• by David Goetzl  @dgoetzl, January 9, 2007

Nestle's Coffee-Mate carries the tagline "Coffee's Perfect Mate." And the creamer's appearance in an episode of the TBS comedy "My Boys" late last month again prompts the question of whether product placement is better off single or with a mate.

In other words, does it work best for a marketer to do it "old school," benignly inserting a product into a scene, perhaps on a dinner table or behind two characters conversing, and hoping potential shoppers take notice? Or by doing that, and then reminding viewers of what they (hopefully) just saw with an adjacent ad in the pod that follows?

New data from IAG Research, the firm that measures ad effectiveness, sheds some light on the debate. As it evaluates product placement, IAG delves into the effectiveness of what it refers to as "ad adjacency," which occurs when a commercial for the brand is shown in conjunction with the placement.

While it doesn't offer a definitive conclusion on whether brand integrations with "ad adjacencies" work better than those without them as far as generating a shift in positive brand opinion, its rankings of the top integrations of 2006 could be construed to show that "old school" is the way to go.

The IAG rankings are based on an index derived from tabulations of the percentage of viewers who both recalled a brand and expressed a positive shift in opinion about it after viewing a placement. And the top-ranked placements last year in several categories showed that placements that stood on their own and didn't come with "ad adjacency" indexed higher than those in their companion categories where there was "adjacency."

Nonetheless, marketers show no signs of shying away from an "adjacency" strategy. Perhaps understandably, they may feel it carries a lower risk. Why take the chance of a marketing failure if a viewer doesn't notice, say, the Coffee-Mate bottle on the table, when an ad or billboard that follows can at least deliver a message to those who missed it?

But that tack also adds the potential risk of alienating those who did see it. An ad or billboard that immediately follows could make that crowd feel a show has allowed itself to become invaded by advertising, and no brand wants to create the impression that it's involved in some sort of over-commercialization.

Coffee-Mate and Match.com took the risk in episodes of "My Boys" last month. (Two of the top product placements of the week, according to measurement firm iTVX.)

In the Dec. 27 episode, Match.com--a major sponsor of the show's entire season--plays a central role in a scene. One of the single females is searching the dating site for Mr. Right on her laptop as she discusses the dating life with two friends, particularly the topic of how great it would be to meet a physician.

The site itself is the subject of much conversation, including a brief explanation of one of its features. And there's an up-close screen shot.

Then, soon after comes an "adjacency" in the form of a billboard with a voiceover touting Match.com's role in presenting the show and a special offer.

A night later, on the Dec. 28 episode, Coffee-Mate followed a similar pattern. Three women plan a party while having coffee as one of the blue bottles with the red tops is prominently displayed on the table between them. Unlike Match.com's focal or "active" role in the scene it appeared in, Coffee-Mate's placement could be termed "passive."

None of the characters picks up the bottle to pour into their cups, no one mentions it, and no one says how much they like it more than soy milk. It is the subject of only minor action that's barely noticeable when a waitress takes it off the table. It's more "old school."

The "adjacency" also includes a billboard that follows touting the show being "brought to you by" Coffee-Mate and recitation of its tagline.

It's hard to say whether Mate benefits from the mating or Match from the match.