This is especially true with luxury brands like Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Prada. People are either trying to impress others with fakes, or they’ve actually paid full price to become walking billboards.
Similar thing with iPhone cases that have a cutout for the Apple logo. That’s just hilarious.
Yep. Some years ago, I made the decision to never wear logos or anything with a brand name on it. It’s a silly thing to do and there are plenty of clothes out there that are just clothes.
With those luxury brands the bigger the logo the cheaper it is. The really expensive stuff doesn’t have a logo or is small and subtle.
Just look at the stuff Hermes makes. Almost nothing has a logo and if it has it just a subtle “H” They are one of the few luxury brands that hasn’t followed the luxury street wear fad and are growing in sales. While the more mainstream luxury brands like Gucci and LV are losing customers since those brands are being associated with trashy people, because of their focus on mainstream “luxury” street wear. Like in my country street thugs wear Gucci and LV.
Yep. Real high end clothing just looks like clothing. You have no idea that the person you are talking to has an $800 sweater on.
And it just looks very good, no flashy Blingbling and such, very subtle. Can’t afford it tho. In Seoul and Singapore was a very high density of people wearing this kind of clothing
Generally, I agree with this. Not quite w/ regards to Nike and some other brands, (most of Nike’s competitors, Apple) , since they put the logo on everything as part of their design asthetic. Whether you like that or not is personal choice, of course. Personally, I miss the old colorful Apple logo.
With luxury brands, yeah it’s a blatant cash grab extracting money from poorer people by selling them the mirage of owning something luxurious. The stuff you buy at the mall isn’t sold at their Rodeo Drive location! That said, some luxury brands do qualify for “buy it for life” status, though having the kind of quality isn’t exclusive to luxury brands (see also: Zippo lighters, and many many other solid, reasonably priced brands).
I think with LV, specifically, it’s things like wallets that just last forever. The rest of it, meh.
I find the same to be true when people buy cars with illuminated insignia in the grill. Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen, for example.
I would challenge you to find a modern automobile manufacturer who doesn’t make their logo huge and illuminated. Also, you can no longer remove them, as they’re often now build into the body-work or grille .
I’ve never seen an illuminated logo from manufacturers other than those I’ve listed. Large, sure. Though some like Kia or Hyundai I haven’t seen get huge. Honda, maybe?
I’d snip the wires immediately if my car had one like that.
Though, interestingly on my previous car I tried a front mask without the logo on it and it looked weird. Like something was missing and I didn’t like that. I then ended up just blacking out the logo like I did with my current one and I think it looks better that way. From the tailgate I did remove it along with other markings and I much prefer the clean look.
Yeah I think if you’re going to be advertising their brand the product should be free or they should even be paying you to wear it out in public.
Now we need an Ad blocker.
Maybe we already do and aren’t aware of it?
Edit: /s if it wasn’t obvious.
The funny thing is that the rich people know that those are 2nd class luxury. The real luxury clothes do not have big logos, they are made with expensive materials like silk, cashmere and other expensive hand crafted fabrics that most people can only afford exceptionally. Most Luxury brand sold their soul for profits by creating those 2nd class that wanna-look rich people can afford, but they still sell their actually valuable products to actually rich clients, without big logos.
P.S.: those 2nd class luxury are made in the same Asian sweatshops as the fast fashion like H&M, while real luxury are made by highly skilled workers, usually in Western countries.
They are walking billboards.
This is happening with non-luxury brands too. I was looking for a simple sports t-shirt lately and it’s actually really hard to find one without a huge brand logo at the front. Do people actually like this?
I’ve made an exception once or twice for a logo that actually looks good. I think that is, considering how many pieces of clothing I’ve seen and not chosen, something like a one-in-a-million chance.
Some do like it, but I’m with you; I skip the logo’d clothing.
Same sentiment here - but with the exception of band t-shirts and other merchandise - where in most cases you do want to show your support for the artist.
I definitely consider a band shirt an ad as well, but wearing one feels like a conscious decision to show your preference for that band and perhaps attract like-minded people. With clothing brands, however, it’s more about signaling wealth and status rather than admiration for the brand itself. You’re wearing an ad and being oblivious to it.
It’s the exact same thing, you just have different goals and values from the other group of people
A band is not the same as a luxury fashion brand.
One is exploited by massive corporations, gets a single digit percentage of the profits they generate, gets known by word of mouth (or T-shirt) among fans, and creates a piece of culture.
The other is a (usually massive) corporation, exploits low paid workers, is a status symbol for the rich and the people who want to appear as rich, and sometimes they make an item that could technically be considered a piece of culture.
Advertising for and/or showing your support for them are very different things that imply different things, for different reasons.
Wearing band merch implies support for their musical stylings, a connection with the creative output of the band, and possibly their world view.
Wearing a logo-festooned piece of couture clothing implies wealth and status, and (often) complicity with sweat shops.
While the two previous paragraphs seem to be similar, because of the first two paragraphs, they are quite different.
The concept is the same. You’re advertising your favourite band, they’re advertising their need for approval.
I don’t know how the brands exploitation of their workers is in any way relevant to this.
A sports piece of clothing or equipment is functional with or without the flashy branding; a piece of merch however is not (especially if it’s just decorative - like a pin, a sew-on patch or something like that).
The only other type of clothing with clear, visible branding I own aside from band shirts is tech vendor shirts from conferences. But those I get for free, so I didn’t exactly pay to become their billboard.
“Free”
The amount of money that those conferences cost my job and the amount of time I spend blocking cold calls from vendors that gave me shwag…
“free” for me. My job has conference/training budget that is use-it-or-lose-it, so might as well go for it. You can also talk your way through getting swag without giving up your contact details, or just provide fake ones.
there’s a brand I like that sells fast fashion (sue me) with 0 branding on any of their clothing items
I have like a dozen sweaters from them, they aren’t as cheap as they used to be but nothing is now
This reminds me of “Back to the Future”, where Lorraine calls Marty “Calvin Klein”, after she had seen his underwear…
They are fulfilling their purpose though. These people are trying to announce their “status” in society so others know how rich and successful they are. They’re not advertising the brand, they’re using the brand to advertise themselves. The problem is that a lot of people in society are actually impressed by shit like that.
My Filipino wife is a big believer in brand names and having them plastered everywhere. Drives me fucking nuts. She equates looks with quality.
She got me hooked on watching videos about the Philippines. All the girls are sporting clothes with giant logos.
They are, in fact, advertising the brand though.
I wouldn’t criticize an athlete for wearing a jacket covered in sponsor logos - they’re the ones getting paid to wear it. With clothing brands, though, it’s the exact opposite.
I’m also unsure how well this signaling actually works. It feels a lot like name-dropping; almost everyone does it, yet no one seems genuinely impressed by it.
yet no one seems genuinely impressed by it
You’re living in a bubble. Very many people are impressed, even if you and I aren’t. I never cared or knew about these things before. But my wife does know about brands and will point out when someone is wearing over £20000 in their outfit. My parents push me to buy an expensive car “because of how it appears” to have the more luxury brand car (even when I don’t care). My cousin says he has to go on holiday to fancy places to keep up with what other parents/kids talk about in their private school.
I think it is all nonsense as well, but the reason so many people still do it is because it absolutely works. Most people are certainly impressed even if you aren’t.
There’s plenty to learn about this if you want. But not understanding this at all and dismissing it is living in an ill-informed bubble. For Lemmy nerds the status might not come from Gucci shirts, but instead might come from Thinkpad laptops, more difficult to use Linux distros and socially liberal virtue signalling. Portraying status is part of the human condition and takes many forms (most of which are very absurd).
my wife does know about brands and will point out when someone is wearing over £20000 in their outfit
Here’s the difference: that 20k outfit doesn’t have logos all over it. Your average SUPREME enjoyer isn’t going to recognize an outfit like that - only those truly informed on the matter, or other wealthy individuals, would. It’s like wearing an entry-level Rolex; it hardly impresses anyone. A true baller wears an unassuming Patek Philippe. There are those pretending to be wealthy who can only fool poor people, and then there are those who may not seem wealthy at a glance, but those in the know can tell.
African American culture is the antithesis to your argument. Even the most wealthy individuals sporting logos of all kinds, literally as status symbols.
I agree that people have become walking billboards, but I don’t think it’s always black and white in fashion, it’s much more complex than “rich people don’t wear logos”
“African American culture is the antithesis to your argument. Even the most wealthy individuals sporting logos of all kinds, literally as status symbols.”
Really you’re describing the difference between striking it rich and generational wealth.
Sure am, but we are discussing wealthy people and what they wear in this thread.
We can be nuanced about the 1% all day and start talking about a different group in that 1% but it doesn’t change the fact that they are all rich and some of them wear logos does it?
