Seriously, if you're not even going to read it, don't reply. At least read Toenail's abridged version above.BlackKoala wrote:
So your basis of success is.....Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If you give me two people, equal income, one wearing a popular brand and one wearing clothes of comparative quality without the brand, I would bet on the success of the latter every time.
A shirt? Uhhh....alrighty there cowboy.
I have a shit load of Fox tee's and hoodies. In my defense, I mountain bike and to keep you happy I've also ridden a bunch of dirtbikes before.S3v3N wrote:
My favorite gripe is people who wear Fox Racing clothing yet have never sat on a dirt bike nor raced one, they wear it just because the little Fox icon is cool looking and I remember when a Fox racing shirt was 10 bucks, now they're like 30 something.
And yet, what's the harm in being a walking advertisement? It's not as if the extra ink they used to print their name (or embroidery to sew the name) weighs you down any more.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If you don't mind being used, there is nothing wrong with it. People don't realize just how easily they are manipulated, this is only a feeble attempt to make people realize how easily they influence and are influenced.cowami wrote:
To be honest though, does it really matter? Fine, a person might go around in a shirt with "ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH" plastered on it, but so long as the clothing is comfortable and does what clothing is supposed to do, what's the harm in it (unless of course, you paid $80 for that shirt just for it to have the logo, which is fucktarded)?
Also, I take it we're arguing about the large, blaring logos a la A&F, rather than little sedated ones like you find on most polo shirts.
Why care? Why care that others don't care?
I'm wearing a t-shirt with an HP logo on it. I don't particularly care about HP, but I got it at some promotional event, and it's a good t-shirt, so I see no reason not to wear it. I know full well that it has a logo on it, but I don't particularly care. It's just a shirt.
To say that I'm brainwashed, a sheep, a corporate tool and "an ignorant person who doesn't know that I'm being used" because I don't care what the hell my tshirts says, as long as it's comfortable, is ridiculous. Whether people are fully aware of the intentional advertisement, and don't care, or oblivious to it, and apathetic, it certainly does not make them ignorant, and anyone saying so is arrogant.
It's just a shirt. People aren't ignorant because they have a logo on their clothes, and you aren't superior for not having one on there. It's a shirt. Get over yourself.
I'm wearing a t-shirt with an HP logo on it. I don't particularly care about HP, but I got it at some promotional event, and it's a good t-shirt, so I see no reason not to wear it. I know full well that it has a logo on it, but I don't particularly care. It's just a shirt.
To say that I'm brainwashed, a sheep, a corporate tool and "an ignorant person who doesn't know that I'm being used" because I don't care what the hell my tshirts says, as long as it's comfortable, is ridiculous. Whether people are fully aware of the intentional advertisement, and don't care, or oblivious to it, and apathetic, it certainly does not make them ignorant, and anyone saying so is arrogant.
It's just a shirt. People aren't ignorant because they have a logo on their clothes, and you aren't superior for not having one on there. It's a shirt. Get over yourself.
You. are. not. who. I. am. talking. to. Sheesh.mikkel wrote:
Why care? Why care that others don't care?
I'm wearing a t-shirt with an HP logo on it. I don't particularly care about HP, but I got it at some promotional event, and it's a good t-shirt, so I see no reason not to wear it. I know full well that it has a logo on it, but I don't particularly care. It's just a shirt.
To say that I'm brainwashed, a sheep, a corporate tool and "an ignorant person who doesn't know that I'm being used" because I don't care what the hell my tshirts says, as long as it's comfortable, is ridiculous. Whether people are fully aware of the intentional advertisement, and don't care, or oblivious to it, and apathetic, it certainly does not make them ignorant, and anyone saying so is arrogant.
It's just a shirt. People aren't ignorant because they have a logo on their clothes, and you aren't superior for not having one on there. It's a shirt. Get over yourself.
Who are you talking to, then?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You. are. not. who. I. am. talking. to. Sheesh.
My shirt says U of I Engineering on it...
And i have a lot of Nike stuff, but i buy it for the quality, not the logo
And i have a lot of Nike stuff, but i buy it for the quality, not the logo
Short sighted people who can't see anything but the carrot dangling in front of them. There is a big difference between wearing a free Speed Racer promotional t-shirt and wearing a free industry promotional t-shirt. Industry wear is a given, and in some cases either a good idea or a necessity.SenorToenails wrote:
Who are you talking to, then?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You. are. not. who. I. am. talking. to. Sheesh.
You would think after sticking around for awhile people would stop looking for the absolute most shallow meaning of your post possible, and sit on it for a minute or two. I guess not.
HP gave him the shirt in hopes that he would buy HP products in the future. That's different from giving out free Speed Racer t-shirts how?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Short sighted people who can't see anything but the carrot dangling in front of them. There is a big difference between wearing a free Speed Racer promotional t-shirt and wearing a free industry promotional t-shirt. Industry wear is a given, and in some cases either a good idea or a necessity.
Hint: It isn't. It's advertising designed to make you remember a certain name.
Oh stuff it. When your posts are literally dripping with elitism, people tend to take them at face value.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You would think after sticking around for awhile people would stop looking for the absolute most shallow meaning of your post possible, and sit on it for a minute or two. I guess not.
Industry shirts are part of the game, they go both ways. You want them to remember you as well, as a buyer or a seller, and at the very least you want to remain polite. There is a good chance you will be seeing the same people again, and it would be stupid to burn bridges.SenorToenails wrote:
HP gave him the shirt in hopes that he would buy HP products in the future. That's different from giving out free Speed Racer t-shirts how?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Short sighted people who can't see anything but the carrot dangling in front of them. There is a big difference between wearing a free Speed Racer promotional t-shirt and wearing a free industry promotional t-shirt. Industry wear is a given, and in some cases either a good idea or a necessity.
Hint: It isn't. It's advertising designed to make you remember a certain name.Oh stuff it. When your posts are literally dripping with elitism, people tend to take them at face value.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You would think after sticking around for awhile people would stop looking for the absolute most shallow meaning of your post possible, and sit on it for a minute or two. I guess not.
Giving away t-shirts to idiot minors to do their dirty work on the other hand on a school campus is low.
I don't know where all this elitism crap that everyone keeps bringing up comes from. These are my observations of how the world works, and they are usually belittled and mocked, so how you can be an elitist when everyone thinks you're being an ass I don't understand. I don't particularly mind that though, but when people don't even attempt to read my full opinion and would rather attack the most shallow points at face value, that is disappointing. I write "It's not about the fucking shirt, it's not about the fucking logo, it's about letting people take away, no, giving away every scrap of decency we have left in society." and then people continue to post telling me how stupid it is to judge someone based on a logo.
They give them at trade shows, not at board meetings. Sales reps might give you free stuff, but in a different setting and for the reasons you list. Trade show giveaways are the corporate version of what the Speed Racer people did at your school.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Industry shirts are part of the game, they go both ways. You want them to remember you as well, as a buyer or a seller, and at the very least you want to remain polite. There is a good chance you will be seeing the same people again, and it would be stupid to burn bridges.
Giving away t-shirts to idiot minors to do their dirty work on the other hand on a school campus is low.
But to give you an honest answer reflective of my beliefs, I really dislike viral advertising. I find it to be even more intrusive than the gigantic amount of advertising we already face because it relies on personal recommendations and purchased opinions to get people to buy whatever it is that they are selling. To me, its attempt at being more personal is repulsive, like Das Unheimliche.
Your tone in this thread sounds like it comes from the top of an ivory tower. You belittle large swaths of people, while pretending that you are completely above it all. That is elitist, whether you intend it to be or not.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't know where all this elitism crap that everyone keeps bringing up comes from. These are my observations of how the world works, and they are usually belittled and mocked, so how you can be an elitist when everyone thinks you're being an ass I don't understand.
You did judge people who wear logos pretty harshly.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't particularly mind that though, but when people don't even attempt to read my full opinion and would rather attack the most shallow points at face value, that is disappointing. I write "It's not about the fucking shirt, it's not about the fucking logo, it's about letting people take away, no, giving away every scrap of decency we have left in society." and then people continue to post telling me how stupid it is to judge someone based on a logo.
I attempted to address your points, but I ran into the brick wall that is you. Everything has advertising on it nowadays. To imply that I am somehow 'too stupid' to notice is downright offensive. I like Pepsi, I drink Pepsi, yet, when I buy a Pepsi, you told me that I am doing it to increase sales for Pepsi! You say this argument has nothing to do with the shirt, and everything to do with the logo. I, and others, have told you that we buy things NOT because of the logo, but because we like the damn product. Unless you mean to tell me that I drink the drinks I do ONLY because of advertising, and not taste, and that I wear the clothes I do because of a label, and not comfort. There are those out there that do buy products based solely on image and logo, but that is NOT everyone in America.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Look at who is buying the most expensive things relative to their income bracket, and then look at their intelligence. If you give me two people, equal income, one wearing a popular brand and one wearing clothes of comparative quality without the brand, I would bet on the success of the latter every time.
I have a question for you. Who is more affected by advertisers, the guy who buys GAP because of the label? Or the guy who refuses to buy GAP because of the label?
Trade shows are where smaller companies may meet with their vendor, and could lead to business talks. Whether you go watch a movie and whether you make a large business deal is a big difference.SenorToenails wrote:
They give them at trade shows, not at board meetings. Sales reps might give you free stuff, but in a different setting and for the reasons you list. Trade show giveaways are the corporate version of what the Speed Racer people did at your school.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Industry shirts are part of the game, they go both ways. You want them to remember you as well, as a buyer or a seller, and at the very least you want to remain polite. There is a good chance you will be seeing the same people again, and it would be stupid to burn bridges.
Giving away t-shirts to idiot minors to do their dirty work on the other hand on a school campus is low.
But to give you an honest answer reflective of my beliefs, I really dislike viral advertising. I find it to be even more intrusive than the gigantic amount of advertising we already face because it relies on personal recommendations and purchased opinions to get people to buy whatever it is that they are selling. To me, its attempt at being more personal is repulsive, like Das Unheimliche.Your tone in this thread sounds like it comes from the top of an ivory tower. You belittle large swaths of people, while pretending that you are completely above it all. That is elitist, whether you intend it to be or not.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't know where all this elitism crap that everyone keeps bringing up comes from. These are my observations of how the world works, and they are usually belittled and mocked, so how you can be an elitist when everyone thinks you're being an ass I don't understand.You did judge people who wear logos pretty harshly.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't particularly mind that though, but when people don't even attempt to read my full opinion and would rather attack the most shallow points at face value, that is disappointing. I write "It's not about the fucking shirt, it's not about the fucking logo, it's about letting people take away, no, giving away every scrap of decency we have left in society." and then people continue to post telling me how stupid it is to judge someone based on a logo.I attempted to address your points, but I ran into the brick wall that is you. Everything has advertising on it nowadays. To imply that I am somehow 'too stupid' to notice is downright offensive. I like Pepsi, I drink Pepsi, yet, when I buy a Pepsi, you told me that I am doing it to increase sales for Pepsi! You say this argument has nothing to do with the shirt, and everything to do with the logo. I, and others, have told you that we buy things NOT because of the logo, but because we like the damn product. Unless you mean to tell me that I drink the drinks I do ONLY because of advertising, and not taste, and that I wear the clothes I do because of a label, and not comfort. There are those out there that do buy products based solely on image and logo, but that is NOT everyone in America.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Look at who is buying the most expensive things relative to their income bracket, and then look at their intelligence. If you give me two people, equal income, one wearing a popular brand and one wearing clothes of comparative quality without the brand, I would bet on the success of the latter every time.
I have a question for you. Who is more affected by advertisers, the guy who buys GAP because of the label? Or the guy who refuses to buy GAP because of the label?
I agree with the second point.
Well let's see, when the mob was tripping over themselves to get at the t-shirts I kindly said no thank you for the reasons I have listed in this thread. I don't want to be a part of this cycle and don't think others should either. Do I actually think I'm better than everyone else? Hardly, actually somewhat the opposite. One of my best skills however is analysis of large systems, and I tend to think about these things a lot more than most people my age. Basically, I'm not going to come out and say something like this if I don't think I'm right, and I'm going to argue my points accordingly. That doesn't mean I look down at anyone who I think is wrong on this point.
I judge everyone very harshly, but it's not about the symbols anymore. People aren't bothering to read the thread, they read and respond to the OP in ways that I have already responded too.
Lemme help you with that? I'm not trying to insult you, but I'm not going to roll over...
I said as far as Pepsi is concerned, when you buy their product or refer others to their product you are generating revenue for them. That's the important distinction. I mean, do you think they really care that you got a drink that you liked? If you like Pepsi then drink it, but if you don't even like Pepsi that much the don't drink it and tell all your friends to buy it. As far as you are concerned in a capitalistic society, that company does not deserve to survive. People are buying shirts that have minimal to decent benefit for themselves and an extremely, extremely high benefit to the companies that sell them. It's not about advertising, it's about selling your self-respect for free when you can at least get a price for anything these days. (See your forehead tattoo lady)
The person who refuses to buy GAP.
I have another question for you, who is supporting the companies to continue making merchandise and advertising it, the person who does or the person who doesn't buy GAP?
The advertising works, obviously. You can't reprimand a company because they have superior advertising techniques. After all, you said this is a capitalistic economy. The company is just trying to appeal to the largest group of consumers, and right now that is the young. For example, Ralph Lauren (Polo) used to advertise sophisticated and mature young men. However, they now also depict the people you refer to. You're mad at the imbeciles that wear the clothes, not at the company. I personally find the companies to be brilliant. They can sell products without media advertising. Clothes and overall luxury "things" have been signs of status for centuries, there's no point in arguing anymore. People will be people and business will be business.
Please exit the thread with your logic.Yellowman03 wrote:
The advertising works, obviously. You can't reprimand a company because they have superior advertising techniques. After all, you said this is a capitalistic economy. The company is just trying to appeal to the largest group of consumers, and right now that is the young. For example, Ralph Lauren (Polo) used to advertise sophisticated and mature young men. However, they now also depict the people you refer to. You're mad at the imbeciles that wear the clothes, not at the company. I personally find the companies to be brilliant. They can sell products without media advertising. Clothes and overall luxury "things" have been signs of status for centuries, there's no point in arguing anymore. People will be people and business will be business.
It it not welcome here, go stand on top of a tower and yell down to all of us normal people!
Is that white castle?Major.League.Infidel wrote:
Seems to me that it's hard to avoid some marketing.
But I have no qualms against wearing my Major League Infidel shirt in public.
Copyright Crye Precision.
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2530 … le1ja4.jpg
...that's what I've been saying in the second half of this thread.Yellowman03 wrote:
The advertising works, obviously. You can't reprimand a company because they have superior advertising techniques. After all, you said this is a capitalistic economy. The company is just trying to appeal to the largest group of consumers, and right now that is the young. For example, Ralph Lauren (Polo) used to advertise sophisticated and mature young men. However, they now also depict the people you refer to. You're mad at the imbeciles that wear the clothes, not at the company. I personally find the companies to be brilliant. They can sell products without media advertising. Clothes and overall luxury "things" have been signs of status for centuries, there's no point in arguing anymore. People will be people and business will be business.
example:
We even used the same adjective to describe the company.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Don't get me wrong, it is absolutely brilliant business strategy. It is one of my dreams to own a company such as these that so cunningly and ruthlessly exploit the flock mentality of weak minded humans. Starbucks, smoothie companies, health food companies, etc.
This is what I'm talking about Toenails, people are still responding to the OP.
The only point I disagree on is that these are not luxury products. I have no problem in this sense with a $400 pair of jeans, because those jeans have a designer label that has the prestige to make up the rest of the price past the jeans. I have a problem with the $150 pair of jeans that is the same quality as the $30 pair of jeans without a decent label to make up the price. People are vastly inflating prices for the sake of inflating prices, not because they are getting any more tangible or intangible product.
I want that T-Shirt. Now.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
Seems to me that it's hard to avoid some marketing.
But I have no qualms against wearing my Major League Infidel shirt in public.
Copyright Crye Precision.
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2530 … le1ja4.jpg
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.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
...that's what I've been saying in the second half of this thread.Yellowman03 wrote:
The advertising works, obviously. You can't reprimand a company because they have superior advertising techniques. After all, you said this is a capitalistic economy. The company is just trying to appeal to the largest group of consumers, and right now that is the young. For example, Ralph Lauren (Polo) used to advertise sophisticated and mature young men. However, they now also depict the people you refer to. You're mad at the imbeciles that wear the clothes, not at the company. I personally find the companies to be brilliant. They can sell products without media advertising. Clothes and overall luxury "things" have been signs of status for centuries, there's no point in arguing anymore. People will be people and business will be business.
example:We even used the same adjective to describe the company.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Don't get me wrong, it is absolutely brilliant business strategy. It is one of my dreams to own a company such as these that so cunningly and ruthlessly exploit the flock mentality of weak minded humans. Starbucks, smoothie companies, health food companies, etc.
This is what I'm talking about Toenails, people are still responding to the OP.
The only point I disagree on is that these are not luxury products. I have no problem in this sense with a $400 pair of jeans, because those jeans have a designer label that has the prestige to make up the rest of the price past the jeans. I have a problem with the $150 pair of jeans that is the same quality as the $30 pair of jeans without a decent label to make up the price. People are vastly inflating prices for the sake of inflating prices, not because they are getting any more tangible or intangible product.
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.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.
I would rather have my self-respect and have a recession.
Lol, my grandpa ALWAYS says what you said.
He even took the chevy lettering off the back strip of his truck lawls.
it looks better btw.
He even took the chevy lettering off the back strip of his truck lawls.
it looks better btw.
Advertising is advertising. One groups targets kids, the other targets professionals, regardless of how much sugar coating you put on it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Trade shows are where smaller companies may meet with their vendor, and could lead to business talks. Whether you go watch a movie and whether you make a large business deal is a big difference.
There is nothing wrong with getting a free t-shirt. In fact, I would rather have a free t-shirt with a gigantic logo on it then pay $5 or $10 for that same t-shirt with the huge logo, if for whatever reason I wanted to buy that t-shirt. I am not going to argue about the tone of your posts any further, since it is futile (being far too subjective and we have no idea about each other's real life opinions and demeanors).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well let's see, when the mob was tripping over themselves to get at the t-shirts I kindly said no thank you for the reasons I have listed in this thread. I don't want to be a part of this cycle and don't think others should either. Do I actually think I'm better than everyone else? Hardly, actually somewhat the opposite. One of my best skills however is analysis of large systems, and I tend to think about these things a lot more than most people my age. Basically, I'm not going to come out and say something like this if I don't think I'm right, and I'm going to argue my points accordingly. That doesn't mean I look down at anyone who I think is wrong on this point.
What? I don't have any idea what you are referring to here.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Lemme help you with that? I'm not trying to insult you, but I'm not going to roll over...
I think I can understand that when I buy a product from company X, I provide revenue for company X.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I said as far as Pepsi is concerned, when you buy their product or refer others to their product you are generating revenue for them. That's the important distinction.
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.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I mean, do you think they really care that you got a drink that you liked? If you like Pepsi then drink it, but if you don't even like Pepsi that much the don't drink it and tell all your friends to buy it.
I'm not trying to be dense here, but boooy have you lost me again. I don't think I said anything like that. Unless I did, but I don't recall...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
As far as you are concerned in a capitalistic society, that company does not deserve to survive. People are buying shirts that have minimal to decent benefit for themselves and an extremely, extremely high benefit to the companies that sell them. It's not about advertising, it's about selling your self-respect for free when you can at least get a price for anything these days. (See your forehead tattoo lady)
To address that point. That company sure as shit deserves to exist, because it has created its own market and turns a profit. The tattoo lady is pathetic because she did that, but I hardly think that wearing a shirt is the same thing. Yes, it's advertising. Yes, people pay for it. Yes, I don't really like the practice. BUT, I do not think that the people who wear branded clothes sell their self respect. After all, clothes are temporary. That woman who sold advertising space on her forehead sold her dignity because she permanently branded herself for a one time fee. To each his/her own.
I had a reason to ask this last night, but I can't recall what it was right now.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The person who refuses to buy GAP.
Both. They both buy from someone, and those companies invariably advertise. (Unless they make their own clothes, which would be ... interesting.)Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I have another question for you, who is supporting the companies to continue making merchandise and advertising it, the person who does or the person who doesn't buy GAP?
Why do you care some much about people who you seem to hate anyway? I remember when I used to be like this, anti-everything.
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.SenorToenails wrote:
Advertising is advertising. One groups targets kids, the other targets professionals, regardless of how much sugar coating you put on it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Trade shows are where smaller companies may meet with their vendor, and could lead to business talks. Whether you go watch a movie and whether you make a large business deal is a big difference.
The t-shirt does not cost any money. The t-shirt is not free.SenorToenails wrote:
There is nothing wrong with getting a free t-shirt. In fact, I would rather have a free t-shirt with a gigantic logo on it then pay $5 or $10 for that same t-shirt with the huge logo, if for whatever reason I wanted to buy that t-shirt. I am not going to argue about the tone of your posts any further, since it is futile (being far too subjective and we have no idea about each other's real life opinions and demeanors).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well let's see, when the mob was tripping over themselves to get at the t-shirts I kindly said no thank you for the reasons I have listed in this thread. I don't want to be a part of this cycle and don't think others should either. Do I actually think I'm better than everyone else? Hardly, actually somewhat the opposite. One of my best skills however is analysis of large systems, and I tend to think about these things a lot more than most people my age. Basically, I'm not going to come out and say something like this if I don't think I'm right, and I'm going to argue my points accordingly. That doesn't mean I look down at anyone who I think is wrong on this point.
You said you were trying to address my points, but were running into the brick wall that is me. What do you want?SenorToenails wrote:
What? I don't have any idea what you are referring to here.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Lemme help you with that? I'm not trying to insult you, but I'm not going to roll over...
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.SenorToenails wrote:
I think I can understand that when I buy a product from company X, I provide revenue for company X.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I said as far as Pepsi is concerned, when you buy their product or refer others to their product you are generating revenue for them. That's the important distinction.
...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.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I mean, do you think they really care that you got a drink that you liked? If you like Pepsi then drink it, but if you don't even like Pepsi that much the don't drink it and tell all your friends to buy it.
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...
I'm still on the Pepsi metaphor.SenorToenails wrote:
I'm not trying to be dense here, but boooy have you lost me again. I don't think I said anything like that. Unless I did, but I don't recall...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
As far as you are concerned in a capitalistic society, that company does not deserve to survive. People are buying shirts that have minimal to decent benefit for themselves and an extremely, extremely high benefit to the companies that sell them. It's not about advertising, it's about selling your self-respect for free when you can at least get a price for anything these days. (See your forehead tattoo lady)
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.
To address that point. That company sure as shit deserves to exist, because it has created its own market and turns a profit. The tattoo lady is pathetic because she did that, but I hardly think that wearing a shirt is the same thing. Yes, it's advertising. Yes, people pay for it. Yes, I don't really like the practice. BUT, I do not think that the people who wear branded clothes sell their self respect. After all, clothes are temporary. That woman who sold advertising space on her forehead sold her dignity because she permanently branded herself for a one time fee. To each his/her own.
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.
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.
I was guessing because you were saying I am just as effected, if not more by advertising than those who are just buying the clothes.SenorToenails wrote:
I had a reason to ask this last night, but I can't recall what it was right now.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The person who refuses to buy GAP.
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.SenorToenails wrote:
Both. They both buy from someone, and those companies invariably advertise. (Unless they make their own clothes, which would be ... interesting.)Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I have another question for you, who is supporting the companies to continue making merchandise and advertising it, the person who does or the person who doesn't buy GAP?
Because I love people so much I hate to watch them be morons.Reject_Wolf wrote:
Why do you care some much about people who you seem to hate anyway? I remember when I used to be like this, anti-everything.
FM:
+
+
stormy tea?
