Isn't that one of the things money is for?
Back in primitve times it would probably work as follows: if the chicken farmer wants flour, but the miller wants milk rather than eggs, they would find someone with milk who wants eggs to make the exchange work. In this situation, he wants the ad, and I don't want the picture frames, so we find a third person who offers something I could possibly use who wants the frame. But you see, already thousands of years ago already, people realized that it is not always convenient to find someone who will form the third to complete the barter triangle, and even if you do, that person may ascribe greater value to the milk than to the eggs or flour.
That is why money was invented. Its three functions (sanother economics lesson here) are: a medium of exchange, a measure of value, and a store of value. The first one is there to eliminate the need for bartering goods with a universal currency with a set measure of value. So why this overwhelming desire to revert to a bartering system and a complex one at that? I could only guess that the motive here is to keep the exchange of value off the books, for if no money changed hands, they can say there was no income to be entered for the IRS. But what they fail to realize is that advertising is a fully tax deductible business expense, so it is not something one pay with "after tax" dollars, so to speak.