Hacker News Reader

Comment by bgeeek | Hacker News Reader

Gap's problems for me:

1) Sticking Gap on everything. That kind-of logo/advertisement in huge lettering is great on the way up, but not on the way down. Superdry take note. You could not pay me to wear either.

2) Pricing and price point. It's frankly been bizarre for years. Overpriced when compared to new competitors, such as Uniqlo. Not quite good enough to compete with other stores, such as Levi's or more designer brands. Its position in the market felt awkward in recent times.

I still buy chinos and plain t-shirts from Gap. No logo and so nobody knows. Despite their crazy vanity sizing, they still offer a range of sizes unlike Uniqlo, which only offers tailoring in-store at present in the UK.

View on HN

I have never liked wearing obviously branded clothing, it always seemed counter-intuitive to me.

People want to show off their brands, and I'm ok with that, but as a nerdy guy who has never had style as a priority (though I'm quite militant about the cut of one's suit being just right), it just isn't me, so that's always ruled out GAP for me in the past.

If a brand splashes their name across the clothes they sell, I'll avoid them, but this limits options a lot of the time.

When it comes to Superdry, I like a lot of their clothing and own a few pieces of it, but I often choose not to wear many pieces because of the branding. I have some really nice jumpers from them which have a little label on the arm, which I find unnecessary. For work I'm more casually dressed than outside of work so I keep the Superdry branded stuff purely for work.

A couple of years ago I found Uniqlo, it was basically perfection, they have a line of chino type trousers I like the fit of, and a T-shirt I like the cut of, as well as some light jumpers, no branding or markings whatsoever, so I bought about ~20 of each in various colours (some of which go unworn to this day because they were a little too wild), and then a year or so later bought another ~10-15 of each.

EDIT: Trying to work on making my writing/comments less bullet pointed and monotonous so restructured a bit.

I don't mind brands/logos but it's a double-edged sword. It's hard to like or want to wear something that's perceived to be in decline if there are logos/branding all over it. Gap, Superdry, Hollister all seem a bit passé to me. I still buy Gap, but never with the logo on it.

Uniqlo seem fairly on the ball. The single length trouser size is very astute, although problematic for me as I live outside of London. Basically, I don't bother to buy trousers from them as they will never fit. T-shirts and sweatshirts are fine though!

I had no idea they had a single-length trouser size. How does that work? Did I luck-out that they happen to be the perfect length for me, or is it directly tied to waist size rather than a global single-length?

I first came across Uniqlo when I was in Japan, and their "shove everything in this box and close the door to scan your items into the self-service checkout" impressed me (as an Engineer, I enjoy these things). They recently, in the past year or two, caught up here in the UK and the store I visit has them now.

Also I find their face masks to be the best fitting and most comfortable out of the many, many brands I've tried.

If you live in London, you can/could go into the store, buy the trousers (34" length?) and have them tailored within the day (can't remember if there is a charge for it). If you're outside of London (not sure if the Oxford, Manc stores do it), you're out of luck :(

I am in London, but my local store is just outside. I has no idea this service was a thing. Fortunately for me, the off-the-shelf length is a perfect fit (34" for me).

https://faq-uk.uniqlo.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/Do-you-offer-al... :)

I like that the URL has en_US but all the info is for the UK.

The point of visible branding is that you leverage the brand value and marketing yourself. By purchasing the product and showing the label, you rely on other people's opinions of the brand to colour their opinion of you. This can work either way, of course, but you get to choose the brand and, indirectly, the type of people you're trying to change the opinion of.

Chinos are a brand all of their own, just not a trademarked brand. They're usually (if they're pastel coloured) relatively conservative, business casual, more formal than jeans but less formal than a suit. A bit middle-aged, or something you'd expect to see a businessman in on the weekend. You can't really escape branding when you appear in public. Even if you showed up naked, it would be a brand.

I think there's a decent listing in https://www.upcounsel.com/trademark-vs-brand on the elements of brand:

    Identity
    Image
    Personality
    Character
    Culture
    Essence
    Reputation

You mark out which group you're a member of in part by the clothes you choose. Some groups are anti-labels and you're partially opting in to them by eschewing labels.

Almost everything is cyclical in fashion. There was a period not long ago when jeans became unfashionable in the UK because they were associated with middle-age dads. People looked towards chinos (not the type you're talking about) as something different - you could get skinny/slim/athletic chinos. We've seen the same with skinny jeans - wider-leg jeans and other trousers now seem to be gaining pace.

Interesting points. I suppose I've been subconsciously taking part all along.

As a child my parents dressed me in corduroys, as a teen I refused to wear blue jeans, always wore casual shirts.

School uniform was a blazer, sixth form was a suit. Even amongst a school full of suits my English teacher accused me of being "debonair" and "dapper", University was dark jeans, t-shirts, hoodies.

The early years of my career as a Software Engineer I wore shirt/tie, but got sick of standing out for being a smartly dressed software engineer and switched to chinos, converse and hoodies.

Since becoming a parent I maintain chinos, boots, t-shirt, jumper, wool coat out of work, and hoodies, chinos, converse, t-shirt for work.

Outside of Converse I've never worn trainers (Reebok, Nike, Adidas etc) in public unless I'm running.

> 1)

Tommy Hilfiger and Guess are doing the same and it's obnoxious.

Agreed, although they're not at the same price point in the market and haven't run into problems yet, at least not here in the UK. There was a period in time where Gap rapidly expanded and had stores almost everywhere. Once the shoppers deserted the brand, the logos themselves became a problem itself, at least for those of us that were bothered by it :) The logos/branding can be good, but also a massive negative once its no longer a desirable brand.

1) The only thing GAP has going for them IS brand recognition. Otherwise, they’re in some weird in-between of Old Navy and Banana Republic and there are numerous brands out there that have taken their market share (H&M, Uniqlo, etc.).

Not in the UK - Old Navy is unknown here, Banana Republic pretty much the same (you can buy it online). H&M, Uniqlo, and Zara have certainly affected Gap's standing in the market.

The problem is of their own creation since they are all the same parent company.

My usual reasoning is, if there's conspicuous branding on the clothing, then the money should be flowing in the opposite direction. Why should I pay a company to advertise for them?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com