To purchase this video go to the
Media Education Foundation
http://www.mediaed.org/
\
No Choice
KEY POINTS
» One of the chief casualties in the new branded world is choice: whether we like it or not, ads and brands are everywhere in our face, woven into the very fabric of popular culture and public space.
» This lack of choice is the realization of a marketing logic governed by the drive to crowd out and
eliminate competition: for the giant brands to maintain market share and power, they must saturate
space and the senses and eliminate choice.
» Virtually every aspect of our lives is now subject to aggressive marketing schemes as powerful
corporations gobble up meaning, space, time, and every conceivable idea – including political ideas that would otherwise challenge this corporate hegemony – and spit them out as props to advance their brand stories.
» This colonization of public space poses a threat to the fundamental need in democracy for a protectedcommon area outside of the market where people can relate to each other and exchange ideas andinformation as citizens rather than as consumers.
» Malls present a striking example not only of the disappearance of public, democratic space, but also ofits replacement by the illusion of a public, democratic gathering space.
» The virtual town square atmosphere of malls, replete with virtual sidewalks and trees and fountains,belies the essentially tightly-controlled, private and anti-democratic nature of these places: malls are“free” spaces only to the extent that the exercise of free speech within their walls doesn’t clash with the rules of buying and selling.
» There is nothing new in the idea that corporations, as private entities, censor inconvenient speech
and information; what’s new is the scale of this censoring power as giant companies like Walmart exertgreater and greater control across a widening expanse of culture and the economy.
» Walmart’s “family values” brand identity clashes with free speech not only when it decides to cover upmagazines that work against its image; more importantly – because of its sheer size and market share– its aesthetic sensibility shapes the kinds of content that get produced in the first place.
» What we are seeing is a new form of “pre-emptive” corporate censorship: directly linked to the growingscale of these brand empires, the economic power of giant corporations works to shape economicconditions and determine choices before products are even made.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION & WRITING
1. What is it about the contemporary marketing logic of the big brands that eliminates consumer choice?
2. What other kinds of choice does the enactment of this logic eliminate?
3. Klein talks about how the big brand empires appropriate ideas and ideals to their own advantage. How doesthis work, according to her explanation? Can you think of your own examples of this phenomenon? What specific ideas, ideals, or rebellious political thought have you seen reduced to mere props in the theatre of the brand?
4. According to Klein, what specific threats to democracy are posed by the emergence of global brand empires?
5. What does it say about democracy and the political power of the people if corporations have such immensepower to transform even the most threatening challenges to their supremacy into a marketing pitch for their brand?
Do you see a way out of this? Do you feel that corporations are always bound to neutralize any counter-strikeagainst the way they do business?
6. How does Klein’s analysis of malls fit within her larger argument in this section about the erosion of choice?What does she say, specifically, about the relationship of mall culture and freedom? What does she say about the rationale behind the way malls are designed?
O CHOICE
7. In your own opinion, do you think there is a significant qualitative difference between the way people move through and mix in malls versus the way they move through and mix in open street markets and other communal public spaces?
8. What does Klein mean by “corporate censorship”? What is it? And what, according to Klein, is the difference between older forms of corporate censorship and the form it takes today?
9. What does Klein mean, specifically, by “pre-emptive corporate censorship”? Explain how this works using a specific example.
10. Related to this notion of pre-emptive corporate censorship is Klein’s argument that lots of smaller companies are forced to “internalize the Walmart aesthetic.” What does she mean by this? And how does this connect with what she says about corporate censorship? Finally, what is “the Walmart aesthetic anyway”?
ASSIGNMENTS
1. According to Naomi Klein, we cannot simply choose to ignore brands – branding is everywhere. To test herargument, make a list tracking the brands that surround you for an entire day. Starting from the time youwake up, note what brands you see and where you see them. As you compile and review the list, think about howrealistic it would be simply to remove these brands from your environment – or, likewise, to remove yourself from their presence. What would doing either of these things require? Now, given that the title of this section is “No Choice: Brand Bombing,” use your list to write a 1-2 page paperexplaining whether or not you agree with Klein that you are “bombed” by brands. Talk about what this mightmean, based on your own experience. Try to include responses to the following:
» What, specifically, did you notice and experience over the course of your one-day study? What kindof ads? What kinds of placement?
» How did your experience fit with Klein’s argument in this section? (Be specific – about both your
experience, and Klein’s argument.)
» Given all of this, do you think the section title is fitting? Why or why not?
2. Klein uses the example of malls to illustrate how corporations and brands appropriate and privatize public space, and to call attention to the tightly monitored, anti-democratic nature of these spaces. As she points out, you’re welcome in the mall as long as your behavior doesn’t conflict with the baseline goal of its clients– to get you shopping. This assignment asks you to do some research to respond to this question: What happens when an individual or a group’s behavior conflicts with a brand? As discussed in Section II, brands are usually quite happy to see
you using their brand – provided you’re using it the “right way” Tommy Hilfiger, for example, is content to have you sport the Tommy Hilfiger name on your underwear. And Nike doesn’t seem to mind when people get the swoosh sign or “Just Do It” tattooed on their bodies or shaved into their hair. But some interesting things can happen to those who use the brand differently.
Use the Internet to research cases in which an individual or group has come in conflict with a brand. The popular media sometimes reports these cases so news archives will also be a helpful place to look. Choose one case on which to write and present a report. Your report should include a synopsis of the case. As you write up your report, consider the following: Who are the parties involved? What happened? How did the behavior of the individual or group conflict with the brand? What was the outcome? If the outcome has not been resolved, what do you expect it might be? What do you think it should or should have been? Why? of “no choice”?
NO CHOICE
The following links provide examples that might help you get started:
» www.haidabuckscafe.com/about.htm
» www.mcspotlight.org/case/index.html