BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


ProLogo - Why Brands are good for you.

 
 
Ethan Hawke
15:13 / 07.09.01
The Economist has a special issue out praising capitalism (with a take-off of the "No Logo" cover). Here's a link:
Pro Logo

I haven't had time to read the story yet, but I'll post comments when I do.
 
 
nul
15:20 / 07.09.01
Makes some fascinating and accurate points, but I'll leave that up to the Barbelith readers to decide. They'll disagree with me completely and a rousing game of Bash Capitalism will ensue.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
15:29 / 07.09.01
Having now skimmed the article, I think the author was rather confused by No Logo is some respects. The first interesting question that pops into my mind after reading it is, "Why do people like brands?" in the first place. People undoubtedly do like brands. One of the biggest arguments again the globalization of brands is that they promote homogenity. But isn't that a big part of the attraction of brands to people? The guarantee that if I have a Coke in any part of the world, it'll taste like Coke. I know what to expect, and when I get what I expect I am gratified by it. In this way, brands supply consumers with "comfort food." They are the commodity equivalent of mom's mashed potatoes. It's tiring to constantly experience new and unexpected things. Consume a brand and return to the capitalist womb.
 
 
YNH
16:49 / 07.09.01
quote:The Opening paragraph:
BRANDS are in the dock, accused of all sorts of mischief, from threatening our health and destroying our environment to corrupting our children. Brands are so powerful, it is alleged, that they seduce us to look alike, eat alike and be alike. At the same time, they are spiritually empty, gradually (and almost subliminally) undermining our moral values.


Um, yah, many of the corporations profitting from the sale of branded merchandise are destroying the environment and abusing people. Many of the additives in Brand name victuals and libations are dangerous or carcinogenic (even the friendly cinnamon, available generically.)


The seduction bit is a little dodgy, but we might expect hyperbole when describing the other side. The goddess knows I'd never do that myself, though.

And yet another misunderstanding of the 'emptiness' argument. As someone said in the Ayn Rand thread, (to paraphrase) "Shocker, there are also right wing folks who'd condemn Marx without ever reading it."

quote:“Powerful brands no longer just advertise in a magazine, they control its content,” says Ms Klein.

This is probably one of those good points Brenden was talking about.
 
 
Slim
17:06 / 07.09.01
“Consumers are like roaches,” say Jonathan Bond and Richard Kirshenbaum in their book “Under the Radar—Talking to Today's Cynical Consumer”. “We spray them with marketing, and for a time it works. Then, inevitably, they develop an immunity, a resistance.”

So complimentary

“In technocratic and colourless times, brands bring warmth, familiarity and trust,” says Peter Brabeck, boss of NestlĂ©. They also have a cultish quality that creates a sense of belonging. “In an irreligious world, brands provide us with beliefs,” says Mr Olins. “They define who we are and signal our affiliations.”

Am I the only one who sees a problem when defining yourself buy what you buy is labeled as a good thing?
 
 
nul
17:08 / 07.09.01
Many of the people purchasing the brand-name merchandise are consuming the end result of enviromental destruction and abuse of other humans. The information about these practices is available, but the consumption continues and increases, regardless. It does not seem to enter into the equation, or they don't consider the arguments that these corporations or their actions are inherently evil to be entirely accurate. I'm currently incapable of taking a poll of the brand-name buying masses, unfortunately, so we can't be sure.

Not to worry. The moment that Ronald McDonald picks up a gun and starts forcing people to buy his product, we'll have a fairly good reason to get angry with his strong-arming the consumer into buying Big Macs. At present, however, you and I are not obliged to buy their products.

You can show me the same pile a crap a billion times. It doesn't make me want to buy it.

Brands are not as powerful as their opponents allege, nor is the public as easily manipulated. The reality is more complicated.

That's a better point, methinks.
 
 
nul
17:10 / 07.09.01
Am I the only one who sees a problem when defining yourself buy what you buy is labeled as a good thing?

No moreso than defining yourself or your political stances by what you don't buy.
 
 
Lex
17:41 / 07.09.01
Ever tryed cola in Rumainia?
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:58 / 08.09.01
Brenden - that might be a good point if anybody had ever actually argued the opposite. Sadly, anticorporate activists have never claimed that McDonalds physically coerces mindless masses into buying its products. It's a bit like me saying the problem with your argument is that dolphins aren't fish, but mammals.

If any of the 'good points' actually engage with what critics say, I would be more interested in hearing them.
 
 
nul
09:58 / 08.09.01
Not to worry. The moment that Ronald McDonald picks up a gun and starts forcing people to buy his product, we'll have a fairly good reason to get angry with his strong-arming the consumer into buying Big Macs. At present, however, you and I are not obliged to buy their products.

Sadly, anticorporate activists have never claimed that McDonalds physically coerces mindless masses into buying its products.

Herr Bananapants - Yes, I'd almost forgotten. Ronald McDonald doesn't tote a gun around and Hamburglar doesn't break into our homes at night to program the children into liking Happymeals. I'm glad you could clear that up for me. To think that I was trapped in some right-wing nightmare world. Thank my lucky stars!

The critics say that corporations are destroying the enviroment, controlling the media, bombarding us with advertising, and abusing human rights world wide, yes?

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong so I may address these issues to your liking.
 
 
YNH
13:03 / 08.09.01
The funny thing about this ass-backwards argument is that everytime I ask a member of the ad-industry if the critics are right, s/he says yes. But whatever. And it's also quite necessary for the fixers to employ hyperbole in order to relocate themselves in a faux-moderate position.

Check this out:

quote: "This brings forth ethical considerations. Is it OK for marketers to knowingly manipulate consumers' past?

"On one hand, the alteration will occur whether or not that was the intent of the marketer given the reconstructive nature of recall.

"On the other hand, there are ways in which the marketer can enhance the likelihood consumer memories will be consistent with their advertising messages. At the very least, consumers ought to be aware of that power."


Now, this is from scientists. Marketters will use this. But if any leftwing nutjob even tries to reference the data, s/he'd be thrown to the sharks (which are fish, incidentally, with no bones.)
 
 
YNH
13:21 / 08.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Brenden Simpson:
The information about these practices is available, but the consumption continues and increases, regardless.


Well, it normally takes years or an enormous pr mistake for such information to enter the public consscience. Even then we're only talking about a small percentage of the populations of wealthy nations who'd have access to said "news."

I'm sure you'll agree that "it's not that simple." As a reminder (because we've had this discussion before) there is no evidence that (from article) "Nike has had to revamp its whole supply chain after being accused of running sweatshops."

Perhaps people keep buying because Nike is able to merely say things have changed, without doing anything.

quote:Brands are not as powerful as their opponents allege, nor is the public as easily manipulated. The reality is more complicated.[/b]

That's a better point, methinks.


Actually, what point is that? Even Klein doesn't allege that Brands have subliminal mind control sigils worked into the designs. The rest of us are chillin' on piles of data (some of which, like the above, incidentally, provides ecidence that consumers - but let's be fair and use people instead - are easily manipulated.
 
 
nul
17:35 / 08.09.01
And it's also quite necessary for the fixers to employ hyperbole in order to relocate themselves in a faux-moderate position.

Yes, but stating the obvious doesn't gain you any points in the debate. In fact, you lose points for that one.

But if any leftwing nutjob even tries to reference the data, s/he'd be thrown to the sharks (which are fish, incidentally, with no bones.)

Stop referencing that data or I'll pull the lever to the tank you are precariously hanging over!

Well, it normally takes years or an enormous pr mistake for such information to enter the public conscience. Even then we're only talking about a small percentage of the populations of wealthy nations who'd have access to said "news."

Asking a criminal to point out their crimes is somewhat absurd. As for access to the news, hardly. The news is available and freely available to be accessed by any person in these wealthy nations who want it.

After all, you found it. I found it. Several Barbelithers found it. How hard could it be?

Perhaps people keep buying because Nike is able to merely say things have changed, without doing anything.

Provide compelling evidence they haven't attempted to or haven't begun the process of altering business practices in the third world. Then show them where they can buy shoes that are of good quality that they'll want to wear - all at an affordable cost.

Is that so much to ask?

Actually, what point is that? Even Klein doesn't allege that Brands have subliminal mind control sigils worked into the designs.

Yes, but if we imply you have been arguing that, we have a potent propaganda weapon. "You think the people are sheep and can be herded around as such. We believe they are individuals who can make their own choices."

Most people haven't, and won't, read No Logo. Just makes it easier.

Making arguments may be compelling, pulling fact sheets out of your ass won't help your argument a damned bit.

Besides, everyone knows brands are corporate sigils and imbed themselves into popular consciousness with the hope that people will consume it. Sheesh. Read the Magic"k" forum now and again.
 
 
Jackie Susann
08:39 / 09.09.01
Can't argue with that.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
06:47 / 10.09.01
Response from Naomi Klein to the Economist piece:

quote:Actually, I don't have time to respond to all the distortions in this week's Economist but I couldn't let this one stand. Here is a letter to the editor I just sent.

To the editors of The Economist

In your happy little leader "Brands are good for you," you quote a passage from my book No Logo referring to ours as "a fascist state where we all salute the logo and have little opportunity for criticism because our newspapers, television stations, Internet servers, streets and retail spaces are all controlled by multinational corporate interests." By taking these words out of context, you have intentionally distorted my meaning to suit your own weak argument.




As I pointed out to your reporter, the very next sentences in the book directly refute this vision of brand totalitarianism. The passage goes on to say: "there is good reason for alarm. But a word of caution: we may be able to see a not-so-brave new world on the horizon, but that doesn't mean we are already living in Huxley's nightmare... Instead of an airtight formula, [corporate censorship] is a steady trend, clearly intensified by synergy and the mounting stakes of brand-name protection, but riddled with exceptions. the shift that is taking place is at once less totalitarian and more dangerous."

When asked by your reporter whether ours is a corporate fascist state, I replied that I am too optimistic to take such a view: if humans being really are compliant brand drones, why are they taking to the streets in the hundreds of thousands, from Seattle to Genoa? Your publication, on the other hand, appears to believe that political activism is unnecessary since we apparently can rid the world of corporate abuses simply by shopping for better brands. Sorry, but I'm afraid I'm not quite *that* optimistic.

I never expected The Economist to provide a nuanced or even accurate portrayal of the political ideas in No Logo -- or, for that matter, of the goals of the global movements against corporate-driven globalization (of which I am not the "spokesman" as you absurdly claim). However, I hope you will correct this one glaring distortion for your readers.

Sincerely,
Naomi Klein
 
 
No star here laces
07:37 / 10.09.01
I think a key point here is to separate brands from globalisation when discussing these things. Say Nike made shoes with no swooshes and sold them on to department stores. They could still be doing all the dodgy things they do in the Philippines, but this would have nothing to do with brands.

Similarly, Greenpeace is a brand, but by no means is the way they behave comparable to Nike.

The question around brands is not whether capitalism is making the third world poorer (which it is) but whether the intrusion of brands into public life i.e. schools, the news media and politics is a good thing...
 
 
Fist Fun
13:04 / 10.09.01
quote: Jim McDowell, head of marketing at BMW North America, says that when young people visit a 3Com-sponsored baseball stadium or a Continental Airlines' hockey arena, they realise that “some of the best things they have ever experienced have come through brands.”


I regularly attend sponsored events and I personally do not thank brands for their involvement. It annoys me to see football teams flounce around in company logos. I have a huge amount of respect for Barcelona, a club that refuses to let a sponsor defile their shirt. On the other hand, does corporate sponsorship bankroll some cool sport/cultural events that would not otherwise occur?
 
 
YNH
15:31 / 10.09.01
I think maybe the baseball games were as good (whatever that means) when the Fleet Center was Boston Gardens or whatever.
 
 
nul
16:52 / 10.09.01
"a fascist state where we all salute the logo and have little opportunity for criticism because our newspapers, television stations, Internet servers, streets and retail spaces are all controlled by multinational corporate interests."

One wonders how it could've been possible to take that out of context and mangle it to their own ends.

Anyway, pointing out the obvious doesn't gain any brownie points in the propaganda war.

The question around brands is not whether capitalism is making the third world poorer (which it is) but whether the intrusion of brands into public life i.e. schools, the news media and politics is a good thing...

Advertising funds the news media to keep them on the air, helps schools buy much needed equipment for teaching, aides politicians in their search to enter a public position. Find an alternative for these places to get adequate funding for their activities and they'll accept you with open arms.
 
 
nul
16:55 / 10.09.01
It annoys me to see football teams flounce around in company logos. I have a huge amount of respect for Barcelona, a club that refuses to let a sponsor defile their shirt.

No, they flounce around in their own logos and market them as fiercely as they can to get spectators to come on down and pay up to watch them play.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
18:39 / 10.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Brenden Simpson:


One wonders how it could've been possible to take that out of context and mangle it to their own ends.


Klein demonstrates exactly how it was done above, if you'd care to read it properly. The section quoted is defined by Klein as how things could easily be perceived, and she goes on to state that this is not the case. The Economist quoted the section in such a way as to create the impression that Klein is saying this is how things are. The difference is subtle but key.

quote:Anyway, pointing out the obvious doesn't gain any brownie points in the propaganda war.

You keep saying that Brenden, but I have no idea what you actually mean. What "propaganda war"? What "brownie points"? Who here is concerned by these things other than you? Unless by propaganda war you refer to the encroachment of advertising and brands upon public and private space, and the efforts to resist that, in which case I'd argue that people's concerns are a little more serious than scoring brownie points.

It strikes me that you're just here to wind up the lefties, Brenden. Fine if that's how you get your jollies, but it does tend to make intelligent discussion different.
 
 
Molly Shortcake
18:58 / 10.09.01
In a recent issue of I.D, Nike proclaims that they're a design company, the shoes are besides the point. I'd have to agree.
 
 
nul
01:58 / 11.09.01
What "propaganda war"? What "brownie points"? Who here is concerned by these things other than you? Unless by propaganda war you refer to the encroachment of advertising and brands upon public and private space, and the efforts to resist that, in which case I'd argue that people's concerns are a little more serious than scoring brownie points.

No, your concerns are more serious than scoring brownie points which is exactly why protests and arguments against brands are not getting the massive public support they, perhaps, deserve. Twenty, thirty, even five hundred thousand in a population of a three hundred million is a loud special interest, at best.

If the aim is at getting the public to listen, the left is doing a piss poor job. If the aim is riling up an angst generation to bring their irritation into the streets, congratulations, it's been done.

Brilliantly, I might add. The cops get pissed on for a few days, tax payer money gets spent on massive security precautions.

Of course, they just turn into riots and everyone involved in the protests just end up looking like idiots.

What has it accomplished? The creation of leftist celebrities that "you just have to read, because, gosh, they're so enlightened", which most of the public doesn't care to listen to, and a few smashed out at a couple McDonald's restaurants.

The efforts to resist the continued encroachment of advertising into the popular consciousness have been laughable, at best.

A re-evalution of the tactics used in the war on capitalism are sorely needed.

It strikes me that you're just here to wind up the lefties, Brenden. Fine if that's how you get your jollies, but it does tend to make intelligent discussion different.

If you were talking about a round of pats on the backs because you're all good comrades, sure, perhaps. Then again, I'm just an idiot. You don't have to listen to me.

"That's the most intelligent thing you've said thus far."
 
 
some guy
07:26 / 11.09.01
Brenden Simpson wrote:

"Asking a criminal to point out their crimes is somewhat absurd. As for access to the news, hardly. The news is available and freely available to be accessed by any person in these wealthy nations who want it."

This is an enormously simplistic statement. How many housewives in Idaho know Mother Jones magazine exists, let alone how to locate a store that actually sells it? The bulk of Americans* get their news from the mainstream media - and partly because of this aren't necessarily aware how they're being manipulated by it. (The mainstream media rarely runs stories on how consolidation affects content, for example).

"Freely available" means nothing if people aren't educated as to the existence and location of alternate channels.

re: Nike

"Provide compelling evidence they haven't attempted to or haven't begun the process of altering business practices in the third world. Then show them where they can buy shoes that are of good quality that they'll want to wear - all at an affordable cost."

Provide to who? Implicit in the "brand as trust" matrix is the fact that if Nike puts out a press release on how they've changed their business practices, most people will believe them. A pitiful few will wind up being exposed to the opposite truth through a random program on NPR or wherever.

Living in southeast Asia I can tell you that legal work conditions often = sweatshop but if Nike can safely say conditions are "legal" everything's fine...

As for "affordable cost," I refer you to the actual manufacturing cost of a pair of Air Jordans and the American retail price, which are separated by orders of magnitude.

Incidentally, it's always interesting to hear the proponents of the brand empires claim that people can make up their own minds etc. Obviously that's true in a way, but at the same time, if advertising/branding didn't work ... it wouldn't be a multi-billion-dollar industry, would it?

* I'm using the US here specifically.
 
 
Margin Walker
22:57 / 15.09.01
The only thing I can think of is the Newman's Own line of foods. They donate some or all of the profit to charity. So, all things being equal, I by Paul's shit.
 
 
Clavis
16:34 / 24.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Brenden Simpson:
Perhaps people keep buying because Nike is able to merely say things have changed, without doing anything.

Provide compelling evidence they haven't attempted to or haven't begun the process of altering business practices in the third world. Then show them where they can buy shoes that are of good quality that they'll want to wear - all at an affordable cost.

Is that so much to ask?


Actually, perhaps it is. What Nike will consistently offer in their defense is that they can't "afford" to profitably make their product with American union labor.

Hmm. Then maybe they can't make their product?

I know it sounds radical, but if a product can't be profitable without the use of child or slave labor, then maybe it doesn't belong on the market. Or maybe the company has a lousy business model. Or maybe the CEO's salary is too fucking high.

If I decided to market a new delicious candy bar called "Adrenobomb", made from the adrenal glands of young boys from Malaysia, I'd have to murder millions of young Malaysian boys, wouldn't I? If I could prove, before the World Court got hold of me, that the public absolutely LOVED my product, and were willing to pay $4 a bar for the privilege of "getting Bombed", then who has the right to tell me to stop cutting little boys' heads off?


Clavis
(CEO, AdrenoCO [A Division of One World Corporation)
 
 
Clavis
16:40 / 24.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Brenden Simpson:
Advertising funds the news media to keep them on the air, helps schools buy much needed equipment for teaching, aides politicians in their search to enter a public position. Find an alternative for these places to get adequate funding for their activities and they'll accept you with open arms.


Jeez, Brendan, you really like the brands, don't you? What do you do for a living?

"Helps schools to buy much needed equipment for teaching"? Um, I hate to break this to you, but PUBLIC SCHOOLS should be able to rely on PUBLIC FUNDS. If the government isn't providing enough money for education, then we should tell government to get on the fucking ball, not make up the difference by forcing (yes, FORCING: I worked for the company that owned Channel One) kids to watch ads in school*. And if political advertising were paid for by the government, candidates wouldn't have to make promises to big business.


Clavis

*Did you know that Channel One advertising is more expensive to buy than prime-time advertising? Can you guess why? Can you say "captive audience"? I knew you could!
 
 
Clavis
16:46 / 24.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Margin Walker:
The only thing I can think of is the Newman's Own line of foods. They donate some or all of the profit to charity. So, all things being equal, I by Paul's shit.


The pretzel line rocks. The "Newmans Own-e-os" or whatever the Oreo ripoffs are called suck. So buy the pretzels, not the Oreos.

(Of course, YMM not only V, it M not even exceed FAA guidelines.)


Clavis
 
 
YNH
18:12 / 24.09.01
Incidentally, Nell Newman (daughter) is responsible for the Organic lines, but whatever.

[ 25-09-2001: Message edited by: Teela Tomnoddy ]
 
 
nul
03:32 / 26.09.01
I know it sounds radical, but if a product can't be profitable without the use of child or slave labor, then maybe it doesn't belong on the market. Or maybe the company has a lousy business model. Or maybe the CEO's salary is too fucking high.

That does sound... radical. How dare you make such recommendations? That's it. You're fired.

Geez, Brenden, you really like the brands, don't you? What do you do for a living?

Brands? Me... why that's...

*snaps shut his briefcase and runs out of the room, yelling something about tactical strikes into his jacket*

We're sorry. Continued debate on behalf of megacorporations has been terminated. The easiest way to win a debate that you're doomed to lose is not to debate at all.
 
 
The Natural Way
12:34 / 26.09.01
Don't be such a prick.

I started reading this thread because I was VERY interested to see if someone could come up with some really good arguments in favour of branding, capitalism, etc. And what the fuck happens? The pro guy jumps ship when the going gets tough, muttering excuses about how he couldn't win this argument anyway. Why? Why can't you? Because no-one will listen to you; the poor lonely right wing voice crying out in the lefty wilderness? Bollocks, people were listening and responding very carefully to what you've posted. There are some really good arguments (incl some from people who actually live out in the land of the sweatshops) that you could try addressing. But no, it's much easier to make facetious remarks and cut out.

long live debate, eh Brenden?
 
 
nul
02:05 / 27.09.01
I just find it difficult to defend a position I disagree with, that's all. Being an advocate of something you oppose is hard work, after all.

I would hope that real corporate sponsors would have better arguments than the fish I managed to fry up.
 
 
The Natural Way
07:55 / 27.09.01
Oh.

I didn't realize you were playing devil's advocate. Fair enough. Must be a pain in the arse. Sorry I was a cunt, but it was only because I was really interested to see how the whole thing'd turn out.
 
 
YNH
13:56 / 27.09.01
So, runt, your purpose was to suss out any arguments for branding that were 'good?'
 
 
nul
01:39 / 28.09.01
Ah, no worries, runt. I should've been more clear about my intentions from the get-go.
 
  
Add Your Reply