Look Who's Talking RSS Feed


bux2

Why I refuse to wear stuff with designer labels


I WISH someone could explain the attraction of wearing clothes that prominently display the manufacturer or designer’s name.

When I went to the USA earlier this year, my youngest daughter made it quite clear that I would not be viewed with great favour if I returned without a T-shirt bearing the legend of a popular American clothing chain, whose mythical status with young teenagers I will not increase here by naming. And yes, I did as I was bid.

It saves thinking about what gift to bring back, a dilemma fathers usually resolve by a quick whiz round the shops at the airport from which they are returning home.

The whole brand display trend started, I suppose, when the really expensive brands started to become accessible to a wider public than film stars and the super-rich.

To wear something that bore the name of an iconic designer, usually from Italy or France originally, was a way of demonstrating that you had made it, both in terms of your earning power and your membership of the elite tasteful classes.

But now the branding of clothing, shoes and handbags has spread to include almost every mass market manufacturer as well the stylish designers, it has evolved into something more akin to wearing a club football shirt. ‘Oh you wear those trainers, do you? Well I wear these!’ If you need an argument in favour of school uniform, it must be this. If everyone has to wear the same at school, then no one can be sidelined, categorised or picked on because of their choice of clothing, at least.

The trend for brand as social identifier has seemed to have replaced other, to me more important, issues when buying, like comfort, cost and appearance. “Never mind the quality read the label!” seems to be the order of the day now.

I take the opposite view. If it has a visible manufacturer or designer identification that cannot be easily removed – then I don’t buy it.

If they gave their stuff away, then I might be persuaded to advertise their products; but how have they succeeded in persuading millions to pay a premium to advertise their products for them? It’s quite a neat trick really, I suppose.

Annoyingly, occasionally one does have to succumb. The shoes I wear are particularly identifiable – but so comfortable that I confess I have no option but to break my own rules.

Comments(2)

Gavrielle_LaPoste says...
5:05pm Fri 29 May 09

You are not alone, and thank you for bringing up a pet peeve of mine. I understand it in the very young who want to be part of the fashion conscious "in crowd". Or if one wishes to make a political statement using one's bosom as a billboard. But I do not see the point in paying a very large fee to have parts of one's anatomy become signage for major corporations, musical groups and movie studios. It seems tacky and unsightly, especially since I remember the days when these groups gave away their "swag" and "gear" for promotional purposes only.

Metalkatt says...
11:37pm Sat 30 May 09

This. This. A thousand times, this. As a target-demographic female, I see no reason to adorn myself with logos and names. They're overpriced and usually of far worse make. Then again, since they don't size to fit people over a certain socially acceptable size, there are more reasons than just the annoyance of their prominent display to boycott them.


Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses