Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Commercialism is imperialism

I have found an interesting essay on the subject of corporate branding and sloganisation. I recommend you read it, here.
It's true, too - I recently visited Malaysia, only to be met by the sickeningly familiar faces on McDonalds, Starbucks, Burger King, and all the other big names. Why the fuck can't we let them have their own damn shops? That's not too much to ask, is it? A little bit of diversity? A little bit of, heaven forbid, even originality?
I even noted what one might call structural imperialism, particularly in Kuala Lumpur; skyscrapers abounded there that would have blended right in in London, New York, or any other large Western nation. Even in small towns the houses - those that weren;t shanties - showed a distressing lack of individuality. One had to look quite hard to find any traditional south-east Asian architecture. Obviously, structural concerns limit what one can do with many buildings, but I would have expected at least some sign that I was not back home, other than the everpresent rain. On second thoughts, even that's not so different.
Wouldn't it be sad if the whole world was the same, if the corporate dream of exactly alike customers - far easier to market to that way - happened? Here's an idea. Google "subvertising" and find out what others are doing to fight back, see what you can do.
C. E. M.

3 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

it muz be ur height...

7:11 am  
Blogger Clupbert said...

People want the same haircuts, dress the same, and do tons of the same stuff. Unity isn't always a bad thing, and if someone has a better product, they win. What a horrible thing the free market is. It's like who wants a system where only the things the consumer wants survives?

7:02 am  
Blogger Canis Ex Machina said...

Thanks a bunch for the comments.
"It's like who wants a system where only the things the consumer wants survives?": fair comment, but a more accurate description is "as system where only the most popular things survive" Unity isn't a bad thing, but a monoculture is; the free market can be a danger to personal individuality and niche aspects of culture. Malaysia is a case in point of another problem; western-style buildings and other "products" are popular there because they are the worldwide status quo and because western companies - and even governments - have done their best to get locals to equate westernisation with progress (inaccurately). Western companies do well there because they do well elsewhere and can therefore afford advertising to convince people that what they are selling is best. So the free market is fallible because people's opinions of what they want can be and are altered by those selling the products. This is not always a problem but it does mean that countries with less money tend to have their cultures subsumed by those of richer nations. This causes a loss of diversity which, I submit, is both sad and ultimately detrimental to us all. So whilst accepting that the free market is not without merit, I would also stress the need to observe its faults, of which there are many.
On a different note, icyboy85 should win a small prize for "most obscure comment". I have no idea what he's getting at, and I would be grateful if anyone who thinks they know could give me a hint.
mumblingbusdriver: thanks, much appreciate the comment.

6:33 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home