Laaadies and gentlemen! In this corner, weighing in at only 99 pounds and hemorrhaging red ink, is the film industry. Yes, it is a bit long of tooth at almost 100 years old, and yes, revenues have been declining of late due to piracy and a drop in DVD sales and ad revenue. But it is still standing, short on cash but long on content.

And in the other corner, weighing in at over $400 billion a year, but gradually being squeezed out of its prior happy home on TV by Tivo, DVRs and video-on-demand, is the advertising industry. It is long on cash but short on content.

Hmmm. Perhaps instead of duking it out, these two should get together and form a partnership.

Yes, it’s time to take the plunge by getting advertisers to finance content, and I don’t mean the nickels and dimes that come with product placement, since all advertisers generally get with that is free goodies to put in the film and the promise of cross-promotion at some inflated deemed value (when, in fact, the true value may be negative from perceived commercialization). No, I am talking real moolah – hard cash on the barrelhead paid as part or all of the equity investment for a film.

Advertisers typically pay for everything and own nothing, and it is time to turn that around.

The cost of producing a film can be less than these companies spend to sponsor a major sports event. But in addition to the advertising benefit, if they invest in equity, they stand to make their money back and even make a profit.

And before you bemoan the loss of creative freedom, realize that we sold out long ago. Since when didn’t a profit motive factor into the decision of whether or not to produce a film?

And are you worried about commercialization? Heck, “Transformers” was just a toy and car commercial while “Castaway” was a long Fed-Ex commercial, and no one seemed to mind.

And I hardly need mention how important both these industries are to Los Angeles, given the level of production of films and commercials here, so we should all be rooting for this outcome.

Content control

Product placement alone is not fully satisfactory to advertisers for a number of reasons: In particular, they can’t control the exact contours of whether and how their product will be used, and they cannot control the content of the film itself. They are often chagrined to find that the final film contains more graphic violence, sex, or whatever than they contemplated, leaving them concerned with the possible negative association to their product.

If advertisers invested in and owned the films, they would have control over the creative aspects of the film itself and, specifically, the use of their products, and they wouldn’t risk being left on the cutting-room floor. This alone is a compelling reason for advertisers to take this step. But there are even more compelling reasons:

• All the money in the world spent for product placement and associated advertising is just that – money spent. While the advertisers hope that product sales will increase, there is no other source for recoupment of this expenditure. If advertisers instead invest in a film, they have a source for recoupment of their investment, plus a profit if the film works.

• By investing in a film, the advertiser could be sure that the film was targeted to the exact audience that the advertiser wanted.

• A little money goes a long way. Advertisers do not need to finance 100 percent of a film; they need only plug the gap, which might be perhaps 20 percent of the budget of a film.

Financing content by advertisers happened decades ago in the TV industry and is happening again in a big way. Proctor & Gamble (the same company that did this years ago) and Wal-Mart are co-financing made-for-TV shows that will include product placements and presentation credits. Red Bull has an entire division creating content for TV on extreme sports, and Hasbro has gone to the logical extreme of opening its own studio on the lot at Universal for creating TV shows for a network it will co-own with Discovery Communications. The next logical step is for one of them – or their competitors – to go whole hog and finance theatrical films.

So what are you waiting for advertisers? Go give a big bear hug to that 99-pound weakling.

Schuyler M. Moore is a lawyer at Stroock in Century City. He also is the author of “The Biz,” “Taxation of the Entertainment Industry” and “What They Don’t Teach You in Law School.” He is an adjunct professor at the UCLA Law School and the UCLA Anderson School of Management.