this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
75 points (77.8% liked)

There Was An Attempt

5633 readers
1 users here now

There Was An Attempt, and they failed.

Share and discuss of when there was a sincere attempt made and they failed.


Rules

All lemmy.world rules apply.


MoreCheck out the Lemmy Discord

More coming soon! Under new development.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I am not able to identify the brand of clothing based on the image.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago

Lucky, you've managed to avoid the branding campaign. That's kind of a big one.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don’t know why nobody is telling you. It’s adidas. The stripes down the sides are part of the brand, so the logo isn’t needed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

I only knew because in school, the A.ll D.ay I. D.ream A.bout S.ex

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Same. And such a small brand logo.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I think it's some sort of Slavic tuxedo

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Maybe it’s more about the trademarked logo than the trademark look-and-feel

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Usually it's even dumber than that. Shows use the logos to try to blackmail large companies into paying them for "advertising", and if the companies don't pay up they censor the logos.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Can somebody explain what i'm missing? The logo is blurred correctly and can't be read

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The three stripes down shoulders and legs are usually indicative of a certain German sportswear brand.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, i recognize the brand, but i thought it had to be more than that. The purpose of censoring the logo is usually legal and to be clear what is and what is not product placement. That is done correctly, so i'd say this doesn't fit this community

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

Right, it's not about making it impossible to tell who made the clothing, it's about hiding the legally trademarked logos.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago

a certain German sportswear brand.

Puma?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

AIDS

Edit: formatting ruined the joke0

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I’ve never understood why anyone would pay money to be a walking billboard.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

It's all about conspicuous consumption; gotta show that you can afford the real article. Some people really do believe in the power of "pay to win" and bolt-on status points, and by all accounts, are actively supported by their peers.

On occasion, branded stuff really is the best value. IMO, that's usually when a brand is starting out, not when they're popular.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Otherwise people wouldn't be able to tell that you spent $75 on your T-shirt instead of $25

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

$25 for a T-shirt? Try $5! I buy 32 Cool shirts in a big ol bulk bag at Costco. I have around 20 of the exact same shirt, and I wear them every day.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

The more stripes - the more [brand]