I am not able to identify the brand of clothing based on the image.
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
86 points (77.6% liked)
There Was An Attempt
5663 readers
1 users here now
There Was An Attempt, and they failed.
Share and discuss of when there was a sincere attempt made and they failed.
Rules
All lemmy.world rules apply.
- Be respectful: No harassment; trolling; spamming; hate speech and use appropriate language.
- Share relevant content (Failed Attempts)
- Foster a healthy, constructive community for us to all learn in.
- Report any rule violations.
More
Check out the Lemmy Discord
More coming soon! Under new development.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Lucky, you've managed to avoid the branding campaign. That's kind of a big one.
I don’t know why nobody is telling you. It’s adidas. The stripes down the sides are part of the brand, so the logo isn’t needed.
I only knew because in school, the A.ll D.ay I. D.ream A.bout S.ex
I think it's some sort of Slavic tuxedo
Same. And such a small brand logo.
Maybe it’s more about the trademarked logo than the trademark look-and-feel
Usually it's even dumber than that. Shows use the logos to try to blackmail large companies into paying them for "advertising", and if the companies don't pay up they censor the logos.
yea all logos and names of brands are heavily trademarked, using them in your own works isn't allowed unless you get written premission/contract for advertising for them or if it's incidental use (imagine the main character running through a busy street and a small Apple ad flashes at the edge of the screen somewhere for 2s, if someone tries to sue for that courts are most likely to dismiss the case with a legalese equivalent of "bruh chill")
Can somebody explain what i'm missing? The logo is blurred correctly and can't be read
The three stripes down shoulders and legs are usually indicative of a certain German sportswear brand.
Yeah, i recognize the brand, but i thought it had to be more than that. The purpose of censoring the logo is usually legal and to be clear what is and what is not product placement. That is done correctly, so i'd say this doesn't fit this community
Right, it's not about making it impossible to tell who made the clothing, it's about hiding the legally trademarked logos.
It's sort of like blurring out the word Crocs on a pair of Crocs. There's no point.
a certain German sportswear brand.
Puma?
I’ve never understood why anyone would pay money to be a walking billboard.
Otherwise people wouldn't be able to tell that you spent $75 on your T-shirt instead of $25
$25 for a T-shirt? Try $5! I buy 32 Cool shirts in a big ol bulk bag at Costco. I have around 20 of the exact same shirt, and I wear them every day.
It's all about conspicuous consumption; gotta show that you can afford the real article. Some people really do believe in the power of "pay to win" and bolt-on status points, and by all accounts, are actively supported by their peers.
On occasion, branded stuff really is the best value. IMO, that's usually when a brand is starting out, not when they're popular.
A****S
AIDS
Edit: formatting ruined the joke0
adadis
The more stripes - the more [brand]