In his latest column for B&T, global CSO and award-winning strategy leader Leif Stromnes explains what made Daniel Craig the most popular Bond of all time (hint: not his overly tight suits) and how your brand can harness the potent behavioural science trick behind it.
In 1962, a relatively unknown Scottish actor named Sean Connery stepped onto cinema screens as James Bond in Dr. No. The film was a modest success, but something curious happened with each subsequent release.
Audiences who initially found Connery’s portrayal merely adequate began to see him as the definitive James Bond.
By the time You Only Live Twice was released in 1967, Connery wasn’t just playing James Bond: after five instalments (Dr. No 1962, From Russia with Love 1963, Goldfinger 1964, Thunderball 1965), he had become James Bond in the minds of moviegoers worldwide.
This transformation wasn’t due to Connery’s acting improving dramatically between films, nor was it because the scripts suddenly became masterpieces. Instead, it was the result of a powerful psychological phenomenon known as the “mere exposure effect” that shapes our preferences in ways we rarely recognise.
First identified by psychologist Robert Zajonc in 1968, the mere exposure effect describes our tendency to develop preferences for things we encounter repeatedly. The more familiar something becomes, the more we tend to like it. Zajonc’s groundbreaking experiments showed that people rated nonsense words, Chinese characters and even random geometric shapes more positively after seeing them multiple times, even when they couldn’t consciously remember having seen them before.
From an evolutionary perspective, this makes perfect sense. Throughout human history, unfamiliar things posed potential threats. New foods might be poisonous, strange faces might belong to enemies, and unknown sounds could signal danger. Our ancestors who approached novel stimuli with caution were more likely to survive and pass this on through their genes.
Conversely, familiar things had proven themselves safe through repeated exposure. If you’d encountered something multiple times without harm, it was probably benign. This unconscious association between familiarity and safety became hardwired into our psychology
What makes this effect so remarkable is its subtlety. We don’t realise our preferences are being shaped by repetition. We genuinely believe we’re making independent judgments about quality, when in fact our brains are simply responding to the comfort of familiarity.
The Bond franchise provides a perfect case study of this phenomenon in action. Each new actor who takes on the role faces the same challenge: overcoming years of audience familiarity with their predecessor.
George Lazenby, the Australian actor who replaced Connery in 1969 for the sixth Bond instalment, was considered a failure when On Her Majesty’s Secret Service tanked at the box office. But what if he had been given more time? Movie producers and financiers are not known for their patience, and Sean Connery was reinstalled for 1971’s Diamonds are Forever and box office takings returned to their previous levels.
In the modern era, when Daniel Craig was announced as the new Bond in 2005, the reaction was similarly swift and brutal. Fans created websites with names like “danielcraigisnotbond.com” and petitioned for his removal before filming had even begun.
Craig was considered too short, too blonde and too rough around the edges. He didn’t fit the Bond template that had been established by decades of repeated exposure to previous actors. Yet by the time he stepped into character for the third time in Skyfall (2012), box office takings topped $US1 billion. Craig was suddenly being hailed as the greatest Bond of them all. Nothing had fundamentally changed about Craig’s appearance or acting ability, but audiences had been exposed to him repeatedly, and familiarity had bred affection.
This pattern repeated with mathematical precision across the franchise’s 60-year history. Roger Moore faced similar scepticism when he replaced Connery, as did Pierce Brosnan when he followed Timothy Dalton. In each case, repeated exposure transformed initial resistance into acceptance, then preference.
The mere exposure effect also explains why the Bond franchise can maintain its popularity despite following an almost identical formula for six decades. Each film features the same basic elements: exotic locations, elaborate gadgets, beautiful women, and a megalomaniacal villain with a preposterous plan for world domination.
By any rational measure, this formula should have become stale decades ago. Instead, these familiar elements have become comfort food for audiences. We don’t go to Bond films seeking surprise – we go seeking the pleasure of recognition. The martini order, the Aston Martin, the tuxedo, the one-liners: these repeated elements create a sense of familiarity that enhances rather than diminishes our enjoyment.
Marketing professionals have long understood the commercial power of repeated exposure, even if they didn’t always know the psychological mechanism behind it.
McDonald’s doesn’t need to convince you that their burgers are gourmet cuisine. They simply need to ensure their golden arches appear in your field of vision often enough that choosing McDonald’s becomes an automatic, comfortable decision.
Coca-Cola doesn’t focus on rational arguments about taste or ingredients. Instead, they concentrate on creating a ubiquitous brand presence. Their logo appears on everything from Olympic stadiums to corner shops, from movie screens to music festivals. This constant exposure doesn’t just build brand awareness, it builds preference through familiarity.
The effect is so powerful that Coca-Cola can maintain market dominance when Pepsi is consistently rated as better tasting in blind taste tests. When people can’t see the brand, they prefer Pepsi. When they can see the Coca-Cola logo, their preference switches. Decades of repeated exposure have made Coca-Cola feel more “right” than its competitors, regardless of actual taste.
Nike’s ‘Just Do It’ signature line, introduced in 1988, demonstrates how repeated exposure can transform a simple phrase into a cultural phenomenon. The line itself is unremarkable – three common words arranged in an imperative sentence. But through constant repetition across 35 years, these words have become synonymous with athletic achievement and personal motivation.
The mere exposure effect also explains why certain advertising slogans like Aerogard’s Avagoodweekend become impossible to forget, even decades after they’ve stopped airing.
However, the mere exposure effect comes with important caveats for marketers.
The effect seems to work best when initial exposure is neutral or mildly positive. If someone’s first encounter with a brand or product is strongly negative, repeated exposure may simply reinforce that negative association rather than overcome it.
In November 2024, Jaguar unveiled a radical rebrand that sent shockwaves through the automotive world. Gone was the iconic growling Jaguar logo, replaced by a minimalist “JAGUAR” wordmark. The traditional British racing green gave way to vibrant electric blue, hot pink, and sunshine yellow. Classic curves were abandoned for angular, geometric forms.
The reaction was swift and brutal. Social media erupted with outrage. “They’ve destroyed a heritage brand,” cried longtime enthusiasts. “It looks like a tech startup, not a luxury carmaker,” complained industry observers. The rebrand was labelled everything from “woke virtue signalling” to “commercial suicide”.
It takes courage to hold the line in the face of such fierce criticism from Jaguar enthusiasts, but early research suggests the strategy might be working. While initial social media sentiment was negative, tracking studies show a gradual improvement in brand perception among key demographics. Younger luxury consumers, in particular, are responding more positively to the new identity as exposure increases.
The brand is also controlling the relaunch carefully. Rather than bombarding consumers with the new identity, Jaguar is introducing it gradually through carefully curated touchpoints. This measured approach allows familiarity to build naturally rather than forcing acceptance.
Research shows that our first response to unfamiliar designs is often rejection, but repeated exposure gradually shifts our perception from strange to acceptable to preferred.
The mere exposure effect offers a powerful lesson for any brand considering significant change: initial resistance doesn’t predict long-term failure. Our psychological wiring makes us naturally suspicious of the unfamiliar, but that same wiring eventually embraces what becomes routine.
This doesn’t mean brands should ignore negative feedback or assume all criticism will fade. The most successful rebrands combine bold vision with careful execution, ensuring that increased familiarity reveals quality and thoughtfulness rather than poor judgment.
Which brings us back to James Bond. The current line-up of who will replace Daniel Craig in 2027 includes Paul Mescal (Gladiator 2), Austin Butler (Elvis), Jack Lowden (Dunkirk) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Bullet Train) and we can confidently predict that all will face some initial criticism, but if the mere exposure effect holds true, within 10 years we will be saying they are the greatest Bond ever.
