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

Underground > Switchboard >

The end of corporatism?

04:06 / 15.06.04

I began thinking, after checking out the Blackspot Sneaker webpage ( http://www.blackspotsneaker.org/home2.html ), about the impact of big business on our lives and culture, specifically what they refer to as the 'top-down' approach to culture nowdays, where business defines our culture, as opposed to the 'bottom-up' method of the past. I can see some truth in this, and it's pretty messed up. My question is, will there ever be any chance of changing the grip that big business has over our world? For all the ant-corporate protests ( http://www.unbrandamerica.org/ ), can we change anything? It seems to me like a remote possibility as best.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

15:53 / 15.06.04

Doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Who's to say what effect the McLibel two have had, whether they've made some dent in the company's profits by stopping some people eating them, or whether they were one of the factors that have made McDonalds try to cut down on the actively poisonous ingredients in their burgers?

10:30 / 16.06.04

There are two things I find particularly interesting about branding and anti-corporate protests and such. First, corporations do, on occasion, make changes in response to public protest: while McDonalds' recent healthier alternatives might be seen as just another co-opting, it still does something to accomplish one goal, that of a healthier populace. Secondly, consumers display both flocking and anti-flocking behavior in response to branding—there are a nontrivial number of people who, when confronted with a Starbucks on one side of the street and an independent coffeeshop on the other, unthinkingly go for the indy one. (Admittedly, in some instances the 'indy' one is owned by Starbucks...)

I think the success of an anti-corporate campaign depends on the visibility of the ills of a particular corporation. McDonalds' reaction is because of skyrocketing obesity rates. The aforementioned anti-flocking effect is because of resistance to the ubiquity of the Starbucks brand. Drawing attention to other troublesome practices, though, is more of an uphill battle.

16:21 / 16.06.04

McDonalds' reaction is because of skyrocketing obesity rates.

Actually, I'd wager it has more to do with their relatively poor profits in recent years.

But those poor profits might be a result of some anti-corporate sentiment, yeah?

18:38 / 16.06.04

The fact that "Mc" has become the de-facto prefix for anything that one wishes to associate with tacky, cheap, globalist corporate culture is probably the main factor, yeah.

McJobs, McPhones, McComputers, McOffices, etc. etc.

Skeleton Camera

18:47 / 17.06.04

Corporations are a holonic organism emerging from the human foundation. Holons are dependant on their foundations even if they represent a 'larger' or more successful state of being. Corporations, thus, rest on top of the relatively fragile stability Western humanity has achieved at this point.

An insidious aspect of their nature (whether you accept that they are 'organisms' or memes, or just as analogy) is the desire to BECOME culture. Corporations are replacing religion as the lynchpin of Western culture; historians could thus look back on us as we do now on the Greeks or Egyptians, centering their culture around their religious practices.

19:46 / 17.06.04

Actually, I think that the emphasis on brands has taken some of the pressure off the general corporitisation of our society. Brands are an easy target: they're so visible, and they do have a specific unpleasant function in regards to turning our lives into life-styles, etc. But, attacking brands in themselves is never going to really redress the balance. It seems that a lot of what has happened in response to anti-brand campaigns has just resulted in rebranding: McDonalds is a perfect example. Just putting some healthier options on the menu doesn't counteract the more pernicious effect a large global corporation has. The 'greenwashing' of oil companies is another example. Or Tony Blair privitising the health service by the back door: still the NHS for its 'customers', but behind the scenes increasingly services are being provided by private companies. So: no signs of retreat in the essentials, but unbranding could happen if it becomes more economically viable for the companies involved... But would be really have achieved all that much?

19:37 / 18.06.04

Admittedly, in some instances the 'indy' one is owned by Starbucks...
i want to hear more about this.

07:27 / 19.06.04

Not to make a bigger deal out of this than it is, 'cause they're not exactly 'indy' and I don't know if they have much visibility outside the Pacific NW... but while I previously would be inclined to buy from a smaller chain on occasion when no totally independent coffeeshop was available, chains like Seattle's Best and Torrefazione are owned by Starbucks.

Now, I can't help but think that the reason that these are owned by Starbucks without being turned into Starbucks is likely because of the awareness of the anti-flocking effect. When there's a Starbucks one block away from a Seattle's Best, some people are going to hit the Seattle's Best to not go to Starbucks—but, they really are.

07:32 / 19.06.04

Just putting some healthier options on the menu doesn't counteract the more pernicious effect a large global corporation has.

Could you expand on this? See, when I heard that Odwalla was owned by Coca-Cola, I was actually rather pleased that a megacorporation was selling something healthy instead of high fructose corn syrup swill. I currently try to buy local hippie juices instead, but if a corporation isn't selling poison (by which I half-jokingly mean soda), and isn't treating its workers awfully, is there still something inherently wrong about a megacorp? (I'm well aware that these are some pretty huge ifs, but still.)

08:22 / 20.06.04

This is very interesting. I try (to no avail) to educate my colleagues about the misdemeanours of large Mega corporations. I often use the analogy of Coke vs Pepsi

To me, neither company is particularly more ethically 'pleasant' than the other. Both sell disgusting swill that has no nutritional value and worse, the diet versions are full of chemicals that probably cause a multitude of illnesses (though I admit, even against my better judgement, Vanilla Coke does occassionally pass my lips and I do find it semi addictive)

I liken the Pepsi vs Coke argument pretty much analagous to the Republican vs Democrat distinction.....or Tory vs Labour

we are given 2 choices, each with their own strengths and weaknesses but ultimately both are shite. Coke recently tried to give us a healthy alternative DESANI water.
All well and good, Coke doing something different .....until it transpired that Coke in their arrogance or stupidity or naivety (take your pick) was bottling tap water that they alleged to have purified.
Desani was withdrawn but that is the tip of the Ice Berg...........as has been noted on here, the insidious grip these companies have and their increasing realisation that public distrust can hurt their profit margins is making them more and more 'sneaky'

They buy up smaller companies and only by reading the small print, can you discover that the monolith owns nearly all the choices. I was interested recently by a TV programme that detailed two rival Muslim Cola companies that had started Mecca Cola and the other name eludes me at the moment .....anyway, I have no proof but I suspect that one of these companies, whilst alleging to offer an alternative to the grip of Pepsi/Coke, will probably either already be owned by one of the big two.......or in the near future be swallowed up (to use a pun)

People are increasingly waking up to the Brand mentality but the advertisers and the marketting men are one step ahead and rebrand and decieve so well that one fad is replaced 'buy another' (spelling intentional)

Sorry to go on but we are facing a losing battle with the Brand war but as was stated above, that does not mean we should give up trying and public pressure can win small victories such as McDonalds' Burgers with only half the carcinogens than the old Big Mac

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

08:57 / 20.06.04

Sorry to go on but we are facing a losing battle with the Brand war but as was stated above, that does not mean we should give up trying and public pressure can win small victories such as McDonalds' Burgers with only half the carcinogens than the old Big Mac

Totally with you, except I'd say we've actually already lost. It's now a fundamental fact of Western civilisation, or of capitalism at the very least. They've achieved what they wanted- decided what game is being played. (Part of me likes to still dream that they may lose, however.)
BUT that still doesn't mean you shouldn't fight against it. A small victory is better than no victory at all, and any little concession we can get from these fuckers is better than just rolling over and dying. Like Nick Cave says in "Knockin' on Joe"- (a song about prisoners) "This square foot of sky will be mine till I die".
God I'm maudlin and pessimistic today.

Arguably a lot of the best anti-corporate campaigns and actions play by the same rules- effectively, even an anarchy symbol or a hammer 'n' sickle is a brand- it's all about pushing buttons. It's just that right now they own most of the buttons.

15:42 / 30.06.04

Go see The Corpopration. Highly recommended. I'll post a review in a new thread (I tried to search for an old one to no avail).

08:19 / 01.07.04

There is an interesting documentary about psychoanalysis called "Century of the Self" that was shown a couple of years ago.

It was very interesting/depressing as it delved in to how market research, focus groups and advertising has evolved over the twentieth century with the help of Freud and Bernays.

It made me realise that, like the Stoat, we have already lost. For the foreseeable future at least.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

14:28 / 01.07.04

But surely if you don't buy Gak because Gakco is an evil multinational, but you buy Frum, even if Frumco was brought out by Gakco and now the latter produces Frum, even though you're still giving money to Gak, by not buying their 'own' product, aren't you still helping to destabilise their brand image? After all, I don't think it's obvious until you look at the ingredients that Fanta is made by the Coca-Cola company for Nazis.

16:02 / 01.07.04

Increasingly I find the level of influence that PR has upon society quite frightening. It's so insidious.

I caught little bits of the Century of the Self and I heard for the first time the concept of marketing the "aspriational lifestyle". Over the past couple of years I have heard and experienced this drive to encourage people to participate in something that is essentially a never ending race against both our neighbours and ourselves. This has been through working for various PR machines and also observing the media and I have felt deeply disturbed by how deeply ingrained this endless desire has become so quickly.

Have you noticed how unnacceptable it is these days to be less than perfect? We are encouraged to believe 24/7 that we are supposed to desire better relationships, better bodies, better trainers, better homes, jobs, lives, futures. Onwards and upwards on a fast track to early retirement and some vague mythical sense of achievement, except that sense never comes. And that if we fail to have super kids, super relationships, super lives (super in the sense of bigger/better) then we have failed as human beings.

Now I am all for self improvement, but it is becoming socially unacceptable to be "happy with your lot" and not particularly interested in "climbing to the next level of perfection". And this makes me very frightened. I find this reflected everywhere, from the DIY/Gardening/Property improvement programmes that infest UK Tv to the constant parade of messages in all media of better, faster, stronger, richer.

And to think that the rise of this kind of thinking to a mass meme was delivered to us by people who just want to buy more stuff.

I think that Brands are merely the content and the outer wrapping of this slippery and seductive new way of thinking. Can we unbrand the world? I would like to think that we can, but it will take a vast turn around in cultural thinking and expectation.

There is the backlash against corporate culture, and of course the corporates are trying to protect their backs, but I sense a real and tangible change in the way people accept truths from institutions (be they government or corporations) and unless they adapt to an increasingly jaded and skeptical audience I sense that there could be some fundamental changes in the wind.