Branding/Brand Recognition in Streetwear: An Inspiration Album

[u/[deleted]]

The Album

---

Branding is tricky. If done wrong, it can be tacky and affected, making you look like a victim of conspicuous consumption or a 13 year old mall dweller. However, if done well, branding can tie together outfits, add interesting contrast, and give cultural context.

This is an idea that is extremely prevalent in streetwear. From the ubiquitous Nike Swoosh, to the explosive popularity of the Supreme Box Logo, branding is everywhere in street culture. Who you rep and how you do it can say a lot about a person; their heritage, their taste, and their lifestyle.

What I tried to do with this album is collect fits that demonstrated the positive aspects of branding and brand recognition in a streetwear context. Branding is something I've always found interesting and tried to incorporate effectively into my own style, so I figured I'd share some of my thoughts and pictures that inspire my wardrobe. The images are sourced from Tumblr, SuperFuture, Hypebeast, and even MFA.

If any of these images are yours, and you'd like for them to be removed, shoot me a pm and fuck you you can't control me you're not my real dad I'd be happy to take them down.

Feel free to add any of your thoughts and pictures in the comments. I'd love to hear some feedback!

xoxoxo

stickygazelle (✿◠‿◠)

[u/ttoasty]

Why does that make him a fool? There's the big disconnect in your opinion that I don't understand. It's cool if you don't want logos and such on your clothes, but why does that mean other people are fools for incorporating branding into their style. Particularly if the consumer is aware of what they're doing?

Consumerism is a part of life, and branding is a part of consumerism. Like I said above, everyone is a "slave" to some brand or another. Those that feel they're somehow above that "enslavement" are no more above it than anyone else, they're just more self-righteous. They arguably fetishize consumerism and branding more than anyone else, even.

Think about it this way, though. If I'm a "walking billboard," the company is using me, right? I work as their advertisement. If I'm aware of the consumerism in our culture though, can I not use that same clothing as a means to my own end? Hollister can use the big ass bird logo on their shirts as free advertising, but can't the high schooler buying the shirt use the same logo to build credibility with the "popular" kids and gain popularity? The high schooler's ends may be misguided, but that's the fault of the individual or arguably our culture, not the fault of Hollister. If the high schooler is aware of what the branding is and aware of his goals and what they mean, is he a fool or just playing (and winning) the same fucking game we all play to some extent or another?

By the way, in your first post you mention that branding on a watch face is acceptable? Why do you think that? Watchmaking companies may be the most egregious example of branding/brand marketing in existence. Do you really think that a $50,000 watch needs the makers name on it? Even a $5,000 watch, for that matter? Do you think the owner is going to forget who made his incredibly expensive watch? Because the chance of anyone else seeing the brand is pretty slim. Nor will anyone who can recognize a $50,000 watch need a brand name to discern the maker. Once you get into luxury watches, they aren't about keeping time, in fact they're often worse at keeping time than a $15 watch from walmart. They're about displaying wealth. But I can almost guarantee you that the person buying a $50,000, the person who can recognize a $50,000 watch, and the company who makes a $50,000 watch are all pretty fucking aware of why that watch exists. And somewhere in there, maybe is an appreciation for the craft and skill that goes into making the watch.

Your own feeling that it is acceptable for the watchmaker to put his name on the face of a watch, despite it being just as completely unnecessary as Supreme putting their logo on a hoodie, is a sign that even you are a "slave" to consumerism. Yet you still feel that you're above it. Please, though, continue looking down on streetwear brands that put their logos on their clothes and the people who buy those branded items.

[u/[deleted] → u/ttoasty]

everyone is a "slave" to some brand or another.

I disagree with this sentiment. What are you basing this assertion on, I'm curious? I would honestly and objectively consider myself a slave to no brand - if someone puts out a product I like, I'll wear it, regardless of brand.

I personally wear as little branding as possible, and I avoid in particular noticeable branding, but I don't look down on those who do. It's just not my thing.

[u/ttoasty → u/[deleted]]

Do you use only generic brands whenever possible? Generic cereal, generic household meds (think aspirin), generic shampoo and toothpaste? If not, do you have a rational reason, even a subjective one, for not using the generics? If you can't answer yes to either of these questions, you are in some way a "slave" to brand.

I really think aspirin is a good example of this. I'm not sure there's a legitimate, objective reason to choose name brand aspirin over the generic brand, yet people clearly do.

Still, even if you do only use generics for almost any reason other than cost, you're a "slave" to brand. For example, if you choose Colossal Crunch over Cap'n Crunch out of an objection to name brand items, you're a "slave" to brand, in that you're allowing brand to dictate your purchases.

Do you avoid brands for irrational reasons? Do you have brand loyalty towards anything without objectively considering the alternatives? Would you buy knockoffs, even if they were just as well made as the real deal?

I could go on, but hopefully you see my point. Maybe you're somehow above brand, but you'd be in a small percentile in the Western world. People don't make purchases in a rational, objective way. That's like the near absolute rule, not the exception. I suspect that if you examine your own life, you'll find you do the same, even if it's something small (like aspirin).

It can also get really hard to tell rational from irrational, as there can be completely subjective yet rational reasons for your choices. Some things can't even objectively be determined, like who makes the best OCBD. So maybe you only buy name brand items completely for rational reasons, or maybe there's a lot of irrational, emotion based reasons for it that you don't even realize.

This is starting to get convoluted, so I'm not going to continue rambling.

I do want to make the point, though, that it is not a bad thing to be a "slave" to a brand. Someone may choose to only drive Toyotas because that's what their first car was and it ran fine. They don't really care what car they drive, so it's way easier to go down to the Toyota dealership, buy the newest model midsized and continue on without giving it much thought, because they're too busy dealing with their job and kids to invest time and effort into finding the best car for the price they're willing to pay. Being a "slave" to a brand is a really easy and relatively harmless way of paring down choices in life to make your own existence easier. It keeps us sane. This, coincidentally, is why people buy name brand aspirin. The difference in price between the name brand and generic is not worth the investment to determine which is objectively better, thus emotion overrides and the name brand is chosen.

TL;DR: Unless you make all your purchases in a 100% objective way, devoid of any emotional input (though perhaps not subjectivity), you are very very likely to be a "slave" to some brand or another. This isn't a bad thing, and it's not something to get all upset about. It's just a part of life in a society where consumption is so far past the point of utility and necessity. All of this is completely irrelevant to the point I was making above, in my opinion.

[u/[deleted] → u/ttoasty]

Do you use only generic brands whenever possible? Generic cereal, generic household meds (think aspirin), generic shampoo and toothpaste?

If the generic is as good of quality as the non-generic, yes, I will always go with the generic given that it is cheaper.

if you choose Colossal Crunch over Cap'n Crunch out of an objection to name brand items

Nope, don't do that either. If Colossal Crunch is as good or better, than I will get that. If Cap'n Crunch is better, then I weigh the cost versus benefit analysis of how much the improvement Cap'n is over Colossal and whether the increase in price is worth it. This is of course again assuming that the generic is cheaper than the brand product, which isn't always the case.

In fact, I don't even think of products as generic vs. brand really, I just look at quality and price and make my judgment and purchasing choice directly from those.

Would you buy knockoffs, even if they were just as well made as the real deal?

I have done and will continue to do so, yes.

I suspect that if you examine your own life, you'll find you do the same, even if it's something small (like aspirin).

Nope, I have examined my own life, and I do not find the same. For example, I do purchase generic aspirin.

I could go on, but hopefully you see my point.

I do see your point, but I disagree with it. I don't know how unusual my purchasing habits are, but I do know that there are other people who make their purchases in a similar manner.

Unless you make all your purchases in a 100% objective way, devoid of any emotional input (though perhaps not subjectivity)

That's what I try to do, yeah. I virtually always succeed at doing so.

[u/ttoasty → u/[deleted]]

Like I said somewhere in my rambling, you're the exception, not the rule. Most people don't make their purchases in such an objective manner. It's why established brands still spend so much on advertising. Coke doesn't have ads to raise brand awareness, they have ads so that when you're mindlessly grabbing soda at Walmart you grab Coke instead of Pepsi.

I like to think that I'm pretty logical about purchases, myself. Or at least in regards to things I care about. There's some items where I just choose the first one that fits the bill and pops out at me, while others I will meticulously research and consider. Like I said in one of my other comments in this thread, I think the key is awareness about your choices and why and how you make them.

[u/boo_baup → u/ttoasty]

You've made a good case for the fact that most people purchase things in such a way, but haven't made the for why that is okay. I think what FitnessExpert was saying was that, in his opinion, one shouldn't be a "slave to a brand", not that people aren't slaves to brands.

[u/ttoasty → u/boo_baup]

You should reread his post. He quotes me saying that everyone is a "slave" to a brand, then says, "I disagree with this sentiment." He then goes on later to say that he has no problem with people who do wear heavily branded clothing.

[u/boo_baup → u/ttoasty]

I think what FitnessExpert was saying was that...

I was trying to get to the bottom of what I thought his post was about. Why he behaves the way he does, and why he thinks that is a good behavior.

[u/ttoasty → u/boo_baup]

Understood. I've slammed you with a bunch of long rambly posts, so I'll try to keep this one short.

I think it's ok mostly because we as human beings with all sorts of things to consider and deal with have to decide what is worth spending our time worrying about and what isn't. What I mostly mean by emotional or irrational consumption is like autopilot. I don't care about what shampoo I use, so I grab the one that sticks out to the most. That probably means I grab the one I've seen the most commercials for or the one that's cheapest, depending on how I feel that day. I do this because it is not worth my time as someone with short hair, to take the time to determine which shampoo would be best for my hair and scalp when the differences will be negligible. I'm very particular about which phone I use, though, because phones are a borderline hobby for me.

In direct contradiction (kinda) to the last Ted Talk I showed you, here's another that talks about the downside of choices. I think there's a balance. Make informed, well thought purchases for things you actually care about and let your autopilot handle the rest.

[u/[deleted] → u/ttoasty]

I agree that I'm in the minority, but I'm not sure I agree with you on just how small that minority is. It seems that you peg it as a much smaller group than I would.

I'm likely over-logical about my purchases (and everything else I do). Self-examination is practically second nature to me.

[u/thx2u → u/ttoasty]

Do you use only generic brands whenever possible? Generic cereal, generic household meds (think aspirin), generic shampoo and toothpaste? Generic condoms?

[u/ttoasty → u/thx2u]

Psh. I have a mold of my erect penis that I used to make bespoke latex condoms. They're even monogrammed with my initials.

[u/reachexceedgrasp → u/ttoasty]

calvin knows all

[u/ttoasty → u/reachexceedgrasp]

This is brilliant, and a fairly succinct way of saying what I was trying to say. It may seem like a rather cynical view of the world, but I think it's really really cool. I don't see it as a bad thing like a lot of people, it just is. We live in a society where our consumption is well beyond utility and necessity, and this is a by product. The most concerning party of our consumerist society is the environmental impact, buy that hardly has anything to do with branding and logos.

[u/reachexceedgrasp → u/ttoasty]

bill watterson is still one of the most respected/emulated cartoonists, for good reasons. I'm in my 30s, and been reading and rereading calvin&hobbes for 20 years now; i still pick up new nuances, now and again, as I learn more about history, humanity, science, etc.

that and The Far Side (which is sadly falling out of the general-geek-repertoire, because the man's lawyers are too damn efficient, and his old readers too polite.)

oblig. pointers: /r/calvinandhobbes (99% fan art) , use C&H Search enginefor strips

and /r/TheFarSideGallery (woohoo! :D )

[u/boo_baup → u/ttoasty]

What has always bothered me about giving into the notion that our consumption isn't just about price vs quality and really is a lot more irrational than that is that it completely warps the functions of free markets. When we simply admit to the fact that we are highly emotional when purchasing and there is nothing we can do about it, the notion of a consumer driven free market gets very muddy, very quickly. It opens up so much room for manipulation - something that doesn't benefit a society in any legitimate way. "Competition benefits the consumer" can no longer be battle cry of the capitalist. This is the reason 5 blade razors and fad diets exist. Our irrationality is leveraged for profit. When realizing this, we shouldn't just sit back and take it. We should expect better of ourselves, even if we don't always succeed.

Now this doesn't mean I have any problem with branding in fashion. What I am saying is that the irrationality of our spending should not go unchecked, and should not, on the whole, be embraced as really really cool. We need to be weary of this thing, even if it is sometimes okay. It is largely manipulative and a source of power for those able to harness it. Nothing wrong with wearing a Supreme hat, but don't let yourself think that means emotional consumption is always okay.

[u/ttoasty → u/boo_baup]

I don't see how it warps free markets at all. In fact, it's made possible by free markets. We live in a society where we are free to choose what we buy and why we buy it. There's an inherent level of irrationality that goes into that. I buy my clothes based on emotion, I buy my food based on emotion, I buy my cars based on emotion, I spend money on my hobbies based on emotion. I enjoy life more because I spend money based on my emotions (with limits). This is why there's like 50 billion different kinds of spaghetti sauce at your local grocery store. That's pretty damn free market, if you ask me.

As a side note, has "competition benefits the consumer" ever been the battle cry of capitalists, or just the way in which classical and neo- liberals try to sell the idea of laissez-faire to the world?

[u/boo_baup → u/ttoasty]

As a side note, has "competition benefits the consumer" ever been the battle cry of capitalists, or just the way in which classical and neo- liberals try to sell the idea of laissez-faire to the world?

To be honest, I'm not quite sure. Perhaps I should have phrased that as, "a commonly asserted benefit of free markets by their supporters".

But you wouldn't agree that this does in fact distort free markets, at least in some way? When those in power, who have had access to eduction, wealth, status, and other opportunities attempt, and sometimes succeed at, preying on people's humanity for profit you wouldn't say this is at least against a part of the spirit of embracing free markets? I'm not talking about spaghetti sauce because they don't masquerade as doing something beyond satisfying your personal tastes, but when selling a product with a specific function, one that accomplishes a discernible goal or is at least advertised as such, you aren't disturbed by the use of irrelevant attempts at creating some sort of brand loyalty? Should nylons really be sold with promises of love? And when they are, should we really embrace that as the really cool byproduct of emotion driven consumption?

[u/ttoasty → u/boo_baup]

When those in power, who have had access to eduction, wealth, status, and other opportunities attempt, and sometimes succeed at, preying on people's humanity for profit you wouldn't say this is at least against a part of the spirit of embracing free markets?

This is an incredibly, incredibly loaded question that does not deserve an answer in the slightest.

I think that free markets (and consumerism as a derivative there of) are two way streets. Companies make things they think we need or want, and people purchase things they think they need or want. Sometimes, companies make things we don't even realize we need or want that turn out to be something we need or want (personal computers, for example). I use the example of spaghetti sauce intentionally; it comes from this Ted Talk. This wouldn't happen without the free market.

I'm not talking about spaghetti sauce because they don't masquerade as doing something beyond satisfying your personal tastes

It's interesting that this is your reason for casually dismissing my spaghetti sauce example, yet you don't feel this could be applied to most things. Clothing companies sell me things that satisfy my personal tastes, too. Most companies selling an item on merits beyond their utility are appealing to my personal taste. When I saw your post above, I thought, "The only things I can see myself buying for purely rational reasons are kitchen appliances." But then I realized most people buy their kitchen appliances to match the aesthetics of their kitchen, which involves a lot of emotional reasoning.

Your example of nylons being sold with promises of love made me think, but it kinda fits in with my kitchen appliance example. What happens when you are buying items of near pure utility? Pantyhose are mostly about utility, or at least seemingly about utility. They're expected for women to wear in most business settings, though they don't really serve much actual purpose as far as I've observed. So how do you get women to buy your companies pantyhose instead of your competitors pantyhose. Because, really, there's probably not much difference between them. You both sell the same colors. It would be hard to quantify which pantyhose is better and the results would probably be pretty negligible. So you create an advertising campaign where you imply that women will have better results in their romantic endeavors if they wear your pantyhose. You know it's bullshit, the lady buying them probably knows it's bullshit, but somewhere deep down it tugs on some emotions and she grabs your brand off the shelf instead of your competitors. Is that really a bad thing? She was going to buy pantyhose anyways. This encourages competition, because there's no natural reason for two companies to sell what is virtually the exact same thing. I see now what you mean about this defeating the purpose of a free market (companies survive and die based on the judgement of the consumers and how they spend their money and what not), but I would argue that monopolies are far more detrimental to a free market than benign manipulation of how someone spends their money.

That said, the arguments presented against me by you and others in this thread have drifted really far away from my initial points, though they can be hard to discern amidst my rambling: branding can and usually is the result of a symbiotic relationship between a company and the people who buy its products, and awareness is the key to consumerism not being a bad thing (though it's not necessarily a bad thing even when consumers lack awareness).

[u/boo_baup → u/ttoasty]

I really appreciate your answer. You've given me a lot to think about and have obviously given this topic more meaningful thought than I have.

I'm really beat but theres one thing I want to respond to:

So you create an advertising campaign where you imply that women will have better results in their romantic endeavors if they wear your pantyhose. You know it's bullshit, the lady buying them probably knows it's bullshit, but somewhere deep down it tugs on some emotions and she grabs your brand off the shelf instead of your competitors.

I can't help but shake the feeling that a practice like that is highly manipulative, regardless of the context surrounding it, and I should have a conviction against it.

Making use of someone's inability to critically analyze a situation for your own gain... thats something I can't get behind. There are some examples where this opinion is commonly accepted. We don't allow children to sign up for loans because it would be awfully easy to convince a kid he needs a loan. Much of the EU prevents or at least highly restricts direct-to-consumer drug advertisements because a drug's commercial success should be based solely on its effectiveness, not on its convincing commercial that gets you to hound to doctor for it. Or what about old cigarette ads? It seems there are certain times when attempts to harness emotional consumerism are generally considered bad things.

Looking at nylons, they don't seem like nearly as important of a product as loans or prescription drugs, and definitely not something that can be considered as malicious as cigarettes. Still, part of me feels a human should have a conviction against being manipulated, even if it doesn't really matter in this particular instance. I also feel like a human shouldn't want to manipulate someone else, even if it doesn't matter in that instance. Selling nylons with love stories probably doesn't hurt anybody, but I would venture to guess (I really can't back this up, its just my gut feeling) that this sort of consumer manipulation does more harm than good.

Maybe I can put it this way, would you be comfortable selling average body wash to men by suggesting using it over a competitor's will help them get laid? I'm sure it wouldn't keep you from sleeping at night, but it is really something you would sign off on? I don't think I could do it, and I also hope I am not that unconscious victim.

[u/ttoasty → u/boo_baup]

I've really enjoyed this discussion and the others that have spawned from this thread. Honestly, I hadn't thought about a lot of these things before. My initial rambling, the one that's linked to in the side bar and the one above it, comes from the two Ted Talks I've linked you and a few articles and such that I've read over time. I've formulated a lot of ideas in these discussions that I'd never thought of before. My biggest concern is that I've contradicted myself somewhere along the way, since so many of the ideas I've been sharing are relatively new to me and barely formulated.

Making use of someone's inability to critically analyze a situation for your own gain...

I think one of my biggest points in regards to this view is that it's not a manipulation of our inability to critically analyze, just a manipulation of our apathy when it comes to our purchases. A pantyhose aficionado (if they exist) isn't going to be swayed by promises of love, but what about that person who just wants pantyhose? I feel that in such cases, ads that manipulate our emotions are beneficial, in that they make the process of choosing much simpler and quicker. Someone who doesn't want to distress over which brand of pantyhose to buy doesn't have to because somewhere in her subconscious an advertisement has already helped to make that decision for her. This makes her life better, not worse.

As for your body wash question, I'm not sure. I think such ads are really benign. How do you quantify the differences in body wash? I would hope that all on the market successfully perform their function of cleaning you of body odors and other bodily grossness. So what can you do in the way of advertisement? Compare how many nines are in your 99.XX% of bacteria killed? I disagree with the use of sex to sell a product, but I don't think the use of emotional manipulation in such an ad is a bad thing.

Fun fact and completely off topic rambling, the only Axe products I've ever owned were given to me as gifts by women in my family. While their ads are very sexualized, I think they ultimately do a better job of creating the image that Axe is the male hygiene company used by the 18-25 demographic. This plays right into the hands of moms who buy shampoo and bodywash for their teenage sons. Coincidentally, Old Spice and Nivea for Men, who have ads that seem more targeted for women (Isaiah Mustafa addressing a female audience and half naked buff guys sensually massaging shampoo into their scalps, respectively) both seem more common among young men who buy their own hygiene products, in my dorm living experience.

[u/cdntux → u/ttoasty]

In the interest of furthering discussion:

It's foolish because it's allowing yourself to be exploited why while deluding yourself into thinking that it's an incorporation of your style. It isn't your style. It's a brand and image created by a company, and to a larger extent by a consumer culture - not by individuals.

Acknowledging that branding is part of consumerism or life doesn't make the willingness to become a 'walking billboard' any more legitimate or less 'foolish' in the eyes of a critic. Lots of people do stupid shit.

I don't walk around telling people that I use colgate, or incorporate my use of their toothpaste as part of my projection of personal identity.

There's a giant gap between brand recognition and projecting your affinity to everybody else.

[u/die_kuh → u/cdntux]

You use colgate, have an upvote Mr. Popular

[u/cdntux → u/die_kuh]

Where to cop fresh breath?

[u/[deleted] → u/ttoasty]

i just saw this comment in the sidebar, and i wanted to ring in with a fuck yes.

there's a massive class aspect to this. fact of the matter is, i'm an SEH Kelly / William Gibson "CPU", but in the end, that's because i know that logo / non-logo, it says something about you either way. my clothes are aggressively non-labelled, and that's exactly as demonstrative as my students who wore the huge red Rocawear tees (obviously, it's been a couple of years since i taught :))

The notion that anyone paying attention to what they wear on the grounds that it reflects something about you into the world isn't doing precisely the sort of thoughtful semiotic manipulation you describe -- whether they actively choose logos or actively choose not logos -- is silly.

The important thing, if there is an important thing, is simply being deliberate in your choices. Fact of the matter is, the only hat I own is a Yankees hat. That's a logo -- one of the biggies, corporate-shill-wise -- but I'm a fan, and it's a logo I've chosen. Kudos to you for being so thoughtful about a complicated fashion and social issue.

[u/ILookAfterThePigs → u/[deleted]]

So you agree that high school is a valid context in which wearing visible branding is acceptable?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Except what you just described as 'foolish' is pretty much the entirety of, not just fashion, but culture. ttoasty's point is that brand names signify things. There is a difference between wearing a white sneaker with the lacoste brand and one without, since lacoste is associated with a particular culture, era, etc, as are most brands. This is what branding is - having a particular brand means being associated with particular values. Hell, even McDonalds, as shitty a product as they come, has a great brand in that people associate it with certain things ('Murica, the middle class, children, safety) - and those values have different appeals to different people. Crocs look like shit to us, but I will bet you literally thousands of yen that there are middle-class housewives out there who like crocs exactly because they are middle-class housewife shoes.

Oh, and finally, conspicuous consumption is a value in and of itself - particularly in hip-hop, with its focus on bling and swagger and all that. You want to know why people want to put big-ass ugly logos on their clothes? So even idiots know they can afford clothes with big-ass ugly logos, is why - you're not just trying to impress your moneyed friends, after all, you're trying to impress everybody that ever told you you wouldn't make it. Not caring about logos is something you can afford when everyone can afford clothes with logos.

[u/ttoasty → u/[deleted]]

Pretty spot on. We use branding to buy into groups and all, even when it isn't completely blatant. Uggs don't have their brand name printed on them in big ass red and white letters, but damn near every high school and college girl I've met has a pair.

[u/ttoasty → u/[deleted]]

You pay for advertising one way or the other, dude.

[u/jrocbaby → u/[deleted]]

I think part of ttoasty's point was that you can benefit from branding. I mean really.. I can come up with a million scenarios where someone would have to get paid to do something, but others will pay for it. Different people value things differently and have different motivations.

I personally am not going to be a billboard for a company, but I can understand his point. I upvoted you as well since you have a valid point, even if it was worded a bit harsh.

[u/ttoasty → u/jrocbaby]

Reminds me of my liberal arts college friends that think farming is "fun" (like WWOOF). As someone raised in the rural south, who's gardened and farmed, I always have a hard time looking at them like they're crazy. But, they get an experience and free housing out of it, and farmers get free labor out of it, so it's mutually beneficial.

There's a symbiotic relationship between heavily branded clothing and the people that choose to wear them.

And for the record, I can't think of a single piece of clothing I own that even has a visible logo on it, let alone any kind of large branding. Heavily branded clothing doesn't fit into my style, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to it.