There are books that should be rated on how much they made you think, rather than how much you liked them. One of the criticisms often lobbied at No Logo is that Naomi Klein put too much faith in the anti-globalization movement, which sort of fizzled out in post-9/11 America. To be fair, that attack could have hardly been foreseen by 90s activists, who then tried, and failed, to make their message prevail against a tsunami of patriotism that set back many social movements (including LGBT rights).

Another criticism you could make of No Logo is that it spreads out too thin, covering the many open fronts against branding, so that the book becomes shallow. It also doesn't tell the reader what to do or how to go about fighting logos themselves.

However, in the 2002 epilogue (the one about the Zapatista insurgency), Naomi Klein fairly accurately predicts the Occupy movement, and even one of the reasons that caused its demise, and that was the lack of an undisputable leader with a 10 point manifesto. She actually describes a movement made up of many social justice groups that do not appear to seek an agreement amongst themselves, yet are busy with activity and chock-full of information.

What No Logo does well is describing the various ways in which corporations control what is said about them, absorb criticism and regurgitate it as promotional campaigns, as well as transcend trade laws, labor laws and human rights. In telling the reader how they accomplish this, Naomi Klein provides the tools for any mildly intelligent reader to predict a corporation's next movement. Thus, while she might not tell the reader what not to buy or what their next step should be, she encourages the reader to reflect on their own situation and how corporations exploit them.

Because of that, and because it did make me think about my own circumstances, I rate it 4 stars.

Wstrząsnęła mną ta książka. Przenikliwością analiz, wzruszającą i piękną naiwnością recept i wieloma przykładami pokazującymi, że tak bardzo nie wiemy, co naprawdę dzieje się pod cienką warstwą wielkich politycznych i ekonomicznych snów o potędze.

Po przeczytaniu tej książki jeszcze bardziej zazdroszczę zachodowi kultury protestu. Tego, że potrafią zgromadzić się wokół jakiejś idei i zacząć o nią walczyć. Demokratycznie, kulturalnie, czasem burzliwie ale konsekwentnie i często skutecznie. Chciałbym, żeby to było kiedyś możliwe w moim kraju, w którym można ludziom zabrać wolność, demokrację, intymność i wszystko co ma wartość w imię fobii jednego człowieka... i gdy to się dzieje - jak dobrze pójdzie to wyjdzie na ulicę parę tysięcy ludzi raz na pół roku. Wiele o tym właśnie - kulturze protestu - można przeczytać w tej książce.

A poza tym jest świetna z wielu innych względów. Oczywiście przede wszystkim dlatego, że dość bezwzględnie demaskuje jak wielkie marki i korporacje robią nam bezustannie wodę z mózgu.

For an understanding of what's going on in the current social sphere, No Logo should be required reading. Not that the book is perfect, but it contains a wonderful analysis of how the corporate sphere has expanded to fill virtually all areas of public space and dialog.

One of the most surprising aspects in reading the book is the realization of how complicit we have all been in our own corporate takeover. In the early 90s, major companies (Nike being the paradigm, but for from the only example) shifted their focus from manufacturing to brands - from selling objects to selling "lifestyles." It might seem like a ridiculous concept, but even well-educated, critical people have fallen for it. I've never bought into the idea that Nike embodies the sports ethos, but I am one of the legions of computer geeks who have gotten into long, heated arguments about the merits of Microsoft vs. Apple. Apple's ads push the idea that what it sells is innovation and hipness - but Apple just sells electronic equipment. To believe otherwise is to have fallen for their marketing ploy hook, line, and sinker. Not a electronics nerd? Chances are, then, you've probably shopped at The Body Shoppe because of its family-eco atmosphere, or in some other way unknowingly bought into some company's lifestyle image.

The first section of the book deals with the fallout from this switch in focus by the major multinationals, divided into three chapters. The first, "No Space", deals with how branding is encroaching on all aspects of life (most insidiously, education - if you want to convert minions to your brand, best to start them young). The second, "No Choice", talks about how the spread of branding restricts public dialog (brands are, after all, privately owned and subject to copyright/trademark, allowing the companies to control who says what about them - while at the same time expanding to control more of the media and public spaces). The third, "No Jobs", deals with how the switch from products to branding creates a logical divorce from manufacturing, and therefore from any need to support workers in an ethical fashion. Each one of these chapters is persuasively argued and incredibly well-researched. It is these chapters that make No Logo a must read, and the reason it gets five stars.

It is in the final section, "No Logo", that Klein struggles a bit more. This chapter covers the rise of anti-corporate and anti-branding advertising in response to the encroachment of the multinational. While Klein makes a convincing argument that there are a growing number of activists joining the movement, she makes a few serious omissions.

One error is an issue of methodology - many of the anti-branding activists act by appropriation: taking a brand and then twisting or subverting its meaning. This can be used to deliver a stinging indictment of the brand, and can be thought of as leveraging the brands power against itself. Yet what Klein and the other activists fail to consider is the possibility that ANY repetition of the brand, even one that is ostensibly critical, may in fact extend the brands power. I'm reminded of a recent NY Times op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opi...), that posits that denouncing a message may reinforce it simply by repetition. Klein never considers the fact that brand appropriation may, in fact, be counterproductive.

Klein's biggest flaw in "No Logo," however, is her refusal to acknowledge individual responsibility. In fact, in several parts of the book, she chastises activists for veering towards what she calls "consumer-watch finger-wagging." Yet a large part of the problem, as I pointed out at the beginning of this review, is that we have been 100% complicit in this takeover. Corporations can only sell us a lifestyle if we continue to buy it (and buy it and buy it and buy it). If we refuse to buy products made in sweatshops, refuse to succumb to corporate control of dialog, then the power of the multinational will wain - but doing so requires that we ALL take full responsibility for our purchases. Protests and activist design are great, but it's only real lifestyle changes that are going to free us from the power of the brand - a point Klein stops short of making.

I had almost finished that before my business trip to China. I managed to read the last 50 pages only today.
The books is good but it's a kind of report. It is so full of data - almost 90% - that it's tiring to read.
So if you're not a "strong reader" give it up the idea of starting to read it. That's why I think it's not so good.
The writer should have used the data to take a stronger position. The average reader won't go on reading all those figures.

In my opinion there isn't enough developing of concepts like branding and the social issues connected with it. For instance that the public opinion doesn't care about children labour unless it is connected with a famous brand it's true.
As long as the consumer feels his conscience clean he doesn't really care.
As a matter of fact even being No Log is a marketing matter.

I think the book is a bit out of date right now. Multinationals can even help democratic processes as I've seen in China. Point is we always think as Westerns who know the only "truth".

Все се чудя защо почти всички хора в почти всички малоумни американските филми работят в „маркетинга“. Толкова ли няма други интересни и значими професии, та все се занимаваме с „маркетинга“. Наоми Клайн донякъде обяснява защо – марковите компании вече не продават груби стоки, а „преживявания“, „начин на живот“ и прочие простотии. Т.е. вие не си купувате някакви си прозаични обувки, с които краката ви няма да мръзнат, а си купувате „спортен дух“, или „уникално извивяване“, или ставате част от елитен клуб. Така че супермарките се разграничават от продукта, който се предполага, че е в основата на дейността им. Затова не им трябват работници във фабриките, а маркетолози, продавачи на мечти. Затова и продуктите на Найк, Адидас, Рийбок, Gap и пр. се произвеждат не във фабрики, собственост на компаниите, а от подизпълнители в третия свят, които плащат на работниците си – предимно млади жени в тийнейджърска възраст – толкова, колкото да не умрат от глад, а понякога и по-малко. Но супермарките са чисти, защото те поръчват продукт, който друг има ангажимента да произведе на възможно най-ниска цена, при това както намери за добре. Печалбите се използват за още маркетинг, за изкупуване на други бизнеси, за пазарна експанзия, за космически хонорари на спортни и други звезди, които да рекламират измислиците.
Книгата не казва нищо, което не знам. Писана е преди почти 25 години и тези проблеми са осветени отдавна – за който се интересува. Но интересуващите са учудващо малко на брой – това може да го каже всеки, който има тийнейджъри вкъщи. Рядко някой от тях, а и родителите им, се интересува от къде идват марковите парцалки, въпреки че на етикетите пише „Made in Bangladesh”. А те идват от фабрики в страни, които продават поданиците си на корпорациите, като не прилагат никакво трудово законодателство, не събират данъци, не изискват социално и здравно осигуряване за работниците. По този начин мантрата, че чуждестранните инвестиции помагат на бедните държави се оказва голяма лъжа – няма никакви инвестиции, а само най-примитивна експолоатация. Няма създаване на постоянни работни места, нито внедряване на технологии, защото производството постоянно се мести от една държава в друга, в търсене на по-ниски надници и по-дълга „данъчна ваканция“. Няма базов доход, който да се влее в бедните икономики, защото заплатите стигат за купичка ориз и легло в общежитие. Но кой да мисли за това, след като не си купува яке, а „чиста емоция“?
Друга лоша новина – корпорациите – производители на потребителски стоки постоянно търсят вдъхновение от културата, от социалните движения за повишаване на продажбите си. Нямат притеснения да използват феминизма, движенията за правата на цветнокожите, гейовете и всяка друга онеправдана група, за да продават. По този начин се появяват United colors of…., рекламни кампании с целуващи се моряци и пр. Така гръндж музиката от форма на протест се превръща в модни линии за милиарди. Така става и със стремежа на хората към чиста храна, затова напоследък всичко е „домашно“ и „ръчна изработка“. Лъжи и маркетинг на всеки ъгъл.
Добрата новина е, че притчата за Давид и Голиат е стара колкото цивилизацията. Следователно колкото и да са силни корпорациите винаги ще има активисти, които да ги нападат, които да организират общностите за съпротива срещу пълното брендиране на живота ни. Книгата описва някои успешни акции на съпротива срещу Найк, Шел и Макдоналдс – всяка срещу различен проблем. Найк използват робски труд в т.нар. зони за обработка на експорта. Шел поддържат военното правителство на Нигерия и съсипват народът огони, като добиват нефт от техните земи в делтата на река Нигер. Макдоналдс не позволяват на никой да говори лоши неща за тях и по този начин ограничава свободата на словото, от което някои хора истински се разстройват. Корпорациите отвръщат на удара, но винаги има нови поколения активисти и така животът си върви, след всеки конфликт нещо се променя към по-добро. Макар и бавно – кратка справка в нета показва, че земята на огоните продължава да е съсипана от нефтените разливи, храната на Макдоналдс едва ли може да се нарече храна, надниците в Бангладеш пак са на ръба на жизнения минимум. Но когато проблемите са осветлени всеки може да вземе решение за потребителското си поведение, затова книгата е важна.

I skimmed most of this. Not that anything was wrong with the book, it just felt like it was stating the obvious to me. Maybe this would have seemed like newer information at the time of publishing. Right now, in 2016, with my anti-capitalist mind, this didn't tell me anything I wanted to know.

ذات يوم كنت أتحدث مع صديق لي عبر برنامج محادثة وفي معرض حديثه أخبرني بأنه اكتشف أن مشروب الفانيلا لذيذ للغاية. لم أعرف كيف أشكره على تلك المعلومة المثيرة للضجر، لكنني كرهته فيما بعد بسببها. فبمجرد أن أغلقت المحادثة وجدت إعلانات مشروب الفانيلا أمامي في صفحات موقع التواصل، أطفال سعداء وعارضات بأسنان ناصعة كالثلج، الجميع يبتسمون وكأن المشروب يُضحكهم.

أغلقت الموقع وتسللت إلى اليوتيوب لأستمع لموسيقاي المفضلة فوجدت الأغنية تبدأ بإعلان عن مشروب الفانيليا العضوي وفوائده التي لا تحصى. أغلقت المقطع بشكل كامل لكنني سمعت جرس الباب يرن فذهبت لأجيب. كان ذلك جاري يخبرني أنني نسيت مصباح سيارتي مضاءً. هل ظننت مثلاً أن بائع مشروب الفانيلا يدق بابي مثلاً؟ لم يحدث ذلك لكنك لم تبالغ، فقد يحدث شيء شبيه بذلك إذا استمرت الأمور على هذا المنوال. تابع المقطع التالي:

https://youtu.be/Nb0_Bh6MV6k

تخبرنا نعومي كلاين بأن الشركات العملاقة لم تعد تطمع في بيع المنتجات وبث الإعلانات بل تطمح للتغلغل في كل شيء حتى تصبح "أسلوب حياة". تحذر الكاتبة من أننا إن لم نجابه توسعهم ومخططاتهم فإنهم سيحتلون جميع المساحات ويقتحمون الخصوصيات ويؤثرون في شتى نواحي الحياة العامة.

يصف الكتاب تطفل العلامات التجارية على مناطق يفترض ألا تتواجد فيها مثل المدارس، الجامعات، وتؤثر في مجالات إنسانية مثل الموسيقى والسينما والرياضية. بدأ الأمر بمجرد ملصقات ملونة ثم بدأت برامج الرعاية ثم أصبحت الشركات هي التي تصمم وتمول كل شيء. لا تستغرب إذن الفريق الفلاني لا يرتدي سوى شعار الشركة الفلانية، وأن ممثلي ذلك الفلم لا يتناولون سوى البيبسيى أو أن مغني الراب يتباهى بحذاءه الأديداس.

بالإضافة إلى ذلك فإن الشركات متعددة الجنسيات تعمل جاهدة لتجريف الثقافات الأصلية ونشر ثقافة موحدة، مثل اختراع ما يسمى بـ"المراهق العالمي" الذي يوجد في كل مكان، يرتدي نفس الزي ويمارس نفس الهوايات. كما تعمل تلك الكيانات على ضرب الشركات المحلية بقدراتها الخرافية، ما يجعل الشركات المحلية تتكتل في كيان واحد ثم تمارس نفس السياسات المبتذلة لنظيراتها الأجنبية.

تدّعي المؤسسات العابرة للقارات أنها تخلق فرص عمل. ولكن الحقيقة أنها عملت على تسريح عدد كبير جدا من العمّال في أمريكا والدول الأوروبية. من ثم انتقلت إلى دول آسيا حيث تعاقدت مع مصانع تؤجر عمالة بطريقة هي أشبه بالعبودية الحديثة. وفوق هذا وذاك هي تعتمد على استحداث وظائف هامشية في منافذ البيع، وظائف ولا تؤدي إلى تطور ملموس ولا تمنح حقوقاً مميزة ويمكن الاستغناء عن أفرادها أو استبدالهم بسهولة.

مثل الكيانات السياسة بالضبط، استطاع مبتكرو الماركات العالمية استخدام مكرهم للتأُقلم مع كل الظروف. ركبوا موجة المطالبة بتمثيل الأقليات، تغنوا بحقوق المرأة، وقاموا بتشجيع أي حراك من شأنه الترويج لمنتجاتهم. يحكي الكتاب أن أحد المطربين أطلق أغنية تنتقد الشركات العملاقة وأحدثت صدى ملحوظاً، فتقدمت له إحدى تلك الشركات بعرض إصدار ألبوم كامل برعايتهم. كما ترى، لا مفر منهم إلا إليهم.

هذه بعض الأفكار المهمة في الكتاب. إن كنت قرأت عقيدة الصدمة فستجد نفس النبرة الحانقة غير المهادنة وسرد التفاصيل بالأدلة والإحصائيات. يختلف هذا الكتاب عن خلَفه بأن فيه لمحات عن الحياة الخاصة للمؤلفة. غير أني أعتب على الكتاب أنه لم يقدم فصلا يشرح الجانب النفسي لما تقوم به تلك الشركات من دعايات وترويج، أعتقد أن ذلك كان سيحقق فهماً أعمق لتلك الجهود الخيالية. في النهاية الكتاب متميز ومهم في تعرية تلك الكائنات الأخطبوطية الطفيلية التي تمتص كل شيء لتغذي رؤوسها التي لا تشبع أبداً.

3.5 dnf
bardzo dobre, ale w 2024 już trąci myszką

A fantastically well researched account of the evolution of the corporate ideas which seem to permeate our existence. Klein's arguments are piercing in their clarity. If nothing else, she constantly begs us to consider the horrific human cost of our brand-saturated existence. "a delusion that lasts for decades is not a delusion. It's an institution." I think Bruce Sterling said that, seems pretty apt for this book.

Reading The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein was a moment where I felt my worldview shift and tilt, hence I’ve been on a mission to read the rest of her works, no matter how dense and complex the subject matter.

The experience of reading No Logo was different to that of The Shock Doctrine - with No Logo I felt as if I knew (at least on some level) a lot of what Naomi wrote about, and unfortunately not much of what I read came as a huge shock. What I loved about this book compared to The Shock Doctrine was the level of personality and anecdotes from Naomi herself. This book was more enjoyable and personal to read, especially given the subject matter of consumerism and corporate culture is so personal.

Excellent read on ruthless corporatism, unethical and anti-human behaviours of giant corporations and modern activism against it. Full of vivid piece of evidence, many practical examples and enlightening actions by social activists, students and other groups, this is a must read. The author herself embarks on a journey to understand the principles of corporate giants such as Nike, Starbucks, McDonald's, Shell, Levis and many others and to raise a voice about their harsh and unethical principles that need immediate and decisive counter action. Even though the book was written nearly 20 years ago, it opens the door to a world that we should be familiar with.

an important body of work that remains relevant even in current times.