A film for your brand? Why AIR could be a tipping point for branding

AIR director Ben Affleck, and Matt Damon as Sonny Vaccaro. Afleck’s AIR, represents a curious tipping point in the history of branding itself. Prestige cinema, it seems, is the new ‘campaign’. (Image source: Twitter/AirMovie)

In the late '80s, only a couple of years after Nike launched the Air Jordans in collaboration with the NBA's Michael Jordan, schools in the US began to witness incidents of robbery, assault and in the odd case, even murder. All for a shoe line. Americans are known often ascribed consumerist tendencies, an aspect of their life captured in literature by the likes of Don Delillo and Thomas Pynchon, but this kind of fervour was still new. This was after all about a shoe. Decades later, Jordans continue to hoist Nike into the imagination of brand nerds and black-market hustlers, with a sporting collaboration that has only become more remarkable to study with time. So much so that Ben Afleck’s AIR, represents a curious tipping point in the history of branding itself. Prestige cinema, it seems, is the new ‘campaign’.

Branding is an inexact science. People differ on what it really means, but it is in some unspecified way, the story of a brand and how it manifests in a sophisticated, tangible manner for the world. So it becomes more than just a corporate idea – an organism that customers can emotionally interact with, aspire to, or even fear losing out on. It’s something Apple has mastered, Red Bull has manufactured, and the likes of Ferrari bedazzle with. Not everyone can, in fact most people in the world can’t, afford a Ferrari and yet the brand sells merchandise across the board. From ad-films, to print and outdoor campaigns, to digital footprints of late, brands compete for our attention on every square-inch of virtual and literal space. Attention is what drives this economy as opposed to money. And if there is something that continues to relatively command a proportion of that priced, elusive asset, it’s cinema.

On the heels of the release of AIR there will also be Blackberry, a nostalgic ode to that awkward yet visionary device many believe was the world’s first smartphone. Only months ago, Lamborghini, a tepid portrayal of founder Ferrucio Lamborghini’s rise released worldwide. There have been others. Apple TV’s Tetris traced the soviet heritage of the popular little game, while both Ford v Ferrari and House of Gucci, used contrasting approaches recently, to eternalize brands that might already be extensions of vanity and elitism. Cinema here merely acts as an extension, that last coat of paint that adds a degree of finality; marks these stories as history.

We’ve obviously witnessed product placement in films, those unsubtle jabs at inserting brand recall in stories that on their own, look unequipped to sustain interest. Historically at least, only a poorly made film seems to cling to the sure-short, if embarrassing moat of making way for branded products. The good ones aspire to be brands themselves. But here we are in an age where Oscar-winners, a lip-smacking cast and a first-time writer, have come together to fumble through an ode for a globally known sneaker line. AIR has not been produced by Nike (at least not on paper) but it does to an extent blur that line between cautious business speak and casual homage. Forget about creating campaigns that compete for a share of cinema’s intervals. Why not create our own movie?

There are positives and negatives to this new trend. On the bright side, the poorly documented narratives and untold stories behind globally relevant brands would finally get a face and a backstory. Individuals are rarely credited for the path-breaking brand work they do, and cinema at least promises to distil all that invisible sweat into something claimable. It might reward the most compelling backstories as opposed to branding genius, but there is at least that foggy sight of recognition in the distance. On the flipside, though, who really decides what brand’s story fits the bill of nostalgia, social relevance and political impact for the medium? In the world of subjective tastes, where no one brand is truly universal, corporate execs might see this as the opportunity to build their own boats rather than renting someone else’s at a fair price. Then there is opportunism of disgraced brands approaching cinema with the intention of floating it to the sea of public opinion as a counter-offensive. The same stories that celebrate can also possibly help repair reputations.

On the face of it, this latest movement marries the world’s hunger for nostalgia with its gullibility for consumptions. The truth is what you want to believe it is; for to care about any of this, you have to also first care about the products, the items, or the memories these brands stand for. As much as we might detest this latest capitalist drift, the fact is we have at some point, been a part of one brand story or the other. The Amul girl comes to mind, the classless existence of Parle G. The Tatas surely have a handful of tales up their sleeves. Biopics on Indian business leaders and the businesses they launched are out there, too. It’s crucial, however, to distinguish between historically significant impact, and the kind of vanity that can turn anything unsavoury, into a kind of regal self-image. Because cars, shoes and burgers (The Founder) have already become films, it’s a matter of time before chewing gum, toothpaste and toilet paper are wrapping themselves into yarns of self-congratulatory underdog narratives. Like ads, it will be down to us to decide what to buy and what to reject.