Visionaries

No Logo
According to Naomi Klein (1999) logos have become more dominant than the products they represent. They have “grown so dominant that they have essentially transformed the clothing on which they appear into empty carriers for the brands they represent” (Klein, 1999, p. 28). However, the brands go even further and want to give meaning to their existence by “branding the outside culture as well” (p. 28). They adopted a certain culture and made it an extension of the brand. Klein refers to this as the cultural expansionism of brands (p. 29).

She explains that this cultural expansionism started with innocent corporate sponsorship, but that brands eventually wanted more power over the culture they sponsored. And even in this state of corporate sponsorship the brands strived to be the centre of attention. Their logos were the central focus of the events they sponsored. The brands then developed an important new strategy: logos became part of certain cultures. Child actors started drinking coke on TV. This way the logos and brands became an integrated part of the culture they sponsored and the brands associated their product with “positive cultural or social experience” (p. 29).

The intention of the brands, according to Klein, was never to promote a certain culture, but to push the culture in the background and “make the brand the star” (p. 30). Corporate sponsors and sponsored culture became one and the same. There was no difference between them any longer. Brands have a tendency to expand their role as sponsor. An important cause of this is the competition the brands have towards other brands, but also towards the culture they are sponsoring. Klein even suggest that the brands will eventually use the culture to strip it from "its inherent value” (p. 39).

Although Klein emphasizes the dangers of branding, she also sees that a brand-free world isn’t possible: “there is little point, at this stage in our sponsored history, in pining for either a mythic brand-free past or some utopian commercial-free future” (p. 39). That is why there needs to be a balanced relationships between the brands and the sponsored culture, wherein clear boundaries are determined.

Pro Logo
Chevalier and Mazzalovo (2004) criticise Kleins theory about no logo. They think that consumers who stick to one brand have a good reason for it and that the brand has proven its worth to the loyal customer. There can be many positive factors gained from branding if the power of the brands is controlled by their consumers and the consumers' wish for fair trade and good quality products. The authors believe that Klein’s No Logo has caused the following stereotypes about brands: brands are inherently evil; brands are the foundation of a system of hegemony and alienation; attacking brands is attacking the heart of the ‘capitalist machine’.

However, brands are “authentic factors for social, economic and cultural progress [... and they are ...] neither good nor evil in themselves” (Chevalier & Mazzalovo, 2004, p. 3). They are essential in our contemporary social lives. If stores would only sell generic products there would be a need for differentiation and brands would reappear. Brands can be a force of progress if they are well managed, if consumers get seriously involved in the dialogue about brands and if corporations and consumers are reminded of their responsibilities.

My Own Logo
If I had a choice between pro logo and no logo, I would be stuck for eternity trying to make up my mind. Instead I’d rather go with My Own Logo. No Logo is simply to extremist for me. I don’t believe brands are evil or that they can overpower culture in any aspect. Culture regulates itself and brands can never dominate it. Pro Logo is to idealistic, it wants things from consumers that they can’t give. Chevalier and Mazzalovo believe that consumers want fair trade and quality goods, which isn’t true. Consumers want a fix, they want to satisfy their shopping urges and they often don’t care about fair trade or good quality. They follow trends and want what they want, when they want it.

I believe there is a view in between where no logo and pro logo mixes, because I do believe the power of the brands should be limited and I do believe consumers need to be aware of their responsibility and make ethical choices towards their purchases, but I’m not that idealistic or extremist to share the views with either pro logo or no logo. You can read what My Own Logo is in my next article.

Literature

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

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