BF2S Forums The New Reason to Wear Clothes

Think expressions. Perhaps it's not one used in the US much.

Damn. Storm in a teacup?

S.Lythberg wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Damn. Storm in a teacup?

never heard it.

Poseidon wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Damn. Storm in a teacup?

never heard it.

Making a mountain out of a molehill? Same thing. I'm sure you can figure that one out even if you've never heard of it.

Do they only do weird expressions in Europe or something?

i see your point maniac. except when i see a kid advertising abercrombie i think: "what a queer".

Sox jersey all the time!

Yellowman03 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yellowman03 wrote:

but it's society that defines what luxury is. In our postmodern society, luxury is no longer what we think are basic needs ex. soap, cars, electricity, and even computers. At this point, luxury becomes defined by the young, handsome, rich, and popular. Though i agree that people are stupid for buying all that crap, i encourage it. Because of the imminent recession, we need these people to buy stuff.  I say we keep our mouths shut.

Luxury in the upper class is defined by the people with money. Luxury in the middle class is defined by people taking the money. That is who defines luxury.

I would rather have my self-respect and have a recession.

i could care less about another person's self-respect. As long as I have mine, I'm good. As for recession, that fucks all of us. Some preppy asshole losing his own respect is nothing compared to economy stagnating. In fact, it's hilarious.

The economy is not going to stagnate because people aren't buying shirts. The problem is much deeper than that.

Everyone in the U.S. reflects on the whole country, and I would say we have enough problems with foreign relations already wouldn't you?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The advertising is not the important part. The important part is giving away something for nothing. In the business example you are getting about as much as has been taken from you.

Yes, they advertise because that is the important part.  They want you to remember their brand name, especially when considering new purchases.  This advertising is no different from giving free movie t-shirts away at a school. Both are targeting their particular groups.  I understand what you mean, though.  Arbitrarily going into schools to give free t-shirts is different from a business conference or trade show, where you elect to go there.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The t-shirt does not cost any money. The t-shirt is not free.

Yes, it is not free per se, but it costs the recipient nothing quantifiable.  No one can put a price on your dignity, and as the forehead lady shows, we all have a price.  A free t-shirt is worth it for some people to wear a giant movie-themed logo.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You said that I said when you are buying from Pepsi, you are doing it to increase Pepsi's revenue. What I actually said was that as far as Pepsi is concerned whenever you buy their product, you are doing nothing but generating revenue. The distinction between perspectives is important. Companies do not care about you as an individual, so we should be looking to avoid being screwed over instead of bending over and asking for it.

Fair point.  I do not think for a second that Pepsi Co. cares that buy their products.  But then, I don't think Amazon cares that I buy from them, or that UPS cares that I use them as a shipping service whenever possible.  Typically, a single customer means nothing to a large corporation.  I am part of a demographic.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...

I said if you don't like Pepsi then don't tell your friends it's awesome. You're equating it to someone in the Tech section telling me to buy a card they absolutely hate.

Personal recommendations are great, but don't recommend something you don't even like...

When did I ever say I give recommendations to things I don't like?  I didn't.  The Pepsi example was brought up as an example of how when I buy a pepsi, I do so to drink it.  Not to advertise.  While the fact that holding the bottle is some form of advertisement, I do not feel as though I am losing my dignity or selling my soul when I carry one around as a drink.

There are some companies that rely on word of mouth/personal recommendations for advertising.  Cut Co. is one that I can think of real quick.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I'm still on the Pepsi metaphor. If we're getting all Darwin on businesses, you not giving money to a company because you don't like their product means that they are not fit to exist. People are screwing up the natural order of things buy giving companies undeserved money, keeping companies alive that shouldn't be.

I think this was part of your post, since I didn't say it and it was in my quote block.  These companies make money, they have as much a right to exist as any other.  They just don't get supported by me.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I'm still on the Pepsi metaphor.

The company created a market that only came in to existence after the market had already been created. Yeah, it doesn't make sense because what they did doesn't make sense. They made people believe the clothes were hip before they were actually hip, used the blatant advertising on the product itself to get the word out, and then sat down satisfied when their market now existed. They forced people to pay a premium for a label that didn't exist, and then made their customers work to make the label exist.

Yes, they've been duped.  But if people didn't assign aesthetic value to things, the world would be very plain and boring.  Not everyone values function over form.  These clothes show that.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You see the tattoo as selling permanent retail for a one time fee, I see putting on a shirt as voluntarily tattooing yourself for 12 hours. It's not that big of a difference.

If I decide in an hour that I don't want to wear the shirt, I can take it off.  She is forced to wear that tattoo unless she pays to remove it.  Yes, they are kinda the same.  But not.  Surely you can see that.  Though, I think I would actually avoid an company that paid to put tattoos on people.  That's seems like it would lead to exploitation.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Not everyone has the money or will to advertise. GAP does because the people it appeals to are watching tv and care about the ads. The kind of companies that make the clothes I buy know I don't care enough to pay attention to a clothes commercial or print ads, and am just going to buy whatever looks good/fits well at the store.

And that's what I do also.  I buy Hanes and Fruit of the Loom shirts because they are inexpensive, last a while, and do what they are supposed to do--cover my damn torso.  I can certainly understand where you are coming from, but like I said before, not everyone values function over form.  My fiancee can attest to that.  It pisses her off when I clean the apartment and move a bunch of shit around into some "ugly" configuration because it did what it was supposed to.  Regardless, that's not the meat of the argument you have, but it is a large component.  Not everyone wants a plain shirt, so companies make ones with logos and designs.  It makes sense for them to use their company logo, but they don't have to.  As for people buying these shirts with "American Eagle" or "GAP" plastered on the front-- I don't really know what motivates them to do it.  I will share with you a story that shows just how out of touch I can get.  When I was a freshman in college, I lived in a dorm with 4 main wings.  The one I lived on was "Hollister", and the day I moved in people had all these shirts that said "Hollister" on them.  I had no idea there was a store named "Hollister" until I saw someone walking around with a bag from the store.  I didn't shop there though.  Paying $25 for a damn shirt seems stupid to me.

Anyway, I don't like how advertising has gotten into every facet of our lives.  But, you can capitalize from it.  I used to get years of free Maxim subscriptions from advertisers simply because they wanted people to see their ads in the magazine.  I just ignored the ads inside, and got 4 years of free Maxim magazine.  Companies give all sorts of free stuff away in the hopes that it'll work as advertising.  You just have to know where to look.  I even pretended to be a technical consultant to get free AMD t-shirts a few years ago.

SenorToenails wrote:

Yes, they advertise because that is the important part.  They want you to remember their brand name, especially when considering new purchases.  This advertising is no different from giving free movie t-shirts away at a school. Both are targeting their particular groups.  I understand what you mean, though.  Arbitrarily going into schools to give free t-shirts is different from a business conference or trade show, where you elect to go there.

The difference to me is going at relatively innocent kids that don't know enough to try to use it to their advantage is low. At a business conference, an adult should know how to get the maximum benefit for themselves, so they are getting some sort of reparations for advertising for the company.

SenorToenails wrote:

Yes, it is not free per se, but it costs the recipient nothing quantifiable.  No one can put a price on your dignity, and as the forehead lady shows, we all have a price.  A free t-shirt is worth it for some people to wear a giant movie-themed logo.

And that last part is what I find so disgusting. There are people who would and do die for freedom of speech in this country, and then people take that right and sell it for a free t-shirt. Unlike all the materialistic crap the various aspects of our character are the only things that can never be taken away from us. I can't understand why anyone would want to liquidate such a precious commodity, and especially for anything that wouldn't most likely let you live comfortably for life.

SenorToenails wrote:

Fair point.  I do not think for a second that Pepsi Co. cares that buy their products.  But then, I don't think Amazon cares that I buy from them, or that UPS cares that I use them as a shipping service whenever possible.  Typically, a single customer means nothing to a large corporation.  I am part of a demographic.

But most people don't wear t-shirts for these companies around. People just do business with them, which I have no problem with, but what I'm talking about is people getting ripped off by these clothing companies. If most people realize that the companies don't care about the customer, I can't see how they rip so many people off.

SenorToenails wrote:

When did I ever say I give recommendations to things I don't like?  I didn't.  The Pepsi example was brought up as an example of how when I buy a pepsi, I do so to drink it.  Not to advertise.  While the fact that holding the bottle is some form of advertisement, I do not feel as though I am losing my dignity or selling my soul when I carry one around as a drink.

You said:

SenorToenails wrote:

Personal recommendations make us all corporate tools?  I wonder if you held the same feelings towards the people who recommended a soundcard for you in the Tech section recently.

but that isn't what I said, so I was clarifying. I was saying that you wouldn't give a personal recommendation to a product you don't enjoy, because the product is inferior. If the entire capitalist system was based on just you, that company would go out of business because you do not deem it fit.

So you would only lose your soul if you were carrying around a drink you found disgusting and told everyone else to buy it. That behavior should lead a breakdown to the whole system, and yet that isn't too far from what the clothing companies are doing.

SenorToenails wrote:

I think this was part of your post, since I didn't say it and it was in my quote block.  These companies make money, they have as much a right to exist as any other.  They just don't get supported by me.

I meant to delete that block, as it was replaced by the next one. Hence the same starter sentence.

I mostly addressed it above, but as far as you are concerned the company does not deserve to exist. Obviously other people pay money to the company, they do think it should exist.

SenorToenails wrote:

Yes, they've been duped.  But if people didn't assign aesthetic value to things, the world would be very plain and boring.  Not everyone values function over form.  These clothes show that.

That's my point though, these clothes don't even have aesthetic value. (yeah I know I can't say that for everyone, just hear me out)

Aesthetic value is important and I definitely see the value in it. Paintings? Music? The beautiful $200 computer case I have sitting next to me? Some things exist solely on aesthetic and that is okay, because we're all human. We need to look at things we find pleasing in this crappy world, or we would all crack.

However, there is a difference between what people say they like and what they actually like. A good example for all the idiots in my age group that we are talking about, I went to a talent show the other night. It just was not funny. Not a this isn't my kind of funny unfunny, it was just plain stupid. I know if individual members of the audience saw some of the acts on youtube or the like, they probably would have closed it half way through and not paid another thought to it. The crowd mentality was apparently overwhelming however, and people just thought it was the greatest thing in the world. The social influence to find it funny all that mattered, not the actual content itself.

Same thing with the clothes. It doesn't actually matter if it looks good or not. Look at the photo on the first page again. You're going to look at that and honestly say it's easy on the eyes? Not the model, not how it looks on him, because then we're just thinking to how most of that type people look, and he fits right in. It looks natural. But a bright orange sweater with huge white letters that say "AMERICAN EAGLE" without a hint of patriotism? Really? It only looks good because after they nabbed the first group of people and got them to like it based on a virtual flock mentality, the flock mentality was realized and people got the idea in their head that this is what they are supposed to look like.

You can look at any fashion trends this way, maybe not so much in high fashion but at least in adolescent trends. People always look back and see how crappy everything looked, but why is that? The aesthetic value of either the present fashion or the past fashion hasn't changed, so why does it look worse when you're not in the time period?

SenorToenails wrote:

If I decide in an hour that I don't want to wear the shirt, I can take it off.  She is forced to wear that tattoo unless she pays to remove it.  Yes, they are kinda the same.  But not.  Surely you can see that.  Though, I think I would actually avoid an company that paid to put tattoos on people.  That's seems like it would lead to exploitation.

I do see the difference, and it is a big one. But honestly on a scale of 1 to an insane 10, the tattoo is about a 3,000. Really, that woman is probably not mentally stable. So even though the tattoo is a lot worse, wearing these shirts is still about a 7. Staying on a scale that doesn't include crazy people, wearing these shirts is still one of the dumber conscious decisions you can make.

SenorToenails wrote:

And that's what I do also.  I buy Hanes and Fruit of the Loom shirts because they are inexpensive, last a while, and do what they are supposed to do--cover my damn torso.  I can certainly understand where you are coming from, but like I said before, not everyone values function over form.  My fiancee can attest to that.  It pisses her off when I clean the apartment and move a bunch of shit around into some "ugly" configuration because it did what it was supposed to.  Regardless, that's not the meat of the argument you have, but it is a large component.  Not everyone wants a plain shirt, so companies make ones with logos and designs.  It makes sense for them to use their company logo, but they don't have to.  As for people buying these shirts with "American Eagle" or "GAP" plastered on the front-- I don't really know what motivates them to do it.  I will share with you a story that shows just how out of touch I can get.  When I was a freshman in college, I lived in a dorm with 4 main wings.  The one I lived on was "Hollister", and the day I moved in people had all these shirts that said "Hollister" on them.  I had no idea there was a store named "Hollister" until I saw someone walking around with a bag from the store.  I didn't shop there though.  Paying $25 for a damn shirt seems stupid to me.

I went over most of my thoughts on the aesthetics above.

As for being in touch with things, I could be missing important aspects, but I don't think so. God knows I'm anti-social enough to look at this crap from a distance without being sucked in, but I'm very observant and analytical of our wonderful little school societal ecosystem. I enjoy judging people and watching people fall in to presets I've guessed for them, and since about sophomore year watching all the people I've picked out to be sheep fall in to line with these companies is just astounding. What really put me over the edge to make this post is the first person to jump for the Speed Racer t-shirts is a kid who is absolutely dying for attention. Apparently he used to be overweight and didn't have friends, and over the years he's been using his vast knowledge of games and Japanese culture to get in with a crowd. Of course he jumped for a Speed Racer shirt.

SenorToenails wrote:

Anyway, I don't like how advertising has gotten into every facet of our lives.  But, you can capitalize from it.  I used to get years of free Maxim subscriptions from advertisers simply because they wanted people to see their ads in the magazine.  I just ignored the ads inside, and got 4 years of free Maxim magazine.  Companies give all sorts of free stuff away in the hopes that it'll work as advertising.  You just have to know where to look.  I even pretended to be a technical consultant to get free AMD t-shirts a few years ago.

I agree that you can get nice stuff if you know where to look, but I would rather be on the other end of advertising benefiting from it.

I was actually talking to Yellowman about this yesterday though, and there is a distinction in my eyes between a scam and advertising. If you have a valid product that is actually useful to people, then all advertising needs to be is getting the word out and then the sales will take care of themselves. What American Eagle did before they had made it was a scam, tricking people thinking they were getting something they weren't. After they made it the advertising is legit because the social opinion reflects their advertising, but to claw their way to the top they lied to people.

edit:

topthrill05 wrote:

Not to throw this in another direction, I find it much, much more annoying when company names take Jacobs Field and turn it into Progressive Field.

I can't stand it, although there is nothing you can do about it, same with the shirts.

You can't stand it, but you buy ticket to the game? Do you watch the game on TV? Your mouth says it sucks and your money approves, and guess who the corporations are going to listen to.

So your telling me that if I want these things to change I have to stop watching baseball? Get a grip.

You are right in principle yes, but not in any practical sense.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't believe in the idea of trend setters. Trends today are so materialistic that they are mostly defined by business, and their success is dependent on making people believe they are following the trend setters.

As I said.

To think that whole movements are based solely on a handful of popular people is pretty ridiculous, I find it more believable that the early adopters are often the most popular people because they are the ones who are looking for the cutting edge of cool. They aren't the tip of the blade itself, only the people who get into the trend a few weeks before everyone else.

The fact they are popular helps initiate the trend, though.

Celebrities are used for sex appeal and ethos., to make the idea of a product stick. I don't believe they can start a materialistic trend. Fashion would be the one industry where I would say there are trend setters and serious celebrity persuasion, but high fashion, not this middle end crap.

Exactly. I was using celebrities to illustrate how popular/cool people help sell products.

1 - Logos do not have to be large to be effective

It certainly helps, though.

2 - You can be very successful without stamping your name on everything. I don't see Xerox writing their company name on every sheet of paper, and that would basically be the equivalent exposure as massive logos on clothing. They're so successful their company name has become a verb.

In most industries, the rule is true. Obviously, there are exceptions.

Not all advertisement. Think Super Bowl commercials, the best ones that get the name out are just plain funny.

As a general rule, advertising requires lying. You are correct that Super Bowl commercials don't lie, but at the same time, they don't discuss anything substantive about the product. In essence, they are the other kind of student government speech (besides the "Here I am, look at all I have done, aren't I the greatest person since sliced bread" wonders), which appeal to a students sense of what is "it".


I am mostly on your side here.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-04-27 18:55:30)

SenorToenails wrote:

I think Flaming and I have basically come to an understanding.  I'm not going to format a gigantic quote block to say as much.

nukchebi0 wrote:

As a general rule, advertising requires lying. You are correct that Super Bowl commercials don't lie, but at the same time, they don't discuss anything substantive about the product. In essence, they are the other kind of student government speech (besides the "Here I am, look at all I have done, aren't I the greatest person since sliced bread" wonders), which appeal to a students sense of what is "it".

Advertising is not lying.  Advertising is manipulation.  There is a very fine, but important, distinction there.

Could you elaborate slightly? I'm not sure I see much of a difference between manipulation and lying in this case.