Her book "No Logo", a damnign report on the evils of capitalism, is available at a high price with a flashy cover in all evil multinational bookstores now.

It's amazingly sophisticated argument is "Advertising is bad."

See also: Thom Yorke

ave u read it then?

I bought it and have tried to read it, but it is such a load of one-sided crap, that I haven't got very far. "Nike sucks." Ok. "Lots of other companies suck." Ok, what's your point?

Still, I don't think she's famous enough to be on this site, or more annoying than Hicknall.

well i read it, and got the point of it, what would you rather she said "but anyway the latest nike air are WICKED!"? a lot of people don't know just how much third world exploitation goes on and how they are being manipulated by big business.

I would rather that somebody wrote a book that builds up a cohesive argument, using the facts that are available for and against the central theme.

but no-one does that in non-fiction, everyone sets out their theory and presents evidence to prove it, we get the other side 24hrs a day from ads and the media in general

Originally posted by Ginsoakedboy
Her book "No Logo", a damnign report on the evils of capitalism, is available at a high price with a flashy cover in all evil multinational bookstores now.

It's amazingly sophisticated argument is "Advertising is bad"


I dont think she is trying to be an anti-capitalist anarchist, she's basically a journalist. Writting no logo is probably to her like writting any other article/book. It pays her bills/airfares etc.

The book is not solely about saying that advertising is bad. It also exposes sweat shop labour, junk food, gentrification of urban environments, homogenisation of culture etc. as well as looking at grass roots anti-capitalist activism across the world.

If you enjoy your world full of McDonalds, Starbucks, glossy yet "street" tv commercials, pikey nike made by 10 year old girls for pennies and plenty censorship. Dont read the book and remain ignorant.

Also worth checking out is George Ritzer, an American economist who has a theory entitled "The Globalization Of Nothing".

Ritzer's hypothesis is that there is a sliding scale, a continuum that stretches from "something" to "nothing". "Something" means a distinct, unique, individual item that stands out (whether it's a record, a film, a burger or a cup of coffee). "Nothing" means it has no distinctive features, no character, no identity, little more than a shadlowy blur.

According to Ritzer, big business and globalization is moving further and further away from "something" towards "nothing". Think music...the biggest, most global pop bands are often those which virtually merge into the background, those which actually have nothing distinct about them (S CLub 7, Atomic Kitten, Christina Aguilera etc - whatever you think of them, you have to admit their music really doesn't have any individual characteristics that make them stand out).

It's the same with food - Coke is basically sugared water and a Big Mac is a slice of meat in between two bits of bread. No character, no individuality, virtually "nothing".

Ritzer says that it's in organisations' interests to make their products as "nothingey" as possible, the less production costs the more profits! Hence the state we're moving towards now, a world of brand names that are big money spinners...but effectively are the branding of nothing!

Never read "No Logo" but I like the basic tenets of the argument so I may have to investigate.

And to the person who had a pop at her for daring to sell her book...there's nothing wrong with commerce, marketing and promotion per se, is there? I would have thought it's only a problem when the adverts imply "something" and the product turns out to be "nothing". Lke J-Lo, one of the most nothingey pop stars out there!

I agree, if Ms Klein's book is vacuous hot air then she is a hypocrite and should be on the list. If however it's a good, intelligent read then why the jiggins shouldn't she sell it and advertise it accordingly?

How does this theory accomodate Nike? They are taking up an increasingly large part of the trainer market by bringing out the most exotic and fancy trainers available. They design their trainers to lead the market in innovative technology (eg shox) and to look different.

It seems to be impossible to get plain trainers anymore, they are all horrible, garish lumps of plastic. (Oh dear, I sound like someone's grandad)

I'm sure not every big business fits into this theory. I'm sure there are some big businesses who really do innovate and pioneer.

I'm not really a Nike trainers sort of person (more of a Woolworth's Green Flash-clone kinda guy) so I must admit I'm not an expert in the development of new shoes.

That was a band, wasn't it, Nu Shooz? Baby I-I-I can't wait... That was a good song come to think of it!

nike isnt really in the business of selling shoes, they are in the business of sellng "nike" as a culture. but thats off topic. naomi klein isnt that annoying as ive never seen or heard from her since that book

Naomi Klein smells and is ugly.

Originally posted by hugo-a-gogo
naomi klein isnt that annoying as ive never seen or heard from her since that book

I think she now lectures at American universities, on topics such as marketing.

Naomi Klein released a book called "No Logo" which is a logo in itself. Used her money to buy an apartment in a funky inner-city area of Toronto and got upset when other people started moving in there and demanding latte at their local caf. Runs a website with that logo to preach about the evils of the internet. Travels the world to piss and moan about globalisation.

Hypocrite. Fool. Screeching gobshite. Worse than Hucknall.

i dont know who she is. got a nice name though.

No no no- have been pissing about on here for ages in order to avoid doing an essay entitled '"The World has been McDonaldized" explain and critcally discuss this claim made by David Ritzer'- and what do i find but intelligent comment of the very fucking sources I have to use- this means I'm gonna have to go and do it now. Thanks a lot :(

Oh but as far as this thread goes there's some really good comment on here and while I don't think Naomi klein should be on the list it's been a pleasure reading it and i think it would be a shame if it was closed. Maybe transfer it to the serious message board bit of Dogbomb?

Naomi Klein is a hypocrite, and there musy be something wrong with that cow if Thom Yorke likes her, bint.