With all of the multitude of options available to today's advertiser, I find it hard to believe that placing an ad in plastic airport security bins will hold much of an attraction.

Why would any advertiser be interested in reaching a consumer who is not only probably in a bad mood but in a rush to get someplace? Besides, the consumer can't act on any message that the advertiser is giving them and probably will forget it once their plane lands.

Who is going to buy these ads? National advertisers can reach their audience more effectively through the Internet or television. Local advertisers probably wouldn't want to buy these ads either considering the huge numbers of people from outside their area that are in airports.

Rolodex, though, gave it a shot and placed its ads in bins at Los Angeles International Airport, according to USA Today. I doubt it did much to boost sales. Advertisers are always willing to give a new thing a shot at least once. The head of the company who provided the bins to LAX told the paper that "people have a heightened sense of awareness" at a checkpoint" making them more open to a message.

Give me a break.

The Transportation Security Administration is requiring that companies who buy the 12-inch by 17-inch supply the airport checkpoints with new bins, carts and stainless steel table, according to USA Today. The problem is that people who notice the ads may not notice pickpockets, according to airport security officials quoted by the paper.

--Jonathan Berr is editor of http://www.desperateinvestors.com.

True the line for the average airport gourmet coffee kiosk isn't quite as long on the one for security, but how will Starbucks (SBUX) and other airport retailers cope with the in-flight liquids ban? Starbucks partner HMS Host Corp, which places the kiosks in some 150 airports insists it is unconcerned. Duty-free shops also find themselves in the predicament.

It's much too soon to assess whether the ban will have any impact on at-airport revenue. Longer waits and recommendations that passengers arrive earlier and earlier for for flights might result in even more beverage demand at airports. As travelers become more and more used to terror alerts, as well as accepting of whatever carry-on restrictions are imposed, these changes will have less of an effect on the economy.

Michael Canfield is a private investor, a business and media writer, living in Seattle. He doesn't own stock in Starbucks.

[Photo courtesy Terry Johnston]

GE's machines show up everywhere, including airport security checks. In a more security aware world it's no surprise many companies are making security equipment, GE included. High profile sites online have seen posts commenting on GE's 'puffer' machine through which passengers are being blown with air to dislodge particles for security analysis in airports.

Sadly, the 'puff' of air is not unlike the 'slight discomfort' of a dental pick for most people. It hurts the exposed skin. Now add to that the discomfort for many of standing in a closed-off contraption of a machine. Many people who have experienced the 'puffer' are talking loudly and trying to spread the word around. Microsoft Executive Kim Cameron is one of them. Since she experienced one, the sight of the GE logo has been enough to turn her off from buying anything branded GE, a perfectly Pavlovian response to the painful air puffs.

One person won't sink GE's brand, but the story has popped up on a few high profile sites. Will people come to associate GE with the activities of airport security? After all, what company wouldn't want to be associated with pat downs and long waits in long lines?