Response to "No Logo" By Naomi Klein

In the introduction chapter of "No Logo", Naomi Klein states that she wrote this book "on a simple hypothesis: that as more people discover the brand-name secrets of the global logo web, their outrage will fuel the next big political movement, a vast wave of opposition squarely targeting transnational corporations, particularly those with very high name-brand recognition". So is her hypothesis right? If the general public was better informed by people like "the student activists identifying themselves as "Spiders"" , who "are now free to swing off this web of logos like spy/spiders- trading information about the labor practices, chemical spills, animal cruelty and unethical marketing around the world", would people stop buying "brand name" items and instead buy "bargain/no-name brands"?

I believe that if people were better informed about all the horrible consequences of their "brand name" buying, they might consider changing their ways, and look beyond the "branding" of a product . Instead of buying "Nike sneakers [that] have been traced back to abusive sweatshops of Vietnam", they would buy a private label brand that was made in the U.S., which probably actually costs less, are better quality, and were made under strict laws that protect workers from unsafe and unethical working conditions. This isn't such a far fetched idea as some might think. It has happened before and will happen again.

April 2, 1993, became known in marketing circles as "Marlboro Friday". On that day was when Philip Morris made the announcement that he he "would slash the price of Marlboro cigarettes by 20 percent in an attempt to compete with bargain brands that were eating into the market". This proves that there is an alternative to "brand name" living; it is called the "value generation" where people suffer form "brand blindness". But if everyone stopped buying brand names and went back to "the proverbial shopkeeper dishing out generic goods form the barrel in the prebranded era", what would happen to capitalism? I believe this could lead to the end of capitalism, because as Graham H. Phillips said, "a commodity marketplace in which one competed solely on price, promotion and trade deals, all of which can easily be duplicated by competition, leading to ever-decreasing profits, decay and eventually bankruptcy".

In order for this not to happen, many companies have gone beyond just "branding" a product, and into "lifestyle marketing". They give the consumer an experience through their product. Consumers know that there is no real difference between a Starbucks coffee and the coffee you can make at home. They are not buying the product, they are buying the experience. As CEO of Starbucks Howard Shultz explains, people "aren't just there for the coffee. It's the romance of the coffee experience, the feeling of warmth and community people get in Starbucks stores", that the consumer is looking for.

I believe as long as producers keep "branding" and "lifestyle marketing" their products, consumers will be continually brainwashed into buying brand-name over value-brand products. So for now, it looks like capitalism will survive.