Beyond the Brand

Not all people agree with Naomi Klein, myself included, and don’t consider branding “a company’s manipulative attempt to white-wash over third-world production, horrible labor practices, monopolistic distribution, and consumer brainwashing” (Brand Channel). Michel Chevalier and Gerald Mazzalovo, in their book Pro Logo: Brands as a factor of progress, and Sameena Ahmad, in her article called Pro Logo: Why Brands are good for you, critize Naomi Klein’s No Logo, and give another, refreshing, side of the branding story. In the words of Chris Raab, written on the website of Brand Channel: “Brands sometimes guide consumer decisions; decisions consumers make guide brand decisions. The relationship is reciprocal, not unilateral”.

The Brand Channel features the ongoing Brand Debate, and visitors are asked to take sides: one is either Pro Logo, and believes that consumers manipulate brands, or No Logo, and considers that brands manipulate consumers. Chris writes on the forum that:

Long ago in a shop far far away there were two piles of soaps, both smelled nice and looked the same. Then Soap A decided to call their soap Rainfresh and wrapped the soap in blue paper, they created a brand to separate them from the other soaps. People would feel special purchasing it and they could remember it by name, creating top-of-mind awareness of their product. And that's it! It's not a worldwide plot to exploit people, it's about choice. NO LOGO has NO POINT.

Naomi Klein and the Adbusters would not agree.

Adbusters subvertisement Follow the Flock