Stopping off in the U.K. for a couple of hours on my way back from Italy last week, I failed to make enough time to catch the opening night of the latest Bond movie. But it seems that many others did. Quantum of Solace smashed box office records for an opening weekend in Britain, beating the previous record set by Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire in 2005.

Those that have seen the movie tell me that it lives up to the standard established by the 007 genre. Quantum of Solace is not only action packed but also brand packed.

No matter how much you enjoy the movie, it is tough not to notice that the plot line makes ample use of well-known brands, from Aston Martin to Virgin Atlantic. Some of these, like the new Sony 902 mobile phone and the Ford “Quantum of Solace” Ka, were specifically designed for the movie. Other brands that do not appear in the movie try to get a piece of the action by running marketing tie-ins. All of which has led some to claim that there is a potential risk of “overkill.” (And I don’t think they’re referring to the body count!)

The key question here is, who is gaining strength by association: Bond, or the Bond hangers-on?

To my mind, Bond is definitely a strong brand, while many of the brands that paid to be associated with the movie are not. Brands that are strong in their own right, that create real passion among their consumers, don’t need to buy fame by association.

When a strong brand adds something unique to the story, the brand and the movie become synergistic. But when it’s not clear what a brand contributes to a compelling movie, the connection may demean both movie and brand – though the risk to the brand is far greater.

When it comes to tie-ins, my colleague Peter Walshe has it right when he says, “Gratuitously adding a Bond theme will be seen through by the consumer.”  (Click here for the full context of this quote.)

On that point, I am looking forward to seeing how Heineken, Orbitz and Avon manage to create a compelling tie-in with Bond. My suspicion is that they will fail to do so.

As Mark Ritson suggests in the post “James Bond Brand Shaken by Product Placement” on the blog “Branding Strategy Insider,” constructing an authentic and exclusive connection between a brand and James Bond is mission impossible. Bond, Mark points out, is a connoisseur, choosing his brand to be appropriate to the occasion, not sticking to one out of blind loyalty.

At the beginning of last year, I wrote a Point of View on branded content (Branded Content: More Than Just Showing Up). Marketers who spent millions on buying fame by association with Bond might want to read it before they consider doing so again. Here is a quick excerpt:

Marketers seeking to engage their consumers through placement, integration, or branded entertainment would do well to remember the three F’s: Fit, Focus, and Fame. Brand fit is critical to successful placement and even more so for branded entertainment. While engaging content can be used to highlight the role of even the most everyday brands, there must be a good reason for the brand to take part …

By their nature, branded entertainment opportunities tend to be targeted at small or niche audiences. Major movie placements are only open to brands that have budgets to match. For this reason, marketers need to seek ways to amplify and disseminate successful integrations via pass-along, word of mouth, advertising and publicity.

Mmm… “Major movie placements are only open to brands that have budgets to match.” I guess that big budgets do not necessarily guarantee a great execution.

So what do you think? Who’s at risk here—Bond, or the Bond hangers-on? Please let me know your thoughts. Oh, and should I rush out to see the movie when it opens in the States?

 Email This Post

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 12th, 2008 at 1:06 pm and is filed under Brands. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Print this Page