Monday, 30 April 2012
Seminar-Design and Social Change
dissy = 8000 words.. four chapters.. 1500 words each... then conclusion.
Propose a topic that have four separate angles on it..
needs to include primary and secondary research.. and a methodology=semiotics..ecological.etc posssible to blend methodologies..
Find as many books as possible.. then read and think about where your primary research is going to come from.. then think about four solid topics with in the topic.
Design for Social change..
Design Activitsm- design that wants to change something or design that wants to be political.. you could figure that action political..
Baldwins- visual communication from theory to practice.. all design is political..
even if the design doesn't have the overt politics.. graphic design is political as it will always support on stand point.. weather consciously or sub consciously.
Relations of produiction..
Dialectical materialism
All society is based on a base and a super structure.. . the base is the econmonic structure of society.. forces and relations of production.. the relationship between bosses and workers.. balance of power... young and old.. rich and poor..
all forms of live.. culture...politics..etc.. is produced out the balance of power in the base..
Men are the dominant.. men have control of the mass media.. as a result the types of things produced by the mass media reflects mens dominance over society.. page 3.. etc. as result legitimizes the ideology that men are dominant over women.. as society excepts it.
all design is political as design... has to choose weather it will destroy these ideolgies or simply goes with it....
ideology=political programme/fase consciousness.
a system of believes that becomes dominate.. that is normally created by the dominate class in society and becomes naturalised and becomes dominate in society.. =THIS CREATES FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS.
N. Klein- No logo.
Adbusters - culture jammers.
subculture/culture. culture produced by dominate class.. sub culture produced by lower classes.
victor papanek..design for the real world.
Monday, 26 March 2012
Final Essay
How has the increased
awareness of ethical production affected brand identities?
When creating a brand identity the
initial stages involve specifically targeting an audience, whether this is an
age group, social class or a profession. Pursuing an exact audience allows a
company to change its brand identity accordingly, which is crucial in making a
success of the product itself.
It is a fact that in the modern
world target audiences have developed, changed fragmented and their loyalty in
most cases is short lived, much like the means of reaching these audiences,
therefore, for companies to stay relevant they have to be flexible in how they
adapt to current and future trends and imminent changes.
One current phenomenon is that the
modern consumer relates to a company that is perceived to have a high moral and
ethical standpoint. Consumers seem to put higher moral expectations our brands
than on themselves especially in regards to social and environmental issues.
“ Recent years have seen rising
expectations of business to behave responsibly towards society and the
environment both among consumers and stakeholder group” (Jenny Dawkins, Page 74 fundamentals of branding)
It is whether a brand portrays
these belief systems that is a deciding factor for many consumers. Brands now
must adopt an ethical approach to their identity if they want to be successful
in attracting new customers, maintaining loyalty and differentiating themselves
from the norm. This often comes in the form of charitable collaboration environmental
campaigning and perceived ‘green’ manufacturing.
Due to new importance on appearing
environmental and ethical companies are often accused of “Green washing” their
products or production values, this is simply when a companies apparent ‘good deed’
is not reflected across the entire company or indeed in many cases not at all.
The consumer is just given the illusion of the improved morality through the
company’s brand identity. The main body of the essay will begin to explore this
as a theory.
Perhaps the biggest exponents of
green washing are the oil companies, purely due to their direct association
with their product causing global warming. Recently BP have been quoted saying
that there logo which was commonly known to stand for British Petroleum has now
been changed to beyond petroleum. This in itself gives the brand identity of BP
a green face lift, suggesting to the consumer market that the main priority of
BP is to focus on finding alternative energy sources. A quote from the BP
website reads:
“In response to increasing demand for energy with a
lower-carbon footprint, we have made a major commitment to develop low-carbon
sources of energy,”
(oil companies and
greenwashing, 2008, www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oilcomapnies-and-greenwashing/
)
Chevron the American oil multinational oil company has a
current television advertisement, which uses the same narrator as global
warming documentaries and the same kind of speech within the advert as the trailers
for the Inconvenient Truth, which is a film addressing green issues and
highlighting these issues to the general public. A quote from the advert:
“Our live demands oil. Oil, energy, the environment” (oil
companies and greenwashing, 2008, www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oilcomapnies-and-greenwashing/
)
The tone of voice used within the advert is like that used
with in propaganda and to a certain extent it is. It is trying to convince the
consumer that oil is a necessity for the development of humanity. The advert
goes on the list facts about the demands we have for oil, which again backs up
this story of necessity. The green washing approach by Chevron here is quite
unlike that of other oil companies who try and convince consumers that they are
making the difference and the air we breathe is getting cleaner, which was a
strap line used by ExxonMobil. Chevron don’t try and create this idealistic
brand identity in the mind of the consumer but instead try and convince them
that they, as a corporation, are doing the best thing for humanity, which in
itself is green washing.
ExxonMobil is yet to launch an advertising campaign like
that of the other oil companies mentioned, however on there website it reads:
“Through continued investments in energy supplies and ever
cleaner technologies that help secure America’s economic future.”
(oil companies and
greenwashing, 2008, www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oilcomapnies-and-greenwashing/
)
Despite the identity of these big oil companies being
based around strong environmental policies and alternative fuel, the reality is
they are doing very little to develop the use of alternative forms of fuel or
have greener policies with in the company, this is according to the 2007 senate
document. The oil industry spent ninety eight billion dollars on alternative
fuels but:
“Very little of the 98billion was spent on these
technologies was invested in renewable or alternative energy sources”
(oil companies and
greenwashing, 2008, www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oilcomapnies-and-greenwashing/
)
The money was instead spent on developing existing
technologies for example solar energy. This as a result would only strengthen
the individual companies hold on the market, but give the impression to the
consumer that indeed they are searching for alternative forms of energy by
creating this positive brand identity through green washing. Other
controversial issues with in the oil industry included an article from Mother
Jones magazine in 2005, which suggested that Exxon spend over 16 million from
1998-2005 on employing scientist to speak
up against the global warming theory. This quote is an example of the
level of green washing, in this case, specifically Exxon are trying to send out
to the consumer public.
“ExxonMobil has manufactured
uncertainty about the human causes of
global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused
lung cancer,”
(oil companies and
greenwashing, 2008, www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oilcomapnies-and-greenwashing/
)
This quote by Alden Meyer of the union
of Concerned Scientist goes on to say
“A modest but effective investment has
allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government
action just as big as Tobacco did for 40 years” (oil companies and greenwashing,
2008, www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oilcomapnies-and-greenwashing/
)
This quote undoubtedly proves that
green washing is present with in the oil industry, but perhaps on a level
unknown to the general public, as the companies went as far as to try and green
wash the general ideologies of the global population by creating doubt in there
minds of the legitimacies of the hard facts that were previously excepted
globally. Then how does this affect the brand identity of these companies? You
could go as far as to say that the brand identity of these oil companies are
based around lies, as they give and idealistic or incorrect portrayal of the
reality of there work. Through the medium of green washing in advertising and
thus their brand identity is a false identity in itself.
It is not only the natural resources
industry that is constantly accused of green washing there product, it can be
seen in all of the big corporations across the world. Perhaps the most
recognisable corporation in the world, McDonald’s is guilty of green washing
their products and there brand identity as a whole. On the McDonalds website
there is a central quote that reads:
“At McDonald's we recognise our responsibility to protect
and preserve the environment for future generations to come. Our goal is
simple, to achieve continuous environmental improvement across all areas of our
business”
This quote suggests that McDonalds are greatly concerned
about the environmental issues, which are now such an important part of a
corporate identity. In 2009 McDonalds announced plans to change the famous
golden arches with a red backdrop, perhaps the most recognisable brand identity
in the world, to golden arches on a green back drop. This drastic logo change would occur in 400
franchises across Europe specifically Germany, Britain and France.
Unsurprisingly these are countries in which there inhabitants hold
environmental issue in paramount importance. With a quarter of all Britain’s
saying they would choose a product over its competitor if it was more
beneficial to the environment.
Obviously this change in logo is not because McDonalds
felt obliged to change, the most recognisable identity in the world, it’s due
to the green connotations that come with it. You would assume as a consumer on
seeing a green brand logo or identity; they would be an environmentally
friendly fast food restaurant, in an industry that is not well known for its
eco heroics.
Perhaps unsurprisingly McDonalds is a prime example of
the green washing generation of companies.
On the 2nd of January 2008 McDonalds launched
a campaign playing on the “eat fresh” ideology.
And this could be achieved by a selection of advertisement highlighting
the source of there meat a potatoes production line, giving the impression of a
big corporation supporting the “little guy”, by the little guy I think what
McDonalds meant was British farmers.
McDonalds realised this quote on the day of the campaign release.
“We thought putting a
face on the quality of the food story would be a unique way to approach this.
We acknowledge that there are questions about where our food comes from. I
believe we’ve got an opportunity to accentuate that part of our story.”
Putting a face on
their food is meant to prove to the consumer public that McDonalds has a
personal connection with its food suppliers, and thus creating a personal brand
identity. In fact McDonalds has no personal connection with its food suppliers,
they source all of there produce through middlemen or suppliers. An example of
these companies would be Golden State Foods or Simplot, who in reality source
thousands of farmers from around the country. In reality McDonalds have only
become aware of a marketing ploy that has been born from the green revolution,
that of consumers wanting to no where there food has come from and the consumer
wants transparency in this production line. This is obviously not what
McDonalds are doing. This therefore
suggest that like thousands of other corporations McDonalds have become aware
of a marketing problem and instead of solving, the problem, by in reality
sourcing natural food straight from the supplier. They have green washed their brand identity
through advertisements to again create a unrealistic appearance to the
consumer.
It is apparent that green washing
and unethical production happens across a great number of industries. Perhaps
the most prevalent case study in recent years is that of Primark.. Primark made
profit in 2008 of two hundred and thirty three million pounds and have a one
hundred and eighty eight stores in the UK alone. In 2006 Primark was
highlighted in a report called ‘fashion Victims’ the report focused on the
Bangladeshi Garment industry and the appalling pay, working conditions and
rights.
The report helped to raise the
issue of the on going abuse of the workers in the garment industry and put the
spot light on Primark to address the issue. The report also succeeded in
provoking public outrage and a series of fresh media investigations in the wake
of the original.
What this proves is the public
awareness of the issues raised. This awareness, if following the modern theory,
should have catastrophic effects on the brand identity of Primark. Primark
appeared to react quickly to the claims announcing they were
“Keen to show enthusiasm to tackle
unethical production in Bangladesh”
(War on want, fashion victims 2,
2008)
This is one of many quotes from the
Primark’s web site announcing their eagerness for ethical production and
sustainability. What has since come to light in the follow up report by
‘fashion Victims’ two years later is that nothing has changed.
“Workers in Bangladesh continue
to receive wages that are well below the cost of living, despite the huge
profits being made by Primark. They still work grueling hours in order to earn
enough to survive and feed their families, and continue to suffer harassment
and intimidation as they struggle to meet unrealistic production targets”
(War on want, fashion victims
2, 2008)
Despite the claims that
Primark have made since the report was published nothing has changed, which
suggest that Primark are a classic case of green washing their brand. Unlike
the other case studies in this essay sales at Primark have not been affected,
so who is to blame?
The buying practices of the UK
retailers undermine efforts made by Primark to appear more ethical as a brand.
The term given to such buying practices is ‘fast fashion’. Fast Fashion has
particular harmful effect, it gives shoppers the latest styles just six weeks
after the first appear on the cat walk, at prices that allow the consumers to
wear an outfit just once or twice before replacing it. This puts huge pressure
not just on Primark to deliver the fashion in the time scale required by the
consumer but on the Bangladeshi suppliers having to produce more garments in
less time for the same pay. Which obviously results in the exploitation of the
workforce. And there for proves that the brand identity of Primark is entirely
based around green washing its brand image. What you really have to ask is will
effect the brand strength in the consumer public eye? Which is obviously where
Primark make their profits. The answer is simply no. Mum of three Katrina
Reddie from East London says she can’t stop shopping at cheap stores.
“Of course I think its wrong
that this goes on”
Despite the fact that she
knows these unethical connotations come with Primark as a brand, she will
continue to shop here.
To conclude I must analyses
the initial question posed, how has increased awareness of ethical production
affected brand identities? What is extremely obvious is that in the case
studies looked at in this essay, there brand identity is indeed of limited
importance, the facts are that there sales are not impaired in anyway despite
the consumer public knowing the ethical and environmental issues that are
associated with these companies. This is
a prime example of the Marxist theory of commodity fetishism both in the sense
of the consumer having such high necessity for the product that the ethical
production of it has little or no importance and that in the case of Primark
especially, peoples humanity is treated like a commodity itself therefore
people are exploited because it is relative to the want of the western
consumer. How does this affect the brand identity of these companies? As long
as Green washing takes place, so companies are seen to be making an effort to
address issues of unethical production, even though they may not be the
consumers will continue to buy there products. Referring anaphorically to the
initial quote I used, ‘being seen to behave responsibly towards society and the
environment’ is indeed more important than actually doing so.
Bibliography
Quote 1
melissa davis. (2009). The changing brand audience .
In: the fundamentals of branding. South Africa: Ava . 74-75
Quote 2
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012.
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]
Quote 3
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012.
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012
Quote 5
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012.
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012
Quote 6
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012.
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012
Quote 7
McDonald's UK :: McDonalds.co.uk. 2012.
McDonald's UK :: McDonalds.co.uk. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome.html?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=mcdonalds&utm__content=Exact&utm_campaign=Brand_-_Pure&gclid=CODh5aza6K0CFVAhtAodqm595Q. [Accessed 24 January 2012]
Quote
8
McDonalds Serves Up Some Greenwash With
Its Fries. 2012. McDonalds Serves Up Some Greenwash With Its Fries. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://ecopreneurist.com/2011/12/27/mcdonalds-serves-up-greenwash-with-its-fries/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]
Quote 9
Quote 10
The alternative movement for resourch
and freedom society,London, 2008, Fashion Victims 2, http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/supermarkets/fashion-victims/inform/16360-fashion-victims-ii
Quote 11
The alternative movement for resourch
and freedom society,London, 2008, Fashion Victims 2, http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/supermarkets/fashion-victims/inform/16360-fashion-victims-ii
Quote 12
Primark child labour: Is ethical
shopping a luxury we can't afford? - mirror.co.uk. 2012. Primark child labour:
Is ethical shopping a luxury we can't afford? - mirror.co.uk. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/06/23/primark-child-labour-is-ethical-shopping-a-luxury-we-can-t-afford-115875-20617831/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]
Other References
Victor Papanek, 1991. Design for the
Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. 2nd Rev Edition. Thames &
Hudson
Michael Braungart, 2002. Cradle to
Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. 1st Edition. North Point Press.
Commodity fetishism - Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia. 2012. Commodity fetishism - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia. [ONLINE] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism. [Accessed 24 January 2012]
melissa davis. (2009). The changing brand audience .
In: the fundamentals of branding. South Africa: Ava .
Michael.j.Phillips . (1997). manipulative advertising
and consumer choice . In: Ethics and Manipulation in advertising .
london: Quorum Books. 77-106.
Wally olins . (2004). Brands on a Global stage. In: wally
Olins on Brands . London: Thames and Hudson. 90-110.
Initial Essay
How has the increased
awareness of ethical production affected brand identities?
Since, Earth Day
in 1990, in which millions of people from around the world came together to
protest against the declining health of the planet, there has been increased
awareness of green issues. This awareness has not just been realised by the
political elite but by the average individual. These environmental issues were
further more bought into the public eye, when in 2006 Al Gore co directed a
film called the Inconvenient Truth. This
film was quoted as being the:
“The most terrifying film you will
ever see”
This was due to
the film blaming humanity for the unstable shape the global environment is in
today specifically looking at global warming. This was not just a film seen by
the few; it grossed over forty nine million in the box office and won 2 Academy
Awards. As a result this increased public awareness of the environment has
emphasised the moral issues involved with the subject. The consumer markets are
defiantly more aware of the environmental issues when purchasing a product,
research carried out by ES magazine in 2000 suggests that a massive 75% of
customers favour products with tangible environmental advantaged over the
competitive products. As well as three quarters of people polled in the UK say
that they chosen a product or company for their ethical reason.
It was this new
found morality the general public had for green issues that has lead the
biggest change in corporate budgeting in the last 15 years, with corporate
social issues becoming the second largest aspect of there budgets. What this
money is being spend on is the re design of there public image, or there brand
identities of the corporations. It is this that I am going to focus on in this
essay, how have the brand identities of these companies changed due to the
increased public awareness of green issues?
Green washing is
the term given when a corporation has changed its public image through PR or
green marketing to appear more environmentally friendly within its product or
policies. While certain companies make legitimist changes to there green policies,
it is very apparent that this is often not the case and it is these companies I
will look at first.
Perhaps the
biggest exponents of green washing are the oil companies, purely due to their
direct association with their product causing global warming. Recently BP have
been quoted saying that there logo which was commonly known to stand for
British Petroleum has now been changed to beyond petroleum. This in itself
gives the brand identity of BP a green face lift, suggesting to the consumer
market that the main priority of BP is to focus on finding alternative energy
sources. A quote from the BP website reads:
“In response to increasing demand for energy with a
lower-carbon footprint, we have made a major commitment to develop low-carbon
sources of energy,”
Chevron the American oil multinational
oil company has a current television advertisement, which uses the same
narrator as global warming documentaries and the same kind of speech with in
the advert as the trailers for the Inconvenient Truth. A quote from the advert:
“Our live demands oil. Oil, energy, the environment”
The tone of voice used within
the advert Is like that used with in propaganda and to a certain extent it is.
It is trying to convince the consumer that oil is a necessity for the
development of humanity. The advert goes on the list facts about the demands we
have for oil, which again backs up this story of necessity. The green washing
approach by Chevron here is quite unlike that of other oil companies who try
and convince consumers that they are making the difference and the air we
breathe is getting cleaner, which was a strap line used by ExxonMobil. Chevron
don’t try and create this idealistic brand identity in the mind of the consumer
but instead try and convince them that they, as a corporation, are doing the
best thing for humanity, which in itself is green washing.
ExxonMobil
is yet to launch an advertising campaign like that of the other oil companies
mentioned, however on there website it reads:
“Through continued investments in energy supplies and ever
cleaner technologies that help secure America’s economic future.”
Despite
the identity of these big oil companies being based around strong environmental
policies and alternative fuel, the reality is they are doing very little to
develop the use of alternative forms of fuel or have greener policies with in
the company, this is according to the 2007 senate document. The oil industry
spent ninety eight billion dollars on alternative fuels but:
“Very little of the 98billion was spent on these
technologies was invested in renewable or alternative energy sources”
The money was instead spent on developing existing technologies
for example solar energy. This as a result would only strengthen the individual
companies hold on the market, but give the impression to the consumer that
indeed they are searching for alternative forms of energy by creating this
positive brand identity through green washing. Other controversial issues with
in the oil industry included an article from Mother Jones magazine in 2005,
which suggested that Exxon spend over 16 million from 1998-2005 on employing
scientist to speak up against the global
warming theory. This quote is an example of the level of green washing, in this
case, specifically Exxon are trying to send out to the consumer public.
“ExxonMobil has manufactured
uncertainty about the human causes of
global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused
lung cancer,”
This quote by Alden Meyer of the union
of Concerned Scientist goes on to say
“A modest but effective investment has
allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government
action just as big as Tobacco did for 40 years”
This quote undoubtedly proves that
green washing is present with in the oil industry, but perhaps on a level
unknown to the general public, as the companies went as far as to try and green
wash the general ideologies of the global population by creating doubt in there
minds of the legitimacies of the hard facts that were previously excepted
globally. Then how does this affect the brand identity of these companies? You
could go as far as to say that the brand identity of these oil companies are
based around lies, as they give and idealistic or incorrect portrayal of the
reality of there work. Through the medium of green washing in advertising and
thus their brand identity is a false identity in itself.
It
is not only the natural resources industry that is constantly accused of green
washing there product, it can be seen in all of the big corporations across the
world. Perhaps the most recognisable corporation in the world, McDonald’s is
guilty of green washing their products and there brand identity as a whole. On
the McDonalds website there is a central quote that reads:
“At McDonald's we recognise our responsibility to protect
and preserve the environment for future generations to come. Our goal is
simple, to achieve continuous environmental improvement across all areas of our
business”
This quote suggests that McDonalds are
greatly concerned about the environmental issues, which are now such an
important part of a corporate identity. In 2009 McDonalds announced plans to
change the famous golden arches with a red backdrop, perhaps the most
recognisable brand identity in the world, to golden arches on a green back
drop. This drastic logo change would
occur in 400 franchises across Europe specifically Germany, Britain and France.
Unsurprisingly these are countries in which there inhabitants hold
environmental issue in paramount importance. With a quarter of all Britain’s
saying they would choose a product over its competitor if it was more
beneficial to the environment.
Obviously this change in logo is not
because McDonalds felt obliged to change, the most recognisable identity in the
world, its due to the green connotations that come with it. You would assume as
a consumer on seeing a green brand logo or identity; they would be an
environmentally friendly fast food restaurant, in an industry that is not well
known for its eco heroics.
Perhaps unsurprisingly McDonalds is a prime example of
the green washing generation of companies.
On the 2nd
of January 2008 McDonalds launched a campaign playing on the “eat fresh”
ideology. And this could be achieved by
a selection of advertisement highlighting the source of there meat a potatoes
production line, giving the impression of a big corporation supporting the
“little guy”, by the little guy I think what McDonalds meant was British
farmers. McDonalds realised this quote
on the day of the campaign release.
“We thought putting a
face on the quality of the food story would be a unique way to approach this.
We acknowledge that there are questions about where our food comes from. I
believe we’ve got an opportunity to accentuate that part of our story.”
Putting a face on their
food is meant to prove to the consumer public that McDonalds has a personal
connection with its food suppliers, and thus creating a personal brand
identity. In fact McDonalds has no personal connection with its food suppliers,
they source all of there produce through middlemen or suppliers. An example of
these companies would be Golden State Foods or Simplot, who in reality source
thousands of farmers from around the country. In reality McDonalds have only
become aware of a marketing ploy that has been born from the green revolution,
that of consumers wanting to no where there food has come from and the consumer
wants transparency in this production line. This is obviously not what
McDonalds are doing. This therefore
suggest that like thousands of other corporations McDonalds have become aware
of a marketing problem and instead of solving, the problem, by in reality
sourcing natural food straight from the supplier. They have green washed their brand identity
through advertisements to again create a unrealistic appearance to the
consumer.
It’s very apparent that through out
this essay, I have highlighted sources of unethical production through green
washing. However there are other areas of unethical production that have not
been exposed. For example Primark is a company that on its website have the strap
line:
“fair is important to us, a fair deal
for all”
Primark keep true to
this promise in once sense a fair deal for all its consumers, with the cheapest
price on the high street. However in 2010 panorama exposed Primark for using
child labor in India, paying them less then 60p a day. Although this is a shocking statistic, that
may affect Primark’s brand identity with negative connotations on the issue of
equality and other humanitarian issues. You have to ask will it affect their
brand identity in the consumer public eye? Which is where Primark make their profits.
The answer is simply no. Mum of three Katrina Reddie, 34 from East London, says
that she can’t stop shopping at cheap stores.
“Of course I think
its wrong that this goes on”
Despite the fact that
she knows its wrong, she will continue to shop here. Even though the brand
identity of Primark is proved to be unethical.
This leads me to my conclusion, you
have to ask why do people continue to shop at Primark or Buy Burgers from
McDonalds, despite the negative connotations that come interlinked with there
brand identity? Looking at Marx’s theory
of commodity fetishism could give you the answer. Analyzing and applying this
essay to his theory, Marx’s would say that the negative Brand identity that
these companies may have is not relative to the need of the consumer. The
consumer chooses to ignore the negatives with in the brand to satisfy their
personal wants or needs. Who is to blame? Perhaps the capitalist society we
live in.
References
Quote 1
An Inconvenient Truth (2006) - Taglines.
2012. An Inconvenient Truth (2006) - Taglines. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/taglines. [Accessed 24 January 2012]
Quote 2
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012.
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]
Quote 3
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012.
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012
Quote 5
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012.
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012
Quote 6
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. 2012.
Oil Companies and Greenwashing. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/oil-companies-and-greenwashing/. [Accessed 24 January 2012
Quote 7
McDonald's UK :: McDonalds.co.uk. 2012.
McDonald's UK :: McDonalds.co.uk. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome.html?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=mcdonalds&utm__content=Exact&utm_campaign=Brand_-_Pure&gclid=CODh5aza6K0CFVAhtAodqm595Q. [Accessed 24 January 2012]
Quote
8
McDonalds Serves Up Some Greenwash With
Its Fries. 2012. McDonalds Serves Up Some Greenwash With Its Fries. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://ecopreneurist.com/2011/12/27/mcdonalds-serves-up-greenwash-with-its-fries/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]
Quote 9
Quote 10
Primark child labour: Is ethical
shopping a luxury we can't afford? - mirror.co.uk. 2012. Primark child labour:
Is ethical shopping a luxury we can't afford? - mirror.co.uk. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/06/23/primark-child-labour-is-ethical-shopping-a-luxury-we-can-t-afford-115875-20617831/. [Accessed 24 January 2012]
Other References
Victor Papanek, 1991. Design for the
Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. 2nd Rev Edition. Thames &
Hudson
Michael Braungart, 2002. Cradle to
Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. 1st Edition. North Point Press.
Commodity fetishism - Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia. 2012. Commodity fetishism - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia. [ONLINE] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism. [Accessed 24 January 2012]
Two books missing from list, will be
added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)