I have the same issue with brand or corporate names on clothing. Don’t like 'em. I have precisely one Arizona Jeans Company t-shirt, which I almost never wear. It totally made my day a bit over a year ago when I walked into Sports Authority and found a whole shelf of blank t-shirts of various colors at marked-down prices. Those t-shirts make up the majority of my summer shirt wardrobe. I actually probably use a couple more, but not badly enough to go get them. However, if I do, I will definitely look actively for the t-shirt brand, since I’m happy with them. Funny how not having a logo inspires more brand-name loyalty on my part…
What if they’re wearing the label ironically? Is that okay?
I’m with the OP. I won’t pay for clothes with advertising on them.
Nothing wrong with this either, MrTuffPaws. You aren’t compromising your integrity. You get a free item of clothing, and the company gets its advertising. That, I don’t mind. A simple business deal, and quite fair.
I read an article in Salon once that suggested that when persons of lower socio-economic status begin to make some $$, the first thing they do is purchase some designer thing with a logo on it.
The logo makes the item easily identifiable as expensive. The arguement is that if a person is from a more economically disadvantaged background, they wouldn’t be able to itentify something like merino wool, or a Tiffany bean, or a double knitted cashmere t-shirt just by looking - the logo needs to be there to display status.
I don’t know if it’s true, but it’s one explanation.
I think the only advertising T-shirt I own was free from the local telephone company. (I also own an advertising peaked cap, from a casino, but this also was free).
Paying more than $10 for a T-shirt sucks big time, and I won’t pay more than $20 for one with a cool design on it – not advertising, though. Reason: it looks tacky, drek and utterly boring.
I have to disagree with the OP. Nothing more important than looking good and being trendy.
Okay, I’m being slightly tongue-in-cheek. But not really. I’m young and need to look good. Clothes, including brand names, are an important part of looking good. I personally think names emblazoned across the front of a shirt are tacky, but a lot of kids my age don’t. And all the power to them… we’ve all gotta establish our places on the social totem pole (hopefully as high as possible).
Traditionally, advertising is thought to have two purposes: informational and persuasive. It is informational in that advertising familiarizes people with the products on the market and therefore reduces their decision costs when deciding what to consume. In this sense, a certain amount of advertising would be efficient to the extent that $X of advertising decreases consumers’ decision costs in the aggregate by > $X. We might postulate that Abercrombie and Fitch labeling on clothing is efficient (and therefore socially desirable) if its existence decreases consumers’ decision costs in the aggregate greater than the cost of the advertising itself. (By “cost of the advertising,” I mean not only the cost to the advertiser of labeling the shirts and putting ads on television, but also the costs to people such as birdgirl who are offended by the sight of certain kinds of advertising.)
Advertising is also thought to be persuasive, in that it operates to convince a given consumer to purchase the advertised product over other products in the market. This kind of advertising is probably inefficient, in that it’s just a deadweight loss so long as it doesn’t result in any corresponding gains.
Here’s a thought, inspired by alice_in_wonderland. Advertising is also good that people purchase to consume independently of the related good. For example, I’m thirsty and want a beer. I go and purchase Coors Lite. Not only do I consume the beer, but I also consume the advertising associated with the brand (“and what about those twins?”). By consuming the advertising, I mean that I get to feel better about myself for associating myself with the advertising (or maybe I just like thinking about blonde twins). My welfare has been increased twice: once by the consumption of the beer, and once by the consumption of the advertising. In this sense, advertising for Abercrombie is not only efficient, but also creates wealth. We can surmise that it is wealth creating because people would only consume advertising if their gain from doing so is greater than the price they pay for doing so.
Yay Abercrombie!
This reminds me of a girl at my Uni who contacted a company (Davindoff? I’m not sure) and was able to get them to fund a car. It had the company logo all over it, and all she had to pay for was petrol and perhaps insurance. Does it surprise anyone that she’s the head of the students marketing association? 
This is part of the reason -
Heh, when you wlak down Chapel or Flinders street you come across a lot of people wearing Quiksilver boardriders. Most of them look like they can’t even swim…
A question I always wanted to ask: What’ the big deal is with ENYCE?? I saw someone wearing it in a TV show and they censored it.
doh! shouldn’t have clicked submit so fast.
wlak = walk
…wearing ‘Quiksilver boardriders’ shirts
one answer: make up your won style. I usually dress very simply, and I’ve no problem finding the clothes I like. Just make up your mind before you go shopping, what it actually is you want to buy, this time around (do you need a pair of trousers, are you just looking to get a few nice tops, do you need shirts?), and then focus on that, and that only. Walk by all those shops that have fab displays, but have price tags to go with it. Go to chains, and go for the plain clothes. You can combine to no end, and plain (meaning without print, and in a simply, non-dateable style) clothes don’t go out of fashion.
I don’t know if they’re in the states, but one of my favourite chains is H&M, ever heard of them? They’re Swedish.
I love Old Navy - I can buy tons of summer clothes there really cheaply. I don’t seem to have any trouble finding things that don’t have names on them - I have maybe one or two shirts with a logo or store name, but I don’t purposefully avoid them either.
As far as finding quality, non-name brand clothes for all body types, these aren’t the stores to shop in. They are specifically marketed to young people and stock clothes for them - which is why they all look the same. Kids want to look the same, but with the illusion they look different. The advertisers want adults to hate the styles, it makes them more appealing to kids. The clothes are for them.
Some are worse than others, you can still find basic, non-logo things at Gap, for instance. Sometimes too, you get what you pay for. I’ll pay more for items I will wear again and again, and finding pants with a 34" inseam is enough of a challenge that if I find some good ones, I don’t care who I’m advertising for!
Yep that just about nails it perfectly.
You ain’t the only one.
Hey, when did I write that? Oh!
What astonishes me are those folks who * tattoo * corporate logos onto their flesh. I cannot fathom the reasoning behind it.
I’ll admit it: I have plenty of T-shirts with “famous maker” logos. I bought them in Mexico for about a dollar apiece, and somewhat doubt their authenticity, but they’re great to clean house and paint in and make nice pajama tops.
Obviously branded clothing is nothing more than a way to advertise that a person has enough disposable income to waste on display. It’s visual bragging, frankly, designed to impress others with the amount of money one has spent on such a non-productive item.
I’ve often wondered about idealology T-shirts as well. Does the wearer think that anyone will change their opinion on an issue based on seeing the shirt’s message?
Today, a woman came into my museum for a tour with her children. She, and the four kids all wore various “Abortion KILLS” t-shirts.
Regardless of what you feel about the sentiment expressed, I found it vaguely unsettling to see these shirts on children too young to read them. I also wondered why the mother felt that a museum outing was the perfect place to express her views on the matter.
I wear logo clothes sometimes. I’m a difficult fit for jeans as I’m at the upper end of the misses clothing; too small for womens, have a short inseam, but am not a petite. I love Calvin Klein jeans but refuse to pay to have them shortened and Calvin refuses to make them in my length.
Liz Claiborne jeans fit me and I recently discovered that so do Tommy Hilfiger. Tommy jeans were 40% off, and a sweater I liked was marked down to $15.97…the next time I went shopping I found a pair of jeans that was marked down to $19.97. BTW, these are normal jeans, not the low rise. The Tommy logo on my stuff is a tiny little flag. I don’t like the overt logo merchandise.
As far as underwear, I like Victoria’s Secret cotton. They make several styles, not all of which are thongs.
A dear friend once custom-made me a beautiful “Anticrombie and Bitch” t-shirt. I wore it with pride. All other logos get obliterated unless the item was free and I support it (for example, my assorted tote bags with progressive political party/pressure group logos).
What I don’t get is designer underwear. Presumably if you’re in a position where your pants are off, the person you’re with is not going to leave based on the brand of undies you’re sporting.