Sunday, April 30, 2006

Product placement

So I got to thinking about that whole "GE product placement" rant in my post the other day. Is product placement really such a bad thing? Raising a child today is very expensive. If I were to send my child to Harvard (hey - s/he has Rae's genes too - it could happen) for four years today it would cost me $180,000. Forget about inflation. And don't even get me started on all the furniture and clothing and stuffed animals and diapers and general baby stuff we're going to need to buy.

How does one pay for all of that?

Well my friends, I'm glad you asked.

Product placement.

Think NASCAR - but on a baby scale. Everyone loves babies. Everyone loves to look at babies. What I'm proposing is a two step plan.

I've worked up this prototype to show what is possible at this stage. I figure the kid's got room for two, maybe three logos right now. As s/he grows, more logos. More logos means more income. I figure that given the media attention a plan like this would bring - I could charge $1K a month per logo. Easily.

Let's assume you could add another logo for every month of growth. That's $42,000 before s/he is even born.

Now you have a baby. A real, live baby. Everyone likes babies. They like to look at them, hold them, poke them with sticks, go all goo-goo face with them. Long story short - people pay attention to babies. Now, think of them as a captive audience. Instead of shirts adorned with little pink bunnies - I give you Nike. Instead of onesies with a happy hippo - McDonalds.

Now, these logos won't just be seen in person. Oh no, not in the age of the personal computer. Everday, photos are distributed to friends and family across the globe. I figure you have two, maybe three years before the "cute factor" wears off and you have just another kid. Picture a baby jumper that replicates one of those NASCAR outfits. How much money would that bring in? I don't think I can even count that high.

I'm just going to sit back and let the offers come rolling in now. If this gets off the ground, my kid won't have to get good grades to get into Harvard. We'll just buy the school.


Mark said...

For full exploitability I think you will need to take your NASCAR example a little further and think about logo visibility.

First question, which part of the car is where on a baby? Obviously, the hood is the spine and brain stem and the quarters are the developing torso, arms and legs.

Second question, how much do you charge for each section. I think you should start modestly... build up an advertising base and some loyal customers. From there you can raise your prices as the little billboard grows. Bigger parts mean bigger logos which means more $$$.

Third question, do you advertise on the field? Remember Rae? While you don't want us looking at her girly parts they are definitely marketable. Logo the ovaries and the placenta. There has just gotta be big money there!

… lots of laughs and love …

Dave said...

This is true. The main sponsers for Nascar spend tens of millions to be the main logo on the car. The Home Depot, Lowes, UPS, Viagra, etc., etc. pay big bucks. But the little guy - Pennzoil on the side door - he doesn't pay as much .. think about it. Get Viagra log in a good spot, and maybe 5/3rd bank on the back of an arm .. it's all about placement.

vized06 said...

You guys know WAY too much about NASCAR.

Lamb said...

"You guys know WAY too much about NASCAR."

Yes. Yes, they do. But why am I not surprised that they do?