Last week I met with Russell Davies, the former worldwide account planner at Nike. I offered to take him out to a fancy restaurant called Bread And Wine, but he declined in favor of an old school Italian caff, explaining that he never pays more than ten pound for a meal. Well, Russell did write a book called
Eggs Bacon Beans & Chips, I should have known.
Contrary to the opinions of your average anti-corporate rabble-rouser, the likes of Mr. Davies are not the devil incarnate. I actually think it took a good deal of foresight to come and meet me, and then agree to contribute to the book, seeing as I've been very publicly burning pairs of Nikes for some time now. Come to think of it, most of the industry people I've met have been nothing but co-operative. It's been the opposing side, (The Church Of Stop Shopping, Adbusters) that have acted with suspicion and indifference towards the bonfire.
Anyhow, in an interesting parallel to something I'm doing for the book, Russell once took a shot of every brand that occupied his bathroom (I think it came to over 70). The brand focus on my blog has so far been on the luxury brands (clothes and cars) and they're always the things people assume I'll miss most when the whole lot burns. Actually, the toothpaste, deodorant and shampoo is going to be the hardest. I know of no non-branded alternatives to these things. Unless somebody posts a link for a no logo alternative to Colgate, its baking soda and mint for me come September.
Some clever clogs also asked me if I'm doing away with the Blue Circle mortar that binds the bricks of my flat. Err, lets just say I'm working on that one.
6 Comments:
Let's just not mention that this whole thing is one big branding effort for Mr. Neil Boorman. So it's to be self-immolation, is it then?
Well, if you you go back to the start of the blog, I say exactly that... 'its not just a pile of expensive stuff that's going up in flames, Neil Boorman (whoever that is) is burning to'.
And yes, the irony is that, if the book becomes a success, one new brand will have been created, i.e. a new me.
Either way, I'd rather go through the process than carry on being a retail zombie, he said in a diplomatic, I'm not rising to the bait type way.
Talking of identities, how come the negative comment posters never reveal theirs?
"Either way, I'd rather go through the process than carry on being a retail zombie, he said in a diplomatic, I'm not rising to the bait type way."
False dichotomy. The diametric of tendentious, pretentious mewing about brands (which, come on, don’t you have better things to do?) is not the cessation of critical thought; not to mention that it’s bloody offensive to those of us who don’t have any compunction about our Nikes. Anyhow, if “retail zombie” is the appellation you deserve, then man up, admit your failure to assay, and spare yourself the embarrassment of exposing to the world your feeble ability to resist the oh-so-powerful swoosh. This would be easier for you, one imagines, were you not a product of a culture that, for its recent adoration of Derrida, de Man, Sartre, et al, has forgotten that it stands on the shoulders of giants such as Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Smith, Bentham, and so on.
It would be easy to merely point out that persuasion is a tool, and as such is neither intrinsically good nor evil. However, the philosophical antecedents of your worldview that I can adduce through your writing leaves me less than sanguine that you would admit the simple veracity of such an insight. Do you really think that some farcical pyrotechnic ceremony will emancipate you from your aborted empiricism?
"Talking of identities, how come the negative comment posters never reveal theirs"
Irrelevant. The power of my arguments are neither improved nor undermined by my identity. Anyway, you’re no Joseph K., chap. I’m no star chamber. I’m merely one tiny critical voice, so either address yourself to my arguments or ban me, but please, let’s not pretend my identity would matter one iota to the question of whether you’ve mistaken clever for profound.
How about I just identify myself thusly: I’m a filthy, jingoistic, capitalistic Yank.
Well that told me. I still don't understand why, when you are given the opportunity to identify yourself, you choose not to. There must be a reason... especially as you've obviously taken so much time to write the comment.
It just appears to be a little cowardly, really; post an aggressive comment on someone's blog, and then hide behind anonymity.
I say again, I don't think that you've read the blog properly from start to finish, because this is not strictly an 'anti capitalist' excercise.
Never mind. I humbly and sincerely suggest that this blog is not for you sir. Have a nice day.
“Well that told me.”
Apparently not, because you could but barely deign to respond to the actual arguments, opting instead to complain that you don’t know my name, as if that is somehow germane to the argument. You, sir, have chosen to make a spectacle of your philosophy, not I, but you seem to have not the chutzpah to try to mount a defense of it other than to suggest that, “this blog is not for [me].” How brave indeed.
“It just appears to be a little cowardly, really; post an aggressive comment on someone's blog, and then hide behind anonymity.”
Really, “aggressive”? Doesn’t it seem perhaps a bit effeminate to refer to what, in academia for example, would be considered mild criticism as “aggressive”? I’ve not threatened your person, nor disparaged your character for that matter. Furthermore, if you intend to avoid offering any substantive response other than, “you didn’t read the blog properly” to those who choose to offer anonymous criticism, then why bother to even allow anonymous commenting, eh? Would I be considered brave were I an anonymous sycophant? Was Alexander Hamilton, writing polemic as, “Publius,” a coward?
“I say again, I don't think that you've read the blog properly from start to finish, because this is not strictly an 'anti capitalist' excercise.”
That it is at all an admixture of “anti-capitalism” is enough to suggest that it deserves to be met with a critical response. What’s more, I’ve now read probably 70% of your blog and nowhere do I find a succinct, definitive thesis. Certainly you must realize that much (perhaps most) of the audience for your book, (especially given that one has some difficulty discerning your thesis,) will likely view it as first and foremost a criticism of capitalism, consumerism, and marketing in general. Do you think that, “Supersize Me!” was interpreted primarily as a commentary on Morgan Spurlock’s lifestyle, or a commentary on McDonald’s, the fast-food industry, and indeed, the consumer culture itself?
“Never mind. I humbly and sincerely suggest that this blog is not for you sir. Have a nice day.”
Spare me the condescension. In point of fact, I’m the founder and cco of a marketing consultancy and as such, I am very intimately connected to your thesis (whatever it might be.) Anyway, worry not, I’ll likely lose interest soon enough if the best you can muster in response is to suggest that I haven’t read the whole blog, “properly” and complain that you don’t know who I am. Again, I’m no star chamber. You could shut me down at the click of a mouse button and you know it, so the whole, “victim of anonymous judgment” shtick seems rather pathetic. I'll make it even easier: tell me to go away and I will.
In truth, I mean you no vitriol. I consider your endeavor the height of clever. However, with the advancement of such sentiments as those you express here, certainly you must expect to, as they say in the academy, get your ass filleted from time to time. If such a prospect is as perilous to you as your response to me suggests, perhaps your best bet is to shut down commenting altogether and become a recluse once the book is published.
Sheesh! Whoever Anonymous might be (a name would certainly be helpful, if just to discern one Anonymous from another), his turgid language (and poor grammar) do him no favours. It's fairly obvious from the quickest read of this blog that this is not a commentary on branding and capitalism in general, but on where brands end and our personal sense of identity begin. As such, it's a narrative and not an academic argument. Get over yourself, Anonymous
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home