3 ms·
I lived in Seattle for half my life, and I see where this question stems from. It’s unbelievable to people in the Northwest that people in NYC, London, and oth
by alephnan 7y ago
I lived in Seattle for half my life, and I see where this question stems from.
It’s unbelievable to people in the Northwest that people in NYC, London, and other fashion hubs spend $1K on an article of clothing. This is the norm, not the exception here. Brands like Supreme barely want to sell their $600 t-shirt to paying customers, much less give them away.
Point being, it’s a strawman to compare the target demographic of free tech swag to up-and-coming models getting free designer clothing. Still, it seems the fashion industry is adverse to paperwork and the formality. They’d love it if they didn’t have to deal with paperwork, and can get a tax incentive to give out more (which can potentially be abused, but that’s a separate discussion).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- seattle_spring 7y ago> it’s a strawman to compare the target demographic of free tech swag to up-and-coming models getting free designer clothing Au contraire! I was actually specifically referring to some jokingly overpriced Balenciaga or Supreme shirt, almost certainly purchased by someone who is somehow shocked (shocked!) that they can't afford rent. EDIT: Ah I see the confusion. When I said "free t-shirt," I meant, "t-shirt given to the influencer to promote for free," not "free tech t-shirt usually worn to a gym."
- alephnan 7y agoSure. But the Balenciaga or Supreme shirt is a good point. This in some ways supports the hypothesis that people buy brands based on social influence. Value on the West Coast tend to coincide with utility, but this isn't the case with these fashion brands. Balenciaga revenue broke over a billion in revenue, and Supreme has been rumored to be a unicorn.