We live in an era where image is nearly everything, where the proliferation of brand-name culture has created, to take one hyperbolic example from Naomi Klein's No Logo, "walking, talking, life-sized Tommy [Hilfiger] dolls, mummified in fully branded Tommy worlds". Brand identities are even flourishing online, she notes--and for some retailers, perhaps best of all online: "Liberated from the real-world burdens of stores and product manufacturing, these brands are free to soar, less as the disseminators of goods or services than as collective hallucinations".

In No Logo, Klein patiently demonstrates, step by step, how brands have become ubiquitous, not just in media and on the street but increasingly in the schools as well. The global companies claim to support diversity but their version of "corporate multiculturalism" is merely intended to create more buying options for consumers. When Klein talks about how easy it is for retailers like Wal-Mart and Blockbuster to "censor" the contents of videotapes and albums, she also considers the role corporate conglomeration plays in the process. How much would one expect Paramount Pictures, for example, to protest against Blockbuster's policies, given that they are both divisions of Viacom?

Klein also looks at the workers who keep these companies running, most of whom never share in any of the great rewards. The president of Borders, when asked whether the bookstore chain could pay its clerks a "living wage" wrote that "while the concept is romantically appealing, it ignores the practicalities and realities of our business environment". Those clerks should probably just be grateful they're not stuck in an Asian sweatshop, making pennies an hour to produce Nike sneakers or other must-have fashion items. Klein also discusses at some length the tactic of hiring "permatemps" who can do most of the work and receive few, if any, benefits like health care, paid vacations or stock options. While many workers are glad to be part of the "Free Agent Nation" observers note that, particularly in the high-tech industry, such policies make it increasingly difficult to organise workers and advocate for change.

But resistance is growing and the backlash against the brands has set in. Street-level education programmes have taught kids in the inner cities, for example, not only about Nike's abusive labour practices but about the astronomical mark-up in their prices. Boycotts have commenced: as one urban teen put it, "Nike, we made you. We can break you". But there's more to the revolution, as Klein optimistically recounts: "Ethical shareholders, culture jammers, street reclaimers, McUnion organisers, human-rights hacktivists, school-logo fighters and Internet corporate watchdogs are at the early stages of demanding a citizen-centred alternative to the international rule of the brands ... as global, and as capable of co-ordinated action, as the multinational corporations it seeks to subvert". No Logo is a comprehensive account of what the global economy has wrought and the actions taking place to thwart it. --Ron HoganWe live in an era where image is nearly everything, where the proliferation of brand-name culture has created, to take one hyperbolic example from Naomi Klein's No Logo, "walking, talking, life-sized Tommy [Hilfiger] dolls, mummified in fully branded Tommy worlds". Brand identities are even flourishing online, she notes--and for some retailers, perhaps best of all online: "Liberated from the real-world burdens of stores and product manufacturing, these brands are free to soar, less as the disseminators of goods or services than as collective hallucinations."

In No Logo, Klein patiently demonstrates, step by step, how brands have become ubiquitous, not just in media and on the street but increasingly in the schools as well. The global companies claim to support diversity but their version of "corporate multiculturalism" is merely intended to create more buying options for consumers. When Klein talks about how easy it is for retailers like Wal-Mart and Blockbuster to "censor" the contents of videotapes and albums, she also considers the role corporate conglomeration plays in the process. How much would one expect Paramount Pictures, for example, to protest against Blockbuster's policies, given that they're both divisions of Viacom?

Klein also looks at the workers who keep these companies running, most of whom never share in any of the great rewards. The president of Borders, when asked whether the bookstore chain could pay its clerks a "living wage" wrote that "while the concept is romantically appealing, it ignores the practicalities and realities of our business environment." Those clerks should probably just be grateful they're not stuck in an Asian sweatshop, making pennies an hour to produce Nike sneakers or other must-have fashion items. Klein also discusses at some length the tactic of hiring "permatemps" who can do most of the work and receive few, if any, benefits like health care, paid vacations or stock options. While many workers are glad to be part of the "Free Agent Nation" observers note that, particularly in the high-tech industry, such policies make it increasingly difficult to organise workers and advocate for change.

But resistance is growing and the backlash against the brands has set in. Street-level education programmes have taught kids in the inner cities, for example, not only about Nike's abusive labour practices but about the astronomical mark-up in their prices. Boycotts have commenced: as one urban teen put it, "Nike, we made you. We can break you." But there's more to the revolution, as Klein optimistically recounts: "Ethical shareholders, culture jammers, street reclaimers, McUnion organisers, human-rights hacktivists, school-logo fighters and Internet corporate watchdogs are at the early stages of demanding a citizen-centred alternative to the international rule of the brands ... as global, and as capable of co-ordinated action, as the multinational corporations it seeks to subvert." No Logo is a comprehensive account of what the global economy has wrought and the actions taking place to thwart it. --Ron Hogan

would recommend, 09 Apr 2008
pretty hard reading at times, but the content is excellent and certainly gets one thinking about ethical shopping!

Fluent, Thought-provoking but breathtakingly superficial, 21 Jan 2008
As a rule, I am very suspicious of the sharp left-right divide that beclouds any political or economic discussion; there must be truth on both sides. Therefore, I bought this book in order to understand the rage felt by the anti-globalisation movement. I finished the book with the feeling that the book spectacularly failed to deliver. Naomi Klein breezily argues that:

- Multinational corporations have become more powerful than governments and somehow usurped the functions of the government without the accompanying accountability to the electorate

- Multinationals have "stolen" our public spaces and branded them beyond recognition

- These corporations have been responsible for the Post Cold War neoliberal agenda and have exploited the Third World in order to deliver ever cheaper goods to the First World.

The author brilliantly captures the sense of listlessness many people feel in an increasingly interconnected world and how these feelings have coalesced into various anti-corporate movements since 1989. The cozy world in which a person worked for the same corporation for 35 years, vacationed at the company resort and retired at a grand old age of 65 is no more. This feeling has been compounded by the fact that the posterchildren for this New Economy, multinational corporations, do not want to manufacture "stuff" anymore. Instead the corporations have moved into the "image" game. Ms Klein argues that in making this shift that the corporations have demanded ever lower production costs, pushing them to the emerging economies of the Third World. On further examination, this makes sense. Doesn't it? If Western consumers wanted to pay 100% extra for the Made-in-USA tag on a T-shirt then surely they'll fork out the cash at the mall. Instead, consumers have opted for cheaper clothing, food, electronics etc. The multinationals are only responding to the market.

As a Nigerian I was pleased that Shell's operations in my native country were scrutinised in view of the barbaric killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa. Ms Klein, however, paints an perversely unbalanced picture. While many in the West may instinctively blame Shell for dealing with despotic regimes such as Nigeria under Sani Abacha, Ms Klein provided precious little evidence that Shell actively colluded with the Abacha government in the killing of Mr Saro-Wiwa. Shell seemed to be a target because it has a visible and highly valuable brand name. The real culprit in the pillaging of Nigeria's mineral resource is not Shell but the faceless, amorphous Nigerian government. Hey, but since we cannot target General Abacha, why not crucify Shell instead?

When discussing economics Ms Klein is clearly out of her depth. The concept of comparative advantage-that firms (or countries) should focus on doing what they do best-was completely lost on her. It stands to reason that Western multinationals should focus on what they do best like branding, which is high-skill, capital intensive and leave the low-skilled task of actually making , say shoes, to countries with abundant low-skilled workers in the Third World. Ms Klein rehashes misguided populist notions such as that globalisation erodes democracy in far off lands while stripping First World workers of their God-given jobs in multinational corporations. One problem with this arguement is that it fails to show how much wealth these globalising corporations have generated for their home nations. Have the US and the UK not become richer in the last 15 years? Moreover, several studies have shown that these off-shored jobs are a small percentage of the total number of jobs generated in the West. Furthermore, she depicts the export Processing Zones in the Philippines as the old Wild West, where militaristic, multinational corporations pay little tax and are a law unto themselves. Can this really be true? If locating factories in Export Processing Zones were so bad for The Philippines, why does the government allow them?

The book ignores the successes of trade liberalisation in the Third World. There was no mention of the millions of people who have been lifted from back-breaking poverty by the relocation of factories such as Nike's in Indonesia, Vietnam and China. Instead, we are asked to feel sorry for narcissistic, middle-class, Western suburbanites who have lost their "space" to branding. Interesting argument, but I did not buy it. Fact is trade has been proven to be the best way to lift peoples out of poverty. Since, Ms Klein does not have the foggiest idea what pre-industrial rural poverty really feels like, I will excuse her oversight.

In exposing the factory conditions in which Nike sneakers are made in Indonesia, Ms Klein describes these factories as some Oriental Hell, where no one would want to work. Yet, despite, the horrible conditions people still flock to these export processing zones. I suspect that one of the reasons why a 19-year old Indonesian woman would rather work in the factory than on the land is that factory work pays better. Was this not the case during the Industrial Revolution in Europe? Why did the mills of the English Midlands continue attracting peasants from the country side? I can tell, from personal experience, that working for a Western multinational corporation in my native Nigeria is so much more rewarding than working for a local company.

The book romanticises some time in recent Western history when corporations were employers of choice, the Third World was some distant place where you went to on an exotic vacation or perhaps sent some aid dollars to and where we in the West could live sheltered, cocooned lives. Unfortunately, such an idyllic past (if it ever existed) is unlikely to return soon. The fact is that we are connected more than ever before. It is no surprise that the Third World wants in on the action also. Afterall, material wealth is not the exclusive preserve of the "North".

In conclusion, the book is quite readable and made me stop to think about how powerful multinational corporations have become. However, it seethes with self-righteous anger and provides very little new ideas on how to help the individual losers in globalisation. If you want a balanced account of the impact of open markets (globalisation) then I would recommend you read No Logo in addition to Legrain's Open World and Nayan Chanda's Bound Together. Trashing G8 and WTO Summits make for catchy headlines but it does nothing to lift people out of poverty.

No Longer, 12 Jun 2007
It's worth remembering the stir created when this book came out 6 years ago. Looking at it again now is a great measure of how quickly culture has moved. No Logo will be remembered as a truly ground-breaking book that galvanised the attitudes of a generation who had a sneaky feeling that something wasn't right but struggled to articulate it. That's a nice way of saying that it now feels quite dated - although perhaps that's the perfect compliment as it clearly did it's job of waking us all up to our global responsibilities.

The Third World has always existed for the comfort of the First, 03 Nov 2006
Naomi Klein sketches perfectly the major shift in corporate strategy today: transnational companies are not interested in production anymore, only in branding: products are made in factories, brands in the mind. Branding creates big margins, production in home countries meager earnings.

This strategy causes monstrous layoffs in the First World and creates EPZ (Export Processing Zones) in the Third World.
In the First world, corporations transformed themselves in `engines of wealth growth' for their shareholders, instead of `engines of job growth'. `CEO's of the 30 companies with the largest announced layoffs saw their total compensation increase by 67%.'
The jobs they need are predominantly outsourced, or are McJobs (no `adult wages') and temporary stop-jobs.
The First World stirs fierce competition between Third World countries in order to get rock-bottom prices for their `branded' products, creating colossal margins in the home countries.
Wages in EPZs are so low that most of the money is spent on shared dorm rooms and basic food. Workers cannot afford the consumer goods they produce.

Another aspect of our branded world is the sheer size of the (trans)national corporations created by relentless mergers and acquisitions. Their size permits them to decide what items (also magazines, DVDs) should be stocked in a store, in other words, they create a new kind of censorship.
Big mergers in the media landscape allow conglomerates to produce their own news and in this sense jeopardize basic civil liberties.

While Naomi Klein's analysis of our consumer planet is very revealing, the remedies she proposes are rather innocent, epidermic, symptom healing or too general: ad and brand busting, radical ecology (Reclaim the Streets), anti-globalization and anti-corporate mass protests, boycott, building greater critical social consciousness. Individual actions like attacking in court (Shell in Nigeria), revealing Nike's sweatshops or denouncing McDonald's food are ultimately not more than temporary needle pricks in elephant skins.
What the world needs is a global vision, which we can find in the works of Joseph Stiglitz or (for a view from the South) Walden Bello.

Highly recommended.


Excellent but slightly flawed, 25 Oct 2006
At first glance, "No Logo" looks to be a real chore with some 430 or so pages, but actually turns out to be an informative, well-written and engaging insight into corporate culture and practice, into how multinational corporations are gradually taking over and how the society is beginning to fight back. Due to the concepts and ideas introduced and discussed, I also found it to be a genuinely useful book, having come in handy for uni studies, employment and even social gatherings in general, occasions when marketing or globalisation-related issues have cropped up in conversation.

One reviewer quite rightly mentioned "The Rebel Sell", a book in which, if my memory serves me correctly, the authors point out that Klein was once a resident of a rich, suburban area she herself criticises in "No Logo". Reading "The Rebel Sell" has put "No Logo" in a different light and calls Klein's motives for writing it into question - is it the rallying cry to fight against globalisation it claims to be, or has she just spotted an opportunity to make a killing? This is where the book comes across as flawed.

In spite of it, I'd consider "No Logo" essential reading, and I felt a lot more informed for having read it.

would recommend, 09 Apr 2008
pretty hard reading at times, but the content is excellent and certainly gets one thinking about ethical shopping!

Fluent, Thought-provoking but breathtakingly superficial, 21 Jan 2008
As a rule, I am very suspicious of the sharp left-right divide that beclouds any political or economic discussion; there must be truth on both sides. Therefore, I bought this book in order to understand the rage felt by the anti-globalisation movement. I finished the book with the feeling that the book spectacularly failed to deliver. Naomi Klein breezily argues that:

- Multinational corporations have become more powerful than governments and somehow usurped the functions of the government without the accompanying accountability to the electorate

- Multinationals have "stolen" our public spaces and branded them beyond recognition

- These corporations have been responsible for the Post Cold War neoliberal agenda and have exploited the Third World in order to deliver ever cheaper goods to the First World.

The author brilliantly captures the sense of listlessness many people feel in an increasingly interconnected world and how these feelings have coalesced into various anti-corporate movements since 1989. The cozy world in which a person worked for the same corporation for 35 years, vacationed at the company resort and retired at a grand old age of 65 is no more. This feeling has been compounded by the fact that the posterchildren for this New Economy, multinational corporations, do not want to manufacture "stuff" anymore. Instead the corporations have moved into the "image" game. Ms Klein argues that in making this shift that the corporations have demanded ever lower production costs, pushing them to the emerging economies of the Third World. On further examination, this makes sense. Doesn't it? If Western consumers wanted to pay 100% extra for the Made-in-USA tag on a T-shirt then surely they'll fork out the cash at the mall. Instead, consumers have opted for cheaper clothing, food, electronics etc. The multinationals are only responding to the market.

As a Nigerian I was pleased that Shell's operations in my native country were scrutinised in view of the barbaric killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa. Ms Klein, however, paints an perversely unbalanced picture. While many in the West may instinctively blame Shell for dealing with despotic regimes such as Nigeria under Sani Abacha, Ms Klein provided precious little evidence that Shell actively colluded with the Abacha government in the killing of Mr Saro-Wiwa. Shell seemed to be a target because it has a visible and highly valuable brand name. The real culprit in the pillaging of Nigeria's mineral resource is not Shell but the faceless, amorphous Nigerian government. Hey, but since we cannot target General Abacha, why not crucify Shell instead?

When discussing economics Ms Klein is clearly out of her depth. The concept of comparative advantage-that firms (or countries) should focus on doing what they do best-was completely lost on her. It stands to reason that Western multinationals should focus on what they do best like branding, which is high-skill, capital intensive and leave the low-skilled task of actually making , say shoes, to countries with abundant low-skilled workers in the Third World. Ms Klein rehashes misguided populist notions such as that globalisation erodes democracy in far off lands while stripping First World workers of their God-given jobs in multinational corporations. One problem with this arguement is that it fails to show how much wealth these globalising corporations have generated for their home nations. Have the US and the UK not become richer in the last 15 years? Moreover, several studies have shown that these off-shored jobs are a small percentage of the total number of jobs generated in the West. Furthermore, she depicts the export Processing Zones in the Philippines as the old Wild West, where militaristic, multinational corporations pay little tax and are a law unto themselves. Can this really be true? If locating factories in Export Processing Zones were so bad for The Philippines, why does the government allow them?

The book ignores the successes of trade liberalisation in the Third World. There was no mention of the millions of people who have been lifted from back-breaking poverty by the relocation of factories such as Nike's in Indonesia, Vietnam and China. Instead, we are asked to feel sorry for narcissistic, middle-class, Western suburbanites who have lost their "space" to branding. Interesting argument, but I did not buy it. Fact is trade has been proven to be the best way to lift peoples out of poverty. Since, Ms Klein does not have the foggiest idea what pre-industrial rural poverty really feels like, I will excuse her oversight.

In exposing the factory conditions in which Nike sneakers are made in Indonesia, Ms Klein describes these factories as some Oriental Hell, where no one would want to work. Yet, despite, the horrible conditions people still flock to these export processing zones. I suspect that one of the reasons why a 19-year old Indonesian woman would rather work in the factory than on the land is that factory work pays better. Was this not the case during the Industrial Revolution in Europe? Why did the mills of the English Midlands continue attracting peasants from the country side? I can tell, from personal experience, that working for a Western multinational corporation in my native Nigeria is so much more rewarding than working for a local company.

The book romanticises some time in recent Western history when corporations were employers of choice, the Third World was some distant place where you went to on an exotic vacation or perhaps sent some aid dollars to and where we in the West could live sheltered, cocooned lives. Unfortunately, such an idyllic past (if it ever existed) is unlikely to return soon. The fact is that we are connected more than ever before. It is no surprise that the Third World wants in on the action also. Afterall, material wealth is not the exclusive preserve of the "North".

In conclusion, the book is quite readable and made me stop to think about how powerful multinational corporations have become. However, it seethes with self-righteous anger and provides very little new ideas on how to help the individual losers in globalisation. If you want a balanced account of the impact of open markets (globalisation) then I would recommend you read No Logo in addition to Legrain's Open World and Nayan Chanda's Bound Together. Trashing G8 and WTO Summits make for catchy headlines but it does nothing to lift people out of poverty.

No Longer, 12 Jun 2007
It's worth remembering the stir created when this book came out 6 years ago. Looking at it again now is a great measure of how quickly culture has moved. No Logo will be remembered as a truly ground-breaking book that galvanised the attitudes of a generation who had a sneaky feeling that something wasn't right but struggled to articulate it. That's a nice way of saying that it now feels quite dated - although perhaps that's the perfect compliment as it clearly did it's job of waking us all up to our global responsibilities.

The Third World has always existed for the comfort of the First, 03 Nov 2006
Naomi Klein sketches perfectly the major shift in corporate strategy today: transnational companies are not interested in production anymore, only in branding: products are made in factories, brands in the mind. Branding creates big margins, production in home countries meager earnings.

This strategy causes monstrous layoffs in the First World and creates EPZ (Export Processing Zones) in the Third World.
In the First world, corporations transformed themselves in `engines of wealth growth' for their shareholders, instead of `engines of job growth'. `CEO's of the 30 companies with the largest announced layoffs saw their total compensation increase by 67%.'
The jobs they need are predominantly outsourced, or are McJobs (no `adult wages') and temporary stop-jobs.
The First World stirs fierce competition between Third World countries in order to get rock-bottom prices for their `branded' products, creating colossal margins in the home countries.
Wages in EPZs are so low that most of the money is spent on shared dorm rooms and basic food. Workers cannot afford the consumer goods they produce.

Another aspect of our branded world is the sheer size of the (trans)national corporations created by relentless mergers and acquisitions. Their size permits them to decide what items (also magazines, DVDs) should be stocked in a store, in other words, they create a new kind of censorship.
Big mergers in the media landscape allow conglomerates to produce their own news and in this sense jeopardize basic civil liberties.

While Naomi Klein's analysis of our consumer planet is very revealing, the remedies she proposes are rather innocent, epidermic, symptom healing or too general: ad and brand busting, radical ecology (Reclaim the Streets), anti-globalization and anti-corporate mass protests, boycott, building greater critical social consciousness. Individual actions like attacking in court (Shell in Nigeria), revealing Nike's sweatshops or denouncing McDonald's food are ultimately not more than temporary needle pricks in elephant skins.
What the world needs is a global vision, which we can find in the works of Joseph Stiglitz or (for a view from the South) Walden Bello.

Highly recommended.


Excellent but slightly flawed, 25 Oct 2006
At first glance, "No Logo" looks to be a real chore with some 430 or so pages, but actually turns out to be an informative, well-written and engaging insight into corporate culture and practice, into how multinational corporations are gradually taking over and how the society is beginning to fight back. Due to the concepts and ideas introduced and discussed, I also found it to be a genuinely useful book, having come in handy for uni studies, employment and even social gatherings in general, occasions when marketing or globalisation-related issues have cropped up in conversation.

One reviewer quite rightly mentioned "The Rebel Sell", a book in which, if my memory serves me correctly, the authors point out that Klein was once a resident of a rich, suburban area she herself criticises in "No Logo". Reading "The Rebel Sell" has put "No Logo" in a different light and calls Klein's motives for writing it into question - is it the rallying cry to fight against globalisation it claims to be, or has she just spotted an opportunity to make a killing? This is where the book comes across as flawed.

In spite of it, I'd consider "No Logo" essential reading, and I felt a lot more informed for having read it.

Repetitive, 08 Jan 2009
Sometimes a book may have excellent concept and ideas, but fails on execution. In my opinion, The Long tail is one of them; when the same theory is being presented in a book repeatedly, one gets bored with it regardless how great the theory may be.

Would have been an excellent book if the author was a bit more concise with his point and reduce the length by half.



A winning concept, 07 Aug 2008
Chris Andreson has written a down-to-earth, incisive and savvy page-turner to tell the story of how the almost unlimited choice brought about new internet-driven technologies has changed the rules of the game for business and the online/offline consumer markets.

Miss it at your peril.

A mixed bag, 26 Jul 2008
I finished this book sometime ago, but had to ponder for a while before writing about it. My dilemma revolves around two points. First, it is an interesting, well written, read. Second, the evidence presented is entirely anecdotal.

Anderson's thesis is very simple. The rise of businesses like Amazon and eBay, coupled with the interpersonal communication facilities afforded by the Internet, has effectively created unlimited demand. He argues that he has identified a business opportunity to make a profit in niche areas that were not previously profitable.

The explanation given is fairly simple. The development of the Internet means that more people have access to minority items, and the development of filtering technology, especially collaborative filtering technology, means that people can identify material they are interested in more easily.

The concept is seductive and well argued. Unfortunately, more recent research (the book was published several years ago) is not really supporting the idea. Not only that, but I have been unable to find any examples of successful businesses just based on the long tail model. As the Western world slides into a recession of the next year or so, it will soon become clear whether this is yet another idea from the digeratii which is based on the assumption that the good times will last for ever, or contains some real meat.

Five stars for entertainment value. One star for lack of research!


Simple but infectious, 25 May 2008
Overall I really liked The Long Tail, I found it very interesting, well written and easy to read. The only slight criticism I have, which is the reason for the 4 star rating, is that is does feel as though it could have been shortened a little without losing any of the content.

The overarching idea of the book is that if you can drive down the costs of producing, distributing and finding content, people will start to move away from "hit-driven" mass-market content and start to find a world filled with niches that fill their desires more completely. It's not a particularly complex idea but it has some interesting potential consequences, as highlighted throughout the book.

Whether or not you should completely buy into this, or how far you may see it changing the way people find and consume things such as music and entertainment, is open to debate. What I can say is that since reading the book I have begun to notice elements of the Long Tail in action in many different places.



Uneven, 25 May 2008
Thought-provoking from both a cultural and commercial point of view, but it goes on a bit! Would have been better at half the length.

would recommend, 09 Apr 2008
pretty hard reading at times, but the content is excellent and certainly gets one thinking about ethical shopping!

Fluent, Thought-provoking but breathtakingly superficial, 21 Jan 2008
As a rule, I am very suspicious of the sharp left-right divide that beclouds any political or economic discussion; there must be truth on both sides. Therefore, I bought this book in order to understand the rage felt by the anti-globalisation movement. I finished the book with the feeling that the book spectacularly failed to deliver. Naomi Klein breezily argues that:

- Multinational corporations have become more powerful than governments and somehow usurped the functions of the government without the accompanying accountability to the electorate

- Multinationals have "stolen" our public spaces and branded them beyond recognition

- These corporations have been responsible for the Post Cold War neoliberal agenda and have exploited the Third World in order to deliver ever cheaper goods to the First World.

The author brilliantly captures the sense of listlessness many people feel in an increasingly interconnected world and how these feelings have coalesced into various anti-corporate movements since 1989. The cozy world in which a person worked for the same corporation for 35 years, vacationed at the company resort and retired at a grand old age of 65 is no more. This feeling has been compounded by the fact that the posterchildren for this New Economy, multinational corporations, do not want to manufacture "stuff" anymore. Instead the corporations have moved into the "image" game. Ms Klein argues that in making this shift that the corporations have demanded ever lower production costs, pushing them to the emerging economies of the Third World. On further examination, this makes sense. Doesn't it? If Western consumers wanted to pay 100% extra for the Made-in-USA tag on a T-shirt then surely they'll fork out the cash at the mall. Instead, consumers have opted for cheaper clothing, food, electronics etc. The multinationals are only responding to the market.

As a Nigerian I was pleased that Shell's operations in my native country were scrutinised in view of the barbaric killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa. Ms Klein, however, paints an perversely unbalanced picture. While many in the West may instinctively blame Shell for dealing with despotic regimes such as Nigeria under Sani Abacha, Ms Klein provided precious little evidence that Shell actively colluded with the Abacha government in the killing of Mr Saro-Wiwa. Shell seemed to be a target because it has a visible and highly valuable brand name. The real culprit in the pillaging of Nigeria's mineral resource is not Shell but the faceless, amorphous Nigerian government. Hey, but since we cannot target General Abacha, why not crucify Shell instead?

When discussing economics Ms Klein is clearly out of her depth. The concept of comparative advantage-that firms (or countries) should focus on doing what they do best-was completely lost on her. It stands to reason that Western multinationals should focus on what they do best like branding, which is high-skill, capital intensive and leave the low-skilled task of actually making , say shoes, to countries with abundant low-skilled workers in the Third World. Ms Klein rehashes misguided populist notions such as that globalisation erodes democracy in far off lands while stripping First World workers of their God-given jobs in multinational corporations. One problem with this arguement is that it fails to show how much wealth these globalising corporations have generated for their home nations. Have the US and the UK not become richer in the last 15 years? Moreover, several studies have shown that these off-shored jobs are a small percentage of the total number of jobs generated in the West. Furthermore, she depicts the export Processing Zones in the Philippines as the old Wild West, where militaristic, multinational corporations pay little tax and are a law unto themselves. Can this really be true? If locating factories in Export Processing Zones were so bad for The Philippines, why does the government allow them?

The book ignores the successes of trade liberalisation in the Third World. There was no mention of the millions of people who have been lifted from back-breaking poverty by the relocation of factories such as Nike's in Indonesia, Vietnam and China. Instead, we are asked to feel sorry for narcissistic, middle-class, Western suburbanites who have lost their "space" to branding. Interesting argument, but I did not buy it. Fact is trade has been proven to be the best way to lift peoples out of poverty. Since, Ms Klein does not have the foggiest idea what pre-industrial rural poverty really feels like, I will excuse her oversight.

In exposing the factory conditions in which Nike sneakers are made in Indonesia, Ms Klein describes these factories as some Oriental Hell, where no one would want to work. Yet, despite, the horrible conditions people still flock to these export processing zones. I suspect that one of the reasons why a 19-year old Indonesian woman would rather work in the factory than on the land is that factory work pays better. Was this not the case during the Industrial Revolution in Europe? Why did the mills of the English Midlands continue attracting peasants from the country side? I can tell, from personal experience, that working for a Western multinational corporation in my native Nigeria is so much more rewarding than working for a local company.

The book romanticises some time in recent Western history when corporations were employers of choice, the Third World was some distant place where you went to on an exotic vacation or perhaps sent some aid dollars to and where we in the West could live sheltered, cocooned lives. Unfortunately, such an idyllic past (if it ever existed) is unlikely to return soon. The fact is that we are connected more than ever before. It is no surprise that the Third World wants in on the action also. Afterall, material wealth is not the exclusive preserve of the "North".

In conclusion, the book is quite readable and made me stop to think about how powerful multinational corporations have become. However, it seethes with self-righteous anger and provides very little new ideas on how to help the individual losers in globalisation. If you want a balanced account of the impact of open markets (globalisation) then I would recommend you read No Logo in addition to Legrain's Open World and Nayan Chanda's Bound Together. Trashing G8 and WTO Summits make for catchy headlines but it does nothing to lift people out of poverty.

No Longer, 12 Jun 2007
It's worth remembering the stir created when this book came out 6 years ago. Looking at it again now is a great measure of how quickly culture has moved. No Logo will be remembered as a truly ground-breaking book that galvanised the attitudes of a generation who had a sneaky feeling that something wasn't right but struggled to articulate it. That's a nice way of saying that it now feels quite dated - although perhaps that's the perfect compliment as it clearly did it's job of waking us all up to our global responsibilities.

The Third World has always existed for the comfort of the First, 03 Nov 2006
Naomi Klein sketches perfectly the major shift in corporate strategy today: transnational companies are not interested in production anymore, only in branding: products are made in factories, brands in the mind. Branding creates big margins, production in home countries meager earnings.

This strategy causes monstrous layoffs in the First World and creates EPZ (Export Processing Zones) in the Third World.
In the First world, corporations transformed themselves in `engines of wealth growth' for their shareholders, instead of `engines of job growth'. `CEO's of the 30 companies with the largest announced layoffs saw their total compensation increase by 67%.'
The jobs they need are predominantly outsourced, or are McJobs (no `adult wages') and temporary stop-jobs.
The First World stirs fierce competition between Third World countries in order to get rock-bottom prices for their `branded' products, creating colossal margins in the home countries.
Wages in EPZs are so low that most of the money is spent on shared dorm rooms and basic food. Workers cannot afford the consumer goods they produce.

Another aspect of our branded world is the sheer size of the (trans)national corporations created by relentless mergers and acquisitions. Their size permits them to decide what items (also magazines, DVDs) should be stocked in a store, in other words, they create a new kind of censorship.
Big mergers in the media landscape allow conglomerates to produce their own news and in this sense jeopardize basic civil liberties.

While Naomi Klein's analysis of our consumer planet is very revealing, the remedies she proposes are rather innocent, epidermic, symptom healing or too general: ad and brand busting, radical ecology (Reclaim the Streets), anti-globalization and anti-corporate mass protests, boycott, building greater critical social consciousness. Individual actions like attacking in court (Shell in Nigeria), revealing Nike's sweatshops or denouncing McDonald's food are ultimately not more than temporary needle pricks in elephant skins.
What the world needs is a global vision, which we can find in the works of Joseph Stiglitz or (for a view from the South) Walden Bello.

Highly recommended.


Excellent but slightly flawed, 25 Oct 2006
At first glance, "No Logo" looks to be a real chore with some 430 or so pages, but actually turns out to be an informative, well-written and engaging insight into corporate culture and practice, into how multinational corporations are gradually taking over and how the society is beginning to fight back. Due to the concepts and ideas introduced and discussed, I also found it to be a genuinely useful book, having come in handy for uni studies, employment and even social gatherings in general, occasions when marketing or globalisation-related issues have cropped up in conversation.

One reviewer quite rightly mentioned "The Rebel Sell", a book in which, if my memory serves me correctly, the authors point out that Klein was once a resident of a rich, suburban area she herself criticises in "No Logo". Reading "The Rebel Sell" has put "No Logo" in a different light and calls Klein's motives for writing it into question - is it the rallying cry to fight against globalisation it claims to be, or has she just spotted an opportunity to make a killing? This is where the book comes across as flawed.

In spite of it, I'd consider "No Logo" essential reading, and I felt a lot more informed for having read it.

Repetitive, 08 Jan 2009
Sometimes a book may have excellent concept and ideas, but fails on execution. In my opinion, The Long tail is one of them; when the same theory is being presented in a book repeatedly, one gets bored with it regardless how great the theory may be.

Would have been an excellent book if the author was a bit more concise with his point and reduce the length by half.



A winning concept, 07 Aug 2008
Chris Andreson has written a down-to-earth, incisive and savvy page-turner to tell the story of how the almost unlimited choice brought about new internet-driven technologies has changed the rules of the game for business and the online/offline consumer markets.

Miss it at your peril.

A mixed bag, 26 Jul 2008
I finished this book sometime ago, but had to ponder for a while before writing about it. My dilemma revolves around two points. First, it is an interesting, well written, read. Second, the evidence presented is entirely anecdotal.

Anderson's thesis is very simple. The rise of businesses like Amazon and eBay, coupled with the interpersonal communication facilities afforded by the Internet, has effectively created unlimited demand. He argues that he has identified a business opportunity to make a profit in niche areas that were not previously profitable.

The explanation given is fairly simple. The development of the Internet means that more people have access to minority items, and the development of filtering technology, especially collaborative filtering technology, means that people can identify material they are interested in more easily.

The concept is seductive and well argued. Unfortunately, more recent research (the book was published several years ago) is not really supporting the idea. Not only that, but I have been unable to find any examples of successful businesses just based on the long tail model. As the Western world slides into a recession of the next year or so, it will soon become clear whether this is yet another idea from the digeratii which is based on the assumption that the good times will last for ever, or contains some real meat.

Five stars for entertainment value. One star for lack of research!


Simple but infectious, 25 May 2008
Overall I really liked The Long Tail, I found it very interesting, well written and easy to read. The only slight criticism I have, which is the reason for the 4 star rating, is that is does feel as though it could have been shortened a little without losing any of the content.

The overarching idea of the book is that if you can drive down the costs of producing, distributing and finding content, people will start to move away from "hit-driven" mass-market content and start to find a world filled with niches that fill their desires more completely. It's not a particularly complex idea but it has some interesting potential consequences, as highlighted throughout the book.

Whether or not you should completely buy into this, or how far you may see it changing the way people find and consume things such as music and entertainment, is open to debate. What I can say is that since reading the book I have begun to notice elements of the Long Tail in action in many different places.



Uneven, 25 May 2008
Thought-provoking from both a cultural and commercial point of view, but it goes on a bit! Would have been better at half the length.

Compulsory Reading, 03 Jan 2009
Some reviewers have commented that this book is not as good as Felicity Lawrence's 'Not On The Label'. I would recommend both - they complement each other well, dealing with all manner of issues surrounding food production and consumption. Eat Your Heart Out is, of course, more up to date, but it's fair to say that little has really changed since Not On The Label was published and they cover differest aspects of a very big subject.

This book ties in so many aspects of a system that we should all know and care about, not least because it depends so heavily on exploitation, messes up the environment, is unsustainable and serves up a food that is simply not very good for us (despite the way it's advertised). If that all sounds a bit left-wing and radical-veggy, then I would add that one of the most shocking apsects is how tax-payers on both sides of the Atlantic are having to fork out for massive (and damaging) subsidies that don't actually seem to help those who really need it.

Felicity Lawrence does a great job of tying together the complex issues in a very readable way. Highly recommended - this really will change the way you think about food.


raises important issues but not an enjoyable read for me, 26 Dec 2008
I bought the book hoping that it would give a serious treatment of the issues surrounding food and big business but was left disappointed. My gripe is that the book presents an uneasy mixture of facts, quasi science, moral issues, the author's opinion, non facts presented as facts and annoying anecdotes.

I "heartily" (hhahha hmmmmm sorry) agree with the conclusions reached and would happily recommend the book but my gut feeling is that the author does not present a strong enough argument to counter cynical detractors.

Very good and informative but not as brilliant as the first book, 27 Nov 2008
I was surprised to see everyone rating this as 5 stars. While Felicity Laurence's last book really was a five star book. This book is less oustanding. I can not really explain why except that it seemed to be a bit less gripping than the last one, but only a bit. For example the description of how margerine was made was so long wordy and complex that it could have done with some diagrams. In the last book that would never have happened. There was one dull chapter where Laurence described a car ride to conference which I even found dull (which is really a rare thing with this author). But that was the only bad chapter. My last gripe was her slightly anti capitalist bent. I would have thought that the government subsidising unhealthy corporate food production is more a description of socialism defined as government intervention rather than "capitalism". I would still recommend this book to others and did enjoy my read. I learned quite a bit and things do make more sense now. She is absolutely right about the crazy domination of a handful of ingredients in so much of our food. After I developed IBS and M.E I had to avoid corn, soya and white sugar, and certain food additives/chemicals. I found that so much in existance had those artificial tiny handful of ingredients - and now I understand why.
Don't be put off buying the book from my review because it is a good book. Just don't expect the same level of brilliance as her last book "Not On the Label."

Wake up!, 26 Aug 2008
I found this book informative, revelatory and utterly compelling. You should definitely read it if you'd like to know more about how our food is adulterated beyond belief by the handful of faceless transnational corporations who control a vast amount of our food chain. The corollary of their unceasing quest to increase the "value added" to their products is that our food is nutrient-depleted to such an extent that we'd be better off eating the packaging their expensive, processed junk comes in.

I too found this a better read than "Not On The Label" in that it explained more thoroughly the health implications of moving away from a diet that has evolved naturally over several thousand years to one that was artificially manufactured in the second half of the last century - seemingly not in the best interests of consumers but rather to line the pockets of agribusiness and to further the geo-political aims of successive American and European governments. There's plenty of "and now the science bit" but, whilst being quite detailed, I never found it difficult to follow.

Before reading "Eat Your Heart Out" I felt a growing uneasiness about the direction our over-processed, convenience-led food supply was taking us. Now I feel much more informed about the damage that is being done to our health and society.

This book will open your eyes and may even radicalize you a little. It really is breathtaking what has happened to our diets in the course of just a few decades. Thankfully, the author remains (just) optomistic that we've not passed the point of no return, and that a deal of the damage can be undone. But that's gonna have to start with individuals changing their buying habits and modifying their lifestyles. "Eat Your Heart Out" explains exactly why you should start today.


Brilliant!, 05 Aug 2008
Once again Felicity Lawrence has given us a book which should be required reading for everyone who eats. She has outdone herself this time with the detail and scope of her investigations into how food is produced, how it is packaged and shipped, and on the strangle hold that three food corporations and the supermarkets have on what we eat. The section on soya was especially shocking and if you are a vegetarian or vegan you absolutely must read this section. Her first book prompted me to make many changes in how I shop. This book has shocked me into a complete re-evaluation of what I actually eat. Read this book and it will change your life.

would recommend, 09 Apr 2008
pretty hard reading at times, but the content is excellent and certainly gets one thinking about ethical shopping!

Fluent, Thought-provoking but breathtakingly superficial, 21 Jan 2008
As a rule, I am very suspicious of the sharp left-right divide that beclouds any political or economic discussion; there must be truth on both sides. Therefore, I bought this book in order to understand the rage felt by the anti-globalisation movement. I finished the book with the feeling that the book spectacularly failed to deliver. Naomi Klein breezily argues that:

- Multinational corporations have become more powerful than governments and somehow usurped the functions of the government without the accompanying accountability to the electorate

- Multinationals have "stolen" our public spaces and branded them beyond recognition

- These corporations have been responsible for the Post Cold War neoliberal agenda and have exploited the Third World in order to deliver ever cheaper goods to the First World.

The author brilliantly captures the sense of listlessness many people feel in an increasingly interconnected world and how these feelings have coalesced into various anti-corporate movements since 1989. The cozy world in which a person worked for the same corporation for 35 years, vacationed at the company resort and retired at a grand old age of 65 is no more. This feeling has been compounded by the fact that the posterchildren for this New Economy, multinational corporations, do not want to manufacture "stuff" anymore. Instead the corporations have moved into the "image" game. Ms Klein argues that in making this shift that the corporations have demanded ever lower production costs, pushing them to the emerging economies of the Third World. On further examination, this makes sense. Doesn't it? If Western consumers wanted to pay 100% extra for the Made-in-USA tag on a T-shirt then surely they'll fork out the cash at the mall. Instead, consumers have opted for cheaper clothing, food, electronics etc. The multinationals are only responding to the market.

As a Nigerian I was pleased that Shell's operations in my native country were scrutinised in view of the barbaric killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa. Ms Klein, however, paints an perversely unbalanced picture. While many in the West may instinctively blame Shell for dealing with despotic regimes such as Nigeria under Sani Abacha, Ms Klein provided precious little evidence that Shell actively colluded with the Abacha government in the killing of Mr Saro-Wiwa. Shell seemed to be a target because it has a visible and highly valuable brand name. The real culprit in the pillaging of Nigeria's mineral resource is not Shell but the faceless, amorphous Nigerian government. Hey, but since we cannot target General Abacha, why not crucify Shell instead?

When discussing economics Ms Klein is clearly out of her depth. The concept of comparative advantage-that firms (or countries) should focus on doing what they do best-was completely lost on her. It stands to reason that Western multinationals should focus on what they do best like branding, which is high-skill, capital intensive and leave the low-skilled task of actually making , say shoes, to countries with abundant low-skilled workers in the Third World. Ms Klein rehashes misguided populist notions such as that globalisation erodes democracy in far off lands while stripping First World workers of their God-given jobs in multinational corporations. One problem with this arguement is that it fails to show how much wealth these globalising corporations have generated for their home nations. Have the US and the UK not become richer in the last 15 years? Moreover, several studies have shown that these off-shored jobs are a small percentage of the total number of jobs generated in the West. Furthermore, she depicts the export Processing Zones in the Philippines as the old Wild West, where militaristic, multinational corporations pay little tax and are a law unto themselves. Can this really be true? If locating factories in Export Processing Zones were so bad for The Philippines, why does the government allow them?

The book ignores the successes of trade liberalisation in the Third World. There was no mention of the millions of people who have been lifted from back-breaking poverty by the relocation of factories such as Nike's in Indonesia, Vietnam and China. Instead, we are asked to feel sorry for narcissistic, middle-class, Western suburbanites who have lost their "space" to branding. Interesting argument, but I did not buy it. Fact is trade has been proven to be the best way to lift peoples out of poverty. Since, Ms Klein does not have the foggiest idea what pre-industrial rural poverty really feels like, I will excuse her oversight.

In exposing the factory conditions in which Nike sneakers are made in Indonesia, Ms Klein describes these factories as some Oriental Hell, where no one would want to work. Yet, despite, the horrible conditions people still flock to these export processing zones. I suspect that one of the reasons why a 19-year old Indonesian woman would rather work in the factory than on the land is that factory work pays better. Was this not the case during the Industrial Revolution in Europe? Why did the mills of the English Midlands continue attracting peasants from the country side? I can tell, from personal experience, that working for a Western multinational corporation in my native Nigeria is so much more rewarding than working for a local company.

The book romanticises some time in recent Western history when corporations were employers of choice, the Third World was some distant place where you went to on an exotic vacation or perhaps sent some aid dollars to and where we in the West could live sheltered, cocooned lives. Unfortunately, such an idyllic past (if it ever existed) is unlikely to return soon. The fact is that we are connected more than ever before. It is no surprise that the Third World wants in on the action also. Afterall, material wealth is not the exclusive preserve of the "North".

In conclusion, the book is quite readable and made me stop to think about how powerful multinational corporations have become. However, it seethes with self-righteous anger and provides very little new ideas on how to help the individual losers in globalisation. If you want a balanced account of the impact of open markets (globalisation) then I would recommend you read No Logo in addition to Legrain's Open World and Nayan Chanda's Bound Together. Trashing G8 and WTO Summits make for catchy headlines but it does nothing to lift people out of poverty.

No Longer, 12 Jun 2007
It's worth remembering the stir created when this book came out 6 years ago. Looking at it again now is a great measure of how quickly culture has moved. No Logo will be remembered as a truly ground-breaking book that galvanised the attitudes of a generation who had a sneaky feeling that something wasn't right but struggled to articulate it. That's a nice way of saying that it now feels quite dated - although perhaps that's the perfect compliment as it clearly did it's job of waking us all up to our global responsibilities.

The Third World has always existed for the comfort of the First, 03 Nov 2006
Naomi Klein sketches perfectly the major shift in corporate strategy today: transnational companies are not interested in production anymore, only in branding: products are made in factories, brands in the mind. Branding creates big margins, production in home countries meager earnings.

This strategy causes monstrous layoffs in the First World and creates EPZ (Export Processing Zones) in the Third World.
In the First world, corporations transformed themselves in `engines of wealth growth' for their shareholders, instead of `engines of job growth'. `CEO's of the 30 companies with the largest announced layoffs saw their total compensation increase by 67%.'
The jobs they need are predominantly outsourced, or are McJobs (no `adult wages') and temporary stop-jobs.
The First World stirs fierce competition between Third World countries in order to get rock-bottom prices for their `branded' products, creating colossal margins in the home countries.
Wages in EPZs are so low that most of the money is spent on shared dorm rooms and basic food. Workers cannot afford the consumer goods they produce.

Another aspect of our branded world is the sheer size of the (trans)national corporations created by relentless mergers and acquisitions. Their size permits them to decide what items (also magazines, DVDs) should be stocked in a store, in other words, they create a new kind of censorship.
Big mergers in the media landscape allow conglomerates to produce their own news and in this sense jeopardize basic civil liberties.

While Naomi Klein's analysis of our consumer planet is very revealing, the remedies she proposes are rather innocent, epidermic, symptom healing or too general: ad and brand busting, radical ecology (Reclaim the Streets), anti-globalization and anti-corporate mass protests, boycott, building greater critical social consciousness. Individual actions like attacking in court (Shell in Nigeria), revealing Nike's sweatshops or denouncing McDonald's food are ultimately not more than temporary needle pricks in elephant skins.
What the world needs is a global vision, which we can find in the works of Joseph Stiglitz or (for a view from the South) Walden Bello.

Highly recommended.


Excellent but slightly flawed, 25 Oct 2006
At first glance, "No Logo" looks to be a real chore with some 430 or so pages, but actually turns out to be an informative, well-written and engaging insight into corporate culture and practice, into how multinational corporations are gradually taking over and how the society is beginning to fight back. Due to the concepts and ideas introduced and discussed, I also found it to be a genuinely useful book, having come in handy for uni studies, employment and even social gatherings in general, occasions when marketing or globalisation-related issues have cropped up in conversation.

One reviewer quite rightly mentioned "The Rebel Sell", a book in which, if my memory serves me correctly, the authors point out that Klein was once a resident of a rich, suburban area she herself criticises in "No Logo". Reading "The Rebel Sell" has put "No Logo" in a different light and calls Klein's motives for writing it into question - is it the rallying cry to fight against globalisation it claims to be, or has she just spotted an opportunity to make a killing? This is where the book comes across as flawed.

In spite of it, I'd consider "No Logo" essential reading, and I felt a lot more informed for having read it.

Repetitive, 08 Jan 2009
Sometimes a book may have excellent concept and ideas, but fails on execution. In my opinion, The Long tail is one of them; when the same theory is being presented in a book repeatedly, one gets bored with it regardless how great the theory may be.

Would have been an excellent book if the author was a bit more concise with his point and reduce the length by half.



A winning concept, 07 Aug 2008
Chris Andreson has written a down-to-earth, incisive and savvy page-turner to tell the story of how the almost unlimited choice brought about new internet-driven technologies has changed the rules of the game for business and the online/offline consumer markets.

Miss it at your peril.

A mixed bag, 26 Jul 2008
I finished this book sometime ago, but had to ponder for a while before writing about it. My dilemma revolves around two points. First, it is an interesting, well written, read. Second, the evidence presented is entirely anecdotal.

Anderson's thesis is very simple. The rise of businesses like Amazon and eBay, coupled with the interpersonal communication facilities afforded by the Internet, has effectively created unlimited demand. He argues that he has identified a business opportunity to make a profit in niche areas that were not previously profitable.

The explanation given is fairly simple. The development of the Internet means that more people have access to minority items, and the development of filtering technology, especially collaborative filtering technology, means that people can identify material they are interested in more easily.

The concept is seductive and well argued. Unfortunately, more recent research (the book was published several years ago) is not really supporting the idea. Not only that, but I have been unable to find any examples of successful businesses just based on the long tail model. As the Western world slides into a recession of the next year or so, it will soon become clear whether this is yet another idea from the digeratii which is based on the assumption that the good times will last for ever, or contains some real meat.

Five stars for entertainment value. One star for lack of research!


Simple but infectious, 25 May 2008
Overall I really liked The Long Tail, I found it very interesting, well written and easy to read. The only slight criticism I have, which is the reason for the 4 star rating, is that is does feel as though it could have been shortened a little without losing any of the content.

The overarching idea of the book is that if you can drive down the costs of producing, distributing and finding content, people will start to move away from "hit-driven" mass-market content and start to find a world filled with niches that fill their desires more completely. It's not a particularly complex idea but it has some interesting potential consequences, as highlighted throughout the book.

Whether or not you should completely buy into this, or how far you may see it changing the way people find and consume things such as music and entertainment, is open to debate. What I can say is that since reading the book I have begun to notice elements of the Long Tail in action in many different places.



Uneven, 25 May 2008
Thought-provoking from both a cultural and commercial point of view, but it goes on a bit! Would have been better at half the length.

Compulsory Reading, 03 Jan 2009
Some reviewers have commented that this book is not as good as Felicity Lawrence's 'Not On The Label'. I would recommend both - they complement each other well, dealing with all manner of issues surrounding food production and consumption. Eat Your Heart Out is, of course, more up to date, but it's fair to say that little has really changed since Not On The Label was published and they cover differest aspects of a very big subject.

This book ties in so many aspects of a system that we should all know and care about, not least because it depends so heavily on exploitation, messes up the environment, is unsustainable and serves up a food that is simply not very good for us (despite the way it's advertised). If that all sounds a bit left-wing and radical-veggy, then I would add that one of the most shocking apsects is how tax-payers on both sides of the Atlantic are having to fork out for massive (and damaging) subsidies that don't actually seem to help those who really need it.

Felicity Lawrence does a great job of tying together the complex issues in a very readable way. Highly recommended - this really will change the way you think about food.


raises important issues but not an enjoyable read for me, 26 Dec 2008
I bought the book hoping that it would give a serious treatment of the issues surrounding food and big business but was left disappointed. My gripe is that the book presents an uneasy mixture of facts, quasi science, moral issues, the author's opinion, non facts presented as facts and annoying anecdotes.

I "heartily" (hhahha hmmmmm sorry) agree with the conclusions reached and would happily recommend the book but my gut feeling is that the author does not present a strong enough argument to counter cynical detractors.

Very good and informative but not as brilliant as the first book, 27 Nov 2008
I was surprised to see everyone rating this as 5 stars. While Felicity Laurence's last book really was a five star book. This book is less oustanding. I can not really explain why except that it seemed to be a bit less gripping than the last one, but only a bit. For example the description of how margerine was made was so long wordy and complex that it could have done with some diagrams. In the last book that would never have happened. There was one dull chapter where Laurence described a car ride to conference which I even found dull (which is really a rare thing with this author). But that was the only bad chapter. My last gripe was her slightly anti capitalist bent. I would have thought that the government subsidising unhealthy corporate food production is more a description of socialism defined as government intervention rather than "capitalism". I would still recommend this book to others and did enjoy my read. I learned quite a bit and things do make more sense now. She is absolutely right about the crazy domination of a handful of ingredients in so much of our food. After I developed IBS and M.E I had to avoid corn, soya and white sugar, and certain food additives/chemicals. I found that so much in existance had those artificial tiny handful of ingredients - and now I understand why.
Don't be put off buying the book from my review because it is a good book. Just don't expect the same level of brilliance as her last book "Not On the Label."

Wake up!, 26 Aug 2008
I found this book informative, revelatory and utterly compelling. You should definitely read it if you'd like to know more about how our food is adulterated beyond belief by the handful of faceless transnational corporations who control a vast amount of our food chain. The corollary of their unceasing quest to increase the "value added" to their products is that our food is nutrient-depleted to such an extent that we'd be better off eating the packaging their expensive, processed junk comes in.

I too found this a better read than "Not On The Label" in that it explained more thoroughly the health implications of moving away from a diet that has evolved naturally over several thousand years to one that was artificially manufactured in the second half of the last century - seemingly not in the best interests of consumers but rather to line the pockets of agribusiness and to further the geo-political aims of successive American and European governments. There's plenty of "and now the science bit" but, whilst being quite detailed, I never found it difficult to follow.

Before reading "Eat Your Heart Out" I felt a growing uneasiness about the direction our over-processed, convenience-led food supply was taking us. Now I feel much more informed about the damage that is being done to our health and society.

This book will open your eyes and may even radicalize you a little. It really is breathtaking what has happened to our diets in the course of just a few decades. Thankfully, the author remains (just) optomistic that we've not passed the point of no return, and that a deal of the damage can be undone. But that's gonna have to start with individuals changing their buying habits and modifying their lifestyles. "Eat Your Heart Out" explains exactly why you should start today.


Brilliant!, 05 Aug 2008
Once again Felicity Lawrence has given us a book which should be required reading for everyone who eats. She has outdone herself this time with the detail and scope of her investigations into how food is produced, how it is packaged and shipped, and on the strangle hold that three food corporations and the supermarkets have on what we eat. The section on soya was especially shocking and if you are a vegetarian or vegan you absolutely must read this section. Her first book prompted me to make many changes in how I shop. This book has shocked me into a complete re-evaluation of what I actually eat. Read this book and it will change your life.

CHEMICALS - WE ARE ALL MADE OF CHEMICALS!, 19 Jul 2008
Along with may other such publications, this embraces the view that, setting aside the very valid exploitation issues, anything relating to "CHEMICALS" are nasty and damaging!

We are all made up of a variety of chemicals - the very elements that are needed to build both us as humans and all that surrounds and feeds us.

Furthermore, the over-sanitisation of our world has lead to so many allergic reactions as we have not built up the antibodies that our forefathers did naturally. And our intervention into "lesser-known civilisations" has brought them new biological hazards for which they have no natural defence.

Basically the book just serves as yet another tirade against multiple food retailers - some of whom DO really care about production methods

Changed my life, 09 Dec 2007
My whole outlook on the food I eat, what I buy and where I buy has changed after reading this book. I started reading on the Friday and was finished by the Sunday. I no longer go to supermarkets, I seek out good local shops that sell quality foods. I buy organic wherever possible. I avoid process foods and I always read the label. It is truly shocking what manufacturers and supermarkets get away with.

You owe it to yourself, 29 Jun 2007
You owe it to yourself to scare yourself silly with this book.

Cheap food is good, right? Uh-oh. Everything 'cheap' is being paid for somewhere along the line - either in quality, or in pitiful wages for the workers, or in environmental damage.

You will never buy a washed salad pack again.

Recommended, 14 Jun 2007
Good book with lots of chunks I wanted to copy and forward on to folks. Chapters focus on ingredients and their production/marketing/adulteration. Everything on the shelves in the supermarket is adulterated, far worse than the horror scares in the 1800s, and yet the deceit surrounding the practice is much better managed these days. :(

Not... is *way* better (and more sympathetically) written than The Great Food Gamble which I also recently read on a bookring. This is as good as Fast Food Nation, and as relevant.

READ THIS BOOK if you care about your family and yourself, 25 Jan 2007
If you are conscious about your eating habits, and you probably are if you are looking at this book, then this will be an interesting read. Some things might not be totally new, but it certainly clarifies some things.

The examples given are focused on the U.K. food market, but it certainly translates to Europe in general.

There are some things you can easily change in your eating habits and the book is not too idealistic. In fact it helps to set realistic goals and even if you don't want to change anything ... at least be aware unless you want to stay ignorant.

would recommend, 09 Apr 2008
pretty hard reading at times, but the content is excellent and certainly gets one thinking about ethical shopping!

Fluent, Thought-provoking but breathtakingly superficial, 21 Jan 2008
As a rule, I am very suspicious of the sharp left-right divide that beclouds any political or economic discussion; there must be truth on both sides. Therefore, I bought this book in order to understand the rage felt by the anti-globalisation movement. I finished the book with the feeling that the book spectacularly failed to deliver. Naomi Klein breezily argues that:

- Multinational corporations have become more powerful than governments and somehow usurped the functions of the government without the accompanying accountability to the electorate

- Multinationals have "stolen" our public spaces and branded them beyond recognition

- These corporations have been responsible for the Post Cold War neoliberal agenda and have exploited the Third World in order to deliver ever cheaper goods to the First World.

The author brilliantly captures the sense of listlessness many people feel in an increasingly interconnected world and how these feelings have coalesced into various anti-corporate movements since 1989. The cozy world in which a person worked for the same corporation for 35 years, vacationed at the company resort and retired at a grand old age of 65 is no more. This feeling has been compounded by the fact that the posterchildren for this New Economy, multinational corporations, do not want to manufacture "stuff" anymore. Instead the corporations have moved into the "image" game. Ms Klein argues that in making this shift that the corporations have demanded ever lower production costs, pushing them to the emerging economies of the Third World. On further examination, this makes sense. Doesn't it? If Western consumers wanted to pay 100% extra for the Made-in-USA tag on a T-shirt then surely they'll fork out the cash at the mall. Instead, consumers have opted for cheaper clothing, food, electronics etc. The multinationals are only responding to the market.

As a Nigerian I was pleased that Shell's operations in my native country were scrutinised in view of the barbaric killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa. Ms Klein, however, paints an perversely unbalanced picture. While many in the West may instinctively blame Shell for dealing with despotic regimes such as Nigeria under Sani Abacha, Ms Klein provided precious little evidence that Shell actively colluded with the Abacha government in the killing of Mr Saro-Wiwa. Shell seemed to be a target because it has a visible and highly valuable brand name. The real culprit in the pillaging of Nigeria's mineral resource is not Shell but the faceless, amorphous Nigerian government. Hey, but since we cannot target General Abacha, why not crucify Shell instead?

When discussing economics Ms Klein is clearly out of her depth. The concept of comparative advantage-that firms (or countries) should focus on doing what they do best-was completely lost on her. It stands to reason that Western multinationals should focus on what they do best like branding, which is high-skill, capital intensive and leave the low-skilled task of actually making , say shoes, to countries with abundant low-skilled workers in the Third World. Ms Klein rehashes misguided populist notions such as that globalisation erodes democracy in far off lands while stripping First World workers of their God-given jobs in multinational corporations. One problem with this arguement is that it fails to show how much wealth these globalising corporations have generated for their home nations. Have the US and the UK not become richer in the last 15 years? Moreover, several studies have shown that these off-shored jobs are a small percentage of the total number of jobs generated in the West. Furthermore, she depicts the export Processing Zones in the Philippines as the old Wild West, where militaristic, multinational corporations pay little tax and are a law unto themselves. Can this really be true? If locating factories in Export Processing Zones were so bad for The Philippines, why does the government allow them?

The book ignores the successes of trade liberalisation in the Third World. There was no mention of the millions of people who have been lifted from back-breaking poverty by the relocation of factories such as Nike's in Indonesia, Vietnam and China. Instead, we are asked to feel sorry for narcissistic, middle-class, Western suburbanites who have lost their "space" to branding. Interesting argument, but I did not buy it. Fact is trade has been proven to be the best way to lift peoples out of poverty. Since, Ms Klein does not have the foggiest idea what pre-industrial rural poverty really feels like, I will excuse her oversight.

In exposing the factory conditions in which Nike sneakers are made in Indonesia, Ms Klein describes these factories as some Oriental Hell, where no one would want to work. Yet, despite, the horrible conditions people still flock to these export processing zones. I suspect that one of the reasons why a 19-year old Indonesian woman would rather work in the factory than on the land is that factory work pays better. Was this not the case during the Industrial Revolution in Europe? Why did the mills of the English Midlands continue attracting peasants from the country side? I can tell, from personal experience, that working for a Western multinational corporation in my native Nigeria is so much more rewarding than working for a local company.

The book romanticises some time in recent Western history when corporations were employers of choice, the Third World was some distant place where you went to on an exotic vacation or perhaps sent some aid dollars to and where we in the West could live sheltered, cocooned lives. Unfortunately, such an idyllic past (if it ever existed) is unlikely to return soon. The fact is that we are connected more than ever before. It is no surprise that the Third World wants in on the action also. Afterall, material wealth is not the exclusive preserve of the "North".

In conclusion, the book is quite readable and made me stop to think about how powerful multinational corporations have become. However, it seethes with self-righteous anger and provides very little new ideas on how to help the individual losers in globalisation. If you want a balanced account of the impact of open markets (globalisation) then I would recommend you read No Logo in addition to Legrain's Open World and Nayan Chanda's Bound Together. Trashing G8 and WTO Summits make for catchy headlines but it does nothing to lift people out of poverty.

No Longer, 12 Jun 2007
It's worth remembering the stir created when this book came out 6 years ago. Looking at it again now is a great measure of how quickly culture has moved. No Logo will be remembered as a truly ground-breaking book that galvanised the attitudes of a generation who had a sneaky feeling that something wasn't right but struggled to articulate it. That's a nice way of saying that it now feels quite dated - although perhaps that's the perfect compliment as it clearly did it's job of waking us all up to our global responsibilities.

The Third World has always existed for the comfort of the First, 03 Nov 2006
Naomi Klein sketches perfectly the major shift in corporate strategy today: transnational companies are not interested in production anymore, only in branding: products are made in factories, brands in the mind. Branding creates big margins, production in home countries meager earnings.

This strategy causes monstrous layoffs in the First World and creates EPZ (Export Processing Zones) in the Third World.
In the First world, corporations transformed themselves in `engines of wealth growth' for their shareholders, instead of `engines of job growth'. `CEO's of the 30 companies with the largest announced layoffs saw their total compensation increase by 67%.'
The jobs they need are predominantly outsourced, or are McJobs (no `adult wages') and temporary stop-jobs.
The First World stirs fierce competition between Third World countries in order to get rock-bottom prices for their `branded' products, creating colossal margins in the home countries.
Wages in EPZs are so low that most of the money is spent on shared dorm rooms and basic food. Workers cannot afford the consumer goods they produce.

Another aspect of our branded world is the sheer size of the (trans)national corporations created by relentless mergers and acquisitions. Their size permits them to decide what items (also magazines, DVDs) should be stocked in a store, in other words, they create a new kind of censorship.
Big mergers in the media landscape allow conglomerates to produce their own news and in this sense jeopardize basic civil liberties.

While Naomi Klein's analysis of our consumer planet is very revealing, the remedies she proposes are rather innocent, epidermic, symptom healing or too general: ad and brand busting, radical ecology (Reclaim the Streets), anti-globalization and anti-corporate mass protests, boycott, building greater critical social consciousness. Individual actions like attacking in court (Shell in Nigeria), revealing Nike's sweatshops or denouncing McDonald's food are ultimately not more than temporary needle pricks in elephant skins.
What the world needs is a global vision, which we can find in the works of Joseph Stiglitz or (for a view from the South) Walden Bello.

Highly recommended.


Excellent but slightly flawed, 25 Oct 2006
At first glance, "No Logo" looks to be a real chore with some 430 or so pages, but actually turns out to be an informative, well-written and engaging insight into corporate culture and practice, into how multinational corporations are gradually taking over and how the society is beginning to fight back. Due to the concepts and ideas introduced and discussed, I also found it to be a genuinely useful book, having come in handy for uni studies, employment and even social gatherings in general, occasions when marketing or globalisation-related issues have cropped up in conversation.

One reviewer quite rightly mentioned "The Rebel Sell", a book in which, if my memory serves me correctly, the authors point out that Klein was once a resident of a rich, suburban area she herself criticises in "No Logo". Reading "The Rebel Sell" has put "No Logo" in a different light and calls Klein's motives for writing it into question - is it the rallying cry to fight against globalisation it claims to be, or has she just spotted an opportunity to make a killing? This is where the book comes across as flawed.

In spite of it, I'd consider "No Logo" essential reading, and I felt a lot more informed for having read it.

Repetitive, 08 Jan 2009
Sometimes a book may have excellent concept and ideas, but fails on execution. In my opinion, The Long tail is one of them; when the same theory is being presented in a book repeatedly, one gets bored with it regardless how great the theory may be.

Would have been an excellent book if the author was a bit more concise with his point and reduce the length by half.



A winning concept, 07 Aug 2008
Chris Andreson has written a down-to-earth, incisive and savvy page-turner to tell the story of how the almost unlimited choice brought about new internet-driven technologies has changed the rules of the game for business and the online/offline consumer markets.

Miss it at your peril.

A mixed bag, 26 Jul 2008
I finished this book sometime ago, but had to ponder for a while before writing about it. My dilemma revolves around two points. First, it is an interesting, well written, read. Second, the evidence presented is entirely anecdotal.

Anderson's thesis is very simple. The rise of businesses like Amazon and eBay, coupled with the interpersonal communication facilities afforded by the Internet, has effectively created unlimited demand. He argues that he has identified a business opportunity to make a profit in niche areas that were not previously profitable.

The explanation given is fairly simple. The development of the Internet means that more people have access to minority items, and the development of filtering technology, especially collaborative filtering technology, means that people can identify material they are interested in more easily.

The concept is seductive and well argued. Unfortunately, more recent research (the book was published several years ago) is not really supporting the idea. Not only that, but I have been unable to find any examples of successful businesses just based on the long tail model. As the Western world slides into a recession of the next year or so, it will soon become clear whether this is yet another idea from the digeratii which is based on the assumption that the good times will last for ever, or contains some real meat.

Five stars for entertainment value. One star for lack of research!


Simple but infectious, 25 May 2008
Overall I really liked The Long Tail, I found it very interesting, well written and easy to read. The only slight criticism I have, which is the reason for the 4 star rating, is that is does feel as though it could have been shortened a little without losing any of the content.

The overarching idea of the book is that if you can drive down the costs of producing, distributing and finding content, people will start to move away from "hit-driven" mass-market content and start to find a world filled with niches that fill their desires more completely. It's not a particularly complex idea but it has some interesting potential consequences, as highlighted throughout the book.

Whether or not you should completely buy into this, or how far you may see it changing the way people find and consume things such as music and entertainment, is open to debate. What I can say is that since reading the book I have begun to notice elements of the Long Tail in action in many different places.



Uneven, 25 May 2008
Thought-provoking from both a cultural and commercial point of view, but it goes on a bit! Would have been better at half the length.

Compulsory Reading, 03 Jan 2009
Some reviewers have commented that this book is not as good as Felicity Lawrence's 'Not On The Label'. I would recommend both - they complement each other well, dealing with all manner of issues surrounding food production and consumption. Eat Your Heart Out is, of course, more up to date, but it's fair to say that little has really changed since Not On The Label was published and they cover differest aspects of a very big subject.

This book ties in so many aspects of a system that we should all know and care about, not least because it depends so heavily on exploitation, messes up the environment, is unsustainable and serves up a food that is simply not very good for us (despite the way it's advertised). If that all sounds a bit left-wing and radical-veggy, then I would add that one of the most shocking apsects is how tax-payers on both sides of the Atlantic are having to fork out for massive (and damaging) subsidies that don't actually seem to help those who really need it.

Felicity Lawrence does a great job of tying together the complex issues in a very readable way. Highly recommended - this really will change the way you think about food.


raises important issues but not an enjoyable read for me, 26 Dec 2008
I bought the book hoping that it would give a serious treatment of the issues surrounding food and big business but was left disappointed. My gripe is that the book presents an uneasy mixture of facts, quasi science, moral issues, the author's opinion, non facts presented as facts and annoying anecdotes.

I "heartily" (hhahha hmmmmm sorry) agree with the conclusions reached and would happily recommend the book but my gut feeling is that the author does not present a strong enough argument to counter cynical detractors.

Very good and informative but not as brilliant as the first book, 27 Nov 2008
I was surprised to see everyone rating this as 5 stars. While Felicity Laurence's last book really was a five star book. This book is less oustanding. I can not really explain why except that it seemed to be a bit less gripping than the last one, but only a bit. For example the description of how margerine was made was so long wordy and complex that it could have done with some diagrams. In the last book that would never have happened. There was one dull chapter where Laurence described a car ride to conference which I even found dull (which is really a rare thing with this author). But that was the only bad chapter. My last gripe was her slightly anti capitalist bent. I would have thought that the government subsidising unhealthy corporate food production is more a description of socialism defined as government intervention rather than "capitalism". I would still recommend this book to others and did enjoy my read. I learned quite a bit and things do make more sense now. She is absolutely right about the crazy domination of a handful of ingredients in so much of our food. After I developed IBS and M.E I had to avoid corn, soya and white sugar, and certain food additives/chemicals. I found that so much in existance had those artificial tiny handful of ingredients - and now I understand why.
Don't be put off buying the book from my review because it is a good book. Just don't expect the same level of brilliance as her last book "Not On the Label."

Wake up!, 26 Aug 2008
I found this book informative, revelatory and utterly compelling. You should definitely read it if you'd like to know more about how our food is adulterated beyond belief by the handful of faceless transnational corporations who control a vast amount of our food chain. The corollary of their unceasing quest to increase the "value added" to their products is that our food is nutrient-depleted to such an extent that we'd be better off eating the packaging their expensive, processed junk comes in.

I too found this a better read than "Not On The Label" in that it explained more thoroughly the health implications of moving away from a diet that has evolved naturally over several thousand years to one that was artificially manufactured in the second half of the last century - seemingly not in the best interests of consumers but rather to line the pockets of agribusiness and to further the geo-political aims of successive American and European governments. There's plenty of "and now the science bit" but, whilst being quite detailed, I never found it difficult to follow.

Before reading "Eat Your Heart Out" I felt a growing uneasiness about the direction our over-processed, convenience-led food supply was taking us. Now I feel much more informed about the damage that is being done to our health and society.

This book will open your eyes and may even radicalize you a little. It really is breathtaking what has happened to our diets in the course of just a few decades. Thankfully, the author remains (just) optomistic that we've not passed the point of no return, and that a deal of the damage can be undone. But that's gonna have to start with individuals changing their buying habits and modifying their lifestyles. "Eat Your Heart Out" explains exactly why you should start today.


Brilliant!, 05 Aug 2008
Once again Felicity Lawrence has given us a book which should be required reading for everyone who eats. She has outdone herself this time with the detail and scope of her investigations into how food is produced, how it is packaged and shipped, and on the strangle hold that three food corporations and the supermarkets have on what we eat. The section on soya was especially shocking and if you are a vegetarian or vegan you absolutely must read this section. Her first book prompted me to make many changes in how I shop. This book has shocked me into a complete re-evaluation of what I actually eat. Read this book and it will change your life.

CHEMICALS - WE ARE ALL MADE OF CHEMICALS!, 19 Jul 2008
Along with may other such publications, this embraces the view that, setting aside the very valid exploitation issues, anything relating to "CHEMICALS" are nasty and damaging!

We are all made up of a variety of chemicals - the very elements that are needed to build both us as humans and all that surrounds and feeds us.

Furthermore, the over-sanitisation of our world has lead to so many allergic reactions as we have not built up the antibodies that our forefathers did naturally. And our intervention into "lesser-known civilisations" has brought them new biological hazards for which they have no natural defence.

Basically the book just serves as yet another tirade against multiple food retailers - some of whom DO really care about production methods

Changed my life, 09 Dec 2007
My whole outlook on the food I eat, what I buy and where I buy has changed after reading this book. I started reading on the Friday and was finished by the Sunday. I no longer go to supermarkets, I seek out good local shops that sell quality foods. I buy organic wherever possible. I avoid process foods and I always read the label. It is truly shocking what manufacturers and supermarkets get away with.

You owe it to yourself, 29 Jun 2007
You owe it to yourself to scare yourself silly with this book.

Cheap food is good, right? Uh-oh. Everything 'cheap' is being paid for somewhere along the line - either in quality, or in pitiful wages for the workers, or in environmental damage.

You will never buy a washed salad pack again.

Recommended, 14 Jun 2007
Good book with lots of chunks I wanted to copy and forward on to folks. Chapters focus on ingredients and their production/marketing/adulteration. Everything on the shelves in the supermarket is adulterated, far worse than the horror scares in the 1800s, and yet the deceit surrounding the practice is much better managed these days. :(

Not... is *way* better (and more sympathetically) written than The Great Food Gamble which I also recently read on a bookring. This is as good as Fast Food Nation, and as relevant.

READ THIS BOOK if you care about your family and yourself, 25 Jan 2007
If you are conscious about your eating habits, and you probably are if you are looking at this book, then this will be an interesting read. Some things might not be totally new, but it certainly clarifies some things.

The examples given are focused on the U.K. food market, but it certainly translates to Europe in general.

There are some things you can easily change in your eating habits and the book is not too idealistic. In fact it helps to set realistic goals and even if you don't want to change anything ... at least be aware unless you want to stay ignorant.

A must read for anyone especially parents, 09 Apr 2008
This book was a real eye opener on how much damage television can do to us especially our children.
Dr. Sigman systematically goes through the various ways in which television can harm us and what we can do about it. I have dramatically reduced my watching time and my children's. Even my husband has cut down!

I had already noticed behavioral changes in my children while watching and after watching television. This book has reinforced for me that television is not good for anyone especially children.

This book is a must for anyone who has children.

don't bother, 12 Feb 2008
Don't bother with this book. The author mainly gives his own rambling reasons for getting rid of the TV. Some of it is mildly interesting. Most of it is just opinionated waffle. For example, he spends a lot of time trying to make a case for violence on TV making children violent. This has never been proven and to try and argue it without scientific backing weakens his argument. And as for why he thinks it relevant to talk about the best sexual position for concieving a child is anyone's guess....
It may be interesting if you have never seriously considered getting rid of the TV before, but for a reasoned and scientific analysis of the (very) harmful effects of the medium then buy and read 'The Plug-in Drug' by Marie Winn.

The TV is a health hazard especially for children, 13 Oct 2006
This is an excellent book. The TV is damaging people and society in general. Children are especially at risk for it stunts their brain's development. BBC on-line dismisses the results of modern medical research regarding the harmful effect of the TV. However who would you rather believe the TV companies or scientific research? Dr Sigman writes clearly and well in this life changing book. Everyone should read this book. All I can say is give up the TV and Get a life.

Eye opening, 12 Apr 2006
I have a seven month old son, and have not allowed him to be in the room when the television is turned on. At a few weeks old in particular I noticed how when the television was turned on, he would becomed mesmerised and begin ignoring everything else. But I would try to snatch opportunities to view whilst he was asleep. Since I started reading this book, my television viewing has been slashed, and now on completion, I have become more aware of the effects TV is having whilst watching - physiological as well as psychological. For example, in a drama I was watching yesterday, a person was standing at a cliff edge about to jump off and I noticed my own palms becoming sweaty.

This book systematically goes through the evidence and Sigman draws clear conclusions. The tone is balanced and therefore avoids sounding patronising. And its also very easy reading.

This book really is life-changing. As a reviewer below suggested, 'turn off the TV and read this book. Then tell anyone you care about to read it, especially if they have children'!

Excellent and life changing discourse on t.v. viewing, 11 Feb 2006
I have a two and half year old Son and was drawn to read this book, as I have also two other children twenty years older who were raised when childrens' t.v. did not really exist.
Everyone, should read this book, it is both fascinating and compelling and I challenge anyone who reads it not to find it changes how they see that box that sits in the corner of all our sitting rooms, (and more to the point in our bedrooms and our childrens bedrooms!).The book is extremely easy to read and the facts and research referred to give information that is simply 'jaw-dropping'.
When I finished this book I stopped my son viewing any t.v. at all. He was two and a quarter and not speaking at all, for which we were concerned. Within two weeks he suddenly started talking. You might say this was a happy coincidence, but I urge you to read this book and judge for yourself. Incidentally I lent this book to my 25 year old daughter who has two sons. She rang me having finished it and said 'Mum I wish I had a £1000 to spare, I would buy as many copies of this book as I can and leave it everywhere for people to read'.