PAC Online

Naomi Klein’s book has provided the foundation of my project’s conceptual and theoretical underpinnings for the summer of ‘09.  It is an in depth study of the late nineties branding frenzy, complete with sections on counter movements, globalization, and consumerism.  What follows is a “short” exercise in writing my notes on the Internet.  My intent is to respond in free form, and make some constructive/positive observations, bringing the content of Klein’s book into the twenty-first century.  Again, these are subjective notes and critiques on current trends, give me some creative license.

At the start of the book (p. 6) Klein explains the creation of branding.  With the advent of mass production, products needed to distinguish themselves from their competitors.  Filling the role of the hometown shop keeper, brands like Aunt Jemima, and Old Grand-Dad took on personal traits and characteristics.  This was the start of the trusted “Brand.”

In the nineties, companies like Starbucks and Nike took the brand to the next level, one beyond a name (20).  This was the start of organic image making.  Rather than using direct advertising, brands tried in the nineties to proliferate their “message” via any cultural injection.  They attempted to build their reputation by invading public space and hijacking cultural institutions.  This was the “brand association” method, ones that lead to a loss of unadulterated culture.

In the chapter called ALT.EVERYTHING, Klein explains the growth of the youth market, and hints at the effects of a completely fabricated youth.  Klein calls the pimping out of youth culture a “vast project of generational self-definition.”  This is a period when youth must construct an identity comprised of the styles corporations have endorsed.  We are left to pick and chose an “individual identity.”  Obviously, there is only the semblance of choice available here.  Buying a shirt with Che on it, is no different than wearing cloths from AE.

On top of this absence of choice, when it comes to branding, we are in a one way dialog.  On page 176 Klein goes into trademarking and copy writing.  As “target” audiences, we have grown up surrounded by brands, and in turn making relationships with them.  What is unreal about this relationship is its one way nature.  We are left to absorb marketing, and sued if we talk back in any real way.  After stealing our choices, the brands have bullied consumers into silence.  We ignore signs, instead of being offended by them.  This is a complacency that has been cultivated by advertising, and it can only have negative results.

As branding became the number one goal of companies, it was production that was left behind.  With outsourcing and sweatshops, production has been so de-valued that it isn’t even done by the big companies anymore.  This is a problem for the global community according to Klein, and one that must be faced by all of its citizens together.  In New York today, I see a fight to leave the mass produced goods behind.  Between the growth of thrift shops, and networking sites like ETSY, consumers are choosing to exit the system of mass produced goods.  Different from a boycott this is a clear statement, choosing craft over company name.  In some ways these trends are gut reactions, or unconscious defensive mechanisms against ubiquitous branding.  But that does not make them any less powerful forces in the global market.

Using alternative suppliers for the goods in our lives is a very real example an attempt to recreate our culture.  To restart a culture that wasn’t co-opted so fiercely by companies.  Tim Bissell calls it “cultural fascism” (287), and I can’t help but to agree.  Transnationals pull the strings, the logo’s and imagery of marketing is protected, and dissent is squashed.  And who has the time to create their own culture from scratch?  Maybe this explains the phenoms of “Rocky Horror” and other sub-cultures.  The makeup of the counter-culture isn’t important, what and how the subset is reacting to society makes the movement important.

Klein goes on in the section No Logo, to describe the counter branding movement.  From ad-busting, which comes so close to “selling out,” to culture jamming.  At the time of the books publishing, Klein described the efforts to reach corporate disclosure.  Many censoring attempts were aimed at achieving a level of transparency in the big companies.  In my opinion, this is no longer good enough.  It seems to me, that at the time improving developing countries was the primary “concern” for first world countries.  Now, I believe the brands must find other ways to stay cost effective.  As transporting goods becomes cost IN-effective, they must cope in very real ways.  Maybe one day soon, coke will change over to a micro brewery style.  It seems ridiculous to say, but that is the question.  Where will Brands go now?

This question ties into my summer project well.  I think of it as a case study in self-branding.  Klein calls for global equality and solidarity against the new power of transnationals…  but I find it an ineffectual rally cry.  Despite the true need for this cause, it isn’t close enough to home.  I find the chains of modern 1st world life to be linked more closely to consumerism.  If we can disable the market that is the first world, it will send the whole world on the path to sustainability.

For my part, I want to investigate my school now.  Where are the SLU shirts made?  I understand that to stay effective the university must be run as a business.  But who draws the lines?

I hope to write another reflection on these notes later today.

~ by pacome07 on July 27, 2009.