This is a thought that was stirred by the reappearance of the drugs thread. One of the main things I got from it was that Dok Howl and many others on the board don't see a problem with dong drugs, it's identifying yourself as a drug user that is fucking idiotic.
I agree, but I also wanted to say that, in it's essence, it's no different than identifying yourself by any other facet of consumption. If you are a coke person (meaning you drink coca cola) that's about as retarded as being a coke head. If you identify yourself by the car you drive, that's just as bad as identifying yourself by the herb you smoke. Brand identification is something that the brands have been pushing hard, it helps them to sell if their brand is identified with a certain lifestyle, a certain kind of person. And it transforms each of us into easily categorized consumers, instead of simply people. It's not a surprise to see this sort of thinking associated with illicit brands as well as the legal ones.
I certainly don't have a problem with dong drugs!
:love:
Yeah, it blows my mind when I see someone wearing a Nike t-shirt.
I don't do enough dong drugs. :(
Quote from: Nigel on June 08, 2010, 09:56:34 PM
I don't do enough dong drugs. :(
Hush, viagra doesn't work that way on women.
However, being uncontrollably aroused for six hours has a downside.
Quote from: Nigel on June 08, 2010, 10:06:30 PM
However, being uncontrollably aroused for six hours has a downside.
thinking..............................................................................
failure to comprehend
end program
Quote from: Hawk on June 08, 2010, 10:10:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 08, 2010, 10:06:30 PM
However, being uncontrollably aroused for six hours has a downside.
thinking..............................................................................
failure to comprehend
end program
:lulz:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 08, 2010, 09:52:29 PM
This is a thought that was stirred by the reappearance of the drugs thread. One of the main things I got from it was that Dok Howl and many others on the board don't see a problem with dong drugs, it's identifying yourself as a drug user that is fucking idiotic.
I agree, but I also wanted to say that, in it's essence, it's no different than identifying yourself by any other facet of consumption. If you are a coke person (meaning you drink coca cola) that's about as retarded as being a coke head. If you identify yourself by the car you drive, that's just as bad as identifying yourself by the herb you smoke. Brand identification is something that the brands have been pushing hard, it helps them to sell if their brand is identified with a certain lifestyle, a certain kind of person. And it transforms each of us into easily categorized consumers, instead of simply people. It's not a surprise to see this sort of thinking associated with illicit brands as well as the legal ones.
You've got it backwards.
People have a tendency to tie their ego to stupid fucking shit.
And they've been doing that far longer than advertisers have been exploiting it.
It's easy to blame teh evol advertisers as corrupting agents of the innately good human, but the truth is that people want symbolic material signifiers, and always have.
Advertisers don't create that need, they cater to it.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 09, 2010, 09:55:12 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 08, 2010, 09:52:29 PM
This is a thought that was stirred by the reappearance of the drugs thread. One of the main things I got from it was that Dok Howl and many others on the board don't see a problem with dong drugs, it's identifying yourself as a drug user that is fucking idiotic.
I agree, but I also wanted to say that, in it's essence, it's no different than identifying yourself by any other facet of consumption. If you are a coke person (meaning you drink coca cola) that's about as retarded as being a coke head. If you identify yourself by the car you drive, that's just as bad as identifying yourself by the herb you smoke. Brand identification is something that the brands have been pushing hard, it helps them to sell if their brand is identified with a certain lifestyle, a certain kind of person. And it transforms each of us into easily categorized consumers, instead of simply people. It's not a surprise to see this sort of thinking associated with illicit brands as well as the legal ones.
You've got it backwards.
People have a tendency to tie their ego to stupid fucking shit.
And they've been doing that far longer than advertisers have been exploiting it.
It's easy to blame teh evol advertisers as corrupting agents of the innately good human, but the truth is that people want symbolic material signifiers, and always have.
Advertisers don't create that need, they cater to it.
THIS! Both of it. You've come up with a good point between you. Now how do I go about getting that on a baseball cap?
Though it's natural to identify with things.
That's why people here have avartars (or conspiculously don't I'm not playing innocent), screen-names, signitures etc. That's why people are Discordian. But I agree, the brand as an identifying point is quite daft.
Tribes can be quite useful, and fantastic. But they're they're to meet your needs, not so you cater to them.
Read this the other day. It's along the same lines. Cult of celebrity aint that much different from brand identification on one level.
Quote
NP:
Tell-All explores the concept of celebrity. Why do you think as a society we're so celebrity obsessed?
CP:
My crackpot theory is that people are losing their skill to express themselves, and they're, in a way, farming that task out. If they want to express themselves they buy a song or they buy a greeting card that's already processed by someone who's kept that skill. We can't express our own feelings anymore so we have to hire someone to do that. To a large extent movies take that on, they're our therapy and our expression.
Source (http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Chuck+Palahniuk%3A+Tell-All/)
somebody recently invited me to join a facebook group "I don't wear brand clothing"
which is true, i don't have any clothing with visible logos on it, except for a few pajama t-shirts
but joining a facebook group to advertise that seems counterintuitive
isn't it just the anti-brand brand?
Kale Lassn and his adbusters goons released a line of shoes a few years back called the Black Spot. They were an attack against nike, against the whole idea that you have to pay top tollar for the right to be a walking billboard for some company...
(http://www.grizzlybird.net/greenparenting/blackspot.jpg)
but what have they done? They have created a billboard for their brand of counterculture. It's not unbranded, it's the unbrand brand.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 09, 2010, 02:45:59 PM
somebody recently invited me to join a facebook group "I don't wear brand clothing"
which is true, i don't have any clothing with visible logos on it, except for a few pajama t-shirts
but joining a facebook group to advertise that seems counterintuitive
isn't it just the anti-brand brand?
Kale Lassn and his adbusters goons released a line of shoes a few years back called the Black Spot. They were an attack against nike, against the whole idea that you have to pay top tollar for the right to be a walking billboard for some company...
(http://www.grizzlybird.net/greenparenting/blackspot.jpg)
but what have they done? They have created a billboard for their brand of counterculture. It's not unbranded, it's the unbrand brand.
Yeah, it's marketing. "The only way to be cool is to be UNCOOL, we have the solution!"
Counterculture became a brand as soon as it became a word. That's how it works. One of the reasons I'd never describe myself as "Discordian" It might be a brand I respect more than most but it's still a pidgeonhole. I aint no motherfucken demographic :argh!:
Black sheep are still sheep
It's too bad, because I think the motivation is really dead on. One of the reasons we're all becoming consumer zombies is because people attach real meaning to these brand sigils.
And if you can come up with a way to get people to stop building their identity with brands, you've defeated a dangerous and pervasive aspect of consumerism.
If they gave the shoes away for free, that might be different. But if you're going to try and make a "no-brand" brand for selling product, then it all falls apart.
Just go one of those Job Lots/flea markets and buy a bunch of no-name gear with no logo, or a logo no one knows about it. Or, grab a can of spraypaint and obliterate the logo on your stuff.
In fact, sometimes the logo brand actually makes a good product. In that case, buy it for the quality and then alter it yourself to disguise/manipulate the logo.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 09, 2010, 03:09:29 PM
It's too bad, because I think the motivation is really dead on. One of the reasons we're all becoming consumer zombies is because people attach real meaning to these brand sigils.
And if you can come up with a way to get people to stop building their identity with brands, you've defeated a dangerous and pervasive aspect of consumerism.
Honesty would be the best approach.
"We will not smear our name all over this product but it is a good product and costs less because we aren't asking you to advertise for us."
Or, you can be subtle about it.
I am a big fan of Ben Sherman brand shirts. I really like the cut and fit of them.
Other then the fact they look good, the only difinitive clue is that the last button on the bottom of the shirt, the one usually covered up by your waistband, has the Ben Sherman Union Jack logo. I'm happy to wear the shirt, but if it was all plastered with their name, I wouldn't go near it, no matter how well it was constructed.
It works because I not only keep wearing/buying their stuff, I find myself telling other people about how much I like their stuff. As you can see.
Quote from: Hawk on June 09, 2010, 03:15:27 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 09, 2010, 03:09:29 PM
It's too bad, because I think the motivation is really dead on. One of the reasons we're all becoming consumer zombies is because people attach real meaning to these brand sigils.
And if you can come up with a way to get people to stop building their identity with brands, you've defeated a dangerous and pervasive aspect of consumerism.
Honesty would be the best approach.
"We will not smear our name all over this product but it is a good product and costs less because we aren't asking you to advertise for us."
Except it should be the other way around; the product that the wearer doesn't advertise should cost more. That's not the case, it's just what SHOULD be the case. The product with the conspicuous logo should cost less because the seller is getting free advertising from the buyer.
I guess I look at it like we talked about the whole BIP/cell idea. I'm not so sure that branding is really that much of a negative, if you are at least aware of it. If you have the awareness that you've bought into a mindset that says, "I have to wear Nike shoes because it makes me feel good", it's better than complete, blind consumerism.
I regularly buy Tim Horton's coffee. Because I like it. I like their shops, they are comfy for sitting down to have a cup of joe. But, I'm aware that this is partly a result of how they've marketed their brand to customers like myself.
So at least an informed consumer whore is better than an uninformed, in my book anyway.
Quote from: Nigel on June 09, 2010, 03:20:04 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 09, 2010, 03:15:27 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 09, 2010, 03:09:29 PM
It's too bad, because I think the motivation is really dead on. One of the reasons we're all becoming consumer zombies is because people attach real meaning to these brand sigils.
And if you can come up with a way to get people to stop building their identity with brands, you've defeated a dangerous and pervasive aspect of consumerism.
Honesty would be the best approach.
"We will not smear our name all over this product but it is a good product and costs less because we aren't asking you to advertise for us."
Except it should be the other way around; the product that the wearer doesn't advertise should cost more. That's not the case, it's just what SHOULD be the case. The product with the conspicuous logo should cost less because the seller is getting free advertising from the buyer.
The point is due to marketing they make you uncool if you are not sporting their logo, then they charge more because they are providing you with status.
Here's the jaws of the alligator, as I see it:
ON ONE HAND, sometimes nike, starbucks, the gap, etc, make superior products that you'd want to buy for their own merits
ON THE OTHER HAND, we are unwittingly carrying and transmitting a number of information viruses. these viruses, on a large enough scale, have transformed our everyday life into a commercial. And our culture into an empire of signs and signals.
I mean, you buy certain clothes so you can appear a certain way... and people take that at face value - if you dress like you're rich, people will treat you like you're rich. These symbols, these signifiers, are an easy shorthand for meaning or identity even if that meaning or identity isn't present. So consequently, we live in a world which is increasingly made up of signals, not substance.
so
ON ONE HAND, one should be careful about what signals he transmits
ON THE OTHER HAND, one should ignore brands and just buy products which resonate with him
Quote from: Hawk on June 09, 2010, 03:22:43 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 09, 2010, 03:20:04 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 09, 2010, 03:15:27 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 09, 2010, 03:09:29 PM
It's too bad, because I think the motivation is really dead on. One of the reasons we're all becoming consumer zombies is because people attach real meaning to these brand sigils.
And if you can come up with a way to get people to stop building their identity with brands, you've defeated a dangerous and pervasive aspect of consumerism.
Honesty would be the best approach.
"We will not smear our name all over this product but it is a good product and costs less because we aren't asking you to advertise for us."
Except it should be the other way around; the product that the wearer doesn't advertise should cost more. That's not the case, it's just what SHOULD be the case. The product with the conspicuous logo should cost less because the seller is getting free advertising from the buyer.
The point is due to marketing they make you uncool if you are not sporting their logo, then they charge more because they are providing you with status.
It has evolved into that, but the original purpose was simply to have a visible logo that identified your product to other consumers, which is brand advertising. It's a fairly functional system. The status arrived after that. "I see that wealthy, well-dressed people wear those shoes... I want those shoes so that I can appear to be wealthy and share in the status of wealthy people". Of course, like Louis Vitton and similar brands, what happened after that is that wealthy people started avoiding visible logos and they became strictly the provenance of the nouveau-riche and of the social-climbing lower class, but luckily there are enough of those to keep most big brand machines in business.
I used to be very anti band/tour teeshirts. I used to listen to the music on merit. Struck me a lot of people were turning it into some kind of herd identity. It didn't sit right with me.
Then I saw the Marillion Assassing teeshirt in a shop window and I thought "fuck it, that's one cool fucking picture, I'm having it!"
...Dunno where that anecdote was going. Forget it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 09, 2010, 04:12:22 PM
I used to be very anti band/tour teeshirts. I used to listen to the music on merit. Struck me a lot of people were turning it into some kind of herd identity. It didn't sit right with me.
Then I saw the Marillion Assassing teeshirt in a shop window and I thought "fuck it, that's one cool fucking picture, I'm having it!"
...Dunno where that anecdote was going. Forget it.
It tickled your buy bone?
I dunno, I think when it comes to something like band t-shirts, there is more than just consumerism to consider, you also have to consider ideas of culture.
Sam Dunn did a documentary on Metal and Metal culture, and in it, he points out the importance of the metal t-shirts as part of the way members of the culture identify themselves. They go to the festivals and concerts and one of the important rituals is deciding which band shirt they are going to wear, not necessarily to sell the band, but I think it is more about "selling" the individual to the rest of the community. "Hey, I'm a Children of Bodom fan!" Or maybe selling is the wrong word. I think you know what I'm saying.
Totally - that's the "herd" thing I was talking about.
Quote from: RWHN on June 09, 2010, 04:34:37 PM
I dunno, I think when it comes to something like band t-shirts, there is more than just consumerism to consider, you also have to consider ideas of culture.
Sam Dunn did a documentary on Metal and Metal culture, and in it, he points out the importance of the metal t-shirts as part of the way members of the culture identify themselves. They go to the festivals and concerts and one of the important rituals is deciding which band shirt they are going to wear, not necessarily to sell the band, but I think it is more about "selling" the individual to the rest of the community. "Hey, I'm a Children of Bodom fan!" Or maybe selling is the wrong word. I think you know what I'm saying.
Yeah, it's more than just advertizing for the band. I wear band shirts all the time (usually one of my way too many Maiden tee-shirts). I just feel comfortable wearing them, and it always catches my attention when I see someone wearing the shirt of a band I like. It's always pretty cool to walk by someone on the street and you give each other the horns and just go about your day. I even get approached by not obvious metalheads.
Aside from that bands generally make more money from merch than album sales. Near as I can tell, the record company snags a big chunk of album sales but the merch is mostly profit for the band. If the band comes out with a mediocre album but goes on tour, I'm buying the shirt because if I'm at the concert I obviously like the band and want to support them.
Oh sure, it certainly is a consumerist, money-making set up. But, I think in this case, it goes a little deeper into culture than just wanting to look like one of the cool kids. I think there is wanting to be in a group for superficial reasons and then there is wanting to be in a group for the legitimate comradery. I want to have the Nike shoes so I can look like a hip guy vs. I want to find some Slayer fans to hang with at the concert so I'll wear my Slayer shirt.
Even if it is brand identification, there would seem to be a difference between wearing advertising for a band, part of actual culture, and wearing something that advertises a shoe.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 09, 2010, 06:02:43 PM
Even if it is brand identification, there would seem to be a difference between wearing advertising for a band, part of actual culture, and wearing something that advertises a shoe.
Every year we buy shirts at the Country Stampede. I like the Stampede and most of the bands. I don't identify myself as a follower but I do think supporting them is important if I want to keep hearing them.
Quote from: RWHN on June 09, 2010, 05:46:27 PM
Oh sure, it certainly is a consumerist, money-making set up. But, I think in this case, it goes a little deeper into culture than just wanting to look like one of the cool kids. I think there is wanting to be in a group for superficial reasons and then there is wanting to be in a group for the legitimate comradery. I want to have the Nike shoes so I can look like a hip guy vs. I want to find some Slayer fans to hang with at the concert so I'll wear my Slayer shirt.
Precisely- You run into some pretty cool people that way, and if you get sucked into a moshpit you don't want to be in, he'll help you out. I got smoked up at a Type O Negative concert once because of a t-shirt.
I buy band shirts to support musicians. I also buy CDs at shows because usually, when you buy the CD directly from the band, they keep the whole profit.
I'll pirate the shit out of music but if I get a chance to buy a CD directly from a band I like, I always will, even if I have a friend who could burn it for me, and even if I already have a ripped copy.
Quote from: Nigel on June 09, 2010, 06:08:34 PM
I'll pirate the shit out of music but if I get a chance to buy a CD directly from a band I like, I always will, even if I have a friend who could burn it for me, and even if I already have a ripped copy.
Thank you for that. It's very noble.
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/brandidentity.png)
Quote from: LMNO on June 09, 2010, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 09, 2010, 06:08:34 PM
I'll pirate the shit out of music but if I get a chance to buy a CD directly from a band I like, I always will, even if I have a friend who could burn it for me, and even if I already have a ripped copy.
Thank you for that. It's very noble.
Dunno if it's "noble" as much as, I want those guys to keep making music, and in order to do that they have to be able to eat. Same reason I will tell six hundred people about a favorite band if they're playing in town. Please come see this musician I love so he keeps playing here! Etc.
Speaking as a musician, I hereby declare it to be noble.
So what does it say about me that the branded T-shirt I wear most is my own?
Quote from: LMNO on June 09, 2010, 07:55:41 PM
Speaking as a musician, I hereby declare it to be noble.
Awww thanks! :)
Quote from: Nigel on June 08, 2010, 10:06:30 PM
However, being uncontrollably aroused for six hours has a downside.
Try it 24/7 and get back to me
Quote from: dimo on June 09, 2010, 08:06:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 08, 2010, 10:06:30 PM
However, being uncontrollably aroused for six hours has a downside.
Try it 24/7 and get back to me
You've had a throbbing erection for 24 hours straight???
When are you moving to the West Coast? ;)
Quote from: Nigel on June 09, 2010, 08:07:32 PM
Quote from: dimo on June 09, 2010, 08:06:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 08, 2010, 10:06:30 PM
However, being uncontrollably aroused for six hours has a downside.
Try it 24/7 and get back to me
You've had a throbbing erection for 24 hours straight???
When are you moving to the West Coast? ;)
Uncontrollably aroused more or less all the time. West Coast? You got plane fare and a place to stay?
Plus, I was exaggerating... a little :|
Quote from: RWHN on June 09, 2010, 03:21:10 PM
I guess I look at it like we talked about the whole BIP/cell idea. I'm not so sure that branding is really that much of a negative, if you are at least aware of it. If you have the awareness that you've bought into a mindset that says, "I have to wear Nike shoes because it makes me feel good", it's better than complete, blind consumerism.
I regularly buy Tim Horton's coffee. Because I like it. I like their shops, they are comfy for sitting down to have a cup of joe. But, I'm aware that this is partly a result of how they've marketed their brand to customers like myself.
So at least an informed consumer whore is better than an uninformed, in my book anyway.
You are also one of the few people on the board actually opposed to the use of drugs, as opposed to the identification of the self as a drug user. I have no problem with drinking tim hortons coffee (or wearing nike shoes for that matter, they make good shoes) but when you define yourself as a Tim Horton's drinker, or a Nike wearer, or a pot smoker, then you are falling into a trap.
Quote from: dimo on June 09, 2010, 09:49:19 PM
Plus, I was exaggerating... a little :|
:lulz:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 10, 2010, 12:28:45 AMYou are also one of the few people on the board actually opposed to the use of drugs, as opposed to the identification of the self as a drug user. I have no problem with drinking tim hortons coffee...
I'm confused now, considering that caffeine is something like the number one used recreational drug.
Quote from: Vene on June 10, 2010, 03:59:00 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 10, 2010, 12:28:45 AMYou are also one of the few people on the board actually opposed to the use of drugs, as opposed to the identification of the self as a drug user. I have no problem with drinking tim hortons coffee...
I'm confused now, considering that caffeine is something like the number one used recreational drug.
Yeah, I wasn't going to get into that part of it.
I really like the concept behind Blackspot shoes actually. However, what i din't like what that whole 'we're not REALLY capitalist' schtich. Adbusters real goal, these days seems to be contributing to an improved Capitalism. But there's no need to pretend that that's not what they're doing.
For the same reason I don't like the use of the term Memebombs. To me, it's advertising. And that's ok, but it's still advertising. Or ideas or whatever.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 10, 2010, 12:28:45 AM
Quote from: RWHN on June 09, 2010, 03:21:10 PM
I guess I look at it like we talked about the whole BIP/cell idea. I'm not so sure that branding is really that much of a negative, if you are at least aware of it. If you have the awareness that you've bought into a mindset that says, "I have to wear Nike shoes because it makes me feel good", it's better than complete, blind consumerism.
I regularly buy Tim Horton's coffee. Because I like it. I like their shops, they are comfy for sitting down to have a cup of joe. But, I'm aware that this is partly a result of how they've marketed their brand to customers like myself.
So at least an informed consumer whore is better than an uninformed, in my book anyway.
You are also one of the few people on the board actually opposed to the use of drugs, as opposed to the identification of the self as a drug user. I have no problem with drinking tim hortons coffee (or wearing nike shoes for that matter, they make good shoes) but when you define yourself as a Tim Horton's drinker, or a Nike wearer, or a pot smoker, then you are falling into a trap.
You need to try that first sentence again because I'm not following what you are getting at. And I would agree on one level that identifying oneself as a Tim Horton's drinker, etc., is somewhat of a trap. But at the same time, it can also be part of belonging to a certain culture or group of comrades. Motivation and awareness are key to this and make a big difference from my perspective.
Quote from: RWHN on June 10, 2010, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 10, 2010, 12:28:45 AM
Quote from: RWHN on June 09, 2010, 03:21:10 PM
I guess I look at it like we talked about the whole BIP/cell idea. I'm not so sure that branding is really that much of a negative, if you are at least aware of it. If you have the awareness that you've bought into a mindset that says, "I have to wear Nike shoes because it makes me feel good", it's better than complete, blind consumerism.
I regularly buy Tim Horton's coffee. Because I like it. I like their shops, they are comfy for sitting down to have a cup of joe. But, I'm aware that this is partly a result of how they've marketed their brand to customers like myself.
So at least an informed consumer whore is better than an uninformed, in my book anyway.
You are also one of the few people on the board actually opposed to the use of drugs, as opposed to the identification of the self as a drug user. I have no problem with drinking tim hortons coffee (or wearing nike shoes for that matter, they make good shoes) but when you define yourself as a Tim Horton's drinker, or a Nike wearer, or a pot smoker, then you are falling into a trap.
You need to try that first sentence again because I'm not following what you are getting at. And I would agree on one level that identifying oneself as a Tim Horton's drinker, etc., is somewhat of a trap. But at the same time, it can also be part of belonging to a certain culture or group of comrades. Motivation and awareness are key to this and make a big difference from my perspective.
Ok, to try to link it more effectively, to most people on the board identifying yourself as a drug user is a problem, using drugs is not. The reason I see the self identification as a problem is the same reason I see identifying oneself as a tim horton's drinker as a problem. Allowing yourself to be defined by a relatively narrow facet of personal consumption is a trap, and does not allow us to fully express who we are, as well as pushing us toward behaviors and attitudes that may not really be ours at all, but are associated with our chosen narrow identity. However you have been clear that you are opposed to the use of drugs as much as the self identification, so the actual merits of the underlying behavior are more important than the self identification. Being a Nike Wearer is actually a better thing than being a Marlboro smoker (to pick a couple of popular identifications) because wearing nikes isn't an inherently negative activity while smoking is physically destructive. (that previous sentence being where I see your position) To me both the Nike Wearer and the Marlboro Smoker are at the same level as a Crack head or a Chronic smoker. They are people trapped by an aspect of their consumption into surrendering their identity.
I think I'll just leave this right here:
http://trueslant.com/matthewnewton/2010/06/10/attack-of-the-brands-logorama-takes-global-advertising-to-task/