Released decades before feature film content would come to be increasingly permeated with "placed" products, Dr. No, the first James Bond film, featured Smirnoff vodka, Red Stripe beer and Pan American Airlines. Later on in the Sean Connery era, Aston Martin started providing vehicles for Bond in exchange for some screen time, while in 1988, Philip Morris paid over 300 grand just to show its Lark brand cigarettes in License to Kill. Product placement in Bond movies then, is a well-documented phenomenon. Indeed, it’s old news.
The story here is that 007 has managed to break even on his latest film without even breaking a sweat. Before the first credits rolled on last Friday’s U.S. launch of Die Another Day, the film was already in the black by many accounts. With an estimated 125 to 200 million dollars (go on, say it Dr. Evil style) in product placement revenue, the dossier on the twentieth Bond feature ought to begin with the headline "For Profit Only."
One hundred twenty-five … million … dollars. Muhahahah!
Budget estimates for the Die Another Day fall into the 145 million dollar vicinity—give or take a few M spots. Do the math: Product placement alone basically generated enough revenue to make the film a success. By the time the film’s U.S. box office take, international distribution, video/DVD release, soundtrack, and so forth have all delivered their substantial wads of cash, Her Majesty’s favorite secret service agent might well come to be known as "Moneyraker."
Leading Bond’s absolutely mind-boggling hit parade of preferred goods and services are usual suspects like Bollinger champagne, Aston Martin automobiles and Omega watches. But joining the old standbys this time around are such classic Bond brands as Circuit City electronic stores, Revlon cosmetics, Norelco razors, Talisker single malt scotch whiskey and 7 UP.
The official Die Another Day Web Site lists over 20 corporate partners for the film. The sponsor page reads somewhat like a campaign finance disclosure form—only without the defense contractors. Hey, now there’s an idea: In the next film, Bond flies only Lockheed Martin aircraft. Or maybe he makes exclusive use of DynCorp mercenaries, er, sub-military contractors for support and firepower. I can hear the script now: "DynCorp’s done such a fantastic job crushing the Columbian rebels, Moneypenny darling, that I’m using them to strike at the sultanate of Omar."
Get me MGM on the horn! I’ve got some naming suggestions for them too. Perhaps the next installment in the series ought to be called Buy Another Day. Or maybe License to Shill? How about Ford Your Eyes Only? Electric Razors Are Forever? Dr. No Shame?
Sure, the abuse is cheap, easy and fun; and it’s been employed by just about every movie scribbler since BMW bid Bond’s transportation rights away from Aston Martin in 1996 (considered by many film buffs the genesis of the product placement free-for-all resulting in our current 125-200 million dollar wonder).
But besides offering opportunities for bad word play, the incredible successful of James Bond product placement raises an important question: What does the phenomenon mean for the future of the advertising and commercial production industries? My Magic 8-Ball always seems to think like an industry lecture panel coordinator: "What’s the future of advertising?" I plead.
"Outlook hazy. Ask Dave Lubars," the 8-Ball shoots back.
The answer may actually lie in the driver’s seat of a souped-up Beamer.
The ’95 production of GoldenEye saw BMW pay several million dollars to lure Bond’s producers away from their traditional relationship with Aston Martin. The BMW Z3 roadster Bond drove in the film provoked a frenzy of interest in the car and the brand in general. Orders for the Z3 doubled after the film’s release, waiting lists for the car began to stretch into months and BMW sales spiked considerably across the brand.
With a product placement success story of those proportions, who needs a commercial? With television viewership becoming increasingly fragmented, so the argument goes, how long can it be before the branded content barbarian comes beating at the gates of
the :30?
Of course we know now that this argument has proven itself a bit of a straw man. Spots certainly didn’t disappear after BMW’s GoldenEye success in ’95. In fact, BMW produced a GoldenEye :30 tie-in through what was then Fallon McElligott, Minneapolis, which, according to BMW executives, was integral to the overall success of its new product placement strategy.
The rise of the commercial tie in with product placement deals has resulted in a happy coincidence for the spot production trade: Several of its top-shelf directors have seized the opportunity to work with feature-esque material and talent they otherwise might not have ready access to. This year alone, the late-spring release of the third Austin Powers installment saw bicoastal/international hungry man’s Bryan Buckley directing Mike Myers and Britney Spears for Pepsi and BBDO New York in the spot "Britney Sighting." Later in the summer, bicoastal Villains helmer Phil Joanou shot the dark and filmic :30, "Warehouse" for Team One Advertising, El Segundo, Calif. and client Lexus. The spot was inspired by the car company’s placement deal with the film Minority Report.
Both "Britney Sighting" (5/31) and "Warehouse" (6/28) gained recognition in SHOOT‘s Top Spot of the Week Gallery, incidentally.
Which brings us back to the branded content debate and a question: Does BMW consider the James Bond franchise played out, or, perhaps not hip enough for the sophisticated audience it’s been reaching for the last two years via the Fallon Minneapolis-created BMW Films internet series? Why else would the company allow Ford, Aston Martin’s parent company, to recapture 007’s vehicular digs? Especially after BMW had seen such overwhelming success with placing its automobiles in the previous three Bond films?
By way of an answer to the question, consider this scenario: BMW is merely on hiatus the Bond franchise.
The conventional wisdom is that Pierce Brosnan has one film left in him, after which he’s headed for emeritus status with Connery, Moore, Lazenby and Dalton. And most certainly the franchise doesn’t go into retirement with Brosnan. If product placement revenues continue to exceed budgets, Bond films will keep rolling off the storyboards until the oldest living survivors of the Cold War start passing away. Conclusion: A new Bond comes on the scene for installment 22.
So who plays Bond next? We’ll need someone with a British accent and the classic tall, dark and handsome look of course. He’ll need to appear cool under pressure, even slightly amused by the intrigue and the action—above it all in other words. And he ought to be younger than Brosnan.
I’ve got two words for you: The Driver.
That’s right. My Bond sweepstakes money is on Clive Owen, the young Croupier star who’s gained fame playing the unflappable "Driver" character in each of the short films produced for BMW thus far.
With Owen back in the driver’s seat—this time as Bond—how can BMW not launch an all out bid to regain its Bond franchise product placement rights? Perhaps we’ll even see Fallon creatives consulting on the script? Is it too early to speculate that a helmer from bicoastal Anonymous Content might direct the entire feature? Or perhaps a young director from bicoastal RSA USA: Jake Scott maybe?
"Yes, Moneypenny. Very intriguing for the industry indeed."
