Don’t skip over the intro this time – this is one Flash page that’s worth it. What I especially like about this idea is a common symbol, the black spot, we can use to demonstrate how we’re “mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.” How we won’t stand for another Orwellian program to push us further through the sausage grinder.
I know it’s a pipe dream that a black spot will get us out of all this trouble we’ve gotten ourselves into. But I refuse to stop trying.
“I pledge to do my duty…and take my country back.”
So, you wanna get some spraypaint and have an independence day raiding party?
On the other hand, in a land of ‘democracy,’ this is not just your country. It is the country of at least 280,000,000 other citizens, many of whom have no qualm with wearing some corporate brand. How do you take back your country without depriving them of theirs?
____________
I go now.
How do you take back your country without depriving them of theirs?
…by building a culture where buying unbranded products is accepted or even admired.
…by building a culture that values doing business with local merchants rather than international conglomerates that send their profits out of the community.
…by making a statement about the culture of spending that does not deprive anyone else of their choice to indulge in it.
My question was intended to be rhetorically provocative. It seems to me the Unbrand America site is urging a form of cultural guerilla warfare. They do not explicitly encourage such activity, thereby revealing to what degree they have not transcended the litigious corporate culture they intend to dismantle. Regardless, their words and images constitute an implied endorsement of vandalism which is not subtle.
Also, the “I pledge to do my duty…and take my country back.” would sound equally appropriate coming from a hate group. Poor selection, in my opinion.
Regarding the deprivation of freedoms… what a bucket of worms. If someone is not allowed to unbrand because it impinges on some corporate fan’s freedom, does that not impinge upon the freedom of the would-be unbrander? Our rights do not include unlimited freedom, just personal freedom to the extent that it does not interfere with the freedom of others. Wear corporate logos, fine. Start a campaign against corporate logos, fine. Deface a corporate logo on someone else’s property, you’re a vandal. And what about the right of a businessperson to make a livelihood the best they can, including the purveyance of branded corporate goods?
Clearly, vandalism is not an effective means to effect social or cultural change. It will earn far more enemies than converts. In this day, an organized vandalism effort would likely also be classified as terrorism, which doesn’t make things any easier for them.
So, how about effecting true cultural change as Arthur suggests? I’m not sure how one goes about building a culture. Unless one can show that a different way of living is advantageous to the common man, the common man is not going to give a damn. If one could provide as an example someone who is able to live a more successful life by avoiding corporate culture, a more desirable way of life, then people will adopt that way of life of their own free will. Show legislators that it is to their advantage to curb the progress of social and cultural survival of the fittest, and they will make laws which check the unfettered supremacy of corporate interests. Good luck.
Our cultural idea of what is good is a simple concept called greed. Societies and cultures possess inertia, and trying to convince everyone to try something new which doesn’t provide them with an SUV is not going to garner a majority endorsement. If you can build a culture that is not greedy, the rest will come easily. Personally, I suspect greed stems from an even deeper source in human nature.
Live your life well, be generous, engage in commerce in a way that doesn’t affront your conscience, and you’ll have done more than any activist group will ever manage, through the people you provide an example to and whose lives you touch. Will you change society? What kind of a burden is that to put on one person?
Or spraypaint logos or work for social change, you know, if that’s what your conscience tells you to do. We’ve all got our parts to play.
One perspective on buying local vs. buying cheap.
Sparky: I guess I didn’t think too closely about the vandalism aspect. I responded viscerally to the idea of people waking up, figuring out what matters, and doing something about it. I agree that spray paint is not the way. Although I still think a symbol like the spot, if people see it in enough ads etc., can be a useful thing.
And also, I responded to it not so much for the corporate culture aspect, although I agree with the spirit of what Adbusters does. I responded to the political aspect of it, the “patriotism means agreeing with the President” thing. Which interestingly has been deleted from the new version of the Flash intro. Hmmmm.
There’s vandalism, and then there’s vandalism. If corporations get any more control over our government and our way of life, blacking out a Nike(tm) logo will become tantamount to burning the flag: civil disobedience will become corporate disobedience.
While I don’t think vandalism is an effective means of seeking social or cultural change, I think it’s a perfectly pleasant anarchic pastime.
I like to break stuff.
I know what not to break.
Some things are already broken.
I need a break.
____________
I go now.
I get as tired of ad clutter, logos(especially bad ones) flashing in our faces constantly, etc as the next person. But, didn’t we just go from praising the beauty and brand equity of Paul Rand’s original UPS logo, to now erasing any type of brand, logo, or identifying mark that appears too often, in too many places from our society entirely?!?!
Following up on Wayne’s excellent point, I’d like to ask why you would want to get rid of any brands anyway? McDonald’s, Nike and Coca Cola are not inherently evil as brands. That their products or practices cause some harm to people or the environment would be a solid point but hardly even cause for their destruction.
Nike is a fantastic shoe and sportwear manufacturer not to mention a marketing hotspot. Their labor procatices are questionnable and they should be made to bring them in line with ethical standards. Nevertheles they provide a legitimate service appreciated by a lot of people. As well as contributing some of the only advertising worth watching.
The Adbusters idea, while well intentioned, is less intelligent than it might be. Why destroy the brands? Why not work to correct the harm that they are doing? Even in a society as purchase driven as the US, brands are not the real evil.
That corporations have so much influence with the government is a problem.
The fact that corporations can harm the environment or their workers without reprimand is a problem.
The fact that the harmful effects of a product can be hidden from the public while profits are being raked in is a problem.
Those, among others are problems that can be addressed or challenged by any number of means. Mount an information campaign on the effects of daily burger consumption or about Nike’s labor practices. Try something with a chance of actually working. The adbusters idea is a wonderfully romantic one. Ultimately though, it serves no real purpose and acheives nothing. I wouldn’t even want them to acheive their goals. Damn it, I want my Coke when I want it.
_____________________
Lecture over, the professor hopes for feedback