Brand Identification

[Cramulus]

somebody recently invited me to join a facebook group "I don't wear brand clothing"

which is true, i don't have any clothing with visible logos on it, except for a few pajama t-shirts

but joining a facebook group to advertise that seems counterintuitive

isn't it just the anti-brand brand?


Kale Lassn and his adbusters goons released a line of shoes a few years back called the Black Spot. They were an attack against nike, against the whole idea that you have to pay top tollar for the right to be a walking billboard for some company...



but what have they done? They have created a billboard for their brand of counterculture. It's not unbranded, it's the unbrand brand.

[Adios]

somebody recently invited me to join a facebook group "I don't wear brand clothing"

which is true, i don't have any clothing with visible logos on it, except for a few pajama t-shirts

but joining a facebook group to advertise that seems counterintuitive

isn't it just the anti-brand brand?


Kale Lassn and his adbusters goons released a line of shoes a few years back called the Black Spot. They were an attack against nike, against the whole idea that you have to pay top tollar for the right to be a walking billboard for some company...



but what have they done? They have created a billboard for their brand of counterculture. It's not unbranded, it's the unbrand brand.

Yeah, it's marketing. "The only way to be cool is to be UNCOOL, we have the solution!"

[P3nT4gR4m]

Counterculture became a brand as soon as it became a word. That's how it works. One of the reasons I'd never describe myself as "Discordian" It might be a brand I respect more than most but it's still a pidgeonhole. I aint no motherfucken demographic 

[AFK]

Black sheep are still sheep

[Cramulus]

It's too bad, because I think the motivation is really dead on. One of the reasons we're all becoming consumer zombies is because people attach real meaning to these brand sigils.

And if you can come up with a way to get people to stop building their identity with brands, you've defeated a dangerous and pervasive aspect of consumerism.

[LMNO]

If they gave the shoes away for free, that might be different.  But if you're going to try and make a "no-brand" brand for selling product, then it all falls apart.


Just go one of those Job Lots/flea markets and buy a bunch of no-name gear with no logo, or a logo no one knows about it.  Or, grab a can of spraypaint and obliterate the logo on your stuff.

In fact, sometimes the logo brand actually makes a good product.  In that case, buy it for the quality and then alter it yourself to disguise/manipulate the logo. 

[Adios]

It's too bad, because I think the motivation is really dead on. One of the reasons we're all becoming consumer zombies is because people attach real meaning to these brand sigils.

And if you can come up with a way to get people to stop building their identity with brands, you've defeated a dangerous and pervasive aspect of consumerism.

Honesty would be the best approach.

"We will not smear our name all over this product but it is a good product and costs less because we aren't asking you to advertise for us."

[LMNO]

Or, you can be subtle about it.

I am a big fan of Ben Sherman brand shirts.  I really like the cut and fit of them.

Other then the fact they look good, the only difinitive clue is that the last button on the bottom of the shirt, the one usually covered up by your waistband, has the Ben Sherman Union Jack logo.  I'm happy to wear the shirt, but if it was all plastered with their name, I wouldn't go near it, no matter how well it was constructed.

It works because I not only keep wearing/buying their stuff, I find myself telling other people about how much I like their stuff.  As you can see.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's too bad, because I think the motivation is really dead on. One of the reasons we're all becoming consumer zombies is because people attach real meaning to these brand sigils.

And if you can come up with a way to get people to stop building their identity with brands, you've defeated a dangerous and pervasive aspect of consumerism.

Honesty would be the best approach.

"We will not smear our name all over this product but it is a good product and costs less because we aren't asking you to advertise for us."

Except it should be the other way around; the product that the wearer doesn't advertise should cost more. That's not the case, it's just what SHOULD be the case. The product with the conspicuous logo should cost less because the seller is getting free advertising from the buyer.

[AFK]

I guess I look at it like we talked about the whole BIP/cell idea.  I'm not so sure that branding is really that much of a negative, if you are at least aware of it.  If you have the awareness that you've bought into a mindset that says, "I have to wear Nike shoes because it makes me feel good", it's better than complete, blind consumerism.  

I regularly buy Tim Horton's coffee.  Because I like it.  I like their shops, they are comfy for sitting down to have a cup of joe.  But, I'm aware that this is partly a result of how they've marketed their brand to customers like myself.  

So at least an informed consumer whore is better than an uninformed, in my book anyway.  

[Adios]

It's too bad, because I think the motivation is really dead on. One of the reasons we're all becoming consumer zombies is because people attach real meaning to these brand sigils.

And if you can come up with a way to get people to stop building their identity with brands, you've defeated a dangerous and pervasive aspect of consumerism.

Honesty would be the best approach.

"We will not smear our name all over this product but it is a good product and costs less because we aren't asking you to advertise for us."

Except it should be the other way around; the product that the wearer doesn't advertise should cost more. That's not the case, it's just what SHOULD be the case. The product with the conspicuous logo should cost less because the seller is getting free advertising from the buyer.

The point is due to marketing they make you uncool if you are not sporting their logo, then they charge more because they are providing you with status.

[Cramulus]

Here's the jaws of the alligator, as I see it:

ON ONE HAND, sometimes nike, starbucks, the gap, etc, make superior products that you'd want to buy for their own merits

ON THE OTHER HAND, we are unwittingly carrying and transmitting a number of information viruses. these viruses, on a large enough scale, have transformed our everyday life into a commercial. And our culture into an empire of signs and signals.

I mean, you buy certain clothes so you can appear a certain way... and people take that at face value - if you dress like you're rich, people will treat you like you're rich. These symbols, these signifiers, are an easy shorthand for meaning or identity even if that meaning or identity isn't present. So consequently, we live in a world which is increasingly made up of signals, not substance.


so

ON ONE HAND, one should be careful about what signals he transmits

ON THE OTHER HAND, one should ignore brands and just buy products which resonate with him

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's too bad, because I think the motivation is really dead on. One of the reasons we're all becoming consumer zombies is because people attach real meaning to these brand sigils.

And if you can come up with a way to get people to stop building their identity with brands, you've defeated a dangerous and pervasive aspect of consumerism.

Honesty would be the best approach.

"We will not smear our name all over this product but it is a good product and costs less because we aren't asking you to advertise for us."

Except it should be the other way around; the product that the wearer doesn't advertise should cost more. That's not the case, it's just what SHOULD be the case. The product with the conspicuous logo should cost less because the seller is getting free advertising from the buyer.

The point is due to marketing they make you uncool if you are not sporting their logo, then they charge more because they are providing you with status.

It has evolved into that, but the original purpose was simply to have a visible logo that identified your product to other consumers, which is brand advertising. It's a fairly functional system. The status arrived after that. "I see that wealthy, well-dressed people wear those shoes... I want those shoes so that I can appear to be wealthy and share in the status of wealthy people". Of course, like Louis Vitton and similar brands, what happened after that is that wealthy people started avoiding visible logos and they became strictly the provenance of the nouveau-riche and of the social-climbing lower class, but luckily there are enough of those to keep most big brand machines in business.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I used to be very anti band/tour teeshirts. I used to listen to the music on merit. Struck me a lot of people were turning it into some kind of herd identity. It didn't sit right with me.

Then I saw the Marillion Assassing teeshirt in a shop window and I thought "fuck it, that's one cool fucking picture, I'm having it!"

...Dunno where that anecdote was going. Forget it.

[Adios]

I used to be very anti band/tour teeshirts. I used to listen to the music on merit. Struck me a lot of people were turning it into some kind of herd identity. It didn't sit right with me.

Then I saw the Marillion Assassing teeshirt in a shop window and I thought "fuck it, that's one cool fucking picture, I'm having it!"

...Dunno where that anecdote was going. Forget it.

It tickled your buy bone?