up. As a  fashion icon who is famous for her role as the quintessential female, she is relate-able to the woman the ad is trying to reach.

Whether or not those women are convinced to buy the product is another story. SJP made millions with Sex and the City and there is no way she uses a box of hair color that costs $10 to cover up her gray.

3. Right on the money — Tim Tebow for FRS Healthy Energy Drink

After the controversy over Tim Tebow’s 2010 Pro-Life Super Bowl commercial, it’s understandable that to some it might not have been the wisest decision for FRS Healthy Energy Drink to use him in another commercial. Yet, even despite this controversy, he still is a role model to children. He was told the entire time he was growing up he would never be a star football player. The commercial shows how his determination, drive and that drinking FRS Healthy Energy Drink helped him not only reach this goal, but become a first round quarterback draft pick for the Denver Broncos.

Children look up to pro athletes and want to be just like them. This commercial reached the brand’s primary audience, children, by showing them they can do anything they put their mind to. The brand also went above and beyond and reached their secondary audience, parents, by saying this drink is also healthy.

The commercial is also quite convincing that he actually drinks the product. Athletes have their specific sports drink of choice that works specifically for them. No one actually sees what they drink on the field (unless it is complete product placement by Gatorade with those water bottles). So, how is anyone to know if he actually doesn’t drink this?

Advertisers really need to pay attention to these two key components when creating ad campaigns in the future. Consumers want two things when being served ads – to be entertained and to be convinced to purchase or use the product. Of course being entertained drives conversation, but the convincing part is what advertisers care about — that’s what makes them the money.

Until these main areas are addressed, we are going to continue to see celebrity ad campaigns that are not quite on target. What do you think?

It’s Super Bowl weekend. Some may watch it for the game, some for the commercials, some for both.

Each year consumers and marketers patiently sit and wait to see which advertisers spent the big bucks to advertise in the Super Bowl. Every year there are the typical expected categories — beer, automobiles, soda, pizza and movie trailers. There are also always those companies that run just one commercial, yet it’s generally a commercial people remember. A good example is the E-trade talking baby. Don’t worry, he will be making another appearance.

This year, though, it seems there will be some changes to the usual businesses and brands advertising during the Super Bowl. There are new categories buying into the mix and long-time super bowl advertisers pulling out. In actuality, the advertisers claiming not to be running as of now could be fooling us all, since the list won’t be final until just moments before kick-off. But for the time being, the line-up list is missing some familiar names.

Here are some of three of the most interesting changes in Super Bowl advertising that you can expect to see this year.

Suzuki – Owned by General Motors, is appearing in its first ever Super Bowl commercial. The “Wicked Weather” Suzuki commercial is a market buy — reaching 14 of the markets hardest hit by this year’s winter snow storms. They did a very strategic buy to reach only those potential consumers that are in need of an inexpensive, yet powerful enough to get you through the even most powerful storm kind of car. Smart ad buy, Suzuki.

Groupon – Taking an interesting and smart approach, Groupon is advertising its online Deals program via offline media during the Super Bowl. As Maya discussed back in December, many traditional brands are incorporating social elements into their advertising (although they may be using social media ineffectively). But few new media brands have gone after such expensive traditional advertising space. This ad buy will be critical in raising Groupon’s credibility. Most people know what Groupon is by now, but many still don’t know how it works or what it actually does. By advertising in the Super Bowl the company will not only obtain new customers/subscribers, but also to attract potential businesses who will want to advertise with them. What small business wouldn’t want to capitalize on the fact that Groupon just advertised during the Super Bowl?

With so many other daily deal programs already out there, and rumors flying about Google and Facebook jumping into the daily deals space, this is a smart move on Groupon’s end. It will position them as the leader in the space and keep their name top of mind with consumers.

Denny’s – For the last two years, Denny’s has advertised in the Super Bowl offering a free breakfast. Doing any type of free food giveaway can be tricky, but it can be effective if done right. Denny’s had 2.5 million people “cash” in on their free breakfast Super Bowl giveaway over the last two years. Although the number does seem impressive, and Denny’s claimed at the time this had a high ROI, the company won’t be running the campaign again this year. It’s nice to see advertising agencies thinking about the big picture and I applaud Denny’s recently appointed CMO Frances Allen for recognizing a need to shift strategy and pulling their ad from this year’s Super Bowl. The Denny’s marketing team decided to concentrate dollars on reaching people consistently to create repeat customers, rather than reaching them once in a splashy way.

It will be interesting to see the types of ads that run for Suzuki and Groupon on Sunday. It will be even more interesting to hear the results of the various campaigns and see if more large brands like Denny’s opt out in the future. The question comes down to, do you pay the big bucks now for a quick boost in awareness and hopefully a good ROI all at once? Or do you spread your dollars out and potentially have an even bigger ROI over time?

Every year it’s interesting to see what people’s predictions are for what is going to happen in marketing the following year. Last December, we made our predictions on what we thought would happen in 2010 in social media, email marketing, mobile marketing, pay-per-click and blogging.

Looking on to 2011, I feel there are specific things that are going to stay the same as well as things that will change when it comes to traditional advertising. Those are as follows:

Magazines - Magazines are going to continue to get smaller in size as well as in frequency, due to them increasing their efforts online. People are reading these online now instead of subscribing to the print copy. We already saw in 2010 that many magazines went from monthly to bi-monthly or even quarterly. Companies are going to continue to advertise but become more strategic with their messaging. Ads are now going to draw consumers even more to a specific website or increasingly use QR Codes. These ads need to interact directly with the reader. Placement within the publication will also become a higher priority – if there is an article about a sporting event, a company that specials in running shoes would want to be on that page, for example.

Television – As we all saw this year, more and more people are fast forwarding through commercials through the use of their DVR. According to GigaOm, 33% of American households have a DVR and use it on a regular basis. Marketers are going to increase their commercial efforts to drive people online to learn more about them. They will decrease their efforts to drive people to their website, though. Instead, they will drive people to their Facebook page or encourage them to follow them on Twitter. Consumers still want information but they want that information to be engaging and require communication directly with the company.

Radio – We are going to continue to see a decrease in actual radio commercials. The more people use their ipods or iphones to listen to music, the less people are listening to the actual radio. Also, as drivers talk on their cell phones more, via a hands-free device of course, the radio and music has become background noise. For those people that do listen to the radio, they often change to another station during a commercial. Therefore, marketing dollars will be put in to on-air promotions and contests, since these are done in between songs by the actual DJ. These drive listeners to a website where they can enter to win — giving the station more exposure, as well as providing listeners more information on your specific company.

Out-of-Home – There likely won’t bee too much change with out-of-home advertising. It is still a powerful way to reach potential consumers, if done correctly. Billboards are still informative as long as they obey the rule of eight words or less. You have to remember, the average person only has two seconds to see, read and absorb your message. Messaging will primarily be directional – Next Left Turn Right or drive people to their website/Facebook page to learn more. There will be an increase in bus shelter/train advertising due to the increase in people taking public transportation. This messaging will take on a more informational approach since people have the time to see, read and absorb this while they wait for the bus/train.

I will be curious to see at this time next year how close these predictions are. Was I close, or was I way off?

What do you think of my predictions? Do you think I am dead on when it comes to traditional advertising in 2011 or do you think I am way off?

Thanksgiving is officially over and the the holiday commercials have already begun to run. As expected, some are impressive, others, not so much. It didn’t shock me that most of the car commercials were dull and unoriginal. As I wrote in my post last year about holiday car commercials, the giant red bow is way overdone. This year is no different.

One auto maker kept this age old symbol of holiday car giving, but did it in a creative way.  Even though Lexus still incorporated the big red bow into their commercial, they did away with many of the other standard car commercial visuals (Think a single car zipping along an empty road).

In fact, the car itself got very little screen time at all. At first, I wasn’t too sure what the commercial was for. It looked a lot like the Macy’s commercial. I was interested from the beginning and wondering what the end product was (Where are they going with that giant roll of wrapping paper?). When they finally revealed the car, I was impressed. As a marketer, I understand the power of creating a commercial that both surprises viewers and intrigues them. This spot managed to do both.

The script was also clever. The opening line, “let’s be honest, no one ever wished for a smaller holiday gift,” was both memorable and true. Almost any consumer can relate to wanting a big ol’ giant present to unwrap. This line taps into the underlying American belief that bigger is better, and challenges people to abandon the typical mall gift for something much greater.

While the commercial was very creative and got my attention, there are some who have objections. Suzanne Kane of Family Car Guide shared her thoughts on the big red bow and the thought of people actually buying cars for the holidays. “Yes, it’s an attention-getter – the first time. But after a while, you tend to get a little annoyed. Who can afford to give a car away at Christmas these days?” Well put Suzanne.

You can judge for yourself, here:

My other favorite holiday commercial is the continuation of Target’s Black Friday and 2-day sale “tip” campaign. This is only the start of their holiday advertising, but this campaign alone consists of  eight different commercials. That’s a ton (The rest of their holiday commercials are being rolled out the week after Thanksgiving, which was a decision based off of consumer surveys)!

Some of these commercials might be considered a little bit “out there” but they still are entertaining and get your attention. Each spot features a crazed housewife, Maria Bamford, who is absolutely obsessed with Christmas. You can check out Maria’s craziness below:

Say what you will about the campaign, but it has certainly garnered a lot of chatter. Rebecca Cullen from AdFreak says these ads frighten her and describes Maria as, “She hasn’t slept in days, she’s convinced she’ll ‘win Christmas,’ and I hope to God she doesn’t knife me if I get to the doorbusters before her.”

On the other hand, some people appreciate these and I have to agree with Mike Bindrup’s thoughts, “What is great about the creative in this campaign is the fact that we all know someone like her, and we all secretly want to like her in some way: devoted to our cause of choice.”

I feel in whole there is no middle ground on these Target commercials. People either really like them or absolutely hate them. But either way, they are certainly talking about them, making for great PR exposure for the company.

What are your thoughts on these two different company’s holiday commercials? Do you think Lexus broke through the typical holiday car commercial even though they still had the big red bow? And what about Target – do you think they deserve a well done or a what were they thinking?

With the number of emails received daily, it is becoming increasingly more challenging for marketers to entice people to not only open the email but to respond to the call-to-action. To put it in perspective, in a post by Michael Idinopulos he states that the average working adult receives and sends 199 corporate emails a day and spends approximately 41% of their day just managing these emails. The key word there is corporate. This does not include the emails they receive from friends, family members or companies they have subscribed to receive emails from.

With almost every company asking people to sign up for e-blasts every time they purchase an item, read an article, etc, the average person is inundated with daily, weekly and monthly marketing messages – giving them just one more email to either read or delete.

This brings me to the importance of why companies really need to require an opt-in or opt-out option. Not only because it’s a violation of the Can-Spam Act if they don’t, but because it’s ethically the right thing to do. The challenge is deciding how to ask each person to join your list. Do you ask them to opt-in or opt-out? Although a seemingly subtle difference, the two options can produce very different results.

The opt-in option – this requires people to check a box stating something along the lines of, “Yes, I would like to receive emails, promotions, etc.” This means, that person has to actually read what they are asking of you and then check the box. This is beneficial to the company because they are gathering data from people who actually are interested in continuing to receive information from them.

The opt-out option – this is when people have to un-check an already marked box stating something along the lines of “Yes, I would like to receive emails, promotions, etc.” This box is often overlooked and therefore captures a higher number of email addresses. A higher number, but a lower quality lead.

Why waste dollars and efforts on consumers that are of no benefit to your company? Why build a huge email list just for the sake of building one? The quality of your email list is crucial and will determine the success of your email campaign.

Out of these two options, I recommend asking people to opt-in. This allows the consumers to have 100% control over if want to receive emails from your company. It also avoids annoying potential customers who missed the opt-out box, and now view your company as extra clutter in their inbox. The added benefit of asking people to opt-in is it provides them and you with more options. You can ask them if they would like to receive emails weekly, monthly or only on specific topics. What a concept — provide people with the information they have asked to receive.

What do you think? Do you think asking people to opt-in or opt-out is better?

Working in an industry that is constantly evolving and changing, you would think I would be immune to change by now. The changes in trends (both professional and personal), the changes in the seasons , the changes in ways companies approach social media, and the list goes on.

As marketers, we forever are discussing with clients how change can actually be a good thing — A new campaign to reach a different demographic, a shift in media dollars to reach more potential customers, etc.

Usually change occurs without us even knowing it. When I consciously notice something has changed, I feel that “wow they got me” factor. There is one change that I have noticed in numerous different locations recently that has received the reverse feeling of “no, why did you do this” from me. I go to specific stores — retail, grocery and pharmacies for two main reasons. First, I know how much things cost there. Second, and most importantly, I know where everything is located within the store. Therefore I can get in and get out easily.

In the last week, Trader Joe’s in Pacific Beach and the Rite Aid right across the street from our office have changed where a lot of their items are displayed. The Trader Joe’s change I could handle — it was just swapping the meats and cheeses. The Rite Aid change is another story. I walked in to find the aisles at new angles and items to be completely rearranged throughout the store. I walked through about four aisles very frustrated until I finally found the one item I was needing.

Even though this change annoyed me because I was in a hurry, I 100% understand why these and other companies do this in hopes of increasing revenue. They do it to affect (and hopefully increase) consumer spending. The two main reasons behind this are:

1) If consumers have to look longer for an item (going down more aisles) there is a much higher probability that they will end up grabbing something else along the way. Hence the entire impulse buy theory.

2) The psychological effect of change. The new organization of products makes the brain question why things are different and why items are in a different location. In the process, they actually realize new things to buy.

Do you feel there are any other reasons to why stores would change the locations of some or all items?