I finished reading this book about a week ago, and throughout the time I was reading it, I really made me think and challenge what I think about brands. First a brief description taken from the amazon entry:-
"What do you do when you wake up and realise that your life has been an empty pursuit of the superficial and the trend-driven? That your identity and value systems are based upon a brand hierarchy of your own creation? On 17th September 2006, in Finsbury Square, East London, Neil Boorman burnt all his branded items. The ones that wouldn't burn, he destroyed with a sledgehammer. The event was the culmination of a long process of self-examination, and of the brand-dominated world in which we live, recorded in a popular and controversial blog online. As a product of a generation that has been sold to since birth Neil examines the social, historical, economic and psychological ways in which brands have gripped our society, as well as documenting his personal trials and tribulations as he tries to live a life without brands.How will he cope without a hit of his Crackberry? Will he feel naked without his Nike, Gucci, and, of course, Marlboro?How do you make our own toothpaste?"
The book is basically the blog that Neil kept in the run-up to the bonfire and the issues he faced as he tried to replace the branded goods and also the criticism that he received. A lot of the criticism was about the waste of burning good quality clothes and equipment when he could have given it away to charity. This is an extremely good point, and ultimately that's a better way of dealing with stuff you no longer want (motto for life - reduce, reuse, recycle) but I get his point of the cathartic nature of fire. Plus, reading this, you've got to remember that sending stuff to a charity shop isn't as good as story as a bloody big bonfire.
When I first started reading the book, I was kinda looking down on him for being so influenced by branding and adverts. But as I read on, I began to realise that even though I don't care about what brand my clothes are, I am affected by adverts and branding, especially in the sense of avoiding certain brands (I hate starbucks for instance).
I think there are two sides to branding: the more traditional side is that a brand tells us who made the product and we can therefore be reassured as to the quality of it (e.g. I've got a pair of keen sandals which I love, the most comfortable shoes I've had for years, so if I see a pair of keen shoes in a shop, I'm more likely to buy them than another brand because I'm confident they're a quality product). On the other hand, brands can be a status symbol (he's wearing an armani suit, he must be successful and intelligent).
The reason that brands cause a problem in our society is that they encourage people to buy things they don't need, keeping them in a cycle of working harder than necessary so that they can buy things. This is not sustainable or particularly healthy.
I don't think it's healthy to go to the extreme that Neil went to, to remove all brands from our lives (Neil talks about his addiction to brands, but in a sense, avoiding them at all costs gives brands even more power); but I do think we need to step back and realise the control that brands can have over our lives. This book is a great read and quite an eye-opener.
We need to move to a situation where the only purpose of a brand is to convey quality, not confer status.
No comments:
Post a Comment