When more is not, in fact, more.

Allow me to rant about my utter disdain for the bundling concept - the inclusion of a bunch of crap that isn't wanted or needed along with the thing that actually is wanted, all in the name of "added value."

You know the drill. You only want a burger, but you're strangely shamed into adding fries and a 20-ounce soda because apparently those items only add, like, 11-cents to the transaction. You don't want it, but now the burger alone seems like a colossal rip-off. In reality, you would pay slightly more per item for smaller portions, flexibility, and no pressure to enorma-size something.

I believe control is at the heart of the defense against most marketing. We want what we want, and we don't want to be up-sold, spun, embellished, or otherwise fleeced in the name of volume. In a world where many people have tuned out the "always on, always loud" school of advertising, a lot of folks probably just want some semblance of control back.

Take in-text links – they do just that. Yes, links within online content to other content is nothing new. But now readers can almost fully control whether they connect with a company's goods and services without the mind-numbing and largely ignored tapestry of banners, pop-ups, and pop-unders. Of course, in-text is far from perfect. Mousing over the ad alone should not cause it to activate and every noun in the story shouldn't be a link (more is NOT more).

Some say this is a more invasive approach, and only time will tell. Certainly, if you add this to the cacophony of in-your-face marketing, the noise just gets louder. But imagine an online world where appropriately subtle, optional, consumer-initiated communication genuinely connects us to products or services. I'll reward marketers who choose smarter over louder every time.