As a student studying both Business and Fine Arts with the dream of one day becoming the Creative Director and owner of my own clothing label, one topic that I follow closely is marketing trends within the fashion industry.
One trend that I have noticed over the past couple months is that there has been a small shift towards unbranded branding. To clarify, an item that is unbranded is an item that does not carry a brand or brand name. This is not to be confused with an item that is debranded, which implies that it does not carry any type of brand name, packaging, or material that would otherwise allow someone to identify a brand.
For the purposes of this blog post, I would like to specifically take a closer look at Freshjive’s new line of “logoless” clothing and Urban Outfitters' new line of “unbranded” denim. I will explain what market each line competes in, what each line’s public rationale for going “unbranded”/”logoless” is, and how each line’s public rationale is different from (what I think) is its actual reason(s) for going “unbranded”/”logoless.”
FRESHJIVE
Let’s begin our discussion with Freshjive. Freshjive was founded in 1989 by Rick Klotz as one of the originators of streetwear – a distinctive style of fashion rooted in the underground skateboard scene. Although Freshjive has remained moderately well-known within in the “underground” skateboard and hip-hop community, it has (since its origination) been well-surpassed by other leading streetwear labels such as Supreme and The Hundreds, both of which are similarly priced and styled.
In - what some have called - a bold move, Freshjive announced a few months ago that that they "will no longer be using (their) brand logo or name on any of (their) product, including all labeling and t-shirt designs.”
In an interview with Bobby Hundreds (the co-owner of The Hundreds), Rick Klotz elaborates:
"Throughout the years I’ve become uncomfortable with this business of branding and brand identity. I’m not the type of person that buys something for the brand name. I’ve also never done a very good job at creating a captivating identity to our own brand logo. Also, within the streetwear culture, the promotion of a company’s brand has become downright silly to me. What’s amusing is I still really enjoy designing gear, graphics, and even logos. But when I see kids wearing company logos it reminds of people who are trying to be a part of a “tribe” or “gang”, as if they need to be part of something, which seems to go against the idea of individualism in style."
When asked by Bobby Hundreds what Rick will call his new line, Rick responds:
"Well, let’s be practical. The company is still Freshjive. It’s just that none of our product will have any of our logos or even our name AT ALL. Not even in the labels. And after the turn of the year, no promotional material, nor our website will have any logos. It’s really invigorating to approach designing a line WITHOUT the constrictions of how the logo is gonna be placed or used on the garments."
Throughout the rest of the interview, Rick continues to explain that his move to go “logoless” stems from his disillusionment towards the “world of branding and marketing,” and that he is just “following his heart.” If this is, indeed true, I applaud Rick for making such a bold move and for “following his heart.” Unfortunately, my spidey-senses tell me that there are other reasons, bigger reasons, for why Rick is going “logoless.”
Now, the reason why I keep putting logoless in quotations is because Freshjive isn’t actually going logoless. Surely, that black rectangle with the white stroke around it is still a logo, even if the logo doesn’t have any text in it. If Rick is so against branding and marketing, and intent on getting rid of labels and logos, why is that black box with the white stroke around it on all of his clothing items and on his main website? Peep the pictures below to see what I mean:
The truth is… Rick isn't getting rid of brand logos and labels like he claims – it wouldn’t make sense for him to; he's just changing his old logo and dismissing this change as a punk move to garner support from his punk fan base, and free publicity from the press - all in an attempt to revitalize a brand that has been stagnant for years. Clearly it's working since even the Huffington Post ran a story on it… not bad for an “underground” streetwear label.
Freshjive, of course, is not the only company that has gone “logoless.” Urban Outfitters has used a similar tactic in its latest line of “unbranded” denim, but for different reasons. But before we get to that, let’s start take a brief look at where Urban Outfitters has been and where it is today.
URBAN OUTFITTERS
Urban Outfitters was founded in 1970 as an outlet for hip and funky clothing as well as unique household items. Unlike Freshjive, Urban Outfitters has (since its origination) remained very popular among both hipsters and the general mainstream. Though very differently styled, Urban Outfitters’ closest competitors include Abercrombie and Fitch, and Gap.
In a move that has received a lot of ongoing buzz among several online fashion communities (see here, here, and here), Urban Outfitters released, a few months ago, a new line of “unbranded” raw denim. For those out of the loop, it’s worth understanding what exactly raw denim is and who the major players in the raw denim game are. For those of you who already know and/or don’t care, feel free to skip the next 2 paragraphs.
Raw denim - sometimes referred to as dry denim - is a type of denim fabric that is not treated with any type of wash after being dyed during production. Unlike most denim sold at your local department store, raw denim is sold heavily starched, in a solid indigo color, and with no signs of wear or artificial distress marks. The appeal of raw denim is that it fades with wear to eventually look like a distressed pair of denim; this fading process and the fit and distress marks that result is completely natural and unique to the person who wears the denim. If you're an outsider of raw denim, this may come as a surprise to you but most users of raw denim (including Zac Efron and Kanye West) typically abstain from washing their jeans for 6 or more months to facilitate the fading process.
Urban Outfitters' Unbranded raw denim, specifically, is priced at $78 a piece, making them quite possibly the cheapest pair of selvage raw denim widely available. They are set to compete with Naked & Famous' own line of raw denim, which is similarly priced, and APC's line of raw denim, which is the similarly styled (but cost about $165 a piece).
On its teaser website, Urban Outfitters explains that:
"The Unbranded Brand is jeans with no name, no branding, no washes, no ads, no gimmicks. Just great denim at a great price! Wow, what a concept, only paying for the product itself... crazy, isn’t it?"
Urban Outfitter’s public rationale for going “unbranded” is pretty clear here so I won’t elaborate on it any further.
Now, the reason why I keep putting unbranded in quotations is because Urban Outfitters’ “unbranded” denim - as you might have guessed by now - isn’t actually unbranded. The brand itself is Unbranded. Urban Outfitters, of course, knows this and is calling its line Unbranded as a cheap gimmick to try to convince consumers that all they’re paying for is a high quality product without the associated advertising costs. Similar to Freshjive, Urban Outfitters has placed an unusually big leather patch above the right pocket to make sure that consumers are able to identify that the product is from Urban Outfitters even though it’s supposedly “unbranded.” It’s hard to tell from the pictures below, but the patch is huge in person as is pointed out in almost every single review on the product website.
It’s more than just a cheap gimmick to convince consumers that all they’re paying for is a quality product though.
Hopefully this post has helped to inform as well as shine some light on the idea of why some brands are going – or at least claiming to go - unbranded. Clearly, I’ve only touched the surface here, but my hope is that next time a brand claims to go “unbranded,” you will more deeply question the motives behind move, rather than just accepting what the brand tells you.
No comments:
Post a Comment