or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Cognitive Dissonance: "Polo = Prole/hiphop/Outlet brand" vs. "Ralph Lauren/RLPL is not"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cognitive Dissonance: "Polo = Prole/hiphop/Outlet brand" vs. "Ralph Lauren/RLPL is not" - Page 4

post #46 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

I bet there are few people outside of this fora that knows there is any difference between any of the Ralph Lauren lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Cognitive dissonance, this phrase, it does not mean what Reevolving thinks it means.
I see Polo as a vaguely aspiration brand that most anyone can afford. Frat boys love them, status conscious recent immigrants love them, and most everyone in between. They're still more or less viewed as a "luxury" to average people.
What is probably damaging to the brand's perception is the Ralph and Lauren lines. They share the common brand name, but are basically the same quality as all the other junk at mall department stores. Most people (see: Ebay sellers) don't know the difference between Polo and the licensed junk.

Yeah you are correct about that. A person I knew ran up to me once and was showing off his suit to me, he thought it was Polo, but it was Lauren (Green Tag). I tried to explain to him the difference but he thought I didn't know what I was talking about and said "I got it from Macys so y'know, I think I know what i bought." Sad part was that the suit costed him $180...
post #47 of 264
i've got my own weirdness with polo. it's the one brand that reliably fits me pretty close to perfect. i own a lot of it (by my plebeian standards). but i refuse to buy logo-ed stuff even though it might be perfectly well made. is this reverse snobbism? probably.
post #48 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by foodguy View Post

i've got my own weirdness with polo. it's the one brand that reliably fits me pretty close to perfect. i own a lot of it (by my plebeian standards). but i refuse to buy logo-ed stuff even though it might be perfectly well made. is this reverse snobbism? probably.

There's a certain logic to it. Most people wearing Polo branded stuff are wearing it because of the stupid horse. You know that, don't want that image for yourself, and thus refuse to wear them. I don't like paying to advertise a brand, so I try to avoid that sort of thing. I have some BB polos with the little sheep on them, but nobody knows wtf it is and so it doesn't bother me.
post #49 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturdays View Post

Yeah you are correct about that. A person I knew ran up to me once and was showing off his suit to me, he thought it was Polo, but it was Lauren (Green Tag). I tried to explain to him the difference but he thought I didn't know what I was talking about and said "I got it from Macys so y'know, I think I know what i bought." Sad part was that the suit costed him $180...

I thrifted a Green label (made in Canada) suit that is quite nice. Half-canvassed, decent fabric. It's a different universe from the ones you find at Macys these days, not sure what how old it is but apparently they used to make decent stuff.
post #50 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I thrifted a Green label (made in Canada) suit that is quite nice. Half-canvassed, decent fabric. It's a different universe from the ones you find at Macys these days, not sure what how old it is but apparently they used to make decent stuff.

Pics or it didn't happen
post #51 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I thrifted a Green label (made in Canada) suit that is quite nice. Half-canvassed, decent fabric. It's a different universe from the ones you find at Macys these days, not sure what how old it is but apparently they used to make decent stuff.

i've had this happen too. thumbing through the racks doing the "touch test" and think "this could be something nice". then you pull it out and it's lauren, or university club and pass. guess i'm not just pretentious about food.
post #52 of 264
I have given up on thrift shops all together. My g/f finds nice women's things from time to time, but when I am in them I just like educating her on proper names of patterns on sport coats. Which means, of course, I am just talking to myself.
post #53 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturdays View Post

Hmm Nacho seems to like Ralph stuff lol..
And yes I know US POLO ASSN is the governing body of the sport in US. However they did not start making clothing until 1981, where as Ralph Lauren started his company in 1967 and shortly after the iconic Polo shirts were being sold. Its a strong word to use 'fake' since Ralph Lauren was the first designer to bring the 'Big Pony' / 'Big Logo' style on a Polo shirt, and after he did - then US POLO ASSN just rode the tailwind - that being said US POLO ASSN doesn't even make the clothing themselves, a third party company Jordache does. So of course Ralph Lauren would sue because they started making clothing after Ralph Lauren did, rode upon their success by making very similar clothing.

Well, Nacho Figueras is an Argentine pro, not an american polo player. And if PRL were paying me the kind of bank they are paying him, I'd probably wear their stuff, too. The fact remains that polo players in the U.S. really don't like Ralph Lauren because his company had been kind of a dick.

RL decided to appropriate the image of polo for his own business. And then he expanded his business to every conceivable product known to man. The people who actually created the image of polo, by actually playing it, were, not too surprisingly, kind of annoyed by this. At one time, PRL was effectively claiming sole ownership of the right to use any image of a guy on a horse with a polo mallet. I believe they were also claiming the all rights to the word "polo," though I could be wrong about this.

And what difference does it make whether they contract out their clothing manufacture to Jordache? It's not like Ralph is sewing all those Big Pony logos on himself. AFAIK, even PRL, contracts out to other companies and factories.
post #54 of 264
There is nothing more alpha and 1% than being paid to wear something. Definitely SF approved.
post #55 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post

Well, Nacho Figueras is an Argentine pro, not an american polo player. And if PRL were paying me the kind of bank they are paying him, I'd probably wear their stuff, too. The fact remains that polo players in the U.S. really don't like Ralph Lauren because his company had been kind of a dick.
RL decided to appropriate the image of polo for his own business. And then he expanded his business to every conceivable product known to man. The people who actually created the image of polo, by actually playing it, were, not too surprisingly, kind of annoyed by this. At one time, PRL was effectively claiming sole ownership of the right to use any image of a guy on a horse with a polo mallet. I believe they were also claiming the all rights to the word "polo," though I could be wrong about this.
And what difference does it make whether they contract out their clothing manufacture to Jordache? It's not like Ralph is sewing all those Big Pony logos on himself. AFAIK, even PRL, contracts out to other companies and factories.

True true.. but he had good grounds from a business perspective to sue the likes of Polo magazine - which actually began to reshape its magazine to include the polo playing lifestyle rather than just the sport itself.

In any case, Ralph Lauren started the clothing line - created the iconic logo - marketed the shit out of his lines - gained recognition and honor.. then US POLO ASSN decided to ride the wind and create its own line that is awfully similar to the PRL line. In the business world that is grounds to sue, to protect the company and to stop letting the other company enter its marketshare. US POLO ASSN. I mean, seriously.. if you are gonna ride the tailwind at least put some creativity into it. They decided to just mass produce a similar 'big logod' with the number '3' on the sleeve polo that Ralph Lauren had been producing for years before they were. They claimed rights to the brand name 'Polo' when associated with the lifestyle brand and clothing brand that Ralph Lauren has created over the years - its not like he went out and sued Volkswagen.

Jordache plays a key role in all of this because the US POLO ASSN brand is simply licensed out to them. From the court case:
Quote:
''It's not that we think they don't have the right to call themselves the United States Polo Association, because of course they do,'' said Anthony Lo Cicero, a lawyer for Polo Ralph Lauren in New York. ''But when they use the word 'polo' in an emphasized way and use symbols that look like our symbol and copy our trade dress -- the way in which trademarks appear -- then we consider that trademark infringement.''
post #56 of 264
Thread Starter 
I think there absolutely has been brand dilution. When someone asks, it's just not the same to tell someone your Darlton's are from Ralph Lauren, which is pedestrian, b/c 99% of the population does not know there are different RL lines/calibers, and 99% of the population owns some sort of mall/outlet "Ralph Lauren" article...vs. telling them they are some out of reach obscure English shoe brand they have never heard of (C&J) . Let's face it....
post #57 of 264
I was with a friend at an RL store in soho a year or two ago and he picked up some darltons and asked me who made them, because they were shell. I told him Crockett & Jones. A SA was like, no I am pretty sure we have our own factory. I was like no, you don't, trust me. He went to ask his boss. He was surprised.
post #58 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reevolving View Post

I think there absolutely has been brand dilution. When someone asks, it's just not the same to tell someone your Darlton's are from Ralph Lauren, which is pedestrian, b/c 99% of the population does not know there are different RL lines/calibers, and 99% of the population owns some sort of mall/outlet "Ralph Lauren" article...vs. telling them they are some out of reach obscure English shoe brand they have never heard of (C&J) . Let's face it....

I will admit to this. When someone asks who makes my RL or even BB shoes I always respond with the actual maker (C&J, AS, Alden, etc).
post #59 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reevolving View Post

I think there absolutely has been brand dilution. When someone asks, it's just not the same to tell someone your Darlton's are from Ralph Lauren, which is pedestrian, b/c 99% of the population does not know there are different RL lines/calibers, and 99% of the population owns some sort of mall/outlet "Ralph Lauren" article...vs. telling them they are some out of reach obscure English shoe brand they have never heard of (C&J) . Let's face it....

Why would anyone be impressed by a maker he hadn't heard of? Do you offer a helpful explanatory description such as "These are made by the venerable English firm of Crockett & Jones, established 1879"?
post #60 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday View Post

Why would anyone be impressed by a maker he hadn't heard of? Do you offer a helpful explanatory description such as "These are made by the venerable English firm of Crockett & Jones, established 1879"?

I don't do it to impress people. I've found "impressing people" to be a losing battle. For me, it's one of two things. Both are outlandish but, then again, I spend all day on here, so... yea...

1. I am introducing them to a new brand. There are so many ignorant guys out there that there is a part of me that hopes when one of them sees my shoes and asks where they're from, they will be interested enough to follow up and see what the deal is with the brand. I know this is absurd but, surprisingly, I have had some friends come back and be like "I looked into those shoes..." Though generally that statement is followed by "Why in the Hell do you pay that much for shoes?"

2. I have completely drank the SF Kool Aid on finding out who makes which shoes. I find myself actually being disappointed in the amount of effort I put into this research. But, nonetheless, it is the sad truth. If I do enough research to justify paying $XXX for a pair of shoes, then the maker I am actually buying is generally front-of-mind. I find myself saying the original maker because that is all I think of when I think of my shoes.

Again, both of these border on absurd but I can tell no lie. shog[1].gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Cognitive Dissonance: "Polo = Prole/hiphop/Outlet brand" vs. "Ralph Lauren/RLPL is not"