Commodity Clothing Items- How Important is That Designer Label?

I recently read a post entitled "Kirkland Signature (Costco) Italian Ties", and the extreme negative reactions against wearing Costco branded ties inspired me to create this post.

I have never liked the idea of wearing visible brands.  The idea of spending money to give free advertising to clothing companies, frankly, is appalling.   However, there are plently of people who are willing to spend $100+ on that horse, alligator, etc, so they will forever continue manifest.  To me, it's only slightly more subtle and subdued than a "Tapout" or "Affliction" logo.  Granted, brands are oftentimes an indicator of quality (visible brand or not), and people are willing to pay a premium for luxury brands even if the markup is 300%+.  I myself have a very hard time paying retail price.  I think it dawned on me when I was trying on an ~$1,800 Canali suit and was just about to pay for it, and then suddenly decided against it.  Although I certainly could of afforded it, I wondered how much was I paying for the suit, and how much was I paying for that little tag that said "Canali".  I instead said no thanks, went to Brooks Brothers and got an 1818 suit on sale.  I'm not going to argue about items like suits, which are not commodities IMO, but rather basic items that have become commodities and now rely almost entirely on brand association and gimmicks to markup what essentially is the same product.

For the purpose of this discussion, a commodity is defined as such:

Commodity: A good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (as brand name) other than price.

The following items are commodities, IMO, and I do not care if they are Kirkland Signature or Gucci (or Louis Vuitton, Chanel, etc.) and I would only buy the latter at a VERY deep-discount

White T-Shirt:  Wal-Mart branded "Jerzees" brand is 100% cotton just like any other "brand-name" shirt.  If you like Pima cotton, try the "high-end" Merona line.

Black or Brown Socks:  You need to throw these away every 6 or so months anyways.  While Alden shoes may last a lifetime, the same does not hold true for the socks you wear with them.

Solid Color Button-Down Oxford Shirt:  This item is so ubiquitious that you can surely find a a well-fitted shirt that is sub $100.  For example, Uniqlo makes one for $25.

Solid Color Pocket Square:  A square piece of silk.  IMO, it doesn't matter if it is the finest handspin silk-weave made in the finest silk mill in Italy, I'm not paying more than $20 for one.

Polo Shirt: Lacoste sells polos for $80-90.  How much of that is that little embroidered alligator?  If you do not care for that "look" so much, you can save money with one of the other gazillion clothiers that make them, and save the alligator for your shoes or belt.

Khaki Color Chinos:  Dockers may be mass produced and made in China, but it would take a very discerning eye to tell the difference between this and Bill's Khakis

Underwear: My advice, save money and skip this item altogether.

Bottom Line:  These items are disposable or so common/easily manufactured that you would be foolish to buy them high-brand MSRP.  I already stated earlier my aversion towards displaying logos, and even if you are a fan of it, it would be pointless in this scenario.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swiego 

What I have learned (and admittedly I am still learning) is that construction quality matters, but is very hard to ascertain. I have noticed that both here and on other similar sites there are strong personalities with considerable information, but even they end up having to fall back on brand ("buy Italian!") or price ("if the cashmere is under $300 it's junk") because were an article of clothing to be put before them sans brand and price tag, they would struggle to ascertain its quality. This is less the case for some items (shoes, mainly) but for most it's just really hard to tell whether something is well made by its outward appearance, so brand (reputation) and price become natural fallbacks. So, a particular cashmere sweater is recommended because its $500 price tag and "Made in Scotland" label rather than because of its actual quality.
I suppose this works well for the most part, but there's still risk. Risk that you'll get a terrible sweater (despite the $500 price tag and "Scotland" label), and risk that you'll miss out on the occasional $100 Made in China sweater that is about the same.
Basically I think many people here are gambling; they want higher quality clothing and believe that betting on certain brands will increase their odds. (For the most part, they are correct.)

But a Cashmere Sweater is a high-end luxury item, and a white t-shirt is not.  Even then, with a little bit of research and feel, you can still get equally good stuff for less.  For example, with cars, A Hyundai Genesis spec-for-spec, price-for-price, review-for-review outlclasses a BMW or Mercedes.  I actually plan to buy one as my first car out B-School.  For those of us who do not place a premium on luxury labels, there savings to be had. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by swiego 

What I have learned (and admittedly I am still learning) is that construction quality matters, but is very hard to ascertain. I have noticed that both here and on other similar sites there are strong personalities with considerable information, but even they end up having to fall back on brand ("buy Italian!") or price ("if the cashmere is under $300 it's junk") because were an article of clothing to be put before them sans brand and price tag, they would struggle to ascertain its quality. This is less the case for some items (shoes, mainly) but for most it's just really hard to tell whether something is well made by its outward appearance, so brand (reputation) and price become natural fallbacks. So, a particular cashmere sweater is recommended because its $500 price tag and "Made in Scotland" label rather than because of its actual quality.
I suppose this works well for the most part, but there's still risk. Risk that you'll get a terrible sweater (despite the $500 price tag and "Scotland" label), and risk that you'll miss out on the occasional $100 Made in China sweater that is about the same.
Basically I think many people here are gambling; they want higher quality clothing and believe that betting on certain brands will increase their odds. (For the most part, they are correct.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by swiego 

I think you are arguing that those who do not place a premium on luxury can save some money. Well... duh? Of course that's true. No one needs a luxurious suit or shoes or underwear. These are all choices. Some want the best of everything and want to pay for it. Others avoid luxury in any form because they perceive it to be a waste of their money. Most exist somewhere between these two extremes, and pick and choose where to enjoy our small luxuries and where not to.
I actually like having rather nice, but pricey socks. You are right, they are expensive and wear out quickly so it doesn't make practical sense, but I like how cozy my feet feel in cashmere-silk blend socks, so I'll pay for that luxury. Whereas, my recently fluctuating weight makes luxury suiting investments feel risky to me, so I'm focused on "cheap and practical with no frills or luxury" there. I think it depends a great deal on person preference and life circumstances where one decides to invest or not invest in luxury.

II wasn't arguing about suits, cashmere sweaters, etc.  I was just saying that certain items have become so common and inseperable, that it really makes no sense to buy them at name-brand full-price.  One example was the white T-shirt.  Another was the pocket square.  The list goes on, but yes, with items such as suiting, differences in quality are far greater.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swiego 

What I have learned (and admittedly I am still learning) is that construction quality matters, but is very hard to ascertain. I have noticed that both here and on other similar sites there are strong personalities with considerable information, but even they end up having to fall back on brand ("buy Italian!") or price ("if the cashmere is under $300 it's junk") because were an article of clothing to be put before them sans brand and price tag, they would struggle to ascertain its quality. This is less the case for some items (shoes, mainly) but for most it's just really hard to tell whether something is well made by its outward appearance, so brand (reputation) and price become natural fallbacks. So, a particular cashmere sweater is recommended because its $500 price tag and "Made in Scotland" label rather than because of its actual quality.
I suppose this works well for the most part, but there's still risk. Risk that you'll get a terrible sweater (despite the $500 price tag and "Scotland" label), and risk that you'll miss out on the occasional $100 Made in China sweater that is about the same.
Basically I think many people here are gambling; they want higher quality clothing and believe that betting on certain brands will increase their odds. (For the most part, they are correct.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by swiego 

I think you are arguing that those who do not place a premium on luxury can save some money. Well... duh? Of course that's true. No one needs a luxurious suit or shoes or underwear. These are all choices. Some want the best of everything and want to pay for it. Others avoid luxury in any form because they perceive it to be a waste of their money. Most exist somewhere between these two extremes, and pick and choose where to enjoy our small luxuries and where not to.
I actually like having rather nice, but pricey socks. You are right, they are expensive and wear out quickly so it doesn't make practical sense, but I like how cozy my feet feel in cashmere-silk blend socks, so I'll pay for that luxury. Whereas, my recently fluctuating weight makes luxury suiting investments feel risky to me, so I'm focused on "cheap and practical with no frills or luxury" there. I think it depends a great deal on person preference and life circumstances where one decides to invest or not invest in luxury.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ballmouse 

If you were handed a suit without any tags, there's a very, very high probability it's junk (let's say 95%). Now how does a good manufacturer assure you it's not junk? With tags. Sure, it's not perfect, but this is the best way a manufacturer illustrates to its consumers that the product is not garbage.

 

There is asymmetric information for products. Some manufacturers aren't making good quality products, so they probably couldn't care less about their brand image. Some manufacturers aren't making good quality products so they DO care a lot about their brand. And there are some making good quality products that REALLY care about their brand. Therefore, that label is very important: consumers use those brand labels to judge whether something is good or bad. In your example, you still used that Brooks Brothers (sure, not designer label, but a label nonetheless) to judge a product.

 

Of course, on some products quality can be judged by looking at the product, but even then, a large majority cannot distinguish between what's good or bad just by touching a product. That's why labels exist. If everybody could accurately judge a product, labels, especially designer, would be quite meaningless.

 

Of course, I left out analysis about styling, color, and other differentiating factors (because not all suits are exactly the same), but I hope you get the point.

Again, the main point wasn't about suiting.  I concede that significant differences in quality exists with suits and all luxury items for that matter, which makes brands valuable (even though I said that I resent paying the high mark-up).  I was mainly talking about items in the list.  T-Shirts, Socks, etc. which I have concluded as commodities, generally equal with the exception of brand and price.