Brand is not a thug.docVIP

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13 Brand is not a thug Imagine a world without brands. It has existed and still exists, more or less in the world’s poorest places. No hoarse advertising, no ugly list, there is no McDonald’s. But if you have the opportunity to have a little money, people will escape from this kind of ‘Garden of Eden’. They’re looking for a Budweiser beer, rather than the locally produced spirits; they lost nameless shirt, put on is a Gap; they use to replace their own kinds of Marlboro tobacco. What kind of people will come to the conclusion? People to become a global reach, with huge advertising budgets of large companies hands plaything? Or people think the brand will bring them a much better thing than ever before? This theory is being hands plaything ‘refusal to identify: the brand’s high-handed acts of war’ within the author effectively implement the Aomikelin this book has become the anti-globalization movement’s bible. Her theory is that the brand has become a fascist forces of the characterization, people raised their hands to salute marking almost no chance to criticize, because newspapers, television, the Internet, streets and shops have been the interests of transnational corporations under control. She claims that the ubiquitous brands, coupled with a strong advertising deprive people of their right to choose; in the Third World ‘sweatshops’ to produce a low-cost brand-name products to change the local people’s hobbies, and, in mandatory world-wide introduction of a gray cultural identity. The brand has the most international capitalism, Jan bristles Ritmeester. Place outside the United States, they are a symbol of strength of American companies, because the world’s best known brands almost always come from the United States. Brand exacerbated people’s damage to the environment, human rights abuses and exploitation of labor’s concern, these are the anti-globalization elements like the words written on the placards on. There is no doubt that