Why is it that Ralph Lauren has their logo or brand name plastered all over there cheaper line (POLO), but when you look at their more expensive lines (Double RL, Purple Label, etc.), the logo is no where to be found?There's a lot of nice things in their Polo line that I would wear but having "RALPH", "POLO", or that man on a horse logo on it ruins the look for me.Why does a nice POLO button down shirt like that have that stupid tiny logo right there stitched on the chest for everyone to see?It's so tiny, it looks like a drop of ink or some other stain.It's looks sloppy and stupid.
>>18766643>be you>walking billboard>wondering whyimagine being this poor you can't even buy a brain
>>18766650>HUURR DUUURR WALKING BILLLBOARD YOU'RE ADVERTISING FOR THEMThat's a stupid argument.The logo is so tiny, most people are going to assume it's a stain or something.Ralph Lauren has been around so long, I doubt the younger crowd like Gen Z even knows the brand or regards it as "boomerwear" or whatever they call boomer clothing.It's also way more expensive and no where near as trendy as brands like Uniqlo or Zara.They would sell way more clothes if they ditched the logo and giant POLO or RALPH lettering.
>>18766643Think of it as how some streaming services have a possibility to remove ads if you pay more.
>>18766643Poor people prefer to wear shirts with logos because it shows that they were able to afford the brand. If they wear a shirt without a logo, their peers will assume it's from Walmart.
>>18766655It's still making the garment look worse
>>18766643>Purple LabelBut lots of these items have logos too?
>>18766643I kind of feel the same but not because I hate the logo. sometimes it adds a nice accent when it's the multicolored onethe problem is I don't want all my clothes to have this logo on them and become the office "ralph lauren brand guy," so I limit the amount of their brand I buy. the quality is good for the price point though, much better than all their same cost competitors that have gone bankrupt over the last decade
>>18767099The Purple Label shirt that's close to the POLO one the model is wearing in the OP has no label and costs $600.
>>18766643Generally, wearing a logo isn't a win for the customer. People who have the choice to display a logo tend not to do so. You can think of the logo as a compromise for getting a cheaper, lower quality item; it's worse and you have to advertise for the brand, but at least it was more affordable.As you move up in quality, it's no longer a serious consideration to have a logo on the item. If I'm buying something good, that will naturally exclude the logo unless it's being used in an artful way that I like.
