Re: Judging cyclist's competency by their outfit

[DougC]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Shouldn't a rider get paid to wear advertising, not the other way
> around?
>

I read a book a couple years back where the author commented on the
matter of teenagers overpaying for shirts that had the clothing
company's logo writ large upon them.

He thought it looked funny, because when he was that age (back in the
1950's, in the US) kids wouldn't wear shirts with logos if they could
help it. Back then companies that would GIVE those shirts away for free
just for the advertising (nobody would pay for them, people though they
were garish). So only poor kids ended up wearing them, and no kid wanted
to look like he was poor.
~

[Peter Cole]

DougC wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Shouldn't a rider get paid to wear advertising, not the other way
>> around?
>>
>
> I read a book a couple years back where the author commented on the
> matter of teenagers overpaying for shirts that had the clothing
> company's logo writ large upon them.
>
> He thought it looked funny, because when he was that age (back in the
> 1950's, in the US) kids wouldn't wear shirts with logos if they could
> help it. Back then companies that would GIVE those shirts away for free
> just for the advertising (nobody would pay for them, people though they
> were garish). So only poor kids ended up wearing them, and no kid wanted
> to look like he was poor.
> ~
>

A few years back, Supergo (now defunct) typically offered house-brand
shorts $5 cheaper with the larger logo. My kids used to complain when I
bought them (for them), but I thought it was a fair deal.

[Peter Cole]

DougC wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Shouldn't a rider get paid to wear advertising, not the other way
>> around?
>>
>
> I read a book a couple years back where the author commented on the
> matter of teenagers overpaying for shirts that had the clothing
> company's logo writ large upon them.
>
> He thought it looked funny, because when he was that age (back in the
> 1950's, in the US) kids wouldn't wear shirts with logos if they could
> help it. Back then companies that would GIVE those shirts away for free
> just for the advertising (nobody would pay for them, people though they
> were garish). So only poor kids ended up wearing them, and no kid wanted
> to look like he was poor.
> ~
>

A few years back, Supergo (now defunct) typically offered house-brand
shorts $5 cheaper with the larger logo. My kids used to complain when I
bought them (for them), but I thought it was a fair deal.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jun 28, 9:08 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> DougC wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> >> Shouldn't a rider get paid to wear advertising, not the other way
> >> around?
>
> > I read a book a couple years back where the author commented on the
> > matter of teenagers overpaying for shirts that had the clothing
> > company's logo writ large upon them.
>
> > He thought it looked funny, because when he was that age (back in the
> > 1950's, in the US) kids wouldn't wear shirts with logos if they could
> > help it. Back then companies that would GIVE those shirts away for free
> > just for the advertising (nobody would pay for them, people though they
> > were garish). So only poor kids ended up wearing them, and no kid wanted
> > to look like he was poor.
> > ~
>
> A few years back, Supergo (now defunct) typically offered house-brand
> shorts $5 cheaper with the larger logo. My kids used to complain when I
> bought them (for them), but I thought it was a fair deal.- Hide quoted text -
>


And that, pretty much, is how things *should* work. And not only in
clothing; an example is Chris King headsets, if they want to plaster
that garish logo on the headset, they should charge less for it v. a
tasteful, plain version.