The problem is it's hard to hold people accountable for their actions because the liberal court system doesn't allow for it. As a fellow sigma, I don't let anyone walk all over me anymore, learned that the hard way after my wife cheated on me and took the kids. I once bought a shirt from Facebook marketplace and it had a rip in it, I sued the seller for 10 million USD in damages, didn't win the court case. When I tried to get the money back he refused to give me it in Monero. This country is screwed.
I have several polo Ralph Lauren clothing items in my home, the logo hasn’t changed significantly in 30+ years in shape or size on the normal polos. They do have some items that have the polo logo or the teddy bear larger but those are in the main Ralph Lauren line for fashion, not the Polo line polo shirts that are a business casual intent
I always make car dealers take their own sticker or badge off of any vehicle I buy.
I usually offer to keep the advertising in place, in exchange for a discount, but they never take me up on it.
Funny to see this, because I haven't bought a vehicle in a long time, but I had the EXACT same thought.
I grimace every time I see that hideous "CarMax - - -" decal stuck to the actual car body.
Same with license plate frames that are like
"Huge 'Dicky' Richard's Auto Circus Emporium Honda Jeep Lexus - We rub you right!"
At least those just tell me "the driver is likely lazy or can't identify a screwdriver." But an actual decal? Yeah they better take it off, and discount me if they scratch it in the process. :p
At least they aren't riveting badges onto cars anymore I've heard that used to be super common during the 60s and 70s Personally I hate how my 56 bel air has a AAA of Syracuse screwed into the bodywork of my trunk so even if I remove it there's still going to be a hole in my trunk so I'm personally pretty glad all this branding today are just decals and stickers that can easily be removed with a eraser wheel or plastic blades
The irony is that this is often true. I have always preferred shirts that have minimal advertising on them (preferably none, but a dime sized insignia is generally the best you get) but they are notably harder to find and when you do, they are more expensive. The happy medium I have found is looking for used Polo type shirts that were expensive when new, which I can generally find cheaply because collars aren't a popular look these days.
You mean blank t-shirts? Because blank t-shirts are usually a lot cheaper than ones with a logo, and most other kinds of shirts I don't usually see logos on them but maybe we shop in different places. For t-shirts I used to get them from a screen printing vendor because I liked ha ING multiple different colored shirts and they were usually around like 2-3 dollars per shirt depending on the brand
Not bad, but I was mostly referring to brand names, generally with better fabric than just blank t shirts. I have plenty of those shirts that have Pima or other expensive fabrics that I paid $5-20 for a piece used. They are a lot more comfortable, and generally last longer.
Now, there's the adjacent, but not the same thing of band shirts or similar merchandise. The difference is that in theory, the band/artist is going to benefit from the purchase. It is still advertising that I'm paying for, but, because merchandise is often a big income stream for musicians in particular, I don't object to being their billboard if I like them enough to get anything of theirs in the first place.
When it's a clothing company? Hell no. If their label/logo is more than the size of a tag, I'm not doing it. I don't mind the idea of a trademark/label/tag being present, that's expected. It's when the branding becomes the design that it's a problem.
Yeah I'm fond of the "Tshirts that make a statement" thing.
It's personal expression to say "Hey I'm really into this band and I might've gone to this concert!" Could be a conversation starter too, and it supports the band or artist like you said!
But I really don't understand people walking around with some billboard from a clothing mega-brand. You're literally paying them to do marketing work for them lol.
I wish this was a thing... All the shirts I've gotten in the last few years have been $40-50 and have the brand's logo on the back near the neckline (they also came with stickers that are advertising the brand). I would usually only spend $5-10 for a shirt, but these are limited prints and most of them are on really good, comfortable shirts. Just look how cool my newest one is:
Initially that was the only way you could buy weed in Maine from a delivery service before they allowed recreational dispensaries. $50 T-shirt with a free bag of weed.
I just bought a shirt with a vintage PBS logo from the 1980s, which I did not buy from PBS since they aren't selling it, but I would have paid to advertise PBS from a PBS store if they sold it with the 1980s logo.
So yeah, I pay to advertise public television- and public radio, since I really need an NPR shirt as well. We also give them money every year. And we get back really excellent journalism, so it's worth it.
Now Nike? Fuck Nike. I'd never wear their fucking swoosh.
Those Apple stickers. This was in the Bay Area but not that many people work at Apple. Even if they did, who would advertise their employer on their car??
In sociology and in economics, the term conspicuous consumption describes and explains the consumer practice of buying and using goods of a higher quality, price, or in greater quantity than practical. In 1899, the sociologist Thorstein Veblen coined the term conspicuous consumption to explain the spending of money on and the acquiring of luxury commodities (goods and services) specifically as a public display of economic power—the income and the accumulated wealth—of the buyer. To the conspicuous consumer, the public display of discretionary income is an economic means of either attaining or of maintaining a given social status.
This results in what may be known as Veblen goods, for which the demand increases as the price increases, in apparent contradiction of the law of demand, resulting in an upward-sloping demand curve.
I admit I buy T-shirts at micro-breweries. I do support those that I actually buy. Additionally, it helps me keep record of my journey of visiting many breweries.
I've even turned some of my collection into a king sized quilt and a lap quilt. So, my shirts are very useful in more ways than one.
I think it's different when you're talking about a small business or a nonprofit or a museum. Paying $20 to advertise things that actually make the world a better place that people wouldn't otherwise know about is, in my opinion, a net good.
My biggest collection of branded t-shirts are from my favorite podcasts. But they tend to have some kind of comedic style or logo, rather than a simple bland "The Name Of The Show" printed in block letters across the front.
It's true that this is how most consumers act. It's dumb, but iirc it's factually correct.
If you take a brand name shirt, remove the logo in a way that is visually perfect, and sell them side-by-side, then the logo shirt will outsell the non-logo shirt. Or so I've heard.
Absolutely. There are definitely people like OP who prefer products without branding, but for the majority (average) of consumers in many markets, the branding actually adds value.
"SuPrEmE" somehow did this and created a rabid following over some of the most basic stuff I've ever seen. It's a meme now to just stick their logo on like, a literal brick so it's suddenly more "desirable."
That is an extreme example of this, yes. Other examples of branding can be much more subtle and deft, e.g. Apple’s product design. It’s not in-your-face but nevertheless it’s present and adds to the consumer experience and perception of value.
This is true to a point. Once you go past brands Ralph Lauren, Gucci, or Versace to the "real" expensive brands, they become understated again. For example, this $555 blue T-shirt
I go pretty far to my way to make sure my branded t-shirts are from small to mid-sized online content creators that I enjoy. It works out because they usually put a lot of effort into making sure their stuff is unique
Also grocery bags. I pay for them, don't want you logo on it
One alcohol bewerage chain in Russia popularized the blank black bag format in recent years, in theory - to make it less obvious you've bought booze. They are sturdy, have good handles, so overall it's a win. But since they are the most popular source of them, a blank black bag therefore automatically means booze.
It's damn near impossible to find bags without some greedy shit grocery companies trashy branding all over it. I still use plastic bags. Got a million of them in the weird plastic tub thing that everyone has a million of them in.
People look when I pull out some 15 year old plastic bag is amazing.
You’re paying for an ad-free experience with no logo. You could always make your own ad-blocked and cover up the logo on scrape it off if you want the cheaper one with no ads.
With very few exceptions, I will wear a shirt until it's just not wearable anymore. If the image is really faded, I don't care much.
The only exceptions right now are two shirts I still have from my previous job that I hated. I'm mostly keeping them around in case my wife wants them for some sort of craft project.
Interestingly, sometime after highschool, roughly around 20 years old, I stopped wearing/buying clothing with logos on them. Except for footwear, they'll always have their logo imprinted.
Yeah but it's a tight balancing act between selling at a higher volume vs selling at a higher price. If they're already selling high volumes of low quality, then going lower could put them in the negative, in theory. In reality there isn't enough competition for that logic to work, we buy low quality at high costs.
Tbh I feel like this is sometimes the case. Whenever I've looked for really cheap basic one-color t-shirts, the lowest cost ones usually have a brand logo on them.