After 20 years of wearing corporate logos in whatever place they felt like showing them, I have finally gotten to a point where you cannot tell what style of clothing I am wearing by looking at me. Of course, this does not mean that all my clothing is devoid of logos, they're just not in apparent places. A person wouldn't typically pull the back of the neck of your shirt out to find out who makes said shirt, would they? Nor would they be in a hurry to look on the bottom of my shoes.

I have never liked the idea of walking billboards, people in Tommy Hilfiger clothing (especially jackets) crack me up to no end.

But now that I've finally gotten to a point where all of my clothing doesn't display the names or logos of the associated designer/corporation prominently, I couldn't be happier. We're subjected to thousands upon thousands of advertisements, the last thing we really need to do is WEAR them. Companies know that we're fools, and will do this readily. Just about any person I know would take a free t-shirt that has a huge Nike logo on it. They love this! It costs them $2,000,000 to advertise for 30 seconds during the super bowl. But they MAKE money by having you wear their clothing. Maybe I'm one of the few who sees the irony in this. Would you pay $20 to watch an hour's worth of banner ads? Radio spots? Anyone?

I doubt it.

So why do we tolerate this on our clothing?

I know why, and I don't agree with this either: image. It's "popular" to wear Tommy jeans, or cK t-shirts. But why? Who makes them popular? We just as readily put on these garments as we would turn off a television commercial.

What irony.


*n.b. Yes, I know it's hard, if you see someone who is wearing a shirt you wouldn't mind owning, to find out who makes it without the logo. Well, a quick suggestion - ask them.

*no comply -- I wasn't referring to the style of clothing, or the brand name. I couldn't care less whether or not you wore a suit or went naked. I'm talking about the advertising. I'm not going to wear a shirt with a huge Tommy logo because I don't believe in whoring myself out as an advertiser. If something's exceptionally good, I'll advertise by word-of-mouth, which is how most people should. You missed the point.

I would like to say i wear clothes with logos on them. I wear Tommy Hilfiger and Ralph Lauren and Nautica as well as non brand name clothes and clothes without logos. It doesn't make me any less of a person.

SweetBob says Tommy Hilfiger is "Lame trendy clothing line worn by people that watch too much MTV."
and Didelphis says Tommy Hilfiger is "A brand of clothing designed by a man named Tommy Hilfiger. Usually worn by yuppies that have too much money and not enough brain cells. The people that usually wear Tommy Hilfiger, do this to feel accepted by their peers, because of peer pressure, or to be "original" just like the other 100% of yuppies that wear "Tommy"."

I am not a yuppie. I don't watch TV period. I don't have too much money and i don't wear it to feel accepted by my peers. The clothes looks good. It is a classic style. At my work all the older men wear polo shirts and khakis. I don't wear the ugly bright colored crap that you are refering to. I wear nice looking clothes. If you looked harder you would notice that you don't even realize that people are wearing brand name clothes if the logo isn't big or flashy.

If you think that dressing in non-corporate clothes does something to you that is special then you are just as dumb as the kids who try to fit in by wearing a specific type of clothes. You are just buying into a backlash against these "trendy" clothes.

The point is it doesn't matter what the hell you wear. Yeah maybe from a distance everyone in "abercrombie" is jock and everyone in "polo" is a prep or a yuppie and all the "punks" are stupid anarchists, but when you actually get up close and get to know the person it doesn't matter what kind of clothes they wear. Grow up.
Any reaction used to counter a norm is itself a trend. That can't be avoided. Underground and unacknowleged, but still, if it has any following, it's considered a trend. I do the same thing, jeremy_f. I deliberately refuse to wear any clothing with visible logos. I try not to attach stigmas with clothing, but often it can't be helped when those stereotypical people are coincidentally the people that draw the most attention to themselves or annoy you the most (both are applicable from my experience). Sometimes, the logos I do wear I do out of spite. In New Orleans, one big deal is the Tobasco logo, since it's supposed that the peppers used in it are grown only in Louisiana. To combat this and the fact that I hate spicy food and Tobasco equally, I own a Heinz Ketchup t-shirt. House of Blues logos are prominent here also, but the only clothing I wear bearing its name is a t-shirt that has been pulled from their clothing store because the Catholic Church opposed the use of the Sacred Heart in its design.

To also see no_comply's side, you need to realize that those who object to logo-laden clothing are assuming that while they are putting thought in what they wear, those who wear Hilfiger or Polo do not. You don't have to think about what you're wearing in order to like it, but it's different for different people. I must admit, people who wear mass-promoted gear have to work a little harder to prove to me that they aren't like everyone else, simply because they all look alike. It's a fair assumption. We are taught to single out people who don't fit in from as far back as Sesame Street in that little skit one of these things does not look like the others. Whether we carry this trait past high school is of course, our own choice. If we do choose to keep it, we must back it up with a little intellect, because there is sense in it. I've lived in this media led world long enough to see few examples where the stereotypes haven't been true. And I will likely voice this irritation. But everyone gets a fair chance to prove me wrong, and if they feel they have nothing to prove, that's fine too. But what I feel I have to prove comes out in many ways, and what I wear is one of them.

I like design. Consequently ostentatious logos neither draw me to or turn me away from a piece of clothing.

For example, I'm currently wearing Eckō jeans, which have five uses of their rhino logo and three of their name emblazoned on them. On the other hand I'm wearing a River Island tee. This has only one occurence of branding on it which is the label on the inside of the neck.

Am I wearing the jeans as a status symbol because of the brand? No, I'm wearing them because I like the fit, the colour, the way there's a superfluous side pocket. Why am I wearing the top? Again, I like the fit, the way the sleeves are worn at the ends, and the little (non-brand) symbol printed on the outside of the neck.

If people like what they're wearing then why does it matter if they're advertising that company? I like interesting clothes, and if it's the design of the logos that makes them interesting then so be it.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.