Sorry for all the posts going up and then out and then up again. It's all good now.

I like Adbusters. I pick it up every issue. It's good to flip through, and it looks great on the coffee table.

But that's what it's for. Adbusters exists to promote Adbusters. It's a super-glossy overdesigned light-on-ideas magazine and website. Look at the pretty photography. Look at the cutting edge layouts. You know what it really is? It's kids who used to work at MaximumRocknRoll who always wanted to work for Emigre. It's another consumable for the design-savvy and totally unapproachable for someone who might actually want to work towards change (whatever that means), like my mom.

$47K to put an ad in the Times is a cute little piece of self-promotion, but what did that money really buy? An ad. I don't accept the "effect changes from within" argument at that price. They're not part of the problem, they're not part of the solution. They're sitting on the sidelines, instigating. And putting out a magazine that at the end of the day looks real purdy on some Crate and Barrel furniture.

It's not that I think there's no place for radical press. And it's not that I think to be genuine it has to be run on newsprint with soy-based inks. But come on, offer me something more! Cotton-candy subversion is pretty vacant.

Ditto for Culture Jam. I read it (whoo, bought it hardback, even! That's how harcore I am ha ha). It's great reading, but it's hardly the Rise Againt manifesto Kalle Lasn would have you believe.

Hey, don't get me wrong... First Things First is rad. Giving back to the community with your design skills is great. But I can think of forty-seven thousand better uses for that money than putting a vague ad in the Times.

-R

I have little to no respect for Adbusters. I can't remember which issue it was but they were encouraging Vandalism. After reading that, I completely disregarded them as anything valuable to our culture. They are angry people who can't fit into society and use their stupid little black dots as an excuse for their discontent. I would first join greenpeace than Adbusters. But I won't really.

For good or bad, money makes the world go 'round — no 47k ad is going to change that.

Adbusters seem to be going the way of ACT UP and PETA: Making themselves ever more irrelevant by alienating the people they're supposedly talking to(at), and thinking that getting increasingly shrill will fix it.

and you'll stumble onto a nervy, full-page black spot in all its subversive glory.

Anything that actually calls itself subversive probably isn't all that. It's just one of those labels that someone else generally has to give you.

I have to admit, though, that I don't much see what this has to do with the fourth of July or September eleventh.

I dig adbusters.

Theyre funny, and irreverent, and though they often come off as harsh, theyre honest.

Dissent protects democracy, as they say.

I agree, Armin, vandalism is wrong. But Verizon (legally) vandalizes NYC on a regular basis (most recently adding their logo to several of our horizons.)

What adbusters stands for, more or less, is what we stand for: Speaking Up!

GB the USA... and now a few words from our sponsors...

>Verizon (legally) vandalizes NYC on a regular basis

Good point

>What adbusters stands for, more or less, is what we stand for: Speaking Up!

Another good point.

while i have to agree with their basic premise, that consumerism has taken over american culture, and that the recklessness of our current government is creating waves that will be felt for decades, what i can't agree with or condone is anything that calls for reckless endangerment or crimes, such as the vandalism mentioned in an earlier post. this is not about an eye for an eye, or even about a mass movement. it's about each of us making small steps individually every day. that's how change occurs. don't like those stores or corporations? do what you can peacefully to not support them. if enough single voices coalese, then the chorus will be heard.

Kiran: what a topic close to my heart. Thank you for bringing this up. A couple of caveats before I begin: As stated, this is a topic close to my heart, so I may rant a little. Also, I am off from work right now and I have oodles and oodles of time, so I may rant a lot.

First off: I think that Adbusters is great, I love reading it and find it inspiring. It is overblown and overdesigned, but I take it with a grain of salt and enjoy it for what it is. Point/Counterpoint. It is necessary. What I don’t like, though, is tying up the politics of this country and the role of patriotism with "unbranding America." What do they have to do with each other? If I like brands, does that make me unpatriotic? I don't think so. So I am just going to talk about the "unbranding" part.

According to last September’s issue of The Economist, "Brands have become the stalking horses for international capitalism." But at the very least, Adbusters and The Economist (and Naomi Klein for that matter) overstate the case. Brands are not as powerful as they all allege, nor is the public as easily manipulated. Today, many of the big brands that top the charts in Brandweek’s annual Superbrands issue are in trouble, losing consumer loyalty and financial value.

It used to be that brands were the original marks consumer protection. A logo was a guarantee of quality and consistency. You knew whenever you bought Cousin Betty’s cake it was going to taste like Cousin Betty’s cake. For that, consumers were quite logically prepared to pay a premium. And you knew where to go if you had a complaint. Guess what? That is still the case now. Think about it, what would you rather buy�an organic, free-range chicken in a safety-seal, or raw chicken in a plastic bag? When traveling to a foreign country, which would you prefer, a bottle of Aquafina or a glass of tap water?

Because we have forgotten the true meaning of freedom.

More from the Economist: the attempt by brands to adopt a social component—to embrace a lifestyle—is giving consumers a lever to influence the behavior of the companies that stand behind them. The Adbusters, No Logo, etc. proponents are correct that brands are a conduit through which influence flows between companies and consumers. But far more often, it is consumers that dictate to companies and ultimately decide their fate, rather than the other way round. Consumers will not support a brand that they find morally, esthetically or philosophically reprehensible.

Since brands and their corporate parents are becoming ever more entwined—both in the public perception and commercial reality—it follows that consumers can increasingly influence the behavior of companies. Arrogance, greed and hypocrisy are now quickly punished. Nike had to revamp its whole supply chain after being accused of running sweatshops. Look at sad Kathie Lee. And let's not even start with what has happened to poor Martha.

Because consumerism has become our national religion.

The truth is that people like brands. They not only simplify choices and guarantee quality, but in an irreligious world, brands provide us with beliefs. Why is this bad? They help (read: help) define who we are and signal our affiliations. Think about it for a second, what would your world be like without the trust and knowledge you have if your favorite sport teams had no name and no logo, what it would be like to take a trip on an airline with no logo, or put your money in a bank with no logo. How about swallowing an antidepressant with no logo? How dreary would the world be with no Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts logos, TV network logos, no logo for Will and Grace, Star Wars (sorry, had to), Harry Potter, and last but certainly not least (perish the thought) design firms with no logos.

We now live in an age where consumers are in charge. Think about this: public services living in an Adbusters/No Logo world (the IRS, road signs, the post office) actually arouse suspicion and derision. That is because brands have value only where consumers have choice, which rarely exists in public services. The absence of brands in the public sector reflects a world like that of the old Soviet Union, in which consumer choice has little role.

Far from being evil, brands are becoming an effective weapon for holding even the largest global corporations to account. If we do not use them for that purpose, we are lazy and indifferent and we deserve what we get.

It's a super-glossy overdesigned light-on-ideas magazine and website.

Overdesigned? Well if YOU didn't rely on advertising in the pages of your magazine, had a large core of graphic designers as subscribers, and to be in-your-face as much as possible... you'd probably have a magazine like that too. I can't see this "elitist" argument. Doesn't make sense. I would also say that this is exactly the opposite of "light-on-ideas." Some issues have a lot of actual text stories, some others are more like art... where you need to 'ponder' meanings, draw your own conclusions. It's insightful, if one weren't lazy about it. Damn I wish I had was art director for them. I do think the content can be confusing sometimes.

They're not part of the problem, they're not part of the solution. They're sitting on the sidelines, instigating.

Instigating sure can be part of the solution. I think their TV ads and, to some extent, the newspaper/magazine ads have a bigger influence than the actual magazine...which is obviously only one part of their organization. I love the corporate pigs ad.

However "anti-corporate" or "anti-what-you-personally-think-America" is, it hurts to see this before the 4th of July. It hurt to see their shtick after September 11, 2001 too. Perhaps that is when you are supposed to be addressing the issues, but it comes across as being very tasteless.

To bigoted conservatives who would quell any dissent by wrapping themselves in the flag and calling anyone who questions them unpatriotic? The issue is that consumerism has taken over society. It hasn't always been this bad. What does Adbusters' opposition to a society that is run by greedy corporations, casting aside the average citizens who are their employees and consumers have to do with the 4th of July and September 11?

Didn't it piss you off more when you started seeing commercials from corporations blatantly capitalizing on all of our patriotism? Ford Loves America, red, white and blue. Buy a big truck! That's Patriotism!! Little flags on every single commercial. It seemed like they were afraid of doing that at first (rightfully so.) But then when one does it, the others can't risk being seen as unpatriotic. It was amusing I guess.

I can't remember which issue it was but they were encouraging Vandalism. After reading that, I completely disregarded them as anything valuable to our culture.

Yeah I can't really say it is all that good to vandalize. I can see it in the Billboard Liberation Front sort of way. All of these images and messages are being forced on us, we have no choice to view them or not. That fact makes it ok for a little payback here and there, I think. I don't know, maybe, maybe not. And I wouldn't personally judge them for just one issue. You should be able to find at least one of their other campaigns, like TV Turnoff week a little more valuable?

I'm not sure how effective the black dot campaign is. I find it interesting though. If it makes someone think twice about what they are consuming (though that's not all that likely) and what will happen to it when they are done with it, throw it away, etc... that might be a success.

I've sat here lurking too long. This is a topic close to my heart.

I have to say that AdBusters and their ilk are a subject of recurrent contradiction to me. While I sympathize with their fight against the homogenization and degradation of the planet, I can't quite agree with their tactics or subversive versions of action.

They are angry people who can't fit into society and use their stupid little black dots as an excuse for their discontent.

I agree, Armin. Completely. I live in Seattle, the land of WTO riots, visiting anarchists and corporate-brand-wearing hippies. For days on end, those people looted and vandalized my city in the name of whatever issue they chose, including just being immature and/or naive. I watched a kid wearing Nike's pick up a newpaper machine to throw it through the window at NikeTown. I remember fearing for my partner's life when he was trying to get home from his office on the waterfront. That was that Nike-wearing brat's fight against corporate America? For AdBusters to take out an ad in the NYT seems inherently hypocritical, though I see their aim. But far worse from them is any promition

it's about each of us making small steps individually every day. that's how change occurs. don't like those stores or corporations? do what you can peacefully to not support them.

I'd better post this now. I'm ranting and the board is getting long. Have to say that Rob's comment is true. Absolutely, and finally. No one forces Americans to buy anything. You have absolute control over that. And over what you read, and watch on TV and what you listen to on the radio. If you don't like "reality" TV, then don't watch it. No marketing they ever do will effect you.

Consumers will not support a brand that they find morally, esthetically or philosophically reprehensible.

But branding is used to disguise those very things as well. Do most people know that a tobacco company owns Kraft? Would they care? I don't know. Did Philip-Morris change their name for this very reason? To avoid that stigma? I would say so.

oops. end of last sentence of paragraph 4:

But far worse from them is any promotion of vandalism or use of violence to "take back" America. As if everyone in the country left except the Corporations and the readers of AdBusters!

Debbie, there's something very interesting in what you said:

They help (read: help) define who we are and signal our affiliations.

If we can draw a composite of that elusive middle-American couple for a moment: he's wearing a Nike swoosh shirt, 501s, Pumas and a Gap hat. She has on an Old Navy fleece, Dickies pants and Sketchers. They're both holding Starbuck's fraps and their Yorkie's head is hanging out of their Subaru Outback.

This isn't stuff they have, this is who they are, at least in their own senses of self. And I suspect they don't realise on a conscious level that it's that way. The fact is it was satire when, in "Best In Show", the yuppie guy says, "I was more of an L.L. Bean kind of guy back then." Either you get it and laugh because it's true, or get it and don't laugh because, what's so funny about that?

People who are involved in creating this branding stuff get something of a peek at the man behind the curtain, so we have some inside information on how the process of brand-as-identity works. And that's who Adbusters is really trying to speak to. This whole discussion is not going on with the people who are outside of this little sphere. I submit that the Times ad was FUBU.

But what's the point? Am I guilty of contributing to BrandAmerica? Sure. But so what? What else is there to cling to, really? What, religion? Sexual orientation? Are these things any different from the brands people wear or drive? And what's really wrong with any of it? If you feel you're being manipulated, you have the choice not to participate.

Damnit, sorry. I had two meetings in between paragraphs. I had a point here, somewhere, but I lost the thread a long time ago.

-R

They are angry people who can't fit into society and use their stupid little black dots as an excuse for their discontent.

Isn't that how most protest groups start? Isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't you speak up when you're angry with something?

BTW, I read that ad as not being one against corporate brands, but the fact that we Americans tend to see 'America' as a brand and attach certain meaning to it. It's a knock on our current interpretation of patriotism. Which is good. The knock that is.

But branding is used to disguise those very things as well.

ABSOLUTELY! I think that's the bigger issue. When you buy GE lightbulbs, do you also keep in mind GE's notorious environmental record? When you buy Nike shoes, do you consider the sweatshop worker? When you buy your Nestle crunch bar do you consider the child malnutrition the company has contributed to?

We really have no concept of the companies behind the brands. We're just buying the brand. It's cleverly and effectively detached from the actual company quite often. In fact, it's nearly impossible to even track what brands are owned by what companies anymore.

Oh, yeah-

It was something like "Radical Activist�" is no different than any other label. It just has a cooler tag.

And if I started a magazine today and called it AdBusters, I know a certain Canadian Media Mogul who would be sending his lawyers after me in a heartbeat.

-R

Oh that silly magazine.

Adbusters used to be cool until it become polarizing, prosletyzing, with-us-or-against-us, self-righteous, mean-spirited, ANTI-SEMITIC, agenda-driven, angry, shallow swill. Once it took on the role of defining what happiness is and should be, I lost interest. Fast.

Here we have a bunch of people who've developed an ideology that they are SO convinced is the absolute BEST, the RIGHT way. Well, I declare that grapes are superior to cherries! And hear me now--Pantone 303 is the best blue there is. 312 isn't cutting it anymore. Yes, it's THAT arbitrary my friends.

Is Adbusters concerned with "change," or are they simply more concerned with change on their terms? Not only that, they're a bunch of pussies too--oh, you are offended? I'm sorry. But I remember (rather remember READING about a day because its so long gone now) when instigators of change didn't spend all their time grumbling and creating self-indulgent, whiny posters. I remember times when people just DID. When there wasn't any sort of glory or mysticism or myth or magic about "protesting," you just fucking did it.

Now we get people who do a little bit here and there and spend most of their time talking about how effin' cool they are. And with Adbusters, if they spent half the time thinking about stuff as opposed to designing their magazine, maybe something good could happen. But as it is, they have no objective, they have no destination, they have no clue where they're going, and best of all, they are so impressed with themselves.

Oooh.

As far as socially motivated design goes, why people think its so important as to merit discussions, workshops, seminars, classes, books and magazines is beyond me--basically, honestly, all you're doing is creating a poster (or something) with a message encouraging people to think about something (inactive) or do something (active) about some issue. Some you're planning on thinking about getting people to consider possibly doing something. Swell. This is all well and good, but if change materializes, its simply because somebody took action, and for the motivator to take all the credit, or enough credit that they think its worth bragging about, is a little ridiculous and counter-intuitive. It's like a cheerleader, or hell, the FANS at a football game taking credit for their team's victory. If social design is your thing, great. But you're no better (or worse) than anybody else. I wish Adbusters could see this.

The thing about freedom is that you don't get to define it or say what it is and what it should be. Adbusters might revel in trashing Ralph Lauren billboards but the moment somebody trashes their OVER DESIGNED magazine they'll wine like the impotent little rich white suburban wusses they are.

But for now they can take their moral superiority, douse it in KY Jelly and shove it up their ass.

Uh, wow.

I don't know how I can follow a rant like that (and I think I've said too much already), but I'm just glad that I'm not the only one who finds it just a little anti-semetic. I thought it was just my persecution complex kicking in.

-R

"...small steps individually every day. that's how change occurs.

True. But lets not fool ourselves. A meager voice isnt usually heard or taken seriously.

Milton's Nation buttons are an example of a wise, profound statement that slips into the cultural zietgiest. They look like them but act like us.

If Adbusters is to succeed they need broader tactics such as this.

lol. right on!

But for now they can take their moral superiority, douse it in KY Jelly and shove it up their ass.

I don't think they're entitled to use anything that good. Howsabout some good, non-branded-all-American sand?

Bradley, that was really good. I completely agree with what you said. Especially this part:

Here we have a bunch of people who've developed an ideology that they are SO convinced is the absolute BEST, the RIGHT way.

I think it's awesome when people stand behind their ideals and are passionate about what they care for, but to shove it in people's faces like Adbusters does is completely immature and unnecessary.

That was excellent man! Go VSA! Go VS... I mean Go Bradley!

Damn skippy they're not that good!

They are the antithesis of what the U.S. stands for, not because they disagree with it, but because of their tactics and how those tactics mimic or simply exceed those of the folks they attack. Take a look at Teddy Roosevelt's thoughts on patriotism--if those in control are not acting in the best interests of the people, the only patriotic thing to do is resist it. He doesn't get into turning resistance into an ideology, which is what Adbusters became. They became a brand.

See, the thing is, I can't stand Bush & Co. Ashcroft gives me the willies. Corporate shenanigans have gotten so out of hand that I'm not sure I can stand being a corporate designer anymore.

It's bothersome.

Or, or, I could find another way. A more productive way. Work only for companies that I respect. Insist on honesty. Some of this is just dreaming, sure, I admit that. I do. But the fact is, capitalism & freedom go hand-in-hand and I rather like freedom, so corporations and commerce aren't going away. In addition to which, commerce can act as the catalyst for a lot of positive social/environment/political change.

I guess the message here is to brush aside relentless self-interest, or at the very least find a way to mix self-interest with general interest. I've GOT to believe its possible. You know, I look at a company like IBM and I see an entity that dedicated itself to equal pay for equal work long before it was law (not that is followed all the time). I see BP at least TRYING to go "Beyond Petroleum." I see Target donating a (small) percentage of their profits to the community.

This is a start. This is good. We can call it corporate self-interest disguised as altruism, or we can drop the cynicism and build on it.

Thanks, Armin.

There was a Fast Company article post 9/11 in which a former radical talked about how deadly ideology is. Cool piece.

You've got to believe something, but please peope, be civil about it. Please. Not that I'm always civil. You can argue quantitative facts without problem, you can argue logic, functionality, so on and so forth. But if you argue based on values and morals and their "rankings," it just leads to big trouble.

How is Adbuster's anti-semetic? That's a pretty serious accusation. I'm not saying it is or isn't...I'd just like to see some evidence.

Here we have a bunch of people who've developed an ideology that they are SO convinced is the absolute BEST, the RIGHT way. Well, I declare that grapes are superior to cherries! And hear me now--Pantone 303 is the best blue there is. 312 isn't cutting it anymore. Yes, it's THAT arbitrary my friends.

Isn't that what an activist does? Don't you have to present an alternative, an alternative that they (gasp!) believe in. It isn't self-righteous, it's what they believe in.

But I remember (rather remember READING about a day because its so long gone now) when instigators of change didn't spend all their time grumbling and creating self-indulgent, whiny posters. I remember times when people just DID. When there wasn't any sort of glory or mysticism or myth or magic about "protesting," you just fucking did it.

I don't think you mean to question the value of a poster... but why do you think that it doesn't have influence? I don't think calling them whiny pussies (not offended, it's actually quite funny) really says anything. What is whiny about it? Posters have been THE propaganda medium of choice for evil governments, activist organizations and business for the last century!

they are so impressed with themselves.

what do you mean? why do you get that impression. just curious.

OVER DESIGNED magazine they'll wine like the impotent little rich white suburban wusses they are.

this i just don't really understand. you know nothing about them.

>Isn't that what an activist does? Don't you have to present an alternative, an alternative that they (gasp!) believe in. It isn't self-righteous, it's what they believe in.

It's all in the delivery. I have a hard time taken Adbusters seriously because of their immature Guerrilla tactics and all those silly fake ads they made a long time ago (the flacid absolut vodka bottle.)

"unbranding america' is just dumb. nuff said.

adbusters...is fine, it's an outlet. an outlet caused by frustration, blame them for being and you might as well turn off half the protest songs, protest posters and protest art. That's all it is. As Apu says: "like Paul's song says...you must live and let live" "Uh, Apu, it's Live and let die." "Whatever!"

I say, do MORE branding...BRAND everything...

About time I chimed in I suppose. As a "radical" designer, boy that sounds horrible, how about as a "social activist who happens to be a graphic designer" I have a love/hate relationship with Adbusters that these days lay more on the hate side. I'll try not to reitersate what has been already said.

I used to enjoy Adbusters during the time Chris Dixon was art directing it. It was a well-made magazine with a progressive agenda, informed writing on issues that I find really pertinent, an agressive attitude and interesting and arresting images. Over time it slowly degraded from an overpriced over-designed , fluffy yet angry magazine to an over-priced, very badly designed(I mean the FAKE DIY aesthetic is fucking horrible) contentless sob, cynical, pessimistic pile of dead trees.

On top of that, if it didn't come through already i have a couple of personal beefs with them.

Two years ago I helped organise a conference on the social ramifications of design. We invited Kalle to come speak, but it seeemed that we didn't put a big enough spotlight on him, making him speak after Jan van Toorn and Naomi Klein. He didn't like that, didn't show and sent us some free copies of the magazine as compensation.

After the conference, I started a project with a friend which aimed to create a networking tool between non-profit organisations, designers and design schools. A place where non-profits could find professional/semi-professional designers who were willing to work pro-bono or at least at a reduced rate. We put together several funding proposals and sent one to Adbusters. We thought they would be so IN to the idea. However, it turned out(or so I heard from an insider) that Mr. Lasn didn't see how the project would extend the Adbusters brand and didn't give it a second thought.

We were proposing tangible solutions toi the things they were supposed to be concerned with. Seems it wasn't "cool" enough.

I happen to know a couple of people that used to work at there, and from ewhat they've told me, most of the people that work there are really good hearted people with a lot of conviction. Supposedly our projected really excited the majority of the office, but when it came down to it, Kalle always has the final say. I have no problem with what they stand for, However I feel that the way Kalle is directing the magazine is flawed, but hey he's an AD MAN. go figure...

All that being said I would love to work there, crawl my may up to the throne and wrestle control away from the megalomaniac and start my own anti-imperial campaign ....

oh yeah, and seriously, could they not have spent 47,000 dollars on something actually constructive. Like setting up a network for non-profits to work with all the good hearted designers out there? : )

two things:

1) could someone from adbusters maybe chime in here? there's a lot of accusation flying around that really should be addressed from.

2) nobody ever expanded on the anti-semitism issue. (i don't read the magazine; i find it too dogmatic.) could someone who's observed it please talk about it?

oopsie. question one should have ended "...from their end." i biffed.

Brook: I guess with anything else...it's pretty subjective. I will confess to intentionally being inflammatory and over-the-top. In some ways I aimed to mimic what Adbusters does to elucidate what happens when you speak REALLY strongly, like they do--you get all the people in the choir to agree, and those opposed feel...well, a little confused. But at the same time I loathe and despise that magazine and I stand behind what I said and how I said it.

Anti-Semiticism in Adbusters. Calling Israel a "corporation funded by the U.S. government" is insulting to an historically insulted group of people. Rather than examine a complex issue, i.e. strife between Israel and everyone in that region, they sort of poke and prod with all the conviction and intelligence of a Monday morning armchair quarterback. The fact that the rest of the Middle East sees Palestinians as "refugess" and therefore won't accept them into their respective countries never seems to be an issue for Adbusters; those "goddamned Jews" are just furthering American interests and slaughtering innocent people. Right.

As for the value of a poster, I just ask, what's more effective? A poster or lobbying? A poster or donating money? A poster or using donated money to build progressive programs? A poster or working with people--maybe even the "enemy"--to accomplish specific objectives? Hell, these days, if a politician wants to communicate a platform, based on values or something else, they'll use a TV commercial. Notice that sometimes those of the mudslinging variety don't always work so well; Adbusters as well uses TV commercials, and personally, having been someone who initially supported them, they didn't resonate and gradually drove me away.

I'm not saying a poster is ineffective and pointless; I've done "socially aware" work before but I found very quickly that if you want to change the world, you do it one person at a time and you do it through dialogue and exchange. While I like the posters I've done, I feel like I've been more effective when I have a conversation with someone.

Adbusters isn't even regarded as an enemy by the people they fight; they're regarded as a bunch of fuckin' morons and that's a shame. There's a gem of a good idea buried in all that muck, but its so dressed up in a contrived edgy aesthetic and isolated highschooler type poetic language, that the communicative efforts it makes don't encourage ANY sort of dialogue; they threaten. Maybe that's too strong, but as someone who now stands against them, and I sense I'm not alone in this, when Adbusters talks, what I hear is "We're morally right in this, and if you disagree, you're morally wrong." How is that okay? And even if it DOES change minds, how is that a good thing? The best salesmen have a way of making you feel good about what you buy, because really, anyone can muscle someone into making a purchase. Adbusters is as skilled and charming therefore as a used car salesman hucking Yugos and Pintos.

Yuck.

What difference is there between Adbusters and Jerry Falwell? Between Adbusters and Nazi propaganda? Adbusters and U.S. propaganda, a la Busch & Co. staging an aircraft carrier landing, etc? I'm not trying to relate Adbusters to Nazis or totalitarians in terms of agenda, but I won't hesitate when it comes to actual tactics. The political spectrum functions more as a circle than a line, and you've GOT to be careful about where you stand on that. And I ask all of you, what's the difference if you use polarizing , aggressive techniques that erode into personal assaults to further whatever agenda you have? I don't even KNOW for sure what Adbusters fundamentally stands for aside from doing things "their way because its better" or that it'll "save the planet." Sometimes how you say it is what you say.

I rather enjoy having conversations with friends of mine who differ from me ENTIRELY in their political, social, and economic beliefs. It's amazing what we pick up from each other by talking rather than assuming that where we stand is "the best." Perhaps, Brook, you can't or you don't see the difference between passionately believing in something and making that belief central to who you are and using the moral security and sense of superiority, should that emerge, as a way of changing minds. The difference between advertising and propaganda is that propaganda attempts to change values; morals and values don't adhere to an international quality & quantity standard that opens itself up to objective, mutually agreed upon ratings and rankings. They don't because to impose such a system is to obliterate the very foundations of freedom; its not what Adbusters does and does not believe, its how they go about it that frightens me.

Brook, in a very short statement you evoked more conversation and thought from me than that magazine ever did. I probably disagree with you on many, many things but I don't care.

Someone once said about writing that "bad writing deflects attention away from the subject at hand and diverts it to the nuances of the language." If you really think about that, you'll realize its NOT criticizing Joyce or Faulkner, btw. The same applies to design; Adbusters gets people paying more attention to the design of their magazine and their various techniques than it does to the ideas rooted there.

Anti-Semiticism in Adbusters. Calling Israel a "corporation funded by the U.S. government" is insulting to an historically insulted group of people.

I take some issue with this. Anti-Semitism and Israel-Bashing are two very different things. Not all Jews are Israelis and (stretching more here) not all Israelis are Jews. What I mean by that comes right back to the US Govt. and its overfunding of Israel's problematic regime because the US needs a toehold in a primarily Anti-US area of the world. I don't want to move too far off-topic (I'm not a big fan of Adbusters either, except when I see it in the corner gas station) but I'm a Jew against Israel, and I don't like to see the two confused.

On a good day, I'd have a lot more to say about this, but I just woke up.

By the way, going totally off topic, aren't Arabs Semites as well?

I know this discussion is sort of over, but I'd like to sidetrack for a second here. I just picked up the new issue of ReadyMade, and it seems they're taking an unfortunate page out of Adbuster's book. Anyone else notice this? (Come on, admit that you're a ReadyMade addict).

There's a long article about how kids are the last marketing frontier and that they can recognize (and prefer) brands by age two. Plus the back page is terribly anti-Iraq war.

Don't get me wrong; I found both amusing and interesting. But I buy ReadyMade to learn how to make duct tape wallets, not for political commentary.

On another note, I suggest getting a copy of Herbivore magazine. Despite the cardinal sin of actually using House Gothic in the layout, it's a great read even for non-vegetarians, and well put together to boot.

-R

If Adbusters is to succeed they need broader tactics such as this.

Adbusters latest tactic: their own brand of shoes. This just in from Brandweek: "The cat-and-mouse game between marketers and anti-marketers has taken a weird new turn: some marketers are defacing their own ads and making a point of not advertising while Adbusters, the leading "culture jammer" (Brandweek's words, not mine) is coming out with its first branded product, a sneaker meant to vie with Nike."

The article goes on to say: "While all this may lead some to believe that marketers have finally beaten Adbusters and its ilk to the punch, Kalle Lasn doesn't see it that way....Adbusters will manufacture 10,000 sneakers initially and then gauge the response. The group has not yet decided on how they will be distributed."

Adbusters will be taking a shot at Nike CEO Phil Knight in the next Adbusters, claiming this new shoe is designed for one thing: "Kicking Phil's ass."

Brandweek concludes the article this way: "Of course, detractors can charge that Adbusters is just another brand. "We'll see," said Lasn. "I don't think that it's dangerous territory for us at all."

So Adbusters is putting out a sneaker with a black dot on it to kick Phil's ass. I am sure that "Phil" is shaking in his Nike's.

I personally think this is the most ridiculous stunt I have heard of in a long time. It is actually sad.

Wow, that's just amazing. Are they doing this to show they could make a "good" sneaker in humane ways, i.e. no sweatshops? What's the point here? If they want to give them away as part of an anti-nike campaign of some form, that might be ok. But selling?? Oh my.

Lasn says in the article (Brandweek, July 28, page 5) that "young people in droves are getting sick and tired of this kind of branding that is going on." Lasn said that the "droves" actually account for about 10% of young people, but they are often seen as influencers among their peers. "They're the coolest of the cool" he says.

Sounds to me that Lasn is trying to do exactly what he accuses Nike of doing: trying to get young people to believe that this product will make them cooler just by wearing it.

While it might be seen as manipulative, it is expected from large corporate marketers. But to have this come from the very source of "anti-branding" is shameful.

dm,

re droves.

there was an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about the death of trends (second section, terrible article with a few good points.) It pointed out that the web has accelerated proliferation of trends to a point where they are almost over before they begin. And certainly to the point where the hipest of the hip are getting saturated (ex. Trucker Hats) before the impact arrives to a retail outlet.

They are lost in their own world. Adbusters is becoming a brand. Whether they think it's a "good" brand, it's still a brand none the less. Practice what you preach Lasn.

"They're the coolest of the cool" he says.

Since when are the goths and geeks influencers among their peers? The "alternative" kids that may buy these sneakers will continue to get beat up.

Trucker Hats

Saturate and die.

The idea of branding one's self as "anti-brand" is hysterical.

Adbusters latest tactic: their own brand of shoes.

It's happened. Picture me shaking my head.

Plain, yes. Simple, sure. Cheap, don't know yet. Fair? Promoting ass kicking is fair? I guess hiding or using sweatshop labor isn't fair either but now that Nike has supposedly made changes...

I have been reading No Logo by Naomi Klein (for the last three years or so it seems) and the more I read it the more pissed off I get at this "culture jammers". Fucking bunch of ninnies and social misfits, get a real job. I have absolutely lost any respect I might have had for them. In no Logo they mention one guy, can't recall his name, who was a culture jammer but worked in advertising during the day. At first glance it would seem very hipocrit, but at least he had experienced what advertisers do to sell us this shit, so he had a basis for his actions. Not just a simple "Nike sucks" mentality.

And this stupid belief that we are living under corporate Amrica's hypnotism is just plain bullshit, we are all free to think (or buy) whatever we want, are these people so stupid that they can't decide for themselves? That they succumb to advertising because there is no other alternative? Right.

Another thing that pissed me even more was some movement that their whole point was to "recapture the streets." What the fuck? No, really, what do these guys want? That we all live in a stupid jungle and wipe our ass with banana peels? Screw that, I want my furnished apartment with air conditioning and my Charmin (because I'm loyal to my brand of toilet paper.)

Really, sorry for the obscenities, but this whole thing has gotten on my nerves more so than before. Sure corporations are mean, and pay low wages and mess with people's subconsciouss all the time but you know what? Get over it! That's the way the world works for good, for bad, that's the way it is. And scribbling on top of billboards or making ass-kicking shoes ain't gonna solve shit.

So, maybe I'm wrong for thinking all of this — this is my opinion and I respect other people's opinions I just don't go around vandalizing their way of life to get my silly points across.

Sorry for the gratuitous rant, I have just been keeping it in for quite some time now.

This is precisely why I have avoided this thread. I just can't stand this type of self-righteous corporate bashing from angry, middle-class, aimless academic losers.

I also hate any type of descecration or graffiti on public spaces, no matter the cause or reasoning. Singapore's got the right idea -- it's a civil violation that should be punishable by torture or public caning.

Seattle seems to have more than its share of these stupid activist assholes. Militant vegans who wear leather. Activists who picket Nike, but shop at Urban Outfitters.

It's an unfortunate side-effect of capitalism and a industrialized, prosperous economy.

I think we should fucking deport them all to Bombay or San Paulo. Let them protest corporate development and consumerism among the 30 or so million inhabitants of a struggling, less prosperous, overpopulated nation and see how long they'll fucking live.

I agree with most of the ideas that Adbusters is built upon: that corporations have too much power, that culture is over-commercialized, that greed and laziness are changing our world for the worse.

But I find the magazine to be more boring than anything else. Why? Because all it does--now more so than in the past--is restate the problem(s) over and over again. I know the world is screwed up. So let's do something about it!

Everything in Adbusters (and I can't say I've seen the last few issues, so correct me if I'm wrong) is about telling people what's wrong with the world, but the messages don't resonate past their pre-selected audience.

Rather than reacting to what's bad, I prefer to act--to try to make things better in a direct way. By picking clients I feel good about supporting, and doing things that have cultural or political integrity, I can add positive things to the world.

I don't have a problem with culture jamming (or vandalism) per se, as long as it's smart and purposeful. And frankly, their sneakers look pretty good to me--I'd love to get a pair of nice simple shoes without a big logo on them.

But I probably won't get a pair, and it's because of their marketing. I like to express myself by buying quality products made by ethical people in responsible ways, not by renting the mission statement attached to those products.

And it doesn't matter whether that mission statement is "just do it" or "designed for only one thing: kicking phil's ass." If you want to beat big business, make a great product the right way and tell people about it. Then, they will buy it.

Make sneakers in America and pay your workers a livable wage. Start an organic fast-food chain. Open a department store that doesn't buy products from sweatshops. And tell people why these things are actually better.

And if you think that will never work, there's no point in having this discussion in the first place. If we accept that things are the way they are and all we can do is complain about it to people that agree with us, why bother?

Tan and Armin-

The interesting thing about the both of you is that it seems you don't particularly disagree with the ideas expressed by these people - Armin, you say that the world sucks, get over it. Tan, you point out that they aren't being terribly consistent wearing leather and the like.

Would there be a different way of expressing these ideas that wouldn't piss either of you off? I ask because I tend to agree with both of you, but I also tend to agree with the middle class aimless academic losers, too and want to know if I can actually do something some day that might help instead of just pissing people off.

>Would there be a different way of expressing these ideas that wouldn't piss either of you off?

I think my main problem is the overall attitude. They act like we are inferior, dumb and act like sheep; added to that is they think they have the solution to everything — if only we all listened to them. As opposed to Scott, I do have a problem with the vandalazing of public advertising, these big-ass corporations pay lots of money for those spaces (I'm not saying whether that is right or wrong) so when this immature person comes by with a two-dollar can of spray paint and scribbles some cliché anti-corporate statement it pisses me off.

I like what Scott said "I prefer to act--to try to make things better in a direct way. By picking clients I feel good about supporting, and doing things that have cultural or political integrity, I can add positive things to the world."

and also

"Make sneakers in America and pay your workers a livable wage. Start an organic fast-food chain. Open a department store that doesn't buy products from sweatshops. And tell people why these things are actually better."

There are little ways in which you can make a difference without having to act all hooligany and antisocially. Changing the way America acts and operates by selling "unswooshers" is not going to make a difference.

I wish I could say "do this" or "do that" to these people, but I don't know what it is. I just know they have to show respect for the people who are comfortable with the way they live their lives, the products they buy and the streets they walk in.

Luumpo -- there's nothing wrong with hating big business and protesting practices that are harmful to the public good. It's the genuineness of the activists that bothers me most often.

It seems that most activists get caught up in the anti-propaganda themselves, blindly protesting or defacing public property in aimless fury or frustration. Or worse, they pull outrageous stunts all for the sake of public attention and little else.

True civil disobedience is momentous. Public trashing is not civil disobedience.

Scott mentioned some things above that are tangible alternatives to what adbusters scream about.

It also seems to me that true efforts must first come from comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the problem that you're trying to protest.

Take Nike shoes. Of course child labor is horrid. But what were the conditions of the rural Chinese villages like before every villager was employed and making wages? And aside from employment, are there other tangible development gains that American business brings to their villages and cities -- like better housing, healthcare, and school facilities? I'm not suggesting all cheap labor practices are acceptable or justified, but forcing Nike to abandon these villages and cities surely is a worse alternative. A true, difficult solution lies somewhere in between -- not at the end of a picket line at NikeTown or in a NY Times newspaper ad.

A good example is Starbucks and the Fair Trade policy for coffee harvesting in Central America. There are basically two main types of crops that can bring meaningful money to these underdeveloped countries -- coffee or cocaine (poppi plant). Working to find a solution and equitable work and trade practices for coffee growers is surely preferable to simply ceasing production and leaving no alternatives for these workers to make a living.

I'm rambling here, and starting to generalize myself. My point is that there are more informed and effective ways to affect global social change. Using the media to grab attention is neither noble nor effective.

Join the peace corps. Volunteer time to a number of world welfare organizations. Work for the corporations you hope to affect change with. Research to find tangible solutions, and present your findings in practical public avenues where you will be heard without shouting.

Find a way to to it intelligently.

They're at it again...

I'm not sure I understand the choice of companies being waved. Apple? Do they pollute (unlike GE)? Run sweatshops (unlike Nike)? I'm not defending Apple, it's just an easy example.

Woohoo! How fun! Oh wait� I'm completely bored and uninterested now.

So, OK, if they are going to poke fun at brands, they should at least get their shit straight. Chrysler (next to AT&T's) does not use the star encrusted thingie logo, they've moved on since then, it is not even listed in their trademarks. I guess the correct Chrysler logo didn't fit in their well-designed flag.

And I'm surprised they are sticking to that hand-scribbled type style. It just reinforces immaturity, rather than rebellion. But what do I know? I like brands.

Chrysler (next to AT&T's) does not use the star encrusted thingie logo,

Haven't they run this exact ad before? They've got the old Lilly logo and the old Pepsi logo. Also, Compaq hasn't used the 'Q' as a mark in years and is barely a brand anymore as it is slowly consumed by HP.

Oh, and the Bell logo?? Yeah...telephone service has really ruined our lives.

What's the "W" logo next to Warner Brothers?

And I'm surprised they are sticking to that hand-scribbled type style.

The irony of our branded culture is that the conscious choice of handscribbled lettering is as much a visual cue for adbusters' "brand" as if they always used Sabon or Helvetica. There is no escaping the brand!

UGH! but does anyone really live by adbusters? the magazine was definitely much better when it first came out...to be honest I like what other people contribute to it rather than what the “content” is it just seems like they re-write the previous articles based on whatever is bad at the moment. I liked the notion of “tv free week” but I think they should have focused on kids, who in my opinion do watch too much of the idiot box. Or when they said they wanted to drop seeds out of a plane over cities so plants and flowers would grow everywhere I liked the image it conjured up in my mind. But as for getting angry about it? I like Adbusters to be in the “reading pile” part of the “mix” of stuff I read it’s view on topics no more one sided than anything else I read or see everyday.

but to shove it in people's faces like Adbusters does is completely immature and unnecessary.

but isn’t that advertising? shoving messages in people’s faces? as for it being immature and unnecessary...I can name many others that fall into this with NO passion at all.

Fucking bunch of ninnies and social misfits, get a real job.

hummm....ninnies and social misfits are a valuable bunch and are usually pretty smart.

And this stupid belief that we are living under corporate America's hypnotism is just plain bullshit

damn right.

> Fucking bunch of ninnies and social misfits, get a real job.

Ha! I forgot I had said that... ah, so little changes in a year. Yeah, I guess misfits are important, you are right about that. Still, fucking bunch of ninnies.

"This stupid belief that we are living under corporate America's hypnotism is just plain bullshit"

I'd pay big money for a tshirt with this quote.