Ten years on, how much has really changed?

Uncovering the truth behind the brands, No Logo has become a cultural manifesto of the anti-globalisation movement since its publication in 1999. But has anti-capitalism thrived in the last decade? Or have consumers just got sucked in deeper?

Award winning journalist and author, Naomi Klein, used No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies to expose the practices going on behind the flashy brand names which penetrate our lives. Speaking frankly about brand culture, she told tales from the workers who kept the companies running, whether based at a store in Manhattan or a sweatshop in China. Klein’s key argument was that these brands were selling an idea, not a product. They prioritised spending on marketing and PR rather than product manufacture. Some saw this exposé as the end of the brand bubble, predicting a mass rebellion against globalisation, but ten years on, the brands unmasked and shamed by Klein are still booming. Wal-Mart now trades as 55 different brands in 15 countries, including Asda in the UK, whilst Starbucks has more than 17 000 outlets worldwide.

Klein stated, ‘Clearly the techniques of branding have both thrived and adapted since I published No Logo’. Indeed they have, but that doesn’t mean No Logo didn’t make an impact. The public had opened their eyes and were willing to listen. Shortly after the book’s publication, the BBC aired a Panorama documentary, entitled ‘Gap and Nike No Sweat’ which highlighted the use of sweatshop labour in Gap and Nike factories in Cambodia. Workers explained that they were forced to do over-time, often working seven days a week and shockingly, children as young as twelve were found to be employed in the factories. Similarly a year later, journalist John Pilger filmed a poignant documentary showing workers in an Indonesian sweatshop, manufacturing clothes for Gap, equally poorly paid and over worked.

Even stories such as these didn’t stop the masses from buying though, but it did force the brands to take action. Consumers could no longer be fooled with just a name; they were looking for more. The early noughties were a boom time for spending as fast fashion took over the High Street, but as the recession crept up, the fashion industry took a beating. With many people having less disposable income, brands had to work harder to stand out and sell.

Value retailers have thrived, proof that for savvy shoppers with a tightened belt, branding is discarded before product. According to a report published by market research specialist Mintel in June, supermarkets were the biggest spenders on clothing advertising in the UK last year, whilst the value of clothes advertising in general dropped by a fifth to £159.6 million. Over twenty clothing and footwear companies have gone into administration since the recession started, but not all brands have struggled. The young, affluent, and perhaps most brand conscious consumers have helped niche lifestyle brands to amplify sales. Superdry with its vintage Americana and Japanese design influenced casual wear saw sales rise 29% in 2009, catapulting founder Julian Dunkerton onto the Sunday Times’ Rich List.

One of Klein’s criticisms in No Logo was the disparate pay of the workers at the bottom of the chain compared to the vast amount ploughed into marketing, and the total profits gained. This was depicted clearly in the documentary film Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (2005) which delved into the personal lives of individuals and communities trying to fight this goliath creature. The film described the unfair and unsafe conditions which employees were forced to work in; slogging away for a company with big ideas and a little conscience. Just recently a number of companies have come under fire for the astronomical wages paid to their senior executives. Last year, Angela Ahrends, chief executive of Burberry was paid £6.1 million in cash and shares, whilst Marc Bolland was lured to M&S from Morrisons with a promise of £15m. But the people actually making the products in the factory, and selling them on the shop floor, won’t earn this sort of money in a lifetime, probably not even in ten lifetimes. So if some things haven’t changed, what has?

Cheap labour for mass-produced goods

Well Nike has for one. All that negative press must have upset them, because they have worked hard to turn things around. Criticised throughout the nineties and noughties for employing children in their factories and moving production from country to country in search of ever cheaper labour, Nike now see ‘sustainable business and innovation as an integral part of how we can use the power of our brand’, according to their website. Nike has an internal team to enforce ethical conditions of manufacture and have been credited with a number of awards. The company was named in Ecosphere’s ‘World’s Most Ethical Companies’ 2010 and put in seventh place on Newsweek’s 2009 Green Rankings and in May this year, they announced the launch of the ‘Nike Employee Grant Fund’ which will donate $500,000 per year for local non-profit organisations and schools. So Nike did good; but if you’re measuring success in a trend towards anti-globalisation, then Nike still won’t please you. The brand shows no sign of relaxing its global grip.

For those that truly want to believe in what they are buying, and don’t trust the big boys, ethical fashion labels are emerging at quite a rate. These brands specialise in organic fabrics, fair working conditions and making the most of local skills. There is definitely a trend emerging towards ‘slow fashion’ and revisiting traditional production techniques. As well as the names that have been around for some time such as People Tree and Komodo, many, many new ones have merged in the last five years. SOKO is a social enterprise working in Kenya to produce clothing in a sustainable and fair way, and similarly Angel Jackson is manufacturing stylish clutch bags with ethical credentials. After the brand boom in the nineties, consumers once again have a wider choice in where they shop, helped by the growth in internet shopping which has allowed smaller brands to reach their customers.

Some shoppers actively shun labels with the idea that advertising a brand across your chest is a bit naff. In 2009 Absolut Vodka launched a limited edition ‘Absolut No Label’ spirit together with a 24-page magazine exploring labels, misconceptions and prejudices. The idea stemmed from the brand’s support of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community, and PR manager, Kristina Hagbard stated, ‘For the first time we dare to face the world completely naked. We launch a bottle with no label and no logo, to manifest the idea, that no matter what’s on the outside, it’s the inside that really matters.’ The thing is, the bottle did still have a logo, its character stamp etched onto the glass, and coupled with the distinctive bottle shape it wasn’t naked at all. It was protected with the brand identity Absolut worked hard to build up.

With the world wobbling under the threat of global warming, pollution, excessive waste and the loss of natural resources, and brands set to continue their reign of power; it seems right that a deal should be done. Brands are in a powerful position to convey messages to consumers for positive change. Marks & Spencer leads by example with their ‘Plan A’ initiative, which has been a great success in improving the sustainability of the company and attracting customers with an ethical conscience. No Logo broke the shiny image of global brands and granted, they survived, but not without making changes. As we push forward into this decade, sustainability and ethics should be a growing concern for the big brands’ survival. Let’s see if the little guys can fight back.

Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price