BARBELITH underground
 

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


NYC - Sept 25: Pro Logo vs. No Logo

 
 
MJ-12
00:51 / 17.09.02
Presented by WNYC Radio, The Nation, The Economist and The New York Society for Ethical Culture
7pm-9pm, Wednesday, September 25th, 2002
The New York Society for Ethical Culture: 2 West 64th Street
Free Admission; Arrive Early. Doors Open at 6:15pm

Join us for this free public debate between Nation writer Naomi Klein, author of the international best-seller No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies and Sameena Ahmad, The Economist's Business Correspondent, who penned a fierce editorial refutation to Klein's book, "Pro Logo: Why Brands Are Good for You", in the September 8th, 2001 edition of the magazine. WNYC Radio's Brian Lehrer moderates.

No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies: Published in January 2000, No Logo is equal parts cultural analysis, political manifesto, mall-rat memoir, and journalistic exposé. It was the first book to uncover a betrayal of the central promises of the information age: choice, interactivity, and increased freedom. Naomi Klein takes apart our packaged and branded world and puts the pieces into clear pop-historical and economic perspective. The book tracks the resistance and self-determination mounting in the face of our new branded world and explains why some of the most revered brands in the world are finding themselves on the wrong end of a bottle of spray paint, a computer hack, or an international anti-corporate campaign.

"Pro Logo: Why Brands Are Good For You": Following the publication of No Logo, The Economist magazine published a strong retort to Klein's arguments: "Brands began as a form not of exploitation, but of consumer protection. A brand provided a guarantee of reliability and quality...The flip side of the power and importance of a brand is its growing vulnerability. Because it is so valuable to a company, a brand must be cosseted, sustained and protected. A failed advertising campaign, a drop-off in quality or a hint of scandal can all quickly send customers fleeing. The more companies promote the value of their brands, the more they will need to seem ethically robust and environmentally pure. Hence, brands are levers for lifting standards."
---------------
More info here
 
 
angel
09:06 / 17.09.02
This sounds really cool and if I were in NYC I know where I'd be. Definately worth a listen in my humble opinion.

So, are any of you lovely NYC peeps able to go along and then give us a run down of what happened?
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:41 / 25.09.02
*bump*

Anyone going? I'm waffling over this one as I think the "branding" issue, while annoying, is a distraction from worse evils. The worst corporations aren't consumer brands like Starbucks, Shell or McDonalds (though they are, you know, bad) but corporations like Arthur Andersen, Ernst and Young, Merrill Lynch, etc. An argument pro/anti- branding is not really all that enticing to me.

I got an unproofed galley of Klein's new "fences and windows" compendium (the advantage of visiting used books stores in Manhattan) a few weeks ago, and I think the short pieces in it are more powerful than the whole of No Logo. Her focus has shifted from the smokescreen of "branding" to the real issues of corporate control over the past few years, and the essays in Fences and Windows paint the best (or to me, the most enticing and the one most agreeable to my sensibilities) picture of what's wrong with corporatism.
 
  
Add Your Reply