scotartt on 15 Nov 2000 05:19:25 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> No Logo is a good Logo

On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:34:57PM -0800, R.Anderson wrote:
> The real problem with No Logo isn't the look of the thing, it's 
> what's inside. Anyone involved with critical thinking or cultural 
> production over at least the last 20 years knows everything that's 
> inside the covers. I found it an homogenizing piece of work that 
> packaged cultural criticism into neat sound bites for the media. It 
> simply isn't interesting, unless you are looking for a glossy 
> validation for what you may have been thinking for decades. Let's 
> call it "criticism light". If that's what it has to be to reach the 
> Starbucks set then it's unfortunate that the rest of us have to 
> endure the author promoting it everywhere. Her claims that we are 
> winning the good fight don't hold water. Just look around, hang out 
> at the mall.
> Randall Anderson

Apart from Randall's excellent point above, another 'real problem' with
the whole 'no logo' logo is that the advertising and marketing industries
already know all about it and their thinkers are devising strategies to
work with or around it, if they haven't done so already.

I'm aware of this debate, because one programming project I worked on
earlier this year was a 'marketing intelligence' database. We were porting
it from a very simple website model to an advanced, java servlet based,
architecture. Naturally as Snr Developer I had to have my own personal
login to test the design and execution of the site. I still have that
login for administrative purposes. Anyway I can tell <nettime> right now
that there is a history of articles, reviews, and in-depth analysis in
this database about the very problem of anti-brand branding that goes back
to 1997. The advertising industry was probably on top of this before Ms
Klein even thought of it...

Another point arose in an informal discussion about these matters I had
with the CEO of this company. There was some mention of an article re: S11
where, to paraphrase, some organiser was alledgedly telling would-be
demonstrators to spray paint out their Nike logos on their runners because
while runners are perfect shows for demonstrations, it would be
hypocritical to advertise such logos at such a demo. However, apart from
what is to me a hypocritical attitude about Nike runners in the first
place (when everybody knows that Adidas not only have a superior product
-- but a better looking brand to boot ;-) ), it demonstrates a complete
misunderstanding about Nike's purpose in the world. A sort of niaivity
(sp?) that is quite laughable (dons flame resistant asbestos suit with
prominent sports outfitter logo). Ultimately Nike doesn't give a shit
about its logo -- it first and foremost wants your MONEY. After having
bought the product, you want to rip off the logo; what does Nike care? The
logo only exists because Nike thinks it sells more shoes. THAT is the
Order Of Battle here, not the other way around.


   [[ From: ]]                |
   [[ ]]                |

Nettime-bold mailing list