No Logo: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs

We live in an era where image is nearly everything, where the proliferation of brand-name culture has created, to take one hyperbolic example from Naomi Klein's No Logo, "walking, talking, life-sized Tommy [Hilfiger] dolls, mummified in fully branded Tommy worlds." Brand identities are even flourishing online, she notes--and for some retailers, perhaps best of all online: "Liberated from the real-world burdens of stores and product manufacturing, these brands are free to soar, less as the disseminators of goods or services than as collective hallucinations."

In No Logo, Klein patiently demonstrates, step by step, how brands have become ubiquitous, not just in media and on the street but increasingly in the schools as well. (The controversy over advertiser-sponsored Channel One may be old hat, but many readers will be surprised to learn about ads in school lavatories and exclusive concessions in school cafeterias.) The global companies claim to support diversity, but their version of "corporate multiculturalism" is merely intended to create more buying options for consumers. When Klein talks about how easy it is for retailers like Wal-Mart and Blockbuster to "censor" the contents of videotapes and albums, she also considers the role corporate conglomeration plays in the process. How much would one expect Paramount Pictures, for example, to protest against Blockbuster's policies, given that they're both divisions of Viacom?

Klein also looks at the workers who keep these companies running, most of whom never share in any of the great rewards. The president of Borders, when asked whether the bookstore chain could pay its clerks a "living wage," wrote that "while the concept is romantically appealing, it ignores the practicalities and realities of our business environment." Those clerks should probably just be grateful they're not stuck in an Asian sweatshop, making pennies an hour to produce Nike sneakers or other must-have fashion items. Klein also discusses at some length the tactic of hiring "permatemps" who can do most of the work and receive few, if any, benefits like health care, paid vacations, or stock options. While many workers are glad to be part of the "Free Agent Nation," observers note that, particularly in the high-tech industry, such policies make it increasingly difficult to organize workers and advocate for change.

But resistance is growing, and the backlash against the brands has set in. Street-level education programs have taught kids in the inner cities, for example, not only about Nike's abusive labor practices but about the astronomical markup in their prices. Boycotts have commenced: as one urban teen put it, "Nike, we made you. We can break you." But there's more to the revolution, as Klein optimistically recounts: "Ethical shareholders, culture jammers, street reclaimers, McUnion organizers, human-rights hacktivists, school-logo fighters and Internet corporate watchdogs are at the early stages of demanding a citizen-centered alternative to the international rule of the brands ... as global, and as capable of coordinated action, as the multinational corporations it seeks to subvert." No Logo is a comprehensive account of what the global economy has wrought and the actions taking place to thwart it. --Ron Hogan

No Logo: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs Very good book about how brand makers are driving our minds and lives

I found this to be somewhat of a depressing book. I never really understood the full concept and ramifications of "branding." What you may think is a tiring sequence of commercials and have a more nefarious background. Naomi Klein paints a rather bad image of the corporations on how they exploit third world nations to their own gain. Free Enterprise zones sounds really good but usually end up being a place where corporations can skirt laws about unionizing, worker safty, and the environment.

I remember reading the issues of the garmet industry 100 years ago and yet many of the same tactics are in play today. What is sad is the fact it can go on because the people wish to have their trinkets and cloths for the cheapest rate possible.

I thought was interesting is the effort of branding and I don't know if it was a factor but to develop and defend a brand; it would make sense to shed production to "free enterprise zones" to where you can reduce your labor costs to .23 an hour. The savings allows for further marketing efforts.

One thing that disappointed me was the truth of the efforts of the Kenyan marathon runners attempting cross country skiing. Rather then being people who thought "I would like to try this" it turns out to be nothing more then a marketing stunt by Nike.

Much of the book delves into Nike and Phil Knight. Basically he can be labeled as the poster child for sweat shops and branding.

A surprising revelation was Kathie Lee Gifford and her act of contrition over the fiasco of her clothing line using sweat shops. She actively tried to to change things while the saintly Michael Jordan simply shrugged and said his job was shooting hopes and not politics when confronted with Nike's actions.

I found the section about Shaq and Nike interesting. I remember when Shaq entered the scene and many thought he was the successor of Jordan for Nike. It turns out Shaq decided to develop his own brand and studied a little marketing and when Nike found he wasn't going to fall in line, they decided against him.

I have often heard and argument in defense of sweat shops. Basically, they improve peoples lives by giving them options they would not have. After reading Klein's descriptions of "free enterprise zones" I don't understand how indentured poverty is better then poverty.

The final chapter on culture jamming and the efforts of people to show the seedy sides of corporations was interesting and it gave a small sense of hope after reading the doom and gloom of the previous chapters. I used to think the WTO protesters were nothing more then anarchists who were just want to trash the area where ever they went. However, through Ms. Klein I have a different view point.

All too often the phrase of power and corruption comes into to play. When great money is at hand the "moral" system changes to suit the needs of money. Often you hear the free market argument of if you don't like what the company does, go to the competitor. The problem is they are doing the same thing. When Nike fell from grace, the competitors rose to take it's place in the same actions.

The chapter does make the case that the best way to make a company act in a "moral" standing they often like to portray is to bring attention and educate people to the ramifications of their purchases. It can be a powerful weapon as a quote in the book pointed out "It can take 100 years to build up a brand and 30 days to knock it down."

There are many defenders for corporations but people should think about a comment in the book where it was said Nike thinks you are worthy to purchase their shoes but you are not worthy to make them.

All in all this book is a "must read" no matter what side of the argument you stand. It is a well thought out and provocative to read.

Great book,just loved how it made me see the things that were so much part of my life and that I wouldn't question.

Now my views are different, I catch the logos, I catch the subtle messages, I catch the hidden messages that drive me into the consumer that I am, and understand better why, how and who is behind all of it.

This book is well researched, and even if written almost ten years ago, not much has changed in the world of marketing and how we are tricked into buying the things we don't need from across the world.

A great read.

No Logo is a well researched book that documents many of the things that are wrong with our consumer culture. While "No Logo" is definatly worth your time Klein's argument has one reoccuring flaw. She draws links between different phenomenon without showing how they relate to each other.

According to Klein the switch from advertisements focused on quality to appeals to emotion made the brand more important than the product. In order to more effectivly manage the brand companies began outsourcing the task of actually creating the product, often overseas.

This is where Klein's argument comes apart due to causal relationships that are not satisfying. She blames the poor working conditions found in many third world factories on the culture of brand awareness itself. Rather than focusing on the very real economic and legal issues at play Klein chooses to focus on describing how people have attacked advertisements and other symbols.

While individuals should be encouraged to be active in righting wrongs Klein's idea of constructive actions are laughable at best. Drawing mustaches on advertisements or bloacking traffic with impromptu street parties do nothing to help the plight of workers in the third world. Klein's prescriptions for change are perfect for those who want to feel as if they are making a difference without making actual sacrifices.

In mid-nineteenth century England, poet William Blake indignantly portrayed poor children sneaking a peek from the windows of the factories where they slaved fifteen hours a day, to watch the rich and beautiful cavort in the meadows with their hounds and horses. In the United States of the 1920's, Socialists reveled in contrasting the plight of the downtrodden workers with the opulence of the Robber Barons who lived off their labor. Today, to someone sensitive to the plight of the world's poor, little could be more repugnant than the contrast between the vulgar consumerism of the masses in the advanced capitalist economies and the lowly condition of the destitute third world workers who sew their clothes and craft their sports gear.

Naomi Klein is a prominent spokesperson for those disgusted with this contrast between rich masses in the developed countries and poor masses in the backward countries, the former benefitting obscenely from the low wages and poor working conditions of the latter who work sweatshops on their behalf. Klein wrote in a period when Nike, Wal-Mart, and other mega-corporations were under severe attack for oppressing their domestic and foreign workers. She and fellow activists had hoped this anti-corporate upsurge might turn into a full-fledged revolt that would dramatically improve the lot of low wage workers around the world.

In the second edition of No Logo, which appeared in 2002, she notes that "These struggles may seem slight in retrospect, but you can hardly blame us media merchants for believing that we were engaged in a crucial battle on behalf of oppressed people everywhere: every step we took sparked a new wave of apocalyptic panic from our conservative foes." (p. 110) This movement has now subsided, and much of No Logo is an analysis of what went wrong.

Klein's main argument is that modern advertising is so powerful that it is capable of co-opting the anti-corporate movement and turning the aspirations of its supporters to it own advantage.

"Our sworn enemies in the `mainstream'---to us a giant monolithic blob outside of our known university-affiliated enclaves--didn't fear and loathe us, but actual thought we were sort of interesting. Once we'd embarked on a search for new wells of cutting-edge imagery, our insistence on extreme sexual and racial identities make for great brand-content and niche- marketing strategies. (p. 111) Culture jamming, the attack on corporate logos in massive demonstrations of disaffected youth, enjoyed a vigorous presence in this period, Klein notes (p. 287), but its major themes were quickly adopted by the advertisers to sell more stuff. (p. 297). Nothing, it would seem, can dent the sophisticated façade of the taste-makers.

Naomi Klein is a fine writer with a real social conscience. While she wears this conscience on her sleeve, she never lapses into a strident or sanctimonious style. She hasn't a clue to the real nature of the phenomena with which she is dealing, however. Her major thesis lacks even prima facie plausibility.

This thesis starts with the important insight that the success of the modern consumer goods corporation depends on its brand name reputation and sales, and hence can leave the actual production of consumer goods to a myriad of out-sourced factories and workshops. "Successful corporations," Klein writes, "must primarily produce brands, as opposed to products." (p. 3) The reason such firms as Nike and Wal-Mart locate production in low-wage third-world sites is, to quote: "When the actual manufacturing process is so devalued, it stands to reason that the people doing the work of production are likely to be treated like detritus---the stuff left behind." (p. 197)

There is little plausibility to this argument. Is it not reasonable that in earlier times firms produced goods in the home country because they had great regard for their workers. They did so because home-country workers provided lower unit labor costs. Contemporary firms locate internationally when they think they can make higher profits that way, not when they lose respect and regard for their domestic work force. Moreover, aside from a fringe of activists, consumers are generally not willing to pay significantly higher prices for goods in order to benefit third world factory workers. This is not because people are selfish, but rather because the low-wage workers who produce their clothes and shoes have little impact on the daily lives of consumers, and only the most concentrated political agitation can raise this impact, and then only for a short period of time.

It is also doubtlessly true that even a sustained effort to raise the wages of sweatshop workers would have little effect on the rate of poverty in third-world countries. More effective by far would be by the World Trade Organization succeeding in lowering tariff barriers against the import of third-world agricultural products, and by socially progressive groups and governments subsidizing third-world movements for democracy, representative government, civil liberties, the right to unionize. Klein correctly notes in regard to her study of the struggle of Philippine workers: "Because the Workers' Assistance Center's chief mission is to empower workers to stand up for their rights, WAC organizers don't much like the idea of Westerners sweeping into the zone brandishing codes of conduct, with teams of well-meaning monitors trailing behind." (p. 439).

Like many progressive supporters of the third world poor, Klein's instincts are anti-globalization and even anti-market. Commenting on a picture of economist Milton Friedman being assaulted by pie-wielding demonstrators, Klein identifies Friedman as "architect of the global corporate takeover," and asserts that he is getting "his just deserts." (260) Friedman's strident free-market rhetoric is of course quite over the top, but in fact, third world countries that have attempted to compete in the world market place rather than shelter themselves from it have done quite well, and the recipes of Klein et al. are, conversely, doomed to impotence and failure. The idea of offering sweatshop workers decent wages is a wonderful one, but suggesting that this might be a way to improve the lot of the poor in the world economy is ludicrous. Perhaps a country with mountainous oil revenues can play at sounding anti-capitalist (e.g., contemporary Venezuela), but the future of prosperity in virtually all poor countries depends on developing markets and state institutions that support markets in a synergistic and democratic manner. It is up to us to help them attain this, rather than feeling good about ourselves because we pay an extra few cents for "fair trade certified" coffee beans.