bonfire of the nuance

I got a text yesterday from Neil, inviting me to his Bonfire Of The Brands burning. I thought I'd go because I think his project's rather interesting. It's not just the standard anti-brand polemic, it seems like he's trying to do something slightly more nuanced. In fact I wrote a little piece for his book because it seemed such an interesting thing. (And because I'm a complete egomaniac who'll do anything like that, if people ask.)

Then, late this afternoon, Neil called and asked if I'd go on BBC News 24 to take part in a debate about the whole thing. They had some marketing person on and they wanted me to present the 'other' point of view. (Because as you know, in a news debate, there can only be two points of view 'A' and 'Not A'). And, though wary, because I hate the artificial polarisation of news debates, I said I'd do it. And then I talked to the researcher guy from the BBC and you could tell that Neil's PR person had basically said - get this guy on because he used to work for Nike and now he'll slag brands off and that's just what you want. I could just imagine the big Trisha-style super they'd put up - I Used To Work For Nike, But Now I Hate All Brands. So I said I wasn't going to do it. I'd try and put some more nuanced argument over and I'd just get forced into being polemical. I maybe wouldn't mind that myself, but they'd big up the Nike thing so much and it'd be unfair on them. I love the BBC, but I hate the way BBC news always do that.

So then I went to the thing, down at Finsbury Square and Neil's opening oration followed the same simplistic line; brands are a con etc and it all made me begin to wonder if Neil's not falling prey to exactly the forces he's protesting against.

I bet his publishers are starting to think they've got another No Logo on their hands and they're selling Neil to news outlets as exactly that - the latest rabble-rouser, the latest source of cheap news in the Business Pages. That'll create some publicity, stir up some WOM, get decent placement in the bookshops, guarantee sales. And what's that they're doing? Marketing. And what are they building? They're creating A Brand. All the simplifaction, obfuscation, hype and bluster he's having a go at, right there in the marketing of his own brand.

Is that irony? I'm still not sure.

I still bet the book is more thoughtful than this hypey ranting and dumb PR. He trikes me as a smart and decent man. But maybe it won't be. Maybe my little piece will look rather stupid in context. Ah well. It's only brands, they're not important.

Comments

[Anne]

I feel quite reassured by this. I saw something about the project on the BBC a few weeks back and thought, how annoying. Even though I agree a bit it's just so nonsensical. He can't be giving up all brands, can he? Is The Gap okay because they don't put a label on the clothes? Is George at Asda alright because it's cheap? I should visit his website really and see what it's all about. But I'm too annoyed.

[dan at innocent]

This bonfire thing is just too annoying. See how annoyed I am? http://dangermain.typepad.com/dan_germain/2006/09/bonfire_of_his_.html

[Ben]

You did the right thing not going on News 24.

[errol flanagan]

i don't neil, his work, his motivations, the nuances of the debate, etc - respect for fuelling debate, but yes, how annoyingly simplistic this seems to be. Brands are way more complex and more valuable than this appears to be giving them credit for.

[Iain Tait]

That's a shame :-(

I thought that Neil's arguments and blog were interesting, original and for the most part sensible and realistic views of a world that brands (or more importantly people behind brands) have co-created.

It's sad if it's now having to tend towards a No-Logo 2 in order to sell.