<< looks so cheap, I wonder who would actually pay 85 bucks for that. >>
They should pay ME $85 to wear their ugly logo on my arm.
I've never understood why people are so desperate to pay big money to act as a billboard for Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc. It's kind of like the Dr. Seuss story about the Sneeches. The Sneeches with stars thought they were cool until ALL the Sneeches had stars upon thars. It's the same with that stupid (FILL-IN-CORPORATE-NAME) logo. What's cool about wearing it if EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET has the same logo on their clothes?
You have to admire the brilliance of the marketing concept--find people dumb enough to pay you to wear your logo on their clothing. Absolutely brilliant. Every time I go to the mall and see 1,000,000 people with an "OLD NAVY" logo on their sweatshirt I have to cringe. Gee, that's original! Nobody even HEARD of Old Navy until a few years ago; now it's something people actually WANT to wear? Egad!
And to watch high schoolers scream about how free thinking and independent they are--and then they all go off to school with the same ugly *ss Abercrombie & Fitch shirt, shorts, hat and jacket. That's cool? Yeah, about as cool as a Gap t-shirt.
patty, I totally see where you're coming from ... but c'mon where can you find t-shirts that has no logo affliated with it? Almost everything you buy has to have a logo on it, they might be of different sizes but logos nonetheless. I agree some do go overboard with the brand name clothing but you can't just say people are dumb for buying clothing with logos on them ... and yes you can still express yourself with Nike or BR or Addidas for that matter. There are many different stereotypes associated with each logo and those who wants to be labelled as such would buy that label ... it's not because people are stupid that they buy these brand name clothing but merely to fit in ...
<< patty, I totally see where you're coming from ... but c'mon where can you find t-shirts that has no logo affliated with it? >>
Sam's Club: $4.97 (vs. $20 for Nike)
Wal-Mart: $2.97 (vs. $18 for Gap)
K-Mart: $3.97 (vs. $19 for Adidas)
<< Almost everything you buy has to have a logo on it... >>
Absolutely not true. I won't buy a logo item if I have a choice, and I have never had a problem buying something without a logo.
<< I agree some do go overboard with the brand name clothing but you can't just say people are dumb for buying clothing with logos on them ... >>
It's dumb and pointless to spend 2X-5x the money for clothing that is nothing more than an ad for Nike, et al.
<< it's not because people are stupid that they buy these brand name clothing but merely to fit in ... >>
You don't think Nike, Abercrombie & Fitch, Adidas, Reebok, Gap, etc, know that and exploit the pressure people feel to fit in? That's what makes this whole "logo clothing" issue so sickening. These companies are exploiting the nature of people to want to be accepted and they're making huge profits at the expense of your insecurities. Don't believe me? Look at a Polo ad. An Abercrombie & Fitch ad. A Reebok ad. They imply--with varying degrees of subtlety--that if you don't have the logo threads you can't run with the supermodel crowd. "Oh, dang--you mean I can't be friends with Kate Moss if I don't have a stupid GAP logo on my $77 sweatshirt?"
Kids and adults are bombarded with messages that being a rebel is one of the most important goals in life. Yet how is it that that message gets perverted into the idea that we should therefore all wear the same overpriced clothes? "Uh lemme see. Advertisers tell me I should be a rebel, right? A strong individual? A free thinker? But I have to wear a Nike logo hat, shirt and shoes to show people what a rebel I am, right?"
See my point? When did we as a society decide it "merely fitting in" was a virtue?