Precis: No Logo

In the excerpt from No Logo, Naomi Klein describes the transformation of the world of marketing, advertising, and production in general. She contends that the primary focus of brands is no longer the quality of their products, but rather the perception of their entire brand. Once one believes the brand represents some sort of lifestyle or image that they identify with, or would like to identify with, the shortcomings of the product are no longer relevant. Her discussion of brands such as Nike, Apple, and Starbucks help further explain her points on the image of a company.

What does the slogan “Just do it” have to do with athletic gear? Why do people believe they perform better with Nike products that are made out of the same material and manufactured in the same country by the same workers? Why is the image that Starbucks puts on every one of their products a mermaid? Why do some people prefer to get the same exact cup of plain coffee from Starbucks instead of Dunkin’ Donuts? Why do people wait in lines for hours to throw money at Apple for an iPhone when they have obvious flaws?

The obvious reply is that associating oneself with an idealized image is what drives people to these extremes. The comfort gained from that positive association justifies paying double and sometimes triple the price. What people are missing here is that this whole brand image process and emphasis is what ends up hurting them in the long run. The consumer becomes blind to the downfalls and shortcomings of their own preferred brand and emphasizes the negatives of competitors.

The primary audience of this piece can be described as just about any consumer in today’s market. These brand discusses are known worldwide. They are household names. Marlboro for instance may be the single most recognizable brand of cigarettes on the market today; the same goes for Nike, Apple, and Starbucks in their respective fields.

I believe the aim of this piece to call into question assumptions about brand loyalty. Why do I personally refuse to wear or buy any brand of undergarment other than Hanes? If I were to compare the brand with Fruit of the Loom, for instance, I would see that Hanes charges you more for less. I would not say that the stupid Michael Jordan “Bacon Neck” commercials work on me, or that Charlie Sheen crashing his car to get to talk to a “Hanes man” appears to be a predicament I would want to be in, however there is something about those four red letter that stick out to me. Through calling assumptions into question, Klein may be trying to change convictions and give the consumer back their purchasing power that this turn towards brand image has stripped them of.

Klein bases most of her argument around “Marlboro Friday”, the Friday that Marlboro, in an effort to compete with bargain brands, slashed their prices. The slashing of prices was a sign of weakness by the most established and incessant advertising campaign of the last 40 years and showed, to some, that the brand was dead. While most overreacted to this event, brand such as Apple, Nike, and Starbucks were mapping out the blueprint to take the world by storm. So, according to Klein, Marlboro Friday marked the day where two things were created, the bargain store (Walmart is her example) and the price resistant brands (Nike, Apple, Starbucks). The fall or death of the “Marlboro Man” paints a vivid picture that almost anyone can visualize. Marlboro had become the king that was dethroned, or the champion that was upset; once the ruler of the field, now the price slashing competitor.

“Advertising” changed over time. Throughout the piece Klein slowly moves advertising from the marketing of a single product as the extension of the brand to not marketing the product at all. New strategies were required of marketing and advertising agencies because of how the landscape changed. Consumers were no longer concerned with the individual product, but what the brand as a whole represented. Corporations no longer needed a marketing firm to inform the public that a new product was being unveiled or released, they needed the firm to convince the consumer that it was their duty, to maintain their association with the brand, to find out on their own.

In my eyes, Marlboro was the first brand to have “fanboys”. The marketing of the brand versus the actual cigarette, which is almost impossible to market, created a wave of people flocking to the actual image of the “Marlboro Man”. Why else would Nike pay Kobe Bryant and Lebron James tens of millions of dollars a year, EACH?! Not only does Nike generate fanboys of their own, but they inevitably inherit Kobe and Lebron’s fanboys by selling their shoes and shirts. Apple has people marking days on their calendar for the release of new information about products, not even the release of the products themselves. They have people paying for admission to conventions and lining up for days to buy their products. They have created a brand for fans to cling to and fetishize, as opposed to creating products that have limited shelf life and can have limited functionality. Products can become irrelevant, but if the brand stays relevant, the products produced by that brand always maintain a level of desirability.