IMAGINE a world without brands. It existed once, and still exists, more or less, in the world's poorest places. No raucous advertising, no ugly billboards, no McDonald's. Yet, given a chance and a bit of money, people flee this Eden. They seek out Budweiser instead of their local tipple, ditch nameless shirts for Gap, prefer Marlboros to home-grown smokes. What should one conclude? That people are pawns in the hands of giant companies with huge advertising budgets and global reach? Or that brands bring something that people think is better than what they had before?
The pawn theory is argued, forcefully if not always coherently, by Naomi Klein, author of “No Logo”, a book that has become a bible of the anti-globalisation movement. Her thesis is that brands have come to represent “a fascist state where we all salute the logo and have little opportunity for criticism because our newspapers, television stations, Internet servers, streets and retail spaces are all controlled by multinational corporate interests.” The ubiquity and power of brand advertising curtails choice, she claims; produced cheaply in third-world sweatshops, branded goods displace local alternatives and force a grey cultural homogeneity on the world.
想像沒有商標的一個世界。 它存在曾經，而且仍然存在，或多或少，在世界上最貧窮的地方。 沒有粗厲的廣告，沒有醜陋的布告板，沒有麥當勞公司。 然而，被給的機會和一點錢，人逃走這伊甸園。 他們尋找 Budweiser 代替他們的地方酒，對於縫隙拋棄無名的襯衫，喜歡 Marlboros 勝過本國產的煙。 一應該總結什麼？ 那一個人是在和極大的廣告預算和全球的範圍龐大的公司掌握中典當？或哪一商標帶一些
典當理論被爭論，有力地如果不總是互相密合著地，在拿俄米 Klein ，沒有標誌的作家手邊, 一本書已經變得反全球化運動的聖經。 她的論題是商標已經來代表”我們全部為批評行禮標誌而且有小的機會法西斯黨員州因為我...