I read a great article in the Earth Island Journal about the Pacific Trash Vortex. I'll post a blog on it at my site: www.validatelife.com but basically this awesome chemist captain dude was saying marketing (and brand) creates the plastic packaging that contributes to literally a HUGE floating trash vortex in the north pacific. Nasty!! horrifying! — john kooz

People and corporation spend a lot of money to keep their brand alive. You might see some thing under a different sub brand but they will never go away. Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Instant Credit Cards — mirfan

A follow-up post to my comment on April 9, 2009: Brands Are Dead. (Really?) Read it at: http://briancreath.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/brands-are-not-dead-part-2/ — Brands Are Dead. (Really?) Part Two, in an apparent series.

This book was awful. Completely contradictory. Poorly constructed arguments all around. Branding has evolved but it far from dead. The author's reluctance to admit it crushes the premise of his argument from the beginning. — Anonymous

Brands Are Dead. (Really?) Johnathan Salem Baskin and now you. “Brands Are Dead,” according to Mr. Baskin, who wrote, “Branding Only Works On Cattle.” In a November 2008 post, he says, among other things, “Nobody carries brands around in their heads. Nobody has a relationship with a brand. Or lives a brand lifestyle. Brands aren’t conversations, and they’re not bought, possessed, or coveted. Companies don’t own them. Neither do consumers or shareholders.” Funny. As I drove from Walmart through McDonald’s to the Apple Store the other day, I could have sworn he was wrong. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for a guy playing devil’s advocate to sell a few books; but c’mon, dead? Read the rest of this post, here: http://briancreath.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/brands-are-not-dead/ — Brian Creath

Branding has been around for quite some time, having evolved to the form we know from "marks of trade" and symbols stating manufacturer or origin. Brands are symbols, and humans are symbolic creatures. Language, art, religion, and commerce are all symbolic activities. A brand is a special kind of symbol, in that it is attributed to a product, somewhat arbitrarily, and it is attributed to things that are for sale. What has happened in the last hundred or so years, what I would say capitalism has made possible, is the application of brands (symbols of commerce) to things that had not previously been for sale. When something previously unsaleable (a religion or a lifestyle or a political party or a subculture or an individual - I will refer to this thing as an individual) brands itself it puts itself up for sale. Not only is it enabling advertisers to co-opt the symbols of the lifestyle or subculture in order to apply the symbols to their own product, the individual is setting up a scenario in which the individual no longer controls the symbols that define it. This is the essence of alienation; the individual interprets itself in terms of the symbols that refer to it and sees those symbols also refer to something that is not itself. Regardless, brands will continue to exist and evolve. What will have to end is the way we all allow the symbols in our world to seem to create their own meaning, rather than to refer to the meaning of the objects that they are intended to symbolize... to "see through" brands as symbols that represent ideas. Ideas that are used in ways that may not be true. The symbol is not the the thing. The car is not the happiness on the face of the woman driving it. The sneaker is not the skill. It might be on an athlete the first time you see it, but wearing it does not make you an athlete too. The church is not the belief. The logo is not the quality. The scarf is not the solidarity. The flag is not the country. Sometimes we see through the symbol to the essence beneath, sometimes we don't. Soon we won't have a choice... to take the symbols that surround us at face value is to see the world as empty and alienated from itself. To see the objects of the world as they are and to apply our own values and symbols to them is to see the world as full and fascinating. My two cents. — Moeafati

Until humans turn on more of our brains, and start conceptualizing in ways that I can't conceive, symbols (brands) will continue to be an important part of our mental dialogue. — eddiebrio

I'm eating a milk chocolate biscuit. — Anonymous

as long as there are people who believe, and worship, and those who are self important. we will always need a symbol to relate with. a brand to tell ourselves that it is okay. that the world is not so dark. — Anonymous

don’t be naive.            Acai Guru “the brand” was exploited very well for the purpose of getting the current president elected.Acai Guru dead? it’s just be “refreshed” — natberger

I can't see the problem with Adbusters using the media and methods that are available to it. Those of you who are quick to point out Adbusters' "hypocrisy" are merely creating a straw man so you can kick the crap out of it. Hypocrisy is an overrated vice at the best of times, as absolutely none of us manifest complete integrity in every single action and thought. We contradict ourselves somewhere along the line. Adbusters can either completely marginalise itself, in which case its entire raison d'etre is rendered pointless, or it can use the weapons currently available to it. If we're going to judge Adbusters mag harshly, we can only do so sometime in the future, in the context of the very changes it will have helped to bring about. If complete, morphogenic chnge occurs in the next decade, I'm sure the mag will be right there, and in the meantime, let's see if it makes those little, exemplary, morphostatic changes along the way. Right now, it's a magazine, it needs to say something, it needs to say that something to as many people as possible; it needs to shout louder from the newsstands than other mags; it needs to utilise modern means to reach people; it needs revenue. This means it has to advertise. I'm sure they scrutinise the philosophical bona fides of every advertiser before they give them space. A sharp sense of hypocrisy is one of the few things we take with us from our childhood. It doesn't make us as insightful as we think. The wisdom we supposedly acquire in adulthood should tell us when to apply this sense and when to refrain. Because hypocrisy on a grand scale is one of the vices this mag attacks, it will always be easy for us to turn its weapons back on itself. But is it always productive? Are we really being insightful, or just spiteful? BTW - I'm not some paid employee of the mag. I only just discovered its existence recently, with the Big Ideas issue. Besides, I live in Australia - what the hell do I know? — Robert Drane

Brands will never go away- They will just "re-brand" and come back in the same form different name. After all we have had ways to form uber-groups throughout the ages; be it religion, tribalism, genotype, geolocation, monarchy and even artistic and intellectualism cliques. — Andrew in Ireland

Although I agree, I can't take this article seriously with an ad for Black Spot shoes and another for an Adbusters T-shirt on the side bar. IMO, there is really no difference between branding Nike or branding Black Spot. It's still advertising, all manufacturing processes/issues aside. — Larry

The day Naomi Klein ditches the designer and Adbusters comes in a plain brown wrapper, will be the day I might listen to you. So I call bullshit on your theory. The evidence doesn't back you up. If you so hate brands and logos and design, then lead the way by not deploying any of these things. But I know you won't because you like to get rich and successful just like everyone else. You wouldn't want to be ignored in the bookshop or on the 'net. A more progressive analysis is to regognise that actually it has been radicals that pioneered branding and logos, and that this was only ever co-opted and adapted by corporations to peddle goods and services. But it started with the radicals. — Rimm Johb

Geez, I think we're being a bit hard on Dougie. If the ad mass society is actually finished and conspicuous consumerism becomes a distant memory, then the hegemony of the brand will inevitably loosen. But brands themselves? Well, divested of that overweening power they have to fill the pockets of greedy plutocrats, they are mere symbols, signifiers, bearers of meaning and aids to recognition. No harm in that. We are meaning makers, that's the entire premise of this magazine, and this dialogue between the meanings we attach to objects and events, and the power of those objects and events to shape that meaning, is what this "war" is all about. Adbusters is trying to help us to appropriate some power in that conflict, because, for a long time, it's been pretty one-sided. It's probably incorrect to assume that Doug believes the brand will die. It may be that he believes it will take its rightful role in the marketplace of ideas. — Robert Drane

If religions were early brands and footwear companies were modern brands and people are now brands.... then we have 6.5 billion 'brands' and counting. Consolidation of power has lessened. — bikefilms

Here's a question for everyone...do brands make life more interesting? — Ford (Ironic, I know)

Brands will never go away. A strong stance such as yours has a "facebook" link right below it. It's a nice thought that all the large, corporate brands will go away. Those that take advantage of consumers and workers. And, I think we should work towards evening the playing field. But what about your local co-op market? They've built a brand on a smaller level. Or the American Cancer Society? A brand for a good cause. Adbusters is a brand, proving that good brands exist. Heck, you could consider religions, countries, states, cities, gangs...just about everything could be a brand. — TR

Branding has gone on forEVER. We just didn't call it "branding" and make it a science to study at school. It's going nowhere and will be replaced by nothing. Unless Adbusters wants to take the first step and publish under a different title every month? — Anonymous

i agree branding, marketing, and so called "social online networks" have gone too far to capture our undivided attention and tell us what we need to feel complete. However, when quality of product or service comes into to play this is where some companies have built their brands upon, they want to produce and provide the best possible service. Not just stuff another product or website into an already bloated social marketplace. Such companies do still exist, you just have to look for them. They aren't represented by celebrities or by a swoosh symbol, they are represented by real people working to make a difference. One more thing... Adbusters why do you have link to twitter on your site when you shit talk facebook, twitter and many other social networking sites??? — kat1986

the brand is dead - adbusters adbusters is dead - the brand — Anonymous

ah yes the brand is dead. now where did i put my ipod? — John A.