Labels

[Keyser Soze]

Let me open this by saying I hate clothes with labels or branding. Other than jeans (which are very hard to find without labels) and shirtmakers' names on shirt buttons, there is nothing in my wardrobe that bears the name or logo of a designer or clothing company. I cannot imagine James Bond in a labelled item of clothing, and that's pretty much the end of the subject for me.

But a recent study from Tilburg University raises some interesting points.

Basically, researchers proved what many might have suspected: individuals react more favourably to people wearing Lacoste and Hilfiger than to people wearing a "lesser" brand (Slazenger) or to an identical item of clothing with no label at all. They rated photos of men in the "designer" brands as of higher status and wealthier.

Furthermore, individuals were more likely to stop and answer survey questions posed by someone wearing a designer brand, more likely to rate someone wearing a designer brand as "more suitable" for a job, and even more willing to make charitable contributions to people wearing designer brands.

Interestingly, however, if people discovered that the individuals wearing the designer clothing were given the clothes as opposed to having purchased them, the logo no longer had any positive effect on people's behaviour. In this situation the label was no longer an "honest signal".

The researchers concluded that people react to these labels as "symbols of underlying quality", like a peacock's tail. The problem is that, of course, whilst an unhealthy peacock cannot fake a healthy tail, humans can (and do) fake labels - hence the popularity of counterfeit goods. The theory on this is that evolution has not caught up with human development i.e. humans still evaluate status using mechanisms designed to assess biological (and hard to fake) attributes, but the proliferation of artefacts which permeate modern life is short-circuiting the mechanism.

I still don't think this will convince me to wear labels, but it is something to think about as you are making wardrobe decisions. Of course, you have to make sure to pick the right labels (see previous thread on Ed Hardy) to get the right reaction!

Cheers,
KS

[NSM]

Labels absoultly can convey status, but I believe that having cloths that fit you well and look good on you trumps having a loose fitting shirt with a lable on it like an AFC would wear.

I've been oponed based on my clothing, and once a girl asked about a pair of white dress shoes I had on. She said, "Where did you get them?" and I told her a little place off of XXX road. She said, "Oh, so it must have cost a lot then?" And I said, "I believe that what we paid for our cloths is our buisness right? What matters is how it looks..."

Also, a good place for good jeans with no labels is H & M. You can get a pair of their slim straight jeans for $35 max and look awesome in them.

[Bravo]

Keyser, I read this too the other day, wanted to share here and forgot, good job posting this!


(and great argument for shopping at outlet malls to get labels)

[LiveFromThe7x7]

Yes, it's true. However, never sacrifice cut for labels. IOW, *all things being equal* brands matter. But if you can't afford a label, then buy lesser brands that fit your body well.

Also, check out Nordsrom Rack. That's where I bought my True Religion jeans for $89 instead of $189.

Lots of quality labels and GREAT fit for a good cost. There are other similar stores... I can't remember the name, but it's where I get my Penguin gear.