No LOGO - Naomi Klein

• Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, author, and filmmaker known for her criticism of corporate power and globalization. Her book The Shock Doctrine was a bestseller translated into 27 languages.

• She writes columns for The Nation and The Guardian, and is a contributing editor at Harper’s and reporter for Rolling Stone.

• In 2004 she released the documentary The Take about occupied factories in Argentina.

• She holds honorary doctorates and fellowships from various universities.

• Her 1999 book No Logo criticized branding and corporate power, becoming an international bestseller. It gave voice to a new generation of anti-corporate activists.

• The book looks at themes like sweatshops, corporate censorship, marketing in schools, and “cool” branding. It discusses tactics like culture jamming and brand-based campaigns.

• Since No Logo, Klein has continued writing books and articles critiquing capitalism, consumerism, and neoliberal policies, while supporting progressive social movements. The book remains highly influential in understanding branding, corporate power, and anti-corporate activism.

• Klein changed the subject away from corporate branding after No Logo came out, instead discussing the anti-corporate globalization movement against brands like Nike and Starbucks.

• She realized branding explained several trends - companies moving from manufacturing products to projecting brand ideas, crummier jobs as they no longer saw production as their “core,” and the quest to find blank spaces to project these ideas.

• The anti-corporate movement protested trade summits and achieved some reforms, with an internationalist focus.

• Klein then saw parallels between corporate branding and the Bush administration hollowing out government and privatizing many functions.

• Bush’s budget director said government should enable services, not provide them. Firms like Lockheed Martin took over many services.

• Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was keen to privatize and outsource, treating the military like a business. This was seen in the Iraq occupation, with minimal troops and contractors like Blackwater filling gaps.

• The Bush administration outsourced many core government functions to private contractors, embodying the “hollow state” ideal of a government that does not itself provide services or make things.

• Security contractors like Blackwater operated with little oversight, leading to scandals. The Department of Homeland Security was intentionally set up to rely entirely on private industry to provide security technology.

• Attempts to “rebrand” America’s image under Bush failed, as policies and actions, not branding, shaped global opinions.

• Obama ran an extremely successful campaign of rebranding America by portraying hope, change and progressive values. He surrounded himself with branding and marketing experts who leveraged new technologies effectively.

• The Obama brand has been highly lucrative and boosted the brands he associates with. Criticism emerged that Obama was benefiting private companies through his branding power as president.

Here are the key points from the passage:

• Obama has skillfully leveraged his personal brand as a progressive, approachable leader to advance his political career. His brand is often compared to popular consumer brands like Starbucks and Nike.

• Obama favors symbolic gestures and marketing over substantive, structural change. He continues many of Bush’s policies with some rebranding.

• Obama’s global popularity erased much of the anti-American sentiment built up under Bush. This popularity allowed Obama to revive neoliberal economic policies at a time when they were under serious criticism.

• The Obama brand could suffer if his loyal supporters realize his administration puts corporate interests over the public good. This could breed widespread cynicism, especially among young supporters.

• Like many brands, Obama’s image does not fully match the substance of his policies and actions. His brand risks diminishing as the gap between marketing and reality becomes more apparent.

• The author describes the old industrial area of Toronto where she lives and works, layered with history from past garment workers and immigrants. She contrasts the former factories and warehouses with the current gentrified “loft living” spaces.

• The neighborhood’s authenticity and charm stems from the accidental layering of decades of history. But the city’s installing public art like a giant brass thimble to “celebrate” the garment history threatens this, making it all feel artificial and staged.

• The author argues this reflects a broader phenomenon of corporations and brands co-opting progressive imagery and revolutionary history to repackage these ideas in service of consumerism. She cites examples like Nike and Apple’s branding campaigns.

• While annoying, she initially saw potential in this co-opting signaling real public longing for social change. But the brands can’t fulfill these desires, underscoring the need for authentic grassroots movements.

• She relates this to Obama’s victory capitalizing on nostalgia for social movements, but argues only independent movements, not relying on elected leaders, can achieve transformative change through pressuring elites.

The core idea is that progressive ideas become depoliticized and commodified when brands harness their imagery for profit, but social movements can reclaim these ideas to drive systemic change.

• The author lives in a former London Fog coat factory that now houses a diverse mix of tenants, including yoga instructors, artists, and declining garment businesses.

• She draws parallels between her eclectic neighbors and the young Indonesian garment workers making clothes for multinational brands in harsh conditions.

• Through a series of guesses, she learns that the Indonesian factory produces London Fog coats, coincidentally the former occupant of her building.

• This illustrates the connections between Western consumers and Third World factory workers through global brands.

• The author contrasts the marketing vision of globalization as egalitarian with the reality of economic inequality and hardship.

• As more investigative reporting reveals the exploitative underside of global brands, outrage is fueling an anti-corporate movement, especially among young activists.

• The book examines this growing global movement targeting transnational corporations and their practices.

• In the mid-1980s, management theorists proposed that successful corporations should focus on producing brands rather than physical products. This marked a shift from the traditional view that manufacturing goods was the heart of industrial economies.

• Companies like Nike and Microsoft pioneered this branded model, claiming that manufacturing was only incidental and could be outsourced due to trade liberalization and labor reforms.

• Branding allowed companies to focus on design and marketing to project a lifestyle image and build an emotional connection with consumers, rather than being weighed down by factories and employees.

• By the 1990s, this focus on branding over production had become mainstream business philosophy. Brand image was seen as more significant than material goods themselves in adding value.

• The astronomical growth of multinationals in the past 15 years can be traced to this branded model, which enabled the rise of companies like Nike, Tommy Hilfiger, and Intel.

• Branding penetrated all aspects of life and culture, with individuals crafting branded identities and lifestyles. Reality was being recreated in the image of brands.

In summary, the shift to a brand-focused business model enabled the growth of companies that outsourced production to build lifestyle brands. This profoundly impacted culture, with branding dominating society.

Here are the key points about the history and evolution of branding:

• Branding originated in the late 19th century as a way to distinguish mass-produced consumer goods through names, logos, and mascots. It allowed products to stand out amid manufacturing sameness.

• Early branding efforts focused on naming generic goods and creating approachable brand personalities like Aunt Jemima. Advertising helped give brands a direct relationship with consumers.

• In the 1920s, brands began to represent broader corporate identities and meanings, beyond just a product. Advertising positioned brands as friends and symbols of American culture.

• By the late 1980s, the idea that brands had tangible financial value took hold strongly. Philip Morris buying Kraft for $12.6 billion, six times its tangible assets, signified the monetary value of the Kraft brand.

• Brand equity mania in the 1980s led to greater investment in advertising and brand-building. Corporations sought to expand brand identities into new areas and resonate with target demographics.

• In the early 1990s, some predicted the death of brands, as recession caused cuts in advertising. But brands soon rebounded stronger than ever, with an expanded cultural presence.

• Advertising spending has grown steadily over the past century, outpacing economic growth. By 1998, global ad spending was estimated at $435 billion.

• The more advertising there is, the more brands feel they must advertise aggressively to stand out. This creates an escalating spiral of advertising saturation.

• In response, advertisers have created increasingly intrusive and experiential gimmicks, like scenting movie theaters or projecting ads onto sidewalks. The experiential marketing industry is now worth $30 billion.

• However, in the early 1990s brands faced a crisis - economic recession meant consumers became more price-sensitive and less responsive to prestige branding. Marlboro’s 1993 price cut led Wall Street to panic about the death of branding.

• Ad spending dropped in 1991 for the first time in decades as brands shifted budgets to promotions over prestige advertising. Ad agencies feared this commoditization and pushed clients to increase ad spending.

• The ad industry survived by integrating marketing specialties into core brand campaigns and capitalizing on new mediums like the Internet. Branding remains central, as seen in continued high ad spending.

• In the early 1990s, many predicted the death of brand name consumer goods, as recession led people to buy cheaper generic products. However, some brands like Nike, Apple, and Starbucks doubled down on lifestyle marketing and emerged stronger than ever.

• Nike and Reebok increased spending on ads and sponsorships rather than competing on price. Nike’s profits grew 900% in 6 years despite the recession.

• Brands like Absolut Vodka and Saturn ran abstract, lifestyle-focused ads that barely showed their products. They positioned themselves as cultural accessories.

• Old stalwart brands like Coke, Pepsi, and Disney focused aggressively on global expansion during this period. Retailers like The Gap and IKEA also expanded rapidly by making their stores high-concept branded experiences.

• The Body Shop and Starbucks grew their brands through retail experiences and spin-off products, not traditional advertising. This signaled a deeper understanding of brand building.

• Overall, certain brands rejected the prediction that generic brands would dominate the recession. By doubling down on marketing mythology and logo-mania, these brands emerged stronger than ever, setting the stage for the hyper-branded 1990s.

• Branding has shifted from focusing on the quality and features of a product to creating an emotional connection and “lifestyle” associated with the brand. Brands try to cultivate a community and feelings of warmth among their customers.

• Branding experts like Tom Peters argue successful corporations should focus on marketing and branding, not physical products which can be outsourced. The brand itself is the product.

• Companies like Nike, Polaroid, IBM, and Body Shop all redefined themselves not as selling commodities but as selling broader concepts and attitudes. Their ads evoke ideals and ways of life more than product attributes.

• Richard Branson pioneered the idea of “attribute brands” that are defined by values and reputation rather than specific products. Tommy Hilfiger similarly licenses his name more than directly manufactures goods.

• Branding aims to create corporate transcendence and infuse commercial products with spiritual meaning. Marketers sell the courageous message of the brand. Physical products always take a back seat to the core brand identity.

• Logos on clothing grew dramatically in size and prominence in the 1970s-1980s as brands like Lacoste, Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein made logos a conspicuous fashion statement.

• By the 1990s, logos became so dominant that they overshadowed the clothes themselves, turning them into vehicles for brand marketing.

• Brands expanded beyond just branding their own products to branding culture itself through sponsorships and synergistic ventures. Rather than just sponsoring events, brands aim to be the culture.

• This blurring of lines between corporate sponsorship and culture has become so advanced that sponsored culture is often indistinguishable from brand marketing. But artists have also co-opted brand techniques for their own purposes.

• Overall, branding has moved from discreet product identification to permeating and dominating culture. Logos and branding are now the central focus rather than an add-on.

• Corporate sponsorship of cultural and public institutions has expanded dramatically since the 1980s as public funding declined. This was facilitated by deregulation and privatization policies.

• While some see all corporate sponsorship as compromising integrity, not all deals are equal. However, corporate roles have been expanding from philanthropy toward more overt marketing.

• Corporations are moving from just sponsoring events to creating their own branded events and properties. The line between marketing and culture is blurring.

• Sponsorship can lead to a mindset where creativity and community are seen as impossible without corporate generosity.

• Brands seek to compete against all others in the mediascape. So branding through sponsorship seeks to upstage the sponsored event and make the brand the focus.

• This is illustrated by examples like Yves Saint Laurent overwhelming Regent Street Christmas decorations with its logos.

• The role of branding is expanding from basic sponsorship to trying to branded entire cityscapes and communities. Cities are competing to be branded in this way.

In summary, as branding proliferates, corporate sponsorship increasingly goes beyond basic philanthropy toward more aggressive marketing that seeks to upstage sponsored events and place brands at the center of cultural life.

• Brands and companies often seek to associate themselves with authentic cultural scenes and cherished public events, which can infuse their brands with meaning. However, this branding process can end up usurping those events, causing fans to resent the brand sponsorship.

• An example is the hip-hop adman Michael Chesney, who loved the funky art and culture of Toronto’s Queen Street West. He pioneered “building takeovers” where ads covered entire buildings. When Levi’s took over the area for a year to advertise SilverTab jeans, locals became furious about the invasion of their creative space.

• Cities and neighborhoods are also being branded, like the plan in LA for corporations to sponsor and rename poor inner-city areas. This risks companies wielding more political power in those communities.

• In media, advertisers often try to influence content to avoid controversy and get product plugs. However, independent coverage does still appear, providing models for protecting public interest despite corporate pressure.

• “Sponsored” media projects like brand-developed magazines and TV shows are increasing, blurring the line between ads and content. This highlights the constant pressure for media to merge with brands.

Here’s a summary of the key points:

• Corporations are increasingly blurring the line between advertising and editorial content in media. Brands want to become integrated into the culture rather than just purchase ad space.

• Examples include Heineken influencing 1960s TV show content, Nike providing branded jackets to CBS Olympic reporters, and magazines designing ads for clients using focus groups and surveys of their readers.

• On the internet, the division between ads and content is even more blurred. Media outlets integrate shopping opportunities into their sites, while content developers like iVillage create branded editorial.

• Absolut Vodka created an early model of branded media with the Absolut Kelly site featuring a Wired editor’s content. Brands want to become content providers rather than just advertisers.

• MTV was the first fully branded network, with viewers watching MTV rather than individual shows. Advertisers wanted to co-brand with MTV through concerts, giveaways, etc. This model has been adopted by most major media outlets since.

• The underlying trend is brands striving to integrate themselves into media and culture rather than just purchase ad space, seeing themselves as cultural entities rather than just products. Media outlets are increasingly blurring editorial and advertising to accommodate this.

• Branding has become pervasive in music and film. Entertainment companies see their content as “branded media properties” to cross-promote.

• The Gap’s khakis ads didn’t just capitalize on the swing revival, they helped cause it. Musicians now see branding as another medium to promote themselves.

• Musicians have long done advertising and sponsorship deals. But Tommy Hilfiger’s sponsorship of the Rolling Stones tour in the late 1990s took it further - the ads presented Hilfiger’s brand as the real star, with the Stones as just a backdrop.

• Beer companies have moved from simply sponsoring concerts to creating their own branded music festivals that compete with non-branded festivals. Molson grew tired of just promoting venues and now wants to be seen as a music tastemaker on par with musicians.

• The pervasiveness of branding has led to less unmarketed artistic space. The desire to protect art from commercialism has been trampled by the “manic branding imperative.” Brand managers now see themselves as culture makers, erasing the line between ads and art.

The passage discusses how brands have increasingly sought to associate themselves with popular celebrities and musicians, sometimes overshadowing the stars themselves. It provides examples of beer companies like Molson hosting secret concerts where the band’s name is not announced beforehand, so that the brand gets more attention than the musicians. Nike is highlighted as a definitive example of a brand eclipsing the sports and athletes it sponsors, through its marketing campaigns portraying sports stars like Michael Jordan as larger-than-life superhumans. The summary touches on major points like brands competing directly with celebrities, the rise of pre-fabricated bands as brands, and Nike’s strategies of turning athletes into Hollywood-style stars unmoored from their teams or sports. The overriding theme is brands’ quest to absorb cultural space previously occupied by sponsored entities like sports leagues and musicians.

• Nike built its brand by associating itself with star athletes and creating the idea of “Team Nike.” It used advertising campaigns like Bo Jackson’s “Bo Knows” spots to portray its stars as heroic and transcendent.

• Nike aims to not just sell shoes but to embody the spirit of sports. It has tried to play an ever more central role in professional sports through owning events, representing athletes, and creating its own sporting matches.

• Nike Town retail stores are shrines that worship the Nike swoosh and equate it with athleticism and human achievement. The stores sell Nike-branded products exclusively.

• Nike’s use of celebrity athlete endorsements has fueled its brand success, as star athletes are uniquely positioned to be cross-promoted across various media.

• Critics argue Nike exerts undue influence over the sports it sponsors, cares more about its own brand image than athletes, and over-commercializes sporting events and spaces. But Nike sees its ubiquitious swoosh as enhancing the spirit of athleticism.

• There has been a blurring of the lines between brands, celebrities, and culture. Brands like Nike are no longer just competing with other brands, but with celebrity “superbrands” like Michael Jordan.

• This is emblematic of a new paradigm where there are no barriers between branding and culture. Brands are moving into music, media, publishing, etc. and celebrities are launching their own brands.

• Brands, celebrities, media outlets, and entertainers are converging into a branded “lifestyle bubble.” For example, Nike sees Disney as a competitor, while Disney tries its hand at shoes.

• This fusion has created a new “branded culture” that kids intuitively understand - seeing sponsorship as a two-way street rather than traditional advertising.

• In this culture, people are brands and brands are culture. Traditional notions of “selling out” are outdated. The youth represent the vanguard of this branded world, having grown up “sold.”

• As a teenager, the author felt disillusioned by the seeming lack of originality and open space in the world. Everything seemed hackneyed and done before.

• This feeling stems from a “craving for metaphorical space” - a desire for open-ended freedom and escape from societal constraints.

• The endless co-optation and branding of countercultures and youth movements by corporations exacerbates this lack of space, as they seek to profit from these movements.

• The author provides examples such as indie subcultures being given corporate sponsorships and free music festivals being banned and replaced by commercial versions.

• She argues this branding colonizes mental space and stunts the independent growth of youth cultures.

• The author traces how youth culture went from an overlooked demographic to a highly sought after market in the 1990s, as companies sought new consumers during a recession.

• This further commodified youth identity and created a self-perpetuating cycle of marketing that masquerades as culture. The result is a loss of authentic space for self-definition.

• In the early 1990s, companies realized the baby boomer market was declining and started targeting youth culture instead. This coincided with an increase in the teenage population.

• Companies tried to make their brands “cool” to appeal to teens and twenty-somethings. They wanted the cachet of cool brands like Nike and MTV.

• Coolness and youth became obsessed over in corporate branding. Companies anxiously tried to figure out what was cool and market it to teens, akin to nerdy kids wanting to fit in in high school.

• Companies that couldn’t establish a cool brand image risked becoming outdated and unpopular. Coolness was essential for 1990s branding success.

• To tap into youth trends, companies hired young “change agents” who promised to make firms cool. But this led to older executives trying awkwardly to emulate youth culture.

• Cultural theft occurred as white suburban kids co-opted black urban music and styles once seen as threatening.

• Overall, brands co-opted youth identities and subcultures to reinvigorate consumer desire and branding, without roots in authentic youth movements.

• In the 1990s, big brands hired young “change agents” to help make their companies seem cooler and more youthful. These young workers penned manifestos and pushed for more radical, cutting-edge marketing.

• A new industry of “cool hunters” emerged, claiming to track down the latest trends among youth culture. They advised companies like Levi’s and Absolut Vodka on how to seem cool.

• Hip-hop culture became a major source of “cool” for brands to appropriate. Companies like Nike and Tommy Hilfiger blew up in popularity in part through adoption by hip-hop artists and fans.

• Brands made huge profits from things like logo apparel, often turning a blind eye to piracy and theft. They realized being seen on the “right people” was key.

• Companies like Nike engaged in “bro-ing” - bringing prototypes to inner city neighborhoods to build buzz and gauge reactions from black youth. Cool hunting was often just black culture hunting.

• Tommy Hilfiger gained enormous popularity through adoption by hip-hop artists and fans. But it later lost cachet when it became too mainstream.

• Tommy Hilfiger initially made preppy, “Young Republican” style clothing. He then realized his clothes had cachet in inner cities, where poor youth coveted expensive leisurewear as status symbols.

• Hilfiger tailored his clothes more towards hip hop style, using bolder colors and bigger logos. He gave free clothes to rap artists like Snoop Dogg to associate his brand with hip hop. This allowed him to expand sales from inner city youth to much larger markets of suburban white and Asian youth wanting to emulate black style.

• Hilfiger’s marketing plays off racial segregation - selling white youth on fetishizing black style, and black youth on fetishizing white wealth.

• Many corporations created fake “indie” brands, like Old Navy’s surplus line, to cash in on the appeal of independent culture.

• The coolest brands incorporated irony and self-mockery, like VH1’s Pop Up Videos. This preempted critics by mocking themselves before anyone else could.

• With few untouched youth cultures left, brands turned to mining the past, repackaging history and nostalgia with corporate tie-ins. Retro entertainment allowed new merchandising opportunities.

• In the early 1990s, many young people saw themselves as victims of predatory corporate marketing that co-opted their identities, styles, and ideas for profit. They assumed “alternative” cultures were inherently anti-commercial, but this was often not the case.

• The voracity of corporate cool-hunting exposed the impotence of most forms of political resistance, except anti-corporate activism. Movements like grunge in Seattle self-destructed because they lacked a solid political ideology beyond vague anti-establishment attitudes.

• Irony and camp have been so commercialized that true “in-betweenness” is difficult. Camp depends on a cliquish aesthetic pun that is hard to maintain when everyone is targeted as a consumer.

• The challenge now is how to be sincerely oppositional in an ironic, commercial culture where no one fully participates and everyone feels like an outsider. Real political resistance requires moving beyond sarcasm and reclaiming space from corporate branding.

Here are a few key points summarizing the section:

• Marketers and brands have been trying to gain access to schools as an “untapped frontier” for reaching the youth market.

• Schools have been facing budget cuts but need to provide modern technology like computers and internet access, so some have turned to corporate partnerships and sponsorships to help fund these purchases.

• Companies like Channel One brought advertising into schools in exchange for providing free tech equipment.

• Marketers portray access to their brands and advertising as equivalent to providing modern education and technology access.

• Brands want students to not just see their ads but interact with their brands through curriculum content, research projects, etc.

• The underlying agenda is for brands to become integrated into the core curriculum rather than just an add-on.

Here is a summary of the key points about corporate branding and marketing in schools:

• Many schools have signed deals to show Channel One, a mandatory broadcast that includes advertisements. Teachers cannot adjust the volume, and it airs during class time.

• Schools receive audiovisual equipment in exchange for airing Channel One, but no direct revenue. Channel One charges advertisers premium rates since students are a captive audience.

• Textbooks may contain ads on their covers. Brands also promote themselves through customized school lunch menus and campus fast food restaurants.

• Soft drink companies like Pepsi often have exclusive vending contracts with schools. In exchange they provide funding or prizes branded with their logos.

• On college campuses, advertisers target students aggressively. Brand name food chains and stores are common on campuses.

• Athletic sponsorships are highly sought after. Big brands like Nike and Adidas pay for naming rights and to outfit sports teams.

• Some brands develop branded educational materials to integrate marketing into classwork. This further blurs the line between education and advertising.

• Overall, schools provide access to a valuable captive audience of young consumers, and brands are creatively marketing to students inside the classroom and out.

• Schools are increasingly allowing corporations access to students for market research and product promotion. Companies like Channel One and ZapMe! provide free tech services to schools in exchange for collecting data on students’ internet usage habits and demographics which is valuable for targeted advertising.

• Schools are incorporating brand-preference surveys, taste tests, focus groups, and ad design contests into the curriculum, often awarding prizes or adopting student ad ideas. This blurs the line between education and marketing.

• While schools claim these activities have educational value, critics argue they promote consumerism and commercialism in schools and allow advertisers inappropriate access to a captive audience of minors.

• Sponsorship deals with brands like Coca-Cola and Reebok restrict criticism of the companies on campus. Some deals even contain “non-disparagement clauses” prohibiting negative remarks. This can stifle free speech.

• Commercial activity in schools is not new, but corporate sponsors now aggressively promote branding and image control on campus through logos, merchandising, secrecy clauses, etc. This clashes with academic ideals of free inquiry and openness.

Here are the key points from the passage:

• Corporate sponsorship deals are changing the values of public universities, including financial transparency and rights to open debate and protest. This leads to a more consumerist mentality among students.

• Universities are offering their research facilities and credibility for brands to use, often going against the public interest. Several examples are provided of university researchers having findings suppressed by corporate sponsors when the results did not align with the company’s interests.

• Corporations often maintain the right to block publication of unfavorable research results. Studies are also designed upfront to fit the agenda of corporate sponsors.

• Teachers’ unions and some parent groups have voiced opposition to commercialization of schools, but advertising in schools continues to increase. At the university level there has been less organized opposition from faculty.

In summary, increased corporate sponsorship and research partnerships have threatened academic independence and values at schools and universities, though there has been some public opposition to the commercialization.

• As an undergraduate in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the author was slow to notice the branding of university life because she and other students were preoccupied with identity politics and representation issues.

• On campus, debates focused on representation of different identity groups in the curriculum, media, language, etc. rather than concrete issues like pay equity, rights, and police violence.

• Identity politics had evolved into a “politics of mirrors” focused on grievances about representation.

• Meanwhile, corporations and media co-opted identity politics to target niche demographic markets and boost sales.

• Youth culture became increasingly commercialized and branded. By the mid-1990s, campus politics started focusing more on corporate issues as students realized they had a more powerful foe.

• Identity politics on college campuses in the early 1990s focused heavily on issues of representation in the media and culture, believing that negative stereotypes perpetuated inequality.

• Activists targeted offensive portrayals of marginalized groups in pop culture and pushed for more diverse representation. They saw this as key to improving self-esteem and reducing prejudice.

• At first, conservatives pushed back strongly against this “political correctness.” But soon companies and marketers co-opted the diversity aims, seeing identity politics as an opportunity to target youth markets.

• Branding strategies in the 90s focused on identities that resonated with “Gen X” consumers. Market researchers highlighted diversity, pluralism, and non-conformity as defining traits.

• Corporations quickly adopted language and imagery of diversity for their brand identities and marketing. Youth-oriented companies were especially eager to project an inclusive image.

• So while activists saw representation as a political goal, companies leveraged it for commercial aims. Identity politics was effectively absorbed into branding imperatives.

In the 1990s, many companies began using diverse and politically correct imagery in their advertising and branding. For example, Starbucks marketed itself as a “politically correct, cultured refuge”, Abercrombie & Fitch had suggestive ads featuring same-sex couples, and brands like Pride Beer and Wave Water targeted the gay community. The Gap filled its ads with racially diverse models, while Nike featured quotes from Tiger Woods about racism. This embrace of diversity fitted with the rise of identity politics and the demand for better representation of marginalized groups.

However, some argue this corporate branding of diversity was not genuinely progressive, but rather a cynical co-optation driven by profit. As culture industries realized identity was a lucrative market, they commercialized symbols of radicalism and turned identities into consumer choices and lifestyles. While positive representation has benefits, exploiting diversity for profit brought limited social change. As critic Richard Goldstein said, identity politics ended up saving late capitalism, providing fresh content and customer segments. In a globalizing economy, diversity became a sales pitch, with companies embracing multiculturalism not out of genuine commitment to inclusion, but because it allowed them to market universally while accommodating local differences superficially.

• Globalization has led to the spread of American culture and brands worldwide, which has provoked backlash in some countries against “American cultural imperialism”.

• In response, marketers have shifted to promoting “diversity” and a globalized culture in their advertising, selling the same products in a multicultural packaging.

• A key target is the “global teen” demographic, especially in developing countries, who are more receptive to adopting global consumer culture than older generations.

• Marketers portray a homogenized global youth culture focused on brands like Nike, Levi’s, and MTV. The goal is to get teens to identify with a global consumer identity transcending national and cultural differences.

• MTV in particular promotes a vision of global youth united through consumerism and media. Marketers aim to engineer a new global teenage identity centered on shopping, overriding national and local identities.

• In summary, the shift from selling American culture to a generic global culture allows marketers to continue expanding their brands worldwide while avoiding backlash from national identity. Teenagers are a key target for getting consumers to adopt this global consumer identity.

Here are a few key points summarizing the section on franchises and superbrands:

• Franchises have proliferated in recent decades, with mega-brands like McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Walmart opening thousands of nearly identical outlets around the world.

• This franchise model allows for global brand recognition and quality control, but reduces local diversity and competition. Critics argue it leads to cultural homogenization.

• A new model of “superbranding” has emerged, with brands like Nike and MTV that are defined not by the number of outlets but by their cultural ubiquity through marketing and media saturation.

• Superbrands aspire to a lifestyle identity that goes far beyond their products. They bombard consumers with unified brand imagery across all media.

• The superbrand model further accelerates the spread of branded culture. It raises concerns about consumer manipulation and brand bombardment, as well as corporate power over cultural spaces.

• Activists have responded with creative “brand bombing” campaigns that subvert or parody superbrands in order to challenge their dominance and reveal their motives. But superbrands have fought back, protecting their image and intellectual property.

In summary, franchises and superbrands have rapidly colonized cultural spaces on a global scale through proliferating outlets and marketing saturation. This has sparked creative resistance, but also forceful corporate defenses of brand image and control. The stakes in the branding wars continue to escalate.

• There has been a huge growth in retail chains and franchises like Starbucks, Blockbuster, and Wal-Mart in the 1980s and 1990s.

• These chains have expanded rapidly, opening hundreds or thousands of nearly identical outlets. Starbucks went from a handful of stores in the 1980s to 1,900 stores in 12 countries by 1999.

• Several factors enabled this rapid expansion, including price wars where big chains undercut competitors’ prices through bulk purchasing and economies of scale.

• Wal-Mart pioneered this model, building giant discount stores twice as big as competitors, negotiating lower prices from suppliers, and slashing retail prices. This allowed Wal-Mart to force out smaller local retailers.

• The result is a kind of “constant cloning” where the same stores and brands appear everywhere, reducing diversity and choice. The author sees this as restrictive as it limits options for independent businesses and uncensored culture.

• Wal-Mart expanded slowly and methodically from its base in the U.S. South, saturating one area with stores before moving into a new region. This allowed it to minimize transportation costs and establish brand dominance through concentrated presence.

• Wal-Mart and other big-box retailers are “category killers” that use their buying power to offer low prices that smaller competitors can’t match. This often draws criticism as hurting small businesses.

• In reaction to the impersonal nature of big-box stores, some retailers like Starbucks and Virgin Megastores focused on creating an intimate, branded customer experience.

• However, Starbucks expanded through a “clustering” strategy similar to Wal-Mart’s saturation technique. By opening multiple outlets in an area, Starbucks saturates the market, even at the cost of “cannibalizing” sales from existing stores.

• Starbucks has also been accused of targeting small independent cafes by taking over their leases and opening next door. Its strategy relies on economy of scale like big boxes, hurting small businesses while denying this effect.

• The big-box model pioneered by Wal-Mart focuses on providing products at the lowest possible price through economies of scale. This has squeezed out many small independent retailers.

• Starbucks popularized the “clustering” approach of saturating an area with multiple outlets of the same brand. This also poses a competitive threat to independent cafes and restaurants.

• The combination of these two trends has transformed the retail landscape, making it difficult for small businesses to compete with giant chains on price or brand power.

• This reflects the broader split after “Marlboro Friday” between brands focused on value versus image. Wal-Mart symbolizes the decline in brand power, while Starbucks represents the renewed reverence for aspirational lifestyle brands.

• Companies have responded by creating branded superstores that combine the scale of big-box retailers with the branding of clustered stores. This results from the corporate pursuit of synergy.

• Megamergers between giant media conglomerates like Disney and ABC are another attempt to capitalize on the demand for branded cocoons and fantasy. But this can undermine democratic discourse.

• The author describes growing up longing for the artificial seductions of corporate culture (golden arches, theme parks, plastic toys) versus the authenticity of her hippie parents.

• She sees this as the realization of Tocqueville’s prediction that democracy tends toward mediocrity, where the “world of reality looked dingy” compared to consumer culture.

• Corporations have increasingly exploited this longing through synergistic branding, extending their fantasies into experiential extravaganzas. Walt Disney pioneered this with theme parks and tie-in products.

• Today, every major company wants to create Disney-style branding synergies. This helps explain the wave of megamergers in the 1990s, as companies sought to expand their brand empires.

• The goal is to create a “branded loop” where various products and experiences all cross-promote the brand’s lifestyle fantasy. This represents the pinnacle of branding: immersing consumers in branded experiences.

Here are the key points from the excerpt:

• Synergy is the corporate strategy of bringing together distinct businesses under the same ownership to create greater efficiency and profits. Media conglomerates like Viacom and Disney pioneered this strategy in the 1990s.

• Synergy allows companies to profit from their intellectual property across multiple platforms (e.g. books, films, merchandise). It blurs the lines between industries as companies expand into new areas.

• Brand extensions form the foundation of synergy. Rather than just promoting the core product, companies use branding to build entire corporate structures and lifestyle brands.

• Superstores epitomize this strategy. Retailers like Disney and Warner Brothers opened flagship stores not just to sell products but to immerse customers in branded experiences.

• Location and design of superstores is lavish, aiming to make them destinations. Profitability of individual stores is less important than their role in building the overall brand.

• Companies are moving beyond branded retail stores to create fully immersive brand experiences through flagship mega-stores, themed cruises, hotels, and even entire towns.

• Nike, ESPN, Discovery, Roots, and other brands have created flagship stores designed to showcase the brand and provide an engaging, theme park-like experience. While expensive to operate, they provide a “billboard effect” and reinforce the brand image.

• Some companies are taking this further by launching branded hotels, resorts, or even cruise ships to extend the brand experience. Roots opened a branded hotel in Canada designed to embody its outdoor lifestyle image. Disney’s Celebration, Florida is a master-planned community meant to evoke nostalgia for “pre-Disneyfied” small town America.

• The goal is to move beyond temporary retail experiences to having consumers “live the brand” in wholly branded environments. This represents the ultimate lifestyle branding, with the brand incorporated into daily living itself.

• These branded villages allow companies to construct an idealized experience showcasing the brand. They provide opportunities for total brand immersion and convergence by controlling the architecture, design, and retail outlets.

• Celebration, Florida is a master-planned community created by Disney that embodies the concept of a “branded town.” It artificially recreates an idealized vision of small-town America while actually being entirely under corporate control.

• Cathedral Grove in Vancouver Island is a tiny preserved patch of old-growth forest owned by a logging company, akin to Celebration’s museum-like replication of community. These Branded spaces are seductive because they evoke utopian ideals.

• However, these privatized public spaces are destructive to actual public spaces, independent businesses, and true community.

• Superstores like those of Virgin and Nike create brand cocoons that shut out outside influences and undermine marketplace diversity. The superstores’ economy of scale makes it very difficult for small independent retailers to compete.

• This combination of an abundance of branded products with a lack of real marketplace choice is a signature of our age. Authentic town centers and small businesses are being pushed out.

• Branded spaces reflect nostalgic longings but replace real public spaces and diversity with commercialized privatized utopias. Their seductive appeal makes them popular, but they erode the commons.

• Synergy allows media conglomerates like Virgin to tightly coordinate their diverse holdings (record labels, megastores, etc.) to aggressively cross-promote artists, create the illusion of blockbuster success, and exert more control over consumer choice.

• Synergy leads to an flood of derivative products like movies based on TV shows, Starbucks-flavored beer, etc. that are more about corporate deals than creativity.

• Synergy resembles monopolistic practices like price fixing and vertical integration that were previously illegal under antitrust law. However, deregulation since the 1980s has allowed unprecedented media consolidation through mergers and synergy.

• Some worry synergy restricts consumer choice and diversity of ideas, with cases like Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer showing how it can limit options. Questions remain about whether synergy empowers people or limits their choices.

• Corporate censorship involves large retailers like Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, and Kmart refusing to stock certain magazines, CDs, or movies that don’t fit their “family-friendly” image. This censorship impacts what media gets produced.

• Wal-Mart has banned magazines with provocative covers and CDs with explicit lyrics or artwork. Blockbuster won’t carry NC-17 rated movies. This censorship is treated as just another stage of editing by studios and artists.

• The complacency around this censorship stems from seeing corporate decisions as non-ideological, just business. But these retailers are so dominant that their actions effectively limit public access and reengineer the cultural landscape.

• Mergers in the culture industry also lead to censorship through conflicts of interest. For example, Paramount won’t challenge Blockbuster’s policies because they are both owned by Viacom. Disney’s purchase of Miramax similarly constrains the risks those filmmakers can take.

• Overall, between retail concentration and synergy mergers, private corporate decisions are having significant public effects on cultural freedom and access. Censorship is expanding beyond just government or pressure groups into corporate control of entertainment and media.

• Media conglomerates owning many different companies leads to potential conflicts of interest and censorship pressures. There are more opportunities for a media company’s reporting to negatively impact other arms of the conglomerate.

• An example is ABC killing a story on security issues at Disney theme parks, despite Disney denying the allegations. ABC said it would avoid stories focused solely on Disney to avoid seeming biased.

• Steven Brill faced pressure at Time Warner-owned companies to avoid negative stories about Scientology, Warner Music, and the FTC. This shows concern about critical coverage impacting conglomerate interests.

• There is increasing self-censorship, with editors avoiding controversial stories that could bother executives. This “China chill” phenomena is more effective than overt censorship.

• Western media companies like Murdoch’s News Corp are censoring themselves to avoid upsetting the Chinese government and jeopardizing access to the market. For example, dropping BBC from Star TV and canceling a book critical of China.

• China bans media that doesn’t follow the party line. They have punished companies like Disney for unfavorable portrayals by banning films. This causes Western studios to self-censor on China to retain access.

Here’s a summary of the key points:

• Western media companies like Disney and Sony have toned down or altered movies about China and Tibet to gain access to the lucrative Chinese market. This reveals how big corporations prioritize profits over other goals.

• The global reach of mega corporations means their pursuit of profits can have negative consequences, like self-censorship filtering down through their organizations. This could impact news coverage of human rights issues in countries where they want to do business.

• Brands and pop culture have become a common global language, with references to brands becoming a way to communicate across cultures. But companies aggressively defend their trademarks and brands through legal action, limiting artistic engagement with brands.

• Copyright and trademark laws intended to protect intellectual property are being used more for corporate brand control than fair market competition. This creates a climate of privatizing language and culture through legal threats and actions against unauthorized uses of brands.

• Corporations aggressively enforce trademarks and copyright to prevent unauthorized use of their intellectual property, even when it stifles artists’ ability to comment on branded culture. Examples given include Disney, Barney, McDonald’s, Mattel/Barbie.

• Artists who directly sample or parody major brands face lawsuits, like Negativland for a U2 parody. But big-name artists like Beck can afford to license extensive samples for their music.

• Independent and avant-garde artists argue aggressively enforced copyright limits their ability to engage with pop culture and brands, which are ubiquitous. It criminalizes art made from modern life.

• Mattel sued the band Aqua over the song “Barbie Girl” to protect the Barbie brand. But Mattel has also cultivated Barbie as a cultural icon. This shows the tension between wanting cultural integration but tightly controlling portrayal.

• Overall, copyright law hasn’t kept up with the ability to digitally sample and remix culture. Current enforcement stifles grassroots art and puts up barriers between commercial vs. independent artists. It turns culture into a one-way corporate monologue rather than a participatory dialogue.

• Corporations like Mattel want to control their brands’ historical and cultural legacies, using copyright and trademark laws to silence criticism. Mattel sued a Barbie collectors’ magazine for running old photos of Barbie with cigarettes.

• Companies also use libel laws to prevent unwanted portrayals of their brands. The McDonald’s “McLibel” case against environmentalists is an example.

• Private corporate spaces like malls and branded communities are replacing public squares as gathering places, but don’t allow the same freedom of speech. Peaceful protests are often ejected.

• Book superstores style themselves as cultural centers but censor certain voices, like banning Michael Moore readings.

• Online services like AOL act as community meeting places but regulate discussion through “Community Action Teams.” This raises concerns about censorship given AOL’s huge market share.

• Public spaces sponsored by corporations also restrict speech, like removing antitobacco activists from a jazz festival in a public square sponsored by a cigarette company.

• As more public spaces become corporate spaces, freedom of speech is constrained by corporate rules. Opportunities for meaningful dissent are disappearing.

• Corporations are increasingly controlling public spaces and limiting opportunities for free expression through sponsorship agreements, advertising, ownership of media outlets, etc. This amounts to a form of corporate censorship.

• Popular protest movements face significant challenges getting their message out compared to corporate PR campaigns. Activist voices are drowned out by corporate “meaning” and promotional spectacle.

• Corporations exert control over the political views and speech of the celebrities and athletes they sponsor. Controversial stances are discouraged to avoid alienating consumers.

• Examples are given of corporate censorship, such as Adidas silencing Olympic sprinter Donovan Bailey for criticizing racism, and Liverpool FC reprimanding player Robbie Fowler for revealing a political slogan.

• Corporate censorship is not absolute, but space for critical, non-synergistic art and thought is shrinking as media becomes more consolidated and focused on cross-promotion. This is an economic shift rather than outright totalitarian control.

• There are signs of backlash against excessive branding and corporate control, offering hope that people may resist the saturation of branding and reclaim public spaces. But the trend is clearly towards more insidious corporate censorship and curtailing of grassroots speech.

• Many major brands are shifting their focus from manufacturing products to building their brands, seeing branding as more valuable than production. They are spending more on marketing, sponsorships, etc. to enhance their brands rather than investing in factories and production facilities.

• Branding agencies see themselves as “brand factories” creating the ideas and lifestyles associated with brands rather than just promoting products made by someone else. Brands are seen as made in the mind, not the factory.

• As a result, factories and physical production are devalued. Companies are divesting from factories and production facilities which are seen as cumbersome and corporeal.

• Production is increasingly outsourced, often offshore, to external contractors that can produce items cheaply, leaving more money for branding. This allows high markups between production costs and retail price.

• The focus on branding over production has impacted workers. With production devalued, factory workers and craftspeople are treated as expendable. Responsibility for workers has shifted from brands to external contractors.

• Nike pioneered this model of lavish branding spending but cheap outsourced production. Many traditional manufacturers are now imitating this branding-focused model and downsizing production.

• Nike and Adidas shifted from manufacturing companies to marketing companies by closing factories, outsourcing production, and spending more on branding and sponsorship. This was driven by a focus on brands over products.

• More apparel factory closures were announced in the 1990s in North America and Europe, with production shifting to Asia. Levi’s closed factories and laid off thousands of workers to refocus on marketing and branding.

• Companies increasingly see themselves as just placing orders with contractors, not managing production. They view factory locations as trade secrets rather than assets.

• Export processing zones in developing countries have emerged as major producers of branded goods. Cavite in the Philippines is an example where mostly young female workers endure harsh conditions to produce goods cheaply.

• Workers making branded products are disconnected from the profits of the brands they produce for. The zones exemplify the inequality between those who profit from the brands and those who make the products.

• Cavite Export Processing Zone in the Philippines is a 682-acre free trade zone housing 207 factories that produce goods for export. It employs 50,000 workers who commute daily.

• Inside the gates, major brands like Nike, Gap, IBM, and Old Navy assemble their products, but their names are not promoted. Different brands are often made side-by-side in the same factories.

• The zone is designed to maximize production at low costs. Factories are crammed together, workers’ time is tightly controlled, and the atmosphere is one of impermanence.

• EPZs promise industrialization through attracting foreign investment, but often become exploitative. Cavite offers tax breaks, lax regulations, and low minimum wages to entice companies.

• Workers face long hours, low pay, and abusive conditions. The factories are weakly connected to the surrounding country. Jobs could leave as quickly as they arrived.

• The zones rely on fear - governments fear losing factories, factories fear losing brands, and workers fear losing unstable jobs. Ultimately, the zones fail to deliver lasting development.

• Export processing zones (EPZs) offer huge incentives like tax holidays and cheap rent to attract foreign corporations. Workers in these zones are exempt from many labor laws and paid very low wages.

• The rationale is that the zones will bring jobs and eventual prosperity. But the jobs are exploitative, taxes aren’t paid, and zones are walled off from the host country.

• In the Cavite zone in the Philippines, companies pay almost no tax, pollute the environment, and impoverish workers who live in slums. The nearby town gets no tax revenue or infrastructure.

• Sri Lanka’s zones are even worse - no public transport, dangerous roads, severely overcrowded dorms. Entire countries are becoming “industrial slums.”

• Supposedly zones will raise wages and standards over time like in South Korea. But with so many competing countries, wages and conditions remain poor.

• The low wages mean workers can’t afford the goods they produce. Governments won’t enforce labor laws for fear companies will leave. The trickle-down theory fails.

• In summary, export zones exemplify “industrialization in brackets” - not really part of the country. Workers are exploited and zones become enclaves of poverty amidst plenty.

• Export processing zones (EPZs) in the Philippines technically allow trade unions, but in reality there is an unwritten “no union, no strike” policy. Workers who try to organize unions face threats and intimidation.

• Wages in the zones are extremely low, often below the legal minimum wage due to exemptions granted to employers. Workers make as little as 13 cents per hour in some cases.

• Working conditions are poor, with restrictions on bathroom breaks, talking, smiling, and other basic needs. Factories find ways to illegally deduct money from wages through various fees and “donations.”

• When workers do succeed in forming unions and improving conditions, companies often shut down factories and move production to non-unionized zones. An example is a factory making goods for Marks & Spencer that relocated from a unionized factory to the non-unionized Cavite zone.

• Strike action is often legally prohibited in the zones. In some places it is illegal to publish material critical of the zones because it could threaten export earnings.

• Patriotism and national duty are used to justify the poor treatment of workers. Young people, mostly women, are sent to work in the zones like an earlier generation was sent off to war.

• Despite restrictions, activist groups like the Workers’ Assistance Center in the Philippines try to secretly organize and support workers to fight for better conditions. But they face threats and intimidation.

• Workers in export processing zones (EPZs) in places like Cavite, Philippines endure extremely difficult conditions, including long hours, intense work pace, and job insecurity.

• Workers put in excessive overtime, often unpaid, to meet production targets and shipment deadlines. Refusing overtime can result in dismissal. There are reports of multi-day shifts and amphetamine injections to keep workers going.

• Carmelita Alonzo was a seamstress working overtime shifts at a factory producing clothes for Gap and Liz Claiborne. She died of pneumonia after being denied sick leave, an event seen as emblematic of the human cost of overwork.

• Factories avoid hiring more workers to reduce overtime because they don’t want to be stuck with excess employees during lulls. Instead, they rely on a casual workforce, fired and rehired to prevent permanent status. Contracts are short-term.

• Zone jobs represent a shift away from stable factory work to informal, temporary employment without benefits or security. The nature of manufacturing work itself has been radically altered in the process of global relocation.

• The EPZs fail to provide just redistribution of stable jobs from North to South. The young female workforce endures difficult conditions at low wages to provide cheap goods to Western consumers.

• In the Philippines, most workers in the export processing zones are young, unmarried women who have migrated from rural provinces to work in factories. Only about 5% are native to the area.

• Zone administrator Raymondo Nagrampa claims migrants are recruited because locals are not well-suited to factory work. He says locals would rather find quicker ways to make money than work on factory lines.

• But migrant workers are outraged by this claim. They say they would rather stay in their home provinces with their families if they could, but were forced to migrate due to loss of farmland and poverty.

• Recruiters promised the migrants they could earn enough to send money home to their families. But in reality, wages are so low that workers can barely support themselves, let alone send money home.

• The migrant workers feel alienated and homesick in the factories and dormitories. This makes them easier to control and discipline.

• Younger women are preferred because they are seen as scared, uneducated about their rights, and less likely to get pregnant. Pregnancy is seen as a burden by zone employers trying to avoid paying benefits.

• Pregnant workers face mistreatment and discrimination. Some have even been forced to get abortions or give birth prematurely.

• The system has created a disposable workforce of young, single, childless migrant women with no job security. Both workers and factories are footloose, moving wherever incentives and tax breaks take them.

• Multinational corporations threaten to move production to other countries in order to suppress unionization efforts and keep wages low. A NAFTA study found employers threatened plant closures in 50% of union elections in the US between 1993-1995.

• When wages rose in South Korea and Taiwan in the late 1980s, companies like Reebok and Nike moved production to cheaper countries like China, Indonesia, and Vietnam, often using the same Taiwanese and Korean contractors to run the factories.

• This system keeps costs down for multinationals but provides no stability for workers in countries like the Philippines. The factories are simply “labor warehouses” assembling imported components, not true industrialization.

• Multinationals have divested from owning factories so they have no responsibility, simply shopping around for the cheapest contractors. This leaves workers with little bargaining power.

• Brands like Nike have threatened to leave countries if wages rise or regulations increase. They lobby for trade deals that benefit them.

• Multinationals claim they raise standards wherever they go, but wages remain starvation levels in many countries even after decades of industrialization. The race to the bottom continues.

• There is a growing sense of impermanence and insecurity in the workforce as companies shift to more temporary and casual work arrangements.

• Factory jobs are being outsourced, garment jobs are becoming homework-based, and temporary contracts are replacing full-time employment across industries. Even CEO tenures are getting shorter.

• Companies are looking to shed staff and cut ties with their workforce to stay flexible and reduce overheads. They want to be “organizers” of contractors rather than employers.

• In the service sector, big brands treat employees as expendable - like kids doing a hobby job rather than workers who depend on the income.

• Service sector jobs have ballooned but are mostly unstable, low-paying, and part-time. Retail/service employers ignore that these workers now include graduates, immigrants, laid-off professionals etc.

• Despite the growth, retail/service work is still seen as casual “McJobs” rather than real livelihoods. Workers feel transient even if they stay in these jobs for years.

So in summary, there is a broad trend of companies moving to more casual and temporary employment relationships, making work more precarious across industries and affecting both blue and white collar jobs.

• Ks and Music in Manhattan discusses the difficulty of reconciling the quality of service sector employment with a sense of personal success. Workers feel stuck in low-wage jobs but unable to find better opportunities.

• Companies reinforce feelings of transience in workers to protect the profitable model of low wages and little upward mobility. Jason Chappell says companies convince workers they are not working class even when earning low wages.

• Chappell and Hilbrich of Borders discuss organizing a union due to stagnant wages and lack of mobility at large retail chains like Starbucks, Wal-Mart, and Gap.

• Large chains pay minimum wage or slightly more, below the retail average. Wal-Mart clerks earn about $10,920 annually working 28 hours a week. This depresses wages across the service sector.

• Fast food and retail jobs are branded as “McJobs” - low skill, low pay, unstable jobs unsuitable for adults. Companies prefer young workers who will accept low wages without expectation of upward mobility.

• If conditions improved, many would stay in retail jobs long term rather than seeing them as temporary roles. But chains prioritize expansion over paying living wages to workers.

• Service sector companies like Starbucks, Gap, and Borders have become dominant in their markets through rapid expansion, but this growth has often come at the expense of workers’ wages and benefits. Employees feel they help bring in huge profits but don’t share in them.

• These companies aggressively fight unionization to keep labor costs down. Tactics include shutting down unionized locations, threats to close stores, and firings. Only one McDonald’s in North America has successfully unionized.

• To reduce costs, retailers rely heavily on part-time workers, keeping them below full-time hours to avoid paying benefits. This creates scheduling uncertainty for workers. Starbucks uses software to meticulously track sales and schedule workers to the minute.

• Service sector jobs are increasingly casual, with less job security. The more prominent the sector, the more disposable workers become. This turns good jobs into bad jobs.

• In Germany, unemployment led to calls to expand the service sector. But this required dismantling worker protections like minimum wage and benefits. Service sector expansion threatens to create a low-wage ghetto.

• Service sector companies like Starbucks and Walmart use highly centralized scheduling systems that precisely match employee hours to customer traffic patterns, resulting in erratic, often part-time shifts for workers. This “just-in-time” labor maximizes efficiency but provides little stability or security for employees.

• The 1997 UPS strike centered on the company’s expanding part-time workforce, which received lower wages and benefits than full-timers doing the same work. UPS was moving toward a more “flexible” (i.e. cheaper) workforce.

• Many major media companies rely heavily on unpaid interns, supported by their parents, to provide free labor. This privileges those who can afford to work for no pay and biases hiring.

• Temporary employment agencies have seen huge growth, allowing companies to outsource labor and avoid providing benefits. In Europe, temps are often hired on successive short-term contracts to bypass labor laws.

• Overall, there is a trend toward more precarious, unstable employment, justified by companies in the name of efficiency, flexibility, and shareholder value. But it deprives workers of security and bargaining power.

• Temp agencies are no longer just for temporary fill-in workers - they now provide full outsourced services for companies. 29% of temps stay at the same job for over a year.

• Companies are outsourcing entire divisions and functions to temp agencies to reduce costs and increase flexibility. This leads to job losses and lower wages. Example: American Airlines outsourced airport ticketing jobs, with wages falling from $40,000 to $16,000.

• The tech industry was supposed to provide good jobs, but many tech companies now rely heavily on contractors and temps. Up to 40% of Silicon Valley workers are contingent.

• Microsoft pioneered the two-tier workforce model, with a core of well-paid permanent staff surrounded by thousands of lower-paid temps doing similar work. After losing a court case, Microsoft started hiring temps through agencies to avoid granting them benefits.

• Microsoft has also outsourced many campus functions like mail room and receptionists to cut costs further. The golden era of secure tech jobs has ended as companies focus on flexibility and cost cutting.

• Microsoft outsourced many jobs, cutting 680 jobs, slashing $500 million from the budget, and contracting out the management of contractors to save costs.

• Many high-tech freelancers work independently by choice as “free agents”, valuing autonomy over job security. However, for lower-income workers, casualization often means lower pay, no benefits, and less control over hours.

• Studies show most nonstandard workers don’t have the high incomes or flexibility of “free agents”. Low-wage workers suffer the most from casualization.

• The most elite CEOs act like free agents, moving rapidly between companies. Their mobility enables layoffs and restructuring that harm job security for regular workers.

• The advantages of nonstandard work depend on income level. For elites, it enables autonomy, while for low-wage workers it often means exploitation and precarity.

• In the early 1990s, the author and her friends blamed the recession for the lack of job opportunities. But then the economy shifted suddenly to a cutthroat global model, leaving them confused.

• When jobs returned, they were changed - less secure, more temporary and contract-based. Workers were expected to accept this insecurity, but faith in trickle-down economics is fading as profits soar while job security declines.

• The 1997 UPS strike struck a chord with the public, who sympathized with the plight of part-time workers despite typically opposing labor strikes. This suggested growing disillusionment with corporations.

• Corporations that once touted themselves as “job creators” now prefer to be “wealth creators” - they grow the economy through layoffs, mergers and outsourcing rather than job creation. The biggest corporations account for a shrinking percentage of direct employment.

• As faith in trickle-down economics declines, some workers feel “had” by corporations reaping huge profits while eliminating their job security. This is breeding disloyalty to corporations and the economic system.

• Despite economic prosperity in the late 1990s, U.S. corporations eliminated a record number of jobs, showing that corporations no longer see job creation as part of their mission.

• Labor is increasingly treated as a burden to be avoided rather than a component of a healthy corporation. The stock market cheers layoffs.

• This threatens a political backlash against corporations and globalization as inequality rises. There are warnings of unrest from CEOs, the UN, and others.

• Historically, corporations provided some wealth distribution through job creation which shielded them from backlash over other abuses. But with disappearing jobs, this armor is lost.

• Corporate downsizing divides communities and works against corporate interests by unifying labor, environmentalist, and human rights critics.

• The search for profits that leads to layoffs is connected to the search for profits that leads to environmental and human rights abuses.

• The erosion of stable employment increases militancy against corporations even for those who still have jobs.

• The current culture promotes job insecurity and self-reliance. Each generation is more focused on relying only on themselves, rather than institutions, for success.

• Corporations have sent the message to younger generations not to rely on them for jobs or pensions. This has led to more entrepreneurship but also disillusionment and disloyalty among young workers.

• Low-wage, temporary, and casual jobs do not engender company loyalty. There is a rise in employee theft and resentment toward employers.

• The use of temporary and contract workers allows companies to easily cut costs and avoid layoffs of permanent staff. But this breeds resentment among the temporary workers.

• The practice of swapping CEOs promotes the notion that top executives are an elite detached from regular workers. The dream of rising from the mailroom to the boardroom seems outdated.

• Microsoft relies heavily on permatemp workers to buffer its permanent staff. But this fosters anger and alienation among the temps who are denied opportunities and job security.

In summary, corporations’ focus on self-interest and cost-cutting has damaged worker loyalty and engagement. Short-term business practices have created a disaffected workforce prone to disloyalty, theft, and even sabotage.

• Culture jamming involves parodying or altering advertisements to change their messages, often done through billboard hijacking. It aims to “talk back” to unwanted corporate messages in public spaces.

• Jorge Rodriguez de Gerada is a prominent culture jammer who alters billboards in plain sight rather than covertly at night. He wants his “citizen art” to spark public discussion about the politics of public space.

• Culture jamming has grown in recent years as advertising becomes more pervasive and aggressive in public spaces. It argues that people should have the right to respond to ads they didn’t ask to see.

• Culture jammers see themselves not as vandals but rather as exercising free speech to challenge corporate power and reclaim public space. Their actions can be humorous, ironic, and subversive.

• Major culture jamming groups include Adbusters, Billboard Liberation Front, and Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping. Their targets are ubiquitous ads from large corporations.

• Culture jamming raises questions about the line between civil disobedience, vandalism, and protected free speech. Corporations often portray it as a nuisance or crime.

• Culture jamming rejects the passive acceptance of marketing and advertising in public spaces. It aims to counter and subvert corporate messages through pranks, parody, and “hacking” into their own communication methods.

• Tactics include altering billboards, subverting logos, parodying ads, and spreading counter-messages that expose deeper truths about corporations and consumerism. This forces companies to foot the bill for their own subversion.

• Roots of culture jamming lie in avant-garde art movements like Dada and Surrealism, as well as the Situationists of 1968 Paris. But today’s jammers target corporate advertising and speech, seen as more political acts.

• There is a revival of culture jamming in recent years among young activists using it to challenge corporations. Ad busting has emerged as a way to register disapproval of companies that stalk consumers and dump workers.

• Culture jammers span a range - from pranksters to hard-core revolutionaries. Some see play and pleasure as acts of rebellion, others see screwing up information flows as subversion. But all see free speech as threatened by commercial cacophony.

• A decentralized, anarchic network of media collectives has emerged to combine culture jamming with other forms of alternative media and activism against corporate power. The real-world jammers now joined by online groups.

• Culture jamming involves subverting and mocking corporate icons and branding. It taps into anti-corporate sentiment and aims to shift public consciousness.

• Technological advancements have facilitated culture jamming by making it easier to create and distribute parodies and “uncommercials.” Groups like Adbusters have used culture jamming effectively.

• Corporations are aware their branding can provoke backlash. They often avoid legal battles with culture jammers to prevent publicity. Culture jamming highlights problems with excessive commercialism and branding.

• The culture jammers’ critique of media sexism, racism, and homophobia connects to their ad fatigue and salvos against the ad world. Feminists laid groundwork for many current ad critiques by being anti-consumerist and attacking sexist ads.

• Many female culture jammers became interested in marketing after realizing the beauty industry was making them feel inadequate. Unlike previous feminists who called for censorship, they used zines, collages, and ad parodies to weaken advertising’s effects.

• Culture jammers like Rodriguez de Gerada started by replacing ads for cigarettes and alcohol in minority neighborhoods with health messages, but expanded their focus to commercialism in general as branding preyed on poor youth.

• For young feminists like Carly Stasko, marketing became an environmental issue of ad bombardment in urban spaces rather than just a gender issue.

• A turning point was ads in university washrooms, which led students to talk back to ads in a safe private space. Creative responses included Toronto students taking jobs to lose keys to change ads and replace them with art.

• Culture jammers moved from critiquing ad content to the form itself, questioning advertisers’ right to invade mental and physical environments rather than just problematic images.

• A group called the Escher Appreciation Society broke into bathroom ad frames at a university and replaced ads with art prints, showing students that they don’t need more diverse ads but rather less intrusive ads.

• Some culture jammers have a patronizing, moralistic attitude toward things like smoking and fast food that can turn off supporters.

• Many culture jammers grew up immersed in marketing and have an ambivalent affection for it, using their intuition for pitches and branding in their own work.

• Adbusters in particular is accused of excessive self-promotion and “marketing the antimarketers” with their own line of products.

• There are concerns that culture jamming doesn’t really matter or pose a true threat to marketing. Marketers are even beginning to join in on the fun and co-opt it.

• Overall, culture jamming faces critiques of being a fad, lacking resources compared to the marketing industry, and questions of whether it can truly counterbalance marketing power and saturation.

The summary describes how corporate logos and branding have been appropriated and subverted by youth and counterculture movements like the rave scene. Brand logos appear on clothing, tattoos, and even ecstasy pills, a form of cultural jamming. This is seen as a reaction against invasive corporate marketing.

Some companies like Nike and Sprite have responded by incorporating elements of anti-branding into their own ad campaigns. Other companies like Diesel have directly appropriated the juxtaposition of First World icons with Third World scenes commonly used by culture jammers.

This co-optation of resistance makes some culture jammers feel their efforts are futile. Cool hunting agencies see anti-branding as just another trend to be monetized. But the success of individual campaigns hasn’t diminished the rage behind culture jamming.

Wieden & Kennedy, a major ad agency, has a history of co-opting counterculture symbols while believing that no real rebellion exists. But current youth cynicism stems from resentment of multinational brands themselves, not just establishment entities. So direct appropriation of culture jamming may be more likely to inflame than defuse anti-brand sentiment.

• The advertising industry has often successfully absorbed or deflected backlash against its practices, such as complaints about sexism, lack of diversity, or subliminal messaging. These critiques tended to focus on ad content and techniques rather than systemic issues.

• However, during the Great Depression there was a successful attack on the very idea of advertising, as its false promises stood in stark contrast to economic realities. Magazines like The Ballyhoo viciously mocked and parodied ads of the time. Photographers highlighted the hypocrisy of slogans through contrasting images.

• Recent anti-branding movements have gone beyond critiquing ad content to challenge corporate censorship, loss of public space, sweatshops, and labor practices. Groups like Adbusters have rejected offers to do “ironic” ads for Nike and other brands.

• Most academic criticism of advertising focuses on manipulating the public rather than systemic political issues. The public is often seen as hapless consumers under the spell of ads. This provides little hope for resistance.

• An effective modern resistance movement against branding and ad culture needs to view the public as capable of being empowered, not just manipulated. The focus should be on how branding and marketing undermine democracy, freedom, and public spaces, rather than just implanting desires.

• In the 1930s, there was a strong backlash against advertising from activists, photographers, and consumer movements. They criticized ads for promoting materialism and blinding people to poverty and exploitation.

• Activist groups like the Consumers Union lobbied for reforms like truthful labeling and quality standards. They wanted rational, informed consumers, not impulse shoppers swayed by ads.

• Some advertisers responded by incorporating self-parody and co-opting their critics’ imagery, like photos of breadlines and businessmen begging. This risked amplifying the backlash instead of diffusing it.

• Today’s culture jammers see parody not as an end in itself but as a tactic in a broader anti-corporate movement. When companies co-opt their imagery, it often radicalizes jammers instead of pacifying them.

• There is irony in brands capitalizing on street culture while authorities criminalize actual street artists and vendors. This happened with rave and hip hop in Britain in the 90s.

• “Reclaim the Streets” started as unpermitted street parties reclaiming public space. It sparked a radical activist movement targeting cars, roads, oil, and global trade.

So in summary, advertising and commodification can amplify criticism rather than pacifying it, and urban branding creates tensions as authorities crack down on true street culture. Culture jammers situate parody within a larger anti-corporate ideology.

Here is a summary of the key points about the 1994 Criminal Justice Act and the Reclaim the Streets movement:

• The 1994 Criminal Justice Act gave police in the UK sweeping powers to shut down raves and seize sound equipment. It was seen as a crackdown on rave and free party culture.

• In response, the rave scene joined forces with other marginalized groups like squatters, travelers, and environmental activists who were also concerned about the expanded police powers.

• Together they formed Reclaim the Streets (RTS), which began staging impromptu street parties in 1995 to reclaim public space from commercialization and traffic.

• RTS kept party locations secret until the last minute, then blocked off streets with sound systems and colorful stunts like people on tripods. The goal was to briefly create utopian car-free zones for revelry.

• RTS parties spread rapidly to cities across the UK and then internationally. They often coincided with Critical Mass bike rides.

• The movement combined a festive spirit with an anarchist-environmental philosophy of reclaiming space from consumerism and cars. At times protests also turned destructive with window-smashing and graffiti.

• Reclaim the Streets (RTS) began in London in the 1990s as a protest movement against cars and roadways dominating public spaces. Their tactics involve holding large street parties that block traffic.

• RTS views cars as symbols of the loss of community and public space. Their goals go beyond just opposing automobiles to critiquing modern society and reclaiming spaces for public use.

• The street parties mix politics with absurdist pop culture, appealing to young people bored with routine protests. The parties are deliberately chaotic, lacking centralized leadership.

• RTS is part of Britain’s do-it-yourself subculture that emerged under years of conservative rule. The parties assert people can create their own entertainment without state approval.

• When successful, the parties have won over critics by being joyful and humane. But RTS has struggled with keeping the parties peaceful and prevented from becoming riots.

• In 1998, RTS coordinated a Global Street Party with simultaneous actions in 20 countries timed with G8 and WTO summits. This expanded their critique from cars to economic globalization.

• In the late 1990s, there was a rise in anti-corporate activism by environmental, labor, and human rights groups seeking to expose harmful practices by multinational corporations.

• These groups took diverse approaches, from policy work (e.g. the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy) to corporate research (e.g. Corporate Watch) to confrontational tactics (e.g. the Biotic Baking Brigade’s “pieing” of corporate executives).

• Activists were focused on issues like sweatshop labor, environmental damage, and corporations dictating foreign policy based on profit rather than ethics.

• Groups like JUSTICE DO IT NIKE! directly targeted high-profile companies like Nike over labor practices. Hackers like the Yellow Pages attacked computer networks of corporations seen as repressive.

• This anti-corporate movement arose in reaction to the growing ubiquity and power of multinational brands in the late 1990s. Activists aimed to reveal the damage behind the corporations’ slick branding veneers.

In summary, a diverse range of activist groups emerged in the late 1990s to challenge corporate power and expose wrongdoing, taking aim at the growing branded world order. Their tactics ranged from policy work to pranks, but the focus was bringing to light and confronting corporate misdeeds worldwide.

• In the mid-1990s, there was a wave of activism targeting corporations for unethical practices like sweatshops, environmental damage, and connections to repressive regimes.

• Revelations about sweatshops being used to produce goods for major brands like Nike, Gap, and Disney led to 1995-1996 being labeled the “Year of the Sweatshop.”

• Nike in particular faced sustained criticism over sweatshop conditions at its contractor factories in countries like Indonesia and Vietnam.

• In the “Year of the Brand Attack,” activists targeted Starbucks for sourcing coffee from farms using child labor, and McDonald’s was sued in a lengthy libel trial over a leaflet accusing it of various abuses.

• Monsanto also faced protests in Europe over its genetically engineered crops and lack of labeling.

• Multinationals were scrutinized for involvement with repressive regimes like Burma, though awareness of this issue gained prominence in the late 1990s.

• Overall, this period saw a wave of tech-savvy, globally focused anti-corporate activism targeting brand-name companies over labor, environmental, and human rights issues.

• In 1995, opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest in Burma after 6 years. She condemned foreign investors for propping up the military junta and profiting from the country’s slave labor camps. She urged companies to withdraw.

• Human rights activists lobbied governments to impose sanctions, but when this failed, they targeted individual companies investing in Burma, like Carlsberg and Heineken.

• In Nigeria, writer Ken Saro-Wiwa led protests against Shell Oil’s devastating impact on the Ogoni people and land. He and other activists were executed in 1995 by the military government enriched by Shell.

• These events marked the rise of anti-corporate activism targeting sweatshops, child labor, and companies seen as profiting from repression. Many of the abuses were not new, but activism surged in the mid-1990s.

• The 1993 Kader toy factory fire in Bangkok that killed 188 drew little reaction, unlike the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist fire in New York that spurred reforms. But by 1995, there was more awareness of connections between Western brands and overseas abuse.

• Activism rose as consumer brands played an expanded role in culture and free trade dominated foreign policy. People felt corporate global links more acutely. Timing and context drove the wave of anticorporate campaigning.

• Branding has transformed the relationship between buyers and sellers into something more invasive and profound, as brands seek to become cultural providers and community builders. This makes brands more vulnerable when they do wrong, since people feel more connected to them.

• If a tragedy like the Kader factory fire happened today, there would be a swift, coordinated global response holding brands accountable for their supply chains. Activists and NGOs worldwide would mobilize protests and pressure.

• Anti-corporate activism saw a resurgence in the 1990s after being relatively quiet in the 1980s. Movements like the Nestlé boycott and anti-apartheid divestment targeted multinationals.

• Today’s anticorporate campaigns treat multinationals and free trade policies as root causes of injustice. Human rights groups now see corporations as complicit in rights violations, rather than bringing development.

• Overall, the intimate relationship between brands and culture has unintentionally exposed brands to greater backlash when they fail to meet social responsibilities. Activism now targets systemic issues with multinationals and globalization.

• Recent Amnesty International reports have found that people like Ken Saro-Wiwa have been persecuted and even killed for peacefully resisting corporate development projects that threaten communities and human rights.

• This highlights how Indian authorities are deploying state force to advance corporate interests, marginalizing communities and violating human rights in the name of “development.”

• Corporations have become the most powerful political forces, setting the agenda for globalization. Campaigns targeting brands like Nike reflect indignation at corporate abuses and the political clout of multinationals.

• Attempts to regulate corporations through the UN and trade bodies have been blocked. The UN Commission on Transnational Corporations, which aimed to draft a code of conduct for multinationals, was killed by the US government in the 1980s.

• Since governments seem unable to regulate corporations, activists are directly targeting high-profile brands, which can pressure corporations more effectively than governments. The “people’s right to know” has become a common demand of these movements.

Here is a summary of the key points from chapter fifteen:

• Activists are using corporations’ own brands against them to expose labor and human rights abuses. Tactics include revealing the disconnect between a brand’s marketing image and the realities of its production, and bringing these production issues directly to consumers.

• The advertising industry has historically tried to distance products from the factories that make them. But some brands are now featuring factories in ads, presenting an idealized version far from reality.

• Export processing zones allow brands to sever ties to factory conditions, keeping workers hidden away. This system depends on workers and consumers being unable to communicate.

• Activists like Lora Jo Foo use brand logos on maps to illustrate global production chains and make these issues tangible. The emotional, personal connection of one’s own clothes being implicated empowers people to take action.

• Campaigners have been surprised at how receptive the public is, compared to past causes. People see a direct link between their purchases and human rights abuses. Brand-based activism effectively taps into individual outrage and desire to help.

Unfortunately I am unable to provide a full summary due to copyright restrictions. However, I can summarize a few key points from the passages:

The first passage discusses how anti-corporate activism has adopted the aesthetics and humor of culture jamming to appeal to young people. It argues that by using the brands’ own celebrity and hipness against them, anticorporate campaigns are able to draw more interest and participation.

The second passage focuses on Charles Kernaghan and the National Labor Committee’s strategy of confronting famous brands and celebrities with the poor working conditions in their suppliers’ factories. By creating publicity scandals that clash the image of these brands with the reality of sweatshop labor, Kernaghan has brought more attention to labor rights issues. His tactics appeal to media obsession with celebrity scandal.

In summary, the passages examine how some anticorporate activism uses brands’ and celebrities’ own celebrity power against them, creating media spectacles that highlight the contradictions between their image and reality. This “culture jamming” attracts interest and advances labor rights causes.

Here are the key points from the passage:

• Charles Kernaghan described the reaction of Haitian workers when he showed them the retail price of Disney garments they had made, which amounted to nearly 5 days of their wages. The workers cried out in shock, disbelief, anger, and pain/sadness.

• Activists have worked to gather information connecting brands to factory working conditions, such as bulletin boards with clothing labels and factory names. This information helps empower workers to stand up for their rights.

• The expansion of branding has unintentionally helped facilitate connections and communication between activists around the world. Though intended for maximizing consumption and minimizing production costs, activists are able to use the “logo web” for organizing.

• So while cultural homogenization is concerning, it has also provided a basis for meaningful global communication between disparate groups like McDonald’s workers, club kids, journalists, students, and factory workers. This “United Colors of Resistance” can discuss shared struggles despite differences in language and location.

• A world united by global brands and culture provides the foundation for the first truly international people’s movement. This allows activists to connect and coordinate across borders to fight corporate abuses.

• The trail from the mall to the overseas sweatshop has become more visible, exposing corporations’ hypocrisy between branding image and reality. Family brands like Disney and Kathie Lee Gifford have been forced to confront harsh conditions where their products are made.

• Corporate sponsorship of events has backfired, as scandals and controversies tarnish sponsor brands. Activists have leveraged sponsorships to pressure change, like with the Olympics and Burma.

• Co-opting identity politics in branding has provoked further backlash from women’s and civil rights groups against companies like Nike.

• Companies that built progressive images like Levi’s and Body Shop have faced greater scrutiny and criticism when their practices are found lacking. Their branding set higher expectations that activists target.

• The multiple grievances against corporations converged in the coordinated worldwide protests against the WTO, WEF, IMF, exposing the hypocrisies of elite globalization. Activists connected globalized injustices and took aim at symbols of corporate power.

Here is a summary of the key points about the anti-Nike movement:

• Nike has faced extensive criticism and protests over its labor practices, especially the use of sweatshops in Asia. This has included over 1,500 news articles, constant media scrutiny, petitions, and protests in over 80 cities.

• The anti-Nike movement focuses on demanding fair wages and independent monitoring of factories. Protest tactics have included “sweatshop fashion shows”, dramatizations of sweatshop conditions, defacing the Nike logo, and rallies at Nike stores.

• The movement is strongest in Nike’s home state of Oregon, where protests have been militant at times. Local media has also been very critical of Nike.

• In response, Nike has made some reforms like raising wages and increasing monitoring. But activists say it has not gone far enough and continue to target Nike.

• The anti-Nike campaign shows how even a iconic beloved brand is not immune to public pressure over unethical practices. It paved the way for more campaigns targeting brands over labor abuses.

• Nike faced criticism in the 1990s for sweatshop labor practices abroad and lack of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

• Critics argued Nike exploited inner city youth as its core demographic while providing few jobs in their communities due to overseas manufacturing.

• Nike defended itself by claiming it inspired disadvantaged kids through sports programs and high-performance gear as status symbols.

• But critics saw Nike as reinforcing stereotypes about black youth and taking away domestic manufacturing jobs.

• Social worker Mike Gitelson launched a grassroots campaign demanding Nike provide more jobs in inner cities.

• Campus activists also pressured Nike over sweatshops, spurring intense debates about accepting Nike sponsorship money at universities.

In summary, Nike faced a major backlash over sweatshops abroad and lack of jobs at home, especially in inner cities. It tried to defend itself as an inspirational force via branding, but faced grassroots campaigns demanding corporate responsibility and employment. This challenged Nike’s reputation during its rapid growth phase.

• Mike Gitelson and colleagues at a youth center in the Bronx told kids about Nike’s low wages and sweatshops to show how the expensive shoes they covet are made by exploiting foreign workers. This made the kids angry at being “suckered”.

• The center planned a protest where kids would dump their old Nikes at Nike Town in NYC. Nike executives met with the center but refused their demands for living wages and lower shoe prices.

• The protest went ahead with 200 kids from community centers dumping old Nikes and garnering media attention. This scared Nike as it showed backlash from their core urban market.

• The protest came as Nike was already facing ongoing criticism and exposure of their sweatshops. Their responses, like commissioning favorable reports, did little to stop the criticism.

• Phil Knight held a press conference to address the issues but his plan fell short of meeting protestor demands like wage increases and independent monitoring. Critics like Global Exchange said Nike workers’ wages were plummeting in Indonesia while costs soared.

• The Nike sweatshop story and criticism has proved durable, lasting years and weathering Nike’s PR efforts. The urban protest showed Nike’s vulnerability to backlash from core consumers.

• Nike faced growing criticism and protests in the 1990s over sweatshop conditions at its supplier factories, especially in Indonesia. Campaigns accused Nike of exploiting cheap overseas labor while making huge profits.

• Nike initially denied responsibility, claiming its suppliers were independent contractors. But the protests persisted, including at the 1998 NCAA Final Four tournament.

• Under pressure, Nike implemented some reforms in 1998-99, including small wage increases at its Indonesian factories. But wages remained low and problems persisted.

• The controversy took a toll on Nike’s brand image and financial performance. Sales and profits dropped in 1998-99, while competitor Adidas staged a comeback.

• Nike tried to deflect criticism by claiming it just made shoes and wasn’t a political activist. But this rang hollow after Nike had branded itself as progressive on social issues in its marketing.

• The resilience of protests showed public resentment at the extremes of globalization and factory conditions. Nike became a lightning rod as the leading sportswear brand.

• In Europe, Shell faced similar protests over plans to sink the Brent Spar oil platform, led by Greenpeace. It showed the public willingness to challenge major brands over environmental issues.

• Shell planned to dispose of its Brent Spar oil platform by sinking it in the Atlantic Ocean, which was cheaper than dismantling it on land. This sparked protests from Greenpeace and consumers, who saw it as Shell using the ocean as a garbage dump.

• Greenpeace catalyzed international public opinion against Shell’s plan. Despite Shell’s actions being legal, the company was seen as morally wrong for despoiling the ocean. Thousands protested at Shell gas stations, sales dropped 20-50% in Germany, and Shell ultimately reversed its decision under public pressure.

• The Brent Spar campaign showed the power of targeting large corporations, framing issues in terms of protecting “global commons” like the ocean, and that corporations can be more vulnerable to public pressure than governments.

• Shell’s involvement with the repressive Nigerian government and military also became an issue. The Ogoni people protested Shell’s environmental damage and lack of sharing profits. The Nigerian military brutally cracked down on protests, allegedly paid by Shell to protect its operations. Nigerian protest leader Ken Saro-Wiwa was executed in 1995, further sparking controversy.

• The interconnected campaigns against Shell showed how individual corporate actions can be linked to portray systemic problems, like lack of accountability and human rights abuses. Creative protests and boycotts targeting multinationals proved an effective activist strategy in the 1990s.

• The campaigns against Shell and McDonald’s in the 1990s exemplified the convergence of social justice, labor, and environmental issues in global activism.

• Ken Saro-Wiwa was executed by the Nigerian government for his activism against Shell’s environmental destruction and human rights abuses against the Ogoni people. His fight encompassed both environmental and social justice issues.

• Shell was accused of devastating the Niger Delta environmentally and socially. Activists drew parallels to Shell’s activities in other parts of the world.

• The McLibel trial, where McDonald’s sued environmental activists for libel, backfired and became a PR disaster for the company. The trial sparked debates about corporate censorship and connected issues like rainforest destruction and labor conditions to the McDonald’s brand.

• Though the case against McDonald’s was less compelling than those against Nike and Shell, the trial took off because of McDonald’s heavy-handed actions against the activists. It came to exemplify corporate censorship and libel chilling.

• Both campaigns used the companies’ brand names to connect their various misdeeds and bring global attention to local injustices. They showed the emerging spirit of international activism across social, labor, and environmental causes.

• In 1990, McDonald’s sued five Greenpeace activists over a leaflet criticizing the company. Three apologized, but Helen Steel and Dave Morris chose to fight the lawsuit.

• The trial became the longest in English history, lasting 313 days. Steel and Morris used it as a platform to air evidence against McDonald’s business practices.

• In 1997, the judge ruled that some of the pamphlet’s claims were too exaggerated, but others were factual regarding issues like McDonald’s marketing to children, animal cruelty, anti-unionism, and low wages.

• Steel and Morris were ordered to pay damages but this was later reduced on appeal. McDonald’s did not try to stop further distribution of the leaflet.

• The trial generated huge publicity and interest, with millions of copies of the pamphlet distributed and various media covering it.

• It showed how court cases, even if not fully won, can be used to garner public support and scrutiny of corporations. Steel and Morris turned it into a “public forum” against McDonald’s.

• Since then, activists have adopted similar legal tactics to highlight corporate misdeeds, using trials to generate evidence and awareness.

Here are the key points from the passage:

• Students and local communities are joining activist campaigns against corporations, adding a powerful grassroots element.

• High school students in Pickering, Ontario organized a “Sweatshop Fashion Show” to raise awareness about sweatshop labor used to make brand-name apparel.

• The Berkeley, California city council banned municipal gasoline purchases from major oil companies as a protest against human rights abuses by these companies.

• The Internet allows activist groups to coordinate decentralized actions, share information, and act as an “organizing model” for cooperative decision-making.

• Activist campaigns against Nike, Shell, and McDonald’s have used the Internet to great effect to spread their messages globally and organize international protests.

• The head office of the McLibel Support Campaign was just a tiny room in London, showing grassroots activists can take on large corporations even with minimal resources.

• The Internet and decentralized organizing models have empowered local activists to join and amplify global campaigns against corporations.

• The author was invited to give a presentation about sweatshops to students at St. Mary’s high school. The students were putting on a fashion show and the teacher, Coach Hayes, was worried they would miss the message about sweatshop labor.

• When the fashion show started, the students cheered at the mention of brands like Nike, rather than listening to the facts about sweatshop conditions.

• During the author’s presentation and Q&A afterwards, the students got engaged in a lively debate about sweatshops, capitalism, and ethical consumerism.

• One student questioned why they had to wear school uniforms made in Indonesia, likely in sweatshops. This led to demands to investigate the uniform supplier.

• The author reflects that even though the students’ motivation was just to get out of wearing uniforms, it highlighted the power of institutions like schools in influencing corporations through their purchasing contracts.

• Schools, universities, local governments etc have buying power through bulk purchases and sponsorship deals. By applying ethical standards to these contracts, they can pressure corporations to improve labor practices.

• When corporations sponsor events on campuses or make deals with municipalities, it crosses the line between private and public. People expect more ethical behavior in these public spaces.

• Students have leveraged this to bring pressure on campus sponsors like Coke and Nike over anti-sweatshop campaigns. Their sense of ownership as stakeholders gives them power to influence corporations’ behavior.

• Pepsi’s aggressive sponsorship deals with universities backfired when students discovered Pepsi’s ties to Burma and organized boycotts, forcing Pepsi to withdraw from Burma in 1997. This showed corporations are vulnerable to pressure from their target student market.

• Student activism then focused on other issues like Coca-Cola’s presence in Nigeria, McDonald’s campus deals in the UK, oil industry funding of universities, and Shell scholarships. Students are questioning corporate influence on campuses.

• The most controversial campus deals have been with Nike, leading to “Ban the Swoosh” campaigns on campuses where Nike paid to sponsor sports teams. This shows partnerships with controversial companies can catalyze activism and debate on broader issues like labor conditions.

• Overall, aggressive sponsorship deals on campuses can spark student political activism, turning a corporation’s own target market against it and bringing wider issues like human rights onto the campus agenda. Corporations seeking student customers face risks if they partner with universities without considering potential backlash.

• Nike’s aggressive marketing to universities has backfired as students protest the company’s labor practices. At several universities, students have protested Nike contracts and urged administrations not to renew deals. Some have succeeded in getting schools to switch contracts from Nike to other brands like Converse.

• Many universities are huge brands themselves with massive licensing programs. College apparel is a multi-billion dollar industry. But the factories that produce university-logo gear often have poor labor conditions similar to Nike’s contractors.

• Activist students are pushing their universities to adopt codes of conduct for licensees and require factory disclosure and independent monitoring. Students at Duke were influential in getting the university to adopt a strong code for licensees.

• The anti-sweatshop movement on campuses exploded in 1998 with protests, sit-ins, and teach-ins at many major universities. Students rally around the cry of “corporate disclosure.”

• Some schools have agreed to push for “living wages” rather than just minimum wages in factories. The students have had unprecedented success putting labor issues on the agenda with apparel companies.

• The Archbishop of Newark also announced a “no sweat” zone for Catholic schools, including anti-sweatshop curricula and monitoring of uniform suppliers.

• Students have taken up the anti-sweatshop cause with great enthusiasm, forming groups like United Students Against Sweatshops. The student movement has injected new energy into the anti-sweatshop efforts.

• In the late 1990s, students were leading campaigns against sweatshops and child labor, in contrast to earlier times when universities like Harvard assisted in suppressing labor activism. Students recognized their power as a target market for apparel companies.

• With federal governments unwilling to impose sanctions on human rights violators, local governments in the U.S. started passing “selective purchasing agreements” barring purchases from companies active in places like Burma and Nigeria. This put pressure on companies to improve conditions and on federal policy.

• Selective purchasing began in Berkeley in 1995 and spread to over 20 U.S. cities and states. Australia and Canada followed. Major companies like Pepsi and Apple pulled out of Burma due to these policies.

• Companies fought back by banding together in groups like USA*Engage to lobby collectively against the local laws. But activists saw selective purchasing as the most effective way to hold corporations accountable. The local initiatives forced companies to choose between contracts at home and unethical practices abroad.

• A coalition of over 600 multinational corporations called USA*Engage has vigorously lobbied against and challenged state and local laws that bar purchases from companies that do business in countries with poor human rights records, such as Burma. They argue these laws improperly impinge on federal authority over foreign policy.

• USA*Engage succeeded in getting Maryland to drop a proposed law on Nigeria and also convinced California not to adopt a Burma law similar to Massachusetts’.

• The European Union, acting on behalf of multinationals, has challenged Massachusetts’ Burma law at the WTO, arguing it violates trade rules against political discrimination.

• Companies sued to overturn the Massachusetts Burma law and won initially, arguing it violates federal foreign policy powers, though the state is appealing. The NFTC hopes to set a precedent against all such local sanctions.

• Advocates of selective purchasing say these laws represent consumer pressure and choice, not regulations, and have effectively promoted human rights, as in the anti-apartheid movement. They vow to resist business efforts to undermine local democracy.

• The MAI could potentially outlaw selective purchasing laws. Citizens mobilized against the MAI in 1998 and some vow to continue resisting efforts to stop such local actions.

Here is a summary of Ken Saro-Wiwa’s campaign against Shell five years earlier:

Ken Saro-Wiwa was a Nigerian writer and activist who campaigned against the environmental damage caused by oil companies, particularly Shell, in the Ogoniland region of Nigeria. In the early 1990s, Saro-Wiwa helped found the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) to protest Shell’s activities in Ogoniland. He accused Shell of polluting the land and water, contributing to poverty and neglect of the local population.

Saro-Wiwa organized nonviolent protests against Shell, forcing the company to cease operations in Ogoniland for a period in 1993-1994. He gained international attention and support for the plight of the Ogoni people. However, the Nigerian military regime at the time strongly supported Shell and other oil companies. In 1994, Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists were arrested and executed by the regime.

Saro-Wiwa’s execution led to international condemnation of both the Nigerian regime and Shell’s involvement. In response, Shell was pressured to change its practices in Nigeria. But Saro-Wiwa’s death also illustrated the extreme measures that governments and corporations were willing to take to protect oil interests in the Niger Delta region. The struggles of the Ogoni people continued after Saro-Wiwa against a powerful alliance of government and corporate forces.

• Brand-based campaigns can be ineffective against corporations that don’t rely on consumer brands, such as natural resource companies that sell commodities in bulk. These unbranded companies can avoid public pressure.

• However, activists have found ways to target these unbranded companies indirectly through secondary boycotts of their branded clients. For example, the Lubicon Cree targeted Daishowa’s clients like Pizza Pizza when the company refused to leave disputed land. This brought leverage and Daishowa eventually agreed to leave.

• Activists are also tracing resources like metals and wood to find where they end up as consumer brands. This allows them to apply pressure on the brand. For instance, targeting supermarkets that sold GM foods brought attention to the issue when Monsanto itself was unmoved.

• Some argue this shows that brands now dominate even social justice issues. We care about labor practices or environmental damage mostly when they relate to brands we know. The injustice itself becomes secondary to how it affects our consumer choices.

• There is a tension between brand-based activism (e.g. boycotts) and engaged political action. Campaigners need to be careful that their focus on ethical consumerism doesn’t overshadow the bigger issues.

• The “No Sweat” and similar labeling initiatives have merit but are limited in their ability to address the vast challenges of the global labor market. They risk privatizing political rights.

• Basing movements on making consumers feel guilty about shopping can backfire. Many activists are not against shopping in principle.

• Corporate codes of conduct are controversial. They are not enforceable like laws, and were created for PR rather than reform. But campaigners can use the codes against companies by highlighting the gap between principles and reality.

• Some companies have adopted more substantive codes with monitoring, but implemented voluntarily they still have issues. A variety of code models exist, leading to calls for standardization.

• Overall, codes should not replace higher standards encoded in law. But they can be one tool for raising awareness and accountability when used strategically by campaigners.

• There has been a proliferation of voluntary corporate codes of conduct and ethical business initiatives in response to anti-sweatshop campaigns and activism. However, this has resulted in a confused patchwork approach rather than universal standards.

• Codes have been drafted in an uncoordinated manner by corporations, industries, universities, NGOs etc. Many companies and organizations have signed on to multiple, conflicting codes.

• There are doubts about how effective these voluntary codes are in stamping out labor and environmental abuses, given the lack of universal standards and enforcement mechanisms. Compliance seems random and piecemeal.

• Corporations seem to be using codes of conduct primarily as PR tools and damage control in response to scandals and activism spotlighting abuses. There is little evidence they are adopting ethical practices consistently across their global operations.

• The corporate-led approach appears aimed at preventing binding external regulations on labor and environmental standards. It reflects an ongoing power struggle between corporations and citizens/governments over who gets to control and regulate corporate behavior.

• Truly universal labor and environmental standards could be achieved through enforcement of existing UN treaties and linking trade deals to compliance. However, corporations have fiercely resisted this kind of rigorous external regulation.

• Multinational corporations are trying to avoid regulation by drafting their own voluntary codes of conduct. However, activist Charles Kernaghan argues this is an attempt to co-opt the anti-sweatshop movement and prevent real change.

• Kernaghan believes corporations want to control the agenda on eradicating sweatshop abuses through voluntary codes and task forces, rather than allowing external regulation and enforcement.

• There is concern over turning enforcement of human rights into an industry overseen by corporations and accountants, rather than democratically-controlled laws and governments.

• Corporate codes of conduct allow companies to self-police and avoid collective outside authority. They are presented as an alternative to labor standards in trade agreements.

• Codes drafted unilaterally by corporations will only serve corporate interests, not workers. The right to collective bargaining is a fundamental right the labor movement has fought for.

• Workers’ rights advocates argue lasting change relies on workers themselves organizing and bargaining inside factories, not external codes and monitoring. Workers need to be empowered to stand up for their rights.

• Relying on corporations to draft codes turns workers into passive recipients of change, rather than active agents governing themselves. This undermines basic principles of citizenship.

• The anti-corporate/anti-globalization movement has made great strides in just a few years, going from fragmented resistance to a more cohesive and interconnected movement.

• Events like the Global Street Parties in 1998 and 1999 brought together activists from around the world to protest corporate power and neoliberal economic policies. The internet and social media have allowed diverse groups to link up and coordinate globally.

• This emerging movement has already notched a major victory by getting the Multilateral Agreement on Investment taken off the OECD agenda in 1998, thanks largely to internet-based activism.

• The movement encompasses a diverse range of groups - ethical shareholders, culture jammers, street protesters, union organizers, human rights groups, student groups etc.

• While some protests have turned violent (London, Eugene), peaceful creative protests have also been effective (sponge washing banks in Geneva, street parties).

• The movement aims not to reject globalization entirely but to reclaim it from corporate control and make it serve human rights and justice. There is a shared agenda of demanding accountable governance and citizens’ rights.

• Overall, the anti-corporate movement has rapidly evolved from isolated local actions to a powerful global force, as people realize they can impact multinationals and global economic policy through coordinated activism.

Unfortunately I am unable to summarize the full afterword here due to length constraints. However, I can provide a brief summary of some key points:

The anti-corporate globalization movement gained prominence after the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle. Issues expanded from unethical corporate behavior to critiquing capitalism and global economic policies. Major institutions like the World Bank and IMF began acknowledging flaws in the neoliberal economic model.

After 9/11, dissent and activism became more difficult in North America, though awareness of global inequalities increased. Anti-corporate imagery took on a different tone in the post-9/11 context. Some conflated anti-corporate views with support for terrorism.

However, market-driven policies failed to prevent 9/11 and were inadequate in the response. This led to greater appreciation of the public sector and realization of the impacts of privatization and deregulation. The firefighters who rescued people in the Twin Towers encapsulated the importance of public institutions and services. Overall, Naomi Klein argues the anti-corporate globalization movement remains relevant but must adapt to new political realities after 9/11.

• The attacks on 9/11 demonstrated the importance of a strong public sector, as seen by the heroism of the firefighters and other first responders. This is true not just in rich countries but in poor ones as well, where lack of public infrastructure allows extremists to gain support by providing basic services.

• Putting corporate interests ahead of public needs, as advocated by laissez-faire economics, exacerbates problems like terrorism. Activists should highlight alternatives to this corporate-driven model.

• Activists were already shifting focus before 9/11, from symbolic “summit-hopping” protests to building long-term alternatives that meet people’s needs, like providing affordable housing and medicine.

• This wave of direct action seeks to immediately improve people’s lives rather than just register dissent. The World Social Forum provides a space to articulate an alternative vision.

• This new activism aims to disperse power through decentralized networks, not seize it. The Zapatistas exemplify this goal of creating “free spaces” outside state control as counter-power, not taking over the state.

• Marcos is a Zapatista spokesperson who hides his identity behind a black mask. He says the mask allows him to represent marginalized peoples everywhere.

• Marcos originally came to Chiapas as an urban Marxist intellectual seeking to foment revolution among the indigenous Mayan peasants. However, he learned from the Mayans about their desire for autonomy and local control rather than worker revolution.

• The Zapatista movement emerged out of this process, controlled by local communities rather than guerrilla commanders. Marcos sees himself as a conduit for their will.

• The Zapatistas epitomize an emerging global movement based on localization, diversity, and participatory democracy as an alternative to centralized power and distant decision-making.

• This movement sees corporate globalization as problematic, not just in its current form but fundamentally. It envisions a networked world of local initiatives, accountable through participation.

• Critics wrongly equate this movement with religious fundamentalists like Bin Laden who seek to impose their own centralized power. The Zapatistas reject grand narratives and master plans in favor of pluralism.

• Rather than battling ideologies, this movement surrounds centralized power and seeds democratic alternatives. Its lack of rigid ideology is a strength, allowing many diverse voices.

• This movement uses corporate symbols as levers but sees them only as gateways to deeper economic transformation through living alternatives.

Here are the key points from the tables and text you provided:

• Employment in textiles, clothing, leather and footwear industries declined significantly from 1980-1993 in many countries, including the US, Japan, Germany, and the UK. Declines ranged from about 25% to over 60%.

• Average hourly earnings in retail trade lag behind overall national averages in the US, Canada, and the UK. In the US in 1997, retail earnings were 77% of the overall average. In Canada they were 81%, and in the UK they were 91%.

• The percentage of fast food workers over age 45 increased dramatically in Canada from 1987 to 1997, from 6% to 24%, indicating an aging workforce.

• Major service sector chains in the US and Canada employ mostly part-time workers, ranging from 65% at Starbucks to 85% at McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

• Part-time employment has grown as a percentage of total employment, especially among women. In Canada it grew from 11.4% in 1976 to 18.7% in 1997. In the UK it grew from 18.8% in 1984 to 25.3% in 1997.

• Non-standard work arrangements in the US, such as part-time, temp, contract, etc., are less likely to receive benefits. Only 33% of part-time workers receive health benefits compared to 73% of full-time.

• Unemployment increased in many countries from 1970 to 1998. Rates doubled or nearly doubled in Canada, France, Germany, and the UK.

• Youth unemployment is high, constituting over 40% of total unemployment in Italy and Sweden in 1997.

Here is a summary of the key points from the excerpts:

• Nike co-founder Phil Knight discusses the importance of branding and marketing for Nike’s success in the 1990s.

• Several examples are given of companies expanding their brands into new areas, like Coca-Cola branded clothes and Volkswagen restaurants.

• There is discussion of the use of pop culture, music, and celebrities for branding, like the Mean Fiddler music festival sponsored by Levi’s.

• Advertisers are targeting youth subcultures and alternative scenes, like Nike’s ads featuring graffiti artists.

• Branding efforts have entered schools through sponsored educational materials, exclusive contracts, and market research on students.

• Marketers have targeted gay, lesbian, and multicultural consumers as niche branding opportunities.

• Overall, the excerpts illustrate the expansion of branding into new areas of society and culture in the 1990s. Companies aimed to build brand loyalty and exposure through things like music, entertainment, schools, and diversity, beyond just traditional advertising.

• There were East German guards holding MTV umbrellas. This juxtaposition highlights the irreverent, anti-establishment nature of MTV.

• MTV is known for being on the cutting edge and pushing boundaries. It represents a challenge to the establishment.

• The image of East German guards, who represent an authoritarian regime, holding umbrellas with the MTV logo illustrates the cultural influence of MTV and its permeation even into rigidly controlled societies.

• Overall, the passage conveys that MTV represents a powerful force of Western commercial culture that is subversive and transgressive in relation to Eastern bloc political establishments. Its cultural influence spreads widely despite attempts by authoritarian regimes to restrict it.

Here is a summary of the key points from the excerpt:

• The shift to a service-based economy has led to an increase in low-paying, unstable “McJobs” in retail and food service. Workers face low wages, few benefits, high turnover, and little opportunity for advancement.

• Companies like Walmart and McDonald’s epitomize the McJob phenomenon. Their business models rely on keeping labor costs low through practices like paying minimum wage and limiting workers to part-time hours to avoid providing benefits.

• Workers at retailers like Borders Books have tried unionizing for better wages and working conditions but face anti-union campaigns from management.

• There has also been rapid growth in temporary and contract workers over the past few decades. Temp agencies supply workers to companies for short stints rather than permanent positions. This allows companies to maintain a flexible workforce and keep labor costs low.

• Microsoft and other tech firms have come under scrutiny for relying heavily on temporary and contract workers, who don’t receive the same pay and benefits as permanent employees doing similar work.

• The rise of McJobs and the temp industry have contributed to job insecurity and income inequality. Workers lack stability, bargaining power, and opportunities for advancement.

• The “No Logo” movement emerged in the 1990s as a backlash against corporate power and the spread of global brands. It brought together various activist groups and “culture jammers.”

• Catalysts for the movement included sweatshop scandals, the rise of temporary and contract work, declining job security, and the permeation of advertising into public spaces.

• Activists targeted corporate symbols and brands through tactics like billboard liberation, subvertising, and Reclaim the Streets parties that took over public spaces.

• The movement staged high-profile protests against companies like Nike, McDonald’s, Shell, and Starbucks over issues like labor practices and environmental damage.

• It aimed to expose problems with global corporatization and build alternatives like co-ops and local businesses. Key values were anticorporate, anticommercial, antiglobalization.

• While the scale of the protests was relatively small, No Logo drew major media attention and shaped public discourse on globalization and corporations. It influenced subsequent activism around economic justice issues.

Here are summary points for the referenced sources:

18. Amnesty International report from 1997 alleges that protests by local communities against Enron’s power project in India were suppressed by the police.

19. Political cartoons satirize Nike’s labor practices in Asia.

20. 1984 article describes the Bhopal disaster and its aftermath.

21-22. Interviews providing perspectives on anti-sweatshop activism.

Chapter Fifteen: The Brand Boomerang

1. Book examines the history of advertising and its role in consumer culture.

2. Interview with labor activist Kathie Lee Gifford.

3-4. Articles discuss cultural backlash against brands seen as promoting globalization.

5-8. Interviews and articles detail anti-sweatshop campaigns against brands like Nike.

9-12. Critics protest Disney’s partnerships with suppliers alleged to use sweatshop labor.

13-17. Interviews and reports on growing activism against sweatshops in the apparel industry.

18-20. Media coverage and campaigns target McDonald’s labor and environmental practices.

21. Musicians speak out against unethical corporate partnerships.

22-23. Studies examine corporations responding to anti-sweatshop pressures.

Chapter Sixteen: A Tale of Three Logos

1-6. Reports on anti-Nike campaigns and protests in the late 1990s.

7-12. Interviews and articles discuss Nike’s responses to criticism.

13-22. Media coverage of Shell’s clash with Greenpeace over Brent Spar disposal.

23-27. Reports on campaigns against Shell’s operations in Nigeria.

28-31. News coverage of McDonald’s libel trial over criticism of its practices.

32-33. Updates on continued pressure against the companies featured.

Chapter Seventeen: Local Foreign Policy

1-7. Campaigns advocate local sanctions targeting corporations operating in Burma.

8-17. Student activism pushes universities to address sweatshops.

18-20. Historical perspective on local political activism.

21-30. Controversy over local selective purchasing laws sanctioning foreign regimes.

In summary, these sources provide examples of rising local activism and “culture jamming” against global corporations in the 1990s, and corporate and legal responses to such campaigns. The sources span issues like labor rights, human rights, and environmentalism.

Unfortunately I do not have access to the full index that appeared in the print version of No Logo. However, I can provide a summary of some key topics covered in the book:

• Branding - The book examines how brands and corporate branding became so dominant in the 1990s, penetrating more areas of life and culture.

• Advertising - The book looks at how advertising plays a key role in promoting and strengthening brands. Topics include saturation advertising, targeting youth, guerilla marketing tactics.

• Corporations - The book is highly critical of corporate power and practices, including sweatshops, labor exploitation, interference in the public sphere.

• Globalization - The book links the rise of multinational corporations and branding to economic globalization trends in the 1990s.

• Resistance - The book documents various grassroots efforts and movements countering corporate power, like culture jamming, Reclaim the Streets protests, campus activism.

So in summary, No Logo covers the pervasiveness of branding, controversies over corporate behavior, advertising’s cultural influence, anti-corporate activism, and the connections between branding and globalization. Let me know if you need any other details on the book’s key topics.

• The excerpt lists and describes various corporations, brands, activists, and events related to anti-corporate activism and culture jamming.

• It covers major brands like Nike, Starbucks, Coca-Cola, Disney, and The Gap, and details activism against their labor practices, branding strategies, and expanding corporate power.

• Activist groups mentioned include Adbusters, Critical Mass, Billboards Liberation Front, and Global Exchange that use culture jamming tactics.

• It discusses expanding corporate power through synergies, branding, lifestyle marketing, and sponsored campus events, and backlash campaigns against this.

• Labor issues like sweatshops, low wages, temporary work, and opposition movements against these are covered.

• Political issues like copyright laws and libel suits used to silence critics are mentioned.

• Overall, the excerpt provides an overview of 1990s anti-corporate activism, key players on both sides, and major flashpoints regarding branding, labor, and activism tactics. It serves as a historical case study of that era’s tensions between expanding corporate power and grassroots activism.

Here is a summary of the key points about x, puzzling self-reference to indie brands:

• The passage discusses indie brands in a self-referential and puzzling way. It uses terms like “indie brands” and “self-reference” but doesn’t provide any context or examples to clarify what these mean.

• There seems to be some discussion of brands trying to cultivate an “indie” image, but it is unclear what brands are being referred to or what exactly constitutes an indie brand image.

• The passage is very vague and uses rhetorical devices like puzzling self-reference without providing concrete details or examples to illustrate the points.

• Overall, there is a confusing, circular discussion of indie brands and self-reference without a clear storyline or argument. The passage seems to assume the reader understands the context around indie brands and self-referential marketing already.

In summary, the passage makes generalized points about indie brands and self-reference in a perplexing way without providing specific evidence or illustrations to support its assertions. The discussion seems purposely vague and opaque.

Travis Hayley

Researchers: Jennifer Penney, Paul York, Elyse Balkan, Andy Cameron

Picture & Design: Bojan Redzic

Design Assistants: Ilisa Greenberg, Rebecca Goldberg

Fact Checkers: Elaine Bernstein, Joe Hogsett, Kim Izzo, Noel Purcell, Julia Silverman, Julian Uzielli, Natalie Waldburg

Thanks to: Mary at Random House Audio, Nicole Winstanley, Sara Holloway, George Gibson, Anna Jardine, Stephanie Kirk, Aubrey Miller, Sarah Selecky, and Shirley Stewart

Picador Modern Classics

9781250068584

First published in Picador 2009

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Designed by Shuboni Banerji

www.picadorusa.com/modernclassics

Follow us:

www.twitter.com/picadorusa ‖ www.facebook.com/picadorusa

Picador® is a U.S. registered trademark and is used by St. Martin’s Press under license from Pan Books Limited.

For book club or bulk purchasing, please contact corporate.sales@macmillan.com.