4 ms·
Many people willing to pay that much for a polo shirt consider lack of conspicuous brand to be a feature.
by pg 14y ago
Many people willing to pay that much for a polo shirt consider lack of conspicuous brand to be a feature.
- jcampbell1 14y agoI don't disagree, but a logo should be a default feature. I remember clearly when Vineyard Vines became the go to brand of southern frat boys overnight, and a $100M/yr business. It would have never happened without the whale logo. Leaving a logo off the polos basically makes any sort of viral growth impossible. Of course the plan could be to sell shirts exclusively to wealthy people that like the "lands end" look. That doesn't strike me as the best approach.
- Evbn 14y agoBut more people pay extra for conspicuous branding, not to mention the marketing benefits. Hence the luxury fashion industry.
- koji 14y agoThis is definitely a personal preference issue. I, for one, hate logos and branding on my clothing. I won't pay for clothing that advertises itself. I have met other people who are the exact opposite and care greatly about the branding and image. In the end, there's probably enough room in the market for clothing companies to go either way. I'm personally thankful for not having branding forced on me.