It's almost impossible to buy a car without inheriting the badge that comes with it. However, with tracksuits, there are many choices where giant logos are not splashed on the reverse in order to create a corporate identikit fashion. I'm sure many people would buy certain cars even if you removed the badges, however, I doubt this can be said of in-your-face logo-styled tracksuits.
I doubt very much that people would buy certain cars if you removed the badges some people prefer Ford cars some people prefer Citroen ( beyond my comprehension why anyone would buy a French car). It's the same with the tracksuits and tops etc etc, I play football and I prefer to wear Nike gloves and Adidas boots so if you take the logos off how do I know what I am getting? it's the same arguement for someone that prefers Puma over Adidas because they deem it better quality how do they know what they are getting (did you know Adidas and Puma started out as the same company?) Are you against the big logos or all logos.
Self billboardisation, it seems, is merely a symptom of brainwashing. That said, I nearly always giggle whenever I see some underpaid twit garbed in such overpriced logo-monopolised garments.
Well you are obviously easily amused. Are you saying that all your clothes are unbranded, maybe you don't take part in sport but do you have say YSL or Levis jeans because it's got the name on the back same thing your still promoting the company buy wearing thier logo, same with say Hillfiger or Ralph Lauren the logos right thier on the chest is it not? see if you laugh at all these people your mouth must hurt because these brands are on practically 70% of the population.
Has it ever entered your mind for a minute that these large logos that you laugh at might just seem fahsionable to some people and if it is, is not thier choice to pay for these logos? and brainwashing come on can you prove that or is it just a theory cos I would love to see the evidence of this brainwashing (maybe there is case where we shoulld tell people that buying Ronaldihio's boots won't make you as good as him) because I don't see it no doubt I am brainwashed right? I do see folk going into sports shops and buying a Nike t - shirt and from what I can gather they seem perfectly normal and they also know the deal in that the swoosh aint coming off and they seem ok with that.
In the book 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein, she tells a story about Tommy Hilfiger, who, when he was in his early twenties, had one ambition: to inveigle people into wearing his name on the back of their tracksuits; in other words, turning them into billboards. Well, he was obviously aware that there's a sucker born every three minutes.
Or in other words he may have saw people wearing his tracksuits because they were good qaulity and popular that quote can be taken in 2 different ways you saw it one way I saw it another, mind you can't be good I have never seen a Tommy Hillfiger tracksuit don't think I would wear one does not seem a sporting company.
So whats your answer Preeston remove all logos from all clothes or what? get customers to sign a form so they know they are suckers as you call them?
See there is another thing about this whole marketing walking billboard thing and that is it does not seem to be working. I personally have never bought a certain brand because I saw somebody else wearing it only because I personally like the product surely if this mass marketing worked the companis would not be spending millions on worldwide advertising Cans you or H@ts offer any hard proof that this kind of advertising actually works?
As for plastic carrier bags, In England, we don't have to pay for such bags. And I hardly think people carry them because they look cool or fashionable.
Well you don't have to pay for them here buy you still use them right? it's still got the supermarkets brand on it right? so it's still advertising that you do for free regardless of wether it's cool or fashionable you still do it. I will guarntee that this week you will have minimum sponsored 5 brands knowingly or unknowingly but as long as it's not a big America or German multinational that's ok is it?
To get the public to pay a premium for a branded product that then turns the buyer into an unpaid walking advert for the company is absolute genius. The question is how did these companies pull off what is tantamount to being an outrageous scam?
It's not a scam at all people buy the goods pay the money and they know that if they wear say that Puma top the Puma logo ain't coming off hos is that a scam? A scam means to a swindle how are people being swindled exactly?
I don't see it makes a difference whether they are fashion or sports clothing. The public hand over their cash to companies that they then gladly do unpaid advertising work for. It's an astonishing business.
You missed my point about Knight, he has always said he went into not to get rich but to make quality sports goods, it was to try and prove that money is not the be all and end all for some folk of course you won't belive that but anyway. I guess we should have either unbranded clothing and take pot luck at waht we buy or we all walk around naked right?
lodgebo said this in post #32 :
It's not a scam at all people buy the goods pay the money and they know that if they wear say that Puma top the Puma logo ain't coming off hos is that a scam? A scam means to a swindle how are people being swindled exactly?
You don't think happily paying through the nose for a product that turns you into a walking advert is a scam? Come on. All scams work by manipulating people into thinking and behaving the way the scammer wants them to think and behave. What started out as a hope - convincing the public to think it's okay to wear company logos emblazoned across their clothing - has become a business and ad-man's wet dream. However it has been achieved, this behaviour has become normalised to such an extent few people question it anymore.
quote:
No-one is being robbed or forced into buying nike/rebok etc, but you have been convinced
Advertising products costs a lot of money. Companies pay $billions of dollars trying to get their name noticed. So YOU are being robbed of the money you should be paid to advertise THEIR products so THEY make even MORE money. But somehow someone has convinced you otherwise. Who?
quote:
You missed my point about Knight, he has always said he went into not to get rich but to make quality sports goods, it was to try and prove that money is not the be all and end all for some folk of course you won't belive that but anyway. I guess we should have either unbranded clothing and take pot luck at waht we buy or we all walk around naked right?
Philip Knight can say whatever he wants, but actions speak louder than words and nike produced sports shoes that cost a pittance to make, using sweat-shop labour. He then cynically marketed those same shoes to poor black kids in run down areas. Why? Because black kids were deemed cooler than white kids, and if they could convince black kids to wear these shoes then it would give them that "cool" that would then get the far larger number of white kids frothing at the mouth to get hold of a pair. That's cynical but very good marketing.
You don't think happily paying through the nose for a product that turns you into a walking advert is a scam? Come on. All scams work by manipulating people into thinking and behaving the way the scammer wants them to think and behave. What started out as a hope - convincing the public to think it's okay to wear company logos emblazoned across their clothing - has become a business and ad-man's wet dream. However it has been achieved, this behaviour has become normalised to such an extent few people question it anymore.
No it's not a scam because people are happily involved are they not and unless they are complete idiots they already know what the deal is and they accept it. I go back to my question ( which I noticed you ignored) do you want all logos banned from all brands? because if you do have you though about the impact and where it would end, people would not know what they were buying ( some people buy or don't buy on percieved qaulity or ethically are you going to removes that right and have the consumers take pot luck).
Advertising products costs a lot of money. Companies pay $billions of dollars trying to get their name noticed. So YOU are being robbed of the money you should be paid to advertise THEIR products so THEY make even MORE money. But somehow someone has convinced you otherwise. Who?
Yes advertising does cost a lot and companies do spend billions of not just dollars, pounds, Euros, Yuan etc to get thier message across, in fact year on year these companies have spent more and more on advertising which begs the question how effective is the human billboard affect. It's the same with sponsorship who has more effect Ronaldinhio, David Beckham or John from down the road?. So now they are robbing us not content with swindling and brainwashing they are going for robbery to are they? thats BS you volunatrily make the purchase, you have multiple choices and you know the deal when you buy, you always hgave a choice and if people regulary make that choice buy aint buying certain brands products for many many reasons.
So now they should pay us, have you sat down and thought this thing through? Seriously because it makes no sense remember you buy thier goods voluntarily and you have other choices and you know the deal so why should they pay you when you know all of that, It's also unworkable. I do hope it happens because if you ever get your way I can quit work and live of the sponsorhip I will be raking it in.
I mean lets see firstly I drive my car to work, drive it round the city and at night I park it in my drive where people can see it and the name is on the back so cheque from Ford, I wore Levis jeans yesterday so pay cheque from them of course, I have got my Nike gloves so yet another paycheque, I wore a Puma T shirt yesterday afternoon so another paycheque from them, went out last night and wore a Ben Sherman shirt so another paycheque there, Went shopping this morning and carried those Tesco bags quite a fair bit everyone must have seen me carrying bags with the name spalshed across them so I can get paycheque from them to right. Of course the real problem is how much do I get can you offer a fair price? because you see sometime I take the bus to work so thats going to affect the car sponsorhsip no doubt, IO don't always wear levis or other brands so of course that will have to be taken into account will it not then of course there are my gloves and boots now I always where there them at football but what if I am injured or like yesterday have an absolute stinker does not look good for the companies does it so will I still get paid and what if I change brands who do I have to inform and how? and what if I disagree with some of the companies policies i.e sewatshops cand I say anything or not? will that be in violation of any contract. How do you make it work.
Philip Knight can say whatever he wants, but actions speak louder than words and nike produced sports shoes that cost a pittance to make, using sweat-shop labour.
The sweatshop is a diffrent issue but I hear you on it. You are right albiet narrow minded but right, His actions do speak louder than words for example when you look at product development at Nike they have spent more on making clothes for atletic purposes than for fahsion purposes for example things like dri - fit and clima - fit are for atheltic purposes same with the shox technology. Also with the actions I belive they have drawn up a code of ethics in 2001 in regard to the sweatshop issue which requres better conditions, child workers to be schooled and American helath and saftey standards to be intorduced in LDC's where Nike is based though I cannot tell how much of it has been enforced.
He then cynically marketed those same shoes to poor black kids in run down areas. Why? Because black kids were deemed cooler than white kids, and if they could convince black kids to wear these shoes then it would give them that "cool" that would then get the far larger number of white kids frothing at the mouth to get hold of a pair. That's cynical but very good marketing.
And you can prove that happend right he admitted it or something or is this just another theory that you have? if it did happen it is bad but I can think of companies that have done a a lot worse in regard to it's customers i.e Body shop and what they did with Lo'real.
lodgebo said this in post #34 : I go back to my question ( which I noticed you ignored) do you want all logos banned from all brands?
Of course I don't want logos banned. I also know that whatever argument I make about people walking around as unpaid advertisements pales into insignificance compared to the effort, skill and expertise made by companies to convince the public that it is the thing to do. They spent $billlions to win that argument, and they continue to shovel $billions into making sure that argument doesn't go against them.
quote:
So now they should pay us, have you sat down and thought this thing through?
Footballers won't advertise rebok for nothing, billboard owners want money, TV companies get paid etc etc. I'm not saying go and ask nike for money. I'm telling you that you not only don't get paid to advertise their products, you pay them so you can then work for them. It's a knock-out deal!
quote:
Also with the actions I belive they have drawn up a code of ethics in 2001 in regard to the sweatshop issue which requres better conditions
Nike have changed. But they changed their working practices because of pressure from people like Naomi Klein and the bad publicity that started to effect their brand image.
Here's a couple of interesting things about nike reported in the press, although I'm sure they would equally apply to many other companies.
quote:
Nike paid Michael Jordan more in 1992 for endorsing its trainers ($20 million) than the company paid its entire 30,000-strong Indonesian workforce for making them
CEO Phil Knight to confess in 1998 that his shoes "have become synonymous with slave wages, forced overtime and arbitrary abuse".
Of course I don't want logos banned. I also know that whatever argument I make about people walking around as unpaid advertisements pales into insignificance compared to the effort, skill and expertise made by companies to convince the public that it is the thing to do. They spent $billlions to win that argument, and they continue to shovel $billions into making sure that argument doesn't go against them.
I think the only thing that convinvces the public to buy any product is the qaulity of the product, the fact the like it and affordability. Granted I have seen advertisers try and get these p;oints over to people and if that is what you are talking about there is noting wrong with that it is business. Thje fact remains that people are not stupid and they have a choce buy the products or not and they make the choice everyday.
Footballers won't advertise rebok for nothing, billboard owners want money, TV companies get paid etc etc. I'm not saying go and ask nike for money. I'm telling you that you not only don't get paid to advertise their products, you pay them so you can then work for them. It's a knock-out deal!
WEll footballer get paid becaue they have a god given talent and it looks good if your products are endorsed by them normal guys in teh street don't have that impact do they, billbords and TV can reach millions of people and get across a specific message or product line again the average guy in the street cant. Again though you deem it advertising I say it can't be that effective when the companies are advertising through other genres.
Nike have changed. But they changed their working practices because of pressure from people like Naomi Klein and the bad publicity that started to effect their brand image.
Yes but they did chage I can think of comanies that have not changed
Here's a couple of interesting things about nike reported in the press, although I'm sure they would equally apply to many other companies.
The whole Jordan thing well I don't know what the avreage wage is in Indonesia but thats always going to happen doesn't make it right but it will happen.
"I prefer to wear Nike gloves and Adidas boots so if you take the logos off how do I know what I am getting?"
I'm not sure you understand the debate. Your gloves are functional. They are de rigueur if you're at all serious about football. Expensive, logo-monopolised tracksuits, worn as 'street' fashion are not de rigueur.
Lodgebo said:
"Are you against the big logos or all logos".
Careless question. Of course I'm not. I've got no objections to logos on the inside of clothing items; also, I don't object to logos on carrier bags. Furthermore, I don't have any sleepless night worrying about ferrying about carrier bags with a supermarket name on its side – all because such bags are FREE and functional. However, as H@ts has pointed out several times, idiots who pay money for items that are overpriced and unnecessary and which are splattered with giant logos are VOLUNTARILY PAYING to advertise the name of that company without being paid for their efforts. That's what makes me chuckle. It's hilarious, man.
Lodgebo said:
"Are you saying that all your clothes are unbranded"
95% of all my clothes have the logos or names of the respective makers on the inside of the item. It's a matter of aesthetic sensibility. I think it's unquestionably crass to sport a logo if you have the option not to do so – it's the hobby of full-time twerps.
I also don't wear jeans. Haven't worn blue jeans for years. In my opinion, blue jeans are to fashion what Macdonalds is to food, namely, they are bland looking, almost everywhere, and simply damned uncomfortable to wear in the heat or rain, not to mention how quickly the knee area wears through. Blue jeans are the fashion item of the damned right lazy minded sort. A fast-food fashion item. But that's a personal preference.
Lodgebo said:
"I do see folk going into sports shops and buying a Nike t - shirt and from what I can gather they seem perfectly normal"
It's normality that is a curse. Normality is a product of the dim witted and unimaginatively minded.
Lodgebo said:
"So whats your answer Preeston remove all logos from all clothes or what?"
Don't be so daft. If I was in favour of that action, I'd have very few people to laugh it.
Lodgebo said:
"Well you don't have to pay for them here buy you still use them right? it's still got the supermarkets brand on it right? so it's still advertising that you do for free regardless of whether it's cool or fashionable you still do it. I will guarantee that this week you will have minimum sponsored 5 brands knowingly or unknowingly but as long as it's not a big America or German multinational that's ok is it?"
As I've previously stated, I have no problems walking around with a FREE supermarket-branded carrier bag. Paying for it would be out of the question. I pay very few people to advertise for them, other than the makers of my watch, which has an acceptably sized, small logo on it, which means that it's not vulgar. But my watch is functional and not a fashion item.
You see, Lodgebo, almost everything I buy stems for the pursuit of function over brand, unlike the twits who buy brand over function. Q.E.D. But that's their tough luck if they want to toss away hard-earned dosh.
I've never 'sponsored' any brand. What are you talking about? Really, you ought to chose your words wisely, old boy.
lodgebo said this in post #36 :
Granted I have seen advertisers try and get these p;oints over to people and if that is what you are talking about there is noting wrong with that it is business.
I agree, convincing the public to wear the company logo emblazoned on their clothing, and pay for it too (the sweetest touch) is a business master-stroke.
quote:
Thje fact remains that people are not stupid and they have a choce buy the products or not and they make the choice everyday.
Whether or not the public are stupid is irrelevant because the company's that make these products are always smarter, and cash buys a lot of very very smart brains.
quote:
WEll footballer get paid becaue they have a god given talent and it looks good if your products are endorsed by them normal guys in teh street don't have that impact do they, billbords and TV can reach millions of people and get across a specific message or product line again the average guy in the street cant.
The message is the brand (and whatever lifestyle the company hangs on that brand) and for the brand to be successful it has to be seen and noticed. The public helps, however small or big that help may be (unpaid of course) to spread the word!
quote:
Again though you deem it advertising I say it can't be that effective when the companies are advertising through other genres.
Companies will advertise just about anywhere they can and on anything that lets them. Spreading the brand means carpet bombing the public with the brand logo. Nike for instance have become so ubiquitous, a tick, or swoosh, or whatever they call it, is all that is needed to remind everyone - NIKE! It's good business.
quote:
The whole Jordan thing well I don't know what the avreage wage is in Indonesia but thats always going to happen doesn't make it right but it will happen.
Sometimes what's happening around the world and what we accept is quite staggering. Whatever the standard of living in Indonesia - Nike paid Michael Jordan more in 1992 for endorsing its trainers ($20 million) than the company paid its entire 30,000-strong Indonesian workforce for making them.
Is that acceptable? Should we ever accept something like that? Or are we so comfortable or apathetic or feel helpless to do anything that we don't seem to have much choice? Does it even matter?
They are paid according to the entertainment value they bring to the audience? The more people are willing to pay for their performances, they more they earn...we are both willing parties I guess...
05-19-2007 01:18 AM
