Things I've Said About Naomi Klein

The first thing I thought of when I read Naomi Klein’s transcribed speech about the separation between brand names and the products they represent was how I never consider the cheaper breakfast cereal brands while shopping at supermarkets. None of the “Great Value” knockoffs of familiar cereals nor the dirt-cheap bags on the bottom shelves that aren’t even packaged in boxes look like they they’re worth the effort to take seriously. For all I know, they taste exactly the same or have the same nutritional value, but they’re not in the same league as the Kellogg or Post products boasting such recognizable mascots as Lucky the Leprechaun or Snap, Crackle, and Pop.

It’s an odd criteria to judge cereal by, and that’s sort of Klein’s point on how symbolism substitutes as “the mark of quality on the product.” Klein spoke about how some industries increase their profit margins if they don’t own their factories, but instead outsource their production. What they do own, is what she called the “intellectual property:” Under her illustration, these cereal companies would own the recipe and the copyrighted packaging design. So essentially the only unique thing these guys would be selling me is the idea of Lucky Charms and the opportunity to see Lucky the Leprechaun on the front of the box while I eat.

But I’m so used to it. And I don’t know how else to single out quality products. We as consumers are inherently naïve, and rather than scrutinize the details to every product we buy to single out the best one, we instead depend on the symbol of an affluent production brand. It starts out that way, and then we get comfortable with these brands. I guess that’s the argument that struck a chord with me the most, was Klein’s observation on how consumers are creating “surrogate relationships” with the products they buy. I not only look to Lucky for a seal of approval, but I would begin to miss him if I ate one of his cheap knockoffs.

Or maybe that's putting it too harsh. To be certain, there's a middle ground most of us
dwell in between our genuine instincts and being duped by brand names. I'd quit eating
Lucky Charms if it tasted like crap. I come for the familiarity, I stay for the
satisfaction. But what Klein worries about is blurring the line between the two, but that certainly depends on the individual. Another example is when I’m shopping for music on iTunes, if I don’t know much about what I’m considering, I go with what I’m familiar with: the prestige of the artist, the customer reviews, the popularity (as measured by download history.) But in the end it’s my personal taste that carries me through my purchase decisions.

It isn’t necessary to be antagonistic against product brands, but it’s important that we’re conscientious about them. I obviously can’t scrutinize everything I buy, but I can’t get too comfortable with these brands either, because like Klein argues, I don’t have an actual relationship with these products. I need to eat, and that’s it.