hello do please read some of the backstory on this blog... the one thing i've kept from the fire is my mac, which i've had de-branded both inside and out by macmod.com.
Tonight I finally got around to reading your article in the Sunday Times from a few weeks ago and have just checked out your blog. I've got some catching up to do, but I'll be interested to stop by every now and then and see how your new life is progressing.
Great short piece on the BBC. The irony of people grabbing the stuff at the end was priceless.
For what it's worth, as someone connected with an international charity I applaud your choice to burn the lot. Maybe those who criticised you for not giving it away will themselves, instead, donate something to a charity of their choice. Besides, with all the money you are saving from a brand-free life I think you'll find your generosity towards others will increase!
Cosmo wow, that's much appreciated... shame you didn't post that last week when half of the internet was issuing charity fatwas on me.
Anyhow, you're right, even in the first week, I reckon I've cut my outgoings by at least half, and I'm definitely going to feel more charitable with my new found disposable income. Found loads of branded stuff lurking behind cupboards after the burning, which are now sitting in the Romanian Reflief charity shop on Lambs Conduit Street, London WC1 if anyone wants a slightly scuffed pair of Gucci loafers and a Lacoste tacksuit.
I haven't read much of your commentary on this so forgive me if you've answered this elsewhere, but when does a company become a brand in your eyes? Anti-corporate behaviour often sparks up when brands swell up to consume us (Tesco being the newest evil, perhaps), but what about smallish companies that are also, technically, brands? Are you intending on creating everything you consume from scratch? I understand the dislike of actually wearing badges (I hate visible logos most of the time) but you also mention making your own toothpaste. Where does it stop? Will you refuse to live in your own house because it was built with tools that had a silversmith's watermark on them? I'm not trying to be facetious - I'm just interested in how far this thing goes...
Hello Andy no its not being facetious to ask; I appreciate you posting the comment.
You are right in that there has to be limits to this project. The line is drawn pretty much at consuming any product with a brand attached, including supermarket own-brand goods. In terms of services, it is near impossible to run power and communication without using a branded company. In this case i'm having to make a compromise and switch over to ethically-run companies. I've just switched my phone over to The Phone Co-Op for example.
As has been pointed out and accepted on many occasions, there are flaws and unavoidable contradictions in this project. But I think the impossibility of the thing perfectly illustrates how little choice we have in this matter. Some would ask why we would need a choice, but I digress.
Hi Neil, me again. Thanks for your reply. I think this comment of yours was well-placed:
"I think the impossibility of the thing perfectly illustrates how little choice we have in this matter"
However, there's one detail that I think I failed to touch on in the way I meant. Brief warning: I think having re-read the below some of it appears a little aggressive. I'm not challenging your project. I'm merely interested in it and in my attempt to dig deeper (and sound clever!) I may at times appear to have unworthy intentions. Not the case.
Anyway...
When I asked "when does a company become a brand?", I suppose what I was trying to dig into was what aspect of brand consumption you are rejecting. I.e. Identity would be the prime suspect. Edward Norton's character in Fight Club blew up his apartment (inspiration perhaps?) and destroyed his Ikea furniture because it had consumed him. There was a safety in buying into a choreographed lifestyle but it was denying him the freedom to find his own identity. A philosophical look into this would probably uncover the source of the problem being stifled 'meaning' in one's life - brand-buying concerning itself with attacking the symptoms rather than the cause - but I'm not well-read enough to take that any further. Would you agree with these sentiments?
And finally, is it not up to the individual to decide whether or not he/she should take a bite of the Apple? (ouch - terrible half-finished pun; couldn't bare to refine nor delete..) It's arguable that making your project for the benefit/education of the masses rather than just a private decision is just an alternative way of expressing your identity to others (as many do with brands). You might not be buying into brands but you are trading on the interest in them. And anyway, is "opting out" not still opting?
I'm writing you from Spain and I was making some kind of essay about using brands. Looking for some information, I found your blog. I wander, if you really think, there is an problem in using brands, why did burned your possessions, instead of giving it to poor people (without the presence of mass media). I hope my english is not so bad, so you can understand my question, and answer.
Read the article in the Guardian weekend and wanted to express support. I spent a couple of years in London a while back and found myself starting to define myself by what I wore. Came to my senses after giving serious consideration to spending over £80 on a Tshirt. Lunacy. Thankfully I now live in the middle of Dartmoor and have few such compulsions. It's easier here to define yourself by things that you do, rather than things I own. You have my sympathies attempting to re-evaluate your life in one of the world's most money and status orientated cities. Griff
ps I'd have found the Adidas trainers pictured in the article particularly easy to burn! :-)
Neil Boorman - a prat twice over. The first time for trying to buy a personality by walking around as a billboard. The second for burning his possessions instead offering them to charity. I supposing giving to charity would have earned him less publicity. The man is a complete wally.
The realisation I was addicted to brands: 10/03/2006 I fell in and out of love over a pair of Pumas: 30/03/2006 I burned my favourite trainers: 10/04/2006 The day of the bonfire: 17/09/2006
16 Comments:
wow- congrats!
I'm confused about your rules for yourself. Surely using a computer to write a blog is using a brand...
hello
do please read some of the backstory on this blog... the one thing i've kept from the fire is my mac, which i've had de-branded both inside and out by macmod.com.
Keep up at the back.
he he - nice turn to face camera at the start there neil! You may have ditched the brands but you still workin' the media....
Brilliant!
Tonight I finally got around to reading your article in the Sunday Times from a few weeks ago and have just checked out your blog. I've got some catching up to do, but I'll be interested to stop by every now and then and see how your new life is progressing.
Great short piece on the BBC. The irony of people grabbing the stuff at the end was priceless.
For what it's worth, as someone connected with an international charity I applaud your choice to burn the lot. Maybe those who criticised you for not giving it away will themselves, instead, donate something to a charity of their choice. Besides, with all the money you are saving from a brand-free life I think you'll find your generosity towards others will increase!
Cosmo
wow, that's much appreciated... shame you didn't post that last week when half of the internet was issuing charity fatwas on me.
Anyhow, you're right, even in the first week, I reckon I've cut my outgoings by at least half, and I'm definitely going to feel more charitable with my new found disposable income. Found loads of branded stuff lurking behind cupboards after the burning, which are now sitting in the Romanian Reflief charity shop on Lambs Conduit Street, London WC1 if anyone wants a slightly scuffed pair of Gucci loafers and a Lacoste tacksuit.
good work fella!
I haven't read much of your commentary on this so forgive me if you've answered this elsewhere, but when does a company become a brand in your eyes?
Anti-corporate behaviour often sparks up when brands swell up to consume us (Tesco being the newest evil, perhaps), but what about smallish companies that are also, technically, brands? Are you intending on creating everything you consume from scratch? I understand the dislike of actually wearing badges (I hate visible logos most of the time) but you also mention making your own toothpaste. Where does it stop? Will you refuse to live in your own house because it was built with tools that had a silversmith's watermark on them? I'm not trying to be facetious - I'm just interested in how far this thing goes...
Hello Andy
no its not being facetious to ask; I appreciate you posting the comment.
You are right in that there has to be limits to this project. The line is drawn pretty much at consuming any product with a brand attached, including supermarket own-brand goods. In terms of services, it is near impossible to run power and communication without using a branded company. In this case i'm having to make a compromise and switch over to ethically-run companies. I've just switched my phone over to The Phone Co-Op for example.
As has been pointed out and accepted on many occasions, there are flaws and unavoidable contradictions in this project. But I think the impossibility of the thing perfectly illustrates how little choice we have in this matter. Some would ask why we would need a choice, but I digress.
Hi Neil, me again. Thanks for your reply. I think this comment of yours was well-placed:
"I think the impossibility of the thing perfectly illustrates how little choice we have in this matter"
However, there's one detail that I think I failed to touch on in the way I meant. Brief warning: I think having re-read the below some of it appears a little aggressive. I'm not challenging your project. I'm merely interested in it and in my attempt to dig deeper (and sound clever!) I may at times appear to have unworthy intentions. Not the case.
Anyway...
When I asked "when does a company become a brand?", I suppose what I was trying to dig into was what aspect of brand consumption you are rejecting. I.e. Identity would be the prime suspect. Edward Norton's character in Fight Club blew up his apartment (inspiration perhaps?) and destroyed his Ikea furniture because it had consumed him. There was a safety in buying into a choreographed lifestyle but it was denying him the freedom to find his own identity. A philosophical look into this would probably uncover the source of the problem being stifled 'meaning' in one's life - brand-buying concerning itself with attacking the symptoms rather than the cause - but I'm not well-read enough to take that any further.
Would you agree with these sentiments?
And finally, is it not up to the individual to decide whether or not he/she should take a bite of the Apple? (ouch - terrible half-finished pun; couldn't bare to refine nor delete..)
It's arguable that making your project for the benefit/education of the masses rather than just a private decision is just an alternative way of expressing your identity to others (as many do with brands). You might not be buying into brands but you are trading on the interest in them. And anyway, is "opting out" not still opting?
(Keep em coming, I love this stuff...)
Hi Neil!
I'm writing you from Spain and I was making some kind of essay about using brands. Looking for some information, I found your blog.
I wander, if you really think, there is an problem in using brands, why did burned your possessions, instead of giving it to poor people (without the presence of mass media).
I hope my english is not so bad, so you can understand my question, and answer.
Hi Neil
Read the article in the Guardian weekend and wanted to express support. I spent a couple of years in London a while back and found myself starting to define myself by what I wore. Came to my senses after giving serious consideration to spending over £80 on a Tshirt. Lunacy. Thankfully I now live in the middle of Dartmoor and have few such compulsions. It's easier here to define yourself by things that you do, rather than things I own. You have my sympathies attempting to re-evaluate your life in one of the world's most money and status orientated cities. Griff
ps I'd have found the Adidas trainers pictured in the article particularly easy to burn! :-)
Neil Boorman - a prat twice over. The first time for trying to buy a personality by walking around as a billboard. The second for burning his possessions instead offering them to charity. I supposing giving to charity would have earned him less publicity. The man is a complete wally.
Neil Boorman you are an utter cock Sir. Please fuck off.
BOORMAN YOU ARE A BRAND
you were a prick and you still are are a prick
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home