• by David Goetzl  @dgoetzl, January 16, 2009

For some time, entrepreneurs have tried to make a business out of online exchanges where content producers and marketers can find each other and cut deals for product placements in TV shows and films. Now, word comes that a start-up is trying to do the same in the burgeoning world of shorts and other video created specifically for the Internet.

 

 

While the initiative could help media companies find ways to make money off Web content, on the flip side it aims to assist "independent filmmakers" who may be struggling to get the funds to get projects off the ground.

The exchange would have advertisers posting information about their products and the amounts they are willing to pay--and content creators would then be able to search for a scenario that would work for them.

An obvious question is whether blue-chip advertisers would use the platform. Will they look at it as too risky, an unwanted opportunity to trust their brands to garage-dwelling creatives. Or might they view it as a chance to discover potentially sensational grassroots content.

In a MediaPost article, Mike Hudack, CEO of blip.tv, had his doubts about blue-chippers participating. "Agencies are very worried and very wary about user-generated content and you have to show them the content isn't going to embarrass them."

It probably makes sense for them to sort of get over it. To be sure, there are some innovative brand integration initiatives on TV these days. And while it may be unfair to describe them as embarrassing, there certainly are plenty that cause one to question why the money was spent.

Those dollars may have been better used to gamble on what could be the next Mentos-Diet Coke-type smash. That day is rapidly aproaching when being part of a YouTube hit is a peerless marketing touchdown.

That can't be said of some recent tried, true and trifling integrations. For time immemorial, Detroit marketers and network executives have been captivated by two words: "NEW CAR!!" Apparently, they couldn't be more happy when an exhilarated game show host tells a contestant that one is theirs, or could be.

Do viewers pay attention anymore? Does research really show that five minutes after a show ends a viewer can name which car was given away?

Take a recent "Deal or No Deal" episode. Host Howie Mandel does his best to create drama as a mass suitcase rolls out that holds the keys to a contestant's prize. It is hardly shocking when the letters "C-A-R" appear. A voiceover then follows: a "2009 Ford Flex and it's all yours ... congratulations ... Happy New Year." The Flex is then shown in close-ups and from other would-be appealing angles.

If giving cars away on game shows has lost its pop--if it ever had any--so has what takes place too often in other games. Sports executives refer to those Subway Plays of the Game and Time Warner Cable Calls to the Bullpen as in-game enhancements. That's now a misnomer, at least as far as the audience is concerned. They've lost much of their effectiveness, largely because they are no longer unique.

Another automaker, Nissan, signed on for one in the latest Orange Bowl. (The Ford and Nissan integrations were two of the top product placements of the week, according to measurement firm iTVX).

In the bowl game, there was a "Nissan Z Factor," where a commentator pointed out something that had a major impact on the game (one team's defense got the nod). A relatively large Nissan logo appeared at the bottom of the screen. The announcer then told viewers that the recognition was "brought to you by the all-new Nissan 370Z Synchro RevMatch manual transmission."

It was more of a Zzzzs factor.

Fax

Product	Show	Q-Ratio
Harley Davidson	Knight Rider	3.7850
Nissan Z	Orange Bowl	3.4819
Chrysler Sebring	Nanny Express	1.6203
Manolo Blahnik	The City	1.4409
Ford Flex	Deal or No Deal	0.8078

 

Click here to view these placements. Data and analysis provided by iTVX.