|
|
|
|
|
by barrkel
1812 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.