Visionaries

In Pro Logo or No Logo? I’ve emphasized that I cannot choose between no logo or pro logo. That is why I want to construct My Own Logo, my own vision on logos. I was born in November 1985, which means I’m a child of this modern, contemporary world which is supposedly ruled by brands as Klein (1999) puts it. I was raised in this world and I wouldn’t want it any other way, I can’t imagine a world without logos. The world or rather the commercial industry works with logos and they brand every product, I have no moral objections to this. My, perhaps somewhat laidback, attitude towards this is partially caused by my awareness of the influence branding, commercials and popular culture on society. My fascination with popular culture started at a very young age and I always have had a passion for new trends. I notice trens very quickly, I know why certain products are hyped at a certain time or why certain TV-shows are broadcasted in certain periods. This interest of mine has only been nurtured and encouraged by my education and particularly my studies in Arts and Culture. I’m very aware of the world around me and the tactics of the brands.

However, I also am very aware of the fact that most people don’t see this or simply don’t care. That is why I have a problem with Chevalier & Mazzalovo’s Pro Logo (2004). They give too many responsibilities to the consumers. Regular people don’t care about what they buy, they only care about their own needs. They do not think of the moral implications of buying certain products. I often don’t either, because I have a busy life. I don’t have time to think over every purchase I make. Just like a lot of consumers in this contemporary society. Consumers do have some responsibilities, but I don’t think they should have as many as Pro Logo suggests.

In my article How ethical are you? I’ve emphasized that we can’t judge advertisers for the tactics they use, because we do the same. It’s a code I live by: treat people the way you want to be treated. If you are applying the same tactics as brands do, you can’t blame them for it. This is a fundamental mistake Klein (1999) makes in her book No Logo. Brands aren’t evil or good, they are what we, society, have allowed them to become. Culture regulates brands and brands have to live by the norms the culture holds. That’s why we can’t condemn brands, it is society’s own fault that they have become the way they are. If we want brands to change, because Klein and Chevalier & Mazzalovo have both admitted that we can’t get rid of them, we have to change society first. And I do want brands to change.

I’ve emphasized in many articles the importance of creative (fan) culture and on this critical point I want brands to change their policy. Brands, which are an inherent part of popular culture, can stimulate creativity tremendously. They can inspire many fans and young artists to reflect on their own culture and create art, like they have done with me and many others. They can also be a strong force in cultural innovation, not progress as Pro Logo puts it. However, first brands need to be limited in this way that they give away more power to the consumers. And I think this is already happening. Brands don’t have full control over their image and this is mostly caused by the internet. The internet, as Jenkins (2006) describes it, has become a public space where fans and artists can create public movies for global audiences. The media industries can’t ignore fan fiction any longer, because it generates a lot of publicity. Brands need to be aware of this and stimulate, not prohibit, young artists to produce this creative culture.

To conclude, Chevalier & Mazzalovo think brands can be a positive factor of progress, I believe brands are a positive force in our cultural development and they are an inherent part of contemporary society. I wouldn’t want a world without them. Yet this does not mean that we should let brands do whatever they want, but they can’t do that anyhow. They are limited in their power, because they are regulated by the norms of the culture they are a part of. They can never overpower culture, like Klein suggests. That is My Own Logo.

Literature

Chevalier, M. & Mazzalovo, G. (2004). Pro Logo. Brands as a factor of progress. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture. Where old and new media collide. New York: University Press.

Klein, N. (1999). No Logo: no space, no choice, no jobs: taking aim at the brand bullies. New York: Picador.