[ly]

The article's title is "Showing off your status and wealth makes you seem less co-operative", and the title here on HN is absolutely wrong.

I like wearing flashy clothes myself, and I would even say it has proven advantageous to cooperation in my line of work, so I was curious about this article. However, nowhere is it stated that flashy clothes make people less likely to cooperate with you. They say wearing clothes with luxury logos and signal high status does.

[slothtrop]

According to the article, the study entailed using avatars with or without luxury logos branded on clothing.

Suits can be luxury goods, but the study didn't explore that. It's unclear at a glance if this was actually about status given the methods. There could be other reasons people don't favor corporate-branded clothing, considering that wealthy people don't just wear polos with big corporate logos on them. Maybe it telegraphs poor taste, or that boosting luxury companies makes it seem like you're trying too hard to show that you have money (I make a distinction between this and someone who plainly looks high-status owing to their choice of wear). The obvious thing to include would have been avatars with non-luxury brands, it's possible that would have repelled as well.

On the other hand, every piece of heavily-branded clothing could be considered "luxury" in its own way and the only difference is social class, demographics. In low-culture you'll see Crooks and Castles, Fox Racing, Adidas, etc

[pflenker]

The HN title is right, it's the article's title which is at odds with its contents.

[sofard]

Yeah - my apologies. Should have linked to the underlying paper, which is what I based the title on.

[tyingq]

One case where that works against people is sales. For example, we had a sales rep for some software we use that would always show up with gaudy gold rings on almost every finger, an obviously-5-figure watch, high end suit, etc.

It sent a pretty strong signal to us that their margins and commissions had a lot of room to negotiate down. I suspect we negotiated harder with this organization than we would have otherwise, looked for opportunities to reduce usage, and so on. Not solely because of the wealthy display, but I'm sure it played some part.

[listenallyall]

Pretty sure the guy knew exactly what he was doing. First, the fact you were negotiating means he already got over the first step, which is simply to engage in a negotiation at all. Then he set himself up so that your team felt you could push extra-hard, resulting in a discount you all probably high-fived about. So he sets his initial price above his peers and even with your super discount you ended up at the same price as everybody else. Or maybe you did pay less... it's software! Marginal cost = pennies. Cheesy sales guy still made a fat commission.

[dylan604]

I was told it is never a faux pas to show up over dressed, but it is to be under dressed. If you look like a pimp, that's one thing. Showing up in a nice pair of pants and shirt when everyone else is in shorts and t-shirts is different.

[synu]

So like wearing a tuxedo to a job interview is kosher? It’s not wearing a pimp outfit, but surely there are so many examples of wearing inappropriate fancy clothes that you can’t really say that it’s never possible to overdress.

[dylan604]

If that's the spirit in which you want to take this conversation then, yes, absolutely, show up to a job interview in a tux. If you're applying any where other than Downton Abbey, then you get what you deserve for taking the conversation in this direction

[synu]

Can you help me get on track by sharing what you mean by its never a faux pas to show up overdressed? That’s the part that just seems quite surprising to me in my experience. I would say it’s just as easy to show up over as under dressed in an awkward way, rather than something that can never happen.

[dylan604]

I never said it wasn't possible to show up overdressed. You just said that.

I simply stated what I had been told that if you're going to make a fashion faux pas it is better to be overdressed than under. What is confusing?

[synu]

Ah ok, I had somehow misread your comment as saying it is never a faux pas to show up over dressed. Thanks for the clarification, that makes way more sense!

[googlryas]

Sure it is. In the tech world at least, a lot of people will judge you negatively if you are a programmer and wear a business suit to an interview at a tech firm

[yieldcrv]

Right, this is reinforced by understanding that also many brands are not recognized by most people but are respected enough by the people that matter, and so could not disrupt cooperation.