No Logo

Discoballpaul

Anyone read it,
seriously this book has changed my life
We are all walking around blind to the things that go on around us

www.nologo.org

Puck

Never read it but I've heard a lot about it. Isn't it all about MacGovernment and everything?

---

John (yes THE John!)
john.filetap.com
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."

tobi

I’m reading it at the moment, it does make you think.

Manach

I have myself just finished reading "No Logo" by Naomi Klein, purchased mostly because the good reviews given to it on this board.

The book deals with the problem of post-modern branding and marketing in a well written, passionate but ultimately flawed manner. The basic premise is that modern consumerism, driven by multinationals and fuelled by the constant drive for market share, have pushed public life to the margins with a by-product being lousy temp jobs in the Western world and appalling sweat-shop conditions in the 3rd. The only possible solution being direct action by leftist/green groups to organise citizen protests and deface ads.

My basic objections to this are that
- Klein harkens back to an ad free past, which seem to me never existed.
- Paints multinationals as if they were following some shared masterplan for domination, where on the contrary they are driven by short-term profits and general bungling.
- Awful as the factory conditions are in some 3rd world countries, there are no other viable economic alternatives
- Finally, people nowadays just filter out 99% of ads.

But in general I would recommend "No Logo" for a fresh and well presented world view.

---

fair is the prize and the hope is great

OSiriS

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Manach:
- Paints multinationals as if they were following some shared masterplan for domination, where on the contrary they are driven by short-term profits and general bungling.</font>

This isn't a new thought. Just look at Free Masonism, or at least commonly held beliefs about them. I remember spending about 3 hours talking to a guy who was extremely paranoid about them.

---

http://clans.quake.ie/osiris
Fragnet

Excelsior

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Manach:
- Finally, people nowadays just filter out 99% of ads.

But in general I would recommend "No Logo" for a fresh and well presented world view.


</font>

I don't know about ad filtering. I sure would like some of that mouldy pepsi max right now. If that were the case, only 1% of people would be paying such outrageous amounts of money for Ralph Lauren and Tommy clothes.
Advertising does control us to a large extent.

And in terms of economic realities and the need for the sweat shop conditions, I have no doubt that you're point is a strong one, but the situation is so dreadful that it has to be changed regardless.

And I endorse this book wholeheartedly also.

---

Excelsior
=Consto Suffragium Cussu Famina=

ObeyGiant

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">- Klein harkens back to an ad free past, which seem to me never existed.</font>

Not so - the point of the book isn't about advertising, it's about branding, which is something relatively new, she gives a brief history of it in one of the first chapters.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">- Paints multinationals as if they were following some shared masterplan for domination, where on the contrary they are driven by short-term profits and general bungling.</font>

I'm not sure I agree with you on this one either. From what I understood, she was saying that the multinationals DO make mistakes (as seen with Black Friday). They do, however share one shared goal (to make money), and one shared method (branding).

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">- Awful as the factory conditions are in some 3rd world countries, there are no other viable economic alternatives</font>

And there was her point - people would rather wear their Nikes knowing how they were manufactured and saying "there's no viable economic alternatives", than just go without the Nikes. There's the alternative right there - go without.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">- Finally, people nowadays just filter out 99% of ads.</font>

Sure they filter out ads, so marketers have come up with new, more devious ways of getting their product sold, such as making sure that their clothes are being seen on the right people.

Were you reading the book upside down or something? You seem to have missed some of the basic points.

eclectichoney

iv been planning on reading it but now your discussion has encouraged me even further. i'll pick it up soon.

thanks

---

www.eclectichoney.com

Von

Don;t suppose anybody heard Naomi Klein destroying Eamonn Dunphy on The Last Word a while back?

Magwitch

No, but please fill me in about Dunphy! There is a guy that has lost his controversial edge in favour of a wod of money.

On the subject of "No Logo" I have not read the book, but it has spawned a plethera of copy-cat works and a mini-revolution (if only n the media set and short term interested). However those who expound upon it (not referring to nayone here btw) have the same basic flaws as the book itself and the political movement it is apart of, and that is no answers. It is the easiest thing in the world to critisise (just look at thread answers on the Humanities board for proof of that) but entirely another to actually come up with a real ground breaking work (ie. something that proposes a definite solution or revolutionary concept).

No Logo was and is a popular work, but to be honest is nothing new. Arguments of a simular nature have been put forward by politicians (with more than a single issue) and economists for a long time now (more recently the writings of George Soros come to mind). I will dig up a few titles to post in this forum you may find interesting.

[This message has been edited by Magwitch (edited 26-06-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Magwitch (edited 26-06-2001).]

Von

If you have not read the book, you cannot be in a position to criticize its "basic flaws" and "copycat works". Your opinion is therefore worthless.

Evil Phil

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Finally, people nowadays just filter out 99% of ads.
</font>

Well yeah maybe, but the ads are everywhere; they're even in public loos. The changing room in the UCD Sports center has a stupid Nutri-grain ad now. They're filling up all public space with advertiments. I don't want to filter them, I don't want to see them at all. A lot of people feel like this and that's one of the points she makes in her book.




[This message has been edited by Evil Phil (edited 27-06-2001).]

Ri-ra

Still thinking about getting the book--

Could someone let me know about the difference she sees between branding and advertising? Someone also said that she gives a history of branding-- when did it start?

Thanks

Evil Phil

Advertising is for a product, branding is for a company. eg:

Buy Kellogs Cornflakes ~ advertisment

Buy Kellogs ~ branding

Calvin Klein is another good example of a brand (bastid).

Ri-ra

So, you're saying that I can't eat "Kellogg's" for brekkie. But what if I want Kellogg's cornflakes, and not the yellowpack version? Would you say that yellowpack is better or worse than Kellogg's?

It just seems to me that brands have been around for as long as individual products. That's because there's been competition for as long as there's been products: "Buy brand X instead of brand y," etc. And even if you go back to some mythical past where artisans couldn't brand the objects/ things they made, couldn't you always buy/ trade for the product/ object you like best? "Ugg make better hammer than Ogg. Hmmm, me go to Ugg instead." I suppose my point is, if you can't seperate the product from the brand (or "name" behind it), then her argument becomes harder to go along with. But I want to go along with it. I just was curious to see if she'd looked into all the corners...

[This message has been edited by Ri-ra (edited 28-06-2001).]

adnans

just get the book and read it.... twice if you have to. its very interesting and mind blowing at the same time.

adnans

[This message has been edited by adnans (edited 28-06-2001).]

DadaKopf

Saw the thread and thought you's might like this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4167263,00.html

Noreena Hertz has written, I suppose, a more schoarly appendix to No Logo and, unlike Klein, has the credentials to boot. It's called The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy and you can get it in Hodges Figgis.

The Observer article pretty much crystallises her view which, I think, is a pretty strong endorsement of political involvement.

Ri-ra

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DadaKopf:
Saw the thread and thought you's might like this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4167263,00.html

Noreena Hertz has written, I suppose, a more schoarly appendix to No Logo and, unlike Klein, has the credentials to boot. It's called The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy and you can get it in Hodges Figgis.

The Observer article pretty much crystallises her view which, I think, is a pretty strong endorsement of political involvement.</font>

Thanks Dada. That was the type of thoughtful reply I was hoping for. I don't have to buy the book until I'm sure it's worth it. Uncritical consumption, and all that.

I'm quite familiar with Klein's work as a journalist for a Canadian national newspaper. Her husband, Avi Lewis, is also a staple on the Canadian cable news networks. From what I've seen, I'd say that their approach is "politics lite." I.e., you don't see them in the streets doing anything, just yakking.

I'll keep researching, so.


[This message has been edited by Ri-ra (edited 29-06-2001).]

DadaKopf

Well then, the UCD Politics Department is a very helpful resource if you're interested in politics .

Also, www.opendemocracy.net is a really interesting political think-tank.

Evil Phil

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ri-ra:
So, you're saying that I can't eat "Kellogg's" for brekkie. </font>

No, I'm saying Kellogg's is a brand and Cornflakes is a product. That's all, not very political I know but he did ask.


At the risk of being accused of flaming, although I'm not , might I add http://www.boards.ie/bulletin/Forum15/HTML/000507.html makes a good read.

[This message has been edited by Evil Phil (edited 29-06-2001).]

Ri-ra

Evil Phil- I was agreeing with you (to a degree ). Or at least I thought I was... you seem to be saying that one cannot eat "Kellogg's" (brand), but can eat the cornflakes (product). Is that a fair assessment?

My point was simply that I don't think the brand can be easily separated from the product, hence my example of wanting Kellogg's cornflakes, rather than the yellowpack variety. That's all.

[This message has been edited by Ri-ra (edited 29-06-2001).]

Evil Phil

I'll try again as I don't think I explained it very well:

Nike is a brand name. Nike running shoes are a product made by the Nike brand.
So a Nike running shoe ad on the telly would be advertising. Branding in Naomi Kleins opinion I think (little help?) is when a brand name like Nike or Kelloggs (or even Boards.ie ) try in embed themselves in a culture, purely to generate profit.

Everybody recognises the Nike Swoosh. But it doesn't represent a running shoe or a sweat top made by Nike. It just represents the Nike company or brand, and it's so embedded in our culture at this stage that even a Nike Swoosh tatoo is considered cool. With branding they're trying to achieve the concept that Nike don't so much make sport products but Nike ARE sports. So if your into sports you need to buy the Nike brand and it's products as Nike are sports.

So you are wearing the Nike brand but the brand is seperate from the individual products it makes. Nike could use their brand to sell cars or computers. And they'd sell well as everybody knows and loves Nike. It doesn't matter what it is, it's Nike.
Confused now? Because I am *rubs temples*

Anyway, read the book. It's an eye opener. I'll never watch Friends in the same way again.

[This message has been edited by Evil Phil (edited 29-06-2001).]

Evil Phil

<after thought>
It's kind of like Kelloggs are cornflakes. When somebody says cornflakes, I think of Kellogs. Was that the point you were making?
</after thought>



[This message has been edited by Evil Phil (edited 29-06-2001).]

Ri-ra

I understand what you are saying...

I just disagree. Judging by what I've read so far in the book, I think that Klein wanders into a sort of metaphysics of branding that doesn't hold water when translated into certain sectors of production. Separating the product from the brand might work for making something lo-tech like a Nike shoe, but what about intellectual property rights for hi-tech products/ processes?

Start up companies have to pay royalties for knowledge owned by other companies-- as with Intel and its chip technology, or Monsanto and its GM seeds. Intellectual property rights issues are there to _ensure_ that there is no getting the product away from its "brand." I think Klein misses the boat on this front. And don't get me started on the role of finance.

I suppose it boils down to this: I prefer Walden Bello's analysis of the current crisis of over-production in global capitalism.

[This message has been edited by Ri-ra (edited 29-06-2001).]

Ri-ra

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evil Phil:
<after thought>
It's kind of like Kelloggs are cornflakes. When somebody says cornflakes, I think of Kellogs. Was that the point you were making?
</after thought>

[This message has been edited by Evil Phil

(edited 29-06-2001).]</font>

I just tried to sum up your differentiation between brand and product by saying that you can eat a cornflake, but you can't eat the brand name "Kellogg's." No bowl in the world would be big enough :P

Anyhow, another aspect of this whole discussion has to do with the politics of resentment as well. Klein makes it very clear that she resented having her (anti-capitalist) politics taken over by corporations. If it's one thing I admire about the book, it's her own effort to try and get those politics back.

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">People defaced other advertisements, but not for the big boys-the brand heroes of the uneducated subculture</font>

Anyway, brands are defended by people not directly attached to the company. Does this strike anyone as odd?

[This message has been edited by JustHalf (edited 30-06-2001).]

DadaKopf

why doesnt the moderator move this to Humanities now...?

Evil Phil

I think I'll bow out of this now.

Evil Phil

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:
Anyway, brands are defended by people not directly attached to the company. Does this strike anyone as odd?

</font>

Maybe I won't bow out. Yes this does strike me as odd, but that's the power of branding.

Ri-ra

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evil Phil:
I think I'll bow out of this now.</font>

Hey Phil- didn't mean to upset you. Apologies if I did. I've said my piece.

rowan

Anyone read Culture Jam by Kalle Lasn, or Adbusters magazine? see www.adbusters.org

It predates No Lego, and provides a solution, an alternative - it's a street manual for taking back those cultural spaces ransacked by corporate brandwashing. Most people moan about stuff, then just go home and get assimilated into their tv every night. Lasn gets out on the street (and has thousands across the globe doing likewise) and f***s over corporate ad space in favour of social celebration.
see also www.subvertise.org

[This message has been edited by rowan (edited 05-07-2001).]