Inadvertant Advertisments

[DerMann]

This is a subject that has always plagued me, especially with clothing.

One thing that always annoyed me, at first with shoes, was that the brand name was stamped on the product as many times as deemed possible by the designer. This is why I started wearing progressively 'dressier' shoes - there is no indication of the manufacturer on the outside of most oxfords. To me, any indication of manufacturer on dress shoes, or even saddle shoes or loafers (apart from the bit on the sole, which is easily worn away) makes them feel contrived and cheesy, ruining any style they might have had.

Most modern t-shirts, caps, and shoes are spattered with either popular brands or cultural references. Is it really necessary to be a living billboard for a company you just paid money to? That's one thing that I always liked about sport coats, shirts, and trousers - apart from the one company label on the inside, no one will ever know where you purchased your garments from, unless they ask you.

If someone likes the way you dress, or really enjoys a particular item of clothing, they ought to ask personally, not be automatically referred. The observed quality and styling should draw someone to a product, not the name.

Has anyone else noticed this? When was branding a company's logo on the side of a shoe or on the front of a shirt considered agreeable by the people wearing them.

In an un-vintage related note,this has started to take root in video games as well. The first game to blatantly have advertisements for third party products was Battlefield 2142. Whilst a marvelous game, many people were turned off to it because of the blatant attempt to make loads of cash easily.

Sorry for the rant...

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Some people find status by wearing name brands and don't care for actual style. The more labels on it the better. [huh]

 

[dhermann1]

I'm reminded of a New Yorker cartoon from the late 70's. There's a stout, 60-ish looking, elderly Yalie looking kind of guy speaking to a shopgirl behind a counter saying "One supposes that if my parents had wanted Yves St Laurent's initials on my shirts, they would have named me Yves St Laurent".
It cracks me up when I see people even leaving the "100% wool" labels on the cuffs of their overcoats. It's just ignorance. And vulgarity.

 

[Paisley]

Miss Manners said that for a long time, she thought that a certain couple she knew was named Ann and Calvin Klein.

Some old game shows actually featured obvious advertising, but Alfred Hitchcock always made gentle fun of his sponsors.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Some old game shows actually featured obvious advertising, but Alfred Hitchcock always made gentle fun of his sponsors.

There's a difference between sponsored content and having paid top dollar for some cheap garb that brandishes a name which is actually free advertising for the company.

I do love Hitchcock's making fun of his sponsors!

 

[Feraud]

Some old game shows actually featured obvious advertising, but Alfred Hitchcock always made gentle fun of his sponsors.

This is a good point to consider. Advertising overkill is not a new thing. Old time radio shows were frequently brought to you by so-and-so product. I've seen photos of old baseball games and the volume of advertising is distracting.

I vaguely recall a sentiment made by an aviator in the 20-30s where he declined a flying job due to the opressive advertising requirements!

 

[MrNewportCustom]

This is a good point to consider. Advertising overkill is not a new thing. Old time radio shows were frequently brought to you by so-and-so product.

Such as Bob Hope and the Texaco Star Theater, and etc. And didn't that go from radio to television? (I'm not real clear on that.)


Lee

 

[LizzieMaine]

Very much so -- in fact, during the first eight years or so of broadcast advertising "direct commercials" were prohibited, so the only way a sponsor could get his name out there was to affix it to the name of a program. Thus you had orchestras like the "Clicquot Club Eskimos," the "Ipana Troubadours," and the "A&P Gypsies." There's nothing new or unusual about such practices.

But the difference is this -- you didn't go to a store in 1928 and buy an overcoat with HART SCHAFFNER & MARX embroidered over and over again into the weave, or a handbag with a big HATTIE CARNEGIE logo stamped on the leather. For that matter, you didn't go to a sporting event at the EDISON MAZDA LAMP FIELD or the KUHN LOEB & SONS STADIUM. Sure, you had the Chrysler Building and such, but the difference was that building was actually built for Chrysler, and not the result of some cheesy billion-dollar naming rights auction. Lindbergh allowed Mobiloil to run magazine ads noting that he had used their products on his flight -- but he didn't wear a big MOBILOIL patch on his flying suit.

The ultimate result of all this sort of thing can be found in the movie "Idiocracy."

 

[Sefton]

The one type of inadvertant advertising that I don't mind wearing is the Levis label on the back of a pair of blue jeans (as long as it's a leather tag on a reproduction model). Other than that I'm against being a free billboard for anyone.

 

[miss_elise]

one girl i knew had a pair of glasses, and there upon these glasses the word 'gucci' was printed 13 times...on one single pair of glasses

 

[Nighthawk]

Louis Vuitton monogram canvas luggage before, during, and after the Golden Era all contain the LV logo dozens of times on the exterior of each piece of luggage.

NH

 

[B. F. Socaspi]

I remember a specific instance when, as a child, I asked my Mom where people got clothes without words on them. I thought only rich and famous people could afford plain shirts.

:eusa_doh:

 

[Tomasso]

I'm against being a free billboard for anyone.

How about for yourself?

Holland & Sherry will make up suiting with your name woven into the fabric.

 

[shortbow]

What amuses me is the inverse proportion between the amount of labeling one finds on modern goods and the quality found therein.

 

[The Wolf]

DerMann, you don't need to apologise to me for your rant. I have definately bent more more than a few ears with the same rant.
One time a friend of mine needed a cap and found that he could get a custom logo stitched on one for slightly more than a NIKE cap. He told me if I came up with a logo using the name our little cadre used then we would have hats advertising us instead.

On a similar vein, how about people that buy bicyclist jerseys with all the advertising on them. The professional cyclist is paid to be that billboard but an amateur pays to be the billboard. :eusa_doh:

Sincerely,
The Wolf

 

[Lancealot]

I also detest having to pay money for clothing and then being expected to enjoy the fact that the makers label is plastered all over it.

 

[Geesie]

I usually stay away from walking-billboard clothing purchases. There is one notable exception, since I feel that it is in the realm of "classic" rather than the realm of "LOOK AT ME I CAN AFFORD TOMMY HILFIGER CLOTHING". And that is:

 

[Undertow]

you didn't go to a store in 1928 and buy an overcoat with HART SCHAFFNER & MARX embroidered over and over again into the weave...

...that building was actually built for Chrysler, and not the result of some cheesy billion-dollar naming rights auction. Lindbergh allowed Mobiloil to run magazine ads noting that he had used their products on his flight -- but he didn't wear a big MOBILOIL patch on his flying suit.

The ultimate result of all this sort of thing can be found in the movie "Idiocracy."

I couldn't agree more! :eusa_clap

 

[Vampyre Master]

you want me to advertize your goods, you pay ME!!
Vampyre

 

[ShoreRoadLady]

Oddly enough, it's often the lower-priced lines by a designer that are emblazoned with labels. The higher-end stuff is just clothing; the lower-end stuff is "TOMMY HILFIGER!!! DKNY!!! Look at me, I spent $50 on a T-shirt because I can't afford the real stuff!!!"

Tomasso, that suiting NEEDS to be put in a book. Somewhere, somehow. It's just begging for the right character to wear it.