After reading Klein's "No Logo" article, I realized that she had a very strong opinion about how producers publish their brand name products. She provided a lot of insight on the truth behind 'brand name' products. She made points that I found very interesting. I even begin to think about some of the products I choose over brand-names after reading this article.

She writes that her article, "No Logo," is an 'attempt to capture an anticorporate attitude that she sees emerging among many young activists,' and also that her 'book is hinged on a simple hypothesis-as more people discover the brand-name secrets of the global logo web, their outrage will fuel the next big political movement.' I would consider she means that when everyone finally realizes that most 'brand-names' are not as they are portrayed to be, people would consider spending their money on 'non name-brand' products because they would be more satisfactory guaranteed. Another point I found intersting was how she stated that what 'the companies produced were not things but images of their brand-names.'...'Their real work lay not in manufacturing but in marketing,' meaning that most companies are in the business for the money and not the customer satisfaction, although that is what they all promise. Also I think she means that people buy these products because of the status of the 'brand-name', because brand name products are advertised to be better than the non name-brand products,which in all cases is not true i think.

Reading the article, I realize that her points make a lot of sense. Many people buy products because it is "supposed" to be a better product. Many products, such as some non name-brand clothing and food look better and last longer (clothes) and taste better (food) than brand-names, and they cost a lot less. If that's the case, then why do people still like to spend their money on products that's not guaranteeing all of the satisfaction that they can receive more of from non name-brand products?