[Clough]

Hi, All!

A lot of clothing actually has the brand name on it. Those are the types of clothing that I prefer not to wear. After all, the manufacturer isn't paying me to advertise for them.

If it's clothing that has the commemoration of some kind of event or place, like a race, vacation spot, concert, etc. then I really don't mind wearing them. But, just to have the logo or name of the manufacturer on the clothing is something that I really don't like.

Sure, what's "in" might be the thing to wear. The status quo does have some merit. I don't really want to look like I dress and act according to 15th century standards on a daily basis! Improvements have and are made according to climate and what not. I'm sure that you catch my "drift", here!

But, do we really need to be promoting the manufacturers of such things? I don't even like to have the names of the places where I purchased my automobiles on them!

Thanks!

[firmbeliever]

What a coincidence, I was just thinking of the same thing.

More about letting my little girl be a walking billboard for brand names .There is this craze going around kids her age that they have to have a labeled item, especially when going to school.

Their bags or lunch boxes will have Ben10 or Barbie or Naruto or Spongebob or some other cartoonish character that happens to be their favourite. Some parents I know go overboard with buying all the matching accessories for their kids.Some can hardly afford it,but they do spoil the kids.

I don't mind a label now and then, not because of the label itself but more to do with me liking the whole design. I agree with you that clothing that has the label splashed all over it, is not something I would wear.


.

[justcurious55]

I'd never actually thought about it this way before, as free advertising. I just don't typically go for the designer labels because I'm cheap. I thinks its silly that someone will pay $50 for a shirt because of a logo the size of my thumbnail when I can get an identical, minus the logo for $5. I just don't get it.

[Clough]

i'd never actually thought about it this way before, as free advertising. i just don't typically go for the designer labels because i'm cheap. i thinks its silly that someone will pay $50 for a shirt because of a logo the size of my thumbnail when i can get an identical, minus the logo for $5. i just don't get it.

It is free advertising for the manufacturer. I don't think that you're "cheap". It sounds more like you're frugal!

[Clough]

What a coincidence, I was just thinking of the same thing.

More about letting my little girl be a walking billboard for brand names .There is this craze going around kids her age that they have to have a labeled item, especially when going to school.

Their bags or lunch boxes will have Ben10 or Barbie or Naruto or Spongebob or some other cartoonish character that happens to be their favourite. Some parents I know go overboard with buying all the matching accessories for their kids.Some can hardly afford it,but they do spoil the kids.

I dont mind a label now and then, not because of the label itself but more to do with me liking the whole design. I agree with you that clothing that has the label splashed all over it, is not something I would wear.


.

Where do we "draw the line" then? That is, if a line can even be drawn?

[ebaines]

I think there are two kinds of "advertising" here - one is the good kind and the other is the bad kind:

The good kind - is when a company has a design style that sets it apart, and if they're good at it the style becomes iconic. Examples: the Lacoste alligator (as pioneers in polo shirts that alligator was a symbol for a unique styleo of shirt - since endlessly copied by wannabees), Gucci hand bags, the Burberry checker pattern, Rolex watch bands, and the "double kidney" front grill of a BMW. These items are recognizable even without you having to see the company name on the product. So in a sense they are advertising, but I don't think anyoine begrudges their use.

The bad kind - when a manufacturer simply slaps a big company name onto an item without developing a unique design style to complement it. Examples: Abercrombie and Fitch, the "FCUK" logo (yecch!), or the auto dealer who slaps his dealership name on the rear of your car. These are the items that I "draw the line on."

[Clough]

I think there are two kinds of "advertising" here - one is the good kind and the other is the bad kind:

The good kind - is when a company has a design style that sets it apart, and if they're good at it the style becomes iconic. Examples: the Lacoste alligator (as pioneers in polo shirts that alligator was a symbol for a unique styleo of shirt - since endlessly copied by wannabees), Gucci hand bags, the Burberry checker pattern, Rolex watch bands, and the "double kidney" front grill of a BMW. These items are recognizable even without you having to see the company name on the product. So in a sense they are advertising, but I don't think anyoine begrudges their use.

The bad kind - when a manufacturer simply slaps a big company name onto an item without developing a unique design style to complement it. Examples: Abercrombie and Fitch, the "FCUK" logo (yecch!), or the auto dealer who slaps his dealership name on the rear of your car. These are the items that I "draw the line on."

Excellent perspective there, ebaines!

[hheath541]

The bad kind - when a manufacturer simply slaps a big company name onto an item without developing a unique design style to complement it. Examples: Abercrombie and Fitch, the "FCUK" logo (yecch!), or the auto dealer who slaps his dealership name on the rear of your car. These are the items that I "draw the line on."

And those are the items I refuse to wear.

When I buy clothes, it's because I like the color and style and how it fits (unless I'm going for frumpy, comfy clothes). I don't like words, or even large pictures, smeared across the fabric. I don't care HOW popular a brand is or HOW much it costs, I don't need the company brand or logo being a featured part of my wardrobe.

Now, I don't care if it happens to have an inconspicuously placed, small design or whatever. If you can't tell what it is from more than 10-15 feet away, them I see no problem with it being on my clothes. If you can read it from across the BLOCK, then it's not going in my wardrobe.

Maybe that's because I was raised poor. We didn't have the money for the popular brand clothes. I almost always wore thrift store finds and hand-me-downs. Most of those were generic, brandless clothes. When I was younger, I was lucky if I even liked the clothes my mom bought me. They were usually plain-colored, and always overly conservative.

Even now that I'm older and have complete say over what I wear, I tend more toward lesser-known or brandless clothes. Most of my clothes are plain-colored, but I do love a good pattern. There is a very distinct difference between a pattern and a design, however. I'm not a fan of most designs.