Shopping in your underwear
November 17, 2000 10:10 PM Subscribe
Shopping in your underwear may be over-rated, but this site is worth a look. Make sure you wait for the whole page to load.
Ugh. I don't like it, but it's probably because I have my subwoofer cranked up, and that came as a complete (and loud) surprise.
posted by mathowie at 10:18 PM on November 17, 2000
posted by mathowie at 10:18 PM on November 17, 2000
There's something at once funny and disturbing about the existence of this site. Funny in that the Energizer joke still works, probably because of the shift in medium. Disturbing in that this is a parasitic part of ad campaign. It relies almost entirely on getting people to spread the URLs through their own online social networks. Think of it as a genetically-engineered web site, laboratory-designed for maximum "independent" spread through email forwards and weblogs.
posted by grimmelm at 10:27 PM on November 17, 2000
posted by grimmelm at 10:27 PM on November 17, 2000
My God! The next thing you know, advertisers will be persuading people to buy clothing with their logos on it and wear it around town, to school, to church ...
posted by dhartung at 11:46 PM on November 17, 2000
posted by dhartung at 11:46 PM on November 17, 2000
dhartung...you could be on to a great idea...where is one of the pesky venture capitalists when you need one.
posted by th3ph17 at 11:54 PM on November 17, 2000
posted by th3ph17 at 11:54 PM on November 17, 2000
... I've got this great design, it's got a blue stripe on top, then a white block with a red block next to it, with a blue stripe underneath! It'll make millions, I tell ya! Millions!
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 12:47 AM on November 18, 2000
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 12:47 AM on November 18, 2000
laugh all you want (and it is a funny point, so I'll be laughing with you), but there's something (albeit a slightly different something) disturbing about logo-branded clothing, too. we're just a little more used to it, is all.
posted by grimmelm at 1:35 AM on November 18, 2000
posted by grimmelm at 1:35 AM on November 18, 2000
What's a subwoofer!!? That sounds awesome, like some kind of cerebus trapped inside your computer!! I want a sub woofer!!
posted by cell divide at 2:57 AM on November 18, 2000
posted by cell divide at 2:57 AM on November 18, 2000
Me, I don't wear logo branded clothing. If I buy it, I cut them off, including the brown patch on Levis (though I leave the red or orange tag: I tried once and I just ruined the seam). I have taken a razor to embroidered logos, too, blacked out white Nike logos on black canvas shoes and the Eagle Creek logo on my backpack.
For a while in New York it was impossible to find a good, cheap t-shirt (besides undershirts) that didn't have some dumb logo or imprint (no silk-screened shirts for me, either). Non-logoed clothing of the same quality seems more expensive than the logoed version (I am not the kind of person that will pay $25 for a t-shirt), and I don't think it's because of a logo-subsidy. I think it's a misjudgement of target market: cheap clothing apparently correlates to losers who like logos.
What's interesting is that freshly logo-neutered clothing actually looks more expensive, more sophisticated and a bit classier than it does with the logos.
posted by Mo Nickels at 5:33 AM on November 18, 2000
For a while in New York it was impossible to find a good, cheap t-shirt (besides undershirts) that didn't have some dumb logo or imprint (no silk-screened shirts for me, either). Non-logoed clothing of the same quality seems more expensive than the logoed version (I am not the kind of person that will pay $25 for a t-shirt), and I don't think it's because of a logo-subsidy. I think it's a misjudgement of target market: cheap clothing apparently correlates to losers who like logos.
What's interesting is that freshly logo-neutered clothing actually looks more expensive, more sophisticated and a bit classier than it does with the logos.
posted by Mo Nickels at 5:33 AM on November 18, 2000
For a while in New York it was impossible to find a good, cheap t-shirt (besides undershirts) that didn't have some dumb logo or imprint (no silk-screened shirts for me, either).What, a three-pack of Hanes Beefy-Ts from the local J.C. Penny's wasn't good enough for you?
posted by snarkout at 8:04 AM on November 18, 2000
I remember when I was about 11 and my first flush of real fashion consciousness. I bought a "cool" Levi's jacket, and first thing my grandma grabbed a scissors to cut off the Levi's tag on the front pocket. I was horrified. (Because, of course, how could the other kids know that I'd bought "cool" Levi's, without the logo?)
posted by dhartung at 10:53 AM on November 18, 2000
posted by dhartung at 10:53 AM on November 18, 2000
What, a three-pack of Hanes Beefy-Ts from the local J.C. Penny's wasn't good enough for you?
Those are good shirts, usually very good. I remember requesting them when we had t-shirts printed for the radio station. But I never seem to be able to find them in any color but white, which I can't wear solo because 1) I am not buff and 2) I perspire like three dogs locked in a Pinto. Colored shirts are a bit more forgiving.
posted by Mo Nickels at 11:25 AM on November 18, 2000
Those are good shirts, usually very good. I remember requesting them when we had t-shirts printed for the radio station. But I never seem to be able to find them in any color but white, which I can't wear solo because 1) I am not buff and 2) I perspire like three dogs locked in a Pinto. Colored shirts are a bit more forgiving.
posted by Mo Nickels at 11:25 AM on November 18, 2000
FYI - If anyone ever needs to find a wide array of Beefy-Ts, try looking in a craft store like AC Moore or something. I noticed that they have all sorts of t-shirts and stuff in a billion different colors for "crafty ladies" looking to applique things. Your choice of whether or not to airbrush a Precious Moments vignette onto your t-shirt is something we'll all keep private.
posted by stefnet at 1:23 PM on November 18, 2000
posted by stefnet at 1:23 PM on November 18, 2000
« Older | It's that time of year again... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by riffola at 10:16 PM on November 17, 2000