7 ms·

When I was growing up, my father used to say "Why do you want to pay for a shirt and then have them turn you into a billboard with the logo on the chest pocket?

When I was growing up, my father used to say "Why do you want to pay for a shirt and then have them turn you into a billboard with the logo on the chest pocket?" It was silly at the time, but I always recall it when I see people buying luxury goods from Dior, LV, Chanel, etc. Luxury goods to my father was his collection bespoke suits from his favorite tailor to whom he was a customer but also a good friend. This wasn't on Savile Row or some haute fashion boutique in New York, but in a small town where I grew up. There was a direct... human connection between the consumer and the buyer. There is something to be said about craftsmanship-based luxury goods and services without the pretense of big-corp brand names, analytics, extravagant showrooms and marketing campaigns.

hnhg 8y ago
Yeah but a large and valid function of luxury goods is wealth signalling. You might find this lamentable but it has practical social utility.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  That's why you get your custom shirt monogrammed. Bespoke and conspicuous, at least to the people you're signalling to.
- warp_factor 8y ago
  yes, everything is signaling. If you get a brandless tshirt, you are also signaling that you are too smart to buy the luxury brand.
  - hnhg 8y ago
    To some audiences, yes
  - selune 8y ago
    Everyone above some margin of income indulges in a consumption of luxury goods. I don't see how wearing a cheap t-shirt but driving a good car or playing Playstation sitting on a comfy expensive couch is smarter than buying a pair of expensive sneakers. It's just signalling to your crowd.
    - jidue 8y ago
      Today its less necessary and inefficient. Once upon a time the costumes of head of state, judges, generals and priests required all kinds of peacock level signalling. The illiterate masses needed the signals. Especially where authority figures were concerned. Today we are at a point were a CEO can walk into a meeting in shorts and people have the capacity to understand who has more decision making power. Are General's and Judges going to stop wearing their costumes? In large parts of the west much of it has disappeared. Not yet fully because when your job is to get people to do stuff that has nothing to do with their own needs distractions work. As more and more people get in touch with their own needs the power of distraction and manipulative signals will reduce. We are seeing this push back happening all over the place. In the past both the education system and professional hierarchies at work did a fantastic job of disconnecting people from their own needs to produce obedience. Today thanks to hyper-connection of the internet, the hierarchies are bypassed, and people are getting slapped in the face, a hundred ways, reminding them to think about their own needs. This is a new thing. It goes wrong a lot and produces bad outcomes but people are learning. And the learning is very different from the past. Because it comes through a network not from a hierarchy.
      - selune 8y ago
        But is CEO going to live in a cheap apartment in a bad hood or entertain themselves via playing rocks they found on a street? I'm all for controlling our inner consumerism but I often find tremendous lack of self-awareness in the discourse. Nobody says MTG fans are "not clever" or shallow or manipulated by the system because they have an expensive hobby. Tourism, cars, good houses, good furniture, art, videogames, eating out, going to concerts, collecting vinyls, having pets - are all absolutely unnecessary for humans and can be considered as luxury from point of view of those who cannot afford these things. People buy and do stuff because they like it and can afford it and that's it. You're not more enlightened or clever for not doing one unnecessary thing but doing some other. I don't ever eat in restaurants/cafes and don't have a car. I'm not smarter than majority of Americans, I'm just really shy and don't mind using public transport, so these things are inefficient for me, but they might be efficient in providing some entertainment, comfort, novelty experience, social signalling for those with different preferences.
  - saghm 8y ago
    Or maybe you just don't care what others think about what you wear and just go with what's cheaper, which is generally the brandless clothing
  - sridca 8y ago
    > yes, everything is signaling. Cynical observation. Not every human action is automatically designed to impress upon others. > If you get a brandless tshirt, you are also signaling that you are too smart to buy the luxury brand. As a matter of fact I buy "brandless" shirts -- actually I own about four black woolen shirts from Costco. It is simply a fact of the matter that a) I am smart enough not to fall for luxury brand marketting, and b) I prefer not to have to choose which 'design' of shirt to wear every day. A fact is just so; it does not need to be signalled. I perfectly understand that some people value fashion more in line with their values. To each their own.
    - Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
      > Cynical observation. Not every human action is automatically designed to impress upon others. That is not what the word signalling means. Signalling is a means of communication. Singalling is much more efficient in many contexts than other communications methods like straight up talking and describing one's life. Communication has many reasons for it, only one of which (quite minor for many people) is "impressing upon others". Saying signalling is done for "impressing upon others" is a gross simplification of this phenomenon and is just inaccurate.
- dschuetz 8y ago
  What might that "practical social utility" be?
  - selune 8y ago
    To be able to easily recognize people you want to hang out with? People do tend to gravitate toward people of the same economic class.
  - threatofrain 8y ago
    To at least show you're of the class that can afford such things. That allows you to not be judged.
  - mud_dauber 8y ago
    Knowing whether that person will pick up the check :-)
- anovikov 8y ago
  Thing is, it still is. Haute couture doesn't have any labels and yet it does whole lot of wealth signaling. It's just... it takes some real wealth.
  - hnhg 8y ago
    Yes, but only certain audiences recognise it.
- devit 8y ago
  In the case of logos, it also signals that you are attempting to signal "wealth" (more appropriately, a somewhat elevated clothing budget), which is generally detrimental.
  - _0nac 8y ago
    People who don't signal wealth tend to like to think so, but it's been fairly exhaustively demonstrated that signaling wealth with visibly branded clothing does get you better treatment in all sorts of things, including job interviews. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/10/wearing-expensive-brands-of-clothing-can-help-you-snag-that-job.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/10/wearing-expensive-brands-of-... And yes, in some circles ostentatious signaling will be counterproductive, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
    - beatgammit 8y ago
      Yes, I've heard that tasteful wealth signaling implies that you're successful enough to do so, and if you're a bit over the top, you likely need the job more than someone who is a bit more reserved, so you may work harder. Basically, fake the til you make it and dress for the part and whatnot. However, each position and manager are different, so there are very few hard and fast rules. What works great for one person may have the opposite effect on another. Honestly, I don't care too much about my physical appearance (I guess that's signaling too), so I've been looking into other nonverbal ways to communicate since I hate trying to adapt to the latest fashion (it's exhausting, and my time is better spent building stuff).
      - ghaff 8y ago
        It used to be easy. You wore a suit to a professional job interview. End of story. End of discussion. Today, I assume that there are more than a few people in tech making hiring decisions who would flag that as "not a cultural fit."
        lazerwalker 8y ago
- sametmax 8y ago
  Custom tailor clothes is very high signaling: either you have the education to notice, and hence you will give points to the person for having taste, or you won't, but the perfect cut will make it's effect anyway. Branding is the opposite of signaling for anybody with a bit of money, or somebody who has been educated in an environnent filled with art and science.
  - hnhg 8y ago
    It depends on who you're speaking to. Old vs new money, etc.
    - spectramax 8y ago
      Can you elaborate what new and old money means? In my view, status symbols and signals exist at each wealth tier, i.e. from lower class, middle class and the bourgeoisie, to the upper extreme of billionaires. Brand name and brand recognition persists not only in vertical hierarchy but also in horizontal sub cultures within the same wealth class (e.g. Supreme which has its roots in SB culture).
      - sametmax 8y ago
        The old european rich families will never wear anything with a logo. But the daughter of an emirate family that got rich during the last century may travel with 20 suit cases with logos on them. This is still value signaling for both. It's just that when 20 generations lived in castles, showing off money is considered bad taste and uneducated. In fact, a typical signal is having expensive things, but not caring that you have them. Some do that by not showing them off. Others displays that by showing them off, but treating it like it is disposable.
      - Tsiklon 8y ago
        From what I understand of the matter, in terms of a generalised distinction the two differ on how they signal their wealth and their behaviour amongst peers. Old money is wealth that has been sustained through several generations - Traditional aristocracy, and families who own classically successful businesses going back hundreds of years those would be the sort of people who one would describe as old money. The wealth signalling these families and people display are items that tend to be less "showy" or overt. The perception of a quality or well made item is more important than the brand name behind it. New money is wealth that has accumulated within a generation or two from families who are not traditionally wealthy - Tech Millionaires, Arabian Oil Barons, Russian Oligarchs and the like would all come under this heading. The wealth signalling by New Money tends to be more overt than with old money - there can be the perception that the items they purchase and flaunt around are to signal that indeed they have money and are willing to spend it. one could even argue it's as if to prove a point a classic exploration on the conflict of Old Money vs New Money is in the novel The Great Gatsby. see also the term Nouveau Riche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouveau_riche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouveau_riche
- retrac98 8y ago
  This is important for people to understand. In business, an expensive watch signals to others that you’re good at what you do. Not necessarily that you’re a flashy asshole, although for some that can be the case too!
- danielahn 8y ago
  To emphasize the point on the value of signaling - I know plenty of people who actively avoid branded items that could easily fit into their budgets because they think it's ridiculous to pay the premium - this is also signaling, especially if you belong to a tribe that knows you have that sort of money. Gets lost in the mental calculus of why a person buys a certain good (value, function, etc.), but as another commenter pointed out, luxury designer brands often fit better which makes the wearer look better, and the decision is rarely just about about which item provides more value for the 'cover a part of your body' use.
- 908087 8y ago
  Most of the people I encounter who go out of their way to "signal wealth" are only wealthy if you consider massive debt a form of wealth.
- BenMorganIO 8y ago
  I'm not sure about that. Each time I see someone with those things I tend to assume they're in debt than in credit. My gf's dad complains about his debt then spends his money on Bose sound and yells at his kids for taking up all the money. I really just straight up don't trust people who value these and I also don't feel like making a human connection to them either. If I see someone in a bespoke suit and wearing it properly, I nod my head. It feels almost like seeing a good beard. You wouldn't buy a Gucci beard to be put on like a fake mustache. You'd have to groom it and take care of it on your own for months. Apologies for the odd comparison but it's needed to add a deeper contrast. "Luxury" goods shouldn't be a sign of status as they're often toxic. Buy what you think actually does the job and solves the problem.
js2 8y ago
My dad used to complain about this too but go find athletic gear without the company’s logo. Or a watch. Or a vehicle. Or an appliance. It’s almost inescapable in some product categories. Also, notice how many cars have advertising for the dealership on them as stickers or license plate surrounds. Why do people leave that junk on their cars?
- crazygringo 8y ago
  Yes, athletic gear x1000. A long time ago I realized that dressing without showing brand logos was much, much classier. E.g. shop at J. Crew or Uniqlo (no logos on any shirts) and not Ralph Lauren or Tommy Hilfiger (damn polo player/flag on every single shirt). There are plenty of brands/pieces without logos. It baffles me, though, why athletic gear isn't the same. Everyone winds up sporting their allegience to Nike or Adidas or Puma or Under Armour or Reebok or Lululemon or whatever it is. I'm unaware of any major athletic brand, where I can buy a full range of workout gear (tees, shorts, sneakers) that doesn't advertise itself. I don't get it. Why isn't there a J. Crew or Uniqlo of workout gear? (Even brands that sell mostly unbranded clothing seem to compulsively slap some kind of "signature" on their workout gear specifically, e.g. Gap attaches it's own special Gap-athletic logo, and Old Navy has a kind of signature stripe on everything.)
  - petercooper 8y ago
    Everyone winds up sporting their allegience to Nike or Adidas or Puma or Under Armour or Reebok or Lululemon or whatever it is. As someone who spends 99% of his life in Adidas "athleisure" clothing, that's sorta part of the point for me. It just feels nice associating myself with their brand for some reason, no idea why. I guess it's like how some people associate themselves with their town, football team, or text editor, perhaps.
  - largespoon 8y ago
    Atheletes are vehicles for advertisers. Athetic gear is arguably a hybrid between clothing and equipment. I don't know any reputable golf clubs or soccer balls that aren't branded. I wouldn't say that old Navy is advertising themselves with their logo; they seem to be imatating the biggest players.
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
For someone who can afford a collection of bespoke suits, prominent branding would be signalling a lower status than they already have, so obviously they aren't going to go for it. For a middle-class person, status signalling is not going to work the same way.
sridca 8y ago
What's amazing is that people spend a fortune on "fashion" without thinking twice while at the time are wont to tell others to deprive themselves of things like eating meat. One should wonder if this is modern religion in action.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
  There are all sorts of legitimate reasons (nutritional, spiritual, moral, technological) to direct nutritional choices, like eating or not eating meat. What does it have to do with "depriving oneself"? That's not a common reason to stop eating meat.
  - sridca 8y ago
    I'm referring to those people who, in the name of caring for "environment", are wont to do things like depriving themselves, and attempting to deprive others[1], of the pleasure of eating meat and yet has no hesitation whatsover in using their car for daily commute, spending a forture on fashion, etc. [1] http://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968 http://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-envir...
Fins 8y ago
There also are luxury brands that cost as much and don't have any easily visible logos, even if they do have some expensive showrooms. All depends on how exactly one wants to wealth-signal.
chillacy 8y ago
Not all the products are so loud, some are much more subtle and IMO better looking. But I also realize it's probably yet another class distinguisher. Prominent Logo: https://www.gucci.com/us/en/pr/men/mens-shoes/mens-sneakers/rhyton-gucci-logo-leather-sneaker-p-500877DRW009522?position=18&listName=ProductGrid&categoryPath=Men/Mens-Shoes/Mens-Sneakers https://www.gucci.com/us/en/pr/men/mens-shoes/mens-sneakers/... No logo on outside: https://www.gucci.com/us/en/pr/men/mens-shoes/mens-moccasins-loafers/horsebit-leather-loafer-p-526297D3V002254?position=5&listName=ProductGrid&categoryPath=Men/Mens-Shoes/Mens-Moccasins-Loafers https://www.gucci.com/us/en/pr/men/mens-shoes/mens-moccasins... Easily recognizable: https://us.burberry.com/check-stretch-cotton-shirt-p80048271 https://us.burberry.com/check-stretch-cotton-shirt-p80048271 Subtle: https://us.burberry.com/the-long-chelsea-heritage-trench-coat-p40734871 https://us.burberry.com/the-long-chelsea-heritage-trench-coa...

hnhg 8y ago

Yeah but a large and valid function of luxury goods is wealth signalling. You might find this lamentable but it has practical social utility.

humanrebar 8y ago
That's why you get your custom shirt monogrammed. Bespoke and conspicuous, at least to the people you're signalling to.
warp_factor 8y ago
yes, everything is signaling. If you get a brandless tshirt, you are also signaling that you are too smart to buy the luxury brand.
- hnhg 8y ago
  To some audiences, yes
- selune 8y ago
  Everyone above some margin of income indulges in a consumption of luxury goods. I don't see how wearing a cheap t-shirt but driving a good car or playing Playstation sitting on a comfy expensive couch is smarter than buying a pair of expensive sneakers. It's just signalling to your crowd.
  - jidue 8y ago
    Today its less necessary and inefficient. Once upon a time the costumes of head of state, judges, generals and priests required all kinds of peacock level signalling. The illiterate masses needed the signals. Especially where authority figures were concerned. Today we are at a point were a CEO can walk into a meeting in shorts and people have the capacity to understand who has more decision making power. Are General's and Judges going to stop wearing their costumes? In large parts of the west much of it has disappeared. Not yet fully because when your job is to get people to do stuff that has nothing to do with their own needs distractions work. As more and more people get in touch with their own needs the power of distraction and manipulative signals will reduce. We are seeing this push back happening all over the place. In the past both the education system and professional hierarchies at work did a fantastic job of disconnecting people from their own needs to produce obedience. Today thanks to hyper-connection of the internet, the hierarchies are bypassed, and people are getting slapped in the face, a hundred ways, reminding them to think about their own needs. This is a new thing. It goes wrong a lot and produces bad outcomes but people are learning. And the learning is very different from the past. Because it comes through a network not from a hierarchy.
    - selune 8y ago
      But is CEO going to live in a cheap apartment in a bad hood or entertain themselves via playing rocks they found on a street? I'm all for controlling our inner consumerism but I often find tremendous lack of self-awareness in the discourse. Nobody says MTG fans are "not clever" or shallow or manipulated by the system because they have an expensive hobby. Tourism, cars, good houses, good furniture, art, videogames, eating out, going to concerts, collecting vinyls, having pets - are all absolutely unnecessary for humans and can be considered as luxury from point of view of those who cannot afford these things. People buy and do stuff because they like it and can afford it and that's it. You're not more enlightened or clever for not doing one unnecessary thing but doing some other. I don't ever eat in restaurants/cafes and don't have a car. I'm not smarter than majority of Americans, I'm just really shy and don't mind using public transport, so these things are inefficient for me, but they might be efficient in providing some entertainment, comfort, novelty experience, social signalling for those with different preferences.
- saghm 8y ago
  Or maybe you just don't care what others think about what you wear and just go with what's cheaper, which is generally the brandless clothing
- sridca 8y ago
  > yes, everything is signaling. Cynical observation. Not every human action is automatically designed to impress upon others. > If you get a brandless tshirt, you are also signaling that you are too smart to buy the luxury brand. As a matter of fact I buy "brandless" shirts -- actually I own about four black woolen shirts from Costco. It is simply a fact of the matter that a) I am smart enough not to fall for luxury brand marketting, and b) I prefer not to have to choose which 'design' of shirt to wear every day. A fact is just so; it does not need to be signalled. I perfectly understand that some people value fashion more in line with their values. To each their own.
  - Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
    > Cynical observation. Not every human action is automatically designed to impress upon others. That is not what the word signalling means. Signalling is a means of communication. Singalling is much more efficient in many contexts than other communications methods like straight up talking and describing one's life. Communication has many reasons for it, only one of which (quite minor for many people) is "impressing upon others". Saying signalling is done for "impressing upon others" is a gross simplification of this phenomenon and is just inaccurate.
dschuetz 8y ago
What might that "practical social utility" be?
- selune 8y ago
  To be able to easily recognize people you want to hang out with? People do tend to gravitate toward people of the same economic class.
- threatofrain 8y ago
  To at least show you're of the class that can afford such things. That allows you to not be judged.
- mud_dauber 8y ago
  Knowing whether that person will pick up the check :-)
anovikov 8y ago
Thing is, it still is. Haute couture doesn't have any labels and yet it does whole lot of wealth signaling. It's just... it takes some real wealth.
- hnhg 8y ago
  Yes, but only certain audiences recognise it.
devit 8y ago
In the case of logos, it also signals that you are attempting to signal "wealth" (more appropriately, a somewhat elevated clothing budget), which is generally detrimental.
- _0nac 8y ago
  People who don't signal wealth tend to like to think so, but it's been fairly exhaustively demonstrated that signaling wealth with visibly branded clothing does get you better treatment in all sorts of things, including job interviews. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/10/wearing-expensive-brands-of-clothing-can-help-you-snag-that-job.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/10/wearing-expensive-brands-of-... And yes, in some circles ostentatious signaling will be counterproductive, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
  - beatgammit 8y ago
    Yes, I've heard that tasteful wealth signaling implies that you're successful enough to do so, and if you're a bit over the top, you likely need the job more than someone who is a bit more reserved, so you may work harder. Basically, fake the til you make it and dress for the part and whatnot. However, each position and manager are different, so there are very few hard and fast rules. What works great for one person may have the opposite effect on another. Honestly, I don't care too much about my physical appearance (I guess that's signaling too), so I've been looking into other nonverbal ways to communicate since I hate trying to adapt to the latest fashion (it's exhausting, and my time is better spent building stuff).
    - ghaff 8y ago
      It used to be easy. You wore a suit to a professional job interview. End of story. End of discussion. Today, I assume that there are more than a few people in tech making hiring decisions who would flag that as "not a cultural fit."
      - lazerwalker 8y ago
sametmax 8y ago
Custom tailor clothes is very high signaling: either you have the education to notice, and hence you will give points to the person for having taste, or you won't, but the perfect cut will make it's effect anyway. Branding is the opposite of signaling for anybody with a bit of money, or somebody who has been educated in an environnent filled with art and science.
- hnhg 8y ago
  It depends on who you're speaking to. Old vs new money, etc.
  - spectramax 8y ago
    Can you elaborate what new and old money means? In my view, status symbols and signals exist at each wealth tier, i.e. from lower class, middle class and the bourgeoisie, to the upper extreme of billionaires. Brand name and brand recognition persists not only in vertical hierarchy but also in horizontal sub cultures within the same wealth class (e.g. Supreme which has its roots in SB culture).
    - sametmax 8y ago
      The old european rich families will never wear anything with a logo. But the daughter of an emirate family that got rich during the last century may travel with 20 suit cases with logos on them. This is still value signaling for both. It's just that when 20 generations lived in castles, showing off money is considered bad taste and uneducated. In fact, a typical signal is having expensive things, but not caring that you have them. Some do that by not showing them off. Others displays that by showing them off, but treating it like it is disposable.
    - Tsiklon 8y ago
      From what I understand of the matter, in terms of a generalised distinction the two differ on how they signal their wealth and their behaviour amongst peers. Old money is wealth that has been sustained through several generations - Traditional aristocracy, and families who own classically successful businesses going back hundreds of years those would be the sort of people who one would describe as old money. The wealth signalling these families and people display are items that tend to be less "showy" or overt. The perception of a quality or well made item is more important than the brand name behind it. New money is wealth that has accumulated within a generation or two from families who are not traditionally wealthy - Tech Millionaires, Arabian Oil Barons, Russian Oligarchs and the like would all come under this heading. The wealth signalling by New Money tends to be more overt than with old money - there can be the perception that the items they purchase and flaunt around are to signal that indeed they have money and are willing to spend it. one could even argue it's as if to prove a point a classic exploration on the conflict of Old Money vs New Money is in the novel The Great Gatsby. see also the term Nouveau Riche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouveau_riche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouveau_riche
retrac98 8y ago
This is important for people to understand. In business, an expensive watch signals to others that you’re good at what you do. Not necessarily that you’re a flashy asshole, although for some that can be the case too!
danielahn 8y ago
To emphasize the point on the value of signaling - I know plenty of people who actively avoid branded items that could easily fit into their budgets because they think it's ridiculous to pay the premium - this is also signaling, especially if you belong to a tribe that knows you have that sort of money. Gets lost in the mental calculus of why a person buys a certain good (value, function, etc.), but as another commenter pointed out, luxury designer brands often fit better which makes the wearer look better, and the decision is rarely just about about which item provides more value for the 'cover a part of your body' use.
908087 8y ago
Most of the people I encounter who go out of their way to "signal wealth" are only wealthy if you consider massive debt a form of wealth.
BenMorganIO 8y ago
I'm not sure about that. Each time I see someone with those things I tend to assume they're in debt than in credit. My gf's dad complains about his debt then spends his money on Bose sound and yells at his kids for taking up all the money. I really just straight up don't trust people who value these and I also don't feel like making a human connection to them either. If I see someone in a bespoke suit and wearing it properly, I nod my head. It feels almost like seeing a good beard. You wouldn't buy a Gucci beard to be put on like a fake mustache. You'd have to groom it and take care of it on your own for months. Apologies for the odd comparison but it's needed to add a deeper contrast. "Luxury" goods shouldn't be a sign of status as they're often toxic. Buy what you think actually does the job and solves the problem.

js2 8y ago

My dad used to complain about this too but go find athletic gear without the company’s logo. Or a watch. Or a vehicle. Or an appliance. It’s almost inescapable in some product categories. Also, notice how many cars have advertising for the dealership on them as stickers or license plate surrounds. Why do people leave that junk on their cars?

crazygringo 8y ago
Yes, athletic gear x1000. A long time ago I realized that dressing without showing brand logos was much, much classier. E.g. shop at J. Crew or Uniqlo (no logos on any shirts) and not Ralph Lauren or Tommy Hilfiger (damn polo player/flag on every single shirt). There are plenty of brands/pieces without logos. It baffles me, though, why athletic gear isn't the same. Everyone winds up sporting their allegience to Nike or Adidas or Puma or Under Armour or Reebok or Lululemon or whatever it is. I'm unaware of any major athletic brand, where I can buy a full range of workout gear (tees, shorts, sneakers) that doesn't advertise itself. I don't get it. Why isn't there a J. Crew or Uniqlo of workout gear? (Even brands that sell mostly unbranded clothing seem to compulsively slap some kind of "signature" on their workout gear specifically, e.g. Gap attaches it's own special Gap-athletic logo, and Old Navy has a kind of signature stripe on everything.)
- petercooper 8y ago
  Everyone winds up sporting their allegience to Nike or Adidas or Puma or Under Armour or Reebok or Lululemon or whatever it is. As someone who spends 99% of his life in Adidas "athleisure" clothing, that's sorta part of the point for me. It just feels nice associating myself with their brand for some reason, no idea why. I guess it's like how some people associate themselves with their town, football team, or text editor, perhaps.
- largespoon 8y ago
  Atheletes are vehicles for advertisers. Athetic gear is arguably a hybrid between clothing and equipment. I don't know any reputable golf clubs or soccer balls that aren't branded. I wouldn't say that old Navy is advertising themselves with their logo; they seem to be imatating the biggest players.

TheCoelacanth 8y ago

For someone who can afford a collection of bespoke suits, prominent branding would be signalling a lower status than they already have, so obviously they aren't going to go for it. For a middle-class person, status signalling is not going to work the same way.

sridca 8y ago

What's amazing is that people spend a fortune on "fashion" without thinking twice while at the time are wont to tell others to deprive themselves of things like eating meat. One should wonder if this is modern religion in action.

Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
There are all sorts of legitimate reasons (nutritional, spiritual, moral, technological) to direct nutritional choices, like eating or not eating meat. What does it have to do with "depriving oneself"? That's not a common reason to stop eating meat.
- sridca 8y ago
  I'm referring to those people who, in the name of caring for "environment", are wont to do things like depriving themselves, and attempting to deprive others[1], of the pleasure of eating meat and yet has no hesitation whatsover in using their car for daily commute, spending a forture on fashion, etc. [1] http://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968 http://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-envir...

Fins 8y ago

There also are luxury brands that cost as much and don't have any easily visible logos, even if they do have some expensive showrooms. All depends on how exactly one wants to wealth-signal.

chillacy 8y ago

Not all the products are so loud, some are much more subtle and IMO better looking. But I also realize it's probably yet another class distinguisher. Prominent Logo: https://www.gucci.com/us/en/pr/men/mens-shoes/mens-sneakers/rhyton-gucci-logo-leather-sneaker-p-500877DRW009522?position=18&listName=ProductGrid&categoryPath=Men/Mens-Shoes/Mens-Sneakers https://www.gucci.com/us/en/pr/men/mens-shoes/mens-sneakers/... No logo on outside: https://www.gucci.com/us/en/pr/men/mens-shoes/mens-moccasins-loafers/horsebit-leather-loafer-p-526297D3V002254?position=5&listName=ProductGrid&categoryPath=Men/Mens-Shoes/Mens-Moccasins-Loafers https://www.gucci.com/us/en/pr/men/mens-shoes/mens-moccasins... Easily recognizable: https://us.burberry.com/check-stretch-cotton-shirt-p80048271 https://us.burberry.com/check-stretch-cotton-shirt-p80048271 Subtle: https://us.burberry.com/the-long-chelsea-heritage-trench-coat-p40734871 https://us.burberry.com/the-long-chelsea-heritage-trench-coa...