9 ms·

I cringe every time I see somebody wearing Supreme and talking about how street and cool they are. Supreme is owned by The Carlyle Group :|

by nceqs3 6y ago

BoorishBears 6y ago
I'll bite... why would that matter?
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  Eh, it's sort of like your brand being anti-establishment, but you're owned by the establishment.
- Fezzik 6y ago
  As hinted in the OP, people buy Supreme products because they (the buyer) view the product as being ‘street’ (not Big Corp) and, therefore, ‘cool’. When, in fact, the opposite is true - Supreme is the epitome of Big Corps bilking kiddies and dummies for $100 Fruit of the Loom t-shirts with shoddy graphics.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    I don't think you're aware of the value of the brands then... Because for example, the people do pay hundreds for Fruit of the Loom or Gildan hoodies with graphics when albums come out. And it's not a secret either, people like that it's a common well established brand making the clothes the graphics go on. What makes them cool is exclusivity and authenticity (as in being from the brand). After all, no one thinks Supreme made a factory to manufacture bricks: https://stockx.com/supreme-clay-brick-red https://stockx.com/supreme-clay-brick-red Yeezys are also considered cool but they're also by Adidas... a giant boring multinational compared to the image Yeezys portray
    - Fezzik 6y ago
      I am very aware of what idiots will pay for brand names, but that has nothing to do with any sort of inherent or quantifiable value a product has. I think we, as a society, need to get better at calling people out for being beyond irresponsible with their money. A Supreme block logo slapped on a $1.00 Gildan cotton shirt does not add $99 of value because ‘exclusivity’. Things like the meteoric rise and fall of things like Beanie Babies help illuminate this fact. You can pay $700 for a North Face Supreme jacket that can be purchased for $120 without the branding... but you’re an idiot for doing so. Ultimately, it’s just the difference between being financially intelligent and not - the financially smart people are selling the lemmings the products... Edit, to add a complete tangent: I watched this video of a $100 vs $10,000 guitar today - do you hear $9,900 in price differnece between the 2, or is the value created elsewhere? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KDA9iw4po1c https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KDA9iw4po1c
      - 1996 6y ago
        > I am very aware of what idiots will pay for brand names, but that has nothing to do with any sort of inherent or quantifiable value a product has. I think we, as a society, need to get better at calling people out for being beyond irresponsible with their money. A Supreme block logo slapped on a $1.00 Gildan cotton shirt does not add $99 of value The ego of some people on HN never ceases to amaze me- especially when they still have a dayjob but feel ok to lecture entrepreneurs! If you are able to spin it for $150, yeah, the logo DID add value - and not just $99, but an extra $50 of profit for you. That's the base of business. > Things like the meteoric rise and fall of things like Beanie Babies help illuminate this fact. Ah, beanie babies and HN, a long love story :) > You can pay $700 for a North Face Supreme jacket that can be purchased for $120 without the branding... but you’re an idiot for doing so. Don't be so quick to dismiss the rationality of people purchasing these products. Many people start companies this way, by noticing and exploiting a trend, and eventually stop working. Your profile says "Attorney working in Child Welfare" - so you are working class. Those of us retired thanks to stuff HN loves to mock (crypto, collectibles, whatever) believe the not rational people are those who can't unchain themselves from a job. Many people won't take the time to explain you and will just downvote and move along. Personally, I think it's sad that most geeks are not business savy.
    - rualca 6y ago
      It makes as much sense to criticize adidas for being "a giant boring multinational" as to criticize nike. However, it makes no sense to compare adidas to the carlyle group.
      - BoorishBears 6y ago
        I'm not comparing them? I'm saying the owners behind the scene don't matter. The brand is the brand, and the owners are the owners. Supreme could be owned by Blackstone and I don't think anyone would care.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    "Street" doesn't mean anything about the manufacturing entity. Polos, Nautica, Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren, Timberland all have company origins that are anything but street. But their brands took hold in the streets. I mean, Nautica is all about sailing imagery, what street level individual gives a damn about a schooner?
xzel 6y ago
I mean that was a pretty recent sale in the grand scheme of their company, so I’m not sure if that’s really fair. Regardless, if their designers are still making products that represent their principles I would think that’s okay. I personally don’t wear Branded clothing but I understand the appeal of their brand. On the other hand Apple has always had a similar mystique and they’re one of the largest companies ever. I think you’re conflating underground/cool with hip/street wear. I don’t get the hate either way. Let people express themselves without judgement :)
- chewbaxxa 6y ago
  I don’t really agree that Apple is similar. I am no Apple fanboy, but if you want hardware will all the same features, complexity and polish; in particular a phone, there is no competitor that can make an identical clone. Printing vinyl on a hoodie though, that’s a pretty well solved problem. As for expressing yourself, does it really count? These brands are marketed at you in a million different ways. Then by purchasing what are you expressing?
  - xzel 6y ago
    I'm talking about their branding/advertising and cultural norms, not actual innovation, as in they are considered hip and cool. And yes, that is exactly what marketing is trying to do and it has a clear effect on what people think about the brands and the products and therefore about the purchase of them.
- SyzygistSix 6y ago
  > Let people express themselves without judgement I find it interesting and rather sad that people equate buying things with expressing themselves.
chewbaxxa 6y ago
My impression is that most of this stuff is bought by shallow people to show off their wealth to other people. Meanwhile, many others waste a significant portion of their income on them. These gullible people buy overpriced clothes simply to keep up because, through very skilful marketing, this ordinary apparel is held up as something that you should desire or be impressed by. In the end though, it’s just money that flows from an invested individual’s income to feed a disinterested hedge fund’s balance sheet. It is pretty cringe, and sad on a large scale imo.
- symlinkk 6y ago
  I mean, some people are legitimately impressed by those brands, so they serve their purpose no?
nothasan 6y ago
They were acquired by VF Corporation last year. https://www.vfc.com/investors/news-events-presentations/press-releases/detail/1741/vf-corporation-completes-acquisition-of-supreme https://www.vfc.com/investors/news-events-presentations/pres...
- nceqs3 6y ago
  Good point. Didn't catch that.
WalterBright 6y ago
They go with the rims on my car.
burnthrow 6y ago
Too old to recognize the brand, but I'm not following the logic here at all. What kind of clothing manufacturer do you find most appropriate for a street tough?

I cringe every time I see somebody wearing Supreme and talking about how street and cool they are. Supreme is owned by The Carlyle Group :|

by nceqs3 6y ago

I cringe every time I see somebody wearing Supreme and talking about how street and cool they are. Supreme is owned by The Carlyle Group :|

BoorishBears 6y ago

I'll bite... why would that matter?

Judgmentality 6y ago
Eh, it's sort of like your brand being anti-establishment, but you're owned by the establishment.
Fezzik 6y ago
As hinted in the OP, people buy Supreme products because they (the buyer) view the product as being ‘street’ (not Big Corp) and, therefore, ‘cool’. When, in fact, the opposite is true - Supreme is the epitome of Big Corps bilking kiddies and dummies for $100 Fruit of the Loom t-shirts with shoddy graphics.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  I don't think you're aware of the value of the brands then... Because for example, the people do pay hundreds for Fruit of the Loom or Gildan hoodies with graphics when albums come out. And it's not a secret either, people like that it's a common well established brand making the clothes the graphics go on. What makes them cool is exclusivity and authenticity (as in being from the brand). After all, no one thinks Supreme made a factory to manufacture bricks: https://stockx.com/supreme-clay-brick-red https://stockx.com/supreme-clay-brick-red Yeezys are also considered cool but they're also by Adidas... a giant boring multinational compared to the image Yeezys portray
  - Fezzik 6y ago
    I am very aware of what idiots will pay for brand names, but that has nothing to do with any sort of inherent or quantifiable value a product has. I think we, as a society, need to get better at calling people out for being beyond irresponsible with their money. A Supreme block logo slapped on a $1.00 Gildan cotton shirt does not add $99 of value because ‘exclusivity’. Things like the meteoric rise and fall of things like Beanie Babies help illuminate this fact. You can pay $700 for a North Face Supreme jacket that can be purchased for $120 without the branding... but you’re an idiot for doing so. Ultimately, it’s just the difference between being financially intelligent and not - the financially smart people are selling the lemmings the products... Edit, to add a complete tangent: I watched this video of a $100 vs $10,000 guitar today - do you hear $9,900 in price differnece between the 2, or is the value created elsewhere? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KDA9iw4po1c https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KDA9iw4po1c
    - 1996 6y ago
      > I am very aware of what idiots will pay for brand names, but that has nothing to do with any sort of inherent or quantifiable value a product has. I think we, as a society, need to get better at calling people out for being beyond irresponsible with their money. A Supreme block logo slapped on a $1.00 Gildan cotton shirt does not add $99 of value The ego of some people on HN never ceases to amaze me- especially when they still have a dayjob but feel ok to lecture entrepreneurs! If you are able to spin it for $150, yeah, the logo DID add value - and not just $99, but an extra $50 of profit for you. That's the base of business. > Things like the meteoric rise and fall of things like Beanie Babies help illuminate this fact. Ah, beanie babies and HN, a long love story :) > You can pay $700 for a North Face Supreme jacket that can be purchased for $120 without the branding... but you’re an idiot for doing so. Don't be so quick to dismiss the rationality of people purchasing these products. Many people start companies this way, by noticing and exploiting a trend, and eventually stop working. Your profile says "Attorney working in Child Welfare" - so you are working class. Those of us retired thanks to stuff HN loves to mock (crypto, collectibles, whatever) believe the not rational people are those who can't unchain themselves from a job. Many people won't take the time to explain you and will just downvote and move along. Personally, I think it's sad that most geeks are not business savy.
  - rualca 6y ago
    It makes as much sense to criticize adidas for being "a giant boring multinational" as to criticize nike. However, it makes no sense to compare adidas to the carlyle group.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      I'm not comparing them? I'm saying the owners behind the scene don't matter. The brand is the brand, and the owners are the owners. Supreme could be owned by Blackstone and I don't think anyone would care.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  "Street" doesn't mean anything about the manufacturing entity. Polos, Nautica, Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren, Timberland all have company origins that are anything but street. But their brands took hold in the streets. I mean, Nautica is all about sailing imagery, what street level individual gives a damn about a schooner?

xzel 6y ago

I mean that was a pretty recent sale in the grand scheme of their company, so I’m not sure if that’s really fair. Regardless, if their designers are still making products that represent their principles I would think that’s okay. I personally don’t wear Branded clothing but I understand the appeal of their brand. On the other hand Apple has always had a similar mystique and they’re one of the largest companies ever. I think you’re conflating underground/cool with hip/street wear. I don’t get the hate either way. Let people express themselves without judgement :)

chewbaxxa 6y ago
I don’t really agree that Apple is similar. I am no Apple fanboy, but if you want hardware will all the same features, complexity and polish; in particular a phone, there is no competitor that can make an identical clone. Printing vinyl on a hoodie though, that’s a pretty well solved problem. As for expressing yourself, does it really count? These brands are marketed at you in a million different ways. Then by purchasing what are you expressing?
- xzel 6y ago
  I'm talking about their branding/advertising and cultural norms, not actual innovation, as in they are considered hip and cool. And yes, that is exactly what marketing is trying to do and it has a clear effect on what people think about the brands and the products and therefore about the purchase of them.
SyzygistSix 6y ago
> Let people express themselves without judgement I find it interesting and rather sad that people equate buying things with expressing themselves.

chewbaxxa 6y ago

My impression is that most of this stuff is bought by shallow people to show off their wealth to other people. Meanwhile, many others waste a significant portion of their income on them. These gullible people buy overpriced clothes simply to keep up because, through very skilful marketing, this ordinary apparel is held up as something that you should desire or be impressed by. In the end though, it’s just money that flows from an invested individual’s income to feed a disinterested hedge fund’s balance sheet. It is pretty cringe, and sad on a large scale imo.

symlinkk 6y ago
I mean, some people are legitimately impressed by those brands, so they serve their purpose no?

nothasan 6y ago

They were acquired by VF Corporation last year. https://www.vfc.com/investors/news-events-presentations/press-releases/detail/1741/vf-corporation-completes-acquisition-of-supreme https://www.vfc.com/investors/news-events-presentations/pres...

nceqs3 6y ago
Good point. Didn't catch that.

WalterBright 6y ago

They go with the rims on my car.

burnthrow 6y ago

Too old to recognize the brand, but I'm not following the logic here at all. What kind of clothing manufacturer do you find most appropriate for a street tough?