Friday, March 27, 2009


I was combing the net as I do on the regular.I check Hypebeast, they're one of the illest broadcasting the illest. But I have to say, I dont agree with this post I read today. About start-up brands being to logo driven. And how you should make a name for yourself before you go slapping your logo everywhere. I think you do what the fuck you wanna do if that's your brand. If your audience is feeling the movement and buy into what the brand is giving them fuck what others feel you should be doing. My opinion. Here's the article.

I was doing the routine check of the info@ email account and went through the usual mixtape and store update spam in addition to the new brand emails. Coming on the heels of yesterday’s MMA post, ironically I came across an email for this new emerging brand, inspired by the world of MMA. The designs won’t make it onto HB, but the most noticeable inclusion in this inaugural collection were a few logo-based tees. It sort of re-ignited a previous philosophy I had come to terms with awhile ago and led to me updating my Twitter with the following “Start-up clothing brands should never make a logo tee… unless of course you’re selling it to your homies.” Pretty hastily written and with some flaws in the argument but nevertheless still an encompassing theme I think holds true. So here comes an official and more comprehensive run-down on why new brands shouldn’t make logo tees off the start.
I guess having looked at a few linesheets/catalogs, I sort of developed a disdain for new brands and logo based offerings. It’s obvious that a logo represents your brand as it should. However for the consumer, you’re essentially buying into a logo to represent what a brand’s philosophy/ethos is. Now I’m a firm believer that these things should be earned and derived over time, and any brand with a clean slate doesn’t really come onto the scene with anybody knowing anything about them. It seems difficult to captivate an audience with your direction and brand’s theme over the course of one season. To utilize a perfect example, a culturally rich brand like Supreme has instant messages associated with their Box-tee. Well not the Box tee design per-say but through association, you associate that red box logo with a brand that has been an integral cornerstone for many things from music to skate and collaboration innovation. I don’t skate nor does my Supreme wardrobe extend beyond the two tees that I was lucky enough to get, but the brand itself does have a strong meaning to me based on its pedigree. I can’t time warp back to Supreme’s early days but as a retailer first and brand second they did have grounds for their now iconic tee as a revered skate shop. I assume same deal with The Hundreds as mag-first, brand-second. To me, a brand new label just can’t have this same foundation. Not to say you can’t/won’t earn it over time, but to start off in the beginning doesn’t really fly with me I guess.
There are some cases where I think logo shit is perfectly fine, like as what I touched upon, it’s just a small run for friends… after all your friends know what you’re about right? If the graphic based logo is in itself a good design, not just your brand-name in some re-appropriated font. However I don’t see it happening that often? If you’re looking to go commercial, I guess it doesn’t really matter what you do as long as you sell sell sell. *I caught some flack for saying selling to my homies, I’m not really that cheap I swear haha If you have any comments or some holes in this argument, hit the comment section!!! K fugg, bedtime… peace. -Eugene

No comments:

Post a Comment