Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Books Media Book Reviews

No Logo: Taking Aim At The Brand Bullies 318

Posted by timothy from the pardon-me-are-those-bugle-boy-jeans? dept.
Quick - how many brand names or logos are visible on the outside of your clothing? Your computer equipment? Have you ever noticed a Red Hat bumper sticker? Warren A. Layton sent us an interesting review of No Logo which will have you examining your surroundings for just such signs. Depending on your bent, you may also be reminded of the character Francisco d'Anconia in Atlas Shrugged when he declares "The coats-of-arms of our day are to be found on billboards and in the ads of popular magazines."

No Logo: Taking Aim At The Brand Bullies
author Naomi Klein
pages 490
publisher Knopf (Canada), Picador USA (US), Flamingo (UK)
rating 9
reviewer Warren A. Layton
ISBN 0-312-20343-8
summary The author takes on the The Big Brands from many different angles.This goes beyond just buying "sweatshop-free" clothes to such issues as reclaiming public space and attacking corporate manipulation.

The Scenario

At first glance, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies may seem like the same-old rant against Nike. Upon reading the introduction, I realized that this was something more powerful and more interesting. The author picks apart the nature of these brand bullies to give us a better understanding of their mentality, what they hope to achieve and what exactly they're doing to accomplish all their goals. Obviously, some names will come up quite often (such as Nike, Disney, The Gap, Wal-Mart, Starbucks and Microsoft, just to name a few). However, she doesn't just stop at "Nike is bad because of the sweatshop labor practices" - she analyzes the company's marketing strategies, its sponsorship deals, its "charity" work and its influence in the classroom. Klein takes a look at each scenario from many different angles and backs up each of her observations with a multitude of examples and real world experiences.

The book is divided into four sections: 'No Space,' 'No Choice,' 'No Jobs' and 'No Logo.' 'No Space' is about the cluttering of our public spaces with ads; 'No Choice' describes different tactics used by big-name brands to drive independent retailers out of business; 'No Jobs' takes aim at sweatshop labour but with the corporations' "Brand, not products!" mentality in mind (it also includes details of Klein's trip to an Export Processing Zone just south of Manila); finally, 'No Logo' documents the global movement against branding and many of the organizations and people behind the revolt. It is also noted that while globalization is considered by many to be Pure Evil (tm), it has allowed this movement against multinational corporations to spread across the globe much more quickly and efficiently.

What's Bad?

To be honest, there is very little that I didn't like about this book. However, there was one little thing that I did notice, but it was not detrimental to my reading enjoyment.

Although my opinion is obviously biased, I was disappointed that there was no mention of Free Software or some other not-for-profit projects that benefit everyone. I find that many of the corporate ties within the Free Software community are very much along the lines of Klein's notion of an ideal balance between corporations and communities. It should be noted, however, that the most recent example in the book is dated June 1999, so it's possible that the word "Linux" hadn't reached Klein's ears by that time (except for some of the IPO hype).

When Klein starts talking about rebellious movements across North America, Europe and beyond, I was hoping for something like Free Software. In other words, I wanted to read about some sort of alternative that is being offered by these anti-brand revolutionaries. What I found were Adbusters that go around defacing billboards and ravers that take over downtown streets for day-long parties. I'm not disputing the message that these movements began with; they both are tools that are being used to reclaim some of the public space. In the end, though, that's all they are: tools. They can be easily used for the wrong reasons by the wrong people. Fortunately, Klein is quick to point this out and doesn't shy away from pointing out both good and bad aspects of each.

What's Good?

Klein's fluid writing style really shines throughout this book and her arguments are sharp and well targeted. The result is a a text that holds together extremely well. Even when Klein seems to be going off on a tangent, she is really just taking a different perspective on the issue of branding. Dividing the book into four sections also allows for great reading, because both author and reader can focus on a specific issue in each part. This encapsulation is almost flawless; Klein manages to tackle each individual chapter with different arguments without ever losing sight of her primary goal.

Another impressive aspect of this book is the sheer number of examples that Klein discusses. Each chapter is packed with examples that support her claims, with each one being examined quite thoroughly. The amount of research that went into this book is nothing short of phenomenal (although there is no shortage of corporate horror stories these days). Klein's interviews with workers in the Cavite export processing zone vividly illustrate the difference between what we see in stores and what happens behind the scenes. None of this is news to us: we have all read about Nike's sweatshop labour practices. However, this book digs further to attempt to uncover the true motivations behind these practices and how they are still possible despite the public's disapproval.

I found that each section contained one exceptional chapter. In 'No Space,' "The Branding of Learning" (chapter 4) is simply wonderful, especially for people still in school (like myself). You'll read about grade school kids making Nike sneakers as "an educational experience" and a 19-year-old student being suspended for wearing a Pepsi shirt on "Coke Day." In 'No Choice,' "Corporate Censorship" (chapter 8) should be of interest to most Slashdot readers. Much of this probably won't be as shocking to you, but it's really pleasant to read it from somone on "the outside" that truly gets it. In "No Jobs," "The Discarded Factory" (chapter 9) offers the same old shocking facts about sweatshop labour with a fresh perspective which only makes the situation seem worse. The whole "No Logo" section is wonderful, with the exceptions stated above in "What's Bad?"

So What's In It For Me?

If you have been paying close attention to the big brands and some of their dubious business practices, much of the examples won't be news to you. Some of the events that are described have already been covered by investigative TV reports such as 20/20 and Dateline as well as many major magazines. However, I still think you would enjoy the points that Klein raises and how she ties everything together into a well thought-out package.

If you are like me and you're not as familiar with these events, this book is a must read. It will guide you through some of the events surrounding Nike, Disney, The Gap and other multinationals throughout the past decade and let you know where we stand today. Students should especially like "No Space," especially with the commercialisation on campus and in the classroom.

For more information, I suggest that you take a look at the following Web sites:

Table of Contents

  1. No Space - New Branded World
  2. No Space - The Brand Expands: How the Logo Grabbed Center Stage
  3. No Space - Alt.Everything: The Youth Market and the Marketing of Cool
  4. No Space - The Branding of Learning: Ads in Schools and Universities
  5. No Space - Patiarchy Gets Funky: The Triumph of Identity Marketing
  6. No Choice - Brand Bombing: Franchises in the Age of the Superbrand
  7. No Choice - Mergers and Synergy: The Creation of Commercial Utopias
  8. No Choice - Corporate Censorship: Barricading the Branded Village
  9. No Jobs - The Discarded Factory: Degraded Production in the Age of the Superbrand
  10. No Jobs - Threats and Temps: From Working for Nothing to "Free Agent Nation"
  11. No Jobs - Breeding Disloyalty: What Goes Around, Comes Around
  12. No Logo - Culture Jamming: Ads Under Attack
  13. No Logo - Reclaim the Streets
  14. No Logo - Bad Moon Rising: The New Anticoporate Activism
  15. No Logo - The Brand Boomerang: The Tactics of Brand-Based Campaigns
  16. No Logo - A Tale of Three Logos: The Swoosh, the Shell and the Arches
  17. No Logo - Local Foreign Policy: Students and Communities Join the Fray
  18. No Logo - Beyond the Brand: The Limits of Brand-Based Politics
  19. Conclusion - Consumerism Versus Citizenship: The Fight for Global Commons

Purchase this book at Fatbrain.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies More

No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies

Comments Filter:

  • That's why I've never (and I mean never) bought a t-shirt that had a logo on it. I buy plain t-shirts (the ones that are exactly the same as the expensive ones, except for not having logos and, well, not being expensive). I do indeed own several shirts that have logos, but they were given to me free, as promotions, at my last job.

    I don't get angry at Tommy Hillfinger and Nike for selling hyperexpensive t-shirts...I mock them and regard people using the logos on their clothes to assert social status (and the people this works on) as pathetic.

  • Old navy is a subsidiary of the gap, if I recall correctly.
  • In sight of me there are:
    7 Sprite logos (cans)
    1 7 up logo (can)
    2 brainbench (certificates)
    2 fujitsu (ledger and water bottle)
    1 Chick-fil-a cup
    1 fedex box
    1 ericsson mini volleyball
    1 microsoft koosh yo yo
    1 tadpole sparc laptop
    14 sun microsystems logos
    (2 monitors, 3 keyboards, 2 mice, 2 ultras,
    2 copies of solaris 8, 1 solaris 7,
    1 external tape drive and 1 external cd drive)
    Strange how microsoft managed to get their logo
    even into my little intel-free world.
  • Clothes, like many other products, are purchased for at least 4 reasons.

    Status - Tokens of status are an integral part of society, every culture has them. A natural "pecking-order" come from status symbols. Because the status afforded by certain brands is immediately apparent, the pecking-order can still be maintained by visual (or some other sensory) cues as it has for every species of every animal that exists in a social paradigm. As any animal behaviorist will tell you status = offspring. Now, who doesn't want more sex? (Those who believe there is no nature in the nature v. nurture argument, can argue this point with me. All others must cede this argument)

    Utility - The difference between us and (virtually all) animals is that we find utility in our environment. Those of us who find our status in computers (ie, I run Linux on a Pentium XXII 3000THz with 44 exabytes, etc.-- knowing that we have no real use for so much power except to drive games) will purchase other things for utility. Choosing where you wish to show your status (bank account, portfolio, BMW, Open Source Movement, community activism, Gap jeans, etc.), the others will be, more or less, be sought in terms of utility. Further, we believe that our cause (or statement of status) is just and right. Otherwise, why would we do it? Therefore, everything else is not as good. (otherwise we would be showing our status there)

    Necessity - somethings are subjective in this category (ie email, car, house, phone, radio) whereas others are objective (food, water, air, exercise). These things we purchase what works--not what works best. This is not to say some people do not show status here. It just means that people like me who excercise poorly, have a two-bit radio, and drink soda Do not do so for utility, but out of necessity. I eat for utility--sometimes for status (ie Duck at Thanksgiving, swordfish steak, Chocolate Charlotte) since I enjoy cooking.

    Enjoyment - Going to movies, renting movies, listening to music, watching TV, playing ball, etc.

    The purpose of advertisement is to:

    Point out the necessity of the object (I gotta have the product)

    Point out the utility of the object (I gotta have this particular product because it is the best of its knid)

    Point out the status of the object (I gotta have this product because look at all the half naked women) (Even women's ads feeature half naked or attractive women)

    Point out how much fun the object is (Self explanatory)

    The problem exists in "puffery." This is a legal term meaning that hyperbole can be used in advertisement and pitching. No puffery can exist in legal offers.

    Unfortunately, people on this website tend to be more educated (in at least computers, et al.). That means we tend to have a more logical thought process (as opposed to imaginative). Further, posters here tend to be more motivated. More motivation equals more research and, perhaps, a conscious. So we research more, apply logic more and are not easily duped by puffery. We, as slashdotters, are an extreme minority (

  • It's been ages since I bought a new car, but I tell you, one thing I hate is blowing several grand on a new car and having the dealer pop-rivet a hole in your trunk to affix their logo on it with some inane saying like "If you didn't buy from ___ you paid too much."

    Before I sign a new-car contract I specifically ensure that the following clause is added: "This contract will be considered null and void with no monetary loss to purchaser if dealer defaces car by affixing their dealer logo to vehicle in any form."

    They grumble a lot about it being their company policy, but no salesman will risk losing a commission over something so petty if you stick to your guns.

  • It is my observation that in the United States of America, it is the brand name that becomes the dominant product, and too often the product in question is inferior. Other countries do not follow this boneheadness.
  • So why does the book No Logo have a logo on it's cover?

    Seems to say "I don't want logos cluttering up my world, but by the way, here's mine to put in you bookshelf."
  • Quite right, and a good point I missed.

    -Ben
  • Yeah, I loved the Nike swoosh footprint on the moon. Oh God, Nike again! Their brand recognition has really been /.ed today.

  • No, truly expensive and fasionable clothing has something perhaps better - wearers who will tell the name of the manufacturer to those who so much as look at the outfit.

    "Hi, new suit?"
    "Yeah, it's," and then that subtle emphasis, "Armani/Gucci/Whatever."

  • [insert ad here]
  • Now is this post an advertisement, or what?
  • I think it's a matter of choice. You *really* could live somewhere and not be bombarded by 'brand'. Many of us simply choose to live in places where it becomes very fiscally worthwhile for corporations to plaster 'brand' icons all over the place. If you lived in a rural area you could escape much of this except for those brands that pertain to your rural context, i.e. Monsanto. These, I believe it's safe to say, would be fewer.

    Just turn off the TV. Have friends over and talk, play games, build relationships, etc. You can escape brand.

    If you choose to live in a heavily populated area just look around and see power lines and directional signs cluttering up just as much space as brand. We ignore them all and have trained ourselves to know which signs are important given our current context. I'll bet that most of us do the same with brand icons.

  • Logos (Score:1)

    by Stavr0 ( 35032 )
    From left to right, in my field of vision right now.
    AST, Intel Inside, Windows, Dell, iPlanet(banner), Eveready (Cat9), IBM, O'Reilly
    ---
  • for those who wish to directly improve wages and working conditions for some third world workers ASAP, focusing on a rich high profile company is the right thing to do.

    I was under the impression that people were upset that they have children working 14 hour days and that's what really pissed people off. I could be wrong.

    numb
  • Lots of people think they're immune to ad saturation. [shrug] Who knows, maybe you're one of the lucky few who aren't fooling themselves.

    It's all wrapped up in the heavily-marketed concept of pseudo-individualism that so many people -- especially USians, it seems -- suck up. Gotta be yourself ... as long as there's enough other people shelling out cash to be themselves in the same way.

    [smirk] The revolution will not be marketed.

  • ...between a kid wearing Nike gear and a techie wearing, say, Sun Microsystems shirts? Or a /. hat? I'd say we geeks are among the worst -- how many of us clamor for vendor stuff whenever possible? What about all the freebies at tradeshows?
  • Of course, this will go against the teaching of *every* marketdroid in existence....
  • Although my opinion is obviously biased, I was disappointed that there was no mention of Free Software or some other not-for-profit projects that benefit everyone. I find that many of the corporate ties within the Free Software community are very much along the lines of Klein's notion of an ideal balance between corporations and communities. It should be noted, however, that the most recent example in the book is dated June 1999, so it's possible that the word "Linux" hadn't reached Klein's ears by that time (except for some of the IPO hype).

    I see open source as less of a fight against corporatism, although many people support open source for many different reasons. Instead, I see open source as a grass-roots replacement for the lost concept of the public domain. Since copyrights have been overwhelmingly extended (95 years), and since as of 1978 all work is considered copyrighted, there is now simply no chance that any person will live long enough to freely build and expand on any non-open source software written within their lifetime without permission, which is typically not granted.

    The lack of a public domain is felt acutely in the software field. This was discussed in the "Systems Research is Dead?" thread. New research has always been based on the idea that you can build on old research. Otherwise, you spend all of your time reinventing the wheel, and never get to do anything original. This "old research" used to be the public domain, and still is for patents, which have a reasonable duration.

    Basing new research on the shoulders of Linux or BSD is functionally similar to developing new public domain works based on previous public domain works. The GPL and BSD license work as incentives for "the promotion of science and useful arts", just as the copyright laws are supposed to.

    As corporations lobby for more and more restrictive copyright laws for their own benefit, it is worth noticing that the issue is not one sided. Many people are looking for, and embracing an alternative to restrictive, proprietary intellectual property law, and the success of open source is in that it is successfully providing, using existing copyright law, a functional replacement for the lost Public Domain.

    - John

    The Internet has interpreted the DMCA as damage and is routing around it
  • It is disheartening to me that kids of such a young age are (in a way) being programmed to associate something FUN (watching Big Bird or Arthur) with the SPONSORSHIP of a large corporation.

    I don't understand what is scary about this. Should kids just thing the TV fairy produces TV shows, or that they just appear out of the aether? Or should they realize everybody has to pay for something?
  • . And we can kid ourselves that we are too sophisticated or cynical to be manipulated by the aspirational aspect - but we do it every time we make a purchasing decision.

    Speak for yourself...who are you to say what goes into my mental processes?
  • I Am Not Poor

    http://www.theonion.com/onion3604/name_brand_clo thing.html

  • think! THINK! (Score:4)

    by kevin lyda ( 4803 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @07:09AM (#1015828) Homepage
    "ew, logos are bad!"

    oh gack.

    you'll want /., the penguin, wilbur, copyleft, the various daemons, mozilla, etc, etc gone too, right?

    some people make pretty doodles, other people buy them and try to associate them with whatever their thing is, and a slew of other people like being able to associate that design with that thing.

    a logo is no more evil then a name - except of course that they have to be sent as attachments.

    logos can be cute, just like any other type of art. now what some evil bastards that use logos do with them and what they've attached to that logo is a whole other kettle of fish.

  • Symbols vs. Logos (Score:3)

    by Some Dumbass... ( 192298 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @08:14AM (#1015831)
    Perhaps we should distinguish between symbols and logos. If I wear the United States flag on my shirt, am I wearing a "logo"? Probably not. A flag is a symbol of a nation, but calling it a "logo" sounds wrong. But patriotic types will still wear stars-and-stripes patterned clothes as evidence of their patriotism.

    Any symbol can be used as "a shorthand for what the wearer/user wants others to think of them". But not all symbols are logos. Is the source code of DeCSS a logo? No, but if it appears on someone's shirt it tells you something about what the wearer wants you to think of them. The Red Hat "Shadowman" is a logo, but I'm not so sure that Tux is, and certainly any old stuffed pengiun is not. But if that stuffed penguin is sitting on top of my monitor at work, it's a symbol, and it's meaningful, without being a logo.

    Be careful when bashing logos. Don't trash symbolism in general just because some companies try to market themselves as a brand and use their symbols to represent that brand.

  • That's not sad. If people are so stupid they can't set their priorities properly, whose fault is that?

  • At our school, coke day was every friday, the rest of the week we bummed out and had to smoke crack or crank (meth)

    I don't think any of us would care if someone came in with a pepsi shirt on.

  • Everyone wears A&F so I must wear A&F to be more like everyone. Again this is because A&F makes it extremely convenient to say "I like A&F" while there is no easy way to say "I don't give a poop about A&F" or "I abhor A&F".

    The only bad advertising is none at all.

    When you see a disparaging remark, you read "A&F sucks because they're cheap trendy commercial pigs."

    After five minutes, all the typical Amreican can remember is "A&F sucks." They're not sure why, but it really does.

    After ten? All they remember is "A&F." After all, it must be a pretty cool place if they keep thinking about it.

    . . . and the advertising has done it's job, even if that's not what the wearer may have intended. Better advertising through short-term memory.

    --

  • It's not free, it's just paid for with a different currency.

    Heh. Yes, my favorite kind: somebody else's currency. :)

    Seriously, if you are capable of ignoring advertisement (and most of us are these days), then what Tiger Woods wears on his hat is completely irrelevent to you.

    Logo advertising and "branding" ads, from the Mickey Mouse shadow to last year's Gap ads featuring Luscious Jackson, are not made to sell us their stuff. Pepsi and Coke are two of the biggest advertisers out there, but their ads don't ever get anybody to switch colas... people still drink the one they like. The real reason for these ads is to raise stock value. If a company seems to be omnipresent, investors get a warm, fuzzy feeling about buying shares in them.

    Nike is fully aware that you will not buy their shoes just to "be like Mike". A few suckers, maybe, but not most of us. Most people buy athletic gear based on things like comfort, fit, durability, and looks. "Can I work out in these and not get blisters?" is the question that matters.

    However, the myth of unwashed masses spending their lunch money on Air Jordans serves Nike very, very well. It creates the impression that they have a product that everybody is salavating for, which raises their market value.

    The irony is that pundits who rant about Nike paying Jordan big bucks to rip people off serves Nike's purpose, too. Wall Street types see these rants and say, "wow! Nike is selling $2.50 sneakers to every ghetto kid in America for $175 a pop and getting away with it because everybody loves Michael Jordan... I gotta get in on that action!"

    Any actual sales generated by a branding campaign are just icing on the cake.

  • "The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism"

    By Thomas Frank University of Chicago Press, 287 pages

    Thank you! That was it excactly.

    It's astounding how many people think that the "casual Friday" trend of the 90's was the result of workers refusing to wear ties and suit-coats every day, instead of clothes companies trying to sell more Dockers(tm).

  • And then there is the class, in which I belong, which wears only jeans and witty and/or cheezy t-shirts which are bought exclusively online.

    (writting while wearing my "geek." shirt...)

    My wardrobe is too small...I still have a list of shirts from shinymonkey, copyleft and thinkgeek to purchase yet.
  • Interesting nonsense about defacing billboard: "They can be easily used for the wrong reasons by the wrong people. Fortunately, Klein is quick to point this out and doesn't shy away from pointing out both good and bad aspects of each." Deface Nike billboard -- good Deface RedHat billboard -- bad F------ hypocrite
  • If you thought you were cool because you were no brands, in this Salon piece "Consumed by consumption [salon.com]" you will learn that you are just telling "I am so rich that I don't have to buy class with brands"
    __
  • You can laugh about marketrdroids and how stupid it is that people wear Tommy H. T-shirts, but in general marketing *works*. There are thousands of really good bands out there who sell a couple of CDs every time they play at a local club or coffee house. In general, nobody seeks out these bands. People buy CDs from Moby and whoever else is on the end rack at Borders. Yeah, Moby is good, rock on and all that, but much of the success comes from going through a corporation and having a team of marketdroids come up with ad campaigns for Rolling Stone. If he were an independent who refused to go through major labels, he would be another local hero and not a worldwide phenomenon (examples of people who tried to eschew corporate record labels: Dave Alvin, Sarah Hickman).

    If you want to rail against marketing, then you have to avoid mainstream movies and music, and not just Windows, because it's the same sort of thing. Someone is choosing what you have access to and you're buying it. A typical Slashdot attitude is "Oooh, look how underground I am because I like The Simpsons and X-Files and read Neal Stephenson." That's exactly the same as wearing Tommy T-shirts, but for geeks.
  • Actually, they might not know to put the plate on themselves. Last week, I took my car in for its 15,000 mile service and there was a woman with her license plates in her hand. She had set an appointment to get them put on. Nothing else. That makes your statement even more sad.

    LetterJ

  • ...Tommy Hilfiger t-shirts...

    I see these now on very scraggly individuals -- homeless and people in grunt jobs. One of the reasons to stay away from "branded" clothes is that anyone can wear them...so the associations with the brand aren't always positive.

    Paul Fussel wrote a great little book named Class. In it, he pointed out that people in the lower-middle to middle social class tends to wear larger logos, including things that say where they went on vacation...as if they wanted everyone to know that they had actually gone on vacation.

    Upper classes tend not to wear any logo-ed clothes since they had custom made clothes or had no need to promote themselves with such gaudyness.

    (Fussel does point out that class has little to do with wealth, though there are trends!)


  • I am surpised there marketing department didn't get all over and nasty with that sisuation

    "Cut off you testicales, drink some cough syrup tell you past out, dilluate yourself into thing God comes in the form of a space ship and then kill yourself with 12 other people. Some say this is crazy, nike says... "

    Just Do It

    "Nike, supporter of the mentally instable since 1945"

  • Re:Class Shibboleths (Score:3)

    by goliard ( 46585 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @10:59AM (#1015865)

    Indeed there is.

    The clever reader will have noted that I mentioned Fussell's schema had 12 classes, and I discussed the four lower classes, three middle classes and the four upper classes.

    The remaining class, "class X", of people who prefer to consider themselves outside the class system. The bohemians, if you will. These people who elect to wear clothing which gives neutral, mixed, or ambiguous class signs.

    Wearing such t-shirts might be indicitive of that.

    However, by Fussell's paradigm, the fact that you managed to work mention of the three brands of T-shirt you value into a conversation of how you don't wear clothing with brands strongly suggests you possess that class insecurity common of people in the middle class. :)


    ----------------------------------------------

  • Re:Yea! I loved Atlas Shrugged! (Score:5)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @08:32AM (#1015866)
    Actually, there was a very good book a couple years ago (I wish I could remember the title) about how all this "individualism" and "anti-corporatism" was the direct and intended result of corporate campaigns of the 50's and 60's.

    Specifically, they mentioned the Volkswagon Beetle as one of the products behind introducing the "hippie" philosophy to the zeitgeist. Record companies and other medea corporations provided a lot of the drive as well. We can hear echo's of it in Apple Computer's "for the rest of us" and "think different" ads, and in products like Fruitopia, Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, and CD's from Geffin Records.

    Gather any 10 "anti-corporate" Unix geeks at random, and 8 of them will be wearing Doc Martins. Rage Against The Machine fans pay through the nose for "Free Leonard Peltier" T-shirts. The rise of body piercing has created whole now markets for selling jewelry. Homeopathy and "alternative medicine" rakes in millions by getting people to trust their herbalist more than their family doctor.

    The thesis of the book boiled down to the fact that there really is no revolution, but it is being marketed anyway.

    Counterculture, as it exists today, was invented to sell us stuff.

  • This argument always comes up every other month with people, albeit this is the first time its appeared on /. My whole outlook on it is, if you don't care, then it goes away. When i buy clothes, i buy them because they are neat, or just feel right. I dont care where in the hell they come from. In fact, most of my t-shirts, as I'm betting is the same with a lot of other /.'s, are free. I wear them because they are free. Yes I have t-shirts with logo's and corporate messages, but I dont really consider it. Why does it really matter?
    Example: As of right now im wearing a t that says GIVE BLOOD, PLAY RUGBY in huge letters on the back, on the front (in little letters) it says Rugby Imports. Did i buy it because it said rugby imports? No! I bought it because i like rugby! Would i consider buying more stuff from rugby imports? Sure, they make good t-shirts.
    For those of you in college, i think you understand me when I say, "It doesn't really matter! Just give me the free t-shirt!" That's really how it goes.
    Okay, now do I go out and buy Abercrombie and Fitch, or Gucci, or even polo? No. Why? Because i could care less what the logo says and if it is that much more expensive to wear, then i won't, and I am betting most of you don't wear it either. But I bet most /.'s wear sneakers (probably Nike), because that is the geek motif.
    What is the geek motif? Comfortability I say. That means t-shirt, jeans, sneakers. Not complicated, and definitely not the most stylish, but cheap and cozy. T-shirt can have nothing, can have everything, but I bet you couldn't tell me what labels you are wearing right now without checking.
    Which brings me right back to the beginning of my argument, which simply was, "I [insert we if you want] don't care." We might care about the honest, hard working indeginous people of wherever when we are challenged think about it, but most of the time are label's our Intel, Microsoft, GNU, Linus (fish -- which i have), etc. And we have every right to support and dis those, because they apply to us. So feel free to show a company your support, just have a valid reason why, not just "because it costs more", because on slashdot, everything is FREE!

    Thank you for reading my stream of conscious

  • What EXACTLY is the objection to, for instance, people wearing brand names?

    Personally, my objection is to being coerced into wearing what consitutes an advertisement, especially if I also have to pay a premium price for the garment. Anything bigger than a Levi's hip pocket tag renders an item of cloting undesireable for me. Usually, I could care less what others are wearing, and I think it has actually become a statement to wear clothes that don't display any brandname or logo.

    For the record, I do intentionally wear logos or trademarks of things I genuinely endorse, such as the EFF, User Friendly, or my own employer. But it's an honest choice, not a compliance with whatever fashion trend is mandated by my peers.

    But then there's the issue of being inundated with advertisements. I don't always empathize with this one, but I understand it well. Some people feel that it cheapens any experience to see a brand name, logo, or sponsor's slogan displayed too prominently in connection with the event. (Although in some events, like auto racing and soap operas, it has a long tradition.) Being constantly subjected to people wearing unignorable brand names ("Hilfiger" comes to mind) is just another chip out of their lives' integrity.

  • Re:Yea! I loved Atlas Shrugged! (Score:3)

    by georgeha ( 43752 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @08:44AM (#1015878) Homepage
    Actually, there was a very good book a couple years ago (I wish I could remember the title) about how all this "individualism" and "anti-corporatism" was the direct and intended result of corporate campaigns of the 50's and 60's.

    You're probably thinking of

    "The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism"
    By Thomas Frank University of Chicago Press, 287 pages

    The review is at Salon. [salon.com]

    George

  • ad environment (Score:3)

    by Jamie Zawinski ( 775 ) <jwz@jwz.org> on Thursday June 08, 2000 @08:46AM (#1015880) Homepage

    There was a great photo in the spring issue of Adbusters [adbusters.org] (but unfortunately they don't have the photo online.) It was a shot of a typical suburban mini-mall intersection, with all of the text and logos airbrushed out, so that all that remained was the shapes of the signs. It was very eerie: it looked almost normal, but something was just not quite right... it took a while of looking at it to realize what was going on.

    Ads are so much a part of our world now that when they're gone, it feels like something's gone wrong. Creepy...

  • Heh. I remember that. Funny. :)

    Incidentally: the Adidas company took its name from the name of its founder, Adi Dassler [iastate.edu], and not after the whole sex thing. Adi's brother Rudolf also went on to form his own shoe company, but rather than use his own name, he decided to name the company after an animal [puma.com].
  • Quick - how many brand names or logos are visible on the outside of your clothing?
    None.

    The whole concept of paying money to a corportion to advertise for them has seemed rediculous to me for years (I'm 24, must be getting old, losing it). I was in town with some people when someone with "tommy hilfinger" written all over the back of their jacket walked in front of us - I wasn't the only one who smiled at their expense. This Tommy Hilfinger thing has only recently arrived in New Zealand - who is this guy? Is Tommy fictional? A sports star? Some suited gimp who laughs all the way to the bank or what?

    Anyway, in hindsight, learning to fully trust my own sense of style has been surprisingly empowering* [slashdot.org]. I don't have any labels on my jeans mainly because quick-unpicks are fun and addictive, but also because having a brown square sewn on the back of black jeans looks silly (sillier if you don't wear a belt to cover it). If you trust your sense of what looks good (as opposed to what brand is in fashion etc) it liberates you from all of this, however I should warn you that it may make you pretentious - you may start looking down on the plebs who pay money to wear branded clothes.

    While scoffing at the people who wear their insecurities on the outside may be bad for your personality, it could grow to be a blow against the brand bullies. I however wont be leading that blow :), I'm not religious enough - I think stupidity is it's own reward : ).

    And now to offend the slashdotters, I think the coffee club is similar - people go out of their way to brand themselves as coffee drinkers, little things like animated steaming coffee mug icons for an hourglass, mugs with images proclaiming coffee club membership. You've probably never noticed how much effort coffee drinkers put into being recognised but you might now (I like coffee, but the club...)

    * I really hate that word, I'm sorry to use it but I couldn't think of a closer word. It's normally so meaningless - for most people it seems that all you to have to do to become empowered is to say "I am empowered" or "I feel empowered", and magically you are.

  • Violence only breeds violence (Score:3)

    by Fnordulicious ( 85996 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @11:24AM (#1015894) Homepage
    Violence against corporations in the form of destroying or defacing their advertising is a completely useless and indeed inconscionable act. It is akin to the firebombing of corporations in the late 60s, a purely destructive act with no results other than enhancing the perpetrator's ego and harming innocent drones who work for the target corporations. Perhaps no innocents are harmed during spraypainting of billboards (I won't mention overspray ;-), but all this does is show to the public at large that someone doesn't like the company who placed the advertisement.

    The general public typically isn't smart enough to make complex assumptions like "Gee, that Nike billboard covered with spraypaint must mean that someone is protesting the advertising saturation practices of Nike." No, instead they think "Gee that Nike billboard is covered with spraypaint. That must mean some evil gang members crawled up there in a drug frenzy and marked their territory." The ordinary populace is, as I keep reminding everyone, the dumbest people you'll ever meet. They don't make logical leaps in their thought processes, but instead try to reform the world in a shape that they're comfortable with. Never understimate the stupidity of the average human being.

    The harmful part of this anti-advertising violence is that corporations, once provoked by such activities, will make attempts to bring the perpetrators to justice for the willful destruction of private property, a crime that is unquestionable in the courts. Anti-abortion protesters aren't allowed to spraypaint nasty messages on the automobiles owned by gynaecologists who perform abortions, and by the same account it's equally illegal to spraypaint billboards. There's no question of free speech rights here. And remember that corporations are absolutely ruthless when it comes to prosecuting someone -- they'll pull out their army of bloodthirsty, slavering lawyers to beat you into a pulp and twist the judge's arms until they sentence you with the maximum possible sentence and award punitive damages to the corporation plus legal fees and your indentured servitude for five years in their shoe factory in Malaysia.

    Violence is, as usual, not the answer. It is nothing but a poor, victimizing form of instant gratification. I'm not going to offer anything as satisfying as violence, however; there is little more satisfying than pillaging an enemy village and raping its women, taking its children as slaves.

    Instead, I offer a more peaceful form of activism. When you see a friend wearing a billboard on their head or chest or the like, mention it to them. Ask them why they feel the need to pay money to advertise for a company that makes much more money than they'll ever see. Ask them why they feel that they need to identify with a corporation that has never given a fid for their best interests, indeed is only interested in the latest profit figures. Convince them that they should do the same for their friends, and actively avoid wearing brand names themselves, even if it means buying a new wardrobe of advertising-free clothing. If enough people actually begin communicating like this the idea of having big corporate brands pasted across your chest will begin to seem ridiculous (it always has to me).

    Obstructionist tactics work well too. When your local city government reviews an application for construction of a billboard, show up at the open hearing if there is one and argue the case against. If there isn't an open hearing, protest against the government for not holding open hearings on billboard construction. When you see yet another billboard that you don't like, give the corporation's local representative (if there is one) a call and complain that the billboard is ugly and lacks taste. Come up with other irritating complaints to waste their time and money. Write letters to the local paper about how the billboards you see are annoying or disgusting. Above all, find some way to waste the corporation's time and money on frivolous complaints about their billboards -- this hits them where it really hurts them, in their profit margin.

    Thankfully, the billboard problem has never reared its ugly head in Alaska. This state has laws specifically targeting billboards. The people who live here enjoy the beautiful scenery of this state and do not wish to be confronted with ugly billboards every time they turn around. In fact, the construction and renting/leasing of billboards is illegal, and signage built on private property has to conform with certain regulations on size and placement. All of this is to prevent the construction of billboards. Places like California are probably too far gone to consider enacting laws such as these, and the community there is probably too complacent to worry about advertising saturation, but perhaps other states with less advanced cases of saturation can look into enacting laws modeled on those of Alaska's. I can't describe how refreshing it is to return home to a billboard-free land after having spent time in the advertising saturated lands of America.

  • At the venerable University of Toronto [utoronto.ca], where she used to irritate the hell out of me by asking ignorant and offtopic questions in my Shakespeare class and wrote/edited for the school paper, The Varsity, which was only a little less liberal than Pravda.

    How the hell she got a publishing deal is beyond me. It hardly seems like an original topic, this one's been hashed around for years.

    I will go back to gnashing my teeth now.....

  • Then why not jeans? They are more comfortable than "casual" pants, less likely to wrinkle, look nice, and everybody already owns some. Yet most "casual friday" dress codes did not allow demim.

    What you may not understand is that the corporations didn't do this because people like you went to them and said "I don't like ties, and I want to wear Dockers... but only one day a week, and no blue jeans, I can't stand being allowed to wear blue jeans! Also, keep making me wear a tie on Monday through Friday."

    Back around 1990 or so, when companies were stuggling to find "intangible" (re: free) ways of improving employee retention, several clothing companies sponsored "surveys" which showed that employees would be more likely to stay at a job if they could wear casual clothes one day a week. Some of the surveys even said it would be a "major factor" in deciding where to work, even if it meant taking a job that payed less.

    These surveys were rigged, of course. It was all about selling tan pants, designer colored socks, and golf shirts.

    Casual Fridays suck, and Scott Adams got a few Dilbert strips out of them.

    Mind you, being forced to put on a tie every day also sucked, but at least you could get by owning 5 identical oxfords, two jackets, and a hanger full of ties. The change meant you still had to own the jackets and ties, but also had to buy a closet full of polo shirts, or banded collars, or whatever.

    Fortunately, the economy boomed again in the mid 90's, and a shortage of professional workers created a power shift. Now days, most of us can wear most stuff on most days, and fewer HR departments are sending out memoes telling us what to wear. (Some companies still seem to have a problem with jeans, though... what's up with that?)

  • To become a big brand is the goal of all the small brands competing. This is the American Dream, and is quickly becoming a worldwide dream as well. Nothing wrong with that.

    Of course, power corrupts, yadda yadda yadda see microsoft, etc... Businesses do need people to keep an eye on their practices and keep them in check, otherwise they will quite happily run roughshod over each other and everyone else to maintain their position: Power is not a means. It is an end.

    Having said that, I don't think we will ever be free of large brands, nor should we want to be. Large brands can afford to put money into risky things like development and research. Smaller corporations have all they can do to produce and survive. Brands need to be managed, and perhaps replaced from time to time with newer, more "friendly" brands, who will then need to be watched as they corrupt over time.

    Its easy to be "good" when you don't have the power to be "evil".

  • I honestly don't understand it. Probably most clothing/shoe companies rely on cheap overseas labor (along with cars, industrial equipment and just about everthing else). Has Nike done something particularly bad that everyone hates them for it, or are they just being made an example of (or are they just getting smeared for no reason)?

    To quote the review: None of this is news to us: we have all read about Nike's sweatshop labour practices.

    I haven't. I've read about people protesting their labor practices, but I've never seen anything describing the results of an (impartial) check of Nike's factories, the conditions found there, and how they compare to other companies working in the same country.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • As is pointed out in this [cnet.com] C|Net article, Nike invited a number of inspectors to their manufacturing plants. The inspectors found numerous violations of workers' rights.

    Nike has pledged to better the conditions in which their workers work and have even put up a web site for people to track their progress, but I don't know where exactly that is. It's called "Transparency 101" though.

  • Really do take a look around... (Score:5)

    by xTown ( 94562 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @05:54AM (#1015917)
    ...and you'll be stunned at what you see. Go to a mall, for example. Or a high school or college campus. Start counting all of the walking billboards you see: people wearing clothes that very prominently display the name of the designer or the store they bought it from. Tommy Hilfiger t-shirts and pants are a prime example around here. Gap. Old Navy. Yeah, Nike. Guess.

    Stop counting when you reach a hundred. It won't take long.

    This is all fscked up, AFAIC. People are paying companies large sums of money (ever bought a Tommy t-shirt?) for the "privilege" of advertising for them. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

    Sounds like an interesting book. I'll have to pick it up tonight.

  • Class Shibboleths (Score:5)

    by goliard ( 46585 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @07:37AM (#1015919)

    Interesting. There is a very important thesis in the book Class by Paul Fussell which pertains here.

    He presents a paradigm of American society in which there are 12 social classes, which are as much cultures as economic brackets. One of the many things he discusses is the idea of "legible clothing", that is to say, clothing with words printed on it. Displaying the brand names on your clothing is a way of asserting which social class you belong to, or wish to belong to.

    In the four lower classes, "impressive" brands are largely inaccessible because of cost. However, when a member of the lower classes can afford clothing of such a brand, s/he gravitates towards clothing which flaunts its brand, in as big, bold letters and icons as it possibly can; this communicates to other members of the same class "I am more wealthy than you".

    The upper four classes prefer clothing with either no brands apparent or extremely subtle branding. Wearing prominent logos is vulgar. Also, this turns the identification of the brand into a test of the viewer's class: it allows the wearer to test whether they are dealing with someone familiar enough with, say, Versace gowns as to be able to tell one when they see one.

    It is the middle three classes who consume "designer" and "branded" clothing the most. They can afford it, and they are often insecure about their class status: there is nothing worse for someone in the middle classes than to be mistaken for someone in the lower classes. Wearing designer jeans, e.g., back in the 1980s, was a way for middle class school girls especially to differentiate themselves from their lower class classmates.

    For an absolutely fascinating (IMHO) look at this, check out this Salon article "Consumed by Consumption" [salon.com].

    At any point, the reason I mention this is two-fold (beyond the obvious one that it might amuse you, gentle readers).

    First, if you've ever aspired to either climb the class lader or merely become better at your Sherlock Holmes-style disguises, this provides a very nifty little heuristic. Only one part of many, but a vital part.

    Second, brand watching -- wrt people's clothing -- doesn't merely tell you the penetration of corporatism into private life. It also is an at-a-glance rough measure of the class demographics in a social environment. Analysts and pundits are always saying things like "the middle class is disappearing" etc. Well, go collect your own qualitative data. See for yourself what the class distrubution is like in your area.


    ----------------------------------------------

  • Quick Test For You (Score:5)

    by Hrunting ( 2191 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @05:54AM (#1015920) Homepage
    How many companies can you identify by their logo alone (omit word logos, like 'Microsoft' and 'IBM'). How many "open-source" software companies can you identify by their logo alone? How many "open-source" web sites? How many games?

    The 'no logo' idea is a noble one, but one which will ultimately fail. It's not just marketing, but recognition. Man has been doing it for as long as we've been painting animals on our shields so that other armies will know who we are. Self-identification is one of the key pieces of human nature and what we now call 'logos' are simply another manifestation of our nature.
  • An interview with the kid is in

    http://www.fadetoblack.com//int erviews/mikecameron/ [fadetoblack.com]

    --Hikari

  • Why no free software? It's productive! (Rant) (Score:4)

    by Frater 219 ( 1455 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @07:39AM (#1015927) Journal
    Unlike billboard vandalism and rioting, the creation and distribution of free software is a productive activity. As such, it doesn't even show up on the radar of many of today's radicals, who are more interested in smashing the existing system than in building anything new. It's my suggestion that mild-mannered, bourgeois Linus Torvalds is far more effectively radical than any spray-can-wielding Adbuster -- and that it is an effect of the nihilism of radicalism that many anticorporatists have ignored free software.

    Too much of the current radical mentality is oriented towards nihilism and violence: even professedly nonviolent radicals speak (or shriek) of "smashing" or "destroying" (rather than "reforming") the regime of which they disapprove. Because of the intensity of their utopian vision, they can see little or nothing in the current state of the world that is worth preserving. From such a view, peaceful and productive reform may seem pointless or even reactionary: a refusal to act "by any means necessary".

    (I consider myself an anticorporatist only in that I object to government granting special privileges to corporations, and to the use of these privileges to evade responsibility for human rights violations and the like. I enthusiastically support free trade and investment ("capitalism", falsely so-called), on the grounds, discussed by von Mises, that socialist command economy cannot work. I consider corporate favoritism by government to be a form, not of free trade, but of socialism, as it represents government entanglement in the economy. "Corporatism" was originally the name of the form of command economy favored by the Italian Fascists: the control of the economy by government, for the ostensible benefit of the people, through the conjoinment of government and corporate management.)

    Free software has been a significant force for progress and reform in the world. It has been essential to the creation of the Internet, which has dramatically increased the ability of individuals to publish their views to a global audience -- a privilege formerly reserved for the Hearsts and Turners of the world. Free software, in the form of email, netnews, and the Web, has enabled people to criticize governments and corporations, to call for reform, and to organize. Free software has also helped keep proprietary-software makers more honest, by giving users an alternative.

    However, free software doesn't break anything. Linus, Alan, Theo, Bruce, Eric, Richard, Larry, Guido, Ian, and company are not found smashing store windows to destroy copies of Windows 2000, nor are they found spray-painting Microsoft billboards. Yet when they do get noticed by radical publications such as Salon, they are discussed in terms of the damage their work may do to Microsoft, not in terms of the productivity it engenders.

    Smashing stuff isn't really radical. People have been smashing stuff they don't like since the cave days. Giving people new ways to speak, to work, and to live -- that's radical.

  • How we tell designers apart... (Score:3)

    by mosch ( 204 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @09:21AM (#1015934) Homepage
    Personally, I don't consider anything that consists of standard clothing with a logo on it to be designer clothing. The term 'designer' implies, to me, that somebody there's an element of design involved beyond 'embroider a logo there, and use green stitching on the top button'. Designer clothing, to me, on the casual side is stuff in the way of A|X or Diesel or what not, that you can identify without a huge logo on it. As for nicer designer clothing, I think most people who have to wear suits can quickly spot the difference between a today's man suit and a Hugo Boss or a Canali. I personally don't understand how two things came about, first of all I don't understand the urge to wear designer clothing just for it's own sake. Who wears those giant logos? They're always the cheapest things made by that designer anyway, so it's not advertising that you have enough money to wear Calvin Klein or something. They say 'I want to wear designer clothing, but all I can afford is this overpriced low-end item that offers neither additional style, nor quality'.
    ----------------------------

  • Before I sign a new-car contract I specifically ensure that the following clause is added: "This contract will be considered null and void with no monetary loss to purchaser if dealer defaces car by affixing their dealer logo to vehicle in any form."

    Agreed. I make a point of it up-front, and get some head nods before I allow them to change the subject.

    The contracts I've dealt with have had a clause saying 'buyer will ask for no $$ for logos placed on vehicle'. I've had to tell them to scratch that section out, and initial it. If they know you're serious, they will eagerly make the change to close the sale.

  • i *will* buy clothes from gap, etc as long as they don't have labels on them. why would i want to pay to advertise for them? i don't see a point in paying to advertise, we are paying them for the clothes so we can advertise.

    there are some things that i will advertise for, such as biking companies, underground bands, and videogames/anime. that is my choice, and i would support those things in some way or another, so i might as well help them out by buying a cool looking t-shirt. gap and old navy can make their money by making quality, good looking clothes with no silly logos plastered everywhere.

  • Check out SunWare [sun.com]. Yes, you can get freebies, but for the really nice stuff, they want you to pay. Many large vendors have setups like this one. And yes, many "self-respecting geeks" do wear such. I personally won't pay to advertise another company, but lots of folks will, evidently.
  • >There were 10 Nike "swishes" on each shoe.

    Fed up with Garish Labels? Loopy Logos and Big Brands? You need NEW "Label Cleaner" from Dingler & Van-den-Brauel!

    http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/first/toolbox /contest/05.html

    But wait! - Buy now, and get a FREE set of Steak Knives - absolutely FREE! For only Three Easy Installments! FREE!

    But wait! - I know you want more!

    Feeling lonely and unloved in an Increasingly Materialistic Society bent on Celebrating its Orgy of Consumption and Greed? Call 1900-PARTY! Meet new friends! Make a Date! Your first call is FREE! [calls cost $2.95 a minute, callers must be over 18]

    Unfulfilled? Consult the Heavens - 1-900-ASTRAL
    Science has shown us that the Moon is behind tides and movements of the oceans. Our bodies are over 70% water and the movements of the moon and heavens profoundly affect us. Are unsatisfied with your job? love life? Unsure where your life is heading? Call n....#$@%@#$^@

    Ah sod it. There is no skill in making fun of what is already more ridiculous than if I had made it up. I give up. Time for some McFAT.
    (Actually, that last bit is a lie, but do not let that stain the integrity of the previous promises of fulfillment, promises on which you should ACT NOW! as only the FIRST 100 CALLERS get it FREE! (and FOR FREE! as well)).

    (The character and sales pitches depicted in this message are not based on non-real productions, and any resemblence to actual marketing is strictly by design)

    WARNING: The humour in this message has been undermined and sabotaged by it being previously used in a non-humourous way in the Real World. If this wasn't such a blatent copy, it might have been funnier, however I cannot be held responsible for other people stealing my ideas before I even think of them. There Should Be A Law Or Something.

    Did I mention FREE!
    For FREE!!
    And it's FREE!

    Buy one, get TWELVE!!! That's right - TWELVE!!! exclamation marks FREE!!!!!!
  • and the point being is that you're not flaunting those logos for stauts.
    Most of the T-shirts that I own are from concerts, and serve as souveneirs of the show as well as show my support for the band. Same as if you wore a Dell shirt or O'Reilly shirt: you enjoy and support the product.
    I believe the main thrust of the book is the equating of wearing the Logo with a certain status. A girl I used to work with said her cousin in Hong Kong was always pointing out her Gucci (and other name )clothes and accessories and saying "Look! Brand name!" Obviously, she and her friends thought that it was very important to them to show their status by wearing a certain manufacturer's clothing.

    As was said before, people get jumped/robbed for wearing or not wearing certain brands of clothing. That's just retarded.

    Pope

    Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!

  • Thanks timothy! (Score:3)

    by drwiii ( 434 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @05:59AM (#1015950) Homepage
    Right when I was about to buy all this stylish merchandise [copyleft.net], too. :-)
  • "Coerced"? "have to"? These words must not mean what I think they mean.

    Coerced: As in, "you're not cool if you don't wear our clothes," or "everyone wears our clothes; you don't want to be left out," or "this logo isn't marketing, it's fashion. You want to be fashionable, don't you?" This coersion sometimes manifests in the phenomenon known as "peer pressure."

    Have To: As in, if you want this Tommy Hilfiger T-shirt, you have to pay $35. As in, if you want these Reebok Cross Trainers you have to pay $95. As in, there ain't no such thing as a free logo-bearing-lunch.

    Let me put it this way: My opinion is that I should be getting paid to do their advertising, not pay them. Surely you've encountered that position before; it can't be that foreign.

    Those are my objections. Those are the reasons why I shop at Sears and Target and pay less for clothes that do not attempt to sell more copies of themselves like some viral meme or vbs script.

    You asked for an explanation of what people object to. Or was that merely rhetorical, backed by no sincere curiosity whatsoever? Sorry to have wasted your time by expressing an answer you didn't like.

  • I've read Atlas' Shrugged, and I also read the article. We must realize that we are living in a society defined completely by material things. That is, our day to day life is molded by what we do, see, wear and eat. Ayn Rand was right, the coat-of-arms of today ARE these symbols. We are divided by symbols and their meaning. Looks at designers, religious symbols, gang symbols - all are means of defining who you are and who/what you choose to associate yourself with. Many of us associate ourselves with geek culture. Caffeine, hardware/software related tshirts - and other symbols that we use to define ourselves by. Just as many of the coat-of-arms represented common ideologies and themes, this holds true today. We use the unrelenting capitalism of our society to define ourselves by. We take these symbols from Mass Culture and adopt them into yourselves - Pop Culture. This semiotical discussion was brough to you by K.Moss, B. Gates, Linus. T and the big H. Anyone interested, John Fiske wrote a great article on semiotics, Pop Culture and Mass Culture and about all this iconography stuff. Try to find a copy online. It's worth the read. CM
  • I was thinking about this yesterday...

    I stopped by the bike shop because I had a question about my motorcycle (I am a newbie and the service manual is on order...so till I get it I have to go ask)

    While I was waiting for one of the guys to finish what he was doing I stopped in the bathroom. On the toilet was a sticker by the company that cleans the toilet for them....it had a company logo and on the bottom:

    "A publicly traded company"...isn't that nice...
    Logos logos everywhere...even on the can.

    Incidently...the only clothing with logos I buy are the logos of non-profit orgs whose causes I support. (unless it happends to be a shirt with a funny picture or something that just happens to have a logo on it...but I wear them for the funny picture...not the logo)
  • I've wanted to be able to remove the logos from various things I own, but it's not easy to do so. For example, I would like to remove all brand insignias from my car. (At least my dealer didn't add more junk to the car.) I don't feel any need to advertise for Chrysler (the car isn't that great).

  • Re:Really do take a look around... (Score:3)

    by RobSweeney ( 19353 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @06:04AM (#1015985) Homepage
    A lot of the logos-on-clothes thing is because you can't get intellectual property protection for a design or a "look" (look-and-feel perhaps?), but you can for brand names and logos. Major fashion marketers like DKNY and Tommy Hilfiger were getting killed by knockoff products, so they (skillfully IMO) made their brand and logos the status-conferring thing that people want to wear. Hilfiger couldn't do much about knockoff Tommy-ish clothes, but they can, and do, prosecute knockoff makers who infringe the Tommy logo and trademarks. Being a walking Tommy billboard says to the world, "I can afford to be fashionable", because knockoffs are, in theory, less common. Genius marketing IMO - attacks the knockoff problem _and_ has people walking around promoting your brand - and they pay you!
  • No that was The Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged is a much better book. Ayn Rand worked on the same effective story in several books and finally peaked at AS.

    But the quote in the story has nothing to do with the topic of the story. It's saying that the power, influence and whatnot that used to be embodied in the nobility and royal classes is to be seen now in the businesses and the people who run them. But I guess it sounds like an intellectual comment, so of course it's going to make it into a /. story.
  • But many "marketdroids" buy things with brand names for piece of mind. Would you buy a hard disk off the street corner, or do you go to someone like Seagate for the piece of mind afforded by the name brand? Just food for thought...
  • Christ whats happened to Slashdot? This is a long "review" of a book that doesn't describe a single arguement made in the book. Yeah its great you love the book, BUT TELL ME SOMETHING ABOUT IT. What is the problem with logos? You give no indication whatsoever, execept for a reference to exactly what you say the book goes beyond - Nike sweatshops. Slashdot next time you post a review can you check to make sure it includes some content?
  • I never thought of them as "brands" really. Those places just press images on Hanes hefty tees...

    But yes, whatever class this is, socioeconomic status is very vague. Some of the richest silicon valley inhabitants choose to wear cheesy and cheap tshirts.

    And, incidentally, although it may be partly true that I purchase clothes of those "non-brands" to identify with a culture...I also like that the markup I'm being charged on a block of cotton is at least going to a good cause ;)

  • Logoff (Score:5)

    by Protocull ( 187587 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @06:06AM (#1016000)
    Logos are not simply about branding. They are aspirational, they are a shorthand for what the wearer/user wants others to think of them, and what they would like to think of themselves. If I buy Nike, it's because I want to feel sporty and a bit rebellious because I like their guerilla marketing tactics. If I buy Prada, it's because I want to feel fashionable and to be admired by people who recognise the brand. If somebody doesn't recognise it, then by definition I don't care about impressing them. It makes me feel like an insider. If I use linux instead of M*crosoft, it may be because it's a superior operating system - or it may be because I want to be in with you guys. And you can bet that I'll be buying a tux t-shirt over at Think Geek and will wear that logo with pride. But guess what - Andover get the money! Not Linus or the other open sourcerers! It's not just the simple spread of the brand that marketing spends all that money on, it's building the image to go with it. And we can kid ourselves that we are too sophisticated or cynical to be manipulated by the aspirational aspect - but we do it every time we make a purchasing decision.
  • I'm wearing a shirt with my employer's logo on it right now... the rule is, business attire (i.e., tie) Mon-Thurs unless you have a logo shirt.

    Of course, the company may be endangering its reputation this way... who knows where I'll go after work? :)

  • You're still paying for it, just not directly. Every BigMac, t-shirt, and computer game has as part of it's price the advertising budget. You pay for the advertisements, which in turn pays for the "free" content.

    I'd rather just pay directly and get exactly what I want, instead of using someone else's idea of what I want.

  • Well, if nothing else their advertising is some of the most annoying...

    My wife recently looked down at her shoes and noticed how many subtle nike "swishes" there were on it. So, she took off a shoe and began counting. There were 10 Nike "swishes" on each shoe. Seems a bit over-kill, but that's their form of advertising I suppose. Make sure no matter who is looking at it and from what angle they get to see a nike swish.
  • Take a look at this: Video Clothes: 'Brand' New Idea [wired.com]. I might as well post it here, where it's relevant, if i submit it, it's going to get declined anyway.

  • Re:Yea! I loved Atlas Shrugged! (Score:5)

    by Bearpaw ( 13080 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @06:11AM (#1016023)
    I see you've bought into the silly idea that "advertising-supported = free". It's not free, it's just paid for with a different currency. If that's the way you prefer to pay, knock yourself out, but you should at least have some idea of the price you're paying.
  • is how advertising reaches to the very young. Take my little two year old for example. She can't read yet, but she sure as heck lets it be known that we're driving by McDonalds in the car. "Ronald! Ronald!" She yells. (And this is a restaurant that she has been to perhaps a few times.)

    Or consider the advertising that is on PBS (public television). Although it is cloaked in the concept of "sponsorships", the idea that you have to watch a Baby Gap or a Kellogg's or a Pfizer (antibiotics, in this case) commercial before a show designed for preschoolers is appalling.

    It is disheartening to me that kids of such a young age are (in a way) being programmed to associate something FUN (watching Big Bird or Arthur) with the SPONSORSHIP of a large corporation.

  • People are paying companies large sums of money (ever bought a Tommy t-shirt?) for the "privilege" of advertising for them. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

    Back when I was a wee kid going to camp (1995 or so), I had a counsellor from Spain. He always wore "Levi's" shirts, and one day we asked him why. He said "'Cause they're really cheap in Spain!"

    It seems that in Spain at that time, companies were selling their logoed shirts for less so that people would buy them and volunteer to be a walking billboard. I guess they hadn't managed to convince teenagers outside of North America that it was a privelege to advertise for others.

    It all goes back to our tribal desire to belong to a group. But I'll let other posters elaborate on that statement.

  • I don't really mind them (Score:3)

    by Sway ( 153291 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @06:14AM (#1016033)

    First of all, thanks for the review. I actually picked the last book I read based on the book reviews here and I was really pleased. Thanks for the service.

    I just wanted to say that I'm actually a fan of branding. It allows us critique and praise products and services by name. It allows us to evaluate and share our evaluations with others very easily. If I walk around wearing a Pop Tarts shirt, I can make a statement about my satisfaction with Pop Tarts, and, indirectly, Kellogs. Here's the catch, though. Kellogs will happily make Pop Tarts shirts for me to buy and wear to help promote the product. But who is going to make the other shirt? Who is going to sell the "Pop Tarts Suck" shirt for those dissatisfied with the product? Kellogs won't. Random T-shirt manufacturers won't because the market is significantly smaller than the "Yankees Suck" crowd. Maybe Quaker will make them for us while pushing their breakfast bars?

    Currently, brands have a tendency to perpetuate themselves a little too easily. Obviously Abercrombie & Fitch couldn't have gotten every teen in America to wear a billboard without having made something decent in the first place. But now that they have hit a certain saturation point, the brand will keep itself alive. Everyone wears A&F so I must wear A&F to be more like everyone. Again this is because A&F makes it extremely convenient to say "I like A&F" while there is no easy way to say "I don't give a poop about A&F" or "I abhor A&F".

    Maybe technology will find a way for us to easily add logos and crossed out logos to our clothing. Then we will be able to really see the power of the brand to increase ownership and responsibilty of a product. Wear your brands with pride, but try and make your criticism public as well.


    Peace. Sway

  • Coerced: As in, "you're not cool if you don't wear our clothes," or "everyone wears our clothes; you don't want to be left out," or "this logo isn't marketing, it's fashion. You want to be fashionable, don't you?" This coersion sometimes manifests in the phenomenon known as "peer pressure."
    Not everything that you dislike, or that is unpleasant to you, is coercion. Here are some examples of coercion:
    • "Give me fifty cents or I will beat you up."
    • "We're going to knock your house down to build a bypass."
    • "If you grow this plant, we will put you in jail."
    • "Have sex with me or I will shoot you."
    • "Work on my plantation or I will whip you, chop your feet off, shove a stick up your rectum, and hang you."
    • "Give us money to build our baseball stadium or we will put you in jail for tax evasion."

    Here are some examples of things that are not coercion, even though they may be unpleasant:

    • "If you want a glass of this lemonade I made, you must give me fifty cents."
    • "Since you sold me your house, I'm going to knock it down to build a bypass."
    • "If you yell at me again I'm leaving you."
    • "Since you didn't fulfill your side of our agreement, I'm not going to fulfill mine."
    • "If you don't wear Thomas Fuckalmighty brand jeans, I'm not going to hang out with you."

    You are not required to be friends with trendoids who value brands higher than people. There is nobody threatening to tie you down and attack you with a dentist's drill if you don't spend all your money on shoddy clothing with day-glow logos stuck all over it. That is your choice. Either you choose to value the kinds of things you get by purchasing Thomas Fuckalmighty brand jeans, in which case you buy them, or you choose not to value those things. This is not coercion.

    If you want people to think of you as the kind of person who buys T-shirts for $50, then go ahead and buy T-shirts for $50.

    (FWIW, at the moment I think I'm wearing exactly one logo: the fake-leather Wrangler patch above the ass of my jeans. I'd remove that if I didn't think it would make them fall apart or something.)

  • http://www.adbusters.org

    Incredibly cool anti-advertising magazine

    tc004

    Here's my Microsoft Parody [lostbrain.com], where's yours?

  • If I were an owner of a clothing brand I wouldn't call it very good advertising to have any random backcountry loser flaunt my logo on his bloated, distended beer belly:)

    -j

  • Coke day? (Score:2)

    by Tet ( 2721 )
    a 19-year-old student being suspended for wearing a Pepsi shirt on "Coke Day."

    Coke day? What sort of screwed up educational establishment is it that has a Coke day? Not that they'd need one. Certainly when I was at University, Coke was one of the primary food groups, and was positioned right next to the munchie machine to provide handy 24 hour supplies of all your snacking needs :-) But seriously, Coke day? Something's very wrong with that...

  • What exactly are we objecting to? (Score:5)

    by FascDot Killed My Pr ( 24021 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @06:25AM (#1016062)
    What EXACTLY is the objection to, for instance, people wearing brand names?

    The cliqueishness? Because Slashdot has got that in spades. In fact, EVERY community has this property.

    The customer exploitation? They make Nike seem cool so you want the stuff and then charging you up the wazoo? But surely the problem here is not Nike, but the purchaser, yes? We're not talking about a monopoly situation: there is more than one show manufacturer.

    The ubiquity of advertisements? I can understand this objection, but writing a book or even starting a boycott against a company is pointless. Advertising works. More advertising (than you competitors) works better. Therefore companies are in an arms race to each do more advertising than everyone else.

    But I might also note that "corporate pigs" are not the only offenders in these regards. For instance, next time you are outside count the number of "DARE to keep kids off drugs" bumper stickers, t-shirts, painted minivans, etc you see. Many non-profit organizations (or even non-organizations) do the same thing.
    --
    Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?

  • Growing up in the era of Calvin Klein and Jordache on jeans -- which, being the son of Depression/WWII-era parents, I equated mainly with work clothes for crissakes -- I used to shake my head at how people seemed proud to provide free advertising space on their butts.

    It's only gotten worse with this Nike swoop all over every damn thing. I don't even buy stuff that features a logo prominently displayed, although my material-girl Yuppie/preppie wife and her similarly-minded mom keep thinking my chest needs to proclam "Old Navy."

  • Designer Brand as Sexual Display (Score:5)

    by codemonkey_uk ( 105775 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @06:26AM (#1016067) Homepage
    As any good biologist will tell you, it is the cost of a sexual display that makes it attractive. What you say when you buy Nike, Gucci, Prada and the rest is "Look at me! I can afford expensive clothing! I have so much money I can throw it away!"

    This is the same as the peacocks tail, and is the product of sexual selection. The thoery goes, a male with a big tail must be tougher than an apparently equal male with a smaller tail, because life is more difficalt if you have a large tail, therfore to have survived with this handicap you must be a healthy mate.

    Now look around you. Do cheap brands make such a big deal of their logos? No. That because they don't carry the prestege of the expensive brands. The (sub conciose) thinking behing it is "Damnit, if I'm paying Prada prices, I want people to know it."

    Ironicly the proliferation of a brand reduces its value. Campri Ski anyone? (Or was that a UK thing?)

    Thad

  • I have a gripe along the same lines as this.

    Why do people have their car dealer's name plastered all over their license plate holder? I would be willing to leave that on my car if the dealer gave me a fee for advertising their product, but so many people are more than willing to advertise a product for free (or worse yet pay to advertise for someone)

    The stupid cheap plastic holder surely doesn't add any structural value to the license plate.

    My guess is that the rich yuppies in their SUVs don't know how to put the license plate on themselves so they take it to the dealer to install.

  • Re:Really do take a look around... (Score:3)

    by G27 Radio ( 78394 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @06:37AM (#1016074)
    It annoys me to no end that it's hard to find clothing I like without logo's all over them. It certainly qualifies as one of my pet peeves. Even so I still end up wearing logos. There's a small Chaps/Ralph Lauren logo on my pants and another on my Timberlands. You wouldn't notice them unless you were really looking though.

    It's not logos per se that bother me. It's the fact that if I'm going to wear something with a logo it should be my choice. But when I go clothes shopping (as rarely as possible) almost all of the nicer clothing has prominent logos on it.

    OTOH I don't mind wearing things with a logo of my choosing. For example the T-shirt NORML sent me, or my OS/2 2.1 "Fast pane relief for Windows" T-shirt. The logos you wear become part of your identity when people first meet you. I most definately am not about TH, DKNY, or A&F and I don't pretend to be. Of course I'm not about OS/2 either, but I find the OS/2 T-shirt to be somewhat humorous.

    numb
  • Has Nike done something particularly bad that everyone hates them for it, or are they just being made an example of (or are they just getting smeared for no reason)?

    I think it's a combination of things.
    • They're being made an example of (the price of a high profile).
    • They're being used as a scapegoat -- society feels guilt about a problem and displaces it onto a convenient lightning rod like Kathy Lee Gifford or John Rocker.
    • One real difference between Nike / the Gap and most businesses using overseas labor is the disparity between what the workers get paid and what the goods are sold for. When Haitian workers are paid 8 cents to sew a softball, people understand that this enables the manufacturer to charge $2, undercutting the American-made competitor for $2.15. That comes across differently when Nike sells a pair of shoes for $150, gives $50 to Tiger Woods and the other athletes they sponsor, spends another $50 on advertising and pays 8 cents to the Vietnamese woman who sewed them. (All numbers fictional except the retail prices.)
  • It seems there is a point here: most people who work at the biggest advertisers, like McDonald's, Nike, the Gap, Wal-Mart, and Disney do get paid less than the market average for their position. And the second competitors to these (Burger King, and other shoe company, Old Navy, K-mart) also get paid nearly nothing.

    My point is this: the advertising budgets are high, the pay of these companies is low, the homogeneousness is incredibly high and the chance for innovation or advancement for working at these places is absolutely zero.

    My point is this: if people were to stop working at these places, then these 'evil' systems would colapse. A simple solution would be a recruitment page for small businesses where new employees would decide based on pay where to work.

    -Ben
  • Again this is because A&F makes it extremely convenient to say "I like A&F" while there is no easy way to say "I don't give a poop about A&F" or "I abhor A&F".

    Sure there is: file a lawsuit [dencity.com] or two [dencity.com]. It's the American way.

  • Re:Marketdroids (Score:3)

    by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tms&infamous,net> on Thursday June 08, 2000 @06:45AM (#1016088) Homepage
    or do you go to someone like Seagate for the piece of mind afforded by the name brand?
    Maybe so, but when did you last see a tee-shirt or billboard with a Seagate logo on it? Do others geeks envy you because you bought an Seagate drive? Will 31337 h4X0rs rob you at gunpoint because they've be ad-programmed to think that having a Seagate drive is worth killing over?

    It's one thing to have a reputation and stand by it. It's another to relentlessly brainwash the populace.

  • This is the American Dream, and is quickly becoming a worldwide dream as well

    You are wrong. Europe has been there and has seen it. And you know what, shops that specialize in "Brand Names Only" actually go bankrupt lately. People have been through the branding epidemia in EU in the 80-ties and have had enough. They are not paying +20% for the brand name. Any more.

    Just in this case America has picked it up a few years after EU

  • Re:What exactly are we objecting to? (Score:5)

    by Protocull ( 187587 ) on Thursday June 08, 2000 @06:46AM (#1016090)
    Advertising works. More advertising (than you competitors) works better. Therefore companies are in an arms race to each do more advertising than everyone else.

    Thank god it works, it's what keeps all this cool free content going on the web. I like my free email, my favourite sites, my free newsletters. Without brands, there'd be no free TV or radio either. And we can easily choose not to buy logos.
  • Exactly, this book seems to attack the symptoms (i.e., generic global marketing), not the actual problem (i.e, unethical production).

    To start with, too many logos and a marketing feeding frenzy for consumers is a natural consequence of plentiful supply of goods, and this by itself is a good thing. If you want to try the opposite, you can. Simply go to remote villages in Asia, where you can lead a life refreshingly devoid of brand marketing. The flip side is that you can't get thousands of products when you want it.

    A natural consequence of highly productive capitalism is that the number and variety of goods mushrooms, and this results in better choice, annoying brand marketing, and a higher quality-of-life with improved life expectancy. More goods and more brand marketing in more devious ways by greedy corporations aren't by themselves wrong - it's only when the means of production and distribution are unethical and exploit or hurt vulnerable people (e.g., cheap labor in authoritarian regimes).

    But these topics are boring. A better way to sell a book is to target the global-capitalists-are-sucking-the-life-blood-out- of-us crowd. In other words, market the book as an attack on global marketing. Ironic, isn't it?
  • But when I go clothes shopping (as rarely as possible) almost all of the nicer clothing has prominent logos on it.

    Many of which are sewn on. Learn to use a stitch-ripper.


    ----------------------------------------------
  • Good points. I'll take one thing you wrote and run with it:

    We use the unrelenting capitalism of our society to define ourselves by.


    This is just the current manifestation of the need to define ourselves. Over the millenia, people have used many things to identify themselves and others. Generally, it is driven by a need to find one's own kind, the people who share your values and with whom you feel safe. It takes many forms: clan, religion, language, nationality, profession, race, social class, collegiate affiliation, ....

    It is not always detrimental. While it does create categories of "us" and "them", where the goal is inclusive, to find others who share your experiences, it serves to build communities. It defines what the community is and attracts more people to it who will contribute to that definition. Slashdot is a case in point. (Incidentally, I own a Slashdot T-shirt from copyleft.net [copyleft.net]). It stands both as a news and discussion site and as a positive statement that geekdom is a viable subculture with something to offer those of us who participate in it.
  • I'm surrounded by logos right now and I don't care. The reason I don't care is because just about everyone of them is sitting on a mighty fine product.

    Dell (workstation)
    one solid machine
    O'Reilly (books)
    The best damn computer books money can buy
    Cambridge Soundworks (speakers)
    They sound great
    Nike (sneakers)
    after 5 years they're still in one piece.
    L.L.Bean (jeans)
    most comfortable pair of jeans I've ever owned
    Ralph Lauren (shirt)
    comfortable and I live next to an outlet store
    Swiss Army (watch)
    Can't kill it and it keeps the time
    Radisson (pen)
    free, writes good, and it was a nice vacation
    Red Hat (software box)
    an excellent Linux distro
    Dilbert (calendar)
    It makes me laugh

    Logos are not the problem, people are. If someone is dumb enough to buy something because of the logo and not the product, then that is their problem. Let's blame the consumers for their own failings and not try and reinvent capitalism in a kinder, gentler image.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close