It struck me the other month; stood in a field surrounded by identi-kit kidz wearing matching Marilyn Manson shirts and My Chemical Romance hoodies...These bands are making a killing off of the blind devotion of these legions of lost youth, creating an army of the sartorially generic, each one, ironically, squealing to be taken seriously as a unique and credible entity. You're not. You've been led astray, blindsided by your unquestioning sycophancy of these musical demi-Gods.
Brand fascism is one of the most pernicious evils of contemporary society and we help perpetuate the myth that certain bands and labels equate to being cool. Do companies not spend thousands, nay millions, of $$$s advertising their wares in magazines, on television, at the movies, at sports events and polluting all available space with their logos, slogans and advertising rhetoric, assuring us that we need them to become achievers, to become socially acceptable.
I ask why then do we, as potential walking billboards, pay for the right to privilege and promote bands by emblazoning their logos across our chests; an emphatic statement of allegiance and intent, a public advocacy of any given band's musical output? We are the ultimate in corpo-real estate. Wake up! Smell the $$$s. There's good money to be made by turning around to bands and merchandising companies and saying "No! This is not acceptable." If they want us to stroll around like cattle with a giant Golden Arch branded onto our collective asses then they can damn well pay for the favor. And best of all its win/win all around; we get a bit more change in our pockets AND the industry gets to kit out the scene and become cool by default. The bigger issue however is how much would they have to pay before we're all content to wear Hannah Montana shirts about town and not feel dirty about the fact...
- gileZ Moorhouse
Brand fascism is one of the most pernicious evils of contemporary society and we help perpetuate the myth that certain bands and labels equate to being cool. Do companies not spend thousands, nay millions, of $$$s advertising their wares in magazines, on television, at the movies, at sports events and polluting all available space with their logos, slogans and advertising rhetoric, assuring us that we need them to become achievers, to become socially acceptable.
I ask why then do we, as potential walking billboards, pay for the right to privilege and promote bands by emblazoning their logos across our chests; an emphatic statement of allegiance and intent, a public advocacy of any given band's musical output? We are the ultimate in corpo-real estate. Wake up! Smell the $$$s. There's good money to be made by turning around to bands and merchandising companies and saying "No! This is not acceptable." If they want us to stroll around like cattle with a giant Golden Arch branded onto our collective asses then they can damn well pay for the favor. And best of all its win/win all around; we get a bit more change in our pockets AND the industry gets to kit out the scene and become cool by default. The bigger issue however is how much would they have to pay before we're all content to wear Hannah Montana shirts about town and not feel dirty about the fact...
- gileZ Moorhouse
Labels: advertising, Hannah Montana, music, rock
1 Comments:
The problem is that we don't ask the advertisers to pay us for the privilege of display THEIR clothes, stickers, little dolls... we actually give them OUR money to advertise.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home