A changing relationship between libraries and advertising?

The emerging considerations around DLC (downloadable content) is not just relevant to the library world - its pervasive across all domains. Being an avid follower of the gaming industry, there are a range of ongoing debates which parallel our own. I'd just like to pick up on one, something raised by Dave Perry (read "God" in gaming terms) in a recent Edge article. Bear with me while I summarise the scenario he debates, before looking at what this could mean to libraries:

I buy a game, which is peppered with advertising (this occurs within the game play - a "Coke" sign on the wall of a bar, for example - its similar to the whole product placement you see in movies/tv). This draws the wrath of gamers. Dave Perry has proposed introducing an option to switch this off (yay, goes Mr Gamer - when asked, 100% said they'd use this switch). Dave then asked the question "Why would you switch it back on?", resulting in the predictable response that no-one would. Dave extended the metaphor to TV - "would you switch adverts off". "Yes, we would" said Mr Gamer. So, asks Dave, what if I gave you free access to pay-per-view movies if you switched advertising back on? Suddenly, 97% said they would happily see a few adverts within their normal channels. Thats quite a shift...

Extending this to the game world, I go to buy some DLC for a game I'm playing (a new level, a new sword for my character, whatever) and rather than forking out my £3, I get the alternative option "Coca Cola have offered to buy this sword for you - do you accept?" If you do, then the advert is closed and no more mention is made of Cokes involvement in the transaction - the customer is left with a positive view of the sponsor and the sponsor has a very cheap means of accessed a well defined market (remember, these are virtual objects - look into Second Life for more on their virtual economy).

Now, to the crux - would you take library-content if it was sponsored in a similar way? A book jacket in your OPAC intrinsically sponsored by Amazon? A mp3 for a track on a CD you hold sponsored by Apple? At what point does this sponsorship infringe your political, cultural or moral standpoint? If your end users weren't aware of this "arrangement", would you find it acceptable? More interestingly, what if the sponsorship note popped up in your OPAC - a user selected to view the full text and got a quick message "Coca Cola have offered to reimburse the library for you to view this article - do you accept y/n?".

Now, for the second (and more important) point. With the explosion of Web2.0, and the whole shift in placing your library content where the user is interacting (e.g. showing your library holdings within Amazon or Itunes or MySpace or FaceBook), I think we need to revisit our previous assumptions around corporate sponsorship and advertising. As your data becomes more widely consumed in a myriad of places, all of which will be discretely (or indiscreetly) advertising to the user, you will be placing your content within an advert-rich space. In fact, its not "will be" - you likely already are! A libraries historical reluctance to be associated with adverts has begun to end - maybe its time to start considering how libraries can realise some benefit in this changing relationship...