4 unlikely brands that won with gaming

I think you make a great point in "How many other platforms can deliver this much exposure time without the user skipping over the advertising message". Games can be such an effective way to teach the audience about a product without them feeling like they're learning. The commitment level and time spent in the engagement can be much higher than other mediums, as long as the content is provides interest, entertainment or some value to the user. As more and more brands participate in games, the bar will be raised on which games consumers are willing to spend 16 minutes playing.

I agree, though timelines have gotten shorter at best you're looking at three months for a "lite” integration. And that "lite” integration is still going to be pretty expensive for a top tier game title. And that "lite” integration might just be billboards. These costs are based on forecasts of units sold over the lifetime of the game which in some cases is 2 years or more. And what if the title isn't a success? Well as a brand you're stuck. We've seen similar things happen with product placement deals in movies where brands spend millions of dollars to integrate into a movie that does horribly in the box office/DVD. So it seems to me that static integrations are more risky in that they are not flexible nor are they predictable (and this is one of the cornerstones of media planning) and the potential for any return needs to be evaluated over a longer period of time with greater costs involved.
Though casual gaming is a part of the in game advertising mix from a pure reach standpoint I would assume you'd get more bang for your buck by utilizing a casual gaming network like Wild Tangent or Pogo as oppose to integrating into a casual game on a console whose focus is more on AAA game titles. After all it is the AAA game titles that make the console sexy in the first place. And if dynamic is deemed as being a side dish well then what's to say of casual game advertising as the ad placements in many cases are not in the game but before the game starts.
Though with dynamic you have limited creative space (this varies game by game) you can integrate into several top tier titles with a timely and relevant message. Take for example: Ford who recently ran a dynamic campaign that I saw while playing Tiger Woods 2010 on X-Box. Players could text in and win 400 MS points ($5 value I believe). A static integration could not allow the brand to bridge the gap from the game to reality like this. Imagine executing this across 10 top tier game titles. Using your example, that's a potential reach of 15 million gamers providing a much lower frequency and much greater reach for a similar marketing spend.
In my opinion, it really seems to depend on that you want to get from the medium. Is in game advertising a playground for creative ideas that might be great and create great returns for the brand OR is it a mass media vehicle that needs to be accountable and evaluated alongside and against other mass media vehicles; using proven metrics such as reach, frequency and engagement. It's both. Each form (static, dynamic, casual, mobile etc…) has its place dependant on the goals and objectives of the brand. Each can stand alone as a viable medium.

I've seen a few comments on the time needed to develop programs such as the ones included in this article and here are some things to consider. Timelines for integrations are now much shorter that they used to be even just a year ago. Developers are getting accustomed to working with brands so these type of programs are easier to implement. In-game is by no means the only way to leverage gaming, online casual games and broadband services such as Xbox Live provide a broad range of opportunities and flexibility. In-game however offers a unique environment of interaction and a chance for a more intimate connection with a brand. . Regarding costs, in-game programs are evaluated (among other things) based on unit sales so obviously the investment for a game that sells a couple of hundred thousand units will be different from one that sells millions. Finally, while dynamic offers flexibility it also limits the message to a billboard or other signage and it is marginal to the experience. Also, while broadband penetration is growing we are still far from 100%. For example, if you have dynamic running in a title that sells 3 million copies you are really only reaching only about half of them. For most brands dynamic should be considered as a side dish at best, and if flexibility is key I recommend looking at services such as Xbox Live or online with PC/Mac based opportunities.

Now that broadband and speed are so readily available, is there not a move for more online gaming vs console (with respect to in-game advertising?) We've developed an online live action (not animation) casual game designed primarily for telecomm and spirits, beer & wine (21+ age restriction) sponsorship. It does not require long lead and/or development time because of the compartmentalized brand integration into the game. I'd be curious to hear any thoughts on this type of game:
http://www.thepickupclub.com/express

It's seems strange that all of the examples provided are very deep, labor intensive and expensive advertising integrations that require long lead times. I'm surprise that in this economy more cost effective integrations were not highlighted or mentioned. Not every brand has the lead time or the budget to execute these types of integrations. Though cool integrations, with the exception of Sims 2; the CSI games titles sold a minimal number of copies. Yes, the integrations look great but if a minimal number of people actually see/play the game; does it really matter how cool the integration is? Not to mention that fact that once the brand is in the game you can never change the messaging.
It's no secret that more and more households have broadband access which has allowed more and more gamers the opportunity to play online. As a result publishers have worked to develop games that lend themselves to online game play. You mention the fact that the 18 – 34 male demo is difficult to reach but by only highlighting in game integrations that require long lead time and sizeable budgets you haven't provided any examples of easier and more cost effective ways to reach the elusive 18 – 34 year old male via in game advertising.
Dynamic in-game advertising provides brands the opportunity to purchase media within some of the biggest game titles in the world (Madden, Sims etc...) in the same way brands are currently buying media (CPM) with integration lead times of 10 to 15 days. Brands now have the opportunity to integrate into some of the biggest titles in the world with a minimal investment and minimal risk. In addition, the creative is more timely and relevant. There's also cool programs that can be layered onto a dynamic campaign (SMS text and win sweepstakes, cheat code inclusions etc…) that engage the gamer by provide instant gratification and most importantly increase the level of realism to the game.
From the view point of the publishers dynamic makes more sense too. Executing on a hard coded or static program requires a lot of work for both the brand/agency and the publisher. For every one of the brands you see in game there are probably 20 or so other brands that pulled. Also, from a pure revenue standpoint once VISA or Dyson have integrated into the game, well; there no additional opportunities for the publisher to garner any additional revenue. In the case of dynamic the potential is endless.

You have chosen some interesting ideas. I think its worth pointing out how Governement intelligence agency GCHQ whilst looking to target graduates with technical expertise around the use of the internet also turned to in gaming to target their audience. This was particulalry brave given the avdertiser and also the fact that recruitment communications are not always as imaginative as they should be and can be.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/18/digitalmedia.advertising

There is no doubt that the video game platform is highly engaging and produces a strong ROI for brand marketers. However, I am still perplexed that big brands have not made a better effort to become a part of our passion. Yes! I am a core-gamer. For example, there is not one mobile phone carrier or broadband provider specifically trying to build brand equity within the video game vertical. It's not just about blasting IAB units on IGN or Gamespot. I'm talking about sponsoring local, regional, and national video game challenges or even better aligning your brand with a specific video game genre or game. For example, I recently saw a Sports Illustrated subscription TV commercial that bundled Madden 2010 for only $49.99. I was all over that offer and I will become even more loyal to Sports Illustrated for the gift that keeps on giving. I have been in the video game industry for 9 years and there are now many opportunities to target gamers, so I highly recommend working with a digital agency that has an in-house video game expert.