Paying top-dollar to have a brand name on your stuff

[Monkeyleg]

I had to get a painting brush at Hobby Lobby today. At checkout, I was behind a woman who looked to be very well off. The first thing I noticed, after face, hair and body, were her boots. Very cool. They're here: http://www.stevemadden.com/product/PALLAS/229667.uts?locale=en-US&selectedColor=TAUPE-SDE&cm_mmc=SEM-_-Google-_-PLA-_-2014&gclid=Cj0KEQiA_MK0BRDQsf_bsZS-_OIBEiQADPf--ukc7K7bnKeTNyGq5pEeF02Rk2afPnvfhHqrKOjUh0caAsoT8P8HAQ

The next thing I noticed was her Louis Vuitton purse. It was pretty much like this one: https://www.therealreal.com/products/women/handbags/shoulder-bags/louis-vuitton-galliera-pm-77?sid=pxogmz&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=shopping&cvosrc=cse.google.google&cvo_crid=80204770740&gclid=Cj0KEQiA_MK0BRDQsf_bsZS-_OIBEiQADPf--lj4qMzMXgok6dJnJZuW1HaW2v4V_drb8Oq-5lS5TYkaArQ-8P8HAQ

I don't know that I'd ever pay $1100 for a used purse (not that I wear one), but the idea of advertising the brand on something that expensive seems tacky. With things like Harley Davidson t-shirts, etc, I think the company should pay people to wear their advertisements. With something like a Louis Vuitton purse, having the LV logo on the outside can only serve the purpose of bragging.

I don't know why I post about this stuff. I just find people to be interesting to observe.

[Fly320s]

Maybe the shoes and bag were knockoffs.

[vaskidmark]

Yes, it is bragging.  There is also a part that goes into "calming" insecurity about being something less than what you want to appear as.

Why do certain demographics living essentially off public welfare go out and buy a Cadillac Escalade and put skinny tires with spinners on the thing?  It's their public persona as opposed to the truth of what their world really is.

I have dealt with folks who in reality were too poor to afford dirt* but rode around in something similar, as well as wearing top-shelf clothes.**  It reduced the chances they and their kids would be "dissed" as being poor and pitiful.

An alternative is that of being one step below the problems of drug cartel leaders who have so much money they can't spend it fast enough so it gets boxed and stored in the attic/basement.

stay safe.

* - Think "dirt poor" and then being even poorer than that.

** - that's allowing for a huge presumption the items were not shoplifted.

[MechAg94]

Good marketing job on the part of the maker.  

In many cases, the quality can be worth it, but not always.  I have a couple of ralph lauren button down shirts that are nearly 12 years old, but still look pretty good.  Many cheaper shirts would not last half as long. 

[charby]

Maybe the shoes and bag were knockoffs.

Yep. Maybe not the shoes, seems like all shoes are at least $100 or more these days.

My wife has a lot of expensive name branded items, but she is really good about hitting all the second hand stores in affluent towns, most of the time she pay about 1/4 to 1/8 of the cost of retail for lightly used items. Most of the time the appear to be brand new.

[Brad Johnson]

I know people like that. Function matters not. Value? Pffft. It's what the item does for your (presumed) social standing, or nothng. I have a cousin who makes six figures and is, for all intents and purposes, flat broke. Her only apparent goal in life is to have a closet full of high-end designer clothes and a bunch of trendy paintings from the lastest who's-popular-today-artist. In the meantime she can't afford the security deposit to move somewhere other than her Homeless Hookers' Hideaway apartment and had to borrow money from her parents to buy a new tire. For her BMW Z4.



Brad

[RevDisk]

I don't know that I'd ever pay $1100 for a used purse (not that I wear one), but the idea of advertising the brand on something that expensive seems tacky. With things like Harley Davidson t-shirts, etc, I think the company should pay people to wear their advertisements. With something like a Louis Vuitton purse, having the LV logo on the outside can only serve the purpose of bragging.

I don't know why I post about this stuff. I just find people to be interesting to observe.

As someone that supplies those industries, I can tell you that the logo and whatnot is specifically for a purpose. You can't generally copyright clothing design. A t-shirt is a t-shirt after all. It's impossible put any patents a basic handbag either, as the design is pretty simple. Logos however can be copyrighted. But that's a upper-middle tier strategy, of wanting to look and sound exclusive when not being that exclusive. I'll decline to mention any specific customers, but they're who you think would be in that category.

The absolutely top shelf brands do not slap their logo everywhere in a garnish manner. They tend to rely on ultra high quality and ultra actual exclusivity, at nose bleeding prices very few people in the world can afford. Think $50k for a purse or jacket. They have only a handful of shops in NYC, LA, Las Vegas, London and/or Tokyo. Our subsidiary in Colorado does those. Those shops tend to be works of art.

[Monkeyleg]

The shoes could have been knockoffs. I saw some identical ones for $30. The purse may have been a knockoff. The only way to know for sure, other than inspecting the fabric and stitching, is to see the inside lining, or lack thereof.

I've known some women to spray paint the bottoms of their shoes red so people will think they're Louis Vuittons.

[Scout26]

I refer to it as "Peacocking", gaudy displays of non-existent wealth.

Most people with real wealth don't flaunt it.  Guy down the street from me is a retired Illinois Supreme Court Justice, and a rather good attorney* prior to that.   He drives a late model Buick when he's out and about.  Looks like any other grandpa out on his Sunday drive.



* - Good as in "Made lots of money."

[Monkeyleg]

I refer to it as "Peacocking", gaudy displays of non-existent wealth.

Most people with real wealth don't flaunt it.  Guy down the street from me is a retired Illinois Supreme Court Justice, and a rather good attorney* prior to that.   He drives a late model Buick when he's out and about.  Looks like any other grandpa out on his Sunday drive.



* - Good as in "Made lots of money."

Yeah, my older brother made a ton, and has multiple seven figures in bonds and safe stocks. Drives a Ford Ranger pickup.

[Hawkmoon]

I don't know that I'd ever pay $1100 for a used purse (not that I wear one), but the idea of advertising the brand on something that expensive seems tacky. With things like Harley Davidson t-shirts, etc, I think the company should pay people to wear their advertisements. With something like a Louis Vuitton purse, having the LV logo on the outside can only serve the purpose of bragging.

Agreed. The notion of me paying John Deere or Jeep or some gun manufacturer $10 to wear their hat or $25 to wear their sweatshirt or vest just seems backwards to me. If I'm going to be a walking billboard for their product, they should be paying me, and providing the apparel.

As to the fairly new trend of putting clothing labels on the outside, rather than on the inside where they belong and where they were for well over a hundred years, I think it's a sign of an insecure person. They have to show off that they're rich enough and "cool" enough to afford a purse from Louis Vitton or an Armani suit. Some years ago I worked for a guy who wouldn't wear a suit that didn't come from a certain tailor in town, and he wouldn't wear a dress shirt if it didn't have some designer's monogram on the pocket. If I were going to wear a monogrammed shirt (extremely unlikely), the monogram would be MY initials, not Ralph Lauren or Tommy Hilfigger.

I wonder if it in any way ties into my theory about insecurity that the aforementioned boss was indicted for federal contract fraud. He hired a good lawyer and escaped a trial and conviction by agreeing to pay back the money the feds said he had stolen, so he's not a felon, but he didn't beat the ride.

[charby]

Agreed. The notion of me paying John Deere or Jeep or some gun manufacturer $10 to wear their hat or $25 to wear their sweatshirt or vest just seems backwards to me. If I'm going to be a walking billboard for their product, they should be paying me, and providing the apparel.

As to the fairly new trend of putting clothing labels on the outside, rather than on the inside where they belong and where they were for well over a hundred years, I think it's a sign of an insecure person. They have to show off that they're rich enough and "cool" enough to afford a purse from Louis Vitton or an Armani suit. Some years ago I worked for a guy who wouldn't wear a suit that didn't come from a certain tailor in town, and he wouldn't wear a dress shirt if it didn't have some designer's monogram on the pocket. If I were going to wear a monogrammed shirt (extremely unlikely), the monogram would be MY initials, not Ralph Lauren or Tommy Hilfigger.

I wonder if it in any way ties into my theory about insecurity that the aforementioned boss was indicted for federal contract fraud. He hired a good lawyer and escaped a trial and conviction by agreeing to pay back the money the feds said he had stolen, so he's not a felon, but he didn't beat the ride.

Didn't this all start with Nike or Converse?

[dogmush]

Agreed. The notion of me paying John Deere or Jeep or some gun manufacturer $10 to wear their hat or $25 to wear their sweatshirt or vest just seems backwards to me. If I'm going to be a walking billboard for their product, they should be paying me, and providing the apparel.

That notion only applies if you are someone the manufacturer WANTS to wear their logo.  Nike does pay Tiger Woods.  I'm sure Smith and Wesson compensates Jerry Miculek in money, guns, ammo or all of the above.  John Deere might very well pay Toby Kieth to be seen in their hat.

No offense meant, but I doubt they really care about you, nor does your "advertising" of their product to anything useful for their company.  So of course they don't pay you.  Or rather they pay you exactly what your cachet adds to their brand.

This is not new.  Folks have been showing their support for things they like for centuries.  I have a coffee company I like, so I their coffee from their cup.  I like Sig's, so I have a "Got Sig" sticker on another travel mug. Crusaders had big crosses on their chests.  Pirates had specific flags to show who they were (Early "Branding" if you will.)

As far as the Louis purses and Prada shoes, again people tend to want to look like, or have the same stuff as folks they admire.  How many pillbox hats were sold after Jackie O started wearing them?  How many fashion trends lived and died in Europe based on a monarch's party wear.  It's old enough that Shakespeare made fun of crossed garter in Much Ado About Nothing.  Cinderella couldn't go win her love until she had the right clothes.  People have tried to look like, and be more like their heroes since time immemorial. It is neither new, nor very remarkable.

[Perd Hapley]

I refer to it as "Peacocking", gaudy displays of non-existent wealth.

Peahenning.

[BlueStarLizzard]

The most expensive tshirt I own is branded. It's a Metallica tshirt.

When it comes to a lot of branding, some of it's free (there are like three or four Glock hats floating around here and nobody paid for them) and other times it's like Dogmush said. If you like the brand and need a hat, why not? The vast majority of those items often are not more than a dollar or two more expensive than something without a brand name on it.
Hell, I need new sweatshirts and jackets and I'm going to spend $40 to order one from Springfield armory, because the honest truth is, for a sweatshirt like that, I'd pay close to the same amount at Old Navy and just not like it as much. *shrug*

It's only when you get to certain brands that the price gets stupid that I question people's wisdom (Carhart comes to mind. I looked at some of their heavier sweatshirts the other day and ended up buying what I'm guessing was the store brand version. I'll keep buying their socks and if I have the cash at some point, I'll be getting one of their good farm coats, but not a sweatshirt I can get cheaper) and that's only because someone is buying it. Maybe they want to look "cool" and fit it with their friends. Maybe they just like the brand too the point that they don't care. Maybe they just have money to blow.

And I don't see it as any different than buying a tshirt with the name of a band on it.

Style is style. Most of the time, it doesn't make that much sense. Some people get really wrapped up in it, others don't.

Personally, I think those Louis Vatton bags are ugly as crap. I'll stick with the Vera Bradly bag that my mom got me years ago when it was the it thing, because I'm one of those people that would rather have something I think is pretty than a brand name. If it happens to be both, well, it's still pretty.

[charby]

Carhartt has been showing their brand proudly for as long as I can remember.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Carhartt has been showing their brand proudly for as long as I can remember.

Yeah, but when it comes to farm coats, overalls and coveralls, the little patch on the sleeve is not what you are paying for. 

and the socks are just flipping awesome.

[dogmush]

Yeah, but when it comes to farm coats, overalls and coveralls, the little patch on the sleeve is not what you are paying for. 

and the socks are just flipping awesome.

I've been using Carhartts for decades, back to when I was dogmushing.  Their quality has really dropped off since they went from work wear to "mainstream".  My last work coat I switched to Duluth Trading.  Breathtakingly not cheap, but better and tougher then Carhartt's were at their best, and way better then they are now.

Since I know you do actual work with claws, mud, fluids and cold, you might want to look at them.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I've been using Carhartts for decades, back to when I was dogmushing.  Their quality has really dropped off since they went from work wear to "mainstream".  My last work coat I switched to Duluth Trading.  Breathtakingly not cheap, but better and tougher then Carhartt's were at their best, and way better then they are now.

Since I know you do actual work with claws, mud, fluids and cold, you might want to look at them.

I may do that. Depends on which is cheapest. The majority of what I do is inside, so while I do want durable, I can afford to be middle ground with it to a certain extent since I wouldn't be in it everyday.

[grampster]

"My last work coat I switched to Duluth Trading."

No doggy clipper butcrack either with the T-shirts.  And the undies?  "No stink".  I love their catalogue.   If I was into working anymore, I'd buy my stuff at DT.

[HankB]

About 30 years ago, I was working with a guy who had a 12 year old daughter - right about the time when "designer jeans" were the big fad with teenage and pre-teen girls. Daughter really, REELEY wanted designer jeans to go to school in, but her daddy told her he wasn't going to spend $$$ so she could have the name of some Eurotrash designer of indeterminate gender plastered on her backside. Told her he'd buy regular Levi/Lee/Wrangler/JCPenny jeans, but if she wanted a designer label, she had to make up the difference herself. Daughter was rather upset . . .

Enter Mom. She was at a craft show, and found someone was selling designer labels - cheap. NOT designer clothes, just the labels. So Mom bought a bunch of labels, sewed them on daughter's clothes and added a little fancy stitching . . . and daughter was the envy of her class. 

And when the daughter found out - she wasn't the least bit upset; she thought it was a good joke on her classmates. 

[Triphammer]

Walls Blizzard Proof. Every bit as good as Carhart at 40% off. And Tractor Supply Co. 's house brand is looking good. We never had a TSC before last year. Their prices are about the same as Walls & the quality seems good but I haven't the opportunity to wring them out.

[Boomhauer]

Girlfriend gave me a Brazos brand coat at Christmas, like a Carhartt coat. It feels warmer than my actual Carhartt and was doubtless cheaper. I just can't wear it at work because I don't want to mess it up- it's going to be my casual coat.

I need to find a good hi-viz jacket for this winter. The ones they issued us are absolute *expletive deleted*it at about the level of a windbreaker- they have a very thin crappy ass liner and they are good for those 50 deg days and that's about it.

[KD5NRH]

I have dealt with folks who in reality were too poor to afford dirt* but rode around in something similar, as well as wearing top-shelf clothes.**  It reduced the chances they and their kids would be "dissed" as being poor and pitiful.

Goodwill is my friend.  Get all sorts of funny looks climbing out of a $500 car wearing a $1200+ suit.  They don't need to know I paid $21.99 for the suit.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Goodwill is my friend.  Get all sorts of funny looks climbing out of a $500 car wearing a $1200+ suit.  They don't need to know I paid $21.99 for the suit.

Well, and that is the trick for some of us.

I do have some really nice things. Mostly acquired in ways other than me paying for them. Gifts, mostly (see Vera Bradly bag) but also bargain bins at places like Marshells and TJ Max. Once you hit the discount stores on when they have stuff on sale, you've pretty much eliminated the brand name mark up and then some.

However, the sad truth is a lot of those who actually pay top dollar for such items are often doing so intentionally, even when they can't afford it. Either they want it when it first comes out and won't wait, or they actually consider paying that much to be a part of the status symbol and brag about how much it costs.
You are also dealing with a different mentality. They want the brand. You just want something nice and the specific brand is incidental to the cost. For example, they want the suit made by so and so. You just want a nice suit and it really doesn't matter which so and so made it, as long as it's a nice suit.