babble home - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » No Logo as the next marketing primer

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: No Logo as the next marketing primer
Babbler # 690

posted 25 June 2003 01:54 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The single key text in Neal Stewart's codification of the meaning of P.B.R. is the book ''No Logo,'' by the journalist Naomi Klein. Published in 2000, ''No Logo'' is about the incursion of brands and marketing into every sphere of public life, the bullying and rapacious mind-set that this trend represents and evidence of a grass-roots backlash against it, especially among young people. Klein's view is that this would feed a new wave of activists who targeted corporations. Stewart's view is that the book contains ''many good marketing ideas.'' He says it ''really articulated the feelings, the coming feelings, of the consumer out there: eventually people are gonna get sick of all this stuff'' -- all this marketing -- ''and say enough is enough.''

In these circumstances, the thinking goes, P.B.R. [Pabst Blue Ribbon, a beer] needs to stay neutral, ''always look and act the underdog'' and not worry about those who look down on the beer, presumably because they're snobs whose negative opinion only boosts its street cred. The Plan B analysis even says that P.B.R.'s embrace by punks, skaters and bike messengers make it a political, ''social protest'' brand. These ''lifestyle as dissent'' or ''consumption as protest'' constituencies are about freedom and rejecting middle-class mores, and ''P.B.R. is seen as a symbol and fellow dissenter.'' Eventually all of this sounds like satire, but the punch line is that it isn't really that far off from P.B.R.'s strategy.

The Marketing of No Marketing

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 2999

posted 25 June 2003 02:15 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, but like Jones soda (is this a West Coast phenomenon) or other outsider brands Papst is going for a niche audience. They also understand that they have no control of their market and will be cast aside the day mainstream recognizes their existence.

Marketing to the disenfranchised is nothing new. Check out the ads in Mother Jones from 30 years ago (just a hunch). What is new is the sophisication. It may be just as worthwhile to have a pop icon reject your product as it is to have anyone endorse it.

The one issue that I am curious about is that it appears with branding that there is a counter impulse towards individuality. When we were young we drank Lucky Lager because it wasn't advertised (and when we saw someone with it in their hand we knew it was ours). We're number two, but we try harder does have a reasonance.

From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 490

posted 25 June 2003 02:15 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In this vein I gotta say I saw the most ridiculous, indeed almost insulting advertisement in the Vancouver Sun today.

It was a BMO Mosaik Mastercard ad that had the words "Because we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship."

How bloody asinine - equating freedom with a credit card.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 2956

posted 25 June 2003 04:10 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Funny you should mention that Doc.

I heard a "BMO" add the other day, and I thought to myself, "Self, I don't want to trust my money to grown men, let alone bankers, who would actually pronounce it 'BEEMO'. Self," I went on to add, " I want my banks to have stodgy, reliable names, not here today, gone tomorrow cool names."

I try my best to have no logo's in my house, and always have. No coffee mugs with brands on them, no "GAP" sweatshirts, etc. Even the soap dispenser on my kitchen counter has no label on it.

From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 560

posted 25 June 2003 10:19 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For me, it's not so much the marketing as it is the ethics of the corporation.

For instance, if a corporation has unionized labour, they are as environmentally responsible as possible, and they create a product that is useful, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't advertise those facts and set themselves up as an ethical alternative to McDonaldized industries. Market your life out, just don't be hypocritical about it, or say things about yourself that aren't true, like the way oil companies try to "greenwash".

Let's face it - "rebels" aren't going to stop drinking beer any more than the rest of us are. I would be open to drinking a drink (not beer, I hate beer) that is made by an ethical corporation, and I would be thrilled to death if they advertised themselves as such. I am also somewhat contemptuous of the whole "consumption as protest" thing as well - The Body Shop, for instance, is a prime example of that kind of thing, with their slave wages for employees, hard-sell tactics, and sales quotas for their floor staff (you have to keep an average sale of $20-25, and an average item sale of 4 items per customer purchase, and you have to do so by trying to add on smaller items after the customer has what they came for - gee yeah, push products on people that they don't need and encourage consumers to contribute to more landfill, groovy).

Actually, The Body Shop is a prime example of a "greenwashing" corporation. They have these campaigns to highlight violence against women, petitions for people to sign, they donate lots of products to women's shelters, they encourage their employees to volunteer their time with women's shelters. And that's great PR. But what if one of their employees (almost all of whom are women) were in an abusive relationship and had to leave their spouse? Could they leave and start a new life on their own on their minimum wage salary? Oh yeah, the Body Shop is all about empowering women - empower them through make-up! Empower them by keeping the women who work for them in poverty!

Anyhow. Sorry about the rant. But the thing is, if the Body Shop allowed unions, paid decent wages, pushed for meaningful change instead of just making token PR efforts and passing about petitions with motherhood statements like, "We don't like violence against women and we think it should stop and that everyone should have lollipops", then I would have no problem with them marketing themselves as an ethical alternative in the industry. It's not the marketing I object to - it's the hypocrisy.

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 June 2003 12:05 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe David Lynch could get a job shilling beer. Remember Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet, asking Kyle MacLachlan about his tastes in beer?

"What kinda beer you like, kid? ....Heineken! F--- that sh--! Pabst Blue Ribbon!"

I need oxygen....

[ 25 June 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
Babbler # 2776

posted 25 June 2003 12:17 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My only question is: when can we get P.B.R in Canada? That stuff's the shiznit. (Oh oh: too much Ask Snoop).
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 690

posted 25 June 2003 03:44 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In a nod to Michelle, I think one of the key lines of the article was this:
But perhaps the way to think of it is that the P.B.R. base is less concerned with protesting boorish and heartless corporate behavior than with protesting boorish and invasive corporate sales tactics.

And this one, too:
''But basically,'' he said, ''we're going to drink whatever beer costs a dollar.''

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008