In her book "No Logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies," Naomi Klein traces the emergence of a growing anti-corporate movement in the United States and around the world. The movement is still somewhat diffuse; it encompasses a number of disparate strands, the only common thread of which is a strong disdain for multinationals and the realities of the global village. But its members are mobilizing, and increasingly organized.
Ms. Klein explains that the anti-corporate movement is, in part, a response to the surrender of cultural and educational space to branded companies. Not only have large corporations covered almost every inch of public space with brand names and logos, they have begun to infiltrate public school systems: They plaster cafeterias and common areas with ads, sign exclusive distribution agreements, sponsor classroom buildings and subtly influence academic studies.
Other targets of the anti-corporate movement include clothing companies Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger. Calvin Klein because its ads distort women's and girls' understanding of sexuality and sense of worth. Tommy Hilfiger because it has succeeded in branding both legions of consumers and outside culture to an unprecedented extent. These companies have taken over more than just space: they have taken over our psyches and even our culture.
The nutty thing is: We let them.
Now, the revolution isn't likely to come any time soon (nor, when it does, is it likely to be televised). But anti-corporate sentiment has begun to spill over into the mainstream, and could continue to do so. In his book "Culture Jam: How to reverse America's suicidal consumer binge," Adbusters founder and editor-in-chief Kalle Lasn reminds us that anti-tobacco activists were able to "uncool" smoking in the sixties, and essentially to force a ban on tobacco ads on television and radio. It could happen with Calvin Klein, he says. It could happen with the whole spectacle, resulting in entirely ad-free environments.
The emergence of the anti-corporate movement - and the possibility of its success - raises several questions. First, are marketers and advertisers at all concerned about the potential threat of the movement? And if so, in what ways have they, or might they respond to it?
It seems that marketers are not especially worried about the anti-corporate movement. To most, according to Joyce Gioia-Herman, president of management consulting firm The Herman Group and co-author of "Lean and Meaningful: A New Culture for Corporate America," the movement is a glimmer in the distance, which most likely will flicker and die before it arrives. And the activists that fill its ranks, nothing more than noisy lefties - probably the same people who voted for Ralph Nader in the last election.
Nor are marketers overly concerned with the apparent surrender of culture to brands, or with the potentially harmful effects of advertising. "Ideas put forth by anti-corporate activists rarely are taken seriously in the marketing and advertising worlds," Ms. Gioia-Herman notes, "until there's a crippling boycott or demonstration, bringing their corporation or client into a negative limelight. Then, they're ready to help the company look at its options."
But marketers and advertisers don't need to wait until the revolution comes. There are responsible and even productive ways to respond to the anti-corporate movement - especially when it comes to the encroachment of brand names and logos onto public space.
Brad VanAuken, president of brand management consulting company BrandForward, Inc., reminds us that branding involves more than just the plastering of brand names and logos on everything in sight (including, but not limited to, urinals, fruit and airline luggage compartments). It involves an assessment of, and alignment with, what the brand stands for. The strongest brands, he notes, have corporate cultures that reinforce the brands' essence.
"I think what companies get out of it is brand recognition," Mr. VanAuken says of the full-frontal-assault approach to branding. "I'm not sure it reinforces what they stand for, nor do I think it's the best use of their funds. Companies have done better jobs."
Ms. Gioia-Herman suggests that the ubiquity of pop culture touchstones such as the WWF and "Survivor" provides marketers with ample opportunity to establish brand presence and reinforce brand essence. "There is a growing influence from television and movies," she says. "And marketers who recognize the tremendous power of associating their brands with the appropriate programming are reaping the rewards."
If companies focus less on saturating the marketplace with brand names and logos, and more on establishing strong brand essence and reinforcing the brand essence at all levels, then perhaps they won't be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. More importantly, they might avoid the very real possibility of consumers rebelling against the ubiquity of brand names and logos, or tuning them out all together. Then everyone will be happy.
Gary Boas is a frequent BrandNEWS contributor.