Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site moncol.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!moncol!ben
From: ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Advertising/Consumerism
Message-ID: <283@moncol.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-May-85 14:19:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: moncol.283
Posted: Mon May  6 14:19:06 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 08:59:05 EDT
References: <10333@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Monmouth College, West Long Branch, NJ 07764
Lines: 21

>I couldn't agree with you more! The presence of an ad should make the T-shirt
>(or whatever) either free or very-low-priced, to repay you for the ad
>display.
>
>Another area on the same line: shopping bags sold in stores -- if they 
>have the store logo or name on them, they should be free. Only plain
>ones should be SOLD.

Designer fashions have proven that this arguement doesn't hold water.
Take a handbag made from brown vinyl and you have an inexpensive
product you can sell for about $15.  Take the same bag and add Louis
Vitton's logo, and the bag commands a premium price.  Same thing with
Ralph Lauren's polo shirts.  Why can't retail stores capitalize on
their reputation for quality?  Bloomingdales, Tiffanys and other such
stores have status too.  If the public is foolish enough to pay money
carry their ads, they would be idiots not to take advantage of it.

                           Ben Broder
                           ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben
                           ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben
                           ..pesnta!moncol!ben