Basically they made their brand / labels part of the "identity" of the outfit. I mean you can get a $5 or a $50 or a $500 polo shirt, for the most part they'll be the same but the more expensive ones will have the alligator or guy on a horse on them. The practical differences between them are minimal, and in terms of production it's a few dollars (at most) difference.
Upper end LV and more expensive luxury leather good concerns are more understated, sort of a 'if you know you know' thing -- Hermes, Celine, Bottega maybe, etc. A Birkin in a non exotic leather with normal hardware is not a very flashy loud bag(unless you know it). There's still a lot of status signaling and striver insecurity in this(it is fashion after all) but it's slightly more covert and these people are nominally concerned about ostentatious branded stuff being 'tacky.' The social ideal is less about flashy spending and more imitating serious old money who "just want to pay for the highest quality"(though this is, imo, fiction). Can't look like you're trying.
A blank patch looks sort of conspicuous, but a cute little non-corporate owl or fox will look like it's meant to be there.
I remove labels too when possible, and avoid clothing where the brand is an integral part of the item. Why would I keep them?
However, the vast majority of logos I see on clothes are actually part of the clothing, that's what I meant by "stitched in." I realize now, via Google, I meant "embroidered on."
EDIT: Just went through my closet and I found there's another large category of logos that are screen printed on. There were zero I personally saw that could be removed with a knife without heavily damaging the fabric. Maybe men's clothing is different.
With men's clothes, you can buy plain shirts, socks, etc in 3-packs (there's few choices, but few are needed). Women's clothes tend offer more unbranded options, unless you're buying athletic wear or a purse. Casual shoes generally suck in this regard, for men and women.
This has been getting more difficult, of late. It used to be that logos were embroidered on tags or patches, which were then stitched onto the clothes. But with embroidery robots and the rise of counterfeiting, companies are making it more difficult to remove their brands.
edit: but practically? Thrift shops have a wealth of logo-free stuff
For my laptop I use metallic tape as that was one of the few where the light would not shine through it. It also look quite natural on it.
[1] - It's easiest to imagine for this exercise that you work somewhere unquestionably positive, like a research group that just cured cancer and then released the cure into the public domain or something else that doesn't have Facebook's baggage.
I'm still not going to wear obvious logos in general, and not wearing prints saves me from the most obvious stuff - and some things can't be avoided as easily. I'm not going to replace the backpacks I have: They were free and functional. I also sometimes have branded shoes because comfort is more important than a logo.
reminds me of this fascinating podcast about the history of textiles.
https://www.econtalk.org/virginia-postrel-on-textiles-and-th...
The fastest spinners in the world used to take 13 days 8hrs a day of labor to spin enough thread to make one pair of jeans. A 200 thread count bed sheet would take 59 days. And neither of those include the time turning that thread into fabric.
Instead of buying cheap cotton shirts in bulk, try buying a few good merino wool t-shirts from a responsible manufacturer, locally produced under much better labor conditions. It will also impact the environment less, partly because cotton production uses ridiculous amounts of water and partly because you're not having products shipped to you from halfway around the globe.
A merino wool t-shirt will be more comfortable, last longer and be more resistant to dirt and odors, as well as regulate temperature much better. For normal day-to-day use, you can alternate between two shirts. Hang the shirt in the bathroom while you shower, then air it out in your bedroom for 24h. You'll find that it doesn't hold on to odors, because the wool isn't absorbent like cotton. Give it a quick shake and wear it for another day, letting the other shirt air out.
Carry on-only travelers swear by merino wool because it's generally lighter than cotton and because you can wear it for several days or even a week like this. If you're not squeamish, you can even do this same routine with underwear, too.
People are so obsessed with quantity now, perhaps because it's an easily measured property. Try going for quality instead :-)
Branding seems mostly about vanity. People often say that they don't care about popular brands and yet the popular brands remain popular. Perhaps we're more vain that we think.
Clothes without branding are sold in less fancy stores or look less cool; often customers are not actually willing to buy them.
I don’t care about it having specific labels on it. In fact I would like to not have those for the most part. But knowing that you are buying genuine Converse shoes might be nice vs knock offs.
Similarly I talked myself into Rimowa Air Salsa suitcase $699 vs the < $150 stuff I'd always bought previously. It was lighter than other so can fit more loot. Two flights later a wheel came off. Took it in for repair at Rimowa, next flight it came off again. Took it in again. Worked for a few flights but next time it came off Rimowa couldn't fix it in time for my return flight so they forwarded me to a local fix it shop at my expense. They fixed that particular wheel better than Rimowa (screw instead of glue) but a few more flights and a different wheel came off.
Similar issues with Schott jackets.
So at least for me, expensive brand != quality. It just equals expensive and possibly in a style I like.
Second, motorcycle gear. I know that TCX is going to have better boots than TourMaster. I know that a Shoei helmet is going to be better than a Walmart helmet. Is everything they put out perfect? No. But I can trust the brand overall.
And as a bonus, rock climbing equipment. I would much rather buy a Black Diamond or a Perzl carabiner than a Chinese knock off.
Clothing is somewhat harder this way but still, I am very happy with my Smart Wool socks and LL Bean insulated jeans vs something from Old Navy or similar.
2 that come to my mind right now are Uniqlo and Muji. But I'm sure there's plenty more to buy from in every country.
I think the above companies definitely took the wind out of Gap/American Eagle/Hollister/Nike type companies though who were cashing in on splashing their brand name on everything, but not offering consistent quality in relation to the price.
My employer got everyone jackets one year, nice ones actually, you just had to submit your size. I didn't, and it's not that I don't like my employer, I absolutely do, but I don't feel that it's necessary for me to advertise where I work. I also quietly ignored the dress shirts, polos and t-shirts that was handed out recently.
People can wear whatever they want, I don't really care. I just don't see the point in paying for branding, or using myself as an billboard.
In general, a big flashy logo signals that the brand itself and people's reaction to it matters more than the quality of the garment. I'll grudgingly accept a small stitched design on a polo or dress shirt, at least those tend to be very minimal. Stitched designs can sometimes be carefully removed, but often the tight embroidery stitches will have distorted or ruined the fabric underneath.
Luckily it is still possible to find good quality clothes with no (or very minimal) branding, but you have to completely avoid fast fashion and main street stores. I've been able to completely excise all clothes with prominent branding from my wardrobe and I'm never going back.
The only exception I make graphic designs is for band shirts, but I feel that's different from corporate branding.
Edit: they're also one of my favourite tools for reworking automotive wiring harnesses.
* https://www.uniqlo.com/us/en/men-hybrid-down-parka-429290.ht...
* https://www.canadagoose.com/ca/en/mens-bromley-black-label-b...
* https://www.gucci.com/us/en/pr/men/ready-to-wear-for-men/out...
Uniqlo is one of the few stores I'll shop from because they don't have the the logos and are decent quality for the price.
I guess I should clarify my statement to be that the more gratuitous a logo, the less I think of the quality of the product. For example, I imagine Gucci is trying to cash in on its name, or people wanting to show off their willingness to spend money rather than it being a good jacket.
In a sense, Gucci and Vitton are what low class people think rich people wear. Kind of like Trump thinks being rich is shitting in gold toilets.
Of course, this contempt of "tacky luxury" is in itself a form of signaling among a certain class.
or maybe those "expensive ones" aren't higher end clothing in your pov?
Luxury brands also frequently sacrifice a brand every few years and drop it down the "status" level, such as Michael Kors/YSL/etc, and you will start seeing low quality product with the huge labels slapped over it sold in stores like Macys where they wouldn't have been seen before.
Zara/H&M/Uniqlo are nice in that they sell non logo'd utilitarian clothing at the lowest cost (I'm a big fan).
You are not your target market.
They used to pay 'bums' to wear sandwich-boards. Just sayin.
And then it's of course signalling - by showing specific brands, you send a message.
EDIT: the irony of this comment hit me just now.