Designer ID: brands, T-shirts, & the communication of identity

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content

Designer ID: Brands, T-shirts, & the Communication of Identity

by
Stylés Akira
A dissertation submitted to the faculty of
University of Southern California
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
August 11
th
, 2015

2

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

The Undersigned Faculty Committee Approves the
Dissertation of
Stylés Akira
Designer ID: Brands, T-shirts, & the Communication of Identity

_____________________________________
Andrea Hollingshead, Co-Chair
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism

_____________________________________
Patricia Riley, Co-Chair
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism

_____________________________________
Michael Cody
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism

____________________________
April 6
th
, 2015

3

Copyright © 2015
by
Stylés Akira

4

ABSTRACT
This study examines the dynamics of the relationship between brand image and
consumer identity when mediated by designer T-shirts. A qualitative and quantitative study
were undertaken in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of these phenomena. Study 1
conducted (N = 31) in-depth-interviews with industry professionals involved in fashion in a
diverse range of business and creative capacities. These interviews were performed in an effort
to establish an overview of the cultural significance of the T-shirt, its history and the evolution
of its trends in fashion. The interviews were also used to produce an organizational perspective
on the business of fashion, branding strategy, and the retail T-shirt market. Responses informed
the design of the study that followed. Study 2 included a pilot study and two online experiments
wherein (N = 1237) respondents were divided into 26 sample cells of (41 ≤ n ≤ 53) and issued
self-administered questionnaires asking them to provide opinions of brand and consumer status
given a multitude of conditions involving T-shirts. Results found that branded designer T-shirts
are capable of both raising and lowering the perceived status of consumers based upon the
image of the brand; however, they were found to have no significant effect on perceived brand
status based upon the identity of the consumer.
Keywords: Identity Signaling, T-shirts, Brand Image, Consumer Identity, Status

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW

—THE COMMUNICATED WORLD OF FASHION AND IDENTITY .................................... 9

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 9

Fashion ............................................................................................................................. 12

Luxury .................................................................................................................. 20

T-shirts ................................................................................................................. 22

Design .................................................................................................................. 24

Identity ............................................................................................................................. 32

Self-Concept ........................................................................................................ 34

Self-Presentation .................................................................................................. 42

Social Identity ...................................................................................................... 44

Branding and Group Identity ............................................................................... 48

Identity Signaling ..................................................................................... 49

Organizational Identity .................................................................................................... 59

Corporate Identity ................................................................................................ 62

Brand Identity ...................................................................................................... 66

Brand Identity and Consumer Identity ............................................................................. 69

CHAPTER 2:
IN-DEPTH-INTERVIEWS WITH
FASHION INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS—WHAT DO THE PROS SAY? ......................... 77

Introduction: Organizational Perspective ........................................................................ 77

Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 78

Method ............................................................................................................................. 79

Sampling and Data Collection Procedures .......................................................... 79

The Interview: 20 Questions About T-shirts ....................................................... 81

Research Design ................................................................................................... 82

Participant Description: Background Information ............................................... 86

Demographics .......................................................................................... 86

Job Classification and Firm Size:
Vested Interest and Involvement with T-shirts .................................................... 87

Experience: Involvement with Fashion and T-shirts ............................... 91

T-shirts in the Market ....................................................................................................... 93

Regional Comparisons in the U.S. Market .......................................................... 93

The T-shirt as an Article of Fashion .................................................................... 97

T-shirt Components ........................................................................................... 100

Historical Trends ................................................................................................ 103

Best T-shirts Ever .............................................................................................. 108

What Makes It Hot? ........................................................................................... 111

6
Current Trends ................................................................................................... 113

Future Trends ..................................................................................................... 119

Brands in the Market ...................................................................................................... 122

Luxury Brands ................................................................................................... 122

Luxury Brand T-shirts ........................................................................................ 128

Mass Luxury Brands .......................................................................................... 130

Mass Luxury Brand T-shirts .............................................................................. 138

Streetwear and Boutique Brand T-shirts ............................................................ 141

Mass Market Brand T-shirts .............................................................................. 143

Total Market ....................................................................................................... 148

Total Market Differences ................................................................................... 153

Pricing ................................................................................................................ 156

Consumers in the Market ............................................................................................... 159

Consumers Influencing Brands .......................................................................... 160

Brands: Trendiness vs. Price .................................................................. 160

Consumer Influence on Brands Status ................................................... 165

Consumer Status as an Influence on Brand Status ................................. 167

Consumer Congruence as an Influence of Brand Status ........................ 171

Frequency of Consumer Congruence as an Influence of Brand Status . 173

Brands Influencing Consumers .......................................................................... 174

Consumers: Trendiness vs. Price ........................................................... 174

Brands Influence Consumer Status ........................................................ 179

Brand Status as an Influence on Consumer Status ................................. 183

Brand Congruence as an Influence of Consumer Status ........................ 187

Frequency of Brand Congruence as an Influence of Consumer Status . 190

Findings ......................................................................................................................... 191

CHAPTER 3: EXPERIMENTAL SURVEYS ON PERCEIVED STATUS

—DO CLOTHES MAKE THE MAN OR DOES MAN MAKE THE BRAND? .................... 196

Introduction: Consumer Perspective .............................................................................. 196

Luxury and Mass Luxury ................................................................................... 196

Dynamic Market Positioning ......................................................................................... 202

Streetwear .......................................................................................................... 203

Mass-Market Makeover ..................................................................................... 206

Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 207

Hypothesis 1....................................................................................................... 208

Hypothesis 2....................................................................................................... 210

Method ........................................................................................................................... 210

Sampling and Data Collection Procedures ........................................................ 210

Participant Description ....................................................................................... 212

Research Design ................................................................................................. 212

7
Measures ........................................................................................................................ 213

Status .................................................................................................................. 213

Consumer Status: ............................................................................................... 217

Annual Income (Socioeconomic Status) ................................................ 217

Attractiveness, Intelligence, and Coolness ............................................ 221

Brand Status ....................................................................................................... 224

Familiarity, Innovativeness, and Quality ............................................... 227

Estimated Cost and Willingness to Pay ................................................. 230

Behavioral Economics ....................................................................................... 230

Procedures ...................................................................................................................... 232

Pilot Study .......................................................................................................... 232

Experiment 1 ...................................................................................................... 236

Experiment 2 ...................................................................................................... 238

Results ............................................................................................................................ 238

Data Adjustment and Verification ..................................................................... 238

Pilot Study: Part 1 .............................................................................................. 240

Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................. 240

Analysis.................................................................................................. 240

Pilot Study: Part 2 .............................................................................................. 242

Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................. 242

Analysis.................................................................................................. 243

Pilot Study: Part 3 .............................................................................................. 245

Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................. 245

Analysis.................................................................................................. 246

Experiment 1 ...................................................................................................... 249

Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................. 249

Analysis.................................................................................................. 251

Interpretation .......................................................................................... 255

Experiment 2 ...................................................................................................... 257

Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................. 257

Analysis.................................................................................................. 258

Interpretation .......................................................................................... 260

CHAPTER 4:
DISCUSSION AND SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS

—WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN? ............................................................................................ 263

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION—WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? .................................. 281

Contribution ................................................................................................................... 281

Implications .................................................................................................................... 287

Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 288

Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 291

8
Future Research ............................................................................................................. 294

Closing ........................................................................................................................... 298

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 300

APPENDIX A: IN-DEPTH-INTERVIEW—
SOLICITATION, CONSENT FORM & SCRIPT .................................................................... 321

Solicitation ..................................................................................................................... 321

APPENDIX B: IN-DEPTH-INTERVIEW RESULTS—RESPONSES ................................... 325

T-shirts in the Market ......................................................................................... 325

Regional Comparisons ........................................................................... 325

T-shirt as Fashion ................................................................................... 327

T-shirt Components ............................................................................... 329

Historical Trends .................................................................................... 330

Best T-shirts Ever .................................................................................. 332

What Makes It Hot? ............................................................................... 333

Current Trends ....................................................................................... 334

Future Trends ......................................................................................... 336

Brands in the Market .......................................................................................... 338

Luxury Brands ....................................................................................... 338

Mass Luxury Brands .............................................................................. 341

Streetwear and Boutique Brands ............................................................ 346

Mass Market Brands .............................................................................. 347

Total Market ........................................................................................... 349

Pricing .................................................................................................... 351

Consumers in the Market ................................................................................... 353

Consumers Influencing Brands .............................................................. 353

Brands Influencing Consumers .............................................................. 359

APPENDIX C: IN-DEPTH-INTERVIEW RESULTS—TABLES ........................................... 367

APPENDIX D: EXPERIMENTAL INSTRUMENT
—RECRUITMENT FORM & SURVEYS ............................................................................... 400

APPENDIX E: EXPERIMENT—RESULTS TABLES ........................................................... 415

NOTES ....................................................................................................................................... 472

9
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW
—THE COMMUNICATED WORLD OF FASHION AND IDENTITY
Introduction
Fashion is a cultural construct incorporating art and design, which constitutes a class of
visual communication embedded within a complex system of social interactions. Like other
cultural constructs, it determines particular aspects of the structural organization of the world
we live in. Consequently it engages other forms of production and these collectively influence
and are influenced by the ideological imperatives, which determine the social, political and
economic modes of existence in a society. Specifically fashion determines the exposure, color,
shape, physical mobility, visibility and identification of human beings as they carry out the
processes of everyday life. On a societal level these factors interact with other symbolic
domains of sensory stimulation to produce what McCracken (1986) termed the culturally
constituted world. Moreover, this culturally constituted world is in a state of perpetual exchange
with the system of philosophical principles maintained by institutional power structures, which
dictate the norms and values regulating the activities of a people in a society. More directly, this
simply means that the way we dress is in an endless cycle of interaction with the way we speak,
the sports we play, the music we listen to, the foods we eat, the interiors of our homes, the art
we value, the lessons we teach, the places we work, the technology we use, the efficiency of our
production, and the architecture that provides the visual images of our landscapes, etc. (Barthes,
2004).
1
Similarly, all of these sociocultural forms are in constant negotiation with the ideas

1
These assertions may appear highly theoretical at first glance, but upon further examination the validity of their claims becomes evident. For
instance, people do not generally wear tuxedos and ball gowns to go to fast food restaurants and eat cheeseburgers and they do not usually wear
one-piece jumper suits to go to gala halls and eat caviar and lobster. While neither of these propositions is completely impractical, they both
lack rationality within the established framework of our current system of socio-cultural norms and values. Symbolically they make little sense
because in order for a society to function efficiently there must be some agreed upon, or at least generally accepted standards of normative
coexistence between people, which maintain some degree of consistency in the utilitarian and symbolic evaluation of objects and actions. These
standards are often administered through institutional power structures, which seek to regulate human activity for various reasons including the
promotion or obstruction (depending on the institution) of justice, equality, freedom, safety, tradition, innovation, productivity, progress, etc. To

10
disseminated by power structures such as religious institutions, government agencies, banks,
and media outlets, which—by various means—determine the philosophical reasoning as to why
these many cultural components take the forms they do. That is to say, why buildings are
shaped the way they are, why we eat certain foods, why we use different terminology in
different settings, why wealth is distributed in a certain way, and most notably to this study,
why we wear the clothes we wear, etc. This complex of social organization is important because
these norms and values give us many insights as to the causation of things we observe about the
material conditions of a given society’s way of life; likewise, the material conditions of life in a
given society can inform us greatly about the costs and benefits of institutionally sanctioned
norms and values, as well as the nature of those institutions.
2

This work examines the dynamics of the relationship between brand image and
consumer identity when mediated by designer T-shirts. Specifically, it analyzes changes in
identity perception along the domain of status
3
by assessing the ability of individuals of

be certain, wearing tuxedos and gowns to a fast food burger chain or blue-collar jumpers to a charity gala would in no way compromise the
freedom or progress of society. The case is simply that the symbolism of value imbedded within those garments has been normalized throughout
the society as appropriate and inappropriate for specific settings. Though not detrimental to the experience, a work jumper is a functional
garment made of heavy-duty materials intended to maximize mobility and comfort while protecting the body from potentially hazardous
materials during the performance of physical labor. Meanwhile, the tuxedo and gown are fine garments made of delicate materials with
elaborate embellishments and details, which restrict the free range of motion forcing the wearer to maintain a certain demeanor lest they risk
damaging the garment. More importantly each of these forms of dress is highly symbolic. The work jumper is much less expensive and is
associated with labor requiring limited education, and relatively low rates of compensation (though this may not always be the case)—therefore
it is symbolic of working class lifestyles and values, which coincides directly with fast food, which is often of limited quality and relatively
inexpensive by food service standards. The tuxedo and gown are often exorbitantly priced and are primarily worn to special events celebrating,
commemorating, or honoring some tradition, person, or group. They are associated with social refinement, high taste, and excessive wealth,
(though this may not always be the case) both as a result of their craftsmanship and their price—therefore these are symbolic of upper class
lifestyles and values, which coincides directly with gala events often held by prestigious organizations, serving exotic and extremely high cost
foods (e.g. caviar) at costly admission rates or through invite only. Should modes of dress be socially sanctioned to freely contradict with their
settings, much of the historic, cultural and systemic symbolism invested in identity, authority, permissions, status and power would be
compromised. To do so with cheeseburgers and caviar might make differences of little importance for most people. However, to do so in
professional corporate environments, schools, police departments or hospitals could have significant social, political and economic impacts on
society.
2
For instance, we have largely determined that free democratic societies offer a more productive, complete and efficient system of organization,
marked by higher quality of life than what has historically been found under the authority of totalitarian states. In fact the discrepancies in
ideological agendas found in these contrasting social arrangements have many times led to the plunder of entire civilizations, and at other times
drawn the human species to the threat of nuclear eradication (e.g. The Cold War). That is not to say that the clothes we wear determine the fate
of mankind. Rather, it is to imply that the many forms of fashion we produce are indicative of our many ways of life on earth and they have an
inherent influence on the way that life is carried out. Moreover, fashion is indicative of the prevailing philosophical ideologies, which set the
standards of how life is lived in a given society. As a prominent mode of visual communication, fashion is also used as a medium for promoting
the prevalence of specific ideologies such as conservative social oppression and conformity or liberal resistance to conservative ideologies that
seek to oppress and conform (Craik, 1994).
3
Here status will be interpreted explicitly as a demarcation of economic value. This argument suggests that a high status fashion brand proposes
to be so by dint of the fact that it charges premiums for its products, and once purchased at those premiums, it is necessarily verified as such by

11
different social status—as asserted through their self presentation—to alter the perceived status
of brands from different market segments when wearing conspicuously branded T-shirts.
Likewise, it also analyzes the ability of brands of different status—as determined by their
market positioning—to alter the perceived status of consumers with differing standards of self-
presentation while wearing T-shirts.
A qualitative and quantitative study were undertaken in order to provide a
comprehensive analysis of these phenomena. Study 1 conducted in-depth-interviews with
industry professionals involved in fashion in a diverse range of business and creative capacities.
These interviews were performed in an effort to establish an overview of the cultural
significance of the T-shirt, its history and the evolution of its trends in fashion. The interviews
were also used to produce an organizational perspective on the business of fashion, branding
strategy, and the retail T-shirt market. Responses informed the design of the study that
followed. Study 2 included a pilot study and two online experiments wherein respondents were
divided into twenty-six sample cells and issued self-administered questionnaires asking them to
provide opinions of brand and consumer status given a multitude of conditions involving T-
shirts. The intention of the two empirical studies was to gain insights on the following general
research questions:
How does the sociocultural climate of the current consumer market influence the
perceptions of brands, consumers and the T-shirt as an article of fashion?

How do T-shirts mediate the influence that brands and consumers of different status have
on one another?

The section that follows these studies scrutinizes the combined results through analytic
synthesis in order to produce both empirical and critical discussions of the findings. The

the sanction of the free market. Likewise, this suggests that consumers of high status fashion brands, especially when they are conspicuously
labeled, propose themselves to be of high socioeconomic status as a consequence of the fact that they have purchased these products at premium
prices.

12
commentary addresses issues such as the institutional power of the fashion industry in the
construction of our material reality; the role of T-shirts within the sophisticated complex of
brand identity, clothing, culture and self-expression; and the net effects of these processes on
human interaction in modern society. A final section provides conclusions wherein theoretical
and practical implications for this research are discussed alongside its contribution to the field
of communication, its limitations, and prospects for future research.
In an effort to thoroughly summarize the principles that serve as the basis for our
understanding of the communication process as it pertains to these issues, an extensive review
of interdisciplinary literature was conducted. In addition to communication research, studies
ranging from critical theory to the social sciences were drawn upon from research in
psychology, social psychology, sociology, marketing, economics, design studies and cultural
studies.
4

Fashion
Implicit within the concept of fashion is the notion of continuous change (De Long,
2005). Changes in fashion follow a variety of distribution patterns, which are tied to the cultural
and political state of affairs in a given society, but can generally be classified as trends in their
own rights. Theories have proposed top-down (Veblen, 1899; Laver, 1937), horizontal
(Robinson, 1958), and bottom-up (Craik, 1994; Entwistle, 2000) models of trend distributions in
fashion. Though Rogers (2003) suggests relative advantage, compatibility, complexity,
trialability and observability as the critical aspects in determining the successful distribution of
a given innovation, fashion is unique in that it circumvents many of these requirements by dint
of the fact that its innovativeness is largely idealized as the effect of arbitrary shifts in symbolic

4
Specifically, this work is heavily founded on theories of mass communication, organizational communication, media studies, semiotics,
fashion studies, design theory, consumer culture, theories of status and class, identity signaling, social identity, social comparison, group
identity, self-identity, self-presentation, organizational identity, brand identity, theories of creativity, aesthetics, value theory, economic theory,
and marketing theory.

13
value rather than progressive adaptations to functional demands. Blumer (1969) asserts that
fashion embodies the “spirit of the times”—a reflection of the current era’s cultural climate and
a stylistic record of its time frame. Being in fashion requires dress that includes the prevailing
aesthetic and what is generally seen as desirable at any given moment (De Long, 2005).
In the current market the prevailing aesthetic is in constant flux and difficult to predict
because the trending process itself is also undergoing a constant evolution, which is unstable
and at the same time dependent on the directional momentum of broader, secular trends (Dodd,
Clark, Baron & Houston, 2000; De Long, 2005). These long-term trends are heavily influenced
by societal factors, especially the development of technology, which has been a driving force of
human social evolution and the transition of the material world since the Stone Age. After the
Industrial Revolution, the rise of modern consumer culture was strongly tied to economic and
political factors (Ewen, 1976; Lefebvre, 1984; Adorno & Horkheimer, 1987; Marx, 2000).
Consequently, trends in fashion became no longer dependent on utilitarian principle—based
upon practical, rational and logical demands of the human condition in a given time and place—
nor even the ideological mandates of substantive cultural influence (Akira & Ossei-Mensah,
2014). Rather, through advances in mass production, technological evolution facilitated the rise
of a consumer culture stimulated by what Laver (1937) identified as ‘fashion cycles’. At this
point one might observe, for the first time in human history, the mass disposal of intact durable
goods—as consumers began replacing products, that were neither damaged nor functionally
insufficient, at an accelerated pace (Lefebvre, 1984; Akira & Ossei-Mensah, 2014). These
goods were being discarded because they had become symbolically outmoded as “out of
fashion”, which was a stark contrast to the longstanding consideration that many durable
products had been viewed as once-in-a-lifetime purchases (Lefebvre, 1984; Akira & Ossei-

14
Mensah, 2014). These new practices of mass consumer behavior underscored the abandonment
of an emphasis on the preeminence of function for a pretentious preoccupation with form,
which enabled the unfettered incorporation of planned obsolescence to pervade the durable
goods sector (Akira & Ossei-Mensah, 2014). Theorists note that these market activities were the
direct effect of economic aspirations of the social and political elite, incentivized by a
burgeoning system of capitalist organization (Ewen, 1976; Lefebvre, 1984; Adorno &
Horkheimer, 1987; Marx, 2000). Under these circumstances fashion became an industry of
modern symbolism whose ephemeral products were pursued as defining components of
everyday life in lieu of more logically rooted and economically practical ambitions.
Individuals have a need for social dignity in the way they are recognized and treated by
others (Veblen, 1899; Maslow, 1943; Belk, 1988; Rauscher, 1993; Richins, 1994a; 1994b;
Leary, 1996; Corneo & Jeannne, 1997; Elliot & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Eastman, Goldsmith &
Flynn, 1999; Gardyn, 2002; Husic & Cicic, 2004; Piacentini & Mailer, 2004; Collett, 2005;
Rege, 2008; Truong, McColl, Simmons & Kitchen, 2008; Han et al., 2010; Eastman &
Eastman, 2011; Goldsmith, Flyn & Clark, 2012). Fashion is one means by which a person may
seek to identify, express, and define themselves to the outside world in pursuit of that common
sense of dignity. Fashion is in continuous exchange with social identity constructs—influencing
and being influenced by the boundaries of status, gender, sexuality, body-type, occupation, etc.
(Entwistle, 2000; De Long, 2005). Not only does fashion provide definition for these semiotic
values as they are distributed throughout the culturally constituted world (McCracken, 1986),
there are specific behavior types to be elicited from a particular manner of dress (De Long,
2005). Forms of dress have been created and enforced to induce and prevent different types of
behavior in school children, military personnel, prisoners, etc.

15
The history of fashion is marked by tensions between dichotomies of ideological
perspective and social ambition. Theorists have elaborated extensively on how fashion—even
since its preindustrial phase—has been used to situate the human body within the parameters of
different social contexts (Laver, 1937; Blumer, 1969; Craik, 1994; Entwistle, 2009; Barthes,
2014). Fashion uses semiotic codes to articulate the meanings of the self, group, and setting in
which it is found (De Long, 2005). Standards of dress constitute a mode of visual
communication imperative to dictating the status quo. The bodies of men and women are
objectified, deconstructed, and reimagined through the use of different dress codes (Entwistle,
2000). Wearing clothing, in particular, is a pervasive aspect of culture in which all members of
modern societies participate. The self-imposed donning of clothing is unique to humans
amongst living creatures, and originated in pursuit of satisfaction of the utilitarian need for
protection of the body against external physical elements. Apart from this, the wearing of
clothes has provided hedonic gratification for the symbolic expression of the self as a means of
self-verification, self-identification, and self-enhancement.
As a method of self-presentation clothing might take upon meaning as, what theorists
have classified as, fashion—designating innumerable identity components through the public
signification of culturally derived codes. The value designated to any specific code or identity
component has been argued to be largely the effect of hegemonic power exercised through the
acquisition of social influence, economic abundance, and political authority (Holt, 2002). In this
way the regulation of fashion has afforded select networks of individuals, being of high class
and social standing, the power to substantially influence not only the material constitution of the
physical world, but also the symbolic significance of the culturally constituted world within
(McCracken, 1986). In so doing, theorists argue that through the contrived propagation of their

16
ideological dispositions, self-determined tastes, and aesthetic sensibilities—as superior—this
group of elitists has managed to gain a high degree of control over the external behaviors of
individuals as well as the internalized affects and cognitions of their minds. Therefore, we find
throughout history that fashion has been used as a tool of social oppression by allowing the
powerful to place populations in restrictive groups. It has allowed them to control dress, which
influences behavior, and to control the meaning of that dress, which determines how individuals
view themselves with respect to their inner feelings, other individuals, and the physical
environment. These all have a profound impact on one’s worldview and the outcomes of one’s
life experiences. Dress has also been regulated as a means of economic oversight, restriction of
sexual expression, and reinforcement for the assertion of class identity, monetary wealth, and
social status (Benhamou, 2005). Sumptuary legislation has been regularly noted throughout
history as an attempt on behalf of the state to control discrepancy within the social hierarchy
through the symbolism of fashion. Though in many cases these laws were issued as a means of
imposing religious modesty or protecting local economies, they are most commonly given
reference today with regard to the restriction of the use of certain appearances of a sartorial
nature for the purpose of maintaining clear boundaries of class distinction (Benhamou, 2005).
Many laws laid out strict parameters for rank and wealth in the acquisition and donning of
particular metals, jewels, colors, textiles, furs, and decorative preparations (Benhamou, 2005).
However, in the same sense, fashion has been a powerful mechanism of democratic
resistance to hegemonic authority—producing discursive narratives around the human body,
which challenge the validity and integrity of restrictive boundaries of dress and appearance
maintained by the status quo (Holt, 2002). In this way fashion serves to undermine the
ideological hegemony of the social elite, empowering the individual to reconstruct the codes of

17
moral standards, race and gender identity, age, sexuality, and cultural values (Entwistle, 2000).
Fashion has often been an outlet for innovation and creative self-expression, and it has
championed the uniqueness of the individual to influence the world around them and create
social change. Scholars argue that fashion has pursued modernity (De Long, 2005), especially
since the time of its industrialization, and in that pursuit—as a constant rejection of the old—it
has inevitably retained its character as a hierarchical construct closely tied to status signaling.
That status hierarchy is eminently dependent on the progression of fashion cycles for the
maintenance of its integrity.
Laver (1937) initially proposed a 160-year law for the cycle of fashion accentuated by
the following timetable:
Laver’s Law

10 years before Indecent
5 years before Shameless
1 year before Daring
In Fashion Smart
10 years after Hideous
20 years after Ridiculous
30 years after Amusing
50 years after Quaint
70 years after Charming
100 years after Romantic
150 years after Beautiful
(Laver, 1937)
As capitalism progressed into its late stages, the reactionary tendency of fashion to
develop new trends took a turn in a different direction. Trends began to accelerate in their
lifecycle and became compressed as result of perpetually increasing demand, largely stimulated
by the media and technological advancements in design, production and communication (Ewen,
1976; Lefebvre, 1984; De Long, 2005; Jenkins, 2006; Jenkins, Ford & Green, 2013; Akira &
Ossei-Mensah, 2014). Though some design forms, such as architecture, retained a sense of

18
resistance to this process, others in the commercial goods realm, such as automobile design,
interior decoration, and especially clothing design, became highly susceptible to the superficial
instabilities of the fashion cycle. Andersen (2012) has highlighted the end of fashion in the
wake of the new millennium, arguing that the youth generation has failed to produce anything
culturally innovative in terms of style, rather borrowing from previous generations or
maintaining the same boundaries of acceptability for decades on end, instead of producing
dramatic changes of color, pattern and silhouette as the generations of the 60s and 70s did.
However, there are the risks of cost involved with adapting fashion innovations due to the rapid
rate of change in the market (Dodd et al., 2000; Jenkins et al., 2013). There are also social risks
which arise from the consequences of being ‘out of style’ or in poor taste should the changes
occur too quickly; costing valuable resources in the form of what Corneo and Jeanne (1998)
termed private goods concerning relationships, favoritism, respect, and esteem. One of the most
effective ways of asserting fashionable appearance is to sport trends, which are designed by
producers in the highest market segment for consumers in the highest market segment (Veblen,
1899). In this way an individual may lay claim to the status bestowed upon those who have the
disposable financial resources to afford high cost goods through what Veblen (1899) described
as ‘conspicuous consumption’. This form of consumption also insinuates—by dint of its high
status origin—that the consumer has the aesthetic sensibility and the social capital (Bourdieu,
1984) to know what trends are in style and access them from the source of their innovation as an
early adopter before they are distributed to the masses (Rogers, 2003).
Theorists have proposed that fashion is a mechanism for status assertion whereby all
groups aspire towards the highest level and seek to distinguish themselves from groups of lower
status through the consumption of trends which are validated by the groups above them

19
(Veblen, 1899; Goffman, 1956). Consequently those at the top have often been idealized as the
trendsetters in steady pursuit of innovation, and they perform the practice of fashionable dress
under the constant anxiety of avoiding misidentification with the groups below them, regularly
discarding the current as ‘old’ in favor of ‘the new’. Other theories suggest that fashion is a
mutualistic discourse between different segments of the society in constant motion,
deconstructing and reinventing what it means to be fashionable (Entwistle, 2000; Barthes,
2004). Some studies argue that trends originate and are largely appropriated from the
marginalized groups and counter-culture movements at the street level that aim to challenge the
status quo within the public sphere through the production of counter-publics, and subaltern
narratives (Entwistle, 2000; Holt, 2002; Olson & Goodnight, 1994).
Still, research points to DIY culture and recent technical achievements, which have
brought about the opportunity for mass customization as the future fate of the fashion trend and
the new face of fashion’s business models. Kamali and Loker (2006) examined consumer
responses to Web-based design involvement using T-shirts and found that there was higher
satisfaction with website performance, that there is a profitable space for higher-level
consumer-design involvement, and that consumers have a fair degree of overall interest in
contributing to the design process. Pan and Holland (2002) outlined the procedures of the
outbound supply chain, finding key “integrated decision points” where consumer involvement
might be most practically interjected into the production process. Meanwhile, Franke, Kaiser
and Sheier (2009) coined the “I did it myself” effect as producing economic value for the
consumer and significantly increasing willingness to pay, in addition to the standard factors of
preference fit achieved and design effort, commonly identified in the literature as important to
mass customization business models. Innovation is more potent than ever in fashion as

20
leadership and early adopting have in many instances given way to the market trend towards
mass customization (De Long, 2005; Wilson, 2005).
Luxury
Meanwhile, at the top of the food chain luxury fashion has devolved from a diverse
industry of creative entrepreneurs and philosophically endowed cultural producers mastered in
the fine arts, into a group of symbolic trademarks in the portfolios of corporate conglomerates.
Thomas (2007) and Tungate (2009) have both highlighted the luxury segment as a culturally
bankrupted set of business practices once prominent in an older era, which have largely
succumbed to the pressures of late capitalism and globalization under the fallacy of the
democratic redistribution of ‘fine taste’ (Holt, 1998).
5
The extensive use of licensing models,
which became prominent in the 1980s, has also been indicative of the decline of luxury
branding as a legitimate indicator of fashion innovation and, likewise, status (Wison, 2005;
Thomas, 2007; Tungate, 2009).
Above all others, European fashion houses have had a resounding impact on the luxury
fashion market around the globe. “All things European” has been the traditional rule of the
prevailing design aesthetics and branding motifs used in the luxury sector. This is not because

5
Having been stripped of its only meaningful substance—which was based on elitist pretense and prejudice—the segment, which is now
predominantly symbolic, has become exemplary of the power, which culture has achieved in its merger with commercial business practices. The
artifice of luxury symbolism, as the successor of its authentic substance (viz. high craftsmanship, informed articulation, studied innovation)
plays an integral role in the evolution of the socio-political trajectory of the postmodern society (Macdonald, 1952; Baudrillard, 1994). That is to
say, where kings and queens once basked in the glory of luxury trade works, ignoble capitalist overlords, celebrities, and status chasing poseurs
now adorn themselves in the vapid symbolism of logo laden luxury goods, rooted in the ideological constructs of authority and power. While
that power was neither then nor is it now substantiated by legitimate claims to either physical or intellectual superiority; in the latter case, much
like the luxury industry itself, it exists on a mantle of prestige sustained only by the fact that it is a well managed referent to the former, but not a
tangible iteration. What is meant here is that political authority, especially within the context of the state, can be viewed as largely symbolic due
to the fact that although the state does exercise a substantial degree of superiority over the population that it rules in terms of both physical
power and intelligence, its agents will always constitute a minority with comparison to the population it dominates. Therefore the extent of its
force is in many ways limited by the sheer volume of its population. In other words, the state need only to exert its force over any particular sub-
set of the population to the extent that its remaining subjects obey its command under the belief that they too might be subjected to the implied
threat of officially sanctioned violence or oppression. It is likely in most cases that the state would not even possess the means to imprison,
torture, or execute all of its citizenry; moreover to do so would essentially render it powerless as an institution, by dint of the fact that it would
have eradicated the object of its imminent domain (i.e. its people). Likewise, a fashion house needs only to prove its brand as superior in
aesthetic and quality with regard to its top tier collections sold to its elite clientele. Its reputation, and therefore its status is established thereafter
through its association with this elite customer base, and it no longer needs to maintain the qualitative standards which were used to assert its
market position in its lesser lines of products (e.g. perfumes, accessories, minor garments). These products are merely attributed those qualities
as a result of being labeled by the same brand, essentially achieving a halo effect (Thorndike, 1920).

21
of some regionalist complex of superiority, but merely due to historical factors. Namely that the
fashion industry was initiated in Paris as a business practice, and it was closely followed by
London, Milan and New York, which remain the four most significant fashion capitals in the
world today, where renowned ‘Fashion Week’ runway shows occur biannually showcasing the
season’s forthcoming trends, which were once thought to disseminate into the general public
systematically from these epicenters of style and taste (Veblen, 1899; De Long, 2005).
However, as of recent times, these trends have been in mutual exchange with many different
cultural segments, ranging from popular arts and entertainment to street culture. The result has
been a substantial shift in power from an Old Guard of elite cultural gatekeepers to a new
generation of creative voices equipped with highly democratized new media platforms of mass
communication (Holt, 2002; Jenkins, Ford & Green, 2013).
The fashion industry has undergone sweeping transitions in its operational practices and
system of symbolic values in the post-millennial era. There has traditionally been division
between wholesale and retail, which has largely diminished in the modern market (Wilson,
2005). Wilson (2005) cites four divisions of operations as 1) Sourcing and Materials, 2) Design
and Manufacture, 3) Distribution and Retail, and 4) The Auxiliary Sector: Media, Consulting
and Public Relations, noting that in recent times design, manufacturing and retailing have been
subject to coalesce, in many cases under a single firm. Private labels and fast fashion brands
now compete with designer firms using inspiration from runway presentations (Wilson, 2005).
Counterfeiting has become so pervasive that there are entire sections of major metropolitan
cities around the world known as hotspots for knock-off luxury goods. Designers have

22
traditionally asserted their market presence through flagship stores
6
; however, couture designers
have now also made regular practice of collaborating with fast fashion and traditional mass-
market retailors to produce affordable lifestyle collections bearing all the social capital of their
collective brand affiliations for better and for worse, and challenging once rigid value systems
of status and aesthetics. Fashion luminary, Karl Lagerfeld commented on his critically
acclaimed H&M collaboration as follows:
"H&M have got it spot-on. I loved Kate Moss' collection for Topshop, it was great. Sure,
high fashion can be expensive because of the materials and the level of craftsmanship,
but design should be good on every price level - and that's what the high street does so
well. Today, you don't have to have loads of money to be well dressed…
Never
underestimate the power of a simple T-shirt, jeans and a jacket. It always looks very
chic."
—Karl Lagerfeld
Lagerfeld’s words are striking not only for their revelations regarding the transitions of the
fashion business, but for their insights on the evolution of material culture and the symbolism
that has empowered it as a meaningful component of social organization. One garment in
particular has been exemplary of these changes, and so it is suiting that they are mentioned here
in his statements—the T-shirt.
T-shirts
T-shirts are items of fashion apparel that carry a notably high degree of symbolism
because of their tendency to bear explicit messages. One of the most common classes of
messages to appear on T-shirts is brand identity. Consumer research on brands has dealt with a

6
A flagship store is a dedicated retail space for a brand usually located in a primary shopping district, which houses the brands entire collection
(Thomas, 2007), unlike department stores or other retailers and dedicated boutiques which may only house a select group of items from the
current collection.

23
wide variety of identity issues, especially regarding their influence on individual and group
identity. The following will discuss empirical findings in these research areas in order to build a
framework for the analysis of the effects of T-shirts
7
on brand identity and consumer identity.
It is important to contextualize this argument before moving forward. As a caveat, we
must note that the influence of the brand identity on the perception of a shirt and its wearer
depends on more elements of T-shirt design than the name of the brand being displayed. This
study’s analysis of these effects is largely dependent upon all things being equal, when in
actuality all things are never equal, especially in fashion. Fashion has a well-defined hierarchy.
There is an entire tier system of prestige given to brands, which can be easily delineated
according to some basic principles regarding their price, sales strategy, and market positioning
(Park, Jaworski & MacInnis, 1986; Bhat & Reddy, 1998; Gardyn, 2002; Meyers, 2005; Keller
& Lehman, 2006; Truong et al., 2008; Husic & Cicic, 2009; Eastman & Eastman, 2011).
However, with the exception of some shirts produced by couture brands and some boutique and
diffusion prestige brands at the top of the hierarchy—which are likely to have substantially
higher quality
8
than other tiers (Silverstein, Fiske & Butman, 2008)—T-shirts generally float
through a basic range of quality standards that does not necessarily coincide with price or
status.
9

7
Within the world of fashion T-shirts are relatively low order commodities. They are generally inexpensive to manufacture, and usually mass-
produced following design schemes within a standard set of parameters that define them as T-shirts as opposed to other types of shirts. There are
several key design elements, which may help distinguish T-shirts from one another, but here, for the sake of argument, the focus will be
maintained exclusively on message content. More specifically, this study will analyze the presence of messages conveying brand identity.
8
The quality of a basic graphic T-shirt may be determined by numerous factors including the conformity of the cut to a wearer’s figure; the
softness, texture, stretch, and elasticity of the fabric; the ability of the die, paints, and fabric to resist fading, napping, tearing, cracking, flaking,
wearing, burning, staining, shrinking and otherwise corruption of the shirt’s intended design; the integrity of the seams and stitching; and the
nature and properties of the decorative agents such as novelty or expensiveness (e.g. paint: reflectivity, gloss, density, etc.; rhinestones: clarity,
reflectivity, adhesiveness, etc.) These functional evaluations all stand apart from the subjective, stylistic design aspects, which constitute the
fashionableness of a garment. For purposes of feasibility this study will only consider basic crew neck T-shirts with front facing graphic images
in order to isolate the single aspect of branding for manipulation.
9
Meaning that there may be T-shirts made by brands like Sears or JC Penny which may or may not be less expensive but of relatively equal,
and in some instances greater quality than some shirts being sold by higher tier brands such as GAP or even Abercrombie. Furthermore, with
quality being relatively subjective, there could easily be countless instances to demonstrate the greater durability of less expensive product in
comparison to premium T-shirts as a result of the more expensive product being treated with caustic agents that give the fabric a unique style
and texture that simultaneously compromise the integrity of the fabric and stitching.

24
Design
T-shirts are a widely popular form of clothing regularly used to promote cultural,
commercial and political ideas through the inclusion of highly visible graphic designs. There are
two aspects of design concerning graphic T-shirts: function and form (or fashion). Because the
functional design of a T-shirt is largely generic and in most cases follows a relatively basic
standard, what is generally considered “T-shirt design” focuses on graphic designs (i.e.
decorations), which serve as fashionable means of explicit communication placed most
commonly on the fronts of shirts. The shirts themselves serve as blank canvases for wearable
artwork, which communicates information about the identity of the wearer, the designer and/or
a brand more explicitly than other types of garments that typically lack graphic design. T-shirts
carry a notably high degree of symbolism because of their tendency to bear explicit messages.
One of the most common classes of messages to appear on T-shirts is brand identity. Consumer
research on brands has dealt with a wide variety of identity issues, especially regarding their
influence on individual and group identity (Bearden & Etzel, 1982; McCracken, 1986; Levy,
1989; Bhat & Reddy, 1998; Elliott & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Arvidsson, 2011).
A T-shirt is a type of garment worn about the torso. It is conceptually a unisex clothing
article but depending on its design, can be classified as men’s wear, women’s wear or both. The
garments are primarily made from a continuous tube of Jersey fabric, which is usually cut then
stitched with hemmed edges about the neck, sleeves, and waist. T-shirts are typically produced
using cotton, synthetic fibers, or some combination of the two. The fabrics can be printed or
dyed in any variety of colors and decorated with highly visible artwork offering a potentially
unlimited range of messages. These various facets combine to produce what is in totality
perceived as T-shirt design—the specific components of which can be denoted as fiber, knit,

25
stitching, color, cut, and decoration.
i
The total design of a T-shirt, like any other article of
clothing, has highly significant implications for information, which is communicated about the
product and the wearer, depending on a number of additional external factors. As the purpose of
this study is to explore how these different factors combine to produce different types of
messages, it is important to assess the function of T-shirts in this process of social
communication.
The garments derive their name from the t-shaped profile formed by their outline
pattern, mimicking the torso of the human silhouette. They are most often constructed of Jersey
fabric, a medieval weft-knit pattern, which takes its title from the Channel Island of the same
name 85 miles south of the English Coast, once part of the Duchy of Normandy where it was
originally manufactured (Botkin, 2005). In its common plain knit form Jersey is composed of a
single flat side with a single piled side. The fabric has a high crosswise stretch, it is notably
lightweight for a knit, and is highly breathable making it ideal for use as an undergarment
(Botkin, 2005). Since medieval times ‘t-shaped’ garments woven (not knit) of cotton or linen
with long tails serving as loin cloths have been worn by armed personnel as a guard against
chafing of the skin caused by metal armor (Sewell, 2005). Later, these loose fitting shirts were
employed by common folk as a layer of easily washable hygienic protection against the body
for more elaborate over-garments (Sewell, 2005).
The modern Jersey knit T-shirt evolved during the nineteenth century from variations of
those undergarments and came to mass popularity under these terms through its official
issuance by the United States Navy to military personnel in 1944, after first gaining attention
from use during the U.S. military’s Spanish-American War campaign (Harris, 1996; Sewell,
2005). By the post-WWII era the shirts had become casual outerwear for off duty servicemen,

26
as well as athletic attire and informal house wear for middle-class civilian dress, and functional
garments for blue-collar physical laborers (Sewell, 2005; De Long, 2005). From there the T-
shirt became a common outerwear garment for young men and went on to become a cultural
mainstay with recognition garnered from popular American cinema. Scholars regularly cite
three particularly noteworthy film productions as critical to the skyrocketing of the sexual
appeal of the T-shirt following its well-established hyper-masculine association with military
men, beginning with Marlon Brando’s 1951 performance as Stanley Kawolski in the cinematic
version Arthur Miller’s A Street Car Named Desire along with his 1953 performance in The
Wild Ones as well as James Dean’s 1955 lead in A Rebel Without A Cause (Harris, 1996;
Sewell, 2005). Through the influence of this media presence, the shirt acquired an image for
being closely associated with working-class lifestyles and values as well as non-conformist,
youth oriented rebellion against conservatism.
By the 1960s developments in ancient silk screening techniques brought about an entire
industry of independent T-shirt production led by DIY designers seeking to utilize the shirts as
canvases for creative and political expression. The shirts gained notable international popularity
when cultural innovators such as Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren began producing
graphic T-shirts during Britain’s burgeoning punk movement, which was a crucial phase in the
evolution of counter cultures across the globe (Arnold, 2005; Steele, 2005). Throughout this
same period the shirts became popular as promotional vehicles for consumer brands (Sewell,
2005). From this point T-shirts entered the mainstream, eventually gaining interest as works of
designer apparel, being regularly incorporated into the ready-to-wear collections of couture
fashion houses and even being curated as fine art in the modern collections of museums. As a
fashion garment the T-shirt has historically denoted the lack of a highly professional or formal

27
dress and setting; however, later shifts in the standards of Western decorum repealed the
exclusion of casual and informal appearance from many high profile and professional
environments (Foust, Cassill & Herr, 1999; Sewell, 2005).
10
Since then, Kang, Sklar & Johnson
(2011) have determined that attire in the workplace was connected to feelings of completeness
with work identity and expected outcomes of one’s own performance.
Popular opinion of real world phenomena has been demonstrated to be highly consistent
between members of large sub-groups in accordance with the prevailing sociocultural climate
(Berger & Heath, 2007). Some perceptions of phenomena have been shown to be near universal
across time and space in human beings. Commercial corporations in general attempt to
appropriate elements of experience, which have demonstrated a high consensus of positive
response, in order to build effective brand images (Coleman,1983; Balmer & Gray, 1999; Dodd
et al., 2000). Marketing is a socio-psychological business practice, which capitalizes off of an
acute knowledge of culture as well as group and individual mental processes in order to gain
insights about-, and exploit preferences and habits in the consumption of commercial goods.
Through the power of media and marketing, fashion firms, in particular, attempt to establish a
well-controlled, common understanding of their proposed brand identities (Elliott &
Wattanasuwan, 1998). It is the goal of these brands to develop a specific aesthetic and a set of
values, which are necessarily incorporated into the design of the garments they produce (in this
case T-shirts), especially in their decoration (Diamond et al., 2009).
One of the major challenges for fashion firms, in the attempt to maximize control of the
publicly perceived brand image, is the internal departmental discrepancy that tends to exist

10
As the fashion ‘industry’ has always been intricately linked to the concepts of entertainment, media, and celebrity, we might note that media
sensationalism and the evolution of norms perpetuated by the entertainment industries have even relaxed the dress code restrictions of formal
settings, with high profile insiders and celebrities often appearing on the red carpet of prestigious ceremonies sporting T-shirts in lieu of
traditional formal attire. This has done much to shape the public’s perception of the T-shirt as an artifact of fashion within the mainstream
popular culture.

28
between the separate agendas of financiers and creatives (Hattwick, 1985; Tyrnauer, 2008;
Arvidsson, 2011). Many high-end fashion firms operate publicly as clothing designers when in
actuality the vast majority of their revenue is generated from the licensing and selling of
affordable but pricey toiletries and accessories, rather than the über-expensive couture designs
for which they garner fame and prestige on the runways of highly orchestrated fashion shows
and on the red carpets of celebrity laden ceremonies (Thomas, 2007; Tyrnauer, 2008; Tungate,
2009). These brands often utilize the cachet of their elite fashion status to charge super-
premiums for low cost commodities sold in mass as non-target consumers attempt to engage the
luxurious brand experience by means of overpriced, yet affordable consumption (Thomas,
2007; Tungate, 2009). We might note that toiletries and accessories such as perfumes, lotions,
socks and sunglasses, typically offer a rather low level of conspicuousness.
Firms design branded T-shirts as part of their clothing collections as a means of
achieving both high profit margins (Silverstein et al., 2008), and high exposure for their
proposed brand identity. Branded designer T-shirts are highly conspicuous, relatively
inexpensive, and are generally among the most affordable garments in the collection of any
fashion line. As fashion is an industry fundamentally based upon the rigid hierarchical ordering
of superficial brand images and social status, the T-shirt is placed in a highly volatile position as
a commercial commodity. It has the potential to generate incredible volumes of revenue for
firms that are able to establish strong brand identities, especially for brands at the higher-end
that are able to charge premiums. Yet in generating that revenue it compromises the value of
those premiums and the proposed identity of those higher-end brands. This is because the low
cost of T-shirts allows for increased sales through increased consumption and/or audience
expansion as a result of greater affordability. In this sense, a T-shirt may undermine a brand’s

29
offering to the ideal consumer, because high-end brands maintain control of their image through
exclusivity and they are made exclusive through the implementation of limited production and
distribution, size restrictions, and most importantly prohibitive pricing schemes. Though such
brands may charge exorbitant prices for their T-shirts in comparison to competitive product, the
price may lower the bar of access to the brand per se, for individuals who desire to share in the
brand experience and attribute its values to themselves, but have no other means to do so,
especially when those values include high social status (Meyers, 2004; Truong et al., 2008; Han,
Nunes & Drèze, 2010; Easton & Easton, 2011;). That is to say that by producing T-shirts, high-
end fashion brands run the risk of losing control of their proposed identity by obtaining a market
presence which is dominated by either target consumers wearing an abundance of highly
conspicuous, but low cost, low differentiation, casual garments also associated with lower-end
brands; or worse yet, by having non-targeted consumers with incongruent identities appropriate
the brand’s identity; producing new and unintended interpretations of its values (Gardyn, 2002).
In other words, the exposure and revenue gained from T-shirts may often come at the expense
of prestige and image control. Furthermore, research has thoroughly demonstrated that when a
group of consumers—in this case the target audience—bears witness to an external group
adopting their fashion trends they will abandon those trends and seek others, especially when
that group is of lower status (Veblen, 1899; Rauscher, 1993; Berger & Heath, 2007; Berger,
2008; Han et al., 2010; Easton & Easton, 2011).
It is the strategy of many fashion brands, especially status brands, to idealize the identity
of their target audience, and theoretically transform their consumers into that ideal through the
consumption of their products, so that they are perceived as walking embodiments of the
brand’s ethos (Levy, 1959; Elliott & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Arvidsson, 2011). There are three

30
means by which this strategy might be disrupted in the case of T-shirts: 1) a brand may design
a decorative communication on a T-shirt which is inconsistent with its brand identity, 2) a T-
shirt may possess a functional design which contradicts the identity of the brand, and 3) a
branded T-shirt may be worn by a consumer whose identity conflicts with the brand identity.
The primary concern of this study deals with option ‘3’. Former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO,
Mike Jeffries, raised tremendous controversy leading to a dive of the company’s stock value in
2013 after comments made in a 2006 interview (Denizet-Lewis, 2006) came to high public
attention:
“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool
kids…That’s why we hire good-looking people in our stores. Because good-looking
people attract other good-looking people, and we want to market to cool, good-looking
people…Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid
with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes],
and they can’t belong…Abercrombie is only interested in people with washboard
stomachs who look like they’re about to jump on a surfboard.”
—Mike Jeffries, CEO, Abercrombie & Fitch
Jeffries’ commentary was damaging not merely for its callous disregard, but because in many
respects this was an individual who, with great success, had taken a bankrupt outdoors brand
and converted it into his vision of cool, which eventually became a quintessential embodiment
of youthful desirability within the mainstream of popular culture. The sentiments expressed
during his interview underscore the philosophy used by many consumer brands to cultivate
tastes, expectations, and a sense of exclusivity in an effort to entice the public into accepting
their value propositions and purchasing their products.

31
To avoid compromising the proposed brand image represented by their principle lines
many high fashion brands have begun to engage in extensive sub-branding, whereby the
primary brand image is incorporated into an appendage fashion domain peripheral to the
original in association with the original name. Eastman and Eastman (2011) note that there is a
distinction between sub-brands, which use the principle brand name, and nested brands which
use a new identity in affiliation with the principle brand identity. Many high-end brands will
distinguish affordable garments such as T-shirts, for which they wish to charge a premium, by
sub-branding ‘diffusion lines’ in what scholars have termed mass luxury, mass prestige, or
masstige markets (Silverstein et al., 2008). In doing so, marketers aim to achieve a halo effect
11
,
which will essentially augment the status of an inferior line of products (Thorndike, 1920;
Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Leuthesser, Kohli & Harich, 1995; Eastman & Eastman, 2011;
Fayrene & Lee, 2011). Phau & Cheong (2009) determined that young consumers are likely to
deem downwardly vertical luxury diffusion lines as suitable substitutes, being viewed as of
similar product quality and brand image. Lower-end brands may also attempt to offer higher
value-propositions by producing premium expansion lines with higher quality at higher price
ranges; however, this study will neglect bottom-up and horizontal expansion brands in its
consideration of the mass luxury market segment, rather concentrating on downwardly vertical
diffusion lines. T-shirts have played a dramatic role in the democratization of fashion from their
unisex status to their infiltration of the professional work environment. Yet, at the same time,
they have continued to be used in the formation of boundaries such as those that delineate the
masculine from the feminine, the trendy form the hackneyed and high status from low status,

11
The halo effect, coined by Thorndike (1920) describes the psychological phenomenon whereby global evaluations of attributes have a
tendency to ‘color’ the evaluation of individual attributes.

32
promoting egocentric codes of distinction and inciting superficial prejudices between
individuals and groups.
Identity
Identity is a psychological concept, which is essential to human existence. The ability to
identify the self and others is critical to the individual’s survival in the material world
(McCracken, 1986; Correll & Park, 2005). Research on identity imbeds the individual and
others within complex layers of social existence whereby internal identity is dominated by the
self-concept, but faces constant pressure to be reconciled with a hierarchy of external constructs,
i.e. group identities (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Hornsey & Jetten,
2004; White, Argo & Sengupta, 2012). Meanwhile, externally this process is reciprocated as the
individual faces tension to assert the self while at all times being both consciously and
unconsciously classified by others in terms of different group identities within a hierarchy,
which are subject to arise on a contextual basis and play a role in determining the mode of
salient self-construal (Goffman, 1956; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Brewer & Gardner, 1996;
Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Owens, 2006; White, et al., 2012). Theories have suggested that
individuals use different group identities within their personal hierarchies for a variety of
purposes (Correll & Park, 2005; Park & Lessig, 1977; Bearden & Etzel, 1982) including
defending the ego (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Brown & Tajfel, 1979; Brewer, 1991),
avoiding misidentification (Berger & Heath, 2007; 2008; White & Argo, 2011), asserting social
status (Tyler, 1957; Park et al., 1986; Corneo & Jeanne, 1997; Bhat & Reddy, 1998) , self-
verification (Elliot & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004), procuring social
companionship (Elliot & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004), and even social
manipulation (Goffman, 1956; Leary, 1996). Consumer research has linked the purchasing

33
process incontrovertibly to the notion that choice is influenced by needs and desires which arise
as a reflection of both self and social identity. It is important to elaborate this point in order to
better understand the way that brands function in relation to the behavior of consumers.
Self-Identity
Regarding the self, it is believed that individuals create identities utilizing a broad
spectrum of socio-cultural constructs. In terms of the individual as a consumer, brands are one
of the most important artifacts, which contribute to the construction of identity. In essence,
brands are purely symbolic but, depending on the nature of the product and the brand, they vary
in the degree to which they are able to symbolize information that might be attributed to the
consumers’ identity, the type of information which they might convey, and the way in which
that information is able to exert influence on the identities of different consumers (Chan, Berger
& Van Boven, 2012).
12
Brand identities have been suggested to contribute to both the
affirmation of the self and to self-enhancement and impression management (Steele & Liu,
1983; Elliot & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Escalas & Bettman, 2003). Richins (2004) asserts that
people use possessions as a form of self-expression. Studies have also argued that brands are
often conceptualized in the minds of consumers as extensions of the self (Belk, 1988; Owens,
2006). It follows logically that not only do consumers use the symbolism of brand identities to
construct and enhance self-identity, but the fact that a consumer has selected a brand with
specific symbolic qualities bears on the consumer’s impression given to others, and this places
the individual within social categories which may have their own definitions beyond those

12
For example, a bottle of Drano, because of its product class as an inconspicuous, inexpensive household cleaning item, and the fact that the
brand is meant to symbolize efficiency in cleaning clogged pipes and little else, is able to symbolize hardly any information which may be
superimposed onto the consumer’s identity, let alone have an effect. On the contrary a rose gold 2ct diamond bangle engraved with ‘Tiffany &
Co.’ belongs to the product class of conspicuous luxury goods—meaning because the item is worn on the wrist, made of highly reflective
materials and incorporates brand identity into its design, both the product and brand are highly visible, increasing their ability to attribute
information to the consumer’s identity. The product’s price symbolizes high socioeconomic status, as does the brand (Eastman et al., 1999;
Husic & Cicic, 2009; Han et al., 2010; Eastman & Eastman, 2011). The brand is also meant to symbolize a legacy of American fine
craftsmanship, New York City café society, and consequently elegance, beauty, and taste. Depending on the consumer, and provided that the
remainder of the self-presentation does nothing to compromise this information, the identity of the wearer will be pushed closer to coincidence
with all of these symbols while wearing this product than it would be without.

34
constructed and maintained by the brand. Under this consideration it becomes important to
assess the individual in terms of the social self. Although a great share of consumer behavior
research dealing with brands focuses on internal drives for identity, consumer culture in general
is predicated upon mass production, and so it is necessary that we also address consumption
practices and identity drives at the group and social level in an effort to comprehend the
complete nature of these phenomena.
Self-Concept
Theories of the self and self-identity developed from social psychology, which was split
between the two disciplinary lineages of psychology and sociology with sociology itself having
risen from psychology (Owens, 2006). It is from this duality that we trace the first distinctions
between theories of the internal (individual) vs. the external (social) -self with psychology
placing precedence on the internal and sociology emphasizing the external. The psychology
literature on the self deals largely with the processes, which produce affects, cognitions, and
behavior, which confirm or challenge the self-image. Studies analyzing consumer behavior
often use affects and cognitions to explain the drives behind decision choices in consumer
goods markets. Irmak, Vallen and Sen (2010) have shown that individuals high in needs for
uniqueness will re-evaluate their preferences when their uniqueness is threatened. Along similar
lines White and Argo (2011) found that possession disposal intentions, re-customization
behaviors, and exchange intentions arise when distinctiveness concerns are aroused through
mimicry. In two separate studies Richins supported the notions that for many consumer
products value is derived from symbolic and self-reflective meaning rather than pure monetary
value (1994b) and that these valuations are dependent on whether public or private meanings
are taken into account in addition to the consumer’s level of materialism (1994a). A substantial

35
number of other studies have focused on brand identities as critical factors in influencing
cognitive and affective drives during the purchasing process. Escalas and Bettman (2005)
found evidence that brand connections can be augmented or diminished based upon the
symbolic properties of the brand and the perceived consistency of traits with out-groups. Park
and John (2010) conducted experiments showing that some consumers assimilate into the self,
aspects of the personalities of brands that they consume. Stets & Harrod (2004) found that the
verification of different identities is related to different status characteristics through a common
meaning system.
Aaker (1997; 1999) tells us that consumers purchase brands with varying personality
types in an effort to accentuate different features of their own personality in different situations.
Using focus group interviews Nguyen and Brown (2010) were able to infer a direct relation for
clothing style (according to brand) as an identifying signal of social status among adolescent
peer groups. Meanwhile, Piacentini and Mailer (2004) interviewed teenagers who demonstrated
a profound skill at reading social cues and deciphering symbolism embedded in clothing brands
and appearance (Fan & Burton, 2002; Phua & Cheong, 2009). This attests to the potency of
brand symbolism, and consumers’ aptitude in properly receiving and interpreting those
symbols.
The general argument assumes that affects and cognitions interact with cultural norms
and values along with corporate marketing communications thereby producing drives which
influence consumer behavior
13
(Dahl et al., 2011; Ferraro, Bettman & Chartrand, 2012).
Consumer behavior is used to produce the presentation of the self, which locates the individual
within a specific range of socially recognized categories for the purpose of being properly

13
External influences are used to explain affective and cognitive drives which the individual holds in the interest of social relations and in the
interest of the self. Here the only concern will be the interest of the self. That is to say that social factors drive affects and cognitions to
influence consumer behavior and although those behaviors can, in many ways, be attributed to the maintenance of a desired social existence—
here that existence will be interpreted for its ability to contribute to the affirmation of the self.

36
identified by others as well as producing and confirming internally held beliefs about the self in
order to verify the desired self-image and secure an appropriate pursuit of the desired possible
self (i.e. self enhancement) (Markus & Nurius 1986; Wooten & Reed, 2004; Lisjak, Lee &
Gardner, 2012). Accurate social identification serves the purpose of allowing the individual to
be treated as desired by others, facilitating the satisfaction of needs for esteem, social
companionship, and other utilitarian functions, as well as providing the psyche with a stable
rationalization of prior existence, current circumstances and future conditions of reality
(Maslow, 1943; Steele, & Liu, 1983; Markus & Nurius 1986; McCracken, 1986; Klein, Klein &
Allen, 1995; Corneo & Jeanne, 1998; Lisjak et al., 2012). McCracken (1986; 1988) described
this reality in terms of a system of pervasive social symbolism which he called the “culturally
constituted world”.
There are three primary drives that appear frequently throughout the literature that
should be noted here as influences of consumer behavior involving brands: the pursuit of social
recognition, social interdependence, and self-affirmation. The pursuit of social recognition aims
to ensure that those who do and do not know an individual will treat them according to the
normative evaluation of their public image and this may be facilitated through that individual’s
associated brand identities and lifestyle choices (Belk, 1988, p. 145; Elliot & Wattanasuwan,
1998; Fournier, 1998).
14
The drive for social interdependence seeks to provide that an
individual will find companionship and make connections with others who share similar
identities and values, part of which may include sharing similar brand choices (Brewer &

14
It is important to note that in many cases lifestyle and consumption habits are more attuned to a specific class of products rather than a
specific brand, and this idea is largely overlooked in the brand literature. To elaborate, consumers may speak of their dedication to a brand of
dish soap while realizing and being able to articulate very few, if any, legitimate qualities which make that brand superior to its competitors, yet
they form an emotional connection by happenstance. Research often takes that brand’s ability to secure consumer relationships as a strategic
achievement when in actuality, regardless of what consumers may say in focus groups or interviews the consumer will be obligated to buy dish
soap anyway, and will often commit to a brand of soap and specific brands of other products in the interest of avoiding uncertainties. Therefore,
the consumer’s attachment is more likely with the domestic ritual of washing dishes rather than with the brand, which by chance happened to be
the one selected in lieu of others of equal quality.

37
Gardner, 1996; Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Swaminathan, Page & Gürhan-‐Canli, 2007; White et
al., 2012). Finally, the goal of self-affirmation is to allow an individual to stably occupy a
specific set of socio-cultural dispositions, and confirm to the self the legitimacy of those
positions, and this process is often assisted through the appropriation of brand values (Steele &
Liu, 1983; Park & John, 2010; Lisjak et al., 2012).
15

The concept of the psychological stability of reality may easily be overlooked as
anecdotal and cliché; however, this topic is of great importance and deserves further
examination. To elaborate briefly, it is, in fact, exactly the lack of this stability which
characterizes the symptoms of many problematic mental disorders (Leary, 1996), which
manifest themselves in debilitating and even antisocial behavioral traits such as the inability to
separate imagination from reality, loss of memory, the inability to perceive non-verbal social
cues, lack of empathy, and the inability to feel guilt. Such disorders compromise the sanctity of
accurate mental awareness and in so doing compromise the integrity of the self. In many cases,
depending on the severity, individuals suffering from these symptoms are considered mentally
ill and stigmatized as not to be entrusted with the security of others and sometimes even
themselves (Leary, 1996). That is to say that they may be perceived as some sort of threat to the
society. Moreover, these disorders make it difficult for such persons to satisfy visceral psycho-
social drives. For instance, an individual who is incapable of properly presenting the self in
public by dressing far outside of recognizable social norms or speaking nonsensically, will be
stereotyped as looking or behaving as if they were ‘crazy’, indicating to others that the
individual may not be safe or at least pleasant to be around. The person in question then may
have difficulty satisfying the need for social dignity in the way they are recognized and treated

15
Although Steele and Liu (1983) originally designated self-affirmation as a defense mechanism against cognitive dissonance, here it is being
applied in the more general sense that it may be employed perpetually to preclude dissonance before it occurs.

38
by others (Richins, 1994a; Leary, 1996; Belk, 1998; Elliot & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Piacentini
& Mailer, 2004; Collett, 2005;), in achieving social interdependence through their ability to gain
inclusion and companionship from members of associated groups (Brewer & Gardner, 1996;
Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Swaminathan, et al., 2007; White et al., 2012), and ultimately in
maintaining their self-esteem in their ability to verify their own personal identity with any sense
of positive valence (Maslow, 1943; Steele & Liu, 1983; Belk, 1988; Richins, 1994b; Elliot &
Wattanasuwan, 1998; Piacentini & Mailer, 2004; Morrison & Johnson, 2011; Dahl et al.,
2012;). If the behavior is the result of a mental disorder and they cannot make sense of their
own presentation, the presentation of the world around them, and the interactions that result,
then the material conditions of that person’s existence are likely to suffer if not given special
consideration from those around them. Even so, existence of the self for such an individual
would be severely constrained due to the fact that reflection and aspiration may be highly
diminished, and the ability to successfully interact with strangers (i.e. those outside of the direct
circle of social connections who are not aware of the condition) will be limited.
Likewise, individuals who are instable in their self-presentation, social aspirations,
ideological consistency, etc. are often condemned for the unpredictability of their character and
are perceived as having a low sense of self-awareness (Leary, 1996). An individual who aspires
to be a member of a group which is highly contradictory to their authentic identity or the
limitations of their material existence—for example, suburban teenagers imitating the personal
style, speech and mannerisms of the artists from the gangster rap music they listen to, or fantasy
enthusiasts who dress, behave, and undergo cosmetic surgery to look and appear more like
vampires and other mythical persons and creatures (moreover, individuals who undergo
excessive self-imposed cosmetic surgery in general)—are all viewed in this light. The homeless,

39
criminals, known substance abusers, and the clinically insane are some other groups most likely
to suffer the greatest negative social repercussions as a result of these stereotypical perceptions
of internal inconsistency or instability.
Brand identities have been suggested in many ways to operate as facilitators of stability
in self-presentation for social recognition, for social interdependence and for self-affirmation.
Although brands may not necessarily determine one’s identity, in conjunction with other
presentational factors, they may aid in the deterrence of misperceptions of psychological
instability
16
or they may shift the net effect of a collective group of presentational factors in a
given direction more generally. While not appearing to be mentally unstable or criminal is the
least of most people’s concerns, this consideration is important because it sits at the most basic
level of identity assertion and avoidance upon which the principles of all self-presentation
research has been based (Goffman, 1956; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Wooten & Reed, 2004;
Collett, 2005; Irmak et al., 2010; White & Argo, 2011; Dahl et al., 2012; Lisjak, et al., 2012)
and it has substantial implications regarding brands. For instance, by saying, “I am a Mercedes
man.” the consumer is making affirmations about the self in accordance with an identity
construct, which has been determined by a corporate brand. This affirmation holds social and
personal connotations with regard to specific values, which, in every brand’s interest, should
ideally be held by the consumer as beneficial for enhancement of the self. In other words, the
consumer is internalizing the values of the brand for which they identify a connection with the

16
That is not to say that by purchasing French’s mustard as opposed to private label mustard an individual gains some credibility as less likely
to be crazy, mentally unstable, or even behaviorally inconsistent. On the contrary, to suggest so would be absurd. We do, however, know that
some products and brands are more symbolic than others (Escalas & Bettman, 2003; 2005). Consequently, it may be accurate to propose that by
consuming highly symbolic brands which contribute to the presentation of the self, all things being equal (i.e. appearance, continence, behavior,
other brands consumed, etc.) an individual may deter the unprovoked suspicions of potential mental instability with which we tend to regard
strangers because such brands have been shown to augment perceptions such as status, physical attractiveness, and intelligence (Piacentini &
Mailer, 2004; Ferraro et al., 2009). A person may gain an inadvertent sense of solidary from fellow consumers by displaying highly symbolic
brands, which have strong customer loyalty (Cruikshank, 2006; Muniz & O’Guinn 2001). Finally the consumer might in some small ways
reaffirm or enhance the self on a daily basis through the assimilation of the desirable characteristics of brands in the consumer’s portfolio,
thereby stabilizing the continuity of the self-image from past brand experiences to the present and validating the feasibility of aspirations for
future possible selves (Steele & Liu, 1983; Markus & Nurius, 1986; Park & John, 2010). Again to be clear, one might expect such effects to be
merely discrete, to occur under select conditions, and in many cases exist beneath the conscious level, but surely in some way some brands must
contribute to the deterrence of the threat of instability we perceive in strangers and that we pose to ourselves.

40
self; for which they aspire for others to identify them with; and for which they seek to identify
with others that share the same values. Studies have shown that consumers may assimilate
brand identities into the self (Steele & Lui, 1983; Belk, 1988; Klein et al., 1995; Aaker, 1999;
Park & John, 2010; Morrison & Johnson, 2011; Lisjak et al., 2012), developing camaraderie
with the sea of fellow in-group consumers (Swaminathan et al., 2007) —forming enthusiast
communities and online groups (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001), developing enmities with consumers
of rival brands (Cruikshank, 2006, Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001), taking personal offense to insults
to their brands (Richins, 1994a; 1994b; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Lisjak, et al., 2012), getting
tattoos and developing fanatic obsessions (Cruikshank, 2006; Belk, 1988), and going out of
their way to avoid being confused with rival consumers (White & Dahl, 2006; 2007; Irmak, et
al., 2010; White & Argo, 2011; White, et al., 2012;). Fournier (1998) conducted a study with in-
depth interviews where participants insinuated generational ties to brands, and the significance
that brands have come to occupy in familial rituals such as cooking and cleaning. Other
participants disclosed their affinity for the aspirational qualities of brands in non-conspicuous
product categories such as perfume and candles, demonstrating the power of brands to
contribute to the internal affirmation and enhancement of the self-image. Research on possible
selves has been used to suggest that aspirational brands may play a strong role in the
individual’s construction of the desired self (Markus & Nurius 1986; Escalas & Bettman, 2003).
The area of self-presentation was brought to the forefront in Goffman’s (1956)
groundbreaking treatment which used ethnographic data to develop largely heuristic
interpretations of the dynamics between actors and audiences in the agreed upon staging of
formal and informal presentations. Though inherently sociological, due to its seminal nature the
study is of immense value to internal oriented psychological analyses of self-presentation as

41
well. One of its most important contributions was the notion of a dichotomous self, which is
divided between the realms of public and private life and further divided between different
public contexts. In one study Brewer & Gardner (1996) contemplate this ongoing debate within
the literature by elaborating on the degree of distinction and integration between the public and
private self. Regarding brand theory, this notion gives credence to the idea that there are often
multiple contexts in which a variety of marketing effects are subject to take place or not take
place for numerous reasons for both actor and the audience. This means that as consumers make
brand choices and society reacts, according to psycho-social drives, there are always other
drives (psycho-social or otherwise) with which these must compete for influence over the
behavioral and cognitive outcomes. An outcome may be determined by multiple drives
simultaneously on both ends. Under this logic it could be argued that what marketers essentially
do is determine the optimal range of drives which have the greatest likelihood of achieving the
desired outcomes for the greatest number of desired actors and audience members.
17
Though
some have addressed these issues with empirical research (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Wooten &
Reed, 1996; Klein, et al.; Brewer, 1996; Aaker, 1999; Wheeler, Petty & Bizer, 2005) these ideas
are often easily neglected within the consumer research literature as studies have tended to
provide an oversimplification on the effects of marketing and the consumer brand relationship,
frequently failing to consider the nature of the brand, the product, the consumer, and the context
of the presentation. Experimental research often fails to capture the complexity of the dynamic
relationships between these factors, while qualitative studies often lack the precision of lab-
based research in isolating those factors and their points of action and interaction. This is the
constant dilemma of social science research in general, and it is best resolved by determining

17
For example, at times there may be a part of some consumers which does not succumb to, or may even be opposed to the expressive values of
certain symbolic brands and yet they may still purchase the products. In these instances, such insightful consumers might (symbolically or non-
symbolically) be using the brand solely for the gratification gained from its utilitarian value regarding some goal other than that supplied by the
brand itself.

42
which aspects of this equation are of greatest significance to the answers being sought. One of
the greatest oversights throughout the literature involves the failure to distinguish changes in the
nature of the culturally constituted world (McCracken, 1986; 1988) due to the progression of
time—meaning that a specific set of brand values may not achieve the same outcomes today as
they did yesterday simply because the environment has changed, if for no other reason than, due
to those values being exposed yesterday (Tyler, 1957). Consumer markets are highly volatile,
subject to constant fluctuations in everything from logistical boundaries to norms and values.
Technological advancements of the new media have precipitated a decline in the predictability
of brand values by increasing the speed of information distribution and therefore the metabolic
rate of change in the environment
18
(Coleman, 1983). Dodd et al (2000) make note of the
cyclical but unstable nature to consumer behavior with fashion apparel.
Self-Presentation
The presentation of the self is a human process which is constant throughout the active
lives of individuals and groups as they maneuver the world of social existence. Theories of the
self have made extensive advancements towards codifying generalizable models of affects,
cognitions and behavior as they are influenced by both internal and external factors. Research
has resulted in a body of literature developed from a diversity of disciplinary and theoretical
frameworks, methodologies, and concepts concerning the self. Amidst the landscape of self-
related scholarly inquiries, consumer behavior has played a particularly important role in the
evolution of our understanding of self-hood: the self-concept, self-identity, self-image, and self-
presentation, etc.

18
For example, the motion picture industry has recently witnessed the complete undermining of its traditional marketing campaign strategies as
scores of movie-goers flock to social media (blogs, vlogs, esp. Twitter, Facebook, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.) to voice their judgment of a film often
by or before the conclusion of the national debut screenings—offering a popular consensus which challenges the ability of first weekend sales to
build momentum by attesting to the quality of the film due to its successful initial box office performance (Dobuzinskis, 2009).

43
Scholars have been keen to highlight both the theoretical value and pragmatic
implications of research designed around practices of commercial consumption as they pertain
to various aspects of the self and its presentation (McCracken, 1986; 1988; Richins, 1994a;
1994b; Elliot & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Klein, et al., 1995; Fournier, 1998; Escalas & Bettman,
2003; 2005; Piacentini & Mailer, 2004; White & Dahl, 2006, 2007; Irmak et al., 2010; Park &
John, 2010; Dahl et al., 2011; Argo & Morales, 2012; Lisjak & Gardner, 2012; White et al.,
2012). Consumer goods are often highly symbolic in their ability to signify meanings related to
people’s identity. These symbols pervade the material world allowing us to identify others in
relation to one another and to the self, in addition to identifying the self as it is perceived
internally and as it is perceived by others (McCracken, 1986; 1988; Elliot & Wattanasuwan,
1998; Leary, 1996). Research in these areas has been largely bifurcated along the duplicity of
internal and external influences (Owens, 2006). Self-verification, self-enhancement, and self-
awareness as well as psychological consonance, consistency, and stability have all been reliably
demonstrated as valid internal drives for consumer decision making involving symbolic
processes of self-presentation (Aaker, 1999; Leary, 1996; Owens, 2006; Dahl et al., 2012; Chan
et al., 2013). Utilitarian, informational, and value-expressive functions have been paired with
motivations such as social interdependence, social status aspirations, and avoidance of
misidentification as external influences of purchase choice (Elliot & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Belk,
1988; White & Argo 2011; Irmak, et al., 2010; White, et al., 2012; Brewer & Gardner, 1996;
Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Swaminathan, et al., 2007). The research on external influences tends
to be geared towards analysis of the self in relation to group and social identities, whereas work
focusing on internal influences has been more oriented towards concerns of the self as an
autonomous entity and the value of its reflective properties to the individual. Both bodies of

44
literature are indispensable to our understanding of the self as a social and psychological
phenomenon, and to be certain, each type of influence overlaps into behavior of the self as an
individual as well as a member of society. The focus of this study is the presentation of the self
as an individual through practices of commercial brand consumption and how those practices
are influenced by both internal and external factors
19
.
Social Identity
The self has been purported to be highly malleable and research has given evidence that
from one situation to the next there are numerous factors which inform the orientation of both
an individual’s self-concept and self-construal (Goffman, 1956; Markus & Nurius, 1986;
Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Aaker, 1999; Correll & Park, 2005;).
People rely on unique sets of personality traits, in addition to independent and interdependent
perspectives of the culturally constituted world (McCracken, 1986) to satisfy drives and achieve
goals (Markus & Kunda, 1986; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Aaker, 1999; Correll & Park, 2005).
20

The totality of human identity can be simplified into the psychological constructs of self and
others (Owens, 2006). Other people and groups often serve as a psychosocial reference for the
mental evaluation of the self (Park & Lessig, 1977; Bearden & Etzel, 1982). For purposes of
cognitive efficiency, within our minds the concept of others is schematically divided into

19
It has been established that the self is intricately connected with group and social identities, which are external to its concept. Although
important, these aspects occupy a related, yet distinct set of phenomena whose connection to the individual is more clearly assessed in a separate
analysis. While mention of these factors shall be made where pertinent, the current review of literature will be largely concentrated on the
internal drives satisfied by these external factors and their influence on the individual’s self -presentation.
20
Theorists divide human identity into two main categories: personal-identity and social-identity. Some theorists have also suggested that social
identity can be further divided into interpersonal-identity and collective-identity (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). To be certain, interdependence
typically refers to interpersonal social relationships (family, school, work, friends, clubs, etc.) as opposed to collective group memberships with
unknown others who share a similar trait (gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, etc.). However as independent self-construal deals
with what is called personal- or self-identity and is diametrically opposed to interdependent self-construal, which ideally considers those with
whom an individual has an interdependent relationship, here it is taken to include collective identity as well. The reason for this being that, as
theories of social identity have posited that individuals depend on categorical collective group memberships to satisfy drives for self-
affirmation, self-enhancement, and a sense of belonging (Escalas, 2003; Brewer, 1991), it is suiting that interdependent self-construal be
considered as applicable to these collective social identities when it is salient. Brewer (1991) states that group level satisfaction for drives such
as self-esteem may be more likely to be satisfying extensions of drives like self-esteem, rather than self-esteem itself. She goes on to argue that
“The higher the level of inclusiveness at which self categorization is made, the more depersonalized the self-concept becomes.”(Brewer, 1991)
That is because under this view the collective identity is argued to be an extension of the self-concept rather than an aspect of it. In any event
this suggests that the nature of collective identity is, at the very least, proximately interdependent, and so its application here can be justified by
these arguments.

45
hierarchical sub-categories which can be further deducted down to the identities of individual
others. Four primary groups which individuals use to designate others for reference include in-
groups (groups we belong to, i.e. the groups who compose our social inter-relational and
collective identity), aspirational groups (groups we do not belong to but admire, and desire to
belong to), neutral out-groups (groups to which we neither belong nor desire to belong, but have
no negative sentiments of or desire to avoid being associated with), and dissociative out-groups
(out-groups for which we definitively have a desire to avoid being associated with) (Englis &
Solomon, 1995; White & Dahl, 2011). Research has highlighted three major influences that
reference groups might serve for, or impose upon the individual as informational, utilitarian,
and value-expressive (Park & Lessig, 1977; Escalas & Bettman, 2003). Informational influence
occurs when an individual seeks evaluative verification for behavioral decisions from a group
for which the individual has some assumption of credibility (Park & Lessig, 1977). Utilitarian
influence designates instances wherein individuals behave in an effort to gain rewards or avoid
punishments, which are mediated by some group (Park & Lessig, 1977). Finally, value-
expressive influence involves an individual’s behavior being pursuant of the desire to express
some shared social values, which are held by a group (Park & Lessig, 1977). Although research
has leaned towards consideration of these constructs in terms of in-groups and aspirational
groups, informational and utilitarian influence may apply to out-groups as well in many
circumstances.
21
On the contrary value-expressive influence would generally not apply to out-

21
The classification of in-group, aspirational-group, and out-group is highly complex in the material world, and so it follows that an individual
may consider a collective an out-group on one level but not another. Ultimately we are all part of an in-group in some sense because we are all
humans, at which point animals become an out-group, etc. However, the hierarchical structure of social collectives is not as clean cut as this,
because a cat may be considered a member of someone’s family, while other human beings are not. In the case of informational and utilitarian
influence, to say that these influences are perpetrated by out-groups, the individual’s behavior must be operating in a capacity conducive to that
of those under consideration for the label of out-group, and to which they are in some way opposed, or at least not included. In other words, the
dissimilar considerations of identity must be in a domain relevant to the behavior in question. As an example of informational influence, a
player on a fútbol (soccer) team may observe and adopt a strategy employed by members of the same team, members of a higher level team to
which the player aspires (e.g. professional vs. amateur), members of a team representing a neutral out-group (e.g. a member of a younger or
lower level division team), or members of a dissociative out-group (e.g. an opponent). To elaborate, studies have shown that men consider
women to be a dissociative identity group when ordering steak at a restaurant (White & Dahl, 2006). However, when playing fútbol, a strategy

46
groups save for the notion that the individual engages in specific forms of value-expression to
avoid the internal and external perception that their values are aligned with a dissociative out-
group. An individual may fully recognize membership in any number of collective identities
without assimilating any of the values or social characteristics of those groups into the self-
concept (Brewer, 1991). Numerous theories have been developed within the identity literature
suggesting possible motivations for why an individual may incorporate or exclude collective
identities from the self.
Studies have debated upon the selfish nature of the individual to pursue at all times that,
which provides security and beneficence to the self (Park & Lessig, 1977; Bearden & Etzel,
1982; Escalas & Bettman, 2003; Correll & Park, 2005;). Counter arguments attest that there is a
compromise between these selfish drives and the need to belong, which is evidenced by the fact
that in many group situations individuals have been demonstrated as willing to sacrifice their
personal security and benefits for the sake of the group (Brewer, 1991; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004).
Social identity theory proposes that there is a sense of self-worth to be achieved by membership
with valued in-groups, and that the individual will exhibit bias against out-groups to maintain
that value and achieve that sense of worth (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1979; Brewer,
1991; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Correll & Park, 2005). Within this
paradigm, social comparison theory states that individuals use in-groups as references with
which to maintain the self-concept by validating ideological beliefs, reducing uncertainty, and
verifying the self-image (Correll & Park, 2005). Optimal distinctiveness theory originally

being used successfully has nothing to do with gender identity, therefore a women’s team would be considered a neutral out-group for a male
player, because the identity domain of gender is not pertinent to the behavior of fútbol strategy; however, it could be in other sports such as
figure skating or gymnastics. Nevertheless, the point is that all of these in- and out-groups could viably serve as informational references. In
addition, utilitarian influences could be made by out-groups. For example a group of bullies pose a threat of punishment, causing some children
to walk a different way home from school. In another example, children expect rewards from their parents for following the rules, and may
conduct themselves accordingly to avoid punishment and receive those rewards even if it means going against an in-group of friends by leaving
early and being home by curfew to satisfy the demands of the parents, who serve as an in-group in the capacity of a family, but an out group
with regard to the friendship circle, as they are opposed to its goals.

47
argued that the individual sought group membership out of the need to belong and balanced that
need against the need for individuality by highlighting the distinctiveness between the in-group
and other out-groups (Brewer, 1991; Hornesy & Jetten, 2004). Later research has advanced this
argument by proposing that individuals not only use the group as a source of individuation
against out-groups to attain the optimal level of distinctiveness for individual needs, but they
also obtain optimal distinctiveness by distinguishing the self from the in-group through various
modes of non-conformity to the group definition (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Chan et al., 2012).
Hornsey & Jetten (2004) describe eight strategies for achieving optimal distinctiveness. The
first four involve maximizing group distinctiveness. They include identifying with a group that
is numerically distinctive, identifying with a group defined as apart from the mainstream,
identifying with a sub-group and, enhancing perceptual distinctiveness of the group. The next
four involve achieving differentiation within the group. They consist of differentiation of roles,
identifying with groups that foster individualism, perceiving the self as loyal while being non-
conformist, and placing emphasis on the normativity of the self compared to other group
members. Susceptibility to normative influence is defined as an individual’s need to enhance the
self-image in the view of others through the conspicuous consumption of products and brands,
the willingness to conform to others’ expectations of purchasing decisions, and/or proclivity for
learning about consumer products through the observation or seeking of information from
others (Wooten & Reed, 2004). Research has made countless uses of these and other identity
principles in scholarly application. One field that has thrived off of the employment of group
and social identity theories is consumer research. Especially pertinent to this theoretical
framework has been the study of branding.

48
Branding and Group Identity
Brands are superficial product identities that have become a fundamental part of modern
society. They provide a sense of trustworthiness and liability, swift recognizability and
suggested certainty about quality to consumers, and they allow producers to build market
relationships with tangential and collaborative brands, with retailers, and with consumers
(Arvidsson, 2011; Park & John, 2010; Park et al., 1986; Eastman & Liu, 2012). As brands are
identities themselves, research has made significant advancements in describing their
relationships to individual and group identity (Tyler, 1957; Stafford, 1966; Park & Lessig, 1977;
Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Park, et al., 1986; Elliot & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Muniz & O’Guinn,
2001; Escalas & Bettman, 2003; 2005; Berger & Heath, 2007; 2008; Silverstein et al., 2008;
Park & John, 2010).
It is important to note that in the signaling of identity through fashion there is often a
limited audience that has the capacity to interpret the symbolic codes (Gross, 1973; Hall, 1980;
Han et al., 2010) contained within a specific artifact, particularly with consideration to brands.
This is especially significant because different psychographic population segments are subject
to interpret the same signals with differing meanings and also with differing degrees of
understanding (Brewer, 1991; Gardyn, 2002; Truong et al, 2008; Han et al., 2010; Eastman &
Eastman, 2011). For a brand, the most valuable message to send would be one, which is most
consistent in the greatest number of circumstances, and is appreciated by the broadest audience
at the highest price point.
22

22
Granted, a brand cannot control additional modes of interpretation that may be formed as a result of additional aspects of the wearer’s self-
presentation.

49
Identity Signaling
Identity signaling and the avoidance of misidentification have played a prominent role in
the branding research. Stafford (1966) was able to show that group membership had a profound
impact on brand loyalty in small informal groups by showing the effects of leadership and to a
lesser extent its correlation with group cohesiveness. Dong & Tian (2009) found that Chinese
consumers use Western brands to assert competing historical narratives of Chinese national
identity and East-West relations. In one study Berger and Heath (2007) showed that consumers
tend to avoid and abandon preferences shared with social out-groups and majorities, especially
with products in specific identity domains. This second part is particularly significant
considering that brands, at times, have a greater impact on consumer identity than product
category (Arvidsson, 2011). In a later study Berger and Heath (2008) found that consumers
even diverged from choices shared by neutral (i.e. non-dissociative) out-groups in an effort to
avoid confusion.
Similarly, in a study on uniqueness Chan et al. (2012) showed that individuals will
comply with the identity of the group on some dimensions of products (such as car model)
while diverging on others (such as car color) to maintain uniqueness. In another uniqueness
study Irmak et al. (2010) found that consumers estimate the preferences of others based on their
own preferences regardless of their need for uniqueness, while consumers with high uniqueness
needs were less likely than consumers low in needs for uniqueness to base their own
preferences upon those of others. Escalas and Bettman (2005) demonstrated that the self-brand
connections of consumers with self-verification goals were improved more by in-group usage
vs. aspirational groups. Meanwhile, for consumers with self-enhancement goals, self-brand
relationships were improved more by aspirational groups vs. in-groups. In another study they

50
found that consistency of brand associations with in-group identity is favorable to brand
connections with the self, while associations inconsistent with in-group identity had negative
effects on self-brand connections, especially if the association is consistent with an out-group
(Escalas & Bettman, 2005). This out-group effect was heightened for consumers with
independent self-construal. Moving forward, White et al. (2012) conducted a study in which
they were able to show that when social-identity is threatened, consumers with independent
self-construal had a tendency to avoid identity linked products, whereas consumers with
interdependent self-construal revealed a higher level of preference for those same products than
their independent counterparts. Dodd et al. (2000) stress interdependence as important to the
process of purchasing choice.
There is a low correlation between class and income, which quantify two related but
relatively unique features of life circumstances; however, most Americans in the general
population erroneously assume that class is a product of income (Coleman, 1983). Kendall
(2005) discusses the framing of class in the mainstream media, which has had substantial
influence on the popular perception of socioeconomic stereotypes by way of, what Gerbner and
Gross (1976) termed, cultivation effects. Brands construct discursive narratives for their
products and services through the gestalt of market activity that they engage in over time
(Diamond et al., 2009). In so doing, it s reasonable to argue that in many ways brands play a
substantial role in defining the popular perception of class and status. Wilson (1984) argues that
the satisfaction of status consumption lies in the public reaction to the goods as granting
prestige rather than any functional value. However, research has described the internalized
value attributed to many household items bearing potential status enhancing symbolism, which
are inconspicuously consumed (Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Richins, 1994a; 1994b; O’Cass &

51
McEwen, 2004). Bearden and Etzel (1983) demonstrated differences of influence on dimension
of public vs. private and luxury vs. necessity for informational, utilitarian, and value-expressive
reference groups showing the influence of product and brand decision on public luxuries to be
substantial while the influence on private necessities was shown to be negligible. This is
significant to the current study because the goal here is to analyze the relationship between
brand status and consumer status using a highly conspicuous product—namely T-shirts.
23

Research informs us that with time status and class are subject to change significantly in
their definition and distribution in the postmodern society (Coleman, 1983), and with them
consumer behavior is also vulnerable (Dodd et al., 2000) to the vicissitudes of the social
environment and the temporal effects of cultural evolution (Eastman & Liu, 2012). Eastman and
Liu (2012) conducted a study where they found that generational cohort explained a significant
difference in status consumption behavior with no significant interaction from demographic
variables. Coleman (1983) also cites generational solidarity in ideology and consumption habits
across class lines throughout the 1960s and 70s, and the later degeneration of established
displays of social status when blue jeans became common attire for upper and lower classes
alike. These findings speak to the volatility of the consumer market, specifically fashion, as a
generation later jeans would be erected as a preeminent domain of distinction from designer
collections to mass-market catalogs. Still, going into the twenty-first century a generation later,
luxury brands have become more accessible (Gardyn, 2002; Meyer, 2004; Truong et al., 2008)
as mass luxury and fast fashion brands have mastered the art of rapid appropriation-,

23
Note. The sweatshirt is in many regards interchangeable with the T-shirt, especially in terms of its graphic design. But this study is not titled
Brands, Sweatshirts, and the Communication of Identity because the sweatshirt is a highly specialized form of ‘T-shirt’ made with long sleeves
and thick, fleeced fabric meant to keep the wearer warm in cold weather. While T-shirts can be worn in warm or cold conditions, sweatshirts are
only generally worn in the cold. The sweatshirt is not as accessible, as common, nor as universal as the basic T-shirt design. Though they may
share the same graphic message, sweatshirts cost more to produce and ship because of the density of their fabric, and consequentially lend
themselves to a greater range of variety in build quality. It is for these reasons amongst others that the T-shirt has obtained iconic status in the
world of fashion, marketing and promotion for brands and designers. Therefore the T-shirt has been selected as the product of interest in this
study.

52
production-, and distribution of trends before traditional models of diffusion (Rogers, 2003)
have time to take effect—once again setting the stage for instability in the meaning of social
activity and the expectations of real world phenomena based on appearance (Dodd et al., 2000).
This research aims to put some of these uncertainties into perspective.
Coleman (1983) notes a shift in emphasis from social values, lifestyle, and prestige as
the defining elements of class to a greater focus on ownership of assets and occupational status.
He highlights distinctive models of the American class structure, which draw on situational
assessments of personal achievements, income and family versus reputational and behavioral
assessments that focus on lifestyle conditions, stereotypical characterizations and modes of
sustenance. Eastman et al. (1999) cite three types of status that scholars distinguish including
attributed status, achieved status, and status based on consumption. Although identity has been
shown to influence the decision making process of clothing purchases, as a result of changes in
the social conceptualizations of class and status, these insights are of little value without
consideration of lifestyle and cultural factors which Dodd et al. (2008) demonstrated as
mediators of both social identity and social comparison in the fashion market. Heaney,
Goldsmith & Jusoh (2005) found social comparison to be positively associated with status
consumption. Studies attest to the longstanding practice of marketing researchers and
professionals using crude stereotypes of social status to make predictions of spending behavior
(Coleman, 1983; Dodd et al., 2000). It logically follows that other consumers would use the
quality, aesthetic, and brand status of material possessions, especially clothing or automobiles
24
,

24
Lefebvre (1984) classified the automobile as the quintessential status symbol as a result of its high proportional economic expense and the
diversity of available brands, styles and price ranges used to display that expense as an indicator of wealth. Beyond these factors and the
ubiquity derived from its utilitarian necessity (meaning most people need one), the automobile retains a high degree of conspicuousness as a
result of its size, mobility, surface reflectivity, noise level, and overt branding—including prominently positioned fixed emblems, and trademark
design motifs. However, collectively, clothing may be more significant as a status symbol than the automobile because despite its higher cost
(meaning lower accessibility to non-target consumers), greater durability, and conspicuousness, the automobile is limited to the street in terms
of its range of mobility, and to licensed adults in terms of its consumer base; whereas all people wear clothing, for greater periods of time during
the day, with closer degrees of interpersonal interaction, in a greater number of locations. Moreover the pace of the fashion cycle produces a

53
in their schematic evaluations of passersby because these material assets insinuate an assertion
of financial status (Eastman et al., 1999; Rivera, 2010; Eastman & Eastman, 2011). That status
is in many cases implied as a direct consequence of estimated cost and in other ways as an
effect of brand narrative (Eastman & Eastman, 1999; Bearden & Etzel, 1982; O’Cass &
McEwen, 2004). While theorists have scrutinized the distinction of taste between social classes
in music, art and the intimate trappings of domestic life (Coleman, 1983; Fussell, 1983;
Bourdieu, 1984; Lefebvre, 1984), marketers have highlighted class and income level as key
components of lifestyle stereotypes including consumption habits, which are used to inform the
communication of different hedonic, utilitarian, and symbolic product values (Bearden & Etzel,
1982; Coleman, 1983; Eastman et al., 1999; Dodd et al. 2000; Gardyn, 2002; O’Cass &
McEwen, 2004; Piacentini & Mailer, 2004; Silverstein, et al., 2008; Truong et al., 2008;
Eastman & Eastman, 2011). With T-shirts, particularly in the current market, there is a conflict
that arises with discrepancies between material value of the product, the symbolic value of the
design, the symbolic value of the brand, and the market retail value
25
.
The literature has marked the distinction between the unique but related constructs of
conspicuous consumption—which involves the overt use of symbolic expression (of any
variety) through product use—and status consumption—which designates the consumption of
goods for the purpose of augmenting prestige in the perception of others as a result of apparent
economic wealth (O’Cass & McEwen, 2004; Eastman & Eastman, 2011). Studies note that
price does not fully account for brand status and desirability on its own (Han et al., 2010;
Eastman and Eastman, 2011). Eastman & Eastman (2011) cite macro economic conditions as an
influence on status consumption and attitudes towards the luxury segment. Research has

constant pressure to update clothing styles in order to effectively assert high status and garner public esteem. The rate and ease of replacement
for clothing outstrip that of the automobile by far.
25
Market retail value is also associatively implied through the market retail value of the entire principle brand collection in the luxury and
masstige sectors.

54
informed us that status consumption can be both conspicuous—being motivated by self-
monitoring and interpersonal influences—or private—being driven by internal needs for
satisfaction of self-verification, self-enhancement, materialism, and hedonic goals (Bearden &
Etzel, 1983; O’Cass & McEwen, 2004). For example, in the summer of 2013 French fashion
house A.P.C. collaborated with music icon and pop cultural tastemaker, Kanye West, to produce
a collection of active wear basics—notoriously including a plain, white, inconspicuously
labeled, unembellished T-shirt priced at $120—which sold out within minutes sending
shockwaves through the fashion world (Taylor, 2013).
The uncertainty of consumer choice is in many ways an effect of the malleability of
culture and consequentially lifestyle (Dodd et al., 2000). As the product of constant social
interaction, culture is responsible for the meaning retained within the codes of information
signified during the communication process (Hall, 1980). Lifestyles can easily be understood as
the apparent impression made by the pursuit of utilitarian and hedonic needs and the expression
of values and cultural forms derived from learned acquisition or aspirational appropriation.
These activities can be driven by both self-determined goals and social pressure (Richins,
1994a; 1994b). Moreover, culture exists as a result of collective understanding of values and
meaning and the individual has the freedom to selectively assimilate the self with-, alter-, or
deviate from the culture of any number of groups within the society at any given time
(Goffman, 1956; Brewer, 1991; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Stets & Harrod, 2004). The effective
decoding of communications, lifestyle or otherwise, is not granted as an automatic effect of a
natural process (Gross, 1973; Hall, 1980; Wren-Lewis, 1983). For example, Davis (1956) used
the Guttman scale to measure the unidimensionality of consumption-based status perception by
having housewives order images of living rooms according to the ‘social standing’ of the

55
undisclosed owners. However, some foreign-born participants stated that they were not yet
familiar with the U.S. status system and could not rank the images. It is precisely because an
observer must have acquired a symbolic competence (Gross, 1973) for interpreting a given code
being communicated, that brands serve as the quintessential mediators between social identity,
social comparison and the conspicuous consumption of consumer goods (Dodd et al., 2000;
Eastman & Eastman, 2011); hence, the rise of the concept of lifestyle branding.
Media have also played a tremendous role in the prominence of status consumption with
the rise of niche television, online, and mobile-based entertainment catering to specific
lifestyles. Goldman et al., 2012 assert that media is a premier source of influence in the
materialistic tendencies found in consumers and the state of the modern consumer culture at
large. Of particular note has been the rise of celebrity culture-, and luxury lifestyle-driven
content, which aims to stimulate the audience’s sense of narcissism and secure their viewership
with the far-fetched fantasy of attaining fame and fortune. Beyond these luring tactics, this
content has given the general public an unprecedented degree of exposure to prestige brands and
a superficial understanding of the functional and aesthetic quality, which those brands offer as
their value propositions—educating the masses on the inner workings of high-class lifestyles
that were once the exclusive knowledge of the über-wealthy and their servants.
26
Ewen (1976)

26
As a result of communication advances and the plethora of lifestyles content being produced, middle-, and working-class consumers now
indulge in the nuance of gourmet cooking techniques, have legitimate ambitions to visit Bora Bora and the south of France, they know the
names, faces and Twitter handles of business persons working behind the scenes of innumerable high-profile industries from tech to film to
fashion. They have been thoroughly familiarized with the many accouterments of upscale life from Amex Centurion cards to Krug, Veuve
Clicqout, and Louis Roederer champagnes, as well as the styles and collections of haute couture fashion houses from Bottega Veneta and
Hermes to Balenciaga (Francis, 2001). None of this was common knowledge during the previous era of consumer culture. Not only have the
details of elite lifestyles been revealed to outside social groups, in many cases these groups have become non-traditional consumers of those
lifestyle components in aspirational pursuit of their branded value propositions (Fan, 2000; Gardyn, 2002; Meyers, 2004; Truong et al., 2008)—
drinking top shelf champagne at trendy bottle service night clubs, communicating with the elite via social networking, preparing meals with
truffle oil and exotic ingredients, installing marble countertops and stainless steal appliances in the plush, ivory interiors of their provincial
suburban McMansions (Akira & Ossei–Mensah, 2014), and not least of all buying toiletries, minor accessories and T-shirts from the collections
of couture designers and their mass prestige diffusion lines. Few institutions uphold the class-based discrimination of earlier eras with the
exception of exclusionary clubs, some cost-prohibitive retailers and service venues, and employers
*
.
*
Employers are especially of noteworthy mention here because Bloomberg BusinessWeek (2014) cites a study conducted by Equilar, which
found a correlation of (R
2
= 0.01) between CEO compensation and performance. As the essential gatekeepers of life quality for the majority of
Americans—to say nothing of luxury life—large corporations have increased executive compensation by around 725% over the last 30 years

56
asserts that marketers use the psychological insecurities of social inadequacy to coerce
consumers into purchasing their products. In the current market this implies that in many cases,
because consumers cannot afford luxury vehicles such as Lamborghinis and Rolls-Royces, they
are likely to aspire towards ownership of more affordable conspicuous luxuries such as branded
clothing and accessories in order to reconcile these insecurities with material reality (Gardyn,
2002; Fan, 2000; Eastman, Goldsmith & Flynn, 1999; Truong, 2008 Han et al., 2010; Eastman
& Eastman, 2011). This process of personal identity signaling with brand identity is semiotic at
its core, and it is completely dependent on the common understanding of symbolic meanings. In
any society there are innumerable factors leading to the hierarchical division of culture starting
with the culture of the society at large, narrowing all the way down to the individual’s choice
modes of cultural expression. This hierarchy is not uniformly distributed nor is it stable, but it
can be loosely assumed that each sub-cultural tier leading to the individual’s self-expression and
lifestyle choices is derivative of the culture of the society as a whole as well as all sub-cultural
branches that lead from the society to their own social niches. Niche marketing is one of the
most lucrative forms of consumer targeting (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005).
During previous eras there were rigid lines of expectations in consumption habits, but
since that time marketing has done a more efficient job at catering to lifestyle aspirations
beyond the limitations of one’s inherent socioeconomic disposition (Eastman, Goldsmith &
Flynn, 1999; Gardyn, 2002; Meyers, 2004; Truong et al., 2008). Corneo & Jeanne (1998) cite

while worker pay has risen merely 5.7% as corporate profits have skyrocketed (Mishel & Sabadish, 2012; Bebchuk & Grinstein, 2005). Because
executive compensation does not correlate with performance and hiring practices have been demonstrated to be largely dependent on closed
kinship and interpersonal networks (Davis, 2003; Khatri, Tsang & Begley, 2006), employers across the United States can, to a significant
degree, be said to be engaged in a large-scale systemic policy of institutional class-, and kinship-discrimination from high social status and true
access to luxury lifestyles. The leaders of American institutions not only occupy the same social class milieu and exhibit similar lifestyles—
including consumption behaviors—they also primarily share the same identity profiles, social origins, educations, and backgrounds. Other high-
profile occupations offering super-premium compensation such as entertainment, arts, and even government have been equally demonstrated to
be plagued by practices of cronyism and nepotism rather than competitive meritocracy for senior management—and in many cases entry-
level—positions.

57
the pursuit of private social goods such as valued esteem, congenial interpersonal interaction,
and an internal sense of social desirability garnered from others as keys to self-esteem, which
motivate status consumption behavior. Studies also note the role of counterfeits as a legitimate
form of internal and external validation for many genuine luxury consumers, especially when
they are value conscious (Eastman & Eastman, 2011; Phau & Cheng, 2009). Husic and Cicic
(2009) found a “snob effect” in association with high brand patronage. In a study conducted by
Han, Nunes and Drèze (2010) the authors find evidence for a proposed system of classification
for consumers and the conspicuousness of brand labeling in products, which they refer to as
‘brand prominence’. Their findings argue that established wealthy consumers are only
concerned with engaging in luxury consumption which is inconspicuous and that subtly signals
status to members of their own group, while Nouveau riche consumers engage in highly
conspicuous status consumption to avoid misidentification with lower status groups (Han,
Nunes & Drèze, 2010). Meanwhile, low status consumers purchase highly conspicuous luxury
goods in an attempt to augment their social status, while some consumers, of any given status,
do not engage in status signaling through conspicuous consumption whatsoever. Likewise,
Alexander (1972) proposed that status perception of an external group is dependent on the status
of the perceiver within the system of observation as well as the status the perceiver assumes for
their self and the status to which they aspire. Holt (1998) also asserts that despite the propensity
for highly flexible consumption patterns across socioeconomic demographics in postmodern
consumer societies, consumption remains robust as a component in the structuring of class
divisions.
Packard (1957) defined status seekers as individuals undergoing a constant attempt to
maintain an appearance, which demonstrates prestige. Fan & Burton (2002) found that the

58
perception of status goods is subject to vary according to demographic factors including age,
gender, race, marital status, family size, occupation status and income. They studied status
consumption from the perspective of personal finance management as a means of preventing
debt accumulation, asserting that it is common for consumers to spend beyond their means in
the pursuit of status by adopting and emulating aspirational reference groups whose purchasing
power extends beyond their reach. Fan (2000) notes that consumers with financial debt spend a
greater share of their expenditures on status goods than do consumers without debt. The same
study also revealed that debt bearing consumers spend more on apparel, alcohol, and eating out,
indicating that status seeking is not merely a consumption behavior process per se, but a
lifestyle. Research has shown increased willingness to pay as a defense mechanism against
salient threats activated along racially imposed hierarchies (Ivanic, Overbeck & Nunes, 2011).
Christopher, Sasane, Troisi & Park (2007) found that the defensive self-presentational tactic of
self-handicapping serves as a common mediator between materialism and life satisfaction.
Meanwhile, Kim and Zhang (2014) established a positive correlation between consumers with
acceptance and expectations of power disparity within the society and preference for status
brands. This effect was found to increase as self-worth state became lower.
If purchasing choices are informed through internal, group, and social drives reflective
of a particular culture then it is logical that, as the gatekeepers of mass media, large corporate
entities maintaining portfolios of consumer brands would have a substantial influence in
determining the meaning of the codes symbolized in the products they produce. Though that
meaning is largely formulated in a perpetual, mutualistic (though not necessarily balanced)
negotiation between brands and society, brands decide the meanings of the codes signaled

59
within their products, but society ultimately determines how that code is interpreted (Eastman &
Eastman, 2011).
Identity signaling is not a concept unique to the individual and group, but can also be
engaged on a social level by organizations, which stand as identifiable entities unique to the
individual or combined identities of their constituents. Organizations have played a pivotal role
in the evolution of modern society, particularly in fashion. In recent times they have occupied a
unique space as identity components for stakeholders both internal and external. Organizations
represent somewhat of an anomaly as constructs within the realm of social identity, because
they are neither individuals nor are they groups.
27
Rather they are a form of institution, which at
times behave like individuals and at other times behave like groups.
28
This point requires further
consideration in order to give a closer examination of the nature of identity as it relates to
corporate organizations and brands.
Organizational Identity
To begin, the corporation is an organization. An organization can be loosely defined as a
structure through which individuals arrange themselves systematically to conduct activities on
behalf of their shared or mutual interests. The concept of identity is used by organizations

27
Through judicial precedent in the United States, corporations have obtained the recognition of legal status as persons (Trustees of Dartmouth
College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819); First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 75 (1978); Albert & Whetten, 1985; Bakan,
2004). However, these rulings are highly suspect, and the classification of a corporation as such somewhat undermines the notion of humanity
for the simple fact that human beings require food, rest and companionship. When they commit crimes they are imprisoned, and when they die
they are no more. None of this is true for corporations. Though these court rulings have had detrimental consequences for American society, the
point here is to discuss the social significance of consumer brands, which belong to corporations, as they have embraced this concept of
personhood and utilized it as a mechanism for building relationships with real human beings—namely consumers (Podnar & Melewar, 2010).
28
One may note that traditional institutions and superstructures such as the family, military, government, or church, are somewhat different than
corporations in their composition because they are necessarily dependent on more substantial relationships than are required to compose a
corporation. To illustrate, just as a church has its priesthood and followers and a military has its officers and soldiers, a corporation has its
employees and shareholders. However the covenant the corporation offers its constituents is mediated by monetary value, and requires this
value to maintain the fundamental integrity of its relationships. Without a building or an offering a church can hold communion and remain a
church with its following by dent of its faith and spiritual convictions. A military can also maintain an infantry (though not necessarily a
successful one) in the absence of all resources as long its soldiers are willing to fight. Whether seeking to conquer or protect, a militia might be
composed of ordinary citizens bound by the common ambition of violence for the sake of victory. Without finances a corporation cannot sustain
itself as a legitimate business entity with real stakeholders and business relationships. However, a corporation can acquire the legal sanction of
its institutional designation in the absence of all these, for example, as a dummy corporation. By contrast there can be no dummy church or
dummy military that the state or society will recognize. Even if there were, they could have no qualitative value as such because their existence
would lack the substance necessary to save souls, influence moral codes of behavior, or engage an armed conflict. The dummy corporation, on
the other hand, can have zero assets, pay zero dividends, and have a zero balance on its books with no more than one employee (note: there can
be no church or military of one individual) who makes zero income, and the corporation can still generate revenue, which is the sole purpose of
its existence and the only covenant it can ever guarantee its constituents so long as it is a corporation.

60
themselves as an introspective mechanism in assessing internal status relative to external
circumstances for strategic purposes (Albert & Whetten, 1985). Organizational identity is also a
concept, which is used by external stakeholders, particularly theorists, to contextualize the
organization and its activities with relation to other components of society (Albert & Whetten,
1985). Both perspectives are essential to an understanding of these entities and the effects they
have on the lives of individuals and society more generally.
From the organizational perspective the mission statement has been observed as the
philosophical core of all other categorical functioning. The mission statement is a declaration
that is issued by an organization’s senior management, which articulates its reason for
existence, its central characteristics (i.e. goals, strategy, positioning), its distinctiveness from
other organizations and explanations of its temporal continuity (Simões, Dibb & Fisk, 2005;
Balmer & Gray, 2003; Albert & Whetten, 1985; Prati, McMillan-Capehart & Karriker, 2009).
One primary function of this statement is to internally provide members with a sense of identity
regarding their membership (Kuhn & Nelson, 2002; Balmer, 2008). It allows them to construct
meanings defining their positions within the organizational environment (Balmer, 2001; 2008;
Kuhn & Nelson, 2002). The logic of this is that it establishes a common ideological paradigm
against which all members may gauge their activities pursuant to the organizations goals, thus
creating a synergy between functional and departmental sub-cultures while allowing those
departments to maximize their unique potential within a set of optimal boundaries. This eases
the task of global management, facilitates efficiency of the organizations performance, and
regulates external presentation of the organization’s identity (Price & Gioia, 2008; Gioia,
Schultz & Corley, 2000; Albert & Whetten, 1985; Simões et al., 2005). The second primary
function of the mission statement is to provide external stakeholders with a conceptual

61
idealization of how the organization identifies itself and a guideline for how it should be
identified by them (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Balmer, 2001). This notion ties in with the
theoretical perspective of organizational identity.
From the theoretical perspective, qualitative analysis of strategic operations, structural
disposition, communication practices, and cultural norms and values has been the central means
for assessing organizational identity (Balmer, 2001). Similar to employees (who are internal
stakeholders), the mission statement also allows external stakeholders to construct identities,
according to the organizations established parameters, regarding their relationship to the
organization and its activities. These identities provide many functions for the individual
regarding their social existence, particularly in terms of being identified by-, and forging
relationships with other individuals, groups, and organizations (Cornelissen, Haslam & Balmer,
2007; Podnar & Melewar, 2010). One primary goal for organizational theorists has been to
assess the identity of an organization based upon empirical evaluation regardless of internalized
constructions of identity, so that the two may be compared (i.e. what they say vs. what they do).
It is important here to note that an organization can say anything it desires with regard to its
identity; however it can ultimately be identified externally by the merits of its actions, mission
statements notwithstanding (Price & Gioia, 2008). However, through the constructive
manipulation of media and public relations an organization may easily avoid being identified
with its actual practices in lieu of its externally signified identity (Gioia et al., 2000).
29
Under
this consideration, theorists have a valid incentive for wanting to identify an organization’s

29
For example, some philanthropic organizations signify their identity as being designated to humanitarian causes, yet operate primarily as
exclusive event organizers for hosts of wealthy patrons, holding high cost dinners in the name of worthy causes (e.g. $250 to $50,000 per plate).
In most cases up to 86% of this donation is tax deductible. Furthermore 95% of these donations may typically (by law) be spent on operational
overhead, compensation for management, staff, and consulting contractors, and otherwise maintaining the organization for the sake of its own
existence as a planner of exclusive fundraising events in the future, rather than the alleged cause.

62
legitimate function in contrast to its symbolic form. The combination of these two components
has a profound impact on society, which is greater than either individually.
Organization is the quintessential feature of human civilization especially in modern society. To
be specific, individual humans in the wild organized into families and bands of hunters and
gatherers, which then organized into nomadic and then sedentary tribes, which then continued
to achieve more and more complex levels of organization as villages, towns, cities, states, and
nations with organized governments, militaries, industries and alliances. The practice of
organization has driven not only human society, but the fate of the world since the dawn of
civilization. In particular, one certain type of organization has had substantial and ever-
increasing influence on the direction of that fate—the corporation.
Corporate Identity
A corporation is an organization, which is formed for the purpose of conducting
business (especially commerce in terms of this study), and has been granted a charter by state
instituted authority, which recognizes the entity as legally having rights, privileges and
liabilities apart from those of its organizers. Corporations differ from other forms of
organizations in that they operate under a legal mandate to pursue profits at all other costs
(Bakan, 2004). To be clear, corporate identity is a sub-type of organizational identity. That is to
say that all corporate identity constitutes some form of organizational identity, but not vice
versa. Studies have suggested that as subjects of scholastic inquiry the two areas have differed
primarily in that organizational identity has tended to focus on worker employees and been
more theoretical, while corporate identity has concentrated more on upper level management
issues, and has been more practically oriented (Balmer, 2008). There are three primary lenses,
which are used to define the concept of corporate identity. These consist of: functionalist,

63
interpretive and post-modern perspectives (Balmer, 2001). The functionalist lens (which shall
be employed here) concerns measuring and assessing business identity for description (Balmer,
2001). By contrast, the interpretive lens focuses on the construction of organizational meaning
by employee stakeholders in the corporation (Balmer, 2001). Finally, the post-modern lens
focuses on the nature of power dynamics in the social arena regarding the corporate identity.
Corporate identity has been classified under several divergent yet important theoretical models,
some of which will be discussed presently.
The corporate identity concept was originally developed from organizational analysis
under a graphic design paradigm, which is largely responsible for its current emphasis on senior
management agendas (van Reil & Balmer, 1997; Albert & Whetten, 1985; Balmer, 2008). This
model dealt primarily with a form of symbolic corporate branding which is closer to what
would now be called corporate visual identity. It focuses on logos, typefaces and color schemes
to be issued on corporate stationary, business cards, product packaging, supply trucks,
advertisements, office doors, floor rugs and lobby walls, etc. in an effort to produce a highly
contrived visual experience selected from a rich portfolio of carefully controlled aesthetic
resources (Bartholmé & Melewar, 2011). One of the most effective uses of this paradigm has
been suggested to be its use as a mediator of change in corporate strategy, communication, and
culture, and to accommodate changes in fashion (Balmer, 2008; van den Bosch, de Jong &
Elving, 2005). That is to say, when a company seeks to change its strategy or the internal
culture of its work environment, it may signify these changes by issuing new designs for its
corporate logo, in order to provide material gravity to the transitions. In a study by van den
Bosch et al. (2005), the authors make a compelling argument for the ability of corporate visual
identity to deter threats to corporate reputation through the use of a well-managed visual

64
portfolio, especially at times of transition, such as mergers and takeovers. Albert & Whetten
(1985) also suggest the same. Bartholmé & Melewar (2011) proposed a remodeling of the
corporate visual identity construct with emphasis on a greater diversity of physical sensory
perception including hearing, touch, taste, and smell.
Focusing on the value of internal stakeholders to the total corporate identity, theorists
developed the integrated communication paradigm (Van Reil & Balmer, 1997). This model
deals with employee activity, communication, and symbolism. Its logic is that, the way in which
information is effectively communicated, constructs are symbolized, and employees respond to
that communication and symbolism, is a strong point of identity distinction for a corporation
(Kuhn & Nelson, 2002; Balmer & Greyser, 2006). These factors affect the way a company’s
internal operations are perceived by an observer, and are likewise thought to have effects on the
perception of its externalized identity (e.g. image, performance, etc.) in the market. Bréda,
Delattre and Ocler, (2008) discuss the discursive nature of language practices in the work
environment and the role of individual or brand/corporate stories told at the organizational level.
Many valuable implications can be made using this paradigm.
The interdisciplinary paradigm of corporate identity concentrates on communication,
symbolism and activity with both internal and external stakeholders (Van Reil & Balmer, 1997).
This treatment of identity addresses the notion that all stakeholders influence the perception of a
corporation, if not by the quality of their own identities, then by the ability of their identity to
have an effect on the strategic nature of these factors (communication, symbolism and activity)
as well as how a corporation chooses to interact with its stakeholders, competitors and the
market at large. This paradigm has been heavily employed due to the obvious advantages of its
consideration of the composite internal and external factors involved in the construction of

65
identity when outlining what some refer to as the “corporate identity mix” (Van Reil & Balmer,
1997; Balmer, 2001; 2008; Melewar & Jenkins, 2002; Kuhn & Nelson, 2002; Simões et al.,
2005; Karaosmanoglu & Melewar, 2006; Money, Rose & Hillenbrnad, 2010; Suvatjis,
Chernatony & Halikalis, 2012;). The corporate identity literature is rife with epistemological
discrepancies. Most of the problems face the same challenges as other social science research—
namely that scholars have attempted to delineate clear cut lines of distinction between concepts
where there are no lines to be had. Nevertheless, there is an abundance of valuable theory that
has been developed in the field. Melewar and Karaosmanoglu (2006) defined seven dimensions
of corporate identity as
1
strategy,
2
industry identity,
3
structure,
4
behavior,
5
culture,
6
design, and
7
communication. In a slight shift Suvatjis, Chernatony & Halikalis (2012) developed a
polymorphic six-station model of corporate identity which lists
1
management,
2
strategy,
3
visual
creativity,
4
communication,
5
human resources, and
6
image/reputation, each having interaction
with shared projected culture, all of which is proposed to exist in a relationship of bidirectional
influence with external environmental forces. Image has to do with the external framework
through which a corporation is viewed and the impression that it provides (Christensen &
Askegaard, 2001; Karaosmanoglu & Melewar, 2006). Reputation applies this concept to the
foresight of stakeholders in an effort to suggest what can be expected of a corporation with
regards to its activities and performance (Melewar& Karaosmanoglu, 2006; Handelman, 2006;
Balmer, 2008; 2012Highhouse, Brooks & Gregarus, 2009; Oliver, Statler & Roos, 2010; Money
et al., 2010; ; Suvatjis, Chernatony & Halikalis,). This includes the engagement of initiatives
for social responsibility
30
and the careful control of expectations and recollections regarding the

30
Bakan (2004) has challenged the notion of ethics by arguing that corporations, by legal mandate engage in campaigns of social responsibility
only in so far as the benefits of obtaining such a reputation is proven financially profitable. On the contrary Drucker (1954) argues—
— “A company's primary responsibility is to serve its customers. Profit is not the primary goal, but rather an essential condition for the
company's continued existence.”

66
corporation through impression management (Handelman, 2006; Oliver, Statler & Roos, 2010;
Highhouse, Brooks & Gragarus, 2009). Stuart (1999) proposes the corporate identity/image
interface as the moment at which the internal culture, communications and strategies of a firm
are substantiated in the external material world. In another study He (2008) uses grounded
theory to conduct a case study to expose the operation of the corporate identity/strategy
interface, arguing the importance of this integrated construct, which he describes as the nexus
where ideological and instrumental strategies align with the identity signaling process. While
that strategy may need alignment with the general ethos of the organization, it must also be
flexible enough to adjust to rapid market transitions (Leitch & Motion, 1999; Gioia et al., 2000;
Jenkins et al., 2013). While much emphasis has been place on the role of visual identity in this
flexibility, Quesinberry (2005) argues for the malleability of organizations through the
employment of symbolic persona. One of the most important means through which this persona
is contrived is through the creation of brand identities. Aaker (1997) developed analogous
assessment of the Big-Five human personality traits for consumer brands consisting of measures
for sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. The use of personality as
a framework of brand identity has had a substantial impact on our understanding of
organizational communication.
Brand Identity
Brand identities are corporate and product identities which serve as resources for the
procurement of competitive advantage (Porter, 1998)
31
. In order to be effective the advantage

That Drucker was firmly misguided as to the self-interested nature of human undertakings is a gross overstatement. Bakan (2004) argues that the
corporation is inherently anti-social as a direct function of its legal mandate to pursue profits by all means. However, Bakan (2004) also
oversimplifies the irresponsibility of the individual beholden to their corporate position. That the legal mandate to operate in the interest of the
corporation with callas disregard for the well-being of all other entities is sufficient evidence to defend the reprehensible actions of the corporate
elite is an equally naïve sentiment. For the very fact that these individuals regularly act in favor of the self to the detriment of the actual
corporation (e.g. Bernie Madoff, Kenneth Lay, etc.) is plain evidence of Bakan’s logical misread.
31
Brands originated from the practice of, literally, burning one’s insignia into the hide of livestock with a hot metal stamp as an identifying
marker of ownership and eventually quality through a process known as ‘branding’ (Traflet, 2009; Arvidsson, 2011).

67
provided must be rare, durable, inappropriable, imperfectly imitable, and imperfectly
substitutable (Balmer & Gray, 2003). The distinction between corporate and product or service
brands has been articulated by both de Chernatony (2002) and Balmer (2001) who argue that
the former appeals to a diversity of stakeholders and is meant to symbolize the gestalt of the
corporate identity mix, the corporate legacy and all its achievement, while the latter implies all
of these as a subtext but primarily addresses the market and the consumer, and explicitly
denotes the symbolic qualities which are to be found in the product or service as an extension of
this broader identity framework. Muzellec and Lambkin (2009) offer that corporations choose
between strategies of integration, whereby corporate and product brands are aligned, or
separation strategies, wherein the stakeholders and identities of the corporation and its products
might be disjointed, or a mix between the two. Both brand identities are essential, however
given the prior discussion of corporate identity in general above, the focus here shall be
consumer brand identities (i.e. product/service).
The key function of consumer brands is to offer consumers a value proposition wherein
there is a standard as to the functional, symbolic or experiential qualities constituted within the
product (Park et al., 1986). Brands offer certainty where the consumption process might
otherwise be blind. However, more importantly for this study, they offer information with
regard to the identity of consumers (Davis, 1956; Coleman, 1983; Park et al., 1986; Corneo &
Jeanne, 1998; Dodd et al. 2000; Gardyn, 2002; Meyers, 2004; Berger & Heath, 2007; Truong et
al. 2008; Husic & Cicic, 2009; Han et al., 2010; Eastman & Eastman, 2011). For the corporation
or product line, the brand takes on the properties of the persona (Quesinberry, 2005) and in
many ways garners qualities of an anthropomorphic nature (Podnar & Melewar, 2010) with

68
which consumers can form ambivalent social bonds. The consumer brand-relationship has been
thoroughly scrutinized in the social psychology, consumer behavior, and marketing literature.
Commercial brands capitalize on the preferences of consumer audiences in one of
several ways: 1. They align their brand image with the extant values of a specific group or
culture to which the target audience belongs or desires to belong to 2. They define their brand
image based upon a new value system which they have constructed through the evolution of
existing value systems, by modifying past or current systems in-tact, or by reconfiguring and
merging the components drawn from disparate systems past or present 3. They create re-
enactments of outmoded value systems from the past or 4. They construct a new system of
values, which is essentially original, sharing few features with any system prior and
demonstrating innovative modes of expression and interpretation. Research has shown that in
extreme incidences, consumers are subject to form obsessions, addictions, and develop cult-like
behavior towards a brand (Cruikshank, 2006). However, it is ordinary for consumers to develop
strong emotional attachments to brands (Fournier, 1998), incorporating elements of the brand
personality into the self-concept (Arvidsson, 2011). Park et al. (1986) refer to the assimilation
of brand values into the value-expressive components of a consumer’s identity as ‘image
bundling’.
Through the use of corporate visual identity consumers of conspicuously labeled
products carry all of the meaning that is imbedded in a brand’s symbolism with them as part of
their own identities. Corporate strategy dictates marketing strategy, which dictates brand
strategy, which dictates brand positioning, which determines when and where in the market the
brand is able to exploit its competitive advantage; who will be its target consumers; how they
are to interpret the brand and what their aspirations should be through the consumption process

69
(Park et al., 1986; Balmer & Gray, 2003). The emphasis on strategy here is not to be taken
lightly.
Critical to this point, under the functionalist lens of corporate identity, within the
interdisciplinary paradigm, is the notion that in consumer markets strategy involves not only
extensive knowledge of the industry, but a thorough understanding of the plethora of societal
factors which have an influence on that industry. Commercial consumption is highly sensory
process, with a significant emphasis on the visual (as explained under the corporate identity
paradigms) (van Reims & Balmer, 1997; Bartholmé & Melewar, 2011; van den Bosch et al.,
2005). Under this logic one might argue that it is essential for brand marketers to have an
extensive knowledge of visual trends as they pertain to one’s own market and to any other
major symbolic market, moreover, a historic repertoire of visual trends in consumer culture in
general. Beyond this, a brand manager should seek to establish a firm grip on the linguistic
discourse past and present, of the market in question (Bréda et al., 2008; Christensen &
Askegaard, 2001). This semiotic approach to market dynamics will provide the skilled marketer
with a deep rooted acumen for the forces which impact the market from all angles, and the
effects they have on its assigned symbolism.
32

Brand Identity and Consumer Identity
The prevailing interpretations of brand identity—specifically concerning social
transitions and the shifting of tastes or ‘fashion’ with regard to consumer perception—are
largely taken as if it is at the complete disposal of the successful execution of corporate strategy,

32
One might note that the visual dimension offers little functional support for brands with non-symbolic images. For example, mobile phone
service is a product, which is relatively difficult to differentiate, and therefore the nuance of factors delineating corporate identity is largely
insignificant in this market with regard to consumers. Phone companies in turn rely on the manipulation of other features such as the selection of
mobile devices available on their networks and service deals rather than the actual qualities of the services rendered. That is to say that the
visual identity produces little effect in terms of universal desirability in the minds of modern consumers for firms like AT&T when compared to
competitors such as T-Mobile or Verizon. The mobile service market is a passive business. With regard to actual phone service the goal is to
meet, for the consumer, a certain standard defined by a lack of negative experience rather than a particularly positive one. Differentiation of
sales strategy in the U.S. mobile market has mostly produced an industry wide circle of equal disparity, where every carrier offers something in
their service plans that other carriers fail to offer, but lacks something that all others have.

70
more specifically, brand strategy. The intangible factors of reality render corporate strategy
dependent on the climate of the social culture (Dodd et al., 2000; De Long, 2005; Wilson, 2005;
Coleman, 1983). While the literature mentions this in passing, even qualitative analyses of
organizational-, corporate-, and brand identity fail to give cultural climate proper emphasis.
Studies discuss history and context but neglect the significance of a comprehensive assessment
of an industry and its cognate markets in real-time. An organization, within its confines, is fully
capable of sustaining a subculture independent of external subcultures found within society at
large (Albert & Whetten, 1985). However, research has tended to emphasize the internal
function of corporate culture while dismissing the fact that the employees leave work every day,
and become consumers and part of the social climate which dictates how they react and are
receptive to the strategic culture of the workplace, the firm, and its identity, which are essential
to the social function of brands.
Brand identity is a very complex phenomenon. Brands are not today what they were
yesterday, nor were they yesterday what they were in the distant past (Gioia et al., 2000). The
evolution of modernity has had extensive effects on the nature of the brand as a social construct.
Innumerable factors contribute to the establishment of a brand’s perceptual image in the real
market beyond those under the control of the corporate agenda (Balmer, 2001; 2008; van den
Bosch, de Jong & Elving, 2005). More directly, it is the job of internal stakeholders including
management, and legal professionals, but especially marketers, to construct brand identities and
dispatch them into the market in a way that is strategic such that the corporation may retain the
greatest degree of control possible (Stuart, 1999; He, 2008; Balmer, 2001; Van Reil & Balmer,
1997). Highly efficient corporations with strong organizational culture, well-integrated

71
communication structures and finely aligned business directives will have the greatest success
in this task.
One of the major challenges of the attempt to maximize brand control is the internal
departmental discrepancy that tends to exist between the separate agendas of financiers and
creatives. Bakan (2004) has issued a resounding conviction of the relentless pursuit of business
initiatives in the name of the corporate mandate. Though his argument was focused on the social
corruption of corporate organizations, its message is suiting here nonetheless. This mandate is a
part of every corporate mission statement, which is taken for granted and need not be
articulated, because it is written in the law of the charter issued by the state. The ‘profits first’
model sets an undertone for publicly traded companies that pay out dividends to shareholders,
which results in a markedly different corporate identity than what we find in private companies
and companies that offer no dividends (Arvidsson, 2011; Money et al., 2010). This has the
potential of restricting creative energy, limiting healthy risk-taking, as well as stifling the
strategic evolution of a firm, its departments, its personnel, and its culture (Simões et al., 2005;
Money et al., 2010).
Many consumer goods bear brand identities that are highly symbolic in terms of the
signification of traits and qualities (Cruikshank, 2006; Levy, 1959). Externally, these brands
may have an observable impact on the identity of the consumer in the perception of others
(Levy, 1959; Park et al., 1986). This is often done by transferring, to the consumer, qualities,
which have been constructed around the brand (Wilson, 1984; McCracken, 1986; Eastman et
al., 1999; Eastman & Eastman, 2011; Park et al., 1986). The effectiveness of this transferring
process is reinforced by dint of the fact that brands select target audiences to match their desired
brand image, and they establish visual paradigms through advertisements, media coverage,

72
modeling, and endorsement (Park et al., 1986). Diamond et al. (2009) speak of the importance
of brand gestalt to the influence leveraged by brands in consumer purchase decisions. Brands
construct discursive narratives for their products and services through the gestalt of market
activity that they engage in over time. Moreover, the production of brand image is achieved
through the aesthetic motifs surrounding a brand’s gestalt market presence in general, including
design features of logos, store décor, packaging, and product design. These factors have a
substantial impact on the image a brand carries, and its ability to be effectively transferred to a
given consumer.
Consumers also have internal utilitarian and hedonic drives to satisfy, such as eating
food, and eating food that tastes good, respectively. Goldman et al., (2012) state that economic
deprivation in early life causes insecurities that lead to the later tendency to overvalue material
possession as the essence of success and happiness. This raises an important point about the fact
that—most notably in the marketing and sociology literature—studies tend to be conducted, and
produce results under the assumption that it is the effectiveness of the branding strategy, the
brand relationship, and the positioning which wins the consumer over in most cases. In actuality
for many consumer products the purchasing process comes down to something as simple as
need, and familiarity, not necessarily mindless brand affinity. Mass consumer brands do not
target a specific segment of the population. Rather their target is the entire population to which
their product applies, and their aims are often to produce contagion effects, which spread
throughout the market. Their identity paradigms are all-inclusive and are based upon
idealizations of the concrete qualities of the product, and experiential consequences of their
consumption. Such experiences are constructed by marketers through the sensory properties of

73
the product and the visual narratives distributed in advertisements (Park et al., 1986; Diamond
et al., 2009) rather than the socially sanctioned symbolic prestige attributable to the brands.
One significant factor in the process of identity transferal from brand to consumer is the
baseline presentational identity of the consumer. One might assume that the more incongruent
the remainder of the consumer’s self-presentation is with the image of the brand, the less
effective the transference of qualities associated with the brand will be. Beyond this one might
also assume that the net inconsistency of total consumers with the proposed brand image weighs
against the public perception of a brand and its ability to effectively convey the qualities it
proposes. That is to say that brands influence the perceptual identity of consumers, and
consumer audiences influence the perceptual identity of brands. In the ideal world of highly
symbolic brands, consumers in the target audience would perfectly interpret and imitate the
identity paradigm which the brand has proposed for them, or at least use this paradigm as the
standard from which to develop their own derivative identity. Likewise consumers outside the
target would ideally either use the target audience as an aspirational reference group with regard
to the identity aspects under consideration, and imitate the target in an effort to be assimilated
and have the qualities proposed by the brand attributed to themselves, or they would not
consume the brand altogether but admire it in all of its self-stated glory from a distance. In
reality what occurs is, consumers interpret brand meaning according to their own unique
perspectives and that perspective is in some ways informed by the brand’s proposal and in other
ways not (Gardyn, 2002; Truong et al., 2008; Eastman & Eastman, 2011). Different consumers
have unique baseline identities, which vary in degree of distance from the target, and once these
consumers purchase a divergence ensues and the remaining public is left to interpret each
consumer’s identity with the brand, and the legitimacy of the brand’s image proposal, according

74
to the combination of all of these factors. Yet all brands are not equally symbolic, and some
symbolic brands are symbolic in ways that are different from others (Vigneron & Johnson,
2004). Furthermore, all consumers are not brand conscious and able to recognize and properly
interpret the codes being signified in different forms by different brand identities (Han et al.,
2010; Eastman & Eastman, 2011). Identity factors and brand consciousness are largely driven
by consumers’ needs for internal self-verification and enhancement, external need for
companionship, and external need for social recognition of desired identity or status (Park &
Lessig, 1977) as well as the brands’ desire to obtain profits by any and all means pursuant to
their stated business goals and the dominance of their established market position.
The conditions of the free market are in constant transition and largely intangible. In
order to produce an empirical assessment of the T-shirt as it relates to brand and consumer
identity in this volatile environment Glaser and Strauss’ (1972) grounded theory was employed
in the performance of a series of in-depth-interviews with fashion industry professionals. It was
assumed that these internal stake holders, as the arbiters and gatekeepers of the interpretation of
fashion on an industrial level, would have a unique, informed perspective on brand identity,
consumer identity, and T-shirts, which should contrast with the worldview of the common
consumer by dint of the fact that industry professionals are in many respects in the business of
constructing preferences, tastes, and an understanding of fashion in the minds of consumers.
This assumption is logical, if by no other reason than that these professionals are responsible for
the assortment of available options that might be taken into account and judged by the public
opinion. To produce a comprehensive assessment of these phenomena across the complete
spectrum of the market, these qualitative interviews were complemented by a quantitative study
involving an online experiment using self-administered surveys. These procedures were

75
intended to yield findings, which elucidate our understanding of these concepts in terms of their
popular perception.
The organizational perspective was deemed critical to the assessment of fashion and
identity because it was believed that this commentary would provide insights as to why and how
the market has evolved into its current state. Professionals of the industry must regularly make
judgments about what consumers want based upon a plethora of environmental factors that are
ultimately the product of long-term social developments. This concept of sociocultural climate
is prone to ambiguity and difficult to assess empirically. Therefore in-depth-interviews were
selected as the means of analysis in seeking to develop a composite examination of the
historical evolution of the T-shirt market through the production of a discursive narrative
concerning trends, which was drawn from the respondents. The interviewees were expected to
have consistent references to cultural nuances requiring intricate knowledge of the sociocultural
landscape on a level deemed relatively exclusive to individuals occupying professional spaces
dedicated to the analysis of these phenomena. The interviews also attempted to create a detailed
outline of the current T-shirt market by producing critical evaluations of its various segments
taken from those who are most familiar with its internal procedures and standards of operation.
Finally, a cross-section of the professionals’ thoughts and expectations about consumer
knowledge, values, beliefs, and opinions was generated in an effort to gain a overall sense of
how the market is being interpreted and why producers are exhibiting the behavior being
observed in the current environment. Though not directly cited, these interviews were heavily
supplemented by passive ethnographic observation conducted at a major global fashion industry
trade show, as well as an extensive market analysis of garments, prices and retailers conducted
both in the field and online. The underlying intention of the qualitative study was to inform the

76
quantitative analysis of the core constructs being addressed in this work—that is to say, brands,
T-shirts, and the communication of identity. The quantitative study was designed to develop
precise measurements of these constructs for detailed investigation. The combined results of
these studies were meant to introduce a significant body of developments into the existing
theories of communication; to spark dialogue in the limited area of product based identity
signaling; and to expand our consideration of how the market is influenced by stakeholders of
every orientation.

77
CHAPTER 2:
IN-DEPTH-INTERVIEWS WITH FASHION INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS
—WHAT DO THE PROS SAY?
Introduction: Organizational Perspective
In order to gain an understanding of the T-shirt market and its effects on brand and
consumer identity from an organizational perspective a qualitative study was undertaken using
in-depth-interviews with various stakeholders working as professionals in the fashion industry.
The purpose of establishing thoughts and opinions from a business viewpoint here is to provide
a valid account of the internalized interpretations of the consumer market that inform the
business practices of firms that engage in cultural production through the fashion industry for
the purpose of creating profits. One of the central focuses of this research is to provide a
detailed treatment of the branding process as it relates to everyday life in mainstream American
culture. Branding is a business communication practice, which inherently holds the average
consumer in a position of passive engagement (Balmer & Gray, 2003). Companies construct
brand identities around an ethos with core tenets that embody an explicit set of cultural values
(van Reims & Balmer, 1997). Brands tell stories to draw connections to the human condition.
They appeal to aspirations for quality, status, and aesthetics in target audiences. In this way,
brands present an image, which is an offering to the consumer of utilitarian value, hedonic value
or both (Park et al., 1986). The formulation and maintenance of a brand image is done through
highly contrived measures executed by teams of professional agents within organizations who
must assess the market and be closely attuned to the nuance of constantly changing trends,
tastes, and culture. In order to examine the process of identity signaling that occurs with
designer T-shirts it is important to evaluate this phenomenon from the perspective of the brand

78
as well as the consumer. Brands in the United States are viewed as intellectual property
protected by law (Balmer, 2001; Arvidsson, 2011). That property is usually an asset legally held
by an organization often composed of many individual stakeholders who each play an integral
part in its development and maintenance (van Reims & Balmer, 1997). Because of the complex
nature of organizational structures and the rich abundance of cultural and interpersonal factors,
which influence the decision-making process of branding strategy, it is necessary to assess the
internalized perspective of fashion producers—done here through the use of qualitative analysis.
The fashion industry, much like art, revolves around a high degree of subjectivity, which
is predicated upon intricate knowledge of the market, but is ultimately the product of excessive
gatekeeping on the behalf of key stakeholders. Because the nature of the manifold relationships
involved within this gatekeeping process may not be readily disclosed through strictly technical
assessments, it is important to draw on an extensive body of data which might offer a contextual
basis beyond that of the precise findings that would be revealed through surveying and
experimentation. The organizational perspective of the fashion industry on T-shirts is a broad
concept, which must be addressed with a sweeping assessment to capture an abundance of
details that collectively highlight the gestalt of the stakeholders, the organizational goals, and
the dynamics of a culture-based market and industry. For this reason a grounded theory
approach was taken in the use of in-depth-interviews, which were content analyzed for insights
into these highly complex phenomena.
Research Questions
By drawing this discourse from actual producers the goal was to access the relation
between brands, T-shirts and the communication of identity from an organizational perspective.
That is to say: What do the key stakeholders in organizations that produce fashion think

79
about the roles of brands and consumers in the assertion of status when considering T-
shirts?
The core of this question aims to determine how the prevailing sociocultural climate has
influenced the fashion market along the domains of brand image and consumer identity with
regards to the T-shirt. Thus, the in-depth-interviews were structured to derive responses, which
address the notions that in the constantly changing environment of the U.S. consumer market
the meanings of the symbolism which constitute the dominant code of fashion are also in
constant flux and so it is of interest do discover the following—
When consumers wear conspicuously branded designer T-shirts:
RQ 1a: How does the sociocultural climate influence the perception of a T-shirt as an
article of fashion?
RQ 1b: How does the sociocultural climate influence the perception of brand image?
RQ 1c: How does the sociocultural climate influence the perception of consumer identity?
The results of these inquiries were then used to inform the design of an online
experiment, which examined consumer perceptions of status using brand image and consumer
identity as the independent variables. The final goal was to assess the results of these combined
studies through the use of synthesis in order to make highly knowledgeable generalizations
about these phenomena as both a theoretical and practical examination of the consumer market.
Method
Sampling and Data Collection Procedures
Study 1 consisted of 30 in-depth interviews conducted by the author with a total of (N =
31) fashion industry professionals (there was one double participant interview) obtained through
a quota-snowball sampling method. The first round of samples were drawn from the author’s

80
blind solicitation to personnel attending fashion industry events and tradeshows or from the
distribution of email solicitations or phone calls made by the author or intermediary sources to
professional and personal contacts holding rank in prominent positions throughout the fashion
industry, requesting participation in the interview for this research see Appendix A. The
remaining interviews were acquired by introduction from first round interviewees through
email, phone contact or in person. Participants were primarily sought for the prominence of
their work history within the industry; with participants having experience at larger or more
influential firms receiving preference as a result of their being more difficult to secure.
Participants from smaller firms were carefully selected for inclusion based upon location (small
firms outside of New York and Los Angeles were typically avoided), depth of involvement in
creative industries, and the originality and innovativeness of the brand. A concerted effort was
made to produce a comprehensive cross-section of the industry by including participants from
small, medium, and large firms working in both design and business oriented roles, as well as
journalists working from the most culturally relevant seats of influence available.
All of the interviews were recorded within a nine-month period between August 2013
and April 2014. There were 27 interviews whose content included video footage of the
participant responses, one of which was done via remote video conferencing and three
interviews whose recordings included audio only; two of these by phone and one in person. The
participants were involved with fashion in a variety of stakeholding capacities ranging from
creative occupations to business administration.
The interviews took place in a variety of settings including participant offices,
restaurants, and scenic indoor and outdoor public spaces. Participants were emailed an
electronic copy of the script prior to the arranged interview and presented with a printed copy at

81
the start of the discussion in order to help them comprehend the questions being asked. In
following a guided script format, the interviews were all conducted in a conversational manner
and participants were invited and even encouraged to speak at length on any and all topics,
which they deemed noteworthy. While all participants were compelled to provide direct
answers to the questions in the script, the elaborate commentary produced in each interview was
subject to the unique thoughts and opinions of each respondent. However, given the structured
nature of the sessions, there was a significant degree of overlap between participants as they
were drawn to comment on similar phenomena due to the nature of the common subject matter
and their common disposition as internal stakeholders within the fashion industry
The Interview: 20 Questions About T-shirts
The interviews initiated with a set of background inquiries to contextualize the role of
each participant within the industry of fashion. This was followed by a group of questions
meant to draw responses that caused the participant to think critically about the T-shirt as it
relates to everyday life. The purpose of these inquiries was to consider the T-shirt as a material
construct of modern society across space and time and to explore its meaning and its impact on
culture and commerce through art, politics and mass communication. The ultimate goal herein
was to provide insights as to the influence that designer brand T-shirts may have on the way we
view and treat one another as human beings based upon perceptions of class, socioeconomic
status and identity.
The questions begin by asking about work experience and location followed by the
influences of geography on T-shirts. Next participants were asked to examine the T-shirt as a
social phenomenon within the framework of fashion as a culture and business. After this the T-
shirt was dissected into its key components and scrutinized before being assessed for its trends

82
and popularity in the past, present and future. These trends are of particular importance because
the participants were asked in each case to articulate the cultural influences behind them. The
logic for all of this was to gain an understanding from the producers of fashion about the T-shirt
and its role in society across various perspectives. These questions led to a series of inquiries
about brands and identity, which closed the survey out, wherein participants were asked about
different tiers of brands from luxury to mass market and the significance of the T-shirts they
produce with comparison to one another. Finally participants were asked about the value of T-
shirts to consumers and to brands in asserting social status and what roles price, trendiness, and
identity congruence played in the assertion of that status and its ability to be changed.
Again, the logic here was that by going through the cognitive motions of having thought
about the cultural significance of the T-shirt and it’s various components, which naturally led
into a discussion of trends in T-shirts across different geographic regions and throughout
different eras in time (past, present and future), then discussing the quality and significance of
different brands of T-shirts along a price-based empirical hierarchy, the participants would be
primed to more fluidly assess the role of price and trends in determining status.
Research Design
The recordings of these interviews were transcribed singlehandedly into text by the
author/interviewer. This was done to decrease the likelihood of inaccuracies and to exhaustively
familiarize the author with the content prior to its analysis. With the exception of grammatical
errors, arbitrary repetitions, self-corrected statements and excessive use of filler words such as,
“like”, “I mean” or “you know”, the interviews were transcribed verbatim from the source
materials. In the event of content modification brackets “[…]” were used to signify that the
author has taken license to incorporate new language into a statement in order to censor

83
potentially offensive statements, conceal identifying information, make statements more
comprehensible or state significant ideas which are implied but otherwise indiscernible as a
single quote outside of the context of the complete interview. Due to the exploratory nature of
this research and the broad implications for its intended findings, non-verbal communication,
such as unintentional facial expressions and hand motions or temperament were essentially
dismissed unless they were blatantly produced by the participant in an effort to supplement or
replace verbal communication.
Upon completion of the transcription the data were content analyzed twice—once using
qualitative analysis and once using quantitative analysis. Glaser and Strauss (1972) described
grounded theory as being able to conduct analysis through deduction, induction or both. For this
study both approaches were used beginning with a conceptual analysis, which was employed to
inductively assess the latent content from the interviews, followed by a deductive semantic
analysis to assess the manifest content. The qualitative analysis was conducted manually by
highlighting critical phrases and terminology that appeared thematically in participant
responses, and by making generalized assessments between polarized differences in responses
in order to maximize the treatment of latent content within the data. The quantitative analysis
was performed by placing all data directly pertinent to the answer of the proposed interview
question into a spreadsheet. For long-form answers this information was then deductively
formulated into short-phrase responses based upon linguistically derivative simplifications of
the participant responses provided. These short phrases were then further reduced into
conceptual generalizations, which could be used to group participant responses into separate
categories. Details of the responses were listed in a stand-alone column while contextual
insinuations were provided in brackets within the generalized response. These generalizations

84
were finally organized by being encoded into an online survey using Qualtrics. The survey was
built by grouping all of the similar generalizations from different participants into single
response categories whereby, in the case of long-form answers, all possible choices could be
selected with regard to the participant’s total response to the question. Although the majority of
the multiple-choice response categories listed in the survey were provided by only one
participant, there were many answers that occurred with high frequency across the participant
sample. The purpose of listing as many response categories as possible was to reveal the broad
range of responses given by the expert interviewees with greatest accuracy; to retain the
freedom to later re-group similar responses into more narrow, common categories for more
detailed analysis; and to demonstrate the outstanding distinction between those high frequency
responses and the general pool of participant responses given to many questions. To give an
example of this process the following question and response have been provided:
During the interview each participant was asked,
“What does a T-shirt signify to you as an article of fashion?”
Participant No. 21 replied:
It’s a statement of what your person really is. It’s like a 60 second commercial that
you wear that reflects your thoughts. You know people buy T-shirts that go from a smiley
face that says, “Have a nice day” to an all-over-print with all different types of elements in
it. So it’s all about your personal taste and I think that’s why people choose T-shirts, they
have to reflect something about your personality and then convey it really, really fast and
the best T-shirts do that fast. Because you only get like a split second to look at a person’s
T-shirt and then look away.

85
These statements were reduced to this series of short phrases,
1. Statement of what your person really is
2. Reflects thoughts
3. Reflects personal taste
4. Reflects personality really fast
These short phrases were then entered into the Qualtrics survey under the following
response choices for the above stated question:
1. Statement of what your person really is à Centerpiece/Statement Piece
2. Reflects thoughts à Communicates internal feelings
3. Reflects personal taste à Communicate tastes
4. Reflects personality really fast à Communicates public identity/Creates bonds
These quantitative assessments of the text transcripts were conducted in order to most
thoroughly and systematically evaluate all manifest content gathered in the interviews. The
combined efforts of the two analyses provided a rigorous examination for the purpose of
producing results, which were both rich and accurate in their findings. The data from these
analyses are presented here with synopses for each question asked, alongside both qualitative
and quantitative assessments of the responses.
The first set of questions was issued to determine key points about the identity of the
participant and their work in the fashion industry, all of which was assumed to have potential
influence on their responses. Many participants took the opportunity to elaborate upon different
responses within this group of background inquiries, resulting in multiple answers to different
questions—such as the number of years in the fashion industry, the number of years in the
current market, the different markets worked in, or names of organizations they had worked at

86
—all being disclosed in response to a single question such as “How long have you been
involved in fashion…” The participants were encouraged to disclose as much information as
possible in these instances, in which cases the questions already answered were then skipped
and the responses were later divided and re-assigned to the appropriate question for the sake of
organization. During these segments several participants also opened up discussion about the
nature of the fashion business and their general beliefs about the meaningfulness of the industry
as a cultural institution and its potential influences on everyday life. These discussions were
also invited, as the purpose of the background questions was to familiarize the participants with
the interviewing process by allowing them a conversational space to grow comfortable with the
camera, the interviewer, and the questions being asked. This in-depth-interview was designed so
that each question is meant to stimulate thought on the subject matter of successive questions.
The central idea of the background inquiry was for the respondent to think about themselves
and fashion as they relate to the world at large before further discussing effects of that industry
on society. A complete copy of the interview script can be found in see Appendix A along with
additional respondent highlights in Appendix B.
Participant Description: Background Information
Demographics
Of the 30 interviews 21were conducted with individuals based in New York City, 7 in
Los Angeles, 1 in Virginia, 1 in London, and 1 in Hong Kong See Appendix C Table 2. The
sample included 9 females and 22 males See Appendix C Table 1. Interviewees within the
sample (n
1
, n
2
, n
3
…n
31
) have been coded as Participant No.’s 1-31 in order to maintain
anonymity. The number designated to each participant was determined by the chronological
order in which the interviews were conducted.

87
Job Classification and Firm Size: Vested Interest and Involvement with T-shirts
There were two specific data points assessed in the quantitative analyses dealing with
the orientation of participant employment; namely, the professional function of their work in the
fashion industry and the size of the largest organization with which they have been affiliated in
doing that work. The term ‘vested interest’ was used in the inquiries and meant to elicit
information from the participant about their job title and operations, specifically the nature of
their work. These responses were divided into two categories labeled ‘administrative’ and
‘creative’. Administrative positions were defined here as operating in a manner designated to
contributing to the business transactions—financial, marketing or otherwise—of selling clothing
and accessories. Creative positions were defined as being directly involved with the process of
producing designs, advertisements or other artistic representations for clothing brands. Positions
held by the interviewees consisted of thirteen administrative roles and eighteen creative. There
were two fashion journalists interviewed who were also designated amongst the creatives given
that their work, as creators of discourse, is more concerned with the activity of designers than
administrators. The complete results can be found in Appendix C Tables 3 and 4.
Organizational size was taken into account on a three-tier system whereby firms with
100 or more employees were classified as ‘large’. These firms tend to have global operations
and extensive distribution. Meanwhile firms with fewer than 100 but more than 20 employees
were defined ‘medium’. These organizations have sizable but less expansive operations often
with wide-scale distribution but within a more limited network. Finally, independent
organizations operated by a single individual or small group of up to 20 were labeled as small.
Number of employees and size of operations was assessed by viewing corporate profiles on
electronic business resources where available or company web pages where this information

88
was either stated explicitly or could be insinuated by the firms’ self descriptions. In assessing
the organizational affiliations of the participants, related past employment was taken into
consideration such that an individual’s affiliation was listed according to the largest class of
largest company they had ever been employed by or professionally affiliated with at any time in
their career. This is because many of the participants were currently working as independent
agencies or freelancers but were constantly working under the commission of many firms of
different sizes. There were 17 participants who were affiliated with large organizations, 6 with
medium organizations and 8 with small firms.
In addition to providing a detailed synopsis of each interviewee, responses yielded
substantial commentary from some participants on the dynamics of popular culture, the creative
process and on fashion as a business.
The answers found that many of the participants, especially those working in creative
positions, had been involved with an extensive number of brands throughout the duration of
their careers, had often performed freelance contract work for multiple organizations, both large
and small, in many cases simultaneously. This revealed that the substantive force behind the
fashion industry (i.e. the designers) is not a stable construct, and therefore the ideas and
activities that stimulate the market, which are perceived as being the product of some signature
entity’s ethos, are in reality the product of a mercurial collective whose sense of artistic
expression is employed for the purpose of articulating the visual representation of a diverse
range of organizational identities in the form of brands. Some designers also revealed that their
creative work was very much involved with the work of marketing strategy as well. These
findings undermine the legitimacy of large commercial brands in many ways because we find
that the values, the detailed images, and the distinctive market activities associated with

89
corporate brands of different status are not only the carefully crafted illusions of business
strategists flippantly attempting to tie the superficial symbolisms of their intellectual assets to
some concrete phenomenon or storied legacy, but they are the product of an army of
mercenaries hired by active competitors to forge the material substance of those brand images in
the names of their value propositions.
Study 1: Participant Profiles
Part. No. M/F Title
Firm
Size
Type Loc. Notes: Experience
No. 1 F Account Executive (L) Admin NY
10 years + Major Fashion House,
Polo
No. 2 F Journalist (L) Creative NY
12 years + Major Fashion
Publication, Indie Blog
No. 3 M Designer (S) Creative NY
10 years + Indie T-shirt brand,
Recording Artist
No. 4 F
Global Marketing
Director
(L) Admin NY 5 years + Major Fashion House
No. 5 F R & D (L) Admin NY
15 years + Major Department
Retailer, Sean John
No. 6 F Designer (S) Creative NY
6 years + Indie T-shirt brand,
Indie Dressmaker
No. 7 M Marketing/Operations (S) Admin NY
10 years + Indie T-shirt brand,
Founded Indie Modeling Agency
No. 8 M Creative Director (M) Creative VA 7 years + Sean Jean
No. 9 M Designer (S) Creative NY 1 year + Fine Artist
No. 10 M Business Director (S) Admin NY
1 year + Founded Indie Streetwear
Firm

90
No. 11 M
Merchant Account
Processing
(S) Admin LA
3 year + Indie Financial
Processing Agent, Partner in
Clothing Line
No. 12 F President (M) Admin LA 20 years + Trend Consulting
No. 13 F
Manufacturing
Sales Director
(M) Admin LA 10 years + Manufacturing
No. 14 F Designer (L) Creative LA 5 years + Lucky Brand
No. 15 M
Designer/
Online Retailer
(S) Creative LA
14 years + Founded Indie Online
Retailer and T-shirt Brand
No. 16 F VP Design (L) Creative LA
10 years + Major children's
Clothing and Merchandiser
No. 17 M Founder (S) Creative LA
8 years + Indie Design &
Production House
No. 18 M Head Designer (L) Creative NY
10 years + Major Activewear
Brand, Timberland, David Batton
No. 19 M Designer (L) Creative NY
22 years + Founded Large
Urbanwear Firm
No. 20 M Designer (L) Creative NY
20 years + Founded Large
Urbanwear Firm
No. 21 M Designer (L) Creative NY 20 years + Multiple Global Firms
No. 22 M Marketing (L) Admin NY 19 years + Large Urbanwear Firm
No. 23 M
Journalist Managing
Editor
(L) Creative UK
19 years + Multiple Global Brands
Men’s & Women’s
No. 24 M
Marketing/
Product Develop.
(L) Admin NY
5 years + Develops Merchandise
for Major Big Box Retailers

91
No. 25 M Creative Director (L) Creative NY
13 Years + Fine Artist Production
Manager and Creative Director at
Major Urbanwear
Firm Peruvian Plant
No. 26 M
Strategic Partnership
Manager
(L) Admin NY
13 Years + Major Manhattan
Showroom, Builds Brand
Alliances
No. 27 M
Journalist Managing
Editor
(M) Creative HK
9 years + Editor of Premier Global
Street Fashion Blog
No. 28 M Brand Strategist (L) Admin NY
13 years + Independent Lifestyles
Consulting Firm, Versace, Music
Industry Integration
No. 29 M Designer (L) Creative NY
16 years + Multiple Global Firms,
Founded Indie Streetwear Firm
No. 30 M Creative Director (L) Creative NY
20 years + Founded Major Global
Urbanwear Firm
No. 31 M Merchandise Director (M) Admin NY
8 years + Mid-sized Online
Retailer, Founded Indie Streetwear
Firm

Experience: Involvement with Fashion and T-shirts
Participants were asked to describe their total experience in the fashion industry and
there involvement with T-shirts. They generally provided a straightforward number of years and
mostly stated that they had been at least indirectly involved with T-shirts during their
experiences. Responses for experience varied with a range of 21(min = 1, max = 22), the scores

92
carried a mean of (µ = 11.19), with a standard deviation (σ = 5.77). The complete results can be
found in Appendix C Table 5.
In order to determine the participant’s familiarity with the market in question in
comparison to other markets, inquiries were also given about location-based knowledge and
experience in different U.S. regions. The original intention for the study was to interview a
quota sample of professionals working in the two major fashion centers of the United States—
namely New York City and Los Angeles. However, upon initiating the data collection process it
became apparent from observation and participant statements within the first round of 10
interviews that geographic region did not play a significant role in determining the answers
given to the questions. What did appear anecdotally to have greater influence on participant
responses was the status of their work within the industry, such that persons employed by larger
and higher profile corporations especially in more administrative roles tended to provide
answers of greater similarity in distinction from individuals working at smaller, more
independent firms and those doing creative work. Therefore location was dismissed as a
controlled variable in the distribution of participants acquired for this research. Part of the
insignificance of location was believed to be due to the combined influence of developments in
mass communication as well as globalization more generally. During the interviews several
participants expressed these considerations in the questions that followed.
The first section involved conversations pertaining to RQ1a in an effort to contextualize
the T-shirt with the modern state of fashion.

93
T-shirts in the Market
Regional Comparisons in the U.S. Market
Participants provided an overview of the landscape of the U.S. T-shirt market along with
insights on the environmental factors shaping the current social and cultural climate (which are
assumed to have an impact on the market). Responses were used to establish a general
consensus amongst the sample of industry professionals about the geographic homogenization
and differentiation between unique regions of the U.S. T-shirt market, especially in New York
City and Los Angeles. The answers given yielded two data points—one for similarities and the
other for differences. For the sake of organization the answers were divided into two parts for
the quantitative analysis. Although responses were highly variant for these two inquiries, results
typically demonstrated that most participants felt that there were significant similarities across
the total U.S. market though New York and Los Angeles, as major nationwide influencers of the
total market, tended to differ in the prevalence of stylistic trends as a result of their unique
climate and the distinctness of their dominant (though heavily overlapping) cultures—
particularly street/hip-hop vs. skate/surf.
With regard to similarities, there were a total of 14 response categories used in the
quantitative analysis, which were issued from the participant discussions. The responses given
with the highest frequency involved statements making reference to the fact that “Everyone
wears T-shirts” with a total of 8 replies, “People follow nationwide rather than regional trends”
with 6 replies, “The internet has homogenized the U.S. market” with 5 replies, and “The same
consumer exists in different markets” with 4 replies. All other response categories had 3, 2, or
only 1 reply. There were a total of 8 participants who made no reference to the similarities
across different U.S. markets. See Appendix C Table 6.

94
The discussion of differences across U.S. markets led to a much greater variety of
responses as participants cataloged descriptions and explanations for the stylistic contrasts
found between the New York City and Los Angeles T-shirt markets. There were a total of 50
response categories derived from these conversations. The most frequent difference cited was
that “LA is more surf/skate culture influenced” with 11 replies, followed by “NY is
edgier/grimier/grittier/ street/tougher” with 10 replies, and “Weather distinguishes NY from
LA” also with 10 replies. “LA is more fun/free/relaxed/casual” had 8 replies as “NY has more
sophistication/artistic creativity” received 5 supplies along with “Independent brands are more
localized to their region of origin” which also garnered 5 replies, followed by “NY has more
luxury/chic” and “LA is cleaner/more simplistic” both with 4 replies. The remaining response
categories had 3, 2, or only 1 reply. There were 3 participants who made no reply to this
question whatsoever. For complete results see Appendix C Table 7.
The responses also revealed a high degree of latent information, which would not
necessarily be apparent from a quantitative assessment. Participants discussing variation across
the U.S. and global market spoke of the fashion industry at large and made mention of cultural
and political ideologies as driving forces behind transitions in the paradigms of diverse image
constructions. New York brands and style were idealized as chic and edgy, gritty, street and
more fashion oriented, while L.A. was typified as being more relaxed and laid back being drawn
from skate and surf culture. These differences were largely attributed to climate differences as a
result of the semi-tropical Mediterranean climate of southern California producing a social
atmosphere long tied to notions of leisure and passivity, while New York is a much older much
more developed metropolis characterized by fast paced city-life and four seasons of climate.
Though half the population of New York, Los Angeles is a spread out terrain based upon a car

95
culture with substantially lower population density and a history of geographic segregation,
while New York society is built upon more egalitarian premises with its wide pedestrian
sidewalks lending themselves to greater civic integration. From these disparate backgrounds we
see the rise of two distinct T-shirt markets both drawn from countercultural inspirations, but
manifest in well-delineated tones of expression. Though the differences remain apparent,
respondents suggest that the regional distinctions have weakened as an effect of globalization.
Participants discussed the role of advances in technology and global telecommunications
in the compression of time and space—obliterating limitations in the accessibility of
information, and the gatekeeping of channels of influence for the distribution of trends. Despite
the prevalence of these normalizing factors, participants also discussed the importance of the
metropolis—particularly New York and Los Angeles as opposed to micropolitan and suburban
regions—as conduits for the global exchange of creative innovations, and they insisted on that
being a defining component of the current state of fashion in the United States.
Participants made special note of the diffusion of innovations and the proliferation of
developments in design and manufacturing technology. They were of the general opinion that
the ever-increasing availability of resources such as design software and print and
manufacturing equipment, coupled with the rise of the Internet, has been responsible for a
tremendous expansion in volume and competition within the T-shirt market. This led to
discussions of how the quality and technical proficiency in creating unique and innovative
designs at more and more affordable rates has created exceptional opportunities for independent
producers, opening up a space for them to now dominate the T-shirt market both regionally and
internationally as a result of advances in telecommunications, as well as changes in distribution,
business organization and market dynamics.

96
Participant No. 1
Yes! I feel like it’s completely different! In New York it’s…a fashion T-shirt from all
these different stores and shops in So Ho and then you get like the same thing that you
would get across the country in like Old Navy or a GAP. So it’s very different. I feel like
there’s much more specialization in New York City more so than anywhere else in the
country. Maybe it would be something if it was internationally but I think New York has
a special niche for T-shirts and fashion T-shirts and things of that sort.
Participant No. 3
I’ve noticed a lot of similarities basically everywhere when it comes to the fashion and
like the T-shirts. You know everybody can...it’s easy to make and at the same time it’s
like it’s actually an easy market if you know what you’re doing…nationwide it’s the
same. If you know what you’re doing it’s the same everywhere. The T-shirts?…it
depends on you know like what type of T-shirts a lot of people make. So sometimes it
will be based off a street brand, off the streets and stuff like that, so you can’t really
wear those street brand T-shirts in clubs and stuff like that… When I say street brand I
mean like straight off the street, just popped up yesterday…Anything. When I say street
brand I mean like…a hood brand, basically like urban stuff…like a shirt with maybe
some weed on it or guns and stuff like that, naked women and stuff like that. You can’t
really wear that always to a club or to a lounge or anything like that so that’s what I
mean by the street brands or the urban brands… You may see a difference a lot in the
urban brands. You know like The Hundreds you know what I mean urban wear like
that…Stüssy, Obey, things like that. A lot of people wear that between New York and
L.A. But then you have a lot of brands that are sometimes based out of L.A. or based out

97
of New York and you may not catch too many people out in L.A. or out in New York…
Yeah you’ll see it everywhere like Stüssy, SUPREME, you know brands like that. I
notice in L.A. a lot of people might have brighter colors…the tropical colors…I say in
L.A. you’ll catch more of those colors. In New York it’s more of...depending on the
season.. [Nationwide you see] that same you know slim cut fit…try to slim it down…[it
depends on] the crowd you roll with or you’re trying to. That’s what it is a lot of people
trying.
The T-shirt as an Article of Fashion
Respondents produced discursive commentary of the T-shirt as both a stylistic and
functional lynchpin of modern American attire, yielding two quantitative data points—one that
designated a composite evaluation of the response as significant or insignificant, the other
sought to highlight noteworthy concepts and ideas expressed during the discussions. Of the
responses given, 28 were labeled as considering the T-shirt significant, while only 3 responses
rejected that class of garments as an important article of fashion. Although the open-ended and
subjective nature of this inquiry resulted in a wide variety of responses, there was a relatively
high degree of agreement within this pool with 8 of the 32 response categories having over 15%
frequency, and out of these 4 received more than 20%, one of which had 42%. There were 13
respondents that made mention of the T-shirt as a “Centerpiece/Statement piece”, 10 described
it as a device which “Communicates social identity”, 9 replies made mention of it being a
“Blank canvas for conspicuous self-expression”, 7 suggested that it “Communicates
politics/values/worldview”, and 6 stated that T-shirts “Communicate tastes”. Meanwhile,
“Communicates feelings”, “Essential part of fashion collections”, and
“Advertisement/Marketing/Propaganda devices for brands” were each mentioned by 5

98
participants, while “Signifies current trends/Dates fashion” and “Easy/Cheap/Profitable sale
item for brands” both received 4 replies. The remaining response categories had 3, 2, or only 1
reply. The complete results can be seen in Appendix C Tables 8.1 and 8.2.
Respondents elaborate thoroughly on the social significance of T-shirts and were largely
of the opinion that the T-shirt was an important part of any fashion cycle because of their
accessibility and ease of production. Whereas a coat, a dress, or even a pair of jeans all require a
greater number of phases in their more costly and involved production process, a basic T-shirt
can be mass produced overnight, because many times the trend is a product of passive styling
components like the message rather than the physical details of the shirt. T-shirts were also
described as being closely tied to a higher order of expression that was in many ways seen as
more personal as well. Though some saw them completely as devices for propaganda and
profiteering on behalf of businesses, others felt that they represented a democratic movement in
the postmodern consumer culture to shift the freedom of self-expression through fashion from
the hands of dominant minority with a rigid political agenda, into the control of small
independent producers and consumers alike.
Within these conversations the T-shirt was given frequent reference as a mechanism for
articulating one’s identity as well as a means of producing social connections through the
sharing of cultural and political sentiments in a highly conspicuous form of mobile mass media.
These media have the added value of being a legitimate component of dress, which is used to
rapidly assess cognitive schemata and common stereotypes in the evaluation of personal and
social identity (Cicic & Husic, 2009). The shirt was regularly mentioned as a centerpiece, and
hailed for its diversity among ages, sexes, and settings. It was praised for its usefulness in color
coordination, its comfort and its ability to serve as adaptive outerwear for multiple climates. It

99
was especially noted for its capacity to broadcast one’s values to the general public with a
degree of explicitness uncommon to many other garment classes. Moreover, the professionals
had a shrewd awareness of the ability of the shirts to serve as commercial platforms for brands
of all sizes. Respondents were not reticent in their admission that the T-shirt is, in most cases, a
low cost commodity with high profit margins, which has in many instances been used as a
means of exploitation against status-seeking consumers to the point of absurdity.
Participant No. 2
Everyone likes to dress down. You don’t always want to wear a dress or a skirt and I
think if you’re brand conscious and stylish and you want to add like…you know show I
guess your taste and show that you’re trendy and you’re kind of just like dressing down
and having a casual moment then one of those T-shirts… and it’s fun and I think for
some people that the T-shirt is an entry way…not a gateway…maybe sort of a gateway
but it’s good for actual company but there are a lot of people that love Givenchy but
can’t afford a Givenchy outfit so the T-shirt will stand its place. And those are the same
people who buy like the accessories or the perfume; you know something like that from
the house that’s not prohibitively expensive.
Participant No. 13
It’s a trick question? I honestly think it’s a walking advertisement. I hope we make
money off of it so I don’t care but I think it’s a walking advertisement. It’s a way for
people to just put what they believe on a T-shirt and this is the new propaganda, the new
like…this is how some people say what they believe and…

100
Participant No. 18
It’s the staple. I mean you know a T-shirt is kind of like crack. Where fashion is coke, a
T-shirt is crack, it’s an easy sale and honestly it’s the bread and butter of every fashion
house. Without the T-shirt they really don’t have character or have any identity…in any
‘wear’, it doesn’t even have to be streetwear it can be anything. Okay this is how it is,
fashion is a book and a T-shirt is the words. So you can have a book no matter if you’re
buying it in leather or you have it in canvas without words there’s character of your
story and a T-shirt plays the character of every story in any fashion house—I don’t care
if it’s high fashion, mass market, streetwear, contemporary, children’s wear it doesn’t
matter. That is your character.
T-shirt Components
During the interviews respondents discussed the most important components of T-shirt
design in fulfilling the garment’s purpose as a utilitarian artifact—whatever the participant may
have deemed that purpose to be. The quantitative analysis yielded 7 different response
categories, the most cited of which was ‘Design/Message’ with 19 replies, ‘Fabric’ followed
closely after with 18 replies, ‘Cut’ received 14 replies, ‘Color’ had 6 replies, ‘Stitching’ had 3
replies, ‘Detailing’ had 2 replies, and ‘Applique’ was mentioned once. The complete results
found in Appendix C Table 9.
It should be noted that although some participants listed the components in rank order,
these specifications were disregarded in the quantitative analysis due to the limited number of
responses and the fact that the purpose of the interview was to establish generalizations not
precise opinions of the population sample. Therefore any and all components listed as important
in these responses were calculated equally as having been stated with others.

101
Participants generally agreed that either the message design or the fabric quality were
the most important components of T-shirt design. Those emphasizing the message design
element tended to feel that the critical importance of the T-shirt and fashion overall lies with the
outward expression of identity that is communicated to the external social environment. Though
some offered that the shirt must first connect internally with the consumer in order to pose a
valid representation of their beliefs and values, the implicit notion was that this representation
was for the purpose of external communication.
Participant No. 8
I think the biggest one is—at least for my customer—“Does it connect?”...The most
important specifically to me is the graphic, that’s the heart of it.
Participant No. 24
The design hands down. That’s why you can see people who, in New York City, will
walk around…you see Time Square…Even if it’s a cheap shirt…you can see cheap
recycled shirt, you see a great design and people want it…and that’s how great start-up
companies come to be. Obviously everybody wants a 200 needle point combed cotton
shirt that doesn’t …you know…everybody likes the cut but the graphic is obviously the
most important.
Participants emphasizing the importance of message content spoke on the recent cultural
tendency amongst consumers to pursue—through the acquisition of limited, anecdotal
knowledge—a level of quality that is heavily promoted and idealized by status brands as
superior to industry standards. However, respondents regularly suggested throughout the
interview that many such claims are unsubstantiated, especially with T-shirts, and unwitting
consumers are easily misled by the rapture of aspirational symbolism and the natural desire to

102
equate material value with commercial cost. These views insinuated that the outward expression
of the garment is of greater significance because it exposes the individual to the surrounding
environment in a particular light, which impacts the life experiences of that individual, and
these in turn are reflected in the individual’s internal worldview, regardless of the accuracy of
the garment’s communication or it’s proper interpretation.
Respondents that focused on fabric quality had a tendency to stress ‘comfort’ and
‘feeling’, thereby idealizing the T-shirt, and moreover fashion, as primarily being critical
aspects of internally driven mechanisms such as self-identification, self-satisfaction, self-
enhancement, and self-verification, and secondarily being used as external communication once
these internal goals were met. These respondents also made note of the current cultural
transition involving the rise of the T-shirt as a sophisticated work of fashion beyond its
conventional understanding as merely an expressive clothing garment. This perspective
suggests that the selection and donning of clothing are the points of actualization for the
individual’s behavior as a consumer of fashion. That is to say that under this argument, the
desire and aspiration for a particular identity are substantiated through the consumption process,
external factors notwithstanding. The point at which the individual feels and believes he or she
is in possession of the thing they desire, is the point at which they have met the goal of self-
verification. Participants arguing the importance of fabric saw the utilitarian satisfaction of the
T-shirt as being of important material consequence in terms of comfort and happiness, which
are thereby manifest in one’s actions towards the outside world. In this way consumption is a
self-satisfying behavior and identity is an internalized construct that must be confirmed through
one’s achievement of cognitive and emotional satisfaction in order to produce valid external
expressions through one’s conduct.

103
Both sets of responses were valid, and many participants listed both quality and design
features in their responses.
Participant No. 7
The most import to me is quality [of the fabric]. At the end of the day you have to wear
it. I don’t want to wear anything that’s going to make me feel itchy...you know bad
material. Quality is number one for me. Second is the cut of it, you know it’s not too big
you know it’s cut right on your shoulders. And then what the shirt says; what’s on it.
As the succeeding discussion made constant reference to T-shirt quality and design, it
was important here that the respondents took the opportunity to reflect on their own
understanding of T-shirt value and quality, which would be used to define the criteria for
evaluating these inquiries.
Historical Trends
Discussions of historical trends in the T-shirt market yielded two quantitative data
points—one for historical trends and the other for the cultural influences of those trends. Trends
produced a total of 31 unique response categories having a high degree of diffusion and little
frequency achieved for any single response, with no answer being stated by as much as 20% of
participants. The highest response, ‘Plain white T-shirts’, received a total of 6 replies, while
‘Oversized T-shirts’ trailed with 5 responses followed by ‘Logo T-shirts’ with 4. The remaining
28 response categories had 3, 2, or only 1 reply. On the contrary cultural influences yielded 25
response categories with ‘Music’ receiving 10 replies, followed by ‘Hip Hop culture’ with 8.
Meanwhile, ‘Individuality’, ‘Celebrity’, ‘Street culture’, and ‘Social /Political Consciousness’
all received 5 replies as ‘Punk culture’ and ‘Youth culture’ both received 4 replies. The

104
remaining 28 response categories had 3, 2, or only 1 reply. One respondent had no answer. See
Appendix C Tables 10.1 and 10.2.
These discussions were used to produce an overview of the history of the T-shirt market
for the development of a broader synopsis of the evolution of trends in that market from its
inception to the present day in order to make predictions about its future. The ultimate purpose
of this would be for its theoretical value in producing a reference paradigm as a framework for
assessing trends in fashion and popular culture more generally. Most importantly, the
explanations given for these trends provided extensive insights into the role T-shirts have
played in the mediation of social and political activities. These insights were used to provide a
sound explanation as to if-, why-, and how the T-shirt could be influential to the perception of
brand or consumer identity.
Participants provided a diverse range of answers regarding T-shirt trends. Of particular
note was the frequent reference to skate, hip-hop, punk and other countercultural movements
centered on youth. Respondents spoke heavily of prominent logo driven design and loud
graphics, and saw music, entertainment and pop culture more generally as influences behind
these trends. Even respondents occupied as professional corporate personnel had a clear
understanding that youth resistance had been a major drive of T-shirt design and fashion overall
since the mid-twentieth century, and to an increasing degree coming into the present. These
insights provide a detailed assessment of the transition from the late-nineteenth and early-
twentieth centuries when ‘fashion’ as a social institution—being primarily a pursuit of elitist
ambitions—had not undergone the process of full industrialization that had consumed ‘clothing’
and was closely intertwined with high cultural movements such as modernism. The T-shirt, in
this sense, symbolizes a rise of petit bourgeois interests during the mid-twentieth century, which

105
would eventually come to dominate the cultural landscape with vulgar artifacts of commercial
ambition maintained through a value system based on aspirations for symbolism beyond the
necessity of substance. The countercultural movements drove the T-shirt into the forefront of
fashion and eventually into its position of appropriation by the industrial mainstream (i.e.
fashion capitalists). However, industrial organizations have not the means to compete with the
rapid pace of street level cultural shifts and thus we find that although large corporations have at
times infiltrated this very grassroots-oriented market, which began under the tenets Do-It-
Yourself (DIY) culture, the industry experts have provided responses dictated by the
development of street trends and the re-appropriation of commercialized trends along with their
commercial identities for the communication of subversive expressions of identity and status
contrary to their original intent. Polo is especially noteworthy, as several respondents made
mention during the interviews of an underground hip-hop crew of street youth from the mid-90s
called the Lo-Lifes
33
, infamous for their sprees of mass shoplifting Polo Ralph Lauren
merchandise from department stores across the New York City area. Others spoke of shoplifting
themselves as a rite-of-passage in coming of age as a street youth in large metropolitan cities.
Collectively this commentary elucidated the rise of conspicuously displayed brand images, in
fashion, as status symbols in modern society in lieu of generic luxury commodities such as fine
fabrics, furs or precious stones and metals maintained in continuity by the über-wealthy. This
insight provides evidence for the argument of ‘image over substance’ as part of an elite
capitalist agenda.

33
‘Lo’ being an intentional pun on the literal word ‘low’ and the term ‘lo’, used in hip-hop circles as a diminutive for ‘Polo’ in reference to the
Polo Ralph Lauren brand. The company enjoyed an extreme surge in popularity at the time amongst urban youth who actively sought its
products for their trademark logos and design motifs as conspicuous assertions of both implicit and explicit social status. The message was
implicit because although these groups and the groups to which they sought to communicate their status were primarily drawn from low-income
backgrounds—and all parties were aware of this fact—it was asserted by pure means of the product’s acquisition, whether legitimate or illegal.
Thus these groups sought to separate themselves from those who had not the expendable income or street savvy to acquire the same
symbolically high status goods for themselves. The status was explicit because the goods were of fine quality regardless of their means of
acquisition.

106
Thus we find frequent mention of large front-facing logo T-shirts during the 90s in the
respondent commentary alongside discussions of afro-centric historical designs concert T-shirts,
hip-hop, punk and skate brands, gift shop and promotional T-shirts, ‘icy’ white T-shirts, and
luxury brand T-shirts. All of these represent shifts in the cultural climate pertinent to some sub-
cultural or mainstream commercial trend—which have been deemed as being in constant
oppositional reaction to one another (Walker, 2005), though locked in a cycle of mutual
codependence. Respondents spoke in detail about the historical contexts surrounding many of
these trends as well, such as the massive re-emergence of the white T-shirt as a standard of
urban street attire amongst African-American youth in the late 90s and early 2000s; citing
annual basketball tournaments at the Holcombe Rucker Park in the Harlem section of
Manhattan as a center stage for the trend, which came to signify self-respect, discipline and
cleanliness as members of the heavily marginalized community took pride in donning the
pristine cotton fabric in an environment famed for the ostentatious fashion sensibility
established amidst its pipelines of subversive wealth. Some mentioned team sports, musicians,
and other live event merchandise as active records of involvement in specific realms of cultural
participation. Others spoke of the coming and rise of streetwear as a mixture of high-fashion
marketing sensibility and independent urban design drawn from skate, punk, and hip-hop, with
small brands eventually gaining global recognition for collections often based around ordinary
T-shirts sold at superpremium price points. Still others mentioned surf and skate brands such as
VAN’s or Quicksilver that came to embody the lifestyle of a generation of California youth
before spreading nationwide as mass-market powerhouses. Discussions of mass luxury
conspicuous consumption also featured prominently in the conversations as respondents made
mention of brands such as Tommy Hilfiger, DKNY, and Calvin Klein plastering their

107
trademarks across basic cotton tees that retailed at ten times the cost of production as
preeminent symbols of status amongst both urban and suburban youth throughout the 90s. Still,
others spoke of high luxury brands that began retailing cotton shirts in excess of $200 around
the same time leading into the turn of the millennium. Meanwhile, some just took the
opportunity to reminisce on microcosmic trends that developed which they noticed in their
communities growing up.
Participant No. 4
I would say like the 90s logos, tees and trends and the reason why I bring that up is, you
know, I think the 90s were a really…an interesting time for fashion, especially in New
York. You think about DKNY, you think about like Tommy, you think about Calvin and
really people wearing those logos before they were like…people were really like
wearing a trend…I don’t know. You know? It’s like logos…what is it? You know I
would say like in general like for T-shirts, music, art, you know really influenced T-shirt
design. Kind of like under…like underground cultures like skate culture or like you
know, like I don’t know…people are into like BMX or whatever. Like things that…I
think those are sort of what influence design I’d say, especially with street wear.
Participant No. 28
That’s interesting. I mean it goes back to being a kid and seeing the guy in my hood, you
know like the OG’s [Original Gangsters] you know that smoked Newport [brand
cigarettes], and there was a point where…I don’t know how they were getting these T-
shirts but the classic Newport ‘swoosh’ and the guys that used to rock the white tee with
the Newports rolled up in their sleeve. That’s just so crazy to me. So it’s like when I see
these designs of today it’s very nostalgic and it takes me back to those points…to being

108
like a little kid and remembering the OG’s with the Newport tees. It’s very difficult to
say. I think brands had a lot to do with it. I think culture specifically…African-American
culture has always been on the cusp of dictating (popular) trends. And so we’ve always
looked for that element of style or something that stood out to kind of represent us to say
that we’re different or we’re pushing the envelopes of what it is to be trendy.

Best T-shirts Ever
When asked to state the most outstanding shirt design they could ever recall, responses
were unique for every participant. Data from the responses was quantified by assigning the
outstanding designs stated into one of the 31 response categories previously listed under
historical trends. A total of 36 responses were given because participants were not restricted in
the number of shirt designs they could state. These responses qualified for 13 of the historical
trend categories with 3 additional categories added totaling 16 response categories in all. In
addition to these, there were 2 participants who gave no reply. Of the replies given, ‘Overt
graphics’, ‘Band/Concert T-shirts’ and ‘Independent production T-shirts’ received the most
frequent responses with 5 replies each. All other response categories had 3, 2, or only 1 reply.
The complete results can be seen in Appendix C Table 11.
The purpose this question was to continue the line of inquiry from the previous question,
going beyond the consideration of noteworthy historical trends in T-shirt design by being
specific as to what the experts felt were the best designs they had ever noticed. Again, this
questioning was used to establish a frame of reference from which to assess the quality, design
and value of shirts in different market segments in later segments. These inquiries serve as an
effective segue from the discussion of the past into the present and future. Participants
designated their designs for multiple reasons ranging from nostalgia to brand association to

109
build-quality and comfort to color, and cultural significance. Some listed shirts that they had
designed themselves, while others stated that they had made a sentimental connection with the
message of the shirt or were an adherent to the cultural reference being made on the shirt.
Others even made reference to their self-confessed susceptibility to brand status as the driving
factor behind their preference for a particular design. This information was all helpful in
understanding the intent behind purchasing behavior by providing an outline for the conditions,
which make a shirt desirable to the producers of fashion.
Participant No. 3
I would have to say…one of my favorite shirts is a SUPREME shirt of Raekwon [the
rapper from Wu-Tang Clan] with his homeboy with the Elmo. What makes it so fire is
because of…you know the SUPREME they use? It was like a silkscreen so it takes a
while for the image to fade, the quality of the shirt was great, and it’s like you can wear
that shirt day-in, day-out, sweat in it, anything and it still looks brand new. I don’t know
but the picture that they caught, [Kenneth Cappello], the cameraman caught a great shot.
And that’s just one of my all-time favorite tees. Like I put that on anytime, anywhere
man, that tee is for real… Yeah Raekwon, he’s holding [an] Elmo [doll] and his
[bodyguard] is actually holding a MAC gun on the shirt. And they both have on shirts
that say SUPREME …So it’s like…that’s outstanding to me just because it’s like the
picture’s so clear but it’s like it tells you everything that they’re about.
Participant No. 9
I’m going to go with the ‘Commitment to Excellence’ Oakland Raiders T-shirt. I love
sports, black and silver is my shit so…

110
Participant No. 17
I think when I was in junior high school I remember seeing some kid wearing a shirt that
was like kind of a photocopy of the Sun Newspaper the day that Sid Vicious died. It said
“Sid Vicious Dead!” on the front. I just thought that was just so gnarly to have like
somebody’s obituary on a shirt or something like that. So I bootlegged that shirt last year
and made one for myself so… I love it.
Participant No. 18
I’ll have to go commercial…which is you know the John Lennon New York City shirt. I
think that was a classic iconic T-shirt. I did one myself actually with Obama as Run
DMC which [was] huge, huge T-shirt. Arguably probably one of the biggest…No it was
the biggest T-shirt of 2009. I’m pretty sure you guys remember this…where it’s
president Obama looking like DMC and it says ‘RUN DC’ so that shirt right there was
everywhere. That’s a big, big T-shirt.
Participant No. 19
I could think of…one of the tees we did was “Don’t Test” you know we had this like
gun graphic on the back and it was like a schematic of gun and on the front we had these
figure drawings of martial arts styles and it said like, “Dragon Style” and we were just
playing with the self-defense thing and you know “Don’t test me” thing. So mixing like
street culture with like Kung-Fu movie culture and I thought that was like kind of
clever…One of the first shirts that I designed was taking of the schematic of a subway
car and just putting my tag on it. Like things like that, like visually taking something that
someone growing up in a city could relate to and then just flipping it and the tag kind of
just went all over the…it went beyond the boundaries of the schematic of the train.

111
What Makes It Hot?
Participants spoke on their reasoning for determining a shirt to be ‘hot’ or outstanding.
Responses were spread across 25 categories, the most frequently stated of which was by far
‘Graphic/Design/Message’ with 14 responses reaching 45% frequency. This was followed by
‘Color’ with 7 replies. Next, were ‘Fabric’, ‘Uniqueness’ and ‘Personal Relevance’ with 6
responses each and ‘Attention grabbing’ with 4 replies. All other response categories had 3, 2,
or only 1 reply. For complete results see Appendix C Table 12.
Coming into discussion the interview systematically led the participants into evaluating
the differences between T-shirts in unique regional markets, it caused them to define the most
important features of T-shirt design while highlighting the history of T-shirt trends, and it
required them to provide an example of a shirt which was exceptional in their opinion with
regard to the aforementioned. The question of what makes a shirt ‘hot’, although similar to the
‘most important components’, is different because, while it addresses a related subject, the
inquiry and the answers it drew supersede the domain of components into ideological principles
and psychological response—dealing more specifically with the value of the communicative
aspects of those components.
Participants related a multitude of explanations as to the type of communication, which
gives a shirt the sense of desirability that might spark a major trend, or augment the perception
of a consumer. Design components such as cut, color and graphics were heavily reiterated as
critical to the ability of a T-shirt to gain popularity, though allusions to build quality focused
notably on the aesthetic values of fabric and stitching during this round of discussion, to the
greater neglect of material comfort. Innovativeness and differentiation were mentioned as vital
to the garnering of attention. Participants spoke of the importance of the cultural relevance

112
embedded within a shirt’s graphic message, along with the use of communicative devices such
as subtlety of reference, humor, irony, double entendre and linguistic puns as strong features of
the dominant wave of T-shirt trends. Others talked about the prevalence of minimalism as an
influential design philosophy. This is significant because many commercial enterprises, from
Apple to Prada, have championed postmodern minimalism as a reaction to the gaudy and
elaborate motifs typical of the cultural Old Guard. From Helvetica typeface to art moderne and
googie architecture to IKEA’s white cube décor aesthetics, minimalist ambitions have been
pursued as an endeavor into egalitarianism apart from the hierarchical declarations embedded
within the symbolism of more ornamental design schemes (Lefebvre, 1984; Hustwit, 2007;
Velthuis, 2013; Akira & Ossei-Mensah, 2014).
Participant No. 1
It’s the graphics and it’s the color. It’s how the graphic plays on the actual color of the
T-shirt. I mean the best graphic play is simple black on white. Just because it’s…I think
that’s where you get the most bang for your buck, the most punch. But then I’m
a…although you can’t see it right now, I love color, so that’s really important to me as
well.
Participant No. 6
If it just looks like something that’s not falling into any other boxes or lines you know.
Like it’s really more so art than you know…If its art that’s on a shirt then that’s one
thing, but when a T-shirt design is something simple like words or whatever…blah,
blah, blah…you don’t feel anything. So the artistry makes it dope [exceptional].
Participant No. 14
Simplicity. Minimalist and simplicity.

113
Participant No. 30
I think it’s the aesthetics of the yarn, maybe double stitched, maybe it’s a raglan, maybe
it’s the collar or the fabric. It’s everything that makes a T-shirt. I mean you can get a
basic white T-shirt but…if it’s mercerized or it’s cotton or it’s brushed, it’s whatever…I
mean there are all sorts of different fabrics you can turn a T-shirt into. You know a T-
shirt is just the cut of the body. It’s just short sleeves and any type of neckline. So that
becomes a T-shirt. So I mean you can take non-traditional things that you normally
wouldn’t do a T-shirt in and you make it a T-shirt and it is…I mean you have jersey, it
goes beyond that…but in the end it becomes.
Current Trends
Discussions of current trends yielded two quantitative data points—one for current
trends and the other for the cultural influences of those trends. Trends produced a total of 38
unique response categories having a very high degree of diffusion. The highest response,
‘Sublimation/All-over-prints’, received a total of 7 replies, while ‘Antique design motifs’—
which are incidentally primarily printed using sublimation techniques--followed with 5
responses. Next, ‘Black & White’, ‘Overt graphics’, ‘Retro era nostalgia’ and ‘Fashion
Driven’ each had 4 responses. The remaining response categories had 3, 2, or only 1 reply.
Meanwhile cultural influences yielded 20 response categories with ‘Individuality/Uniqueness’
receiving 10 replies, followed by ‘Music’ with 6, while ‘Celebrity’ and ‘Hip Hop culture’ both
received 5 replies. The remaining response categories had 3, 2, or only 1 reply. The complete
results can be seen in Appendix C Tables 13.1 and 13.2. It is noteworthy that Celebrity was
often cited with the mention of the heavily derided Ed Hardy clothing because French fashion
designer Christian Audigier gained substantial success with the Von Dutch line and later with

114
the Ed Hardy license, specifically by employing marketing tactics highlighted by extensive
direct marketing and product placement with celebrities and the installation of boutiques in
high-profile fashion districts (Hamlin, 2006).
These discussions were used to produce a snapshot of current activity in the T-shirt
market. Participants indicated that the industry had become heavily dominated by aspirations
for status, which featured the intermingling of fringe culture with high status celebrities and
luxury-based design and marketing philosophies. They mentioned enthusiasm for the growing
accessibility of T-shirt design as a democratic expansion of self-expression, while some voiced
concern for its potential to compromise the legitimacy of design as an art form and fashion more
generally as a sociocultural institution, which has traditionally dictated standards of public
appearance. The total line of inquiry up until this point was established to build a firm
conceptualization of the T-shirt as it stands today, loaded with references and connotations of
youth and popular culture; a profitable market commodity with a powerful ability to express
ideas, voice sentiments, and influence identity. Thus far the responses indicated that the T-shirt
is a valid subject for study in this capacity, and should prove suitable as a variable stimulant in
the experimentation process.
Participants spoke extensively of the current fusion occurring between the high fashion
that is produced in couture houses, and streetwear, which is often highly artistic, embracing raw
forms of expression alongside sophisticated luxury value propositions. They also made frequent
mention of new printing technologies being used to reproduce antique motifs referent to high
cultural and artistic movements; minimalism derivative of the streamlined design philosophies
typified by postmodern aesthetics; and mass customization which has been a prevailing trend

115
across many business sectors perpetuating claims
34
of democratic shifts in the consumer market
as a potential signifier gains in social equality. Respondents argued that the trend—especially
within the T-shirt market—in fashion is somewhat diminishing as a result of the fashion cycle’s
advancing rate of compression. The steep rise in market volume and the oversaturation of
competition has severely reduced the capacity for new product styles to gain traction and
achieve a level of pervasive enthusiasm on par with the mania once generated through the
populist contagion for iconic designs such as the anti-establishment rhetoric of punk slogans,
the time capturing essence of musician memorabilia, designer logo driven T-shirts of the 90s or
Milton Glaser’s infamous ‘I Love NY’ campaign.
Dye sublimation was named frequently as a rising trend in printing techniques alongside
the use of premium and alternative fabrics incorporating long staple cotton, high needlepoint
counts or specialized fabric treatments such as mercerization, brushing, and caustic washes. The
use of hyper-colors was named as a popular trend, which was associated with the use of
advanced synthetic and bio-engineered fibers. This also related to commentary given about the
influence of ‘Green’ culture on the fashion industry along with its many political connotations.
Minimalism also featured prominently in interview responses with participants making note of
the abundance of streetwear and streetwear-influenced designs having white block lettering on a
black fabric fields or the vice versa. Repeated praise was given to Riccardo Tisci for his
‘ferocious animal’ and medieval T-shirt collections at Givenchy, which were a favorite of
celebrities, and by that point had trickled down to the mainstream in derivative form, and made
their way to the catalogs of discount and generic lines. This is somewhat ironic because the
animal trend was itself derivative of low cultural design motifs commonly identified with trailer
parks and sold in discount retailers such as Sears, JCPenney, Wal-Mart, and Target.

34
These claims being largely false and unsubstantiated.

116
Pop culture—particularly music, film, television, and celebrity—was heavily cited as the
premier influence for current mainstream trends in T-shirts. Participants confirmed that
celebrity has come to dominate the current consumer culture, with the media industrial complex
orchestrating massive campaigns of meticulous crafted image construction laden with the
spectacles of wealth and luxury. Street culture was also named as a major influence in the T-
shirt market with references to juvenile delinquency, as well as underworld anti-social and
criminal behavior, gaining increasing acceptance within the mainstream as legitimate artistic
expressions of the experiences of marginalized communities. Respondents elaborated on the
aspiration for excessive wealth being a shared sentiment across all segments of the society, and
this, in turn, has served as a driving force in the rise of a common pursuit of luxury, which has
overtaken the market. Several participants discussed the recent resurgence in popularity for the
gaudy baroque style prints of Versace through enthusiasm garnered in hip-hop music. The style
had been a favorite of the flashy nouveau riche and hip hop impresarios alike, gaining regular
reference in Billboard chart-topping records throughout the 1990s, which translated to its
popularity among wealthy figures holding strong ties to the underworld in many cases also
affiliated with said hip hop artists. Participants noted that Versace’s return to prominence—
which was marked by its ostentatious silk prints—had ushered in a host of all-over-prints
achieved primarily through dye sublimation, which had traditionally worked best on polyester
35

but had more recently seen techniques developed for good results on cotton and blends. These
prints regularly incorporated Greco-Roman and Medieval design motifs derivative of

35
The use of polyester, though in many cases advantageous, has been often avoided as a source of tackiness in the post 1970s due to the fabric’s
flamboyant luster and affiliation with cheapness due to its reduced cost. For this reason we find that status brands tend to avoid the use synthetic
fibers in their collections.

117
Versace’s
36
designs, which became emblematic of both ‘gangster’ lifestyles and luxury
lifestyles more generally.
Participant No. 9
I would say right now…the sublimation… because …everyone has access to Google
Image. So all you need is Google Image and you go in Photoshop and you brighten up
some colors you just throw that on a shirt and anyone can be a designer. So I think that’s
the biggest trend that’s happening, you get all of these people that never would have had
access to images…you have the universe, the galaxy, or Egyptian stuff…anyone can
make it. I think the biggest thing for me as an artist, as someone that creates my own
imagery…that anyone can find an image on Google and turn it into something and make
a shirt. There’s not a lot of creativity there…The trend is driven by the accessibility of
the images that you get on the internet and just throw on a T-shirt. The galaxy and the
universe up in space is dope already you don’t have to do much to it, you can get a
fucking Getty Image and you fucking put it on a fucking T-shirt and anyone can do it!
Participant No. 17
Well, personally I think with [my company] we’re just trying to get closer to that whole
one of a kind customized world that we’re heading towards. You know we’re
still…people are still buying shirts and people are still doing the same
fashion…whatever it’s called…dance. That some chosen few get to design for the
masses. And that’s cool and that’s probably a good thing for some points. But I think
everybody has an idea of a T-shirt I think. When we go out and we go to all these events
people are always like, “Oh, I have an idea for a shirt…I’d like to do this…” or “Do you

36
Versace’s gaudy style is renowned for having been inspired by both high classical antiquity, and the vulgar, including both Greco-Roman
architecture and prostitutes from his hometown of Reggio Calabria (Spindler, 1997).

118
accept artists?” or stuff. So people have ideas. Everybody dresses themselves every day.
Everybody knows kind of what they want. It’s just that sometimes it’s difficult to
express that exactly.
Participant No. 22
Dye sublimation T-shirts….Dye sublimation is a process in which graphics are infused
into the fabric of the T-shirt and it allows the graphic to be more like a picture than it
does a screen print and I like it in some respects but I just think that it’s overly
done…Dope boy music, trap music…you know the guy out there that really wants to
make a statement and stand out and who doesn’t care about subtlety. You know, there
are brands out there that do it really, well. There are brands that are creative and at the
forefront of this and I respect them for their innovation, I just think that everyone else
who has come on to it is jumping on the train and it’s way too saturated…I believe that
it’s been trap music even from the mid-90s that has always pushed the T-shirt as the
forefront. It’s a counter culture thing. It’s an, “I have money but I don’t need to wear a
suit.” It’s, “I get paper and I do it my way.” I’ve seen everything from the Sistine Chapel
to the Pyramid and Sphinxes and you know very high level works of art. And it gives
you a definition in the T-shirt that can’t be achieved with just a regular screen print.
[There is an] antique motif, Medieval motif, there is a ‘Sex, Money, Rock & Roll’ motif,
you know I’ve seen a bunch of T-shirts that are just dye sublimated that are just pictures
of money, pictures of strippers.
Participant No. 25
It seems like minimalism. I was just looking at a Hood By Air shirt today…Hood By
Air…they’re the guys that like…Drake is wearing them right now. It’s 2 gay dudes that

119
are running the label, they’re from New York…cool ass cats. But their shit is super
androgynous. It’s got the kilt shit popping off hard. They’re the ones that do…It
basically just says HBA. You’ve seen it right? It’s in all the videos. It’s super simple.
Like literally it’s just a like block logo... Like simple typeface…lots of like 1 color
graphics I’m seeing. Minimal like I said like the Alexander Wang shirt which everyone
is wearing that literally just says his name and a number on the back. Really it’s strange.
It’s either like all over the place with fucking colors everywhere like a Versace shirt or
black and white. You know, which is kind of…also I think it’s because of all the hats
with all the typefaces on it that are basically just black and white hats that are snapback
with just like a white typeface so that you kind of need to match with that. And all of the
retro Jordans that are coming back out right now that are very simple and the black is the
easiest thing to match, and I believe it’s also because fashion is so big right now. So it’s
kind of one of those things where all of the labels know that everyone’s buying right
now. So why go hard to the hole when you can make a black and white shirt and sell it
for $70 to upwards of $500 bucks.
Future Trends
The discussion of future trends yielded two quantitative data points—one for future
trends and the other for the cultural influences of those trends. Trends produced a total of 29
unique response categories having a very high degree of diffusion. The highest frequency
achieved for any single response came with, ‘Back to basics’ and ‘Simplicity’, which both
received a total of 4 replies. The remaining response categories had 3, 2, or only 1 reply.
Cultural influences yielded 18 response categories with ‘Individuality/Uniqueness’ taking the
lead with 7 replies, followed by ‘Nostalgia’ and ‘Technology’ with 4 replies. There were 4

120
participants who gave no answer. The remaining response categories had 3, 2, or only 1 reply.
The complete results can be seen in Appendix C Tables 14.1 and 14.2.
These responses were used an attempt to generate discourse about what changes lie
ahead for fashion in terms of T-shirts, and why these changes appear to be in the most probable
of all possible futures. The high degree of diffusion indicated the difficulty in addressing this
subject and the uncertainty involved in making a rational prediction on a market as volatile as
fashion. Nevertheless, participants generally tended to indicate that the future of shirt design
would move towards a stripping down of elaborate imagery citing ‘Back to basics’ and
‘Simplicity’, as well as a continued move towards shorter fashion cycles and regional
heterogenization with greater degrees of customization through the incorporation of new
technology. Alongside this, there was talk of DIY culture and the T-shirt as wearable art. In this
way the respondents appeared to indicate that the shirts would remain an essential part of the
fashion complex going forward and would gain increased function as a medium of self-
expression; promoting individualism of the self above the stereotypical segmenting of group
and social identity brought about by mass marketing and production. Some participants
mentioned increases in quality and shifts toward higher standards of luxury while others spoke
of technological developments in fabric production. Participants were also prone to base their
extrapolations on the witnessing of the nostalgic return to trends in previous eras, as is the
common nature of the fashion cycle; a notion also regularly insinuated in the discussion of
current trends.
Participant No. 6
The next thing…I think we’re going to find like other fibers that we haven’t used yet. I
think both. I think we’re just going to go in and find whatever we can wear and make it

121
into a shirt…I think just change in general like we have all of the save the earth people
in our generation…they’re not wanting to you know use certain types of fibers and
things like that so they look for new things then you have us fashion people who…you
know we want to use snakeskin for everything but that’s not logical so we look for new
things [laughing]. So you know it’s just the search for something new. I saw a…there
was a doctor some years ago, he discovered a way to make a spray paint fiber…I think
that’s our next thing; the new fiber [i.e. innovation].
Participant No. 9
I think the material, the dying processes, the printing processes…The more luxurious
you can make a T-shirt now is what’s going to be the future of a T-shirt. The
burning…like all these…I went to the sourcing convention today, I looked at a shit load
of fabrics and you’ve got all these guys with huge wash houses and they’re just
experimenting and making shit out of dying…and you know making patterns with
bleaching and like throwing rope on a shirt and bleaching it and then throwing it through
another process and then you have this thin fabric with all this history on it and then you
put a print on top of it. So I see the future as like limitlessly expansive and a more
luxurious feeling high quality T-shirt.
Participant No. 18
There’s not going to be anything in a few years…it’s over…the game’s over. I say
DIY—Do It Yourself—everybody’s like fuck corporations, fuck mass production. You
know it’s like the trickery…it’s a mass awakening. Right now people are up. I’m an
artist so I see shit before a lot of common folk but it’s here. And you know that’s my

122
job…is to kind of dictate the trend. And the trend right now is you know Do It Yourself.
You know a lot of people are going to just do shit themselves and say fuck corporations.
Participant No. 28
I think wearable art. Just with textiles, what’s happening with textiles, like recyclable
fabrics, bio-fabrics, all of that stuff is exciting. So I pretty much think that that’s the
future…and really redefining what the T-shirt is. I mean exactly what is the T-shirt?
Because you have…I guess typically we [think] of the T-shirt as a short-sleeved or a
long-sleeved thin fabric. But what is a T-shirt? …because now you’re seeing sweatshirts
with cropped sleeves…Is that categorically a T-shirt? What is the T-shirt? So I think
redefining exactly what the T-shirt actually is may be the future of the T-shirt.
Brands in the Market
This concluded the assessment of the T-shirt market across space and time. The section
that follows builds from these discussions by examining the relationship between T-shirts and
brands in an effort to draw answers to RQ2. Here the participants were challenged to evaluate
the equity of brands in relation to their market position and consider the legitimacy of market
segmentation with regard to price, quality and status when concerning T-shirts.
Luxury Brands
Respondents were asked list the top three luxury brands within the industry in order to
gain an internal perspective of high fashion brands from the voice of industry insiders. There
were a total of 44 brands listed among participant replies. It should be noted that for this
discussion and all “top 3” inquiries, participants were allowed to list as many brands as they felt
necessary and all responses were recorded. The aim was to have respondents list at least 3. The
highest frequency achieved for any single response was for ‘Givenchy’ with 10 replies followed

123
by ‘Louis Vuitton with 8, ‘Gucci’ and ‘Yves Saint Laurent’ with 6, ‘Polo Ralph Lauren’ with 5
and ‘Burberry’ with 4 replies. There was 1 participant who stated ‘None’ and 3 who replied ‘I
don’t know’. The remaining response categories had 3, 2, or only 1 reply. The complete results
can be seen in Appendix C Table 15.
Participant responses tended to exhibit an exceptional degree of normalcy bias (Oiwa,
Hirabayashi, Kojima & Ohashi, 2013) and survivorship bias (Garcia & Gould, 1993) with many
respondents professing their belief that luxury market juggernauts such as Louis Vuitton, Gucci,
Chanel and Yves Saint Laurent have always, and will always be at the top of the fashion
industry. However, these biases effectuate a lack of consideration for the fact that for every
Gabriel Chanel whose business has thrived into the twenty-first century (mostly in name alone),
there is an Elsa Schiaparelli or a Lucy Christiana whose business was closed by the mid
twentieth century—often not due to any inherent inferiority, but in many cases unpreventable
circumstances or changes in the system of social values that allowed those businesses to thrive
initially. Likewise, consumer markets are in greater flux at a faster pace than ever and therefore
the susceptibility of luxury brands to succumb to market pressures and lose status is also a
greater risk. The modern brands of Dior and Saint Laurent are in effect corporate relics riding
the legacies of the fashion houses built by those principle designers. The names of
Schiaparelli
37
, Lucile or Poiret could easily grace the façades of flagship boutiques across the
world’s luxury shopping districts with their rich histories of celebrated design, prestigious
patronage and associations with modernist, dada or surrealist expression. Similarly, those
brands that have remained could just as easily fade into obscurity should the highly unstable
modern consumer market suddenly render invalid their long-term business models—steeped in

37
Schiaparelli couture was resurrected to critical acclaim in 2014 by Italian designer Marco Zanini using modern interpretations of Schiaparelli
originals.

124
superficial prestige. In fact, Chanel’s business teetered on the brink of destruction during the
Second World War and the house of Vuitton, like luxury jeweler Tiffany & Co. nearly
overextended itself to the point of becoming a discount brand in the later twentieth century
under corporate mismanagement (Thomas, 2007; Wayne, 1983). The main point is that the
survivorship of one couture house over another often has less to do with the superiority of the
founders, their designs, their symbolism, their heirs and their legacies, and more to do with
chance survival through the personal, social, political, and economic turmoil of small business
which catered to high-end clientele before being acquired by holding conglomerates that
reintroduced them into the market with an onslaught of marketing resources of the highest order
under the guise of a constructed continuity with their legacies of fine craftsmanship and
premium service.
Interviewees attributed a high degree of these brands’ success to the effects of marketing
and made considerable note of the fact that although they have a tendency to produce higher
quality goods in general the difference in quality does not warrant the difference in price from
lower tiers of fashion. Many respondents also stated that they did not follow high fashion
closely enough to make truly informed opinions but simply listed 3 brands, which seemed to
garner enough sensation for them to notice in passing in their professional capacity.
Participant No. 1
Louis Vuitton will always be top. Polo is a luxury brand but it’s so segmented. I mean
there’s the luxury of the black label and the collection and stuff that goes down the
runway, but then there’s also the stuff that we’re selling at Coles and JC Penney’s…well
not JC Penney’s anymore but Coles. Gucci. There’s a million songs about it so…

125
Some participants went against the conventional wisdom, stating the contradictory view
that luxury behemoths such as Louis Vuitton had become passé.
Participant No. 3
Right now I’m going to say Givenchy, Rick Omens, and Y3 let’s throw that in
there…Yogi Yomamoto. Yo I don’t think that’s…Alright Chanel maybe, but that Louis,
Gucci, that’s kind of in the past right now. They haven’t dropped anything too
crazy…nothing phenomenal.
Other participants vehemently denounced the validity of luxury as a worthwhile agenda
in the fashion industry all-together. Such respondents tended to view the luxury market as
manipulative and its effects as destructive to the social order—admonishing them for their
tendency to appropriate styles from the lower classes only to rebrand them at super-premium
price points.
Participant No. 18
See you’re asking the wrong person. And I don’t believe in luxury brands. I don’t
believe in the top designers because actually at the end of the day those luxury brands
got their original ideas from the underprivileged. So all this shit stems from the on the
ground. You know all the creative…all the wittiness and those cool factors come from
this shit on the ground. And those high-end brands take the shit and you know they
might put it on a better material and put more production or more PR or more promotion
into it to make it luxurious. So I don’t respect them. All the shit I respect comes from the
streets because it’s a trickle up effect. You know what I’m saying? I don’t look at them
and say I respect them. I don’t ever respect luxury brands. You’ll never see me wearing
a luxury brand. That shit is fake! Okay you say for example a Louis Vuitton or a Lavin

126
or a Givenchy…like these brands, you know they take, take, take, take, take ‘til where
they live up here and they consume everything from the streets and then they try to bring
it up, which is to me a coward way of design. You know it’s like it’s knocking off.
No. 22 took the opportunity to comment on the limited effectiveness on the modern
symbolism of luxury by articulating the difference between being ‘fashionable’ and ‘stylish’.
Participant No. 22
So I would say. I really don’t know. I don’t follow the luxury fashion world. I’m really
not, you know…I’m not the one that seeks luxury “fashion”. I’m a style guy. There’s a
difference between style and fashion. Fashion is what you see in magazines, what people
buy and trends. Style is something that is a personal flavor to you. So I mean I could
walk into a Louis Vuitton store and find something that I like or I can walk into H&M
and find something that I like. I don’t really sit there and play with labels. I’m in the
fashion industry. I understand what it costs to make goods and I’m not the person that’s
going to spend my last on a luxury item just because it is the “fashionable” thing to do
so I couldn’t even answer that question for you.
Respondents were also asked to name the top three luxury brands in the eyes of the
general public, in contrast to fashion professionals, in order to determine what fashion industry
insiders thought about the popular opinion of high fashion. There were a total of 36 brands
listed in these discussions. Responses were highly concentrated with 61% of participants (19
total) naming ‘Louis Vuitton’ in their reply. This was followed by ‘Gucci’ and ‘Givenchy’ with
11 replies each, ‘Versace’ with 6 replies and Burberry with 4. There was 1 participant who
stated ‘None’ and 3 who replied ‘I don’t know’. The remaining response categories had 3, 2, or
only 1 reply. The complete results can be seen in Appendix C Table 16.

127
Participant commentary mostly focused on what brands the greatest numbers of people
are willing to pay a premium for. Many participants simply stated, “It’s the same.” It is also
noteworthy to mention that during these discussions on luxury brands, participants frequently
made references to the notion that this market segment is largely homogenous in terms of its
popularity because brands based in luxury and high fashion generally operate off of the same
profiting models whereby they license their brand identities out to toiletry and accessory
manufacturers in order to make sales to the general public, who cannot afford to purchase from
their seasonal collections at any significant rates. With such clientele, there is an important
component of conspicuousness in the brand identity as noted by (Han, Nunes & Drèze, 2010).
The participants were of the general perception that the public is more or less susceptible
to the effects of marketing when it comes to their opinions of luxury brands and the positions of
those brands within the hierarchy of the market. Many participants expected that the general
public would reflect the same opinions as the leaders of the fashion world, while others
suggested that the most commercially recognizable brands would be the most popular. Still
others felt that the most commercially recognizable were the top choices of both the fashion
world leaders and the general public. These inquiries were largely exploratory and meant to
simply gauge informed expert opinions of the population for the purpose of designing the
surveys for the qualitative study. The answers were straightforward and tended to rely on
popular culture in addition to the brands’ market presence.
Participant No. 1
I would still say Louis Vuitton, I would still say Gucci and I would say like another
superpremium …like a Fendi or a Prada or something like that…When you have a brand
that focuses mainly on accessories, that’s where you’re getting the premium because

128
those accessories… When you have something that’s like a handbag or something that’s
readily seen, then it becomes highly regarded, high exposure, high mark-up…[Any of
the brands down] 5
th
Avenue but Madison Avenue more so.
Participant No. 26
All of the top Luxury houses that are held within LVMH will always charge a premium
rate. So all of your Gucci’s, all of your Prada’s, all of your Louis Vuitton’s…everything
that’s within the LVMH and Chanel portfolio I think will…you know there’s a reason
why they remain at the top of that level. Givenchy has come in now with this street-lux
thing and has opened a lane for other people to play in that. Balmain does really good
work within that space and I see a lot of younger people adopting the brand now, where
it was a much older mens brand in the past. Within the luxury space I would say those
brands.
Luxury Brand T-shirts
The interviewees gave their opinions on the validity of luxury brand T-shirts in their
proposal of superior quality and the justification of their super-premium price points. These
responses yielded two quantitative data points—one for quality and the other for the design.
Quality produced a total of 23 unique response categories having a very high degree of
diffusion. The highest response, ‘Givenchy’, received a total of 9 replies, while 5 participants
replied ‘None’ and 3 replied ‘I don’t know’. The remaining response categories had either 2 or
1 reply. On the contrary design yielded 21 response categories with ‘Givenchy’ receiving 10
replies, followed by ‘None’ with 8. ‘Marc Jacobs’ received 3 replies in addition to ‘I don’t
know’. The remaining response categories received either 2 or 1 reply. The complete results can
be seen in Appendix C Tables 17.1 and 17.2.

129
Participants were for the most part unpredictable in the brands they would name for
these two inquiries. With the exception of Givenchy (a member of the market dominating
LVMH portfolio) by Riccardo Tisci—who had been exceptionally popular at the time due to his
groundbreaking infusion of streetwear with high-end luxury fashion—respondents found little
common ground in offering praise for the quality and designs of luxury brands, with the next
highest response categories being that the brands in this segment were either all the same as one
another or collectively no different from the market at large as indicated by ‘None’.
Participants also took this opportunity to voice their disapproval for the exorbitant prices being
charged for luxury brand T-shirts given their limited capacity to offer distinction in quality or
design as part of a highly standardized and simplistic class of garments. It was frequently
insinuated throughout the interview that the most cutting edge T-shirt designs were largely the
product of streetwear and independent designers rather than designs coming out of major
corporate operations, even at the high end.
Participant No. 4
I mean I like what Riccardo Tisci [from Givenchy] is doing, you know. And I like what,
you know, like I like what a lot of designers are doing with playful graphics like
using…bringing streetwear elements into their high-end fashion, I really do. In terms of
quality, I don’t think any T-shirt ever is worth like 400, 500 dollars, 1,000 dollars. I just
don’t it’s ridiculous.
Participant No. 9
I couldn’t even answer…I said [Givenchy] but the thing for me is the designs. They’re
just going into the 15
th
century or something going for like old Madonna pictures and
then putting it on a shirt and charging $400 for it. I’m not hating on the fact that they can

130
do that, I’m just saying I feel like I can provide something more original than just
pulling something off a painting, but an idea’s an idea, if it works it works.
Participant No. 27
I think that in terms of quality…I would probably look at a brand like Visvim…I think
Visvim does it quite well…But there’s honestly no luxury brand that I would ever think,
“Hey I need a T-shirt today and I’m going to go in this direction and get one from label
XYZ.” …I would never go to a high fashion label to buy a T-shirt I think. It’s just kind
of against…those things are incompatible for me, I think…When it comes to certain
brands it doesn’t make sense for me because I think that we all understand that for a
high-fashion label…I think their purest vision is not based on T-shirts, right? It’s based
on cut and sew…you’re kind of buying into the shit that…just the people that want to be
associated with the brand rather than appreciating it for what it represents.
Mass Luxury Brands
Participants discussed the ramifications of the mass marketing of luxury brand identities
through the use of diffusion lines or mass luxury brands from an organizational perspective. The
replies were divided into two sections—one for brands and the other for consumers. The
responses yielded 6 distinct categories—3 for each section. For brands 28 participants indicated
that the use of mass luxury and diffusion lines ‘Benefits the brand’ totaling 90% of respondents.
There were merely 5 respondents who stated that it ‘Compromises the brand’. For consumers
there were 21 participants who stated that consuming these affordable luxury brands ‘Benefits
the consumer’ totaling 68%, while 10 stated that such purchases came ‘At the expense of the
consumer’. For each section 10 respondents insinuated that ‘it depends’. It is important to
contextualize these results by listing the combined responses. A total of 21 respondents stated

131
that mass luxury both ‘Benefits the brand” and “Benefits the consumer” and 6 of these also
suggested that ‘It depends”. There were 9 participants who replied that these lines ‘Benefit
brands’ but ‘At the expense of the consumer’ and 4 of these also provided some notion that ‘It
depends’. There were 4 respondents who said that mass luxury ‘Compromises the brand’ ‘At
the expense of the consumer’, 3 of which also noted that ‘It depends’. There were 3 respondents
who stated that it ‘Compromises the brand’ to the ‘Benefit of the consumer’, 2 of which said
that ‘It depends’. There was 1 participant who stated only that ‘It depends’. It should be noted
that within these reported responses there were 3 participants who suggested that mass luxury
can be both beneficial and detrimental in either section—one participant who stated both for
brands but only stated benefits for consumers and there were two participants who stated that ‘It
depends’ and stated that diffusion and mass luxury brands could be both beneficial and
detrimental to both brands and consumers, essentially giving every possible response and
combination thereof. The complete results can be seen in Appendix C Tables 18 and 19.
Commentary in these discussions was elaborate and deserving of special consideration
given that these responses were exemplar to the central themes of this entire research project.
The first part of the replies discusses the legitimacy of the retailing of mid-tier status to
consumers. The second part establishes what the possible outcomes are to this form of
associative status downgrading. The questions, “Is it legitimate?” and “Does it expand the brand
presence or does it undermine the brand image through overexposure?” were regularly
appended to the inquiry in order to clarify the terms of its discussion. Participants were, for the
most part, of the belief that these types of business practices in the fashion world benefited the
consumer. They were also, to an even greater degree, of the opinion that the act of luxury
brands offering their identity to extended apparel collections at more affordable prices was to

132
the benefit of the brand in terms of the financial gains, especially in the short term. However, a
significant portion of these respondents indicated as much with the caveat that it depends on
how the diffusion line is executed as well as the consumer’s self-presentation and what it is that
they are seeking to achieve by consuming a particular mass luxury line. Moreover, many
participants asserted that a brands’ cache was transferable to its diffusion lines if those lines
retained the values of the principle brand, but even then only to a fractional degree. A minority
of other respondents leaned more against the idea that there were potential benefits for the
consumer to be had in the mass marketing of apparel through luxury diffusion. These
participants insisted that such endeavors were little more than profit-making ploys by luxury
brands seeking to benefit from their high status by exploiting consumer aspirations—charging
premiums for ordinary product because of its name affiliation.
These results are of little surprise as researchers have clearly articulated the
discrepancies between the modern business models of luxury brands and the legacies of fine
artisanship and craftsmanship, intimate high-culture service forms and noble and aristocratic
clientele which make these business models possible (Francis, 2001; Thomas, 2007; Atwal &
Williams, 2009; Tungate, 2009). In the present luxury brands have sustained a high reputation
through extravagant spending on the spectacles of flagship stores, runway shows, lifestyle
marketing experiences, and celebrity packed red carpet events (Thomas, 2007; Tungate, 2009).
They have retained an elitist clientele through the continued operation of their principal
designer-based bespoke and haute couture collections. Yet these continued activities, which
validate that reputation in the public view, have traditionally been financed through the sale of
licensed toiletries, sunglasses, leather goods and other minor accessories (Thomas, 2007;
Tungate, 2009). These have received an additional level of support through pandering to

133
nouveau riche aspirations in the form of made-to-measure and ready-to-wear collections which
also helped sustain profitability in a more practical manner than couture while maintaining a
limited air of legitimacy (Lefebvre, 1984; Francis, 2001; Atwal & Williams, 2009). However,
the introduction of diffusion sub-brands presented an entire additional revenue stream for the
culturally divested, venture capital class of stakeholders in the holding conglomerates who have
monopolized the once sprawling luxury industry into a handful of business portfolios (Thomas,
2007; Tungate, 2009).
The industry professionals interviewed in this study reverberated the arguments of
critics stating that the mass marketing of licensed accessories and diffusion lines is a savvy
business maneuver reaping lucrative profits for brands and businessmen with the wherewithal to
execute these strategies; ‘but at what expense to the prestige of the brand and to the personal
values of the aspirational consumer?’ Moreover, how do these business practices affect the
general public in its daily interaction as they witness and succumb to the effects of corporate
propaganda, using this framework to schematize or stereotype the identities of groups and
individuals? How does it influence the public’s understanding of quality and value when they
are made to associate substandard materials with high-status identity markers? These are the
insights, which this research aims to resolve through its detailed analysis.
Most noteworthy, Participant No. 3 provided an extensive commentary that reaches to
the core of this research as he discussed traversing the terrain of New York City amongst
different social scenes from ‘Uptown’ (Harlem and the Bronx) to ‘Downtown’ (SoHo, The
Bowery, and The Lower East Side). The distinction between the two scenes is highly symbolic
due to the social diversity of their populations in terms of race, class, income and wealth
disparity. However, it is the merger of the two scenes which ahs been largely responsible for the

134
emergence of high-end New York based streetwear, and more generally the merger of high-end
street aesthetics, culture, and tastes. No. 3 is a recording artist, designer, and a fashionisto
imbedded within the world of cutting edge trends and tastemaking. His commentary was rich
with narrative about gaining entrée into the scene of downtown New York society despite
coming from a less than privileged background, and in the process avoiding criminal activity,
and using his ingenuity to both invent and acquire a fashionable wardrobe capable of earning
him respect for his innovative style in the downtown scene, only to be unappreciated for his
taste and the prestige of his brand choices when returning uptown. The story relates a
conundrum, which is a common challenge for cultural producers such as Participant No. 3 who
offer a valued perspective to the creative industries. This dilemma also befalls aspirational
consumers outside of these cultural epicenters who simply want to attain status through the
acquisition of material beyond their means.
Participant No. 3
I mean it depends on the brand. Because it’s like okay Giorgio Armani and Armani
Exchange…It depends on what crowd you’re in. Because you have Marc Jacobs he has
a lot of stuff “for Marc Jacobs, by Marc Jacobs” you know what I mean It will go down
and he does that great. I think it makes it better for the brand because it’s like alright
boom you have a brand …you have this big brand and not everyone can afford it so let’s
make something for people too…who can’t afford it. I feel…it can help you. It can help
your brand it will bring more exposure for the most part but at the same time it can have
a little…depending on what you’re doing or what you’re doing it with… Yeah it
definitely brings you revenue and it definitely gets you recognition. For someone whose
in a circle like, “Oh I’m a Cool kid and I’m trying to be cool.” And it’s like, “I wanted

135
that Marc Jacobs tee but that joint is like $80 but there’s a Marc tee and that’s Marc
Jacobs and it’s $20 and it’s on sale too, man that’s still Marc Jacobs!” And Marc Jacobs
is still getting the recognition for that. So it can definitely help you but at the same time
it can definitely…“Yo bro, that’s dead a Marc tee, that ain’t Marc Jacobs man!” like,
“Step it up!” you know what I mean? It depends on the crowd you’re in and the
company you keep. Because it could be…you could be wearing Givenchy all day and
the company you keep could [not] give a damn like, they’re wearing Ecko. But if the
company you keep is not about that high fashion or whatever you’re wearing, it may not
even matter. That’s a big reason I really wanted to make tees…I really wanted to go into
fashion by myself because it was like…man I ain’t going to front I’m from the hood
man I love fashion, I love clothes but my mom ain’t got it you know what I mean? Like
growing up I ain’t have it you know what I mean? And my mom being who she was I
couldn’t go out there and let me go do this, do this [meaning commit crimes] and get my
money. You know what I mean? I couldn’t do that so…I would go to a thrift store. I was
fifteen going to thrift stores. But down town in SoHo like, “Yo I ain’t going to front, this
is dead [meaning absolutely] Marc Jacobs.” And I’m throwing it on but I’m coming
back to my peoples and to the dudes I chill with…they dead [meaning absolutely] don’t
even know what I’m wearing. Because they’re not even up on that, they’re still on the
trend of what’s going on and I’m just…I’m grabbing up little pieces here and there from
the thrift store and it’s like now when you think about it and I look back it’s like,
“Wow!” You could just have just one piece and that would make you the man. But now
it has come full circle to that one piece. I could have on shitty converse, holes in my
converse, ripped up jeans, my jeans look like they cost $3 but throw on that Givenchy

136
shirt and a trucker hat and everybody’s like, “Yo this [guy is] fly.” That one piece makes
your whole outfit. And then at the same time it came full circle to the…you could have
on Givenchy everything and look like a clown. [And people] will not respect you. I see
that every day you know, dudes with the newest Jordans on, you know True Religions,
and the shirt but you matching in all red. You’re like a walking marker. Why do you
want to be identical to that man? That’s my whole [thing] it’s like if we go take a picture
together we look like twins. Why do you want to look like the next man?
Participant No. 7
It’s just a bully!...like you are just charging that because you can…you’re just charging
that high price because you know the people will buy it. When you sell a shirt for that
much you are pretty much…you are selling…“This is my worth and you’re going to buy
it.” It definitely stands for something; it makes a difference because you’re in a higher
end brand. So you’re at that higher end level of a brand where it will show how deep
your pocket is, because you’re not just going to spend $300 on a T-shirt if you don’t
have $300 to spend on a T-shirt… That’s just them catering to different markets because
I would say Giorgio Armani is your suit, [whereas] Armani Exchange is more
edgy…you’re just paying for the name. [It’s] reaching out to everybody. No because it’s
its own entity, it’s its own brand. So I’ll never wear a Chaps Ralph Lauren shirt but I’ll
wear a [Ralph Lauren] Denim & Supply shirt because: 1. It’s a totally different style so
one doesn’t affect the other. I just won’t wear that and then eventually Ralph Lauren will
shut Chaps down.

137
Participant No. 13
I think it’s smart because…It’s smart right now in the economic situation that we’re in
because everybody gets to wear it…gets a piece of Marc. Everybody gets a piece of
Armani. No I don’t [think they offer a legitimate lifestyle experience] I think they use
sub-par fabrics even though they produce in China and it costs them nothing. I don’t
think they use what they could use. Like when I started my kids line I put everything
into my fabrics, I put everything into my sewing. I don’t care if I’m making as much
money but I get it the world isn’t like me. The world is a money hungry place and the
more the better, but at least everybody does get the Marc and the Armani and the
Niemen Marcus last call even and the Barney’s Co-op…I think it promotes the brand. I
think it’s unfair to people sometimes just because making a T-shirt does not cost that
much and printing a T-shirt [with] with your logo…but I get that they don’t want to
lower their standards and they have to price things a certain way. I get it. But I think
that it’s a little unfair because a lot of people do want to get to the point where they’re
buying…I guess if you’re going into Louis Vuitton the cheapest thing that would be in a
normal person’s price range would be the T-shirt. So that makes them feel good about
themselves. They get a T-shirt that says Louis Vuitton on it or Burberry or what not. I
don’t think it dilutes the brand.
It should be reiterated here that Participant No. 13 is a garment manufacturer who
heads a production plant in Los Angeles. Therefore this participant’s opinions of build quality
should be taken with an additional degree of consideration, as it is their business to deal in
fabric and assembly quality as the primary function of their professional career.

138
Participant No. 18
I think everything is hype. Everything is…All this shit is hype at the end of the day and
the more successful you are with your brand, the more hype you have to sell. You’re not
really a brand unless you are amongst the people you’re selling your fucking shit with.
That’s why I said it’s all going to come back, it’s going to be like a reset button and
that’s why you see…you know for example Diamonds, and Crooks & Castles …these
are more street brands but they’re growing rapidly because they are part of the people
that they’re selling to. Like they’re at the parties, you know they’re in the streets you
know most of their consumers are musicians that…at the shows you know. You don’t
see this with the “high-end” luxury brand. Like I don’t even understand what’s so
luxurious about these fucking brands. Like what makes a luxurious brand luxury?...I
mean when you see the shit for what it is, it’s just another way to dumb down your
product to reach a level of a certain type of demographic to get money. I look at it like
this: if Marc Jacobs is not selling, well let’s create a Marc by Marc Jacobs that’s at a
lower price point and maybe we can get some of those people who can’t afford the Marc
Jacobs. It’s all a fucking hoax, it’s trickery!
Mass Luxury Brand T-shirts
Participants provided insights on the technical distinctions between the utilitarian and
the artistic value of T-shirts produced by affordable luxury brands within that market segment
and in comparison to the total market. Responses yielded two quantitative data points—one for
quality and the other for the design. Quality produced a total of 17 unique response categories.
The highest response given was ‘None’ meaning that the shirts in this category are all the same
or indistinct from shirts in lower market segments. This answer received a total of 12 replies

139
achieving 39% frequency. This was followed by ‘Marc by Marc Jacobs’ with 6 replies and
‘Polo Ralph Lauren’ and ‘J. Crew’ which both had 4 replies. ‘Armani Exchange’ received 3
replies. The remaining response categories had either 2 or 1 reply. Meanwhile design yielded 16
response categories with ‘None’ also receiving the majority of replies this time reaching 35%
with 11 replies. This was followed again by ‘Marc by Marc Jacobs’ with 5 replies and ‘Polo
Ralph Lauren’ and ‘J. Crew’ with 4 replies. ‘Armani Exchange’ received 3 replies. The
remaining response categories received either 2 or 1 reply. See Appendix C Tables 20.1 and
20.2.
While mass or affordable luxury brands tended to fare relatively well as complete
collections in the eyes of the industry professionals regarding their legitimacy for aspirational
consumers, the T-shirts produced by these brands received less validation in the expert opinion.
It should also be noted that there is a broad disparity in the price range for shirts that might be
considered mass luxury, and that this distinction is more significant in this market segment in
terms of high to low ratio than either the mass-market or luxury segments. For example, while
Marc by Marc Jacobs is indeed a vertically downward diffusion line, its T-shirts maintain a
relatively premium price point between $60 and $100, which is a significant mark-down from
super-premium Marc Jacobs T-shirts which retail at around $100 to $300. However, Marc by
Marc’s price range is still relatively high even with comparison to some other luxury brands, let
alone mass luxury and diffusion lines. Respondents mentioned fast fashion brands such as Zara,
or designer collaborations with H&M and Target, which blur the lines between affordable and
upscale clothing through sophisticated processes of production, marketing, and integration.
Some brands such as Armani Exchange and J. Crew were celebrated for the high quality of their
T-shirts, while several participants derided these affordable status brands and others such as

140
Abercrombie & Fitch and Guess, vilifying the T-shirt in particular as problematic for its
unsubstantiated profitability as an effect of its conspicuousness. Participant No. 18 went on a
tirade declaring that these garments are all made under the same circumstances in factories in
similarly deprived labor markets by the hands of similarly exploited workers, and that the only
difference from the top to the bottom is the branding of the T-shirt.
Participant No. 18
I’ll tell you right now because I’m tired of answering these fucking questions. All the
fucking T-shirts are made from the same fucking factory. There’s only a few fucking
factories out here producing the same shit. So that’s why I said there’s no such thing as
luxury because the same shit that’s producing the shit at Wal-Mart is doing the same shit
that they’re doing and selling at Barney’s or fucking Bergdorf Goodman! I’ve been to
China. I’ve seen the fucking factory workers work on fucking Louis Vuitton and work
on some fucking Faded Glory shit. You know what I’m saying? it’s all a fucking hoax
man I’m trying to tell you. The people…it’s more to serve the ego of the privileged
people. You’ve got it like this, you’ve got privileged and underprivileged—privileged
doesn’t want to be seen wearing the same shit as the underprivileged people, so they’re
willing to pay a certain amount of money so they won’t look like the [people] next to
them. And that’s why it’s called ‘luxury’. The shit is all fucking fake…The designs are
all the same across the board. I mean you may have better technical artists but at the
same time they’re all saying the same shit and most [luxury] brands take the shit from
the streets.

141
Streetwear and Boutique Brand T-shirts
Participants were asked to provide their perspective of the market position of streetwear
brands in terms of their utilitarian and artistic values with comparison to one another and the
market at large. Responses yielded two quantitative data points—one for quality and the other
for the design. Quality produced a total of 39 response categories and responses were highly
varied. The most frequently stated response was ‘None’, which received a total of 6 replies.
This was followed by ‘10Deep’ and ‘SUPREME’, which were each stated by 4 respondents.
There were 4 participants who said ‘I don’t know’. The remaining response categories had
either 2 or 1 reply. Design yielded 39 response categories with ‘SUPREME’ receiving 7 replies,
followed by ‘10Deep’ with 6. ‘The Hundreds’ received 4 replies. The remaining response
categories received 3, 2 or only 1 reply. See Appendix C Tables 21.1 and 21.2.
The overall commentary from this inquiry suggested that streetwear brands in general
tend to offer limited distinction in terms of T-shirt quality. Though many participants stated that
there were brands whose quality was exceptional, the prevailing opinion appeared to be that
brands in this market segment capitalize off of cutting edge designs. Streetwear is a reactionary
movement within the fashion industry, which is driven by counter-cultural momentum. These
brands are largely built from independent enterprises and tend to be overtly associated with
notions of youth culture and youth identity. Participants disclosed that many streetwear brands
basically use blank shirts that may be purchased from a handful of major wholesale
manufacturers, such as Hanes, Gilden, American Apparel, Fruit of the Loom or Russell. Others
may acquire blanks from smaller makers in order to differentiate themselves from the generic
mass-market T-shirt canvases being purchased by their competitors. Still, larger independent
street brands may design and manufacture shirts to their own specification with factories

142
contracted domestically or more often in foreign facilities from Central Asia all the way to the
South-East Asian Pacific. In this way we find that the equity attributed to brands in this market
segment with T-shirts is largely the result of the critique of creative efforts—as opposed to
higher-end fashion where both quality and creativity in T-shirts is largely dismissed and equity
is attributed to the T-shirt through the brand’s status either as a result of its association with
high status and high quality or its association with creative innovations in other areas of fashion
design. Streetwear brands occupy a nexus of cultural diversity and change, and therefore the T-
shirt, which participants stated is a central component to their collections, is valued among this
very niche market segment not only for its creative innovation, but also as a conspicuous
display of brand identity, which garners status through the notion of exclusivity. This sense of
exclusiveness is effectuated through the product’s limited supply and elusive channels of
accessibility, which allow the consumption of the streetwear T-shirt to serve as a conspicuous
demonstration of social capital aside from displaying economic status
38
.
Participant No. 8
I like 10 Deep, I like Play Clothes, I like The Hundreds…Here’s one thing that you
should know about streetwear brands at least in my opinion: They make a blank and
basically it’s a basic T-shirt. The quality is going to stretch…not that far from what you
might by from a wholesaler. What separates them at the end of the day is the creativity
that they’re actually putting on the garment. So I think quality wise I’m more focused on
the T-shirt quality graphic than I am the actual [shirt].

38
While streetwear brands are generally idealized as expensive as an effect of their adoption of luxury segment marketing directives, T-shirts in
this group may range from average prices to retail values on par with the upper extremes of the luxury sector.

143
Participant No. 12
I don’t think that one brand has really seized the market, but I think that all of those
brands are doing it well…The person who is looking for that sort of street look is
looking to have something that nobody else has. So they’re looking for the T-shirt that
nobody else has seen. They’re looking for some design that’s got a link in it that nobody
else is going to know about, so I think that’s why it’s like a lot of people know Kid
Robot but that’s more just about their distribution than some of the other lines.
Mass Market Brand T-shirts
Respondents spoke about the mass market T-shirt segment, producing two quantitative
data points—one for quality and the other for the design. Quality produced a total of 17
response categories. The highest response was ‘UNIQLO’ with 13 replies. Next was ‘American
Apparel’ and ‘H&M’ with 5 replies followed by ‘Zara’
39
and ‘None’ which were each stated 4
times. The remaining response categories had either 2 or 1 reply. Design yielded 14 response
categories with ‘UNIQLO’ in the lead with 12 replies, followed by ‘H&M’ with 8 replies.
‘Target’ and ‘Forever 21’ each received 4 replies. The remaining response categories received
3, 2 or only 1 reply. The complete results can be seen in Appendix C Tables 22.1 and 22.2.
The T-shirt is generally understood to be a mass-market fashion commodity. It has only
been of recent that the notion of luxury has been applied to these garments in the sense that
many consumers now have some general idea of premium T-shirt quality, design and pricing.
The purpose of this discussion was to assert the utilitarian and artistic values of “ordinary” T-
shirts with comparison to the total T-shirt market. The general finding was that the T-shirt

39
Though Zara is actually positioned as mass luxury brand in terms of price, professionals within the fashion industry tended to also idealize it
as a mass-market brand due to its fast fashion production and distribution strategy—listing it under responses to both inquiries. This is telling
because it gives rise to the notion stated earlier that mass luxury brands tend to sew confusion as to their status as a result of the ambiguity
within their total set of business activities; mixing strategies from disparate market segments into a single campaign such that the symbolic
significance of these strategies, the status of the brands using them as well as the status of other brands are all left with a degree of uncertainty.

144
unlike other apparel is highly democratic in that everyone can make T-shirts and outstanding
designs can come from anywhere ranging from couture fashion houses, large corporations,
small boutiques, independent designers and even consumers engaged in interactive customized
purchasing processes. The experts also suggested that while there absolutely are features which
can empirically raise the build quality of a T-shirt such as cotton staple length, thread count,
fabric density, wash, etc., these aspects of a T-shirt are limited in the monetary expense that can
be attributed to them and have a tendency to be severely over-stated in the monetary value of
the finished product as a result of the fact that a) the average consumer cannot easily appreciate
the differences between the application of each of these treatments or lack thereof and b) these
treatments are primarily carried out by brands in the higher-end due to the fact that ordinary
consumers place less importance on these features than they do on artistic factors such as color
schemes, message content, and cultural relevance.
This discussion was laden with commentary on the fast-fashion sector, which occupies a
space that serves somewhat as a hybrid between mass market and affordable luxury. Swiftness
of the trend adoption, commitment to quality standards, and the overall value and affordable
prices of the collections were regularly cited as the primary reasoning behind the favorable
opinions of brands like H&M, UNIQLO, Forever 21, and Zara (which was also listed frequently
in discussion of mass luxury). It should be noted that these brands were regularly praised for
their ability to consistently adopt trends at the start of their diffusion cycles, though they were
less often cited for any ability to initiate or lead trends in the market despite their recognized
proximity to trend leadership. American Apparel was mentioned for the quality of its textiles,
which are regularly used as blanks for many small clothing brands. Private label brands such as
Macy’s American Rag, Sears’ Roebuck & Co., and JCPenneys’ Original Arizona Jeans

145
Company, were also noted as having good, standard quality shirts, with decent designs, which
may not be considered as fashion forward, but may compliment a respectable wardrobe.
General opinion of the mass-market T-shirt segment was that it has been traditionally run as a
market for mid-, to late-, adopters but that the developments of new business models,
technological evolutions in production methods, and trends toward customization have led in a
new era dominated by fast fashion business principles and a greater sense of fashion sensibility
offered to consumers in this lower tier.
Participant No. 1
Quality? Hanes makes a good T-shirt. I mean Hanes makes a really good T-shirt. I can’t
think of anything that’s like, “I really like Old Navy’s quality on their T-shirt.” I don’t.
It does the job. “I really like GAP.” Nah. [In terms of design] H&M and Zara for that
type of ability to quickly turn around the business or quickly turn around the current
trend. So if you see something like that “Celine Dion” they would take that and do
something comparable but with another name, because they couldn’t take Celine Dion.
Participant No. 17
For sure! Yeah, see that’s the thing, from my perspective…and I think there is a whole
disenfranchised sort of group of people that nobody acknowledges. Everybody thinks
that everybody is all these hipster people that are constantly flipping like…you know,
I’m not going to mention any brands at all but, you know, it’s all this brand, it’s that
brand, it’s this brand, it’s that brand. And that’s fine. But it’s just some like silly game. It
doesn’t…it’s just…you know it is what it is and I never really thought of [my company]
as we were playing that game so much. We would try to cross those boundaries and kind
of do events. You know we’d go out to MAGIC and collaborate with brands that would

146
never do anything together and stuff and that’s where I really like this kind of being
maybe a creative bridge between a lot of the…what are the….like you were mentioning
like people that get caught up in it.
Participant No. 19
Well in terms of…you know Forever 21 they do a good job, it’s not the best quality but
they capture the trends. H&M is the same you know I think they capture the trends and
they do a really good job with that. You know target is a different thing, it’s very mass
market but they do…they’re more of a retailer than a brand but I think…they are
relevant, their T-shirt presence…or JCPenney even…you go in that store and they are in
the tee business. You know what I mean? There are tons and tons of tees and lots of
things to choose from…and Macy’s as well…I think that American Rag does an
incredible job with T-shirts. Urban Outfitters as well, which is a retailer.
Participant No. 30 gave a noteworthy discussion on his experiences as a market leading brand
and the height of his success being a point of compromise for the sustainability of the brand in
the world of fashion, which constantly seeks the rejection of the old. This is much of the reason
that mass market brands have traditionally tended to shy away from trend leadership, rather
occupying a safe middle ground representative of more general tastes that can be gradually
phased in and out with the changing of the times.
Participant No. 30
Zara is the best…because they go in and out. You walk into a Zara today and two weeks
later you can’t find that. Don’t think you’re going to get it there. They keep changing up
their inventory, which makes them fresh. But they own their own stores, they own their
own manufacturing so it’s so totally vertical, so it’s easy. Nobody else can really

147
recreate that. Like with me I have to make it a year in advance and then hope that I did it
right. Hope that I went to my trends guys, or I went off and went overseas or I was in the
club enough to see what colors that I hope that people are going to like next year. If I’m
wrong I’m sitting on it. You can’t sue for a fashion design. I mean all they’re doing is
they’re taking it from overseas; they’re not taking it from here. What do we know? No
really, in the scope of things we don’t know shit! Don’t act like we know shit I don’t
know shit! I’m constantly. I am constantly on the Internet like, “What’s next? What’s
next? What’s new?” I adapt to what’s going on. Although, like even with [my
company]. We got stuck in a trend of our clothes were baggy when that time period was
[in] that’s what it was. So then when everything switched to tapered or thin jeans or slim
jeans or whatever you want to call it or damned tights for dudes. It was like we tried to
slim it down a bit but they didn’t accept us because they still said, “That’s baggy.” Now
it could have been a damned tight…it could have been so tight that you couldn’t even
put it on and they’d still be like, “Nah that’s too baggy.” Because conceptually I did so
well in my period, in my time that I’m stuck there. And really the thing about it is that
every business has it’s curve but we look at our…we look at it totally different. But
business is business. But we’re not looking at it as business, we’re looking at it as, “Oh,
you’re not hot.” Now how do you stay hot 100%? You can’t! You can’t!
Here No. 30 is describing the tendency in youth culture to have accelerated transitions
between trends of popularity and vogue. Particularly apparent within the urban and hip-hop
communities but equally present as a function of the fashion industry, there is a tendency to
wholly embrace trends of style and aesthetic such that they become definitive of a specific era
only to be intensely rejected as passé once that time period has subsided and a new trend has

148
been born on the horizon. These effects are largely the result of expanded communications
capabilities whereby information is disseminated to larger audiences with greater speed than at
any other point in human history. The essential process that occurs involves greater audiences
accessing greater quantities of information at a more rapid pace such that popular opinion is
more easily swayed, it is swayed more rapidly, and it is swayed in a greater number of different
directions today than it has been in times past. This means it is more difficult by all means for a
single trend to sustain its influence at any point in time let alone to extend the temporal duration
of its influence beyond the ephemeral.
Total Market
Discussions of which brands overall were producing the best T-shirts yielded two
quantitative data points—one for quality and the other for the design. Quality produced 26
unique response categories with a high degree of diffusion. The highest response was ‘None’
with 8 participants implying that there is no brand with superior quality to dominate the entire
market. Next was ‘It depends’ with 5 replies followed by ‘American Apparel’ with 4 replies.
The remaining response categories had 3, 2 or only 1 reply. Of the number of responses given
for best quality in the total U.S. market 11 were luxury brands, 1 was mass luxury, 5 were
streetwear and 7 were mass-market brands. Design yielded 30 total response categories also
with high diffusion. The highest response was ‘None’ with 8 replies. This was followed by
‘Independent’ with 5 replies and ‘It depends’ with 4 replies. The remaining response categories
received 3, 2 or only 1 reply. Of the responses given for best design in the total U.S. market
there were 9 luxury brands, 2 mass luxury, 10 streetwear and 6 mass-market brands. The
complete results can be seen in Appendix C Tables 23.1 and 23.2.

149
These conversations offered a complete market analysis on behalf of the participants,
which had been initiated as a line of inquiry concerning luxury brands and descended the status
hierarchy down to mass-market brands. Participants listed top brands in their opinion for each
market segment and provided extensive commentary on the differences in quality and design
found in each segment while continuously referencing brands in that segment with regard to one
another and the market at large. The participants were then asked to provide a summary
assessment of the top brands listed for each market segment with comparison to one another.
Respondents especially questioned the validity of brand status as a social construct at this point;
because some voiced the idea that the justification for brand associated value seemed to break
down at the level of T-shirts as the products became indistinguishable in a meaningful way.
Participants also noted that T-shirts from higher-end brands, while tending to be softer to
the touch, and more detailed in their composition, were more subject to suffer disintegration of
their fabric and stitching than less expensive, less soft shirts, as result of the delicacy needed to
achieve their gentle surface texture. The interviewees were forced to reconsider the entire
discussion of brand hierarchy once asked to produce a comprehensive assessment of the T-shirt
market. Having the argument situated along a singular product category such as T-shirts, which
rely heavily on superficial symbolism for their value, appeared to elucidate the psychological
vagary at work in the branding of designer fashion. Respondents discussed the notion of
‘keeping up’ alongside commentary on the construction of a social identity, which designates
the consumer as being a member of desirable upscale social groups, through the consumption of
status brands. This often led to the logical conclusion that ‘designer’ T-shirts maintain a
relatively narrow range of quality standards, which not only fail to warrant their price
differences, but also hold both costs and benefits in the upper and lower divisions of that range

150
such that the qualitative value of a shirt is not necessarily greater according to price in a way
that is universally consistent for the consumer from one individual to the next.
The interviewees argued that brands pour millions of dollars into marketing campaigns
that establish association with specific lifestyles in the public perception, which consumers then
‘buy-into’ in an effort to themselves be connected with those lifestyles. Some expressed the
notion that with T-shirts, the brand hierarchy is somewhat of a “game” being played, because
the shirts, like toiletries, are likely more often purchased by aspiring consumers of the brand
than the target consumers, and in the lower segments, they are largely the effect of a senseless
affinity towards name recognition as a deterrent of apparent status downgrading. Some also
argued that the only value of a T-shirt, as a highly generic commodity of limited technical
distinction—unlike a bespoke suit or couture gown—lies in its artistic merit rather than its
attribution to some world class designer of wardrobes for the rich and famous. That is to say
that for the most part Calvin Klein, Karl Lagerfeld, Marc Jacobs or Donatella Versace do not
design or take particular note of the T-shirts produced and distributed by their respective brands.
These are often simply products licensed and sold under the brand namesakes. Therefore, under
this view, artistically, the independent producer is the preeminent source of true value in the T-
shirt market because the product is representative and attributable to the single artist or
identifiable group’s artistic style, and expression of what is good or desirable, rather than a
constantly shifting room full of salaried laborers altering the placement of well recognized logo.
Participant No. 2
I would say Givenchy…well quality I don’t know, I had a Givenchy tank top that fell
apart and I paid like $200 for it. There are others that are okay. Something about
Givenchy too is that they had one that I didn’t really like I just got it last minute and it

151
was actually a little small for me...and the woman at Bergdorf was like, “Yeah this is
never going on sale blah, blah, blah!” But she was lying because I got it on sale…and
then I decided that I didn’t really like it so I put it on Ebay and I think I spent like $400
on this T-shirt and I wore it once maybe twice and I got back $85 for it. I don’t know
what that says…It’s kind of like throwing your money in the toilet. But [brands] like
Balenciaga like I had the T-shirt from the last collection that Nicholas Ghesquière did
for the house and it’s so old whatever and I got rid of that one…and then the house
reissued it under Alexander Wang in different colors and everyone’s wearing it again so
I got it again. But sometimes there’s that capsule element where it feels like you need to
have it and you actually appreciate the [value].
Participant No. 12
I think that there is a perceived difference but I think that there probably isn’t a huge
difference. I mean I think that goes to the softness of it because unfortunately I think that
a lot of these brands that are very, very high end, you know their T-shirts feel super soft
but they actually get holes in them faster than an H&M T-shirt that is less expensive but
may not have the same hand feel.
Participant No. 18
The best T-shirts that I’ve ever seen have been my friend’s T-shirts. And those were
fucking created by hand on a fucking five pack Target, Fruit of the Loom T-shirt you
know what I’m saying. And they probably washed that shit like 6 times so it had a nice
little wash to it and they created them shits themselves. Like those are the best T-shirts
to me you know when you can put personality and you can put…and that can be
subjective because who’s to say what art is. But when you package something that’s

152
mass produced, I mean that shit is just fake. You’re selling the price ticket. You’re not
selling the passion or the artistry of the shirt. You’re selling the exclusivity of the
product. You’re not talking quality. You’re not talking quality at all.
Participant No. 19
I’m trying to remember this Givenchy shirt that they did. The floral shirts that they did
like last year…it was like birds of paradise or whatever. I remember looking at it really
closely and the way that it was done was very like…I was scratching my head. I didn’t
know how they did it. Just the way that it was printed and where the seams were, it
seemed to you know go from the front to the back of the garment ad it’s impossible to
print that way, so I was just trying to figure out like, “How did they do that?” So I mean
however they did it, it’s not your average T-shirt cost in terms of making. So I have to
give them credit for that, you know, that’s going to cost a lot of money. And I know they
cost a ridiculous amount of money, I’m not saying that it’s worth that. But there is a
difference with something on like that level in terms of like the complexity of make and
a T-shirt that you would get at Forever 21. I think luxury brands are using the best
quality yarns, the best quality fabrication you know, they’re putting money into it
because they’re making something that they want to come across as being expensive.
They’re making something expensive. So there is a difference, it’s just a matter of you
know “Do you really care?” You know at the end of the day it’s a T-shirt and some
people they want to live their lifestyle and the want to buy into that, and they want to
wear something that costs that much money, that has all of that into it. And then some
other people might not or might not even get it like “Why am I going to spend that much

153
money on something that I’m wearing under my clothes…” But that said, you know the
name is also going to garner a hike in the price as well I would think.
Participant No. 21
It varies but I think a few. I think UNIQLO for one. I think 10 Deep is one of the best
quality…like the cut, quality of the design is amazing. And you would be surprised, like
even on the street now the regular average Joe that takes a Hanes Beefy Tee, and that
might to me be the standard T-shirt overall—the Hanes Beefy Tee, 50/50 tee…anything
that you put on that tee is good, it’s a 50/50 tee, it’s cut well. I still look in the flea
markets like what’s a random T-shirt.
Total Market Differences
The status hierarchy within the fashion industry is largely based upon price. Participants
produced two quantitative measures about those differences along the domains of quality and
design. The responses yielded 11 unique response categories and appeared as follows. ‘It
depends for quality and design’ had 13 replies, along with ‘Yes, higher status equals higher
quality and design’, which also had 13 replies, 3 of which were stated with the disclaimer
‘slightly’. Next was ‘No, good and bad quality and design found in every segment’ with 7
replies along with ‘Yes, higher status equals higher quality’, which also had 7 replies, 2 of
which stated ‘slightly’. This was followed by ‘No, design is subjective’ with 6 replies. The
remaining response categories received either 2 or 1 reply. See Appendix C Table 24.
Responses demonstrated that participants were generally split along two beliefs. The
first is that quality and design in T-shirts is to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and that low
cost/status brands can offer high quality shirts just as high cost/status brands can offer shirts of
poor quality. The second position held that T-shirt quality follows a definite hierarchy of

154
cost/status and that generally, the higher a brand is along that hierarchy, the greater the quality
of the T-shirts they offer.
Participant No. 3
It could be quality at $50 and bullshit at $200, and design. I think it’s all in the brand
and their status.
Participant No. 8
Tiers definitely…at the end of the day the thing that separates everyone is going to be
fabrics. You can put whatever graphics you want on there and that does make you
different. From certain brands… and that’s something that goes within the mass
market….I think Polo has a fit that is very adaptable to a wide range of people and I
think that’s a good thing. For me being my size for instance for Polo I might wear a
medium. But that guy who has a little bit more weight on him, he’s still going to be able
to find a T-shirt from them that works. So I think that’s one of the reasons they actually
stand out. As far as tier systems, yes, fabrics are always going to come into play just
because cotton, or polyester or whatever someone’s is using has a price tag to it. To do a
screen print on a T-shirt, it’s not that big of a deal depending on the complication but to
get the right fabric is a big deal. Not everybody has the luxury of getting a specific
fabric.
Well every design company has margins that they have to follow so just depending on
the company, how big the company is, how big the corporate is, if it’s smaller end,
they’re just going to order their T-shirts from American Apparel, and we all have the
same T-shirt just different graphics, so then it all becomes about design. Quality yes.
Quality, because when you have more money to spend you can buy better fabrics and

155
then you can actually pay someone to sew up your T-shirt for you as opposed to just a
mass, like amount…this is the, same cut, same fit, same style, you’re going to get the
same damn color and then whatever graphics you want to put on it, that’s on you. You
know so…
Participant No. 24
No. The designs are not substantial. The quality is. Yeah for sure…You know
[material]…When you feel…I mean, I know socks better than I know shirts so I can say
that when you have a lot of a lot of elastic and…when you have spandex or acrylic, even
though they feel soft it will shrink right up…versus if you have like a really nice
sock…a 200 needle point, combed cotton, feather sock…aloe infused, shea butter
infused…and you feel it, it’s worth it. It doesn’t really cost the factory that much.
Participant No. 28
I think it’s on a brand for brand basis but then you can speak on a brand like Ralph
Lauren that’s always gotten it right. I guess looking at the adjectives that we’re using
here as far as ‘premium’, and ‘luxury’ in contrast to ‘streetwear’ or a ‘mass produced’ or
‘fast fashion’ brand, they’ve always been able to kind of like exist in the middle to
where their price points haven’t been too expensive but they also provide enough quality
to where you get a sustainable brand that you feel like it’s worth the $40, $60, $100 that
you paid for that T-shirt…Ralph Lauren Polo…has always done it very well. You can
get a 3 pack for $25 or you can get a regular tee for between $40 and $65. And you
know what happens with his tees is that as you wash them they wear down but they wear
into a timeless look. It’s synonymous with Americana, which is what Ralph Lauren Polo
is. So he’s done it very well.

156
Pricing
The interviewees also elaborated on the reasonable boundaries of pricing for T-shirts.
The responses had a range of $125 (min = $25, max = $150). There was one respondent who
stated $500 as the limit and this score was removed from the evaluation as an outlier. Another
respondent stated that there is no limit, and another merely said that it depends on the
consumer’s ambitions in making the purchase. The responses for price limit had a mean of (µ =
$68), a median of (Mdn = $50), a mode of ($Mo = 40) and a standard deviation of (σ = $36.63).
The complete results be seen in Appendix C Table 25.
Participants attempted to quantify the value of a brand’s identity in conjunction with
what has been discussed up until this point about important T-shirt components, shirt quality,
design, brand hierarchy, etc. Based upon these previous discussions respondents should have by
this point had a clear assessment of their individual perspective on the range of T-shirt qualities
and prices available in the market. In other words, what is being offered in each market
segment, the validity of these offerings, and the quality and value standards they would use to
assess that validity. Some responses provided substantial commentary about the manufacturing
process of a T-shirt and the expenses involved therein. These conversations were extremely
valuable in terms of their ability to reveal insights about the organizational perspective of
pricing—a concept which is largely lost on the average consumer in the modern ‘free’ market.
Several interviewees insisted that prices in excess of the $50 range (give or take $10) for
mass-produced T-shirts were exorbitant and had no legitimate basis other than the mindless
behavior of consumers. They spoke of rarity and exclusivity being critical to super-premium
pricing, arguing that such shirts require ‘one of a kind’ or limited availability status. Some
suggested that the product must be the work of an individual under independent operation and

157
that its purchase would be more so a support of the arts, but to incur such an expense to the
hands of corporate interests would be absurd. Several of these respondents became incensed at
the state of the market during these conversations for the corporate exploitation of the entire
system from the workers to the consumers, and for the consumers’ willingness to partake in that
process, enabling it to continue. Others asserted that paying superpremiums for shirts in excess
of $100 was a plausible notion for high-end shirts with extensive fine craftsmanship involved in
the manufacturing process, even at the mass-production level (meaning that thousands of shirts
are potentially made).
Respondents revealed that the manufacturing cost of a mass-production T-shirt usually
ranges between $2 and $20 depending on the extent of detail placed into the shirt. The standard
procedure with T-shirts is usually that the cost of production is doubled for wholesale to the
retailer, and then doubled for retail to the consumer. However, due to economies of scale and
the now global, multi-billion dollar nature of the fashion market, what often happens is that
large producers who dominate the market manufacture shirts at a very low cost using
exploitative compensation rates for workers in foreign territories. The shirts are often produced
on such a massive volume that the materials, labor and shipping become negligible and the
producer is able to mark-up the shirts at a margin lower than 100% to the retailer in order to
maximize brand exposure and cut into competitor profits. Shirts may also be marked-up
substantially higher than the standard 100% margin, limiting accessibility, though increasing
desirability (through hierarchical status) and profitability. Still other brands may engage in
extensive refinement of their product quality which adds significantly to the production cost but
then, while still maintaining high volume discounts, charge superpremium rates many times the
cost of production, in some cases pressuring the retailer out of the equation by offering a

158
Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) which is less than double the wholesale value.
Brands might achieve this power as an effect of their market status and ability to draw-in
consumers and offer prestige.
Participant No. 9
I would pay good money for a limited edition run, numbered series shirt…1 of 100, 2 of
100, 3 of 100, 4…and there’s only 100 shirts made. I’d buy one to wear and I’d buy one
and keep it in a box. If it’s a piece of artwork from like a famous artist and they only
made a limited edition I would pay what they asked. I’d pay $1000 for
something…Designer brand T-shirts? I’d probably pay like maybe….I guess I’d pay like
maybe $50…I don’t even think if I had money I’d buy that [$400 Givenchy T-shirt] I
would rather buy a bunch of shirts and then come home and screen my own shit. I would
buy the paint I would buy the screens [and] I would buy the shirts.
Participant No. 14
I think for a T-shirt I wouldn’t pay more than like $120 bucks, and this is talking about
like high-end. And I know like T-shirts from Capital, it’s like $300 bucks, you know. I
know the quality that goes into it, I know how much work that gets done to it and it’s
worth every penny except it’s again a T-shirt, you know. And at the end of the day it’s
who you are, how you rock it, it’s not about how much money you fucking spend on a
fucking T-shirt.
Participant No. 21
If it’s a regular on the shelf T-shirt and you pay more than $40 you’re playing yourself.
If it’s a rare limited like, “We only made 100 of these” it’s at an event, $50. If you’re

159
buying a $100 T-shirt you’re a fucking fool, period. There’s a total of like $5 into that T-
shirt, I don’t care if it’s imported or not.
Participant No. 30
I mean you can’t…Because $100 is stretching it, really. There’s no reason that a T-shirt
should be $100 unless you’re doing a bunch of stuff. Now if you’re just talking about a
regular T-shirt with print…if you’re paying over $35…If you’re paying over $35. Now
there’s another thing about that. Now there’s an answer behind that answer. You have to
understand too…according to whom you’re dealing with. Now if I’m a small guy and
I’ve started a line and I’m only getting a certain amount of T-shirts…the regular average
designer or ‘trying to be designer’ and he has a T-shirt line and he’s cutting the tag off
and printing and doing whatever…he’s buying the T-shirt at wholesale but that
wholesale is high. Now if you go into China and you’re buying 40,000, 50,000 of them,
you know a package deal and you’re getting 10,000 red, whatever, and it’s all designed
and it’s all…and you have a line that’s coming behind that, whatever,
whatever…alright, yeah…$35. All things being equal $35, $40 the most...Alright fine,
I’ll be nice, $40…let’s give them inflation! $42.50! I mean really! Because it’s only
costing you…if you’re really getting it in the stores it’s only costing you $3.50, $4.50,
$5.50. $5 [to] $10, $20 [when you] sell it to the store, and then they’ve got their mark-
up and they’ve got good room to play, they’ve got a good margin.
Consumers in the Market
The section that follows concluded the in-depth-interviews with a focus on identity,
particularly along the domain of status. These segments asked the respondents to think about

160
brand identity and consumer identity as they relate to one another when interfaced by T-shirts,
seeking to produce commentary that might shed light on RQ3.
Consumers Influencing Brands
Brands: Trendiness vs. Price
The interviews dealt thoroughly the issue of the value of trendiness and price of a T-shirt
when each factor is compared to the other’s ability to assert social status. Responses yielded 1
quantitative data point for brands. There were 4 unique response categories produced and
answers were further subdivided into three basic groups whereby participants either stated that
one of the two factors (i.e. trendiness and price) was more important than the other, one was
influential to the other or they discussed the nature of their relationship such that one or the
other was said to be more prevalent at high or low price points. Beyond this, participants stated
‘It depends’ or ‘Neither’. Responses for brands were led by ‘Trendiness influences price’ with
18 replies, followed by ‘Trendiness is more important than price’ and ‘Price influences
trendiness’ with 11 replies each. The remaining response categories received 3, 2 or only 1
reply. For complete results see Appendix C Table 26.
These exchanges firmly established argumentative grounds for the role of designer T-
shirts in determining status. After first addressing the history of T-shirt trends, then outlining the
components most significant to shirt design and the features which make a shirt outstanding,
participants were led to consider how brands go about manipulating those features in order to
appeal to consumer aspirations. Here the industry professionals are being asked to explore the
ability for this type of conspicuous consumption to assert status through a commercial
commodity with low intrinsic value. In other words: Do consumers have the ability to
transfer their social status to a brand image? And what is the most effective way of doing

161
so? The answer to the question is that it depends on the brand, it depends on the design, it
depends on the consumer and it depends on the observer’s individual understanding of brands,
design and status. The purpose of these mental exercises was to determine the thoughts that
drive decision-making within organizations that make important choices on T-shirt production;
what type of shirts to design, how many to produce, how much to charge for each, what type of
trends to follow or create, what the short-, intermediate, and long-term consequences of all these
choices may be. Participant commentary suggested that brands mostly derive their status from
their trendiness, which is a result of their pricing schemes. The aim was that these discussions
might provide critical insights on the fashion industry as a cultural institution, as well as the
impact of its activities and its awareness of the effects of those activities.
Though led by assertions of trends as being more critical, responses were strongly
divided across the sample, and the general consensus seemed to support the notion that
trendiness and price are, one way or another, interlocked in a relationship of mutual exchange in
the determination of brand status. Several participants expressed that trendiness is the driving
force of status for fashion brands, arguing that a brand cannot legitimately afford to charge high
prices if it does not establish an image as a trend leader through the distinction of its products.
Others countered that the styles produced by the most expensive brands are destined by default
to lead the evolution of high-, and consequently popular trends, whether they are originated by
these brands or appropriated from brands in the lesser strata. That is to say that even these
participants, while acknowledging that cultural tastes and preferences do inevitably have a high
proclivity to flow from the top, did not relinquish the notion that those trends are frequently
drawn form lower-order independent and countercultural design movements. Still, others
maintained that the outcome of brand status is the effect of composite market activity including

162
both design innovation and price positioning. They argued both that consumers do perceive
more expensive brands to be of higher status, as well as brands employing higher levels of
originality and creativity in their designs. Moreover, respondents of this more centered
perspective tended to insist that such perceptions were largely subjective, because consumers
maintain different degrees of awareness in terms of fashion innovation, price hierarchy, and
brand awareness more generally. Therefore, it would depend heavily on the individual, how
price and trendiness are calculated in the assessment of brand status on a brand-by-brand basis.
Participant No. 3
I think it’s the trendiness because it’s like just because that shirt is $100 that doesn’t
mean I’m about to go get it. That doesn’t mean anything. But if I’m that type of person
and I see my homeboy has it on and I like…you know my homeboy has great taste and
such and such has…you feel me, if that’s the type of person I am then cool. Like that’s
what’s up, I would go for the trendiness. But the pricing…just throwing a price on a
shirt like “Oh $75!” I feel that doesn’t mean anything. You’re just throwing…once you
throw a price on it…I feel once you throw a high end price on your clothing that’s what
you’re trying to do off rip, you’re trying to be high end. And if your clothing isn’t telling
me that at that price I’m definitely not buying into it.
Participant No. 15
I think that for brands…Let’s see….I think for social for a brand and for a consumer I
think that the trendiness is the most important. I think price becomes a function of
trendiness and then just becomes a decision where someone says like, “You know what?
Everyone wants this, why don’t we charge $75 bucks for it.” But I think that for a brand
having that shirt that people will stand outside for, like Supreme when people stand in

163
line for it—that’s where SUPREME’s whole status comes from. It’s like these guys treat
everyone like a [jerk], but they have shirts that people can’t resist. Even though they
hate buying it from these guys they’ll buy it. For the consumer too I think that...a lot of it
is wearing a shirt that’s trendy that you know didn’t cost them a lot would give them the
higher social status. Because then it says like, “How did they get a hold of that? I know
there wasn’t that many of that.” You know and like you always find like…for instance
in the tradeshow environment, the guy that’s wearing shirt that’s just like, “How the
fuck did he…” It’s like sneakers like, “How did he get those?” It’s not so much that
they’re expensive, it’s like I know there wasn’t that many, you had to have known
somebody to get them. So I think that trendiness and rarity tend to trump like how much
you paid for it. I think in my eyes if I knew that the shirt was available but it was really
expensive [that] wouldn’t add to my respect level for anybody for being able to afford it,
you know. But trendiness wise the trendier it is the kind of more respect you’d have for
that person I guess in a way.
Participant No. 21
I think they drive each other. Because think about it, if you’re current with what’s
happening on the street, and this is where small brands win, if you can react very fast if
somebody comes out with a hot song or something happens like Mandela passing
yesterday and you can immediately go, “I have a shirt that responds to that right now.”
You’re hot, okay but if overall in your brand what your brand stands for is what
Mandela stood for, then you’re hot too. So like if you’re not compromising what your
brand really is to really chase the trend then it matters in your brand, but I think the
consumer is sophisticated enough now where they can see right through it. Like if

164
you’re a brand that obviously doesn’t give a shit about world politics or like apartheid
and you just all of a sudden come out with a shirt with Mandela saying something and
you want to, “Oh we’re going to donate x amount of dollars.” [Trendiness] does drive
price. [But price also drives trendiness] because the thing about it, if it’s trendy…if
you’re a smart brand you can capitalize on a trend by making it a limited edition. Like
only 100 of these Mandela shirts, it’s a trend right now. So now I’m going to sell these
at $75 apiece, there are 100 of them in 2 stores New York and LA go get them now.
Participant No. 28
I think for a brand it’s more important for the brand to maintain that premium price point
than it is to be on the cusp of trends because trends last a season. I think trendiness can
drive price. So if you’re just really speaking to your segment on a consistent basis then
you’re going to develop an affinity from your consumer and then you can drive up your
price so trendiness can kind of feed your price point rather than the contrast where price
point is like you have a high price point and that’s what’s dictating your brand but your
styles and your designs aren’t really speaking to the audience and you’re not really
getting patronage…Then you have to look at brands like Apple where Microsoft just
controlled the market and there was a point that Microsoft was just the end all be all and
then Apple came with this design based culture…they came with a technology brand
where you didn’t necessarily look at it as a piece of technology. You looked at this
technology brand kind of as a lifestyle accessory and now it’s the, not even
arguably…it’s the biggest technology brand in the world.

165
Consumer Influence on Brands Status
Respondents spoke about the likelihood that a brand can have its image repositioned or
status altered by consumers whose identities are incongruent with the brand’s identity. Replies
yielded 4 response categories. There were 28 respondents who stated ‘Yes, consumers can alter
brand image’ totaling 91% and 4 of these cited that it could occur only ‘slightly’. A total of 7
respondents stated that ‘It depends’ while 3 said that ‘It requires celebrities’. Only 2 participants
stated ‘No, consumers cannot alter brand image.’ See Appendix C Table 27.1.
The purpose of this discussion was to determine expert opinion on the level of risk that
is posed by T-shirts to brand integrity. Respondents typically suggested that brand image was
largely subject to the dynamics of the free market. However, there was also pronounced
evidence of both normalcy bias and survivorship bias in these responses with a minority of
interviewees tending to heavily neglect the logical evidence of the coincidental circumstances
leading to market leadership amongst fashion brands; citing the highly contrived narratives of
craftsmanship and the legacies of business and artistic brilliance developed by the brands
themselves.
40
The primary concern here is that T-shirts have the potential to broadly expand the
presence of a fashion brand. Yet, if that expansion leads to the brand being co-opted by a group
of consumers that represent something different than the brand’s self-determined values
propose, that could also have an effect on the brand image and ultimately it’s status.
Respondents focused primarily on the idea that large quantities of incongruent consumers would
definitely alter the brand’s status in some way. Some felt that the T-shirt might not be strong
enough to effectuate that change in either direction, but most seemed to be convinced that if the

40
Fashion brands, particularly those in the luxury segment, are notorious for scripting stories of rich cultural heritage which they often proclaim
their current iterations to be a direct descendent of as a point of interest in the cultivation of consumer esteem for their trademarks and their
products. In reality these brands are often a continuance of their original ateliers and the legacies of their design and craftsmanship in little more
than name. In many cases the brands have changed hands of ownership multiple times and they may change designers several times in a decade.
While they may revise designs from their historical collections or attempt to maintain a sense of continuity with the original designer’s vision,
they often shift to styles far in new directions which have little to do with the house’s established traditions, sparking trends that gain
momentum and success on the strength of the brand recognition, rather than the continuity of esteemed legacy.

166
conspicuous trademarks of the brand are displayed prominently on too many members of the
wrong group, then both the target consumers and the general public are likely to change their
perception of the brand.
Participant No. 6
No. Because like the image that they have…like the brands work for so long on their
images, and they make sure that that image is in all of their media that it doesn’t matter
who else buys it outside of that because for them they are like, “This is the image that
we show, what other people do on the street that doesn’t matter, we’re just making more
sells.”…I mean with a new brand I think it would affect more but not an established
brand. An established brand is always going to have what they’ve established.
Participant No. 13
Obviously the more people who wear it…So this is …Tori Burch was huge in the [the
U.S.] a few of years ago. Once [foreigners] start picking up on something and buying it,
it automatically goes down here just because there are more fakes being produced. So
that’s more population wearing it yes, but it is basically in our eyes like, “Oh there’s
more fakes so let’s steer clear from it a little bit.”…It’s like Ed Hardy, Ed Hardy was
huge here. The minute it started going everywhere it went down…Ed Hardy and Tori
Burch are totally different examples just because Ed Hardy is a more trendy...Tori Burch
is like a higher-end market like Traci Reese and all that stuff, so it’s a very different
comparison.
Participant No. 18
Yeah, and that’s why you have models. My daughter is a model. She gets jobs, I see it
from the behind the scenes…Like say Ralph Lauren. Ralph Lauren is Ralph Lauren

167
because of what? Ralph Lauren was highly promoted and put in that position to be the
“Americana” brand right? So now just so you can feel “American” you’re going to wear
Ralph Lauren. Now if you’ve got all of these people just randomly out of the blue just
wearing Ralph Lauren you’re going to follow suit.
Consumer Status as an Influence on Brand Status
The participants spoke about the role of status on consumers’ ability to alter brand
image. Replies to this inquiry yielded 6 unique response categories. The most frequently given
response was ‘Low status consumers can bring a high status brand down’ with 19 replies
followed by ‘It depends’ with 15 replies, ‘High status consumers can bring a low status brand
up’ with 11 replies, ‘Low status consumers cannot bring a high status brand down’ with 4
replies, ‘High status consumers cannot bring a low status brand up’ with 2 replies and there was
1 participant who stated that ‘Low status consumers can bring a high status brand up’. Results
can be seen in Appendix C Table 27.2.
These discussions expanded on the previous inquiry about brands, taking specifically
into account the status of the brands and the consumers. T-shirts are a form of mass
communication, which are often the most affordable items that can effectively carry the brand’s
identity and therefore its image and cachet. This is extremely constructive for mass-market and
independent brands at the lower end, but potentially deleterious for higher-end brands
attempting to maintain a sense of status, which is largely contingent upon some notion of
exclusivity directed against the general public. If T-shirts are viewed as being of limited
significance in the scheme of the fashion world, then they pose little threat to the equity of a
luxury brand no matter who wears them, but then they also should be less beneficial to mass
market and independent brands in terms of their ability to increase status as an effect of

168
popularity. The reality of the situation is that it very much depends on the brand and the nature
of its activities. If a brand is high-end and its collection is built around a legacy of gowns and
high-priced leather accessories, T-shirts become less significant as bearers of that brand’s
image. In order to diminish that image one would assume that the shirts would probably need to
be printed in extremely high volume, with dubious quality, and sold at low price points
inconsistent with the brand’s established market position—and even then the effects might be
limited. However, a brand built around collections of premium jeans and casual wear would
probably be at greater risk if they sold too many T-shirts at low price points especially if they
lack exceptional quality. Likewise, mass-market brands would probably fair well by selling an
abundance of T-shirts because their brand image is more tied to their universal popularity than a
commitment to any limited set of stereotypes rather than prestige. While the massive sale of T-
shirts would be profitable in every market segment, the long-term consequences are likely to
differ starkly between brands in the high and low end.
The participants stated overwhelmingly that low-status consumers could bring high-
status brands down by wearing their T-shirts in great abundance, but they argued in fewer
numbers that high status consumers would be able to do the same for a low status brand. It was
difficult for many participants to conceive of it legitimately occurring that high status
consumers would ever suddenly buy into a low status fashion brand. They were familiar with
the notion that coastal metropolitan hipsters were prone to appropriate working class values and
products, such as Pabst Blue Ribbon Bear, but they saw it being less likely that upscale
consumers would adopt a low status clothing brand, especially by wearing its conspicuously
labeled T-shirts. However, many cited the decline of brands such as Burberry, Timberland,
Hilfiger, and DKNY in the eyes of their target consumers as a result of their conspicuous

169
appropriation by non-targeted groups. Some spoke of over-licensing as a cause of brand
dilution, while others mentioned the preventative measures, such as sizing and superpremium
pricing, that brands take in order to decrease the likelihood of these types of misappropriation
and misidentification in a negative direction. Some interviewees even described the strange
paradox by which the low-status consumer brings the high-status brand up as an effect of
increased recognition and cultural legitimacy, with the T-shirt being identified as only a minor
point of consumption, while the brand gains momentum through the popular enthusiasm
produced by these consumers.
Participant No. 12
I think it’s easier for a high-status consumer to bring a low status brand up than a low
status consumer to bring a high-status brand down because I think people look to the
high…well that’s not true because if you look at Calvin Klein, I think when Calvin
Klein did so much licensing that there was no exclusivity to it, and it felt like everybody
had it. That wasn’t…you know it really did hurt the brand. But I think in general it’s
more likely for a high-status consumer to bring up the level of a low-status brand.
Participant No. 20
Oh definitely! Low status individuals bring high status brands up. It’s weird. You’ve got
guys that save up for months to go to Barneys to buy a belt. That’s a prime example. He
really can’t afford it but he saved up for several months to buy this $400-$500 belt. But
high status individuals, when they’re wearing cheap brands they devalue themselves in
the perception of their peers’ eyes and all the trend setters. Same thing [with T-shirts].
I’ve got guys that tell me, “Listen, I love your T-shirt. I’m going to keep supporting your
stuff. The quality of it is great. You don’t see everybody walking around with this.” You

170
know they want to be part of that exclusive crowd. They don’t want to be a part of the
crowd where, you know, you’ve got guys that are standing on the street corners wearing
the same T-shirt as you when you’re driving around in a Bentley or a Mercedes and a
BMW but then you see your shirt on your son and his friends are wearing the same shirt.
Like it’s a different class…a different class of people. The exclusivity plays an
important part of that.
Participant No. 21
This is what I see happening: A high-end consumer can bring a low-end brand up and I
think…just from being inside brands, and just my personal take on how brands work…I
think…and you can’t really control who buys your brand ultimately. But if you have
intentions and you have an outline, a blueprint of what your brand is and who your
consumer is and what lifestyle you’re trying to attach your brand to and the opposite
people buy it, you’re screwed, period, and you might just have to go with them because
they’re paying the bills. You’re selling now but you’re selling to the wrong customer
essentially. And I think that can ultimately bring your brand down because if you are a
luxury brand and…and Kanye West good example of this…if you’re a luxury brand and
red necks, people in trailer parks, poor black people are just wearing your brand out
…not even counterfeit, the real shit, buying the real shit, spending their last little bit of
money on the real shit…so much so and it’s so visible that the real lifestyle consumer
that can afford it doesn’t want to be associated with it, then you’re done as that type of
brand. Like take Kanye taking the confederate flag. The Confederate flag to a certain
group of people is their logo, it is their symbol of patriotism and the old south and what
the old south stood for. In his new march he literally jacked the confederate flag and put

171
it…he’s a black rapper…that brand is destroyed now. Highly outspoken about [racism]
and has taken it and going, “You know what I’m going to show you the power of how
the shit flips so fast.” And that is exactly to that point.
Participant No. 25
I think right now the [low-end consumer] has more power than the [hight-end consumer]
because street is affecting the runway. So I think…because of skate culture…all that
now, like bottle popping, all that stuff…that’s looked at as lowly. You know like lower
status, that’s what hood people do, that’s what the hip-hop generation does. But now the
hip-hop/skate generation is now what the high-end brands want to do. You know like
Alexander McQueen, like all of the Balenciaga shoes…like they’re straight rip-offs of
Stadiums and like…Christian Louboutin those are Vans knockoffs…So there are a lot of
people that are copying the street trends. So I definitely think that low can definitely
make…yeah…if you’ve got a skater doing a switch 180 heel flip on a rail like a 20 stack
of stairs, and he’s wearing a Gucci shirt, that brand is like, that’s the best advertisement
they could ever get…He’s bringing it up.
Consumer Congruence as an Influence of Brand Status
The professionals also gave their opinions on the influence of identity congruence
between consumer and brand image when consumers alter that image by wearing T-shirts from
the brand. Replies yielded 3 response categories. The majority of respondents provided no
direct commentary on this subject and of those that did 11 replied ‘It depends’ and the
remaining response categories received either 2 or 1 answer. The complete results can be seen
in Appendix C Tables 27.3 and 27.4.

172
The purpose of this discussion was to determine the beliefs of fashion industry
professionals regarding non-target consumers in their ability to reposition the brand’s image.
Brands work vigorously to establish an image and market position, which they guard intensely
as a validation for their claims of purchase worthiness, distinction from competition, cultural
relevance, and an offering of transferable values. When consumers who do not share those
values purchase a brand it can potentially compromise that brand’s image and market position.
The aim here was to find out what the experts thought about the potential for those changes to
occur in terms on their effect on a brand’s status. Many participants insinuated responses
pertinent to this topic elsewhere in the discussion and those that did provide a direct answer
were overwhelmingly of the opinion that the effect is subject to context.
Participant No. 14
Oh yeah, I think definitely. I mean for sure it will change how I guess everyone else will
perceive…let’s say you know you see a group of just like old grandmas sporting that
shirt you know and there’s that…the print…it’s a T-shirt from American Apparel and it
has like sunflowers all over it. And they’re doing this whole collection with sunflowers.
Now if I see like a group of just grandmas wearing it, I wouldn’t be sporting it…I mean
I wear odd things anyway myself personally, so I can’t say that for me I wouldn’t wear
it, because I probably would. But for consumers yes. If a 16 year old girl, she sees her
grandma wearing this T-shirt that her grandma bought from American Apparel I don’t
think she’d go out to American Apparel and be like damn I’ve got to sport that shirt
like…no I don’t.

173
Participant No. 15
If you buy something from a luxury brand and it’s like the best quality made and you
mix it up with a bunch of other things, that’s what really gives the brand life and I think
brands would love it if stylish people bought their product and flipped it in their own
way. I think brands don’t benefit when…if I end up looking like the guy in the
marketing it kills…it’s not great for the brand long-run. It just looks silly. So you want
the thing where… I think the customer and the brand both benefit from a little bit of
injection of personal style into the use of the product.
Frequency of Consumer Congruence as an Influence of Brand Status
Respondents were also prompted to discuss their thoughts on the tipping point for the
ratio of incongruent consumer identities needed to produce a change in brand status. Replies
yielded 1 response category. There were 14 respondents stating that ‘Consumers can lower
brand status’ at a proposed percentage
41
. Of these responses the percentages given had a range
of 70 (min = 10, max = 80) with mean of (µ = 37.14) and a standard deviation (σ = 22.69).
Meanwhile, 10 respondents stated that ‘Consumers can raise brand status’ at a proposed
percentage. The percentages given for these replies had a range of 65 (min = 10, max = 75)
with a mean of (µ = 44.75) and standard deviation (σ = 25.70). There were 11 respondents who
stated no certain percentage for directional change. The complete results can be seen in
Appendix C Table 27.5.
Participants were of the general opinion that after a certain point inconsistencies
between a brand’s proposed image and the real market activity based around T-shirts produced
by that brand would result in a shift in the public perception of that brand’s market positioning.

41
For all responses, in instances where a participant stated a range of percentages for the change to take place rather than a single percentage,
the average of the maximum and minimum value of the range was taken as the answer given (i.e. if a participant stated 50% to 70% the answer
given would be marked as 62.5%).

174
A slightly greater number of interviewees argued that this change was likely to occur in the
downward direction as opposed to those that stated that brand status could be raised by this
process. On average respondents also stated that it would take more high-status consumers to
raise the perception of a low-status than it would take low-status consumers to decrease the
perception of a high-status brand with T-shirts. Reasoning behind these explanations often
pended on the inexpensiveness of the T-shirt as a recognizably affordable product that might be
non-representative of products targeted towards-, and purchase by the core consumers of high-
status brands. Likewise, T-shirts produced by low-status brands have such a wide appeal that
participants argued that it should take an abundance of high-status consumers to make an
apparent rise in the perception of the brand’s consumer base, and therefore its status.
Participant No. 26
It’s simple. We’ve been having this conversation since Timberland. I don’t know what
the set number of it is but I think it has to last at least a year… I would have to say on
both ends it’s somewhere around 50% because the story has to be told in whole and if
it’s too skewed to 10% or it’s too skewed to 90% then it’s too heavy handed. So I would
say at about 50%. If 100 people…if the brand is a luxury ‘brand x’ right…had this type
of perception and 50 out of 100 people deviated from that perception I think the general
public would then have a divergent perspective of that brand. I think it’s harder for a
brand at the bottom to get the right people and elevate that brand cache up.
Brands Influencing Consumers
Consumers: Trendiness vs. Price
The experts also gave their opinions on the value of trendiness and price of a T-shirt
when each factor is compared to the other’s ability to assert social status. Responses yielded 1

175
quantitative data point for consumers. There were 4 unique response categories and answers
were further subdivided into three basic groups whereby participants either stated that one of the
two factors (i.e. trendiness and price) was more important than the other, one was influential to
the other or they discussed the nature of their relationship such that one or the other was said to
be more prevalent at high or low price points. Beyond this, they stated that, ‘It depends’ or
‘Neither’. The most popular response among the industry professionals was that ‘Trendiness is
more important than price’ with 17 replies. This was followed by ‘Trendiness influences price’
with 12 replies. In addition, ‘Price influences trendiness’ had 7 replies while ‘It depends’ was
stated 5 times. The remaining response categories received 3, 2 or only 1 reply. See Appendix
C Table 28.
Here the participants established an argumentative basis for the further discussion of the
ways that brands might alter consumer identity by exploring the ability for this type of
conspicuous consumption to assert status through a commercial commodity with low intrinsic
value. In other words this conversation was meant to determine: Do brands and designers
have the ability to transfer the cultural capital of their namesakes and designs to
consumers? And what is the most effective way of doing so? The answer to the question as
with brands is that it depends on the brand, it depends on the design, it depends on the consumer
and it depends on the observer’s individual understanding of brands, design and status. The
purpose of these mental exercises was the same as with the exchange regarding brands.
Respondents generally stated that the trendiness of a T-shirt has a greater impact than
price in determining the status of a consumer in the eyes of the general public. Shirt price and
trendiness were seen as being mutually influential to one another on consumer status but this
relationship was more prominently portrayed as being dominated by trendiness. The

176
respondents seemed to feel that the sense of perceived social status derived from self-
presentation with a T-shirt is largely the effect of social capital obtained through the knowledge
economy of fashion sensibility—knowing what trends are coming next or starting those trends
oneself—and the exemplification of access to exclusive networks of fashion insiders (producers,
designers, and retailers), which ordinary people lack. Status attribution through the conspicuous
display of expenditure was seen as secondary because the respondents suggested that the T-
shirt, unlike some other status goods such as an automobiles or jewelry, is more of a substantial
cultural artifact rooted in independent production and a highly refined sense of identity-based
expression. Some argued for the artistic merits of the T-shirt as being its most valuable asset as
a fashion commodity. Others derided the commercialization of this sector as a nonsensical
exhibition of herd behavior amongst a mindless population of consumers who have bought
wholeheartedly into the meaningless symbolism of mass-market brand values. Therefore these
participants stated that T-shirt price would do less to change status, again with the further
explanation that aspirational consumers are more likely to purchase high priced T-shirts with
these intentions, while both high-, and low-status consumers might purchase shirts that are
trending at more moderate prices. But it must be reiterated that the respondents did state that
trendiness is subject to increase price, and to a lesser extent price can make a design trendy.
Participant No. 1
It’s weird because the person who’s…just from my experience, and maybe this is like a
solely New York experience…the person who’s wearing the $700 T-shirt probably can’t
afford the $700 T-shirt and is just making it just to by that $700 T-shirt. It’s weird
because the person who’s…just from my experience, and maybe this is like a solely
New York experience…the person who’s wearing the $700 T-shirt probably can’t afford

177
the $700 T-shirt and is just making it just to by that $700 T-shirt… Could be anybody.
Could be a billionaire. In the Forbes Magazine with a Hanes T-shirt on and it could be
because they’re the CEO of Hanes.
Participant No. 6
I think it’s both because I mean here where we live in America, in New York, like what
you spend on something kind of puts you in a higher seat, like people like to know that
they’ve spent…a more expensive price on things because it makes them feel like they’ve
gotten something of quality. I think a lot of times people buy things that are trendy and
pricey that aren’t that great looking just because it is trendy and pricey. I think honestly,
lower income consumers tend to spend more trying to buy more expensive looking
clothing. There are times that I’ve seen people like on the train or something and they
have on Gucci shoes and they have on like True Religion pants with like Dolce &
Gabbana glasses and they’ve got a Gucci belt on with the book bag, and you can look
and you can tell like, “You’re not a rich person…like you spent all your money trying to
look a certain way.”…The billionaire that started Google rides the train and he looks
like one of the Williamsburg hipsters, like dirty shoes, you know washed out jeans, old
T-shirt…It’s hard to tell, I mean hipster style is definitely different we all know like a lot
of hipsters look like bums and then they pull out like their i-phone an you realize like
you don’t need to give them money. [laughing]
Participant No. 17
Well, I think it’s interesting to always be aware of trends but…you know for a while I
didn’t even watch TV. I didn’t read magazines, because it’s just all this, you know…
just part of the spectacle. It’s just supposed to distract you and make you think that other

178
people know what’s cool and what’s better to wear and you know it’s just…it’s false!
It’s like everybody knows exactly what they like and what they should wear and you
know, as far as good trends vs. bad trends, like you could see, you know, bad
trends…how certain brands just get blown out. You know, like a certain brand might be
cool at one point, but then it just takes over into some other place and just becomes
redundant any longer. I think that there’s like…there’s a whole world like Urban
Outfitters was doing that whole thing of taking like an old 7-Up logo and just putting a
beat-up texture over it…People wearing old 7-Up logos and all that shit’s stupid too.
Like all those brands that make it look like they own some old vintage garment from 100
years, 40, 20 years…like this old vintage thing. I don’t know, I just don’t get it. I don’t
understand…I don’t understand fashion that way. It’s people trying to belong to
something that they’re not. And that’s fine if that’s what they need. But I think that
there’s a whole audience that doesn’t want to be that…180 degrees as far away from it
as they can get.
Participant No. 18
I don’t want to say trend, I think that’s where you lost me. I think the only value [that]
comes within a T-shirt is when the artist gave me something that I can appreciate. So it’s
more artistic. The artistic value, that’s the only value that comes from these T-
shirts…it’s when I see an artist that gave me something so fucking clever and witty that
I say, “You know what? I like the way he’s thinking, I’m going to pay $50 for that.” But
I’m not paying for the T-shirt, I’m paying for the artistry…It doesn’t have to be trending
[it should be starting a trend] that’s why I say DIY—Do It Yourself. The more people
wake-up and get to it, the more free thinkers we’re going to have.

179
Brands Influence Consumer Status
Respondents spoke about likelihood that a brand can influence the way an individual is
perceived when wearing that brand’s designer T-shirt. Replies yielded two categories. There
were 26 participants who stated ‘Yes, brands can alter consumer identity’ totaling 84%. There
were 7 replies stating ‘It depends’, 3 of which were also included in those who said ‘Yes,
brands can alter consumer identity’. There were 2 participants who said ‘No, brands cannot
alter consumer identity’ one of which also said ‘It depends’. The complete results can be seen in
Appendix C Table 29.1.
Participants were overwhelmingly in favor of the belief that brands can change an
individual’s status with a T-shirt. However, the respondents were also aware of the fact that
there were an overwhelming number of factors, which contributed to the actual outcome of such
an effect. They also tended to insinuate that—setting aside consideration of additional factors—
there was a limited degree of change in perceived status that could be achieved with a T-shirt
alone. The purpose of this conversation was to gain the opinion of industry professionals on
how effective T-shirts are at transferring brand cachet to consumers.
The interviewees stated that brand recognition and the reputation of the brand were
transferred to the individual in short-term interactions and observations. However, they warned
that the effective perception of that transferal is dependent on the knowledgability of the
observer in addition to the individual’s overall maintenance of that image in other aspects of
their self-presentation. Therefore over longer terms of interactions and with interactions of
closer interpersonal proximity, the consumer would be placed under greater scrutiny and forced
maintain consistency with the brand’s status proposal in a greater number of presentational
facets, which might compromise that effect if discovered to be inaccurate. Such factors include

180
grooming, speaking style, composure, and especially the remaining clothing and accessories
being worn. This final point is noteworthy because the T-shirt was cited by respondents as being
restricted in its capacity to augment status on its own due to its limited standing within the
hierarchy of many collections. Therefore, in order to substantiate the image being suggested,
they argued that one would often require supporting presentational components in the form of
attire beyond the T-shirt that further authenticates the proposal of status offered by the brand.
Some argued that a T-shirt could take an individual to a higher perceived status level under any
circumstances by dint of the ‘cool factor’ imbedded in displays of trendiness. Still others said
that the power of the luxury segment alone would carry an individual to a higher status level (all
things being considered) as a result of the esteem, which these brands are capable of garnering
in the eyes of onlookers.
Participant No. 2
I think that …[whatever shirt is] kind of like the hot thing right now…if you’re wearing
it you’re cool and that’s kind of the bottom line…no matter who you are you’re cool…
Participant No. 18
Of course…I think that’s the reason why you have “luxury brands” you know, to elevate
or to boost your self-esteem...It’s all perception, perception is reality. If you call
something luxurious, if you put it in a nice fancy box, and you say that it’s premium
people are going to feel like [it’s luxurious]…it’s all gimmick.
Participant No. 19
Yes…I think the consumers out there, the public out there, they know what the luxury
brands are. It is through the empire of these luxury brands. It’s their marketing you
know, their flagship stores, it’s the clothing, it’s the celebrities or the spokes models. So

181
kids understand what that is and they buy into that. You think about one of the things
that’s hip-hop, hip-hop is when kids back in the 90s they would take Polo Ralph Lauren
and they would flip it. They would wear…you know you think about The Lo-Lifes in
Brooklyn. They would wear it and just by them wearing it and being a street kid from
the projects they just totally flipped it and they made it hip-hop. So yeah, they’ll spend
their money, or they’ll steal it or they’ll rob somebody for it and yeah that gives them
that status you know. And their buying it… and it’s like this Polo this like Long Island
lifestyle and they’ll just totally flip it by wearing it in Brownsville.
Participant No. 20
Definitely, if you’re wearing a Versace T-shirt as opposed to a blank T-shirt they’re
going to treat you differently when you walk into the club. So they know quality, they
know design, they know trendiness. Women know that. They know. They look down at
your feet to make sure that you’re wearing the right things on your feet. They also look
at your T-shirt to find out if you’re the guy that looks like the guy riding down the street
on a bicycle. If you look like that chances are things are going to be different for
you…Your whole appearance whether it’s clothes, jewelry, car you know, it determines
how people treat you and how they perceive you. Clothes are a big part of being tasteful
because you can be broke and look like a million dollars, have no car, no apartment, but
you could look like a million dollars and you could talk yourself into certain situations
and be around certain social circles based off of the way you’re dressed. So if you’re
dressed well ‘you can fake it until you make it’. So it’s very important. People
underestimate what it is to dress well or dress in a certain manner. I think it’s very
important I’ve always felt that way since I was a child

182
Participant No. 23
For me I don’t think a brand necessarily has the ability to do that in that sense
unless…it’s going to be a privilege of the dominant class for that to happen, and I say
that in terms of if you have you know someone that’s black from the hood, from the
ghetto so to speak…so one being this low income black person, one being this low
income white person, if both people were to wear a Ralph Lauren suit and go into an
establishment, you know I think the ability of that person who is a part of the dominant
culture would be the white guy…can easily morph and change the perception people
have of him by wearing those clothes because when he’s presented he looks like
everyone else in that setting. A black person for instance or a person of color doesn’t
have that same luxury…you’re still battling with, “Okay this guy could be of our class,
of our social setting.” Or if there are race issues involved, that’s still going to be quite a
big stumbling block so to speak or at least a big part of the decision making process of,
“Has this person now been elevated from their situation into our situation?” So I think it
depends on the context of who’s wearing it and where they’re wearing it. You know
how that works. That same low income black person if he’s in Africa…Nigeria for
instance, and he wears an item of clothing that’s seen as of the higher class or high status
now he can transcend visually his own background. So I think there are other elements
that kind of work alongside a brand being able to change someone’s status. You know
because I’ve seen kids in really expensive garments or women with really expensive
bags and it doesn’t change my perception of who they are because there are so many
other signifiers around their dress, their mannerisms…where they are, who they
are…We interact with each other and we make decisions about who we accept into our

183
circle, our lives based on a whole bunch of parameters right. We don’t just look at
someone and go, “Oh you’ve got a pair of Louboutin shoes on so cool, we’re down.”
And that’s it. And this person’s got like a scraggily hair, they’re kind of cantankerous,
they’re kind of disheveled you know they dress sexually overt and it doesn’t sit with
your group of people, those shoes or that jacket aren’t going to make a difference. You
know you most people take people based on a set of signifiers. I can’t walk into a
Jamaican dance hall, you know even if I’m wearing the garments and completely pass
for being down with the clique. Someone’s going to go, “You know what? You ain’t…”
you know you might be cool and you might take the time to be down with them but
they’re not immediately going to go, “Yeah man you’re one of us. You’re part of our
crew. You’re part of our clique.” I think it takes more than just what you wear. I mean it
can play a big part if you have a lot of other signifiers that support it, that complement it.
Brand Status as an Influence on Consumer Status
Respondents discussed the idea of a starting point as a factor in assessing the effect of a
designer T-shirt on consumer status. The conversations yielded 5 response categories which
included statements suggesting that high status brands can and cannot bring low status
consumers up and low status brands can and cannot bring high status consumers down, as well
as ‘It depends’. There were 25 replies stating that ‘High status brands can bring low status
consumers up’ representing 81% of respondents. This was followed by ‘It depends’ with 11
replies, ‘Low status brands can bring high status consumers down’ with 10 replies, ‘Low status
brands cannot bring high status consumers down’ with 6 replies and ‘High status brands cannot
bring low status consumers up’ with 1 reply. For complete results see Appendix C Table 29.2.

184
The purpose of this discussion was to determine the potential for initial status to alter the
probability for change of perceived status in either direction when consumers wear designer T-
shirts. The idea was to discover what experts felt would be the difference in the effect of status
change when an individual’s identity began at a certain status. For example, given an individual
with low status markers (such as a male with long scraggily hair) versus an individual with
medium to upper status markers (such as a male with clean cropped and well styled hair), if
both individuals were to wear a luxury brand T-shirt would the augmented perception of the
middle-class individual be greater than the lower class individual because he started with an
image that was closer to the brand’s status or would the change be greater for lower status
individual because he had greater room for improvement? It is obvious that there are countless
elements of self-presentation that could be manipulated as factors, which determine status.
Participants had already disclosed as much several times throughout the interview—hence the
response category ‘It depends’. Commentary for this discussion was limited given its overlap
with the previous and following sections. However, the goal of this study was to gain the
opinion of industry professionals on whether these changes are likely to occur at all under fairly
ordinary circumstances. This information was intended to serve as an exploratory point of
comparison between the expert interviews and the population sample experiments.
The interviewees overwhelmingly voiced that status mobility was likely to occur in the
upward direction; however, the limitations of this change, inscribed within the oft-repeated ‘It
Depends’ disclaimer, are best summarized by the argument that one will not go from “zero to
hero” because of a designer T-shirt. It was also generally expressed that T-shirts have a
relatively difficult time lowering a consumer’s perceived status except when participants

185
considered certain weak aspirational brands such as Ralph Lauren Chaps which were believed
to also have compromised the image of the principle brand.
Participant No. 10
Zero to hero, I would say that’s a bit extreme. But again taking it back to the icy
white…you’ve got an icy white with the Polo logo on it you’re in the Hamptons with
some boat shoes. Here’s a perfect example. Harold Hunter was a cultural icon after his
death. During his life he was an influencer and like a tastemaker and a trendsetter in
New York society. And there are people like that that exist that are just good
business…and he was dirty and stinky a lot of times and like with [un-kept hair] and
who was going to tell him shit? Who was ever going to tell him shit?...Because he had
that comfortable in his own skin [thing]…I think that status is an indicator of what
potential you have manifested and created for yourself…So many people that I have
known throughout the course of life may not have been the influencer but they were
comfortable and they were confident and they were willing and ready to run and enjoy
life and that may have determined a significant part of their status.
Participant No. 22
If you see a status brand and you see a regular person wearing it you automatically
assume that he understands what that status means and you associate him with that.
Most people that work in this industry like myself, I will look a little bit deeper and I’ll
dig a little bit deeper. If I’m on the train and I see a girl with a Louis Vuitton bag I look
at everything else about her to see if that’s really…if she’s reaching for that lifestyle or
if that’s really her lifestyle. So if I look at her shoes and I don’t see how her shoes and
her clothes and her accessories correlate with that $1,100 bag then I understand that

186
she’s chasing status. But if I see the Louis Vuitton bag and then I see the Chloe clutch or
I see you know it doesn’t even have to be expensive shoes but you look at her shoes and
you see that they’re well-made and that she’s well-kept you’re like, “Okay that’s just a
compliment to whatever else she’s doing, she’s not chasing anything.”
Participant No. 26
People see things that are expensive and they assume if you’re wearing expensive things
then you’ve got money…I think it definitely works both ways (meaning a low status
brand can lower the status of an otherwise high status individual) At the end of the day
reality is based on perception, and if I look at someone and I perceive what they’re
wearing to be of high quality, then I’m going to think that that individual is an individual
with a taste level that is of high quality. But that’s my reality. That may not be that
person’s reality. That’s just the reality I’ve placed on that person based on my
perception. I think my insight only comes from working within the fashion space and
knowing what these things actually cost, how they’re made, knowing how brands create
an image to sell to a consumer. So my insight comes from there. But the end consumer
at the end of the day, I think, is also aware of these things but just for different reasons.
Participant No. 27
I think all in all it’s always going to be…it’s never going to be as clear cut, it’s kind of
an amalgamation or combination of all these things coming together. It’s like, “Well, he
has this brand on but what’s everything else that kind of completes the look that’s part of
the package.”

187
Brand Congruence as an Influence of Consumer Status
Participants also provided insights into the way conformity or divergence from a brand’s
image may influence its ability to alter consumer identity with T-shirts. Replies yielded 4
response categories. The majority of respondents provided no direct answer for this question
and of those that did 12 replied ‘It depends’ and the remaining replies received 1 answer each.
The complete results can be seen in Appendix C Table 29.3 and 29.4.
The purpose of this discussion was to determine how fashion industry professionals
view the efficiency of brand image in facilitating the change of perceived status in consumers.
Fashion brands propose their images to the consumer as a paradigm of style presented in
advertisements on models. Being ‘in fashion’ requires dress that includes the prevailing
aesthetic and what is generally seen as desirable at any given moment (De Long, 2005). These
images tell the consumer how to look, how to live, how to be desirable with promises of that
look, lifestyle, and desirability in each purchase. Advertisements are essentially the most perfect
presentation of a brand’s image that can be produced, because they are contrived to persuade
consumers of the legitimacy of the brand’s offering so that they will buy in. Many brands offer
high status as a component of their value proposition and therefore their transferable image.
One would assume that the further a consumer is away from the stereotypes which the brand has
proposed, the more difficult it would be for a high status brand’s cachet to effect change in the
perceived status of that consumer. However, real world conditions contradict this assumption
and so it is necessary to test its likelihood through empirical research.
The majority of participants had no answer for this inquiry and those that did mostly
insinuated that it depends on an abundance of factors which are subject to differ with each
unique context. Some suggested that the exact same clothing could have significantly different

188
effects on two different individuals as a result of their ‘swag’ or demeanor. This was also
suggested in statements such as “it’s how you rock it”, meaning how one selects, assembles and
physically adorns themself in an outfit of garments. Such commentary honed in on a much
more tangible construct than the ever-evasive ‘it factor’ of ‘swag’ by drawing upon measurable
points of nuance that may go largely unnoticed by marketers, observers, consumers, and
scholars alike—but whose effects are distinctly perceived in ways that are often indescribable.
This point is highly significant and deserves further elaboration.
This discussion brings to attention the notion of ‘style vs. fashion’, which several
respondents discussed during the interviews. Style is the wearing of apparel in a way that looks
appealing under any circumstances such that it is said to be ‘stylish’. Being ‘in fashion’ has
more to do with the wearing of apparel that is aligned with the dominant aesthetic trends or is
precursory to future trends on the horizon of what is considered ‘fashionable’ as determined by
the gatekeepers of the fashion system (i.e. producers, critics, and the controllers of media).
What the participants were suggesting describes the notion that in order to be ‘stylish’ beyond
what is considered being ‘in fashion’ (by simply buying in to designer collections), each
individual must make certain decisions, which severely effect the outcome of their self-
presentation in their clothing. To begin, they must know their body type (e.g. height, shoulder
and waist width, girth, proportions of legs, arms, feet and neck, etc.) and they must take all of
this into account when purchasing clothes that fit them in a certain way. They must decide how
they want that clothing to fit them, how it is to define their silhouette, how it is to drape from
the body at specific points, and this must all be done in a way that logically complements their
body-type as well as their general appearance (e.g. hair style, hair color, eye color, facial
structure, facial expression, movement patterns, attitude, etc.). The individual must select

189
colors, patterns, prints, fabrics, and accessories that complement one another as well as the
stated self-presentational factors in a meaningful way. Finally, the individual must make
adjustments to the arrangement of the outfit and its adornment of the physique (e.g. layering
order, waist wrapping of tops, tightness of belt, rolling of sleeves, buttoning of collar, placement
of glasses atop head or on nose, jewelry placement, etc.). In this way the person may be said to
have achieved a sense of style which is superior to others wearing the same clothing because
they have taken the time to select and present the attire in a manner that is most suiting to their
self presentation and their personal sense of style. These concepts are highly evasive, and have
not been addressed in the fashion or communication literature, but they deserve attention
because they describe phenomena, which are empirical across the totality of any population.
Participant No. 8
It can and it works both ways. If you take…for instance let’s go back to Polo...Polo isn’t
always necessarily geared to the younger guy but some of the things that those kids
gravitate to, you’ll see the guy on the golf course wearing the same item. The difference
between the two is this guy over there, the young kid, his look and his swag is one
thing…this guy over here it’s a totally different thing. Does it help or hurt? It depends
on who it’s geared towards.
Participant No. 20
Depending on who you’re trying to deal with…you have to kind of live it. Actions speak
louder than words. Your action of you putting on a brand that is highly respected is
going to get you highly respected depending on what you say out of your mouth. The
visual is going to be great. You’ll get there because of your visuals but now it just
depends on who you are as a person and how well you’re able to communicate in that

190
circle or move around in that circle. But you know that’s the first thing…what you’re
wearing will help you first to get in there but that doesn’t mean you’re going to stay
there. You know you could be cast away you never know.
Frequency of Brand Congruence as an Influence of Consumer Status
Finally participants discussed the frequency of consumers wearing branded T-shirts
inconsistent with their identities needed to change the perception of that group entirely. Replies
yielded 1 response category. There were 14 respondents stating that ‘Consumers can lower
brand status’ at a proposed percentage
42
. Responses to the inquiry on consumer status also
yielded 2 categories. A total of 14 respondents stated that ‘Brands raise consumer status’ at a
proposed percentage. The percentages stated for these replies had a range of 70 (min = 10, max
= 80) with a mean of (µ = 42.75) and standard deviation (σ = 21.34). A total of 6 participants
stated that ‘Brands can lower consumer status’ at a proposed percentage. The range for these
percentages was 80 (min =10, max = 90) with a mean of (µ = 44.17) and a standard deviation (σ
= 30.07). There were 16 respondents who stated no certain percentage for directional change.
The complete results can be seen in Appendix C Table 29.5.
Responses varied significantly in terms of both raising and lowering status. While nearly
half of participants stated that designer T-shirts could raise group status after a certain
percentage of exposures, nearly half of these stated that they could lower status after a certain
point. This part of the discussion appeared complicating to many of the respondents and most
expressed in confusion at the initial inquiry, requiring the concept to be repeated multiple times
before providing a valid reply. Most were intrigued by the thought of this possibility and
admitted to have never taken it into any in-depth consideration up until that point. Even among

42
For all responses, in instances where a participant stated a range of percentages for the change to take place rather than a single percentage,
the average of the maximum and minimum value of the range was taken as the answer given (i.e. if a participant stated 50% to 17% the answer
given would be marked as 62.5%).

191
those who responded the idea remained relatively abstract to the majority after giving a reply,
though others had a clear understanding of the concept.
Participant No. 24
[Bringing low-status consumers up] I’d say 70% to 80% I’m only going by [the fact
that] it wouldn’t be good enough for a buyer I don’t think. Because this seems to be the
overwhelming trend, because nobody wants to even feel like it’s…when you put
something on you want to know that it’s cool…that at least 70% have it, you know.
We’re not talking about like high-end things, for the mass thing, for the T-shirts…For
example when the red Beats came out by Dre, when I saw 5 of them I was like, “I don’t
know.” But when I started seeing them everywhere on the subway, then I knew, “Oh,
wearing those headphones, that’s a cool thing. And that color is acceptable.” Honestly,
it’s an interesting question because I’ve had brands like that and kind of like, we
proposed it as one way and it actually turned out to deviate from what we wanted but it
didn’t ruin the brand. It just kind of expanded who it was. We changed it with the
people…30% - 40%...because people want to buy what’s in the store and the brand
people are aware right away if their brand is changing because we know who’s buying
it. But it takes longer for it to get dispersed in the market.
Findings
These in-depth-interviews were meant to be a cross-section of professional insights with
regard to the organizational beliefs and expectations concerning the legitimacy of brand’s
proposal for transferring its image, values and lifestyle through its T-shirts as well as the
protection of that image and those values, especially when selling T-shirts.

192
For brands the goal is to reach for something that can never be achieved in order to
strategically maximize the potential for coming as close as possible. Much like a basketball or
hockey team is certain to only score a relatively low percentage of their total shots on goal; they
maneuver strategically and take shots that increase the likelihood that they will come closer to
100% success without ever reaching 100% success. In the case of fashion, brands are
completely aware that they cannot control who purchases their apparel. Therefore, they
strategically implement image paradigms in their advertisements as a reference for consumers to
use in assuming the desirability, which the brand proposes that its products offer. They also
engage in exclusionary sizing, pricing and distribution schemes in an effort to enforce the
limitations of their image consumption. Consumers are free to take or leave these references as
they see fit, and most consumers most certainly do not buy and wear exclusively from a single
brand so that they duplicate the images presented on advertisements and mannequins. Rather
they mix and match across brands, market segments and even styles to establish a desired look.
Yet the brands also understand that amidst a thousand other factors, the single conspicuous logo
T-shirt is a direct reference to the total image, which the brand has developed and propagated in
their extensive media campaigns over the course of years and decades even. Furthermore, if
consumers do not match the stereotypes set by the brands, it is likely that they may adhere to
some other, more original cultural or stylistic stereotype which the brand may very-well
appropriate if its agents deem it as a viable marketing tool.
The interviews were also supplemented by additional qualitative research including
passive observation and documentation at a fashion industry trade show, in-store, and online
market research. The observation data collection process involved walking the floors of several
different events located in different convention center spaces throughout the area, and retaining

193
video footage and communicating with spokespersons from different organizations from fashion
brands to sourcing manufacturers, assembly manufacturers, buyers, distributors, marketing
executives, and retailers. The in-store research involved the photography of over 150 T-shirts
and price tags at clothing retailers throughout New York City ranging from major department
stores to small boutiques and independent vendors occupying booths at street festivals. The
online research involved visiting hundreds of online retailers including those listed above and
others, as well as online fashion media including brand pages, press, blogs, designer websites,
marketing firms, and sites for mainstream fashion industry research based literature.
The interviews found that fashion industry professionals primarily see the T-shirt as a
significant part of everyday wardrobe, which can be an important form of self-expression,
cultural representation and group affiliation for consumers and a valuable product of
conspicuous exposure for brands. Here, responses have provided substantial insights about the
state of the apparel market including the historical transition of brands, sub-market preferences,
trends, geographic homogenization, and the use of T-shirts as a legitimate articulation of
fashion design. The quality of T-shirt build and design has been scrutinized for its value to
different stakeholders alongside an expansive assessment of trends in both form and function,
which play a significant role in the ability of brands and consumers to assert status. Participants
mostly felt that standards of quality and design across the T-shirt market render differences
between brands and segments inconsistent as well as relatively insignificant in the eyes of most
consumers. The future of the T-shirt market was also given serious consideration as they
extrapolated on evolutions in garment composition as well as business practices. Respondents
suggested that there is a strong drive toward mass customization, and consumer participation in
the design and production process as a result of the many technological advances, which have

194
brought about that evolution. It was asserted that large corporate entities hold less leverage in
the T-shirt market than independent producers as a result of the rapid acceleration of the fashion
cycle, as well as these developments in manufacturing and distribution technology, and
communications. The interviewees predominantly saw trendiness above price as the primary
point of value in the assertion of consumers’ social status through conspicuous consumption
using T-shirts. Conversely price was argued as being more important than trendiness for brands
in asserting their status within the market. T-shirts were recognized by most participants as
being insignificant in material value which forced them to address the legitimacy of brand
equity as a social construct that pervades the business world and carries over heavily into the
material conditions of everyday life for ordinary people. The T-shirt was also recognized as a
canvas for authentic artwork, whose merits were deemed as having intrinsic value that
supersedes the commercial value placed in brand trademarks which proclaim a good share of
their worth to be tied to fixed operational costs, marketing expenditure, and the net costs of
activities contributing to the brand gestalt. Finally, image and status were both seen as
something that could make or break a brand or consumer in a given situation, but respondents
ultimately determined that the outcome of such a situation, though possible, is dependent on a
large number of factors which are highly subject to vary from one instance to the next.
These findings situate the brand, the consumer, and the T-shirt in position to be
evaluated through informed manipulation. The next study attempts to complement the research
conducted here by further assessing the critical inquiries of this research from the popular
perspective. These include: How are brands able to influence the way we think and react to one
another? What does the designer brand T-shirt mean to us as a demonstration of status and a
commodity of the fashion industry? Likewise, what does it mean to brands as a profitable

195
compromise of exclusivity and therefore brand equity? How have these brands managed to alter
our worldview with regard to fashion sensibility? What has all of this gained us and what has it
gained the brands? What has it cost us and what has it cost the brands? Quantitative methods
serve a great benefit in producing an assessment of a massive opinion sample used to test the
understanding, beliefs, and assumptions provided by the industry professionals.

196
CHAPTER 3: EXPERIMENTAL SURVEYS ON PERCEIVED STATUS
—DO CLOTHES MAKE THE MAN OR DOES MAN MAKE THE BRAND?
Introduction: Consumer Perspective
Luxury and Mass Luxury
The previous section disclosed several substantial points about brand image and shirt
design from an organizational perspective, which were highly valuable in informing the section
that follows, which addresses the same subjects from the perspective of consumers. The in-
depth-interviews revealed that in the opinion of fashion producers T-shirts are largely a high
profit commodity for brands at the luxury end of the market, little different from toiletries and
low-level accessories intended for mass consumption (Thomas 2007; Tungate, 2009). Expert
beliefs were widely dispersed as to the significance of luxury brand T-shirts but the most
common assertion was that these shirts are generally of finer build quality than those found in
lower market segments, yet that quality is limited both in its ability to be truthfully appreciated
by ordinary consumers or signify status to onlookers. Furthermore, due to the simplicity of this
garment class, the range of distinction in build quality is limited in that the component costs for
achieving high quality are mostly insignificant with comparison to the margins and demand
gained at each status level. In other words the difference in dollars that it costs to manufacture a
basic T-shirt and a premium T-shirt is not proportionately representative of the difference in
retail price of a mass market T-shirt and a luxury brand T-shirt. T-shirts in every segment
occupy a relatively high enough standard of quality against a relatively low enough profile of
adornment to make the premium quality offerings typified by the luxury sector negligible with
comparison to the primary collections of those brands. Interview participants suggested this
through statements such as the following given by Participant No. 1:

197
Participant No. 1
Currently... like two weeks ago when Kanye West did his line with APC and he had a
$120 white V-neck tee. I mean it had nothing at all and it was a whit e V-neck tee. Also
from the street but then also you see a lot more celebrity influence… I mean Egyptian
Cotton, it’s nice cotton but it’s not… It’s just long grain cotton and it’s just the staple of
the cotton, it doesn’t make it…that’s crazy to me because you can go get a Hanes T-shirt
with no label on the inside…that also plays a lot into when people are feeling and
touching, they don’t know what they’re feeling and touching until you tell them what
they’re feeling and touching. I just think that like a celebrity trend is…It’s celebrity
driven.
And Participant No. 22:
Participant No. 22
I wouldn’t have any idea…when they do [do T-shirts] the marginal quality from a
luxury brand T-shirt to a premium brand T-shirt is not that much. I mean you can find
brands that use the best Egyptian cotton or the best Pima cotton or the best North
Carolina cotton and what separates that fine quality of cotton from a Louis Vuitton T-
shirt? It’s the name! So understanding what it costs to make goods…what is it that
you’re going to really have that distinguishes one T-shirt from another? The
name…Honestly, I just sourced some T-shirts for a promotional event, really good stock
of fabric, I paid $2.25[each].
Moreover, the experts stated with general consensus that the luxury segment does not maintain
a position of dominance in terms of innovative design or message content in the T-shirt market.

198
Moving down the status hierarchy into the middle tier, diffusion and mass luxury (also
called affordable luxury
43
or masstige
44
) lines received mixed criticism from the interviewees.
Most respondents acknowledged the potential for these lines to provide consumers with a
legitimate, affordable outlet to access prestige brands and their propositions for a luxury
lifestyle while expanding the market presence and enthusiasm for the principle brands.
However, a significant minority also argued that most of these brands offer little by way of
luxury or value and that they either cheapen the principle brands through overexposure and
association with dubious quality or take advantage of the consumer through planned
obsolescence, intentional status downgrading or both. Furthermore, a majority of respondents
assessed the build quality and design content of T-shirts in this segment as unexceptional.
Therefore, these lines must rely heavily on brand cachet as the focal selling point for their T-
shirts. In the case of diffusion lines this cachet is primarily derived from the image of the
principle brand. In the case of stand-alone masstige brands the image is founded on notions of
socially elitist aspirations. As mass luxury and diffusion lines propose themselves to offer an
affordable luxury lifestyle experience, they necessarily defer the aspirational qualities of their
market position to those of high-end premium and super-premium brands. What this essentially
means is that while these brands have the potential to raise an individual’s status their value
proposition might be seen as somewhat of an offering of second-rate prestige.
It is likely that they rely to some degree on consumer ignorance of the stratification of
the fashion retail market. They clearly play heavily on their ability to sew confusion and
misunderstanding in the minds of consumers by closely imitating the aesthetics, marketing and

43
There is a sense of irony in this business model that is not lost in the naming of the segment as ‘affordable luxury’. This is mainly due to the
fact that one of the premier tenets of luxury fashion is that it is prohibitively expensive. Therefore the term ‘affordable luxury’ might be best
appreciated for its qualities as an oxymoron of sorts.
44
The term masstige is portmanteau of the words mass and prestige used as descriptor for affordable luxury brands coined by Silverstein &
Fiske (2003).

199
sales tactics used by luxury brands.
45
This may also be tied to what critical theorists have
described as the neurotic tendency of the middle class gentry to at all times be desperately
avoiding a slip down the social hierarchy (Veblen, 1899; Fussell, 1983; Ewen, 1976; Lefebvre,
1984). In other words it is plausible that what these brands are communicating with their value
proposition may not be so much an offering of second-rate prestige as it is a guarantee of
distinction and resistance to downward social mobility. Nevertheless, clothing lines with such
precarious branding strategies render themselves highly vulnerable to the negative effects of an
already volatile fashion market. Meanwhile, their lack of exclusivity through affordability
brings the potential for a status hike from upscale consumers possible but unlikely beyond the
internal hierarchy of the mass luxury market segment. This is important because despite their
appropriation of the trade dress and marketing strategies of premium luxury brands, masstige
lines are intended to be accessible to as broad a spectrum of ‘ideal’ consumers as possible, both
high and low (Silverstein et al., 2008). The goal of these brands is primarily profitability, rather
than prestige. It is not their purpose to ascend the fashion hierarchy by breaking through the
premium sector only to arrive at the bottom of its ranks.
Overall, the interviews suggested that industry insiders do expect onlookers to be
convinced by the proposed high-status of poseurs (Han et al., 2010) wearing designer T-shirts
from couture fashion houses and to a lesser extent mass prestige brands, but questioned its
effectiveness in the absence of other high-status indicators (e.g. jeans, shoes, accessories,
jewelry, etc.). They also argued that despite the above stated limitations of the garment class,

45
For example, New York City’s Fifth Avenue is famed as a thoroughfare of luxury opulence lined with flagship boutiques from Bulgari and
Tiffany & Co. to Versace, Henri Bendel, Fendi and Gucci. The strip has also become residence to a collective of mass luxury ‘who’s who?’
including Armani Exchange, J. Crew, Abercrombie & Fitch and Zara. These spaces are riddled with the soft lighting, deconstructivist,
postmodern décor or the white cube aesthetic utilized as trademarks of luxury brand retailing. These brands also distribute glossy advertisements
laden with exotic photographs of seminude models in salacious poses reminiscent of high fashion editorial spreads. The point is that these
brands have adopted the strategies employed by the luxury sector while maintaining high but affordable price points which is likely to cause
uncertainty in the minds of consumers as to the criteria for the status afforded high fashion brands, especially because the legacies of high
fashion brands are largely lost on a general public who understand the images of these brands only in as much as they are related by these
signifiers (Husic & Cicic, 2009).

200
low status and non-target consumers are subject to threaten the position of high-, and mid-status
brands by wearing T-shirts depending on several contextual factors. In essence, according to the
professionals interviewed, lower status consumers persuaded to purchase these garments by the
enticements of luxury brands’ value propositions should ideally be satisfied with the lifestyle
experiences they obtain from said purchases, despite the fact that on-lookers are prone to
disregard the proposed transference of status from the brand to the consumer on the grounds of
a T-shirt alone when unaccompanied by other high-status signifiers. This is because the T-shirt
and the mass luxury brand more generally do not necessarily embody the luxury brand’s values
of high utilitarian build quality and aesthetic innovativeness; rather the T-shirt’s value lies
primarily in the fact that it is a legitimate conspicuous manifestation of the brand’s identity.
However, as one of the most accessible of the brand’s standard bearers, the T-shirt is highly
suspect in the terms of its acquisition (i.e. it is always uncertain whether it was purchased
because the consumer is willing and able to pay exorbitant rates for low-cost commodities such
as T-shirts or because the T-shirt was the only thing the consumer could afford from a high-
priced market segment). This is due not least of all to the fact that status signifiers reach far
beyond the domain of attire into every aspect of self-presentation including physique, grooming,
vocabulary, accent, posture, facial expression, mannerisms, etc. (Fussell, 1983; Bourdieu, 1984;
Goffman, 1956).
On the contrary, while the industry professionals primarily suggested that high status
brands could raise consumer status, a minority also stated that low status brands could lower
consumer status with T-shirts. Likewise, as participants overwhelmingly stated that low status
consumers might lower a high status brand with T-shirts, a minority also argued that high status
consumers could raise low status brands in public opinion. Indeed it is the apparent goal of

201
many masstige level brands to associate themselves with as many high status consumers as
possible—as blatantly reflected in their marketing strategies—in order to attract as many
‘aspirational’ consumers as possible while maintaining the brand and consumer image.
46

In as much as luxury and masstige brands maintain lifestyle and status aspiration as the
signatures of their value propositions, mass-market brands have traditionally endorsed
affordability and utilitarian function in their value propositions. However, in the product
categories of apparel—particularly T-shirts, these brands enjoy the freedoms of creative
subjectivity in their interpretations. In the realm of clothing, mass-market brands do not so
much symbolize low status as much as they simply fail to symbolize high status. Furthermore,
there is a growing trend in the fashion industry for even mass-market brands to engage in
marketing strategies intended to appeal to consumer lifestyle aspirations. Because fashion is a
creative, design based industry, and creative design, as an art form, is limited in its ability to be
economically quantified, it stands as a general truth with apparel that great designs can and do
come from everywhere. The interviewees stated as much in their proclamations related above,
that luxury and masstige brands, as market segments, neither offer particularly notable or
innovative T-shirt designs nor does the utilitarian quality of these T-shirts frequently outstrip
that of mass market brands in a way that is meaningful enough to substantiate claims of
superiority given the product class.
47
Moreover, many interviewees stated that some mass or
independent brands offered the best designs across the market.

46
It should be noted that the comparative notion of status discussed in this study is meant to denote relative status. That is to say that high and
low status brands and consumers were discussed with comparison to one another such that the reference of middle status brands and consumers
implied low status when compared to high status consumers and brands, and high status when compared to low status consumers and brands.
This distinction illuminates one of the central inquiries driving this research, which focuses on the implications of prospect theory (Khaneman &
Tversky, 1979) in the perception of gains and losses in status.
47
It should be noted that this lack of distinction in design and quality quoted here is made exclusively with reference to the T-shirt market, not
other garments and accessories.

202
Dynamic Market Positioning
Given these insights it becomes evident that the assertion of status with T-shirts is not
purely based upon economic factors for brands or for consumers, but heavily reliant on notions
of association dealt through cultural influence. This was discussed above with regard to
masstige brands, in which case price was used to underscore the claims to status provided in the
marketing mix. While many of the same principles hold true in the mass market, several of
these arguments breakdown and must be reconsidered. In the interviews some respondents
deemed trendiness more important than price for both brands and consumers in asserting status.
However, many stated that it depends because these two constructs are necessarily co-dependent
on one another, especially when it comes to items such as T-shirts, which are by nature
canvases for current trends, relatively disposable within the scope of a collection, and highly
price sensitive. It has been argued here that diffusion brands, as derivative trademarks, draw
most of their status from their association with their principle brands—which play a major role
in driving the dissemination of trends in the fashion industry—rather than being trendy in and of
themselves in most cases.
Many independent and mass market brands and even some mass luxury brands
(especially fast fashion brands) have become specialized at maintaining a position on the cusp
of current trends and consequentially have achieved a degree of status for their brands that
might be communicated in T-shirts, which is in some ways competitive with that of even some
luxury brands notwithstanding the fact that their pricing schemes lack the premium rates which
are ideal for denoting such status as a direct reflection of self-determined market position. As
stated, one of the primary functions of premium pricing is exclusion. Yet pricing is hardly the
only means of achieving exclusivity let alone status. It is simply one of the most apparent

203
mechanisms of exclusion and therefore indications of status for a brand and its consumers.
Many interview participants insinuated that brand status is largely the net effect of many
components of the marketing mix (i.e. “It depends…”), pricing being merely one, all be it a
highly relevant one. This notion of exclusion is rooted in the idea of preventing non-target
consumers from accessing the brand for fear of compromising the brand image. Mass market
and independent brands might often emulate other business practices found in the luxury sector
in order to achieve augmented status in terms of cultural relevance despite maintaining a lower
profile brand cachet in terms of price, neglecting exclusionary business practices and
undermining many of the tenets of luxury lifestyle.
48
The fact of the matter is that in the current
U.S. climate it would be extremely difficult for any brand to compete with the status of brands
in the luxury market without subscribing to the exorbitant price points, which have come to
define that entire sector. They may, however, achieve a status on par with the luxury segment
on designated product categories, especially with minor products such as T-shirts.
49

Streetwear
A significant number of trendy independent brands achieve exclusivity through limited
production and distribution; they maintain austerity marketing campaigns filled with avant-

48
Some independent brands, especially in streetware, engage in several of these business tactics in addition to charging prohibitive prices for
their products. Streetwear was built by the likes of John Stüssy (of Stüssy) and James Jebbia (of SUPREME) on the premise of producing an
independent line of clothing based on niche youth culture movements, which maintain the limited availability (though often more out of
necessity than as a tactic), avant-garde and austerity marketing, and high price points of luxury brands in conjunction with cutting edge designs
(Williams, 2012).
49
For example, Gucci or Polo might produce perfume, soap, and lotion, but an independent bath and skin care firm might make and market high
quality handmade perfumes, soaps, and lotions in small production with a level of craftsmanship that makes it genuinely competitive with the
same products made by luxury brands, notwithstanding a low price point or the fact that the luxury brand products are batch produced on an
industrial level by machines in the same licensee factory as many other brands of both high and low status. The independent goods are
competitive because they embody qualities materially which the luxury goods embody figuratively by associations with the hand crafted couture
attire that has built the legacies of these brands. As a result of interview respondents stating that for T-shirts “trend influences price” in a co-
dependent relationship, it is assumed here that—given the free and arbitrary nature of trends to be initiated anywhere—T-shirts, unlike cars for
example, might, like the skincare products, also be resistant to price as the preeminent domain along which status is established for the brand
and transferred to the consumer. In the case of the skin care products it is the culturally valued quality craftsmanship (which translates to high
utilitarian value) and limited production, not the price, that denotes the status of the brand to consumers, despite the fact that the targeted
consumers may not exclusively be members of an elite social class they share an aspirational desire for elite quality skincare with members of
that class. Likewise, with the T-shirts the trendiness rather than quality (which has a tendency to disproportionately bear on T-shirt price)
achieves a sense of social status for the brand and its consumers, which equates indirectly with the status that social higher-ups have asserted
and maintained for ages by being en vogue and culturally relevant beyond the scope of ordinary people. This sense of trendiness—which is
apparent in one’s attire all together but highly potent when present in the design communication of a T-shirt—should insinuate economic status
much like height, facial symmetry, race, hair-style, and other peripheral indicators which are schematically predisposed towards a bias for
wealth and consequentially status.

204
garde imagery; occupying work and retail spaces in creative hot zones in the midst of
metropolitan culture capitals. They produce highly innovative designs and keep their fingers on
the pulse of cultural trends by embedding themselves within the arts and entertainment scenes
of these high-activity locales; catering to niche audiences of subcultural tastemakers who
intermingle with commercial gatekeepers, artistic savants, and the denizens of upscale
cosmopolitan society. Such brands are largely categorized as “streetwear” and while some may
charge premiums and even super premiums for their collections in the pursuit of Fashion Week
runways, others may constitute little more than a single designer releasing small runs of hand
printed T-shirts which may gain cult-like recognition at a standard base-rate retail price. The
segment is highly diverse lacking rigid boundaries and definition (Williams, 2012). Though it
was not incorporated into the experimental study due to its restricted niche audience
50
, its
mention here is imperative to gaining a comprehensive understanding of the T-shirt market as it
exists at this point in time.
51
Streetwear is largely responsible for initiating many of the trends
that sweep the entire fashion industry as a result of its diversity, abstract ideologies, and unique
cultural disposition.
Fast Fashion
Mass-market brands have even taken to appropriating luxury sector marketing tactics.
Discount brands including H&M, Forever 21 and UNIQLO operate under the ‘fast fashion’
business model, maintaining flagship boutiques in costly metropolitan fashion districts such as
5
th
Avenue in New York City or the Sunset Strip Los Angeles. These brands have heavily

50
One of the highlights of streetwear is that its audience prides itself on the esoteric nature of its culture, and the limited availability of its
cultural products. This exclusivity is used as a signifier for members of this social group or ‘scene’ to identify one another and assert status
through the connotation of access and therefore privilege (Williams, 2012).
51
It is important to note that the fashion industry and the culture industries more generally have in the last decade undergone a rapid
acceleration of growth and expansion, which has led to unprecedented and highly unstable rates of structural change. One of the goals of this
study is to develop an informed assessment of the future of those changes.

205
incorporated exotic
52
editorial style photography into their marketing imagery. Their retail
spaces are laden with reactionary postmodern design motifs, mixing white cube layouts with art
deco and Victorian aesthetics. Their apparel boasts the same fast fashion model as masstige
retail juggernauts like Zara, with some interviewees commenting that the fast fashion segment
has taken the apparel industry by storm due to the rapid turn-around rates at which these brands
are able to reproduce trends taken from both the street level and high fashion runways, and sell
them at low cost. These activities, much like those of the masstige segment, sew uncertainty in
the minds of a general public lacking in fashion savvy or the time and interest to stay regularly
abreast in fashion trends, because they continue to sell goods at low prices which contradict the
lifestyle experiences presented in the value propositions of their marketing propaganda.
To further complicate matters, H&M—widely regarded by interviewees as somewhat of
the “Wal-Mart” of apparel retail—which produces “disposable” fashion of often suspect quality
at minimal price points—has, since 2004, engaged in regular collaboration collections with high
fashion designers and brands including Karl Lagerfeld, Stella McCarney, Roberto Cavalli,
Marimekko, Commes des Garçons, Matthew Williamson, Jimmy Choo, Sonia Rykiel, Lanvin,
Versace, Marni, Anna Dello Russo, Maison Martin Margiela, Isabel Marant, and Alexander
Wang. Pop icons Madonna and Beyoncé have both done deals with H&M amidst having also
been tied at various points to endorsements for Dolce & Gabbana and Louis Vuitton (for
Madonna) and Tommy Hilfiger and Emporio Armani (for Beyoncé). Record producer and pop
culture aficionado Pharrell Williams who is now a spokes model and creative partner at Adidas
(which also produces high-end streetwear under its Y-3 collection and Kanye West partnership)
had his I Am Other collection released as a collaboration with UNIQLO after having done

52
Fashion editorial commonly uses models with rare features such as elongated torsos and extremely thin waistlines and body profiles.
Photography taken of these individuals often features highly stylized grooming and hair styling, exaggerated use of make-up and excessive skin
treatments such as shining coats of oil or sparkling bronze toning agents. This is the intended reference of the word ‘exotic’ as it is used here.

206
eyewear and jewelry collaborations with Marc Jacobs at Louis Vuitton and launching a wildly
popular streetwear line called Billionaire Boys Club and a Reebok sneaker line called Ice Cream
with Japanese streetwear designer Nigo of Bathing Ape. Even retail giant Target has done
collaborations with the likes of Philip Lim, Alexander McQueen, Proenza Schouler, Missoni
and Jean Paul Gaultier. Aside from these fashion-driven mass-market brands, there are mass
brands, which follow the traditional values of that segment. Many of these brands such as
American Eagle Outfitters (which is essentially a lower cost direct competitor of Abercrombie
& Fitch) and American Rag (which is a private label of retail giant Macy’s) embrace
affordability as part of their values but still emulate the marketing images used by higher-end
brands. The point is that all of these actions have compromised the integrity of the rigid
hierarchy of fashion brands that has traditionally been largely correlated with price. This
reasoning led to the following questions being asked: How does this affect the popular
interpretation of brand status in the different market segments when brand image is presented on
T-shirts? Does this status transfer to consumers and if so under what conditions? Furthermore,
Are these brands more or less easily influenced by consumers of different status as a result of
these market activities?
Mass-Market Makeover
At the lowest tier designer brands like Old Navy (which is a low cost subsidiary of GAP
also focused on basics) and low-end department private labels such as JCPenney’s Arizona
Jeans Co. and Sears’ The Original Roebuck & Co. maintain propositions which essentially
amount to the brand offering consumers little more than to prevent being out of style or
awkwardly dressed at a highly affordable price. These brands cannot offer status through their
association because they are not particularly associated with high quality craftsmanship. They

207
often construct their images using physically attractive models that appear to be every day
Americans rather than heavily retouched exotic stereotypes. Their advertisements lack the
artistic pedigree and sexual overtones of more aspirational fashion brands. They make regular
use of deep discounting (e.g. 50% off), bargain sales (e.g. Buy 2 Get 1 Free), and even coupons
to lure consumers. They propose their products to be part of no extravagant lifestyle
experiences. Their clothing designs are largely derivative or generic, devoid of innovation and
stylistic edge in an attempt to maximize potential audience by embracing no appeals to any
specific groups, as this may result in the alienation of other consumers. Consequentially they do
not engage in exclusionary sizing of their garments in an effort to control their consumer image.
Rather, they operate on a mass-marketing strategy, which seeks to increase popularity through
over-exposure. They target the late adopters and laggards (Rogers, 1962) and often capture the
final phase in the dissemination of a trend or they avoid trends all together. These brands may
not commonly occupy retail spaces in the districts favored by more aspirational brands, and
their interiors are often more subtle, lacking salient motifs and strong commitment to
pronounced design philosophies. Finally, many of these lines actively avoid the use of
conspicuous logo based branding in their T-shirts because to do so might actually lower the
potential status of the garment, being that their value propositions are oriented around
proletariat convictions of thrift and utility rather than the aspirational notions of material wealth
and lifestyle pervasive in the current mainstream.
Research Questions
The logic behind this line of inquiry deals with the fact that, like brands, every
individual has an identity from which they derive a self-image that they construct and use to
project ideas into society about who they are and who they are not. This in turn effects how

208
other people treat them in different contexts as they go about their lives in the real world. There
are countless factors that contribute to image composition. One particularly important aspect of
the effects it achieves is status. Status positions individuals within a social hierarchy such that
people of lower status often either feel a self-imposed need to offer reverence or deference to
people of higher status under hope for opportunity or the coercive threat of social, political or
economic power (Eastman & Eastman, 2011). There are innumerable factors that might
determine an individual’s perceived status according to the image they project. For the sake of
simplicity and generalizability the image components chosen to manipulate status for this
research project were self-presentation and clothing—specifically T-shirts. Given that every
individual’s image has a starting point for its status it is reasonable to ask the following
questions:
RQ 1 How is a consumer’s perceived status affected when that individual wears T-shirts
conspicuously labeled with the trademarks of brands of different status?
RQ 2 How does the status of a brand and the independent status of the consumer affect a
brands ability to alter that individual’s perceived status in the eyes of observers when
wearing a conspicuously trademarked T-shirt?
Hypothesis 1
Given these inquiries, it is hypothesized that when consumers wear T-shirts conspicuously
labeled with designer brand identities:
H 1: As brand status increases, perceived consumer status will increase and the magnitude
of this effect will be greater the lower the starting point for consumer status.
Provided the limited offering of self presentation provided in these experiments it is
assumed that brand status will not lower consumer status

209
Every brand also has an image that is constructed through highly contrived means of
planning and strategy. With clothing brands that image survives under capricious conditions of
unpredictable change taking place rapidly within the market. Unlike self-image, brand image is
not derivative of- or restricted by phenotypical disposition. Yet brands, as producers and
distributors of an image, face the constant challenge of maintaining that image in the midst of a
free market, which cannot be controlled. Status is a major function of brand strategy in that it
plays a central role in determining a brand’s value proposition, market positioning, and
profitability. Brand status is asserted as the net effect of a gestalt of business practices which
help define the brand’s pricing scheme (Diamond et al., 2009). Though pricing itself is not the
sole determinant of status, it can arguably be stated as the most significant amongst tangible
facets of brand identity, trendiness notwithstanding. Along with sizing and distribution
restrictions it is one of the key mechanisms that brands use in an attempt to regulate the
constituencies of their consumer bases in an effort to maintain consistence between their
proposed images and the image that is produced in the market once the products are sold. Given
that every brand has a proposed image with a verifiable status it is reasonable to ask the
following questions:
RQ 3 How is perceived brand status affected when a brand produces conspicuously
labeled T-shirts worn by consumers from different social status levels?
RQ 4 How does the proposed status of the brand and a consumer’s independent status
affect that individual’s ability to alter perceived brand status in the eyes of observers when
wearing a conspicuously trademarked T-shirt?

210
Hypothesis 2
When consumers wear T-shirts conspicuously labeled with designer brand identities the
following is hypothesized:
H 2: As consumer status decreases, perceived brand status will decrease and the
magnitude of this effect will be greater the higher the starting point for brand status.
Provided the limited offering of self-presentation in these experiments it is assumed that
consumer status will not raise brand status.
It is suggested here that the use of a T-shirt to conspicuously display a brand image has
different effects for different brands, and that these effects should further be altered depending
on the identity of the consumer wearing the T-shirt. Likewise, the conspicuous use of a brand
image on a T-shirt serves as a social signal of the consumer’s identity and this effect will be
different for consumers of different identity when wearing brands of different identity. Given
the prevalence of aspirational values as a dominant trend within modern consumerism, and
branding as a highly status driven enterprise, particularly in the fashion industry, it is should be
noted that in all cases the T-shirt is of special interest as a result of its uncertain value as a status
symbol.
Method
Sampling and Data Collection Procedures
In order to empirically test the effects of status as a driving factor between consumer
identity and brand image when mediated by T-shirts, it is important that direct measures for the
communication of status as a social construct be established and analyzed. A series of
questionnaires was developed and run with a sample of online participants. Study 2 involved an
extensive and highly robust assessment of observer opinions and consisted of a pilot study and

211
two self-administered online experiments using Qualtrics. The study was conducted with a non-
probabilistic convenience sample
53
(N = 1237) including the Pilot Study (n
0
= 370),
Experiment 1 (n
1
= 495),

and Experiment 2 (n
2
= 372), see Appendix E: Table 4; and Figure
No. 1 to Figure No. 5.
The samples for the pilot study and each experiment were composed of paid workers
from the online crowdsourcing marketplace Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) who received
$0.25 or $0.50 USD (depending on the time and condition) in exchange for their participation.
The use of subgroups was employed to achieve greater diversity and external validity in the
sample due to limitations in the feasibility of obtaining a true random, representative sample.
For each research section, participants were recruited via online posting on the mTurk website
where the study was codenamed Project Wingate. As with all mTurk workers, participants were
required to be a minimum 18 years of age. Qualifications for the surveys restricted that the
respondents were located in the United States, and had maintained at least a 90% success ratio
for their completed mTurk assignments (HITs). Workers were instructed that they were only
allowed to take one Project Wingate survey, and that repeat respondents would risk potentially
having all assignments rejected, causing lost time and compensation, in addition to
compromising their success ratio and therefore their worker qualification profile—meaning
their ability to obtain more desirable work in the future.

53
A non-stratified sample was used for the experiments because the aim of this study was to determine the popular perceptions of brands and
their consumers. While it is important for brands to understand the opinions of their target consumers, aside from the fact that brands do not
control their audiences nearly as much as they idealize to, the point here was to obtain a sense of the net effect of the public reaction to these T-
shirts. The logic of this design proposal is as follows: Consumers purchase designer T-shirts because they want to be perceived in a particular
way. Although they base these purchases on their own feelings toward the brands they choose, they must also take into account the perception
of the general public if they want to achieve a specific effect, even if that effect is to simply go unnoticed. Therefore, it is the opinion of the
public collective, which validates the value proposition of the brand more so than the brand itself, the media or the consuming target audience.
This is true because it is the public reaction which constitutes the material reality of the image’s effect, regardless of the thoughts, desires and
activities of the producers of that image or its actual consumers.

212
Participant Description
Excluding for unreported responses demographic data revealed that the sample consisted
of 632 (51%) male and 605 (49%) female participants. Respondents had a mean age of (µ= 40)
years old with a median of 28 and Standard Deviation of (σ = 15.46). The majority of
respondents, beginning in the first quartile, reported having at least some college education with
participants in the second quartile stating that they had at least completed an associate’s degree,
and participants in the third quartile stating that they had completed a bachelor’s degree.
Inquiries on annual income were disproportionate, largely incomplete, and therefore discarded
as suspect.
Research Design
Participants accessed an online questionnaire on the Qualtrics digital survey platform by
clicking a link in the post stating that they were only allowed to participate in one questionnaire
group from the project and further submissions would be rejected. Participants were
immediately presented with a welcome and consent page stating that the research was being
done to gather information on perceptions of identity. The testing instrument measured
consumer identity along four categories defined as Attractive, Intelligent, Cool, and Annual
Income used as a measure of socioeconomic status (SES). Each aspect of consumer identity was
evaluated on a 7-point Likert with Attractive, Intelligent, and Cool being measured from 1 to 7
and Annual Income being measured from ‘Under $25K’ to ‘Above $150K’ with equal
increments of $25K. Brand identity was measured along seven categories defined as Familiar,
Innovative, Quality, Status, Estimated Cost, and Willingness to Pay (WTP). Each aspect of
brand identity was measured on a 7-point scale with Familiar, Innovative, Quality and Status
being measured from 1 to 7 while Estimated Cost and WTP were measured from ‘Under $25’ to

213
‘Above $150’ with equal increments of $25.
54
Each condition displaying a different category of
Brand Image, Consumer Identity or combination thereof was presented to a unique sub-sample
in an effort to avoid anchoring effects (Tversky & Kahnemen, 1974). Conditions were also
displayed in randomized order between respondents for the purpose of controlling for ordering
effects (Perreault, 1975). To insure that replies were being given with honest consideration, a
validity check was randomly issued one time in each condition instructing respondents to
provide a specific answer. Demographic data about the respondents was gathered at the end of
each questionnaire. A debriefing statement was presented at the conclusion of the questions
fully disclosing the nature of the research and the intent behind its findings.
Measures
Status
Status is the denotation of value with comparison to other values in an ordinal hierarchy.
With both consumers and brands one of the most significant features of identity is status.
To begin, with consumers there are a multitude of components which might contribute
to, and be influenced by the evaluation of an individual’s status including race, gender, physical
attractiveness (determined by such factors as body mass, height, facial symmetry, eye color, and
skin tone), vocal tone, accent, speaking style, use of grammar and vocabulary, grooming (e.g.
hair, nails, skin, teeth and scent), posture, facial expression and demeanor (Fussell, 1983;
Bourdieu, 1984; Goffman, 1956). One of the most prominent components of self-presentation,
which contributes to status perception, is dress. While race, gender, attractiveness, grooming
and demeanor may or may not readily suggest the likelihood of certain social dispositions or
lack thereof, clothing and accessories can explicitly denote information about an individual’s

54
Annual Income, Cost and WTP were all graded on a 7-point Likert scale such that the range for the cost and WTP of a T-shirt were defined as
being one one-thousandth of the range for annual income.

214
personal assets and expenditures, thus providing more informed insinuations about income and
therefore status. Aside from garment class, composition and aesthetic—brand identity has the
ability to further detail the insinuated status produced by clothing either by its implicit
association with social constructs such as trendiness or prestige, its explicit association with
price or both (Veblen, 1899; Wilson, 1984; Eastman et al., 1999; Dodd et al., 2000; Gardyn,
2002; Meyers, 2004; Truong et al., 2008; Husic & Cicic 2009; Eastman & Eastman, 2011).
Similar to consumer status, there are multiple factors that play a significant role in
determining brand status. Sales strategy includes things such as the fact that a brand does or
does not offer discounts or clearance racks in its stores; how large of an inventory is produced
for each garment and collection—giving the line standing as either exclusive or for mass
consumption; how the brand’s garments are distributed for retail—meaning whether or not they
have dedicated stores of their own, whether they sell out of department stores, specialty
boutiques, online, nationwide, globally or in select locations. These factors bear heavily on
brand positioning which deals with how the brand has constructed its social identity via
marketing strategy. Positioning concerns how the products are sold (if in dedicated stores)—
how the stores look inside, the quality of the interior design (e.g. expensive vs. inexpensive—
materials), the aesthetic values promoted in the store’s design, the geographic location of the
store (e.g. 5
th
Ave. vs. Brooklyn).
55
It also includes what fashion categories the brand sells (e.g.
ready-to-wear, made-to-measure, custom tailored—bespoke and couture); which product
categories the brand sells (e.g. outerwear, sleepwear, underwear, active wear, formal wear,
accessories, toiletries, shoes, etc.); what the brand’s quality control and manufacturing process
entails (e.g. hand vs. machine—crafted); who the brand’s target audience is (e.g. petit, plus size,

55
If sold in other boutiques and department stores: Which retailers? What other lines and product classes do they sell? What are their interior
design and location? What are their popularity, reputation and media presence?

215
women, men, middle class, wealthy, etc.); what the brand’s history and reputation is (how long
they have been in existence, how successful they have been), the brand’s popularity and
industry presence (e.g. who the lead designers are, what their public reputation/celebrity status
is, presence at the globally publicized major fashion weeks, which print publications include the
brand in editorial fashion spreads); what the brand’s affiliate labels are (e.g. Christian Dior to
LVMH, A/X to Giorgio Armani); where the brand advertises (e.g. which magazines and trade
publications); and which celebrities are affiliated with the brand (as paid endorsers or legitimate
consumers captured in the publicity media). All of these factors combine to produce a solidified
industry position and a general public conception of a fashion brand’s status, which is
reinforced by the garment quality and the brand’s success and endurance at a specific price
range (Vigneron & Johnson 2004; Truong et al., 2008). High status brands achieve their
position by following particular guidelines with regard to these factors, while low status brands
usually do whatever they can to maximize profits, causing them to follow a different set of
general guidelines, but even these boundaries and definitions have been complicated within the
context of the current market. These principles are similar to those applied to commercial
branding more generally; however, due to the hyper-symbolic nature of fashion this process can
be more intricate in this particular industry.
These constructs were first conceptualized using theory from the existing status
literature on people and organizations as well as insights gained from the market research and
interviews conducted in Study 1. A study was designed with a pilot study for establishing and
comparing the basis of perceived brand and consumer identity, and two experiments for testing
the effects that these different status variables have on one another when combined. To
manipulate status for consumers the term Consumer Identity was established as the

216
independent variable designating differences in self-presentation whereby an individual would
be deemed as being of higher or lower status based upon the presence of ear and facial
piercings.
Research has firmly established that facial piercings diminish the social perception of an
individual. Studies have shown that piercings in the face lead onlookers to assume that one is of
lower agreeableness, conscientiousness, trustworthiness, competence, intelligence, and
attractiveness in addition to being seen as more extroverted, of more questionable character and
less worthy of employment (McElroy, Summers & Moore, 2014; Seiter & Sandry, 2003; Swami
et al., 2011). Nash, Bryer & Schlaghecken (2010) confirm that facial piercings are not only a
legitimate compromise to trustworthiness but they also lead observers to exhibit a bias of
information recall which is analogous to the source monitoring bias of an untrustworthy
presenter such that observers are most likely to recall information deemed suspect from a source
with piercings. Baggaley, Cheever & Mobley (2011) demonstrated that even children indicate
preference for dental assistants without facial piercings in excess of 95% compared to images of
the same person with piercings.
In order to evaluate that manipulation the independent variable Consumer Status was
established as signifying the perceived social standing of the individual in question. It was
assumed that the individuals with piercings would be viewed as being of lower status than those
without. This assumption was tested in Part 1 of the Pilot Study. Likewise, the term Brand
Image was developed as the independent variable designating a brand’s self determined market
position according to the retail pricing of the T-shirt used in the study. Brand Status was
established as the independent variable in these cases, signifying the perceived market ranking
in terms of social esteem and prestige for the brand in question. It was assumed that the retail

217
price of the T-shirts would coincide with Brand Status such that higher priced shirts would be
assessed as having brands of higher status. This assumption was tested in Parts 2 and 3 of the
Pilot Study. For Experiment 1 Consumer Identity and Brand Image were combined in order to
test the influence that these two factors had in determining Consumer Status. Finally in
Experiment 2 the same variables were combined to test their influence on Brand Status.
Because status, in the case of both brands and consumers, is dependent on a multitude of
contributing factors it was necessary to identify and operationalize several of these variables
with precise definitions for their application in the values being assessed.
Consumer Status:
Annual Income (Socioeconomic Status)
For the sake of practicality, it was decided that perceived Consumer Status would be
defined as socioeconomic status (SES) according to estimations of Annual Income. Studies
have regularly obtained the standard measure of SES through the evaluation of income and
expenditures. It is important to distinguish the concept of SES from other conceptualizations of
status. Hollingshead (1975) developed a four-factor index of social status composed of 1)
education, 2) occupation, 3) sex, and 4) marital status. However, his study did not include an
explicit evaluation of income as a central tenet of its consideration of status and therefore may
be considered for the purposes of the current argument to be closer in theory to what researchers
have defined as class, as opposed to status. On the contrary, socioeconomic status combines this
notion of class—which entails some sense of cultural and social capital (Bourdieu, 1984) or
simply social status as Hollingshead put it—with the concept of economic wealth and the power
that is afforded through its acquisition beyond the constraints of civil norms and values which

218
dictate the subjective interpretation of social status.
56
In terms of status signaling and its
evaluation, Vyas and Kumaranayake (2006) encourage the employment of principle
components analysis (PCA) using asset data when constructing socioeconomic status indices in
lieu of income and expenditure as an alternate means of equating SES. Due to the extensive
resources required to collect data for the standard measures, PCA-based data have been used by
effectively streamlining the accounting of key assets (e.g. durable goods, infrastructure and
housing characteristics) as defining factors in standards of living (Vyas & Kumaranayake,
2006). While such indices may be used to evaluate the material quality of life for households,
the principles which have informed the development of both are largely consistent with the
schematic processing used by individuals to make assumptions about the identity of others in
terms of status (Rivera, 2010). Specifically, schemata involve the streamlining of data based
upon established information about the known world in order to make rapid assessments of
unknown phenomena (Rivera, 2010; Fennis & Pruyn, 2007). It is important to note that the
distinction here lies in the difference between material conditions and perception, because while
it has been discussed extensively that status plays a significant role in consumption behavior
either through its attribution, attainment, or aspiration, the goal here is to determine how
consumption behavior influences the perception of status of any variety.
57
The point is that, in
as much as research has utilized income, expenditure, and asset data to equate SES, it is
reasonable to argue that individuals using schematic processing assess the same factors
(information suggesting potential income, expenditure and assets) denoted through aspects of
self presentation—especially clothing—in order to rapidly evaluate the status of those they

56
Coleman (1983) notes that most Americans have mentally assimilated class and income into a singular concept, and therefore to test one or
the other against the uncertain preconceptions of a popular sample may rapidly prove futile as the result of this common misunderstanding.
57
The general implications of this process are well understood, as many organizations (e.g. military, clergy, businesses such as restaurants, etc.)
employ strict codes of dress which explicitly denote contextual status within the organizational rank, and may also implicitly connote a sense of
attained social status as a direct signifier of both means of employment and potential pay grade.

219
come into contact with, and these evaluations both consciously and sub-consciously determine
the nature of their interpersonal conduct (Rivera, 2010). Bull (1994) has theorized that images
are recognized according to schematic representations held in the mind and are only identified
as their legitimate object forms indirectly. According to Goffman (1956) the mental shortcuts
provided by people using schemas in their daily lives are the points at which expectations are
most easily manipulated. He argues that the system of stratification in most societies is
commonly understood, and there is an idealization of the higher strata which occupies the
“sacred center of the common values” whereby those in the lower strata constantly aspire to
move upward (Goffman, 1956). These efforts, he states, are expressed by sacrifices given to
maintain a front, the most prominent of which are status symbols of material wealth (Goffman,
1956). He does, however, point out that both excess and modesty have their unique points of
interest for which they are each exercised accordingly, and this was also confirmed by Han et al.
(2010).
Rivera (2010) conducted a study with doormen at an elite nightclub producing evidence
that they utilize status schemas based upon identity in order to evaluate the material, moral, and
symbolic worth of patrons before granting admission. Howlett, Pine, Orakcioğlu and Fletcher
(2013) conducted a study wherein respondents viewed four headless images of male models
wearing made-to-measure and ready-to-wear suits with minimal visible differences of design
for a five second duration in order to determine differences in the perceptions of confidence,
success, trustworthiness, salary and flexibility. Their study found that the made-to-measure suits
produced higher ratings in all categories except trustworthiness, and higher income respondents
provided lower ratings across designs. Fennis and Pruyn (2007) state that any salient feature,
which is both valid and diagnostic, might be used in forming an impression of another

220
individual along a continuum described by Fisk and Neuberg (1990) as ranging from rapid,
instantaneous assessment to thoughtful evaluation incorporating all available information.
Studies speak of the perceived validity of cues as being important to both category labels and
the surrounding information in the formation of a personal impression (Fennis & Pruyn, 2007).
Essential to the current study is the question of the T-shirt garment class as a valid cue of status.
Fennis & Pruyn (2007) found that brand personality
58
is subject to impact the impression
of consumer personality along the domain of competence, most strongly depending on the
consistency of the situational context with the brand image. Of particular interest here is the fact
that this effect was also dependent on observation time such that it became less pronounced as a
time limit of six seconds was imposed, causing observers to form impressions of the consumer
personalities based solely on brand personality. This is important because in random public
observation there is typically limited time available to dedicate one’s attention to a single
individual or to do so extensively may be socially inappropriate. Furthermore, under
circumstances of high volume interactions it is likely that onlookers will use stereotyping,
schematic processing and other mental shortcuts in order to cope with the cognitive load of a
multitude of low contact, low significance, short term observations and interactions. Therefore
impression is ordinarily subject to be substantially influenced by brand image on a random
basis. However, context may vary to any degree in real life situations. Furthermore, a T-shirt
may be limited in its ability to effectuate brand personality despite its potential for brand
prominence. For this reason Part 3 of the Pilot Study was used to test the effect that T-shirts
have on interpretations of brand image regarding different status components. Likewise,
throughout the current study the exposure time for the observation of the stimuli was limited to

58
The concept of brand personality was used in accordance with Aaker’s (1997) Big-Five human personality traits for consumer brands. While
the particulars of brand and human personality are not the concern of this study, their consideration is being given with regard to its use as a
measurement for the associative transfer of identity qualities between brands and people.

221
ten seconds before respondents were directed to report perceptions of the consumer or brand in
the image. This was done in an effort to approximate the real life observation experience most
likely to occur at any given moment. Finally, under conditions of ephemeral, random,
superficial exposure and contact, status is more likely to be a critical assessment than
competence, as it is thought that the halo effect induced by assessments of status will include an
assumed perception of competence—quantified here by the inquiries on ‘Intelligence’ for
consumers and ‘Quality’ for brands.
Though Consumer Identity has been well established throughout the literature as a
useful pairing for Consumer Status, it was necessary to isolate potential covariate factors that
may serve as subjective influences of status perception from one individual to the next.
Therefore, three other variables were tested alongside Annual Income. These included inquiries
measuring how Attractive, Intelligent, and Cool the individual in the stimulus was perceived
as being by the respondent.
Attractiveness, Intelligence, and Coolness
Attractiveness was designated as the condition of having aesthetically appealing
superficial attributes including physique, height, posture, hair, eyes, teeth, skin, grooming, and
facial proportions and symmetry—meaning eyes, ears, nose, brows, cheeks, hairline and
jawline. Anderson, John, Keltner & Kring (2001) found peer-rating status within social groups
to be independent of attractiveness. It would, therefore, be interesting to determine if
participants idealize the stimulus images as attractive, whereby the could be demonstrated as
viewing other consumers as members of in or out-groups based upon their clothing choices
according to the argument set forth by Anderson et al. (2001).

222
Intelligence here was defined according to Gottfredson (1997) as a combination of
innate and learned self-awareness, understanding and intellectual prowess exhibited as a result
of cognitive thought, and reasoning skills. Research has produced extensive literature on human
intelligence, its value as a psychological resource, and its ability to be measured with validity
(Gottfredson, 1997). Gross (1973) described symbolic competencies, which demarcate stages of
early human development in various facets of psychological aptitude. This work was followed
closely by Gardner’s (1987) theory of multiple intelligences, which elaborated seven core forms
of intelligence describing a range of distinct human capabilities.
Opinions of an individual’s physical attractiveness have been demonstrated to also
positively correlate with observers’ opinions about that same individual’s intelligence as well as
their social status (Thorndike, 1920; Dion, Berscheid & Walster, 1972; Nissbet & Wilson, 1977;
McElroy et al., 2014; Seiter & Sandry, 2003; Swami et al., 2011; Nash et al., 2010; Baggaley et
al., 2011). People who are viewed as attractive, intelligent or of high social status are more
likely to do well in their careers, obtaining jobs and moving up the employment hierarchy with
greater ease (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Konazawa, 2011). They are more desired for entry into
prominent social circles and have greater selection in finding mates (Dion et al., 1972). They
receive more pleasant interpersonal interactions from strangers in the form of smiles and
greetings (Corneo & Jeanne, 1998). They are less subject to prejudices, more likely to receive
preferential treatment in binding situations, as well as help in emergencies, and more likely to
receive judicial leniency under legal prosecution (Dion et al., 1972; Corneo & Jeanne). They are
seen as more honest, dependable, and talented (Dion et al., 1972; Corneo & Jeanne). Moreover,
they are more readily forgiven for their transgressions and given greater praise for their virtues
and personal achievements (Dion et al., 1972; Corneo & Jeanne, 1998). It is important to note

223
that attractiveness and SES are two identity domains that can be observed in many ways as
outwardly apparent, while intelligence is an internal classification, which is insinuated in the
above stated examples through externalized schematizations for attractiveness and SES. That is
to say that high status and attractive people are generally assumed to be more intelligent than
they would be without being identified as of high status or attractive.
At times an individual may not necessarily be seen as being particularly attractive,
intelligent or high in socioeconomic status, yet they may be viewed as having intangible
qualities inherently deemed desirable by observers. This is a condition that occurs with relative
regularity though it has attained limited yet meaningful attention in the scholarly literature.
Dar-Nimrod et al. (2012) conducted a systemic quantitative analysis of the construct of
‘coolness’ from a trait perspective over three studies, and found that there are two primary
conceptualizations of the notion of cool—one externally maintained and having to do with
socially desirable attributes such as popularity and talent, and the other more internalized and
independent involving a sense of counterculture and rebellion. Rahman (2013) asserts through
content analysis that despite the literature’s focus on cool as related to self-restraint, composure
and emotional detachment, within the global consumer culture cool is idealized with a sense of
spectacle, charisma, and fashionableness. This elusive sense of desirability is often highlighted
by a charismatic charm and a self-awareness suggesting a degree of confidence, which
supersedes the apparent limitations of concomitant factors. It is commonly attributed to one’s
appearance, specifically demeanor or body language, and it is often suggested to be universal in
its appeal. It was regularly alluded to throughout the in-depth-interviews and has at various
times throughout the public discourse been labeled as ‘it factor’, ‘swagger’, ‘style’, or just plain
‘cool’.

224
It’s definitely how he wears it. Like I’m saying you can be walking down the street and
have on a Givenchy shirt and I know it’s Givenchy but I look at you and just be like,
“Bruh you know you…Bruh come on.” Yeah that’s what I’m saying it’s all about how
you wear it because it’s like…Alright if you know you have on a Givenchy shirt that
means you have some type of style…It’s a different story…Like it kills me when I see
someone with a Givenchy shirt on and they have on maybe some…it’s nothing wrong
with Levi’s you know what I mean, but your Levi’s are huge. You’re 6’2”, maybe about
150lbs and you wear a size 32 in jeans maybe and your Levi jeans are a 40 and you have
on a Givenchy shirt. That tells me right there, “What are you doing? That’s dead not
your style. That’s not something you belong in.” But I can see you down the street and
you have on a shirt that you got from Conway, but the way you put it on I’m like,
“…Who is that?” You seem more important when you exude it. It’s not all about your
clothes, it’s how you wear it.
In Study 2 the term ‘Cool’ was selected to evaluate this loosely defined identity
component as a mere point of intellectual insight for the findings. Saxton (2005) notes that
business executives with junior target audiences attempt to quantify cool in order to keep up
with youth trends, and the inclusion of data related to this underrepresented topic could be
extremely useful for both theoretical and practical applications.
Brand Status:
Contrary to consumers, a brand’s status is asserted through its self-determined market
positioning, and unlike humans who are significantly limited in their ability to manipulate
critical identity components such as age, ethnicity or eye color, brand identity is largely a work
of creative ingenuity. Fashion brands carefully select the locales of their retail businesses as

225
well as the ethnicity, height, body mass, skin tone, hair and eye-colors of the models used in
their advertisements. They determine the composition of their seasonal collections and therefore
their design catalogs. And they choose the economic status of their target consumers by setting
price points for their products and engaging in marketing practices aimed at specific segments
of the general population, often to the exclusion of others.
59
Brand status is defined here in
terms of the prestige a brand is attributed as an effect of its exclusivity and affiliation with high-
income lifestyles with comparison to other brands.
This concept is tied closely to the notion of brand equity but deals more directly with the
comparative assessment of one brand with other brands from a consumer perspective, while
brand equity includes considerations of factors such as market capitalization, annual revenue,
stock value, and profitability (Interbrand, 2014; Aaker, 1991). Brand equity is primarily a
quantitative evaluation based on empirical measures, while brand status—though empirically
quantified within the context of this project’s experimental design—is more subjective to the
opinions of the observer rather than tangible information. Aaker (1991) proposed that brand
equity can be collectively summarized as involving 1) Consumer loyalty to the brand, 2)
Recognition of the brand identity, 3) Perception of product quality, 4) Associations that
reinforce the perception of quality, and 5) Proprietary assets such as intellectual properties and
intangible assets such as critical networked relationships. He argues that brand equity offers a
sense of value to the consumer and more importantly for the firm it provides a basis for
customer retention and the attraction of new customers; it enhances loyalty; it grants higher
pricing margins; it provides a platform for expansion; it can provide a point of leverage for
channels of distribution; and it creates a competitive advantage against other firms. Global

59
Standard categories of pricing in the fashion industry generally include (from lowest to highest): 1) Discount, 2) Budget/Mass-Market, 3)
Moderate, 4) Contemporary, 5) Better, 6) Bridge, 7) Designer, and 8) Haute Couture.

226
brand consultancy, Interbrand, employs proprietary research methodologies to conduct what
they call ‘brand evaluation’, including measures of income distribution, global presence,
profitability and the level of the brand’s public profile across major global economies. Shifting
back to the notion of brand status, Vigneron and Johnson (2004) developed a scale to evaluate
consumer perceptions of luxury. Chang and Ko (2014) developed a scale for brand leadership,
which used measures of ‘quality’, ‘value’, ‘innovativeness’, and ‘popularity’ in order to
determine a brand’s unique facility at achieving a consistent degree of distinction through an
efficient mix of positioning and trend setting in a specific market segment.
The in-depth-interviews of Study 1 demonstrated how brand status is loosely determined
in the minds of professional observers according to estimated price ranges, distribution and
retail methods, brand associations, cross-promotion alliances and marketing aesthetics recalled
from experience in order to produce a rank comparison which is highly subjective and not
necessarily tied to the strict rules used to delineate the self imposed market positions of brands
or the sense of equity derived thereof. Moreover, while some brands may be more profitable
with further distribution and higher sales volume and market share, the brand as a symbol of
status may pale with comparison to many high status brands whose distribution, volume, market
share and profitability border on what may otherwise be considered independent. In this way
brand status is a concept akin to Bourdieu’s (1984) notion of social capital, in that it embodies
the idea of esteem beyond pure economic assessment.
It was also deemed necessary to isolate potential covariates that may serve as subjective
influences of status perception from one brand to the next. Therefore, five other variables were
tested alongside Brand Status. Though developed independently through the data collected in
the Study 1 interviews, the measures tested in this research coincided closely with the factors

227
issued by Chang and Ko (2014). These included inquiries measuring how Familiar respondents
were with the brand, how Innovative they felt the brand was, whether or not they felt the brand
made Quality products, and their Estimated Cost and WTP for the T-shirt in the stimulus.
Familiarity, Innovativeness, and Quality
Familiarity was used here to describe brand recognition. In other words, the ability to
recognize a brand’s trademarks, products, values and associations apart from its competitors and
the market at large. Theory on this concept was largely drawn from the literature dealing with
brand equity—as it is a critical component of this construct—and status consumption, which
deals heavily with brand consciousness. Consumers gain a sense of security from the familiarity
that they retain in recognized brands (Aaker, 1991; Aaker, 1997; Arvidsson, 2011; Chang & Ko,
2014). This applies to the notions of quality and esteem respectively in the sense that the
consumer will be confident that the product will perform to an expected standard, will carry a
belief that the product will be viewed by an audience of others (whether general or select) who
will understand the value proposition of that brand and will transfer that esteem for the brand
onto them, as the consumer consumer, by means of association.
Innovativeness in fashion was used here to describe the outstanding employment of
original, creative and unique design aesthetics. This term was essentially used to describe the
production of new trends within the fashion cycle. Although largely focused on functional
concepts, research on the diffusion of innovation coincides directly with the construct of
trendiness as it pertains to fashion—which has relied heavily on Rogers (2003)— and deals
primarily with innovations of superficial form and to a lesser extent functional innovations of

228
fabric and stitching technique.
60
Beaudoin, Lachance and Robitaille (2003) assert that brand
sensitivity is increasingly becoming an important factor in the adoption of innovation in fashion.
It is therefore most convenient for the purposes of this quantitative research, to consider the
complex phenomenon of the fashion cycle—mounted with political, cultural, and economic
nuance—with regard to trends as a direct cognate of innovation. The creativity literature was
drawn upon in order to inform the use of innovativeness in fashion as an indicator of status.
Jackson and Messick (1965) offer 1) Novelty, 2) Appropriateness to the solution of a problem,
3) Transformation, and 4) Perfection of fit to the solution, as the core criteria for the evaluation
of creative products. Others argue that a product must be germinal, useful, attractive, elegant,
logical, meaningful, well crafted, complex and original (Besemer & Treffinger, 1981; Im, Bhat
& Lee, 2015). Within the branding structure of fashion these values are largely symbolic with
reference to an innovative product and they have mostly come to embody the championing of
fresh ideas, informed commentary, and the pressing of visual artistic boundaries. A T-shirt is
often merely representative of this innovation as it pertains to a designer apparel collection.
Product quality here was meant to consider the utilitarian value of a brand’s products
according to their durability, technical efficiency, refined composition and functional
performance. The notion of attributed assumptions of product quality for a brand according to
the observation of a branded T-shirt is also derived from research on the construct of brand
equity (Interbrand, 2014; Chang & Ko, 2014). Johnson and Folkes (2007) demonstrated that
consumers tend to grade the quality of a brand’s total production catalog based on the perceived
difficulty of manufacturing one product. The key principles behind this idea deal with the fact
that brand equity is used to leverage the esteemed value and perceived quality of commodities

60
To be certain, innovation in fashion is regularly implied with regard to new developments in garment fabrication, but the statement here is
simply meant to imply that what is idealized as fashion innovation has more to do with bold transitions which depart starkly from the prevailing
trends in color, silhouette, texture and arrangement rather than scientifically innovative fabrics or manufacturing techniques.

229
like toiletries and T-shirts as a result of associated brand identity. Studies have demonstrated
this phenomenon countless times in the reaction of observers (Thorndike, 1920; Nisbett &
Wilson, 1997; Leuthesser, Kohli & Harich, 1995; Fayrene & Lee, 2011), but the interest here is
to determine how the status component of that brand identity—that is to say the anecdotal
market rank ascribed by consumers rather than the economic valuation of the company’s brand
equity in its entirety—interacts with the identity of consumers in the eyes of onlookers. Berger
and Heath (2007) and Han et al. (2010) have shown that certain groups of consumers, when
considering their status to be superior to that of other consumers will devalue and demonstrate
aversion to the consumption of particular products. The aim here is to determine the evaluation
of an entire brand, rather than a specific product, to a complete range of observers, rather than a
specific subset. Research has found that luxury consumers identify quality as a defining feature
of brands in the high-end sector (Husic & Cicic, 2009), even suggesting that it is an implied
feature of luxury (Eastman & Eastman, 2011). Eastman et al., (1999) developed an instrument
for testing status consumption along the sole domain of ‘desire for status’. Heaney, et al. (2005)
established a positive relationship between status consumption and materialism. Meanwhile,
Goldsmith, Flynn & Kim (2010) argue that innovativeness, brand loyalty, and involvement
serve as mediators for price sensitivity when consumers engage in the status consumption of
clothing. These findings further elucidate the prevalence of halo effects (Thorndike, 1920;
Nisbett & Wilson, 1997; Leuthesser, Kohli & Harich, 1995; Fayrene & Lee, 2011) for brands
that attain high status, and disclose insights about the social ramifications of materialism.
61

61
The concept of materialism is addressed in the literature as a personality trait and behavior which informs values and is primarily concerned
with economic affluence, the possession of physical objects, maintaining a worldview that privileges that possession as the most direct means of
obtaining success and pleasure in life (Goldsmith, Flynn & Clark, 2012). Although direct considerations of materialism were beyond the scope
of the inquiries being pursued here, it is important to discuss its significance to this research as the literature on materialism has been closely
tied to the notion of conspicuous consumption. Participant responses for brands, products and consumer identity included items for brand
ownership, recognition, and assessment. Research has shown materialism as a motivator of conspicuous consumption (Eastman & Eastman,
2011), an indicator for status driven assessments of others (Heaney et al., 2005), and an influence on the evaluation of product quality and life
satisfaction (Park & Lessig, 1977; Husic & Cicic, 2010). However, of greater concern to this work were the overall status evaluations of

230
Estimated Cost and Willingness to Pay
Estimated Cost here was designated as perceived monetary
62
value, meaning non-
discounted retail value. Meanwhile, Willingness to pay (WTP) was defined here as literally how
much the respondent would be willing to pay for the garment in question. The application of
these measures was largely taken from economic value theory, particularly behavioral
economics.
Behavioral Economics
The individual consumer gains internal psychological benefits from the consumption
process. Under prospect theory behavioral economists have described the process wherein the
individual assesses value according to some reference point in order to determine the price at
which the consumption of a good will be considered a gain or a loss (i.e. getting what is paid for
vs. getting more or less than what is paid for) (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Tversky &
Kahneman, 1981; Kahneman, 2002; Hattwick, 1989). Theorists argue that higher prices,

consumer and brand identity provided the predetermined array of experimental conditions using T-shirts, regardless of materialistic disposition.
Likewise, the age, gender, ethnicity, geographic location and socioeconomic status of respondents was recorded via demographic data questions
in the interest of identifying confounding variables and building a robust testing instrument and resultant data set for the process of empirical
analysis. These factors have had a profound impact on the nature of our societal organization as a definitive source of institutional oppression
and latent systemic bias in social interactions. However, the goal here was to determine the influence of brand identity and consumer identity on
one another with T-shirts notwithstanding demographic aspects of social identity.
62
As the storage of value—which can largely be interpreted in our society to translate directly into the storage of labor—money represents both
in theory and in practice the literal mediation of time from our lives, and this is the most cogent explanation for its highly coveted regard. This
concept is not to be taken lightly. To elaborate, an individual works forty hours in a week in order to pay for resources such as food, shelter,
clothing, and transportation in order to sustain their life and livelihood. Without this money, for most individuals, there would be few other ways
of obtaining the necessary resources to survive with any sense of quality, especially in our modern society. If an individual has $10 million to
their name they have, in effect, the equivalent of 200 years’ worth of daily labor from the average American household whose income is roughly
$50K—$55K annually. In other words, the average American family of two adults and two children would require two adults working 40 hours
a week for five working-adult lifetimes each, in order to obtain what that moneyed individual can have instantly without laboring one additional
minute. Put another way, this money differentiates the material reality of an individual’s life; providing freedom, not only from time-consuming
labor, but of selectivity in the home environment, providing aesthetic beauty, space, cleanliness, quiet, and safety. There is the freedom to travel
uninhibited throughout the world at one’s leisure which wealthy persons enjoy and for which ordinary individuals must sacrifice and wait for
rare occasions if ever. Wealth is used unlawfully, though openly, to mitigate the punitive repercussions of crimes and other legal offenses
(literally freedom) and garner political influence. There is the freedom to obtain access to high quality education and superior cultural
experiences for one’s self and offspring. Monetary wealth brings about the freedom to eat healthily and receive better health care, extending life
expectancy and physical quality of extended life. Finally, all these things reduce stress and make life a happier, more complete experience.
Moreover, these are the things that are exemplified when an individual signals their economic status and consequentially their treatment from
other people is often a direct response to the proper interpretation of that communication. This is the essence of what a $350 Gucci T-shirt
symbolizes; that one has the freedom to obtain something as trivial as a T-shirt for ten times the rate of its normal price, suggesting that this
individual has at least ten times the income, ten times the material quality of life, ten times the freedom, and ten times the power of political and
social influence of most normal individuals. By contrast, if such a high-status individual were to don an ordinary T-shirt for $35 it may not add
to the otherwise perceived high status of their identity, but it does not with certainty confirm their identity as having one-tenth the financial
resources and power of an individual in a Gucci T-shirt, it simply fails to signify, on its own, that they do have the money and power (i.e. the
status) of the luxury consumer. The crux of this study is to determine at what point do these effects take place, at what point they change, and
how. These inquiries are important because of the duplicitous nature of T-shirts as both ultra-trendy and status bearing, but also highly
affordable by most relative standards.

231
however incremental, will be perceived as much greater losses, than equally incremental lower
prices will be perceived as gains (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). This is due to the notably high
price elasticity of the convex demand curve for losses when compared to that of the more
moderate concave curve for gains given under prospect theory. Theories of rational behavior
assume that the goal for both consumers and producers/retailers is to avoid losses and gain as
much as possible (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981; Kahneman, 2002;
Hattwick, 1989). Being that each party in the market transaction generally recognizes that this is
the goal of the opposing party, both parties typically take this into account when deciding their
positions. However, consumers of modern U.S. markets are at an inherent disadvantage to
producers first, because in the majority of situations purchase price is not generally negotiable
(e.g. gas, groceries, clothing, etc.). Second, while the costs involved with production can be
estimated with varying degrees of accuracy, the public is largely held blind to the true value of
consumer goods due to the arbitrary nature of information surrounding fixed costs (e.g.
employee compensation, executive compensation, property costs, materials, license acquisition,
distribution, etc.) and variable costs (travel, research and development, legal costs, etc.), all of
which are written into the price of a good. However, this discrepancy is somewhat balanced by
the fact that producers have competitors who can outsell them by offering consumers equal or
greater value at a lower price if a producer charges too much in an attempt to cheat consumers
in their blind disadvantage. This is the basis of free and efficient market economic theory. There
is a sensation of cognitive and emotional gratification for consumers at the realization that one
has gotten their money’s worth, and not been cheated. However, all of this is made more
complex by the subjective nature by which this sensation is reached. As stated, value is
determined by the consumer, according to some point of reference, but there are countless

232
points of reference and innumerable ways of equating or misequating the comparative value of
the product in question. Even if every consumer used an ideal reference—say a competitive
product—it is still very difficult to determine what any given consumer will necessarily value
about a specific product, regardless of what the producer suggests. There are normative values
within the society, which provide an accurate framework for assuming consumer perception, but
in the end these are merely assumptions, not facts.
63
At any rate, perceived value helps to
determine WTP, and WTP may incite contagious imitation (i.e. a trend) if the perceived value
or desirability is driven up by the consumption practices of other consumers, especially those of
high status (Kahneman, 2002; Hattwick, 1989; Veblen, 1899).
Procedures
Pilot Study
The focus of the pilot study was to validate the independent variables used to compare
the experimental stimuli and to determine the starting point for the status of the brands and self-
presentational identities of the models before they were combined in the experiments using T-
shirts. The pilot study consisted of eight groups of questions divided into three parts—Part 1
consisted of Groups A (n
a
= 43) and B (n
b
= 46) and dealt with consumer identity while Part 2
included Groups C (n
c
= 49), D (n
d
= 47) and E (n
e
= 48) and dealt with brand perception based
on name and logo recognition, and Part 3 included Groups F (n
f
= 46), G (n
g
= 43) and H (n
h
=
48) and used T-shirts from the brands used in Part 2 to test for brand status when presented on a
T-shirt. For Part 1 each group was exposed to one of two possible conditions as follows. There
were five front facing head shot images of young male models taken from online fashion

63
Similarly neoclassical economic theorists assume that investors will behave rationally, when obviously this is not always the case, and when
that assumption is made and the case is not so, the effects are often disastrous.

233
portfolios
64
displayed either in their Original form to Group A or Modified with digitally
superimposed ear and facial piercings
65
for Group B. Each questionnaire displayed one of the
five images on a separate page where respondents were asked to rate the individual in the
picture’s on how Attractive, Intelligent and Cool they were on a 7-point Likert scale based upon
their self-presentation. The participants were then asked to estimate the models’ SES based on
Annual Incomes listed on a 7-point scale of $25,000 increments ranging from ‘Under $25K’ to
‘Above $150K’.
To test perceptions of brand status Groups C, D and E were shown images of 6 to 8 (C =
6; D = 8; E = 6) fashion brand logos one at a time from the high, medium and low market
segments, respectively, and asked to state their Familiarity with each brand, as well as being
asked to provide opinions of brand Innovativeness, product Quality, and market Status based on
7- point Likert scales. The familiarity scale was also accompanied by a check to determine if
participants owned any products from the brand in the form of a yes/no response. Brands were
selected according to the pricing schemes of their T-shirts and the availability of in-market
images online of T-shirts for sale, conspicuously labeled with the brand’s trademark, and worn
on a models in a front facing stance without obstructions to the visibility of the garment. Many

64
To control for confounding variables and add simplicity, only white male models were used because a) these subjects are easier to obtain due
to their sheer prevalence of numbers over other ethnic groups in fashion advertisements and b) they typically have less variety in features (e.g.
hair length, make-up) than do other groups, especially female models, c) while T-shirts are technically unisexual garments, they constitute a
greater share of men’s retail apparel in comparison to women’s due to the fact that women’s collections are more versatile including a broader
range of garment categories with greater diversity within each category. That is to say that women’s apparel essentially includes some iteration
of nearly every garment which can be made for a man, and these garments are usually offered to women in a greater variety of colors, prints,
cuts and fabrics. Meanwhile the majority of women’s attire such as dresses, skirts, halter-tops and blouses, etc. do not have a masculine
counterpart, which is distinct from any other article of feminine apparel.
65
In their (2007) study, Berger and Heath used university students from different dining facilities associated with school sanctioned social
designations such that the authors were able to establish generalized labels for the observed subjects such as “preppy”, “jocks”, “geeks”, and so
forth based upon their outward self-presentation in conjunction with their designated facility. These labels were tested as sufficient in as much
as there was statistical significance in participant perception of digital images of the subjects, which were consistent with the assigned labels
across the study. In this sense, it should be a legitimate assumption that models selected for professional advertisements should be perceived as
having higher status than identical individuals with modes of self- presentation such as facial piercings, which would prevent them from being
selected for said advertisements. Geo-temporal trends have been deemed a major factor in the study of these phenomena, thus leading to Study 1
and the in-depth-interviewing procedure. To give an example of such trends, in the 1950’s United States any individual with facial piercings,
and a Mohawk hairstyle would be demonized as highly deviant from the mainstream, and assumed to be a member of the underclass and
essentially a delinquent. In recent times the Mohawk has made the transition to mainstream status, at times being adorned by the denizens of
high society, and becoming a popular trend within the high fashion world, and even making its way into professional settings in the diminutive
form of the ‘faux hawk’. Meanwhile, facial piercings have remained outside of the boundaries of professional standards of appearance, though
they have gathered a significant degree of mainstream acceptability with several highly celebrated artists and entertainers sporting the look (e.g.
Travis Barker, Lil Wayne, Chris Brown, Christina Aguilera and Miley Cyrus).

234
brands were sought but could not be used because of the inability to satisfy all of these
conditions. Of the twenty brands shown in Groups C, D, and E, fifteen of these (5 high status
brands from Group C, 5 medium status brands from Group D, and 5 low status brands from
group E) would be used continuously throughout this study to represent their respective market
segments. Meanwhile, the remaining five of these brands (1 high status brand from Group C, 3
medium status brands from Group D, and 1 low status brand from Group E) would be used for
inconspicuously branded designer T-shirts in later groups. Groups F, G and H were then shown
five images of designer T-shirts from high, medium and low status market segments,
respectively, along with five inconspicuously branded T-shirts from brands across segments as
outlined above. The same five inconspicuous shirts were shown to each of these three groups as
a counter measure for anchoring effects. In addition, a plain white T-shirt (notorious for having
retailed at $120 and sold out in hours) produced as part of a capsule collection between, pop
icon, Kanye West and Parisian streetwear fashion house A.P.C. was presented. As a result of the
extended length of the surveys participants from groups F, G, and H all received $0.50 USD
compensation. Respondents in these groups were asked whether or not they could identify a
brand based on the shirt’s design. These groups were then asked the same series of questions
presented in groups C, D and E in addition to being asked to provide an Estimated Cost and
Willingness to Pay (WTP) value for each garment. The monetary values for price and WTP
were ranked on a 7-point scale with equal increments of $25 ranging from ‘Under $25’ to
‘Above $150’.
The T-shirts presented were worn by models taken from online retail advertisements
with the heads cropped from the images. Whenever possible it was attempted that garments
selected consisted of solid color crewneck T-shirts with brand trademarking placed on the

235
garment front between the upper pectoral region and the xyphoid process
66
in each of the
images.
67
Neither body type of the models, facial features, skin tone, image color nor garment
color
68
could be controlled across brands. Therefore, each image was taken in its given variety
as a legitimate representation of the consumer market. Within group comparisons between
original and modified images were normalized by adjusting the skin tones of the T-shirt-
wearing torsos to match the model faces they were superimposed upon. A control question for
groups in this section asked the participants to provide a value for a blank white T-shirt.
As stated above the boundaries of brand status in fashion are not absolute and there is a
high degree of overlap between various brands in different market positions. For the purpose of
maintaining consistency across the study, brands were classified as follows.
69
Brands selling T-
shirts for under $25 were classified as ‘mass market’ meaning low status; brands selling shirts
from $25 to $100 were considered ‘mass prestige or mass luxury’ meaning middle tier; and
brands selling shirts in excess $100 were labeled as luxury meaning high status.
70
For the

66
The triangular shaped cartilaginous extension at the base of the sternum in the center of the human ribcage.
67
This control was important because, although a brand may have a more subjectively preferred logo design, this speaks to the brand status
while maintaining neutrality in the graphic size, placement and coloration presenting legitimate grounds for objective comparison of the brand
image within the context of a design.
68
Eight of the fifteen conspicuous designer shirts appeared in what would be described as dark hues, of which five were black, two were gray
and one was blue. It should be noted that the least expensive of all designer shirts presented in this study was a royal blue Old Navy retailing for
$10 USD. While blue has been universally cited as the most preferred of all colors, this tendency was also shown to be consistent in the case of
T-shirts by Schloss, Strauss & Palmer (2013) in their study of color preference according to context by object shape wherein they asserted that
color shares a high positive correlation for color preference with contextless squares and is preferred in darker, more desaturated hues.
69
Because pricing in fashion has gone through dramatic shifts in the past several decades with high degrees of ambiguity and inconsistency
across products and categories, industry nomenclature and pricing divisions were abandoned in this study for a more simplified, generalizable
hierarchy, which lends itself to more accurate evaluation.
70
Brand status in this experiment was determined by market position according specifically to retail value. However it should be noted that
there are many other factors that supersede the retail value of T-shirts in determining market position, the least of which does not fail to include
the retail value of other items in the collection or the direct brand association. That is to say that a middle tier brand such as Calvin Klein Jeans
may produce a T-shirt that falls into the low status price range under $25 notwithstanding the fact that the line produces some T-shirts in excess
of $25, let alone the fact that other parts of its collection price in the range of both other established middle-tier brands as well as low status
brands. Moreover, the line constitutes a downward diffusion brand, which is associated by namesake with a couture fashion house (Calvin Klein
[proper]), which produces superpremium designs thus making Calvin Klein Jeans a masstige brand, which produces T-shirts that might
otherwise lead it to be considered as mass-market brand here. In such cases brands with these types of profiles were dismissed from inclusion in
the study as a result of their failure to stake claim to an absolute market position, which is consistent with the status quo. Also it should be noted
that a mean value of T-shirts was not established for each brand’s current collection in determining status. Status was merely determined by the
price of the single shirt used in the experiment. This method proved efficient as a result of the fact that the majority of brands retailed shirts at a
common price range within the same status threshold. Furthermore, price discounting was not taken into consideration with the exception of
cases wherein the discounted prices were determined to be employed as a sales tactic across the collection in universal perpetuity (e.g. U.S. Polo
Association, which gives no indication that the discounted prices listed for virtually all of its merchandise are ever not in effect). Finally it
should be noted that the price ranges for market position were largely determined through conversations with industry experts in Study 1 in
conjunction with extensive passive observation field research conducted alongside the qualitative study as well as online research conducted
during the process of the experimental design for Study 2.

236
entirety of this experiment the following brands were applied to the above listed categories as
described. The low status category included 1) Adidas ($22), 2) Levi’s ($19), 3) Old Navy
($10), 4) VANS ($22), 5) U.S. Polo Association ($15). The mid status category included 1)
Armani Exchange ($32.50), 2) GAP ($29.95), 3) True Religion ($68), 4) Ralph Lauren Denim
& Supply ($40), 5) French Connection ($44). The high status category included 1) Alexander
McQueen ($310), 2) Gucci ($245), 3) Burberry [Non-Text with Check Trademark] ($150), 4)
Pierre Balmain ($182), 5) Versace [Non-Text with Medusa Trademark] ($295). The
inconspicuous category included 1) American Eagle ($19.95), 2) Marc by Marc Jacobs ($98), 3)
Dolce & Gabbana ($425), 4) Abercrombie & Fitch ($24), 5) Diesel ($66.33), 6) Kanye West x
A.P. C. ($120). The suits included 1) Burberry Navy ($1995), 2) Burberry Grey ($2195), 3)
Canali Black ($1895), 4) Canali Navy ($1995), 5) Canali Navy ($1895). When applied to
garments the brands listed here were shown in each instance with the same model
corresponding to the number next to the brand. That is to say the model labeled Consumer No. 1
was always shown with his head superimposed onto the corresponding body for Adidas, Armani
Exchange, Alexander McQueen, the inconspicuous American Eagle T-shirt, and the navy blue
Burberry suit and likewise with Consumer No. 2 and so forth, see Appendix E: Table 3.
Experiment 1
Experiment 1 was designed to test the ability of Brand Image to influence perceived
Consumer Status when mediated by T-shirts. A 3(brand image: high vs. medium vs. low) x
2(consumer identity: high vs. low) experiment was conducted with the independent variables
Brand Image, and Consumer Identity and the dependent variable perceived Consumer Status,
see Appendix E: Table 1. Having established mean values for the perceived status of each
brand in the study, for the perceived monetary value of each branded T-shirt, and for the

237
perceived attractiveness, intelligence, coolness and estimated annual income of every model and
their modified image, the following procedures were used to test changes in perceived consumer
status based upon the wearing of conspicuously branded T-shirts from different status market
segments. Images using the bodies from the models used in the pilot study’s standalone
presentation of the T-shirts were digitally superimposed upon the headshots used in the pilot
study in order to produce images for these procedures. The experiment consisted of ten groups
of questions including groups I (n
i
= 46), J (n
j
= 51), K (n
k
= 48), L (n
l
= 50), M (n
m
= 48), N (n
n
= 50), O (n
o
= 53), P (n
p
= 48), Q (n
q
= 51) and R (n
r
= 50). Participants were exposed to one of
six experimental conditions wherein they were asked to provide rankings of models for
attractiveness, intelligence, coolness and estimated annual income on the same scales used in
the pilot study based upon self presentation. Groups I and J, consisted, respectively, of original
and modified images of the models from the pilot study wearing the conspicuously branded
high-status designer T-shirts also presented in the pilot study. Groups K and L respectively
consisted of the same original and modified model images wearing the conspicuously branded
middle-status designer T-shirts from the pilot study. Likewise, Groups M and N respectively
consisted of those same original and modified images wearing the conspicuously branded low-
status T-shirts shown in the pilot study. A control condition for this section asked participants in
groups O and P, respectively, to provide status for original and modified images of models
wearing plain white T-shirts. Two special conditions Q and R sought to bolster the validity of
the experiments by providing an additional set of comparison values to measure consumer
status against. Group Q presented original images of models wearing business suits while group
R presented the modified images in suits.

238
Experiment 2
Experiment 2 aimed to test the ability of consumer status to influence brand status when
mediated by T-shirts. A 2(consumer identity: original vs. modified) x 3(brand image: high vs.
medium vs. low) experiment was conducted with the independent variables consumer identity
and brand image, and the dependent variable perceived Brand Status, see Appendix E: Table 2.
The experiment consisted of ten groups of questions including groups S (n
s
= 48) T (n
t
= 47), U
(n
u
= 48), V (n
v
= 44), W (n
w
= 41), X (n
x
= 48), Y (n
y
= 49) and Z (n
z
= 47). The exact
procedures from Experiment 1, Groups I, J, K, L, M and N were followed for groups S, T, U, V,
W and X, respectively, only participants were asked to rate the familiarity, innovativeness,
product quality and status of each brand accordingly and provide an estimated price and
willingness to pay for the T-shirts in each image rather than providing status information about
the model. Groups Y and Z presented the five inconspicuous graphic tees on original and
modified images of consumers, respectively. In addition these groups were asked if they could
identify a brand prior to the familiarity inquiry as in Groups F, G, and H.
Results
Data Adjustment and Verification
The data from the study was collected over a period of three days on the mTurk online
marketplace. After the second day of data collection response rate had diminished to a fraction
of its initial pace and was declining by the hour as the postings soliciting for participation were
pushed further down in the available assignments queue. Though twelve of the surveys had
been concluded, fourteen remained incomplete, totaling a need for over 400 additional
respondents. These fourteen surveys were closed and reissued in order to boost their position to
the top of the available assignments queue, and were given the added attraction of $0.50 USD

239
compensation in lieu of the original $0.25 USD in an effort to increase response rate. The
remaining fourteen surveys were concluded on the third day within hours of being issued.
Groups having split compensation rates (n_
1
= $0.25; n_
2
= $0.50) included Groups C (n
c1
= 31;
n
c2
= 18), E (n
e1
= 12; n
e2
= 36), I (n
i1
= 15; n
i2
= 31), J (n
j1
= 14; n
j2
= 37), K (n
k1
= 15; n
k2
=
33), L (n
l1
= 18; n
l2
= 32), M (n
m1
= 13; n
m2
= 35), N (n
n1
= 11; n
n2
= 39), O (n
o1
= 16; n
o2
= 37),
P (n
p1
= 12; n
p2
= 36), Q (n
q1
= 18; n
q2
= 33), S (n
s1
= 19; n
s2
= 29), U (n
u1
= 17; n
u2
= 31), and
W (n
w1
= 34; n
w2
= 7). Responses from the reissued surveys with increased compensation were
tested against the original surveys using a two-tailed t-test and the differences between the
compensation rates were shown collectively across all group means for each measure to have no
significant impact on the outcome of the responses with equal variances assumed (p > 0.05). A
total of eight mean measures (e.g. Attractiveness or Cool) for individual conditions failed to
show statistical insignificance on their own but did not detract from the composite mean of their
respective measures across conditions within their groups. In other words, the difference in the
means for intelligence of Consumer No. 5 when presented with piercings and wearing a Versace
T-shirt in Group L was statistically significant between participants who were compensated
$0.25 and $0.50. However, the difference in the combined mean intelligence rating of all five
consumer identity conditions having piercings and wearing high-status branded T-shirts in
Group L was demonstrated to not be statistically significant between the two respondent pay
rates, notwithstanding the differences in ratings for Consumer No. 5’s intelligence between
these groups. Responses that failed to prove that they were not statistically significant between
the two subsets of respondents included Group J - Consumer No. 5 Modified/Versace:
Intelligence (p = 0.011), and Cool (p = 0.036), Group L - Consumer No. 4 Modified/Ralph
Lauren Denim & Supply: Annual Income (p = 0.29), Group P - Consumer No. 2

240
Modified/White T: Attractive (p = 0.021), Cool (p = 0.008); Consumer No. 4 Modified/White
T, Attractive (p = 0.029), Cool (p = 0.022), Group Q - Consumer No. 2 Original/Suit: Attractive
(p = 0.039).
The responses were scrubbed of all potentially corrupt data by a process of extensive
review and scrutiny. All data from repeat respondents were identified for deletion by a
combination of mTurk IDs, survey response codes, demographic data responses, IP addresses,
geo-location tracking data, and survey start and submission times. Responses completed in less
than two minutes and thirty seconds were generally discarded, as well as significantly
incomplete responses and all responses that failed to properly reply to the attention check
question.
Pilot Study: Part 1
Descriptive Statistics
In Pilot Study Part 1 the ‘Original’ Consumer Identity condition from Group A had a
mean perceived Annual Income of µ
a
=$75.05K (σ
a
= $28.87K) while the ‘Modified’ condition
with piercings received a mean of µ
b
= $49.45K (σ
b
= $24.57K), see Appendix E: Table 5; a
difference of µ
a-b
= $25.60K (σ
a-b
= $4.30K) in favor of the Original images without piercings.
Analysis
In order to confirm the validity of the two conditions as being indicative of high and low
status respectively, the results from Groups A (n
a
= 43) and B (n
b
= 46) were combined (n
ab
=
89) and a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted. With the exception of
‘Attractiveness’ for Consumer No. 1 F(1, 87) = 1.78, (p = 1.85), statistical significance was
achieved at the (p < 0.05) level for the mean differences of all respondent measures of
Consumer Status (Attractiveness, Intelligence, Cool, and SES) between the Original and

241
Modified conditions for Consumer Identity such that the Original condition was greater on
every measure of status than the Modified condition, see Appendix E: Table 10. Therefore,
with the exception of Consumer No. 1’s Attractiveness, the study was able to proceed with
confidence that the stimulus manipulations for consumer identity were effective in conveying
high and low status for the consumer identity across the various conditions. Moreover, the
significance achieved throughout the Pilot Study Part 1 surveys was so high that when averaged
across all five consumer images Attractiveness still achieved (p < 0.05) significance with
Consumer No. 1 included. Results for the mean differences of the four measures of consumer
status across all consumer identities were as follows: Attractiveness F(1, 87) = 6.90, p < 0.05,
Intelligence F(1, 87) = 13.59, p < 0.005, Cool F(1, 87) = 14.46, p < 0.001, Annual Income F(1,
87) = 27.30, p < 0.001. It is likely that the facial piercing modifications for Consumer No. 1
were difficult to see, as the image of the model was relatively low in contrast and had greater
shadowing with comparison to the other images. Consumer No. 1, while still receiving
universally higher scores in the Original condition than the Modified condition, had the highest
mean rating for ‘Attractiveness’ in the modified condition and the highest combined mean for
‘Attractiveness’ overall.
71
A post hoc Welch Brown-Forsyth was also conducted as a robust test
of equality of means. Results from the post-hoc found statistical significance at the p < 0.05
level for all conditions except Attractiveness for Consumer No. 1 (p = 0.183). For further results
see Tables X-Y.
For each of the five consumer images a principal components factor analysis was
conducted using the variables ‘Attractive’, ‘Intelligent’, and ‘Cool’ in order to produce a
composite component called ‘Social Desirability’ for each Consumer Identity condition, which
would serve as a covariate factor in the evaluation of main effects and interaction effects

71
It should be noted that even the Consumer No. 1 Original image Attractive rating was higher than that of the modified image.

242
between these tangential identity factors (Attractiveness, Intelligence, and Coolness) and
‘Consumer Identity’ (Original or Modified, i.e. with or without piercings) in determining
perceived social status, which was evaluated as SES (Annual Income). All factors loaded with
strong correlation in each condition. Using five one-way ANCOVAs with the dependent
variable SES, a mean score of F(1, 87) = 1.34, p = 0.432 was calculated for the interaction
between the independent variable ‘Consumer Identity’ and the covariate composite component
of ‘Social Desirability’, meaning that there was no significant interaction effect between
independent variable and covariate. Following this, a one-way ANCOVA with full factorial
analysis was conducted yielding a Consumer Identity score of F(1, 87) = 20.38, p < 0.001, e
2
=
0.191, power = 0.992 and a Social Desirability score of F(1, 87) = 2.51, p = 0.334, e
2
= 0.027,
power = 0.291. Because Social Desirability did not achieve statistical significance in this
analysis, we assume that this component has no significant interaction or main effect. A
Levene’s Test held the assumption of homogeneity of error variance F(1, 87) = 25.98, p <
0.001, see Appendix E: Tables 11 and 12.
Pilot Study: Part 2
Descriptive Statistics
In order to establish validity for the evaluation of brand status in this study based upon
market positioning determined through the general pricing schemes of collections and the
specific pricing of T-shirts, the same procedures from the analysis of Pilot Study Part 1 Groups
A and B were used to analyze Pilot Study Part 2 Groups C, D, and E. The ‘High’ Brand
Image
72
condition from Group C had a mean value of µ
c
= 5.48 (σ
c
= 0.99) while the ‘Middle’
status condition received a mean of µ
d
= 4.87 (σ
d
= 1.27), the ‘Low’ status condition mean was

72
To be certain, ‘Brand Image’ is being used here to refer explicitly to the proposed market position of a brand as being of ‘High’, ‘Middle’ or
‘Low’ level according to the categorical retail price of their T-shirts being used in this study. Contrarily the term ‘Brand Status’ is being used
here to specifically denote the study participants’ perceived (rank) status ratings of the brands within the total market on the 7-point Likert scale,
which was used as the dependent variable for the Pilot Study Parts 2 and 3 and Experiment 2.

243
µ
e
= 4.80 (σ
e
= 1.30), and the brands to be used for the ‘Inconspicuous’ conditions had a mean
of µ
cde*
= 4.98 (σ
cde*
= 1.29), see Appendix E: Tables 6.1 and 6.2. The difference in means of
perceived Brand Status was µ
c-d
= 0.61 (σ
c-d
= -0.28) for the High and Middle status brands in
favor of the High status brands and µ
c-e
= 0.68 (σ
c-e
= -0.31) for the High and Low status brands
in favor of the High status brands. Finally, the difference between the Middle status and Low
status brands was µ
d-e
= 0.07 (σ
d-e
= -0.03) in favor of the Middle status brands, see Appendix
E: Table 14.
Analysis
The data from all three groups were combined into a single data set (n
cde
= 144) and a
one-way ANOVA was conducted. With the exception of Group 3 (logos of brands assigned to
Consumer No. 3) Innovation F(2, 141) = 2.96, p = 0.55, and Group 4 Innovation F(2, 141) =
1.64, p = 0.197, statistical significance was achieved for at the (p < 0.05) level for the mean
differences of all respondent measures of Brand Status (Familiarity, Quality, Innovation, and
Status) between the High, Middle, and Low conditions for Brand Image such that the High
condition was greater than the Middle condition and the Middle condition was greater than the
Low condition. The mean for Innovation between group also fell slightly below the set
statistical significance level at F(2, 141) = 4.45, p = 0.054 see Appendix E: Table 15.
Innovation appeared superficially to have questionable validity across consumer responses, and
it was assumed that this was likely the result of the limited ability of computer generated images
of logo driven T-shirts in demonstrating a concrete sense of fashion innovation. Nevertheless,
the study was able to move forward with confidence that the market positioning of fashion

244
brands according to their T-shirt prices was a good indicator for observer evaluations of brand
status.
73

For each of the five groups of logos assigned throughout this study to one of the
consumer images a principal components factor analysis was conducted using the variables
‘Familiar’, ‘Quality’, and ‘Innovative’ in order to produce a composite component called
‘Brand Reputation’ for each Brand Image condition, which would serve as a covariate factor in
the evaluation of main effects and interaction effects between these tangential identity factors
(Familiar, Quality, and Cool) and ‘Brand Image’ (High, Medium, and Low) in determining
perceived brand status, which was evaluated as ‘Status’ on the 7-point Likert scale. All factors
loaded with strong correlation in each condition, see Appendix E: Table 16.
Using five one-way ANCOVAs with the dependent variable ‘Brand Status’, the
independent variable ‘Brand Image’, and the covariate component ‘Brand Reputation’, a mean
score of F(2, 141) = 1.37, p = 0.360 was achieved for the interaction between Brand Image and
‘Brand Reputation’, meaning that there was no significant interaction between the independent
variable and covariate. Following this, a one-way ANCOVA with full factorial analysis was
conducted yielding a Brand Image score of F(2, 141) = 30.00, p < 0.001, e
2
= 0.282, power =
0.991 and a Brand Reputation score of F(2, 141) = 109.338, p < 0.001, e
2
= 0.421, power =
1.000, see Appendix E: Table 17. The significantly higher F-statistic of Brand Reputation (the
composite component of Familiarity, Innovative, and Quality) over Brand Image (the brand’s
proposed market positioning according to T-shirt price) indicates that the price of T-shirts is
likely a much less significant determinant of brand status, when viewing actual T-shirts, than

73
The logos of brands whose T-shirts were used later in inconspicuous control conditions were not tested in the ANOVA because each brand
appeared in only Group (and likewise, one brand status condition) and therefore had no pairwise values to be measured against within the other
two sample sets. The reason the brands were not duplicated across measures as in Groups F, G, and H was because, although the logos align
with the assignments of inconspicuous T-shirts presented on a specific model, the logos themselves have no means of inconspicuous evaluation,
and therefore these groups could not be displayed across conditions (C, D, and E) because of the likelihood of anchoring effects. Therefore each
brand was presented only once across the three groups with other brands of similar image positioning.

245
factors leading to an assumed value or estimated cost, which are brought about by exposure,
cultural associations, and other marketing activities. Online shopping and the sheer volume of
the market competition has likely done much to undermine the effectiveness of traditional
image structuring practices in the fashion industry such as select retail distribution and price
positioning, especially least with T-shirts. A post hoc Tukey test revealed that there was a
significant difference at the (p < 0.05) between High-, and Mid-level Brand Image (p < 0.001)
as well as between Mid-, and Low-level Brand Image (p < 0.001) but not High-, and Low level
Brand Image (p = 0.105).
Pilot Study: Part 3
Descriptive Statistics
For Part 3 of the Pilot Study the same procedures described above were also conducted
for Groups F, G, and H in order to validate the perception of brand status according to market
positioning through the observation of branded T-shirts. The ‘High’ Brand Status condition
from Group F had a mean value of µ
f
= 4.85 (σ
f
= 1.36) while the ‘Middle’ status condition
presented in Group G received a mean of µ
g
= 4.87 (σ
g
= 1.22). The ‘Low’ status condition
displayed in Group H had a mean of µ
h
= 4.58 (σ
h
= 1.42), the brands presented in the
‘Inconspicuous’ conditions had a collective mean of µ
fgh*
= 3.69 (σ
fgh*
= 1.25) and the Kanye
West x A.P.C. White T had a mean of µ
fgh*
= 2.63 (σ
fgh*
= 1.37), see Appendix E: Tables 7.1
and 7.2. The difference in means of perceived Brand Status for Pilot Study Part 3 were as
follows: The High and Mid-level brands had a mean difference of µ
f-g
= -0.02 (σ
f-g
= 0.14), the
difference of the means was µ
f-h
= 0.27 (σ
f-h
= -0.06) between the High and Low brand image
conditions, µ
f-*
= -7.55 (σ
f-*
= -0.06) between High and Inconspicuous, µ
g-h
= 0.29 (σ
c-e
= -0.20)
between Midle and Low, µ
g-*
= -7.53 (σ
g-*
= -0.03) between Middle and Inconspicuous, and µ
h-*
=

246
-7.82 (σ
g-*
= 0.17) between Low and Inconspicuous. For the special condition featuring the
Kanye West x A.P.C. plain White T-shirt the difference between the mean for the High
condition was µ
f-₣
= 2.22 (σ
f-₣
= -0.01), for the Mid-level brand image the difference was µ
g-₣
=
2.24 (σ
g-₣
= -0.15), for the Low condition µ
h-₣
= 1.95 (σ
h-₣
= 0.05) and for the Inconspicuous
graphic T-shirts the difference in perceived Brand Status between the mean of the plain white
shirt was µ
*-₣
= 1.06 (σ
*-₣
= -0.12), see Appendix E: Tables 19.1 to 19.3.The mean differences
for Status between groups from Pilot Study Part 2 and the Pilot Study Part 3 were as follows:
High Shirt and High Logo µ
f-c
= -0.63 (σ
f-c
= 0.37), Mid Shirt and Mid Logo µ
g-d
= 0.00 (σ
g-d
= -
0.05), Low Shirt and Low Logo µ
h-e
= -0.22 (σ
h-e
= 0.12), Inconspicuous Shirt and
Inconspicuous Logo µ
fgh*-cde*
= -0.38 (σ
fgh*-cde*
= 0.14), see Appendix E: Table 20.
Analysis
The data were combined into a single sample set (n
fgh
= 137) and a one-way ANOVA
was conducted along the six measures of Brand Image. As expected, the Inconspicuous
conditions did not achieve statistical significance as a result of their having no indication of
brand, price, target audience, lifestyle or market positioning. This supports the interview
participants’ widely held assertions that the graphic component of T-shirt design is non-distinct
according to status or value; that quality graphic designs may arise from any segment of fashion
production; that the most likely points of differentiation between the T-shirts of high-, and low-
status brands are fabric and build-quality, which are not absolute in their implication according
to market segment; and that the majority of consumers have relatively little appreciation for
these differences. The mean scores for the combined conspicuous High, Middle, and Low
Brand Image conditions found that Familiar F(2, 134) = 51.11, p = 0.007, Brand Status F(2,
134) = 12.22, p = 0.006, and Estimated Cost F(2, 134) = 13.42, p = 0.010 all achieved statistical

247
significance at the (p < 0.05) level; however, Innovative, Quality, and WTP failed to account for
a statistically significant level of variance between groups see Appendix E: Table 21.
These findings suggest that consumers do not evaluate brands presented on T-shirts
through assumptions of quality, innovation or their willingness to pay for the shirt. This was not
surprising given the relatively low status of a T-shirt within the scope of fashion as a whole, and
designer collections more specifically. As discussed prior, the level of uniformity of production
standards across the T-shirt market and the general lack of consumer knowledgability of fabric
and garment build-quality render these measures highly likely to be imprecise and inconsistent
from one respondent to the next.
In order to produce the composite ‘Brand Reputation’ component a principal
components factor analysis was conducted for each of the five groups of branded T-shirts using
only the variables ‘Familiar’, and ‘Estimated Cost’, because ‘Innovative, ‘Quality’ and ‘WTP’
failed to achieve statistical significance in the ANOVA. All factors loaded with strong
correlation in each group, see Appendix E: Table 22. Five one-way ANCOVAs were
conducted with the dependent variable ‘Brand Status’, the independent variable ‘Brand Image’,
and the covariate component ‘Brand Reputation’. Results found no significant interaction effect
between Brand Image and Brand Reputation across groups. The analysis of main effects failed
to achieve statistical significance for Brand Image, while Brand Reputation did achieve
statistical significance with F(2, 134) = 40.47, p < 0.001, e
2
= 0.219, power = 0.992, see
Appendix E: Table 24.
These results were interpreted as most likely being the result of the fact that the
participants did not evaluate the status of the brands according to the market positioning
established by the categorical pricing of the T-shirts or an informed understanding of the

248
general differences between the price ranges of collections from brands targeting different
market segments. Moreover, the Estimated Costs of the T-shirts in the High Brand Image
condition were substantially lower than the retail price and much closer proportionately to the
Estimated Cost and retail values for the Middle-, and Low-level brands. On the 7-point Likert
scale for Brand Status mid-level brands received a mean score that was actually 0.02 points
above the mean for High-level brands, while the mean status rating for Low-level brands was
just 0.27 points below the luxury segment. In all but one case luxury brands were surpassed in
perceived Status ratings by mid-tier brands in their corresponding groups, and in multiple cases
mass market brands received an average Status score higher than luxury brands. Furthermore,
respondents gave T-shirts from brands with Mid-level images a mean Estimated Cost score just
$14.49 below that of High-level brands, while Low-level brands trailed the luxury segment by
$20.52, despite the fact that the real mean difference in retail value between High- and Mid-
level brands was $194, and $219 between High-, and Low-level brands respectively.
Contrary to what was established in Part 2 of the Pilot Study with groups C, D, and E,
Part 3 found that when applied to T-shirts the measure of brand status did not shift according to
shirt pricing (i.e. market positioning) in a statistically significant way. This suggests that the T-
Shirt itself in some ways alters the perception of the brand. More importantly though, the
composite component Brand Reputation accounted for 21.9% of the variance between groups in
Part 3 of the Pilot Study. Because Brand Reputation consisted of only the two factors ‘Familiar’
and ‘Estimated Cost’ it was assumed that Estimated Cost was operating as a fixed factor in the
perception of Brand Status in lieu of Brand Image, which was based on actual cost. In order to
produce a more meaningful interpretation of the data five one-way ANCOVAS were conducted
with the dependent variable ‘Brand Status’, the independent variable ‘Estimated Cost’, and the

249
covariate factor ‘Familiar’. Results again showed the covariate interaction to be non-significant.
Meanwhile, Estimated Cost was found to be significant as a main effect F(2, 134) = 9.20, p <
0.001, e
2
= 0.270, power = 0.995, and Familiarity fell just short of significance F(2, 134) =
16.54, p = 0.084, e
2
= 0.104, power = 0.689, see Appendix E: Table 26. Therefore for Groups
F through H, the perception of fashion brand Status, when presented on T-shirts worn by
models with their heads cropped from visibility was demonstrated to be dependent on the
observer’s Estimated Cost of the garment above and beyond its actual retail value, its market
positioning, or any other covariate effects on status perception. Responses could not be grouped
into categories of large enough size to produce a post hoc Tukey test for this analysis.
Experiment 1
Descriptive Statistics
Experiment 1 used the same procedures as Pilot Study Part 1 to validate the perception
of Consumer Status according to the market positioning of brands presented on the T-shirts with
images of consumers of different identities based on the Original and Modified conditions
described for Groups A and B. The mean differences in consumer Annual Income between
groups according to Consumer Identity resulted the following: ‘High’ Brand Status condition
from Groups I and J with Original and Modified Consumer Identity, respectively, had mean
Annual Income values of µ
i
= $74.67K (σ
i
= $31.70K) and µ
j
= $61.96K (σ
j
= $24.61K) with a
difference of µ
i-j
= $12.71 K (σ
i-j
= $7.09 K). The ‘Middle’ status condition presented in Groups
K and L respectively with Original and Modified Consumer Identity, received a means of µ
k
=
$77.50K (σ
k
= $27.34K) and µ
l
= $56.00K (σ
l
= $20.54K); a difference of µ
k-l
= $21.50K (σ
k-l
=
$6.80K). The ‘Low’ status condition displayed with Original and Modified Consumer Identity,
respectively in Groups M and N had mean scores of µ
m
= $65.21K (σ
m
= $24.92K) and µ
n
=

250
$54.70K (σ
n
= $23.73K), and a mean difference of µ
m-n
= $10.51K (σ
m-n
= $1.19K). Groups O
and P respectively presented the consumer images in Original and Modified form wearing Plain
White T-shirts and earned mean values of µ
o
= $74.53K (σ
o
= $30.32K) and µ
p
= $57.61K (σ
p
=
$26.19K) with a difference of µ
o-p
= $16.92K (σ
o-p
= $4.13K). Finally, the consumer images
were presented wearing high-end designer suits in the Original and Modified conditions in
Groups Q and R respectively, and received means of µ
q
= $91.28K (σ
q
= $29.26K) and µ
r
=
$74.20K (σ
r
= $26.20K) with a difference of µ
q-r
= $17.08K (σ
q-r
= $3.06K). Likewise, the mean
differences in Annual Income between groups according Brand Image were as follows: First,
within the Original condition the High and Mid-level brands had a mean difference of µ
i-k
= -
$2.83 K (σ
i-k
= $4.36K), High and Low µ
i-m
= $9.46K (σ
i-m
= $6.78K), High and White T µ
i-o
=
$0.14K (σ
i-o
= $1.38K), High and Suit µ
i-q
= -$16.61K (σ
i-q
= $2.44K), Middle and Low µ
k-m
=
$12.29K (σ
k-m
= $2.42K), Middle and White T µ
k-o
= $2.97K (σ
k-o
= -$2.98K), Middle and Suit
µ
k-q
= -$13.78K (σ
k-q
= -$1.92K), Low and White T µ
m-o
= -$9.32K (σ
m-o
= -$5.40K), Low and
Suit µ
m-q
= -$26.07K (σ
m-q
= -$4.34K), and the mean difference in Annual Income between the
White T-shirt condition and the Suit was µ
o-q
= -$16.75K (σ
o-q
= $1.06K). Next, within the
Modified condition the High and Mid-level brands had a mean difference of µ
j-l
= $5.96K (σ
j-l
=
$4.07K), High and Low µ
j-n
= $7.26K (σ
j-n
= $0.88K), High and White T µ
j-p
= $4.35K (σ
j-p
= -
$1.58K), High and Suit µ
j-r
= -$12.24K (σ
j-r
= -$1.59K), Middle and Low µ
l-n
= $1.30K (σ
l-n
= -
$3.19K), Middle and White T µ
l-p
= -$1.61K (σ
l-p
= -$5.65K), Middle and Suit µ
l-r
= -$18.20K
(σ
l-r
= -$5.66K), Low and White T µ
n-p
= -$2.91K (σ
n-p
= -$2.46K), Low and Suit µ
n-r
= -
$19.50K (σ
n-r
= -$2.47K), and finally, the mean difference in perceived Annual Income between
the White T-shirt condition and the Suit was µ
p-r
= -$16.59K (σ
p-r
= -$0.01K), see Appendix E:
Tables 8.1 to 8.3; 27.1 to 27.6; and 28.1 to 28.2. The mean differences for Annual Income

251
between groups from Experiment 1 and the Pilot Study were as follows: Original High and
Original Headshot µ
i-a
= -$0.38K (σ
i-a
= $2.83K), Modified High and Modified Headshot µ
j-b
=
$12.51K (σ
j-b
= $0.04K), Original Mid and Original Headshot µ
k-a
= $2.45K (σ
k-a
= -$1.53K),
Modified Mid and Modified Headshot µ
l-b
= $6.55K (σ
l-b
= -$4.03K), Original Low and Original
Headshot µ
m-a
= -$9.84K (σ
m-a
= -$3.95K), Modified Low and Modified Headshot µ
n-b
= $5.25K
(σ
n-b
= -$0.84K), Original White T and Original Headshot µ
o-a
= -$0.52K (σ
o-a
= $1.45K),
Modified White T and Modified Headshot µ
p-b
= $8.16K (σ
p-b
= $1.62K), Original Suit and
Original Headshot µ
q-a
= $16.23K (σ
q-a
= $0.39K), Modified Suit and Modified Headshot µ
rib
=
$24.75K (σ
r-b
= $1.63K) see Appendix E: Table 29.
Analysis
The data were combined into a single sample set (n
1
= 495) and two unique one-way
ANOVAs were conducted evaluating the four measures of status (Attractive, Intelligent, Cool,
and Annual Income) for each condition of Consumer Identity such that Groups I, K, M, O, and
Q were evaluated in the first test and Groups J, L, N, P, and R were evaluated in the second.
The mean scores for the combined Original consumer conditions across all five images found
that ‘Attractive’, and ‘Cool’ did not achieve statistical significance for the differences in scores
obtained between groups across the three levels of Brand Image and the two control conditions
(i.e. Plain White T-shirts, and Suits); however, Intelligent F(4, 241) = 3.54, p = 0.009, and SES
F(4, 241) = 6.83, p = 0.001 did prove significant, meaning that in the eyes of passive observers,
with all things being equal, an individual without facial piercings (who according to Part 1 of
the Pilot Study is understood to be perceived as of higher rank on all measures of status tested
here with comparison to their facial piercing bearing counterpart) is likely to be perceived as
being more or less Intelligent and of higher or lower Annual Income depending on the brand

252
name displayed on their T-shirt, see Appendix E: Table 30. Across the five Modified consumer
conditions ‘Attractive’, ‘Intelligent’, and ‘Cool’ all failed to achieve statistical significance,
while only SES F(4, 244) = 6.36, p = 0.006 did prove significant, suggesting that T-shirt brand
will not improve or diminish the evaluations of how Attractive, Intelligent or Cool an individual
with facial piercings is in the eyes of observers depending on the status of the brand displayed
on the shirt; however, Brand Image level on a T-shirt will affect an observer’s assumptions of
Annual income for that same pierced individual, see Appendix E: Table 31.
Because none of the measures for consumer status other than SES tested significant
across both Consumer Identity conditions or could even at least be combined to produce a
statistically significant average, no covariates could be tested and there was no need for a factor
analysis to produce a composite component as in the Pilot Study. Therefore five two-way
ANOVAs were conducted with the dependent variable Annual Income, and the independent
variables Brand Image and Consumer Identity. Results showed that there was no significant
interaction between the independent variables; however, Brand Image F(9, 485) = 11.93, p <
0.001, e
2
= 0.088, power = 0.996, and Consumer Identity F(9, 485) = 47.72, p < 0.001, e
2
=
0.087, power = 0.987 did achieve statistical significance. A Levene’s Test held the assumption
of homogeneity of error variance across Consumers 2 through 5 F(9, 485) = 2.961, p = 0.007
but failed with the addition of Consumer No. 1 F(9, 485) = 1.06, p = 0.389, with a mean for all
five groups just short of significance at F(9, 485) = 2.58, p = 0.084 see Appendix E: Table
32.1. A post hoc Tukey test revealed the following differences to be statistically significant at
the (p < 0.05) level: Consumer No. 1 Inconspicuous and Suit (p = 0.044), Low and Suit (p =
0.001), Suit and High (p = 0.001); Consumer No. 2 Inconspicuous and Suit (p < 0.001), Low
and High (p = 0.006), Low and Suit (p < 0.001), Mid and High (p = 0.015), Mid and Suit (p <

253
0.001); Consumer No. 3 Inconspicuous and Low (p = 0.001), Inconspicuous and Suit (p <
0.001), Low and High (p < 0.001), Low and Suit (p < 0.001). Mid and Low (p = 0.004), Mid
and Suit (p < 0.001), High and Suit (p = 0.003); Consumer No. 4 Inconspicuous and Suit (p <
0.001), Low and Suit (p < 0.001), Mid and Suit (p < 0.001), High and Suit, (p < 0.001);
Consumer No. 5 Inconspicuous and Suit (p = 0.001), Low and Suit (p < 0.001), Mid and Suit (p
< 0.001, High and Suit (p = 0.001).
It was assumed that the post hoc failed to demonstrate statistically significant differences
in Consumer Status between more Brand Image because the perceived status of the brands was
relatively inconsistent with the brands’ self-asserted market positions when evaluating
consumer status using T-shirts as a modifying variable. Therefore a new set of tests was
conducted using the perceived Brand Status mean score for each brand rather than rating the
brands by their market positions according to their price. The fifteen brands were ranked in
order and divided according to status range into the three categories of High Status, Middle
Status, and Low Status, which were applied to each of the brands as dummy variables. Gucci
ranked in first place followed by Armani Exchange in second, Ralph Lauren Denim & Supply
in third, U.S. Polo Association in fourth, Adidas in fifth, Balmain in sixth, Levi’s in seventh,
Alexander McQueen in eighth, GAP in ninth, True Religion in tenth, French Connection in
eleventh, Versace in twelfth, VANS in thirteenth, Burberry in fourteenth, and Old Navy in
fifteenth. The first five positions were assigned to the High-level position, with scores above
5.00. The next nine brands were classified as Mid-level with scores between 4.00 and 5.00.
Finally, Old Navy was labeled as the only Low-level brand with a perceived status of 3.63, see
Appendix E: Table 3.1.

254
A two-way ANOVA was conducted with the dependent variable Annual Income and the
independent variables Brand Status and Consumer Identity. For added measure the Pilot Study
Part 1 headshot conditions were added to the test to provide greater insight on how Consumer
Identity was being affected by the T-shirts as well as the brands (n
abi…r
= 584). Results showed
that there was no significant interaction between the independent variables; however, Brand
Image F(4, 574) = 66.41, p < 0.001, e
2
= 0.099, power = 0.099, and Consumer Identity F(1,
574) = 17.87, p < 0.001, e
2
= 0.082, power = 0.998 did achieve statistical significance see
Appendix E: Table 32.2. A Levene’s Test held the assumption of homogeneity of error
variance F(9, 574) = 3.496, p = 0.002. A post hoc Tukey test revealed greater significance
between groups than the previous brand-level configuration.
74
Though a good number of
conditions still failed to achieve statistical significance, this is assumed to be the result of the
centralized status ratings provided by the respondents for the brands in Part 3 despite the vast
disparity in retail value of the actual garments. The consumer ratings were disproportionate to
the actual market positions—and in many cases contradictory—resulting in scores that did not
differ enough across all conditions to render significant results in many instances. Had the
brands been selected purely according to consumer perceptions and divided according to a
hierarchy that showed status distinctions more approximate in proportion to the market
positions, regardless of the actual position, these results would likely have shown a much
stronger effect of the brand association provided by a T-shirt on perceived Consumer Status.
However, the centralized scores of Pilot Study Part 3 reveal either that the T-shirt is possibly an
unconvincing conveyor of status or that general consumers aren’t aware of brand status beyond
their social milieu. In the Consumer No. 1 condition no significant difference was found

74
Because the division of brands was originally done according to T-shirt retail value and the Brand Status measures reported by respondents in
Pilot Study Part 3 were arbitrary different Consumer groups had different configurations of brand status such that some groupings had no High-,
Mid-, or Low-level brands, though all retained the White T, Suit, and Headshot control conditions.

255
between any Brand Status groups with the exception of groups matched with the Suit control
condition: White T and Suit (p = 0.043), High and Suit (p = 0.007), Mid and Suit (p = 0.001),
and Headshot and Suit (p < 0.001); Consumer No. 2 High and White T (p = 0.083), High and
Mid (p = 0.001), High and Headshot (p = 0.003), Mid and Suit (p < 0.001), Suit and White T (p
< 0.001), Headshot and Suit (p < 0.001); Consumer No. 3 Mid and Low (p < 0.001), Mid and
Suit (p < 0.001), Low and Suit (p < 0.001), Low and Headshot (p = 0.024), White T and Suit (p
< 0.001), Headshot and Suit (p < 0.001); Consumer 4 High and Suit (p <0.001), Mid and Suit (p
< 0.001), White T and Suit (p < 0.001), Headshot and Suit (p < 0.001); White T and Suit (p <
0.001), High and Suit (p < 0.001), Mid and Suit (p < 0.001), Headshot and Suit (p < 0.001).
Interpretation
According to the data collected and analyzed, this study loosely supports Hypothesis
(H1) that as Brand Status increases Consumer Status also increases when wearing
conspicuously branded designer T-shirts, but it failed to confirm the assumption that brand
status does not lower consumer status. While T-shirts overall lowered consumer status in the
Original condition with comparison to the Pilot Study headshots (the mean Annual Income for
T-shirt wearing Original consumer images was lower than the Original condition headshot in
every case except Middle-level brands), the Original control condition with the Plain White T-
shirt was substantially greater than the Original Low-level Brand Image condition, but was
slightly lower than the Mid-, and High-level conditions. Here we confirm that with ordinary
individuals without facial piercings
75
High Brand Status, whether evaluated according to a
brand’s self-asserted market positioning or observer perception, does little to augment the
consumer’s perceived SES in the eyes of onlookers beyond what will be attributed to them with

75
No facial piercing being the default position of self-presentation, is not only the social norm, which itself was universally attributed higher
status in this study, but is so common and distinct in comparison to facial piercings that the piercing is not only idealized as being associated
with the socially deviant, but it is also often viewed as potentially criminal or even dangerous.

256
a Plain White T-shirt; however, a Low Brand Status T-shirt will significantly lower the
perceived status of the individual.
76
The validity of this finding was further elucidated by the
fact that the Original Consumer Identity Suit condition outstripped every other Original
Consumer Identity condition in Annual Income by a higher margin than the difference of any
other two Consumer Status outcomes. Furthermore, the Modified Suit condition ranked within
fractions of the highest-ranking Original Consumer Identity conditions. On the contrary, the
Modified White T was out-performed in Annual Income by the High-level Brand Status
condition but beat out the Mid-, and Low-level brands, and the Modified Headshot from the
Pilot Study was beat by every condition with T-shirts. These results were consistent with the
assumptions posited by Khaneman and Tversky (1979) that losses will be viewed as
substantially more detrimental than gains are viewed as beneficial under the convex demand for
losses in prospect theory.
Thus we find that Brand Status can both lower and increase Consumer Status
when presented on T-shirts according to the brand or consumer’s perceived status. The
ability to decrease Consumer Status is greater as Consumer Identity decreases and lower
as it increases, and the ability to increase Consumer Status is lower as Consumer Identity
increases and greater as it decreases. Brand Image is a significant factor in these changes
of status perception.

76
It is apparent from these results that status signaling is not a process with functionally constant values, but one that changes with different
time frames, social contexts, actors and observers. That is to say an Adidas T-shirt may be a signal of status in some circles and settings, while it
may mean nothing in others. Meanwhile, a Versace T-shirt may be a more universally consistent signal of status but it may only be effective
within one’s status group or to those beneath and yet, may still hold negative connotations amongst other groups higher up in status.

257
Experiment 2
Descriptive Statistics
Experiment 2 used the same procedures as Pilot Study Parts 2 and 3 to validate the
perception of Brand Status according to Consumer Identity for brands presented on T-shirts
with images of consumers of different identities. The mean differences in perceived Brand
Status between groups according to Consumer Identity resulted the following: ‘High’ Brand
Status condition from Groups S and T with Original and Modified Consumer Identity,
respectively, had mean Brand Status values of µ
s
= 4.66 (σ
s
= 1.16) and µ
t
= 4.34 (σ
t
= 1.40)
with a difference of µ
s-t
= 0.32 (σ
s-t
= -0.24). The ‘Middle’ status condition presented in Groups
U and V respectively with Original and Modified Consumer Identity, received a means of µ
u
=
4.67 (σ
u
= 1.44) and µ
v
= 4.67 (σ
v
= 1.41); a difference of µ
u-v
= 0.00 (σ
u-v
= 0.03). The ‘Low’
status condition displayed with Original and Modified Consumer Identity, respectively in
Groups W and X had mean scores of µ
w
= 4.55 (σ
w
= 1.46) and µ
x
= 4.34 (σ
x
= 1.55), and a mean
difference of µ
w-x
= 0.21 (σ
w-x
= -0.09). Finally, Groups Y and Z respectively presented the
consumer images in Original and Modified form wearing Inconspicuously branded designer T-
shirts and earned mean values of µ
y
= 3.63 (σ
y
= 1.15) and µ
z
= 3.57 (σ
z
= 1.20) with a difference
of µ
y-z
= 0.06 (σ
y-z
= -0.05). Likewise, the mean differences in perceived Brand Status between
groups according Brand Image were as follows: First, within the Original Consumer Identity
condition the High and Mid-level brands had a mean difference of µ
s-u
= -0.01 (σ
s-u
= -0.28),
High and Low µ
s-w
= 0.11 (σ
s-w
= -0.30), High and Inconspicuous µ
s-y
= 1.03 (σ
s-y
= 0.01),
Middle and Low µ
u-w
= 0.12 (σ
u-w
= -0.02), Middle and Inconspicuous µ
u-y
= 1.04 (σ
u-y
= 0.29),
and the mean difference in perceived Brand Status between the Low and Inconspicuous
conditions was µ
w-y
= 0.92 (σ
w-y
= 0.31). Next, within the Modified Consumer Identity condition

258
the High and Mid-level brands had a mean difference of µ
t-v
= -0.33 (σ
t-v
= -0.01), High and Low
µ
t-x
= 0.00 (σ
t-x
= -0.15), High and Inconspicuous µ
t-z
= 0.77 (σ
t-z
= 0.20), Middle and Low µ
v-x
=
0.33 (σ
v-x
= -0.14), Middle and Inconspicuous µ
v-z
= 1.10 (σ
v-z
= 0.21), and finally, the mean
difference in perceived Brand Status between the Low and Inconspicuous µ
x-z
= 0.77 (σ
x-z
=
0.35), see Appendix E: Tables 9.1 to 9.3; 33.1 and 33.2; and 36.1 to 36.6. The mean
differences for Status between groups from Experiment 2 and the Pilot Study Part 2 were as
follows: Original High and Logo High µ
s-c
= -0.82 (σ
s-c
= 0.17), Modified High and Logo High
µ
t-c
= -0.53 (σ
t-c
= 0.13), Original Mid and Logo Mid µ
u-d
= -0.13 (σ
u-d
= 0.14), Modified Mid
and Logo Mid µ
v-d
= -0.81 (σ
v-d
= 0.42), Original Low and Logo Low µ
w-e
= -0.32 (σ
w-e
= 0.19),
Modified Low and Logo Low µ
x-e
= -0.46 (σ
x-e
= 0.25), Original Inconspicuous and Logo
Inconspicuous µ
y-*
= -1.35 (σ
y-*
= -0.14), Modified Inconspicuous and Logo Inconspicuous µ
z-*

= -1.41 (σ
z-*
= -0.09), see Appendix E: Table 34. The mean differences for Status between
groups from Experiment 2 and the Pilot Study Part 3 were as follows: Original High and Shirt
High µ
s-f
= -0.19 (σ
s-f
= -0.20), Modified High and Shirt High µ
t-f
= -0.51 (σ
t-f
= 0.04), Original
Mid and Shirt Mid µ
u-g
= -0.20 (σ
u-g
= 0.22), Modified Mid and Shirt Mid µ
v-g
= -0.20 (σ
v-g
=
0.19), Original Low and Shirt Low µ
w-h
= -0.03 (σ
w-h
= 0.04), Modified Low and Shirt Low µ
x-h

= -0.24 (σ
x-h
= 0.13), Original Inconspicuous and Shirt Inconspicuous µ
y-*
= -0.06 (σ
y-*
= -0.10),
Modified Inconspicuous and Shirt Inconspicuous µ
z-*
= -0.12 (σ
z-*
= -0.05), see Appendix E:
Table 35.
Analysis
The data were combined into a single sample set (n
2
= 372) and four unique one-way
ANOVAs were conducted between groups according to Consumer Identity evaluating the six
measures of Brand Status (Familiar, Innovative, Quality, Status, Estimated Cost and WTP) for

259
each condition of Brand Image such that Groups S and T, U and V, W and X, and Y and Z were
tested. None of the mean differences between groups for any of the measures were found to be
statistically significant, see Appendix E: Table 37, Table 38, Table 39, Table 40.
Because none of the measures for Brand Status tested significant across all three Brand
Image conditions and the control, no covariates could be tested and there was no need for a
factor analysis to produce a composite component as in the Pilot Study. Therefore a two-way
ANOVA was conducted with the dependent variable Status, and the independent variables
Consumer Identity and Brand Image. Results showed that there was no significant interaction
between the independent variables, and Consumer Identity had no significant main effect, while
Brand Image was significant F( 7, 364) = 30.47, p < 0.001, e
2
= 0.186, power = 0.983 as a main
effect in determining Brand Status, see Appendix E: Table 41.1. Finally, for added measure the
Pilot Study Part 2 Standalone Logo and Part 3 Standalone T-shirt conditions were added to the
test to provide greater insight on how Brand Identity was being affected by the T-shirts as well
as the consumers (n
c…hs…z
= 653) and a third two-way ANOVA was conducted with the
dependent variable Brand Status and the independent variables Consumer Identity and Brand
Image. Results showed that there was no significant interaction between the independent
variables; however Consumer Identity was significant as a main effect F(3, 639) = 48.21, p <
0.001, e
2
= 0.173, power = 1.000, as was Brand Image F( 3, 639) = 30.47, p < 0.05, e
2
= 0.033,
power = 0.725 as a main effect in determining Brand Status, see Appendix E: Table 41.2. A
Levene’s Test fell just short of the assumption of homogeneity of error variance F(13, 639) =
2.143, p = 0.086 as a result of the Consumer No. 4 conditions. Correcting for these outliers the
Levene’s Test proved significant F(13, 639) = 2.388, p = 0.031. A post hoc Tukey test revealed
the following differences in Brand Status to between groups to be significant Consumer No. 1:

260
Standalone Logo and Original (p < 0.001), Standalone Logo and Modified (p < 0.001),
Standalone T-shirt and Original (p = 0.013), Standalone T-shirt and Modified (p < 0.001);
Consumer No. 2: Standalone Logo and Original (p < 0.001), Standalone Logo and Modified (p
< 0.001), Standalone T-shirt and Modified (p = 0.011); Consumer No. 3: Standalone Logo and
Original (p < 0.001), Standalone Logo and Modified (p < 0.001), Standalone Logo and
Standalone T-shirt (p = 0.014), Standalone T-shirt and Modified (p = 0.045); Consumer No. 4:
Standalone Logo and Modified (p = 0.018), Standalone T-shirt and Original (p = -0.010),
Standalone T-shirt and Modified (p = 0.001); Consumer No. 5: Standalone Logo and Original (p
< 0.001), Standalone Logo and Modified (p < 0.001), Standalone Logo and Standalone T-shirt
(p < 0.001), Standalone T-shirt and Original (p = 0.002), Standalone T-shirt & Modified (p <
0.001).
Interpretation
These findings reject Hypothesis 2 (H2) that Consumer Identity lowers Brand Status;
however they confirm the assumption that Consumer Identity will not raise Brand Status. Part
of the reason behind these outcomes can be explained by the fact that participants consistently
rated brands of differing market position (i.e. different Brand Image) as being much closer to
one another in price than the true retail values would delineate. The T-shirts appeared to have a
neutralizing effect on brand status, whereby brands in the standalone presentation of their logos
demonstrate clear differences in the various measures of Status perception according to market
position, while brands presented on the T-shirts of headless model torsos tended to do so to a
lesser degree, and with greater levels of inconsistency. Furthermore the addition of the brand
identity to T-shirts tended to lower perceived Brand Status while the addition of consumers

261
tended lower it even further, and these differences tended to be greater for higher status brands
than lower status brands.
Differences in respondent values for Estimated Cost and WTP often hovered between
one or two tenths of the actual difference in retail value of the garments. However, although the
scores tended to barely shift between the Original and Modified Consumer Identity conditions
across Brand Image levels, an interesting finding was that Brand Image differences between
groups according to Consumer Identity tended to shift in opposite directions for different Brand
Image levels producing increasing differences between Brand Image groups as Consumer Status
changed. More specifically, for the High-, and Mid-level brands, the mean differences of
Estimated Cost were higher in favor of the Modified Consumer Identity condition, while they
were higher for the Original condition with Low-level and Inconspicuous brands. Likewise, the
mean differences between Original and Modified Brand Status scores for High-, and Low-level
brands was µ
s-t
= 0.32 (σ
s-t
= -0.24) and µ
w-x
= 0.21 (σ
w-x
= -0.09), respectively, while the Middle
and Inconspicuous brands had Brand Status mean differences of µ
u-v
= 0.00 (σ
u-v
= 0.03) and µ
y-z

= 0.06 (σ
y-z
= -0.05), respectively; placing the differences of the two sets of groups in polarized
directions, though on a small and insignificant scale. A substantial endowment effect was also
demonstrated as participants tended to rat brands they stated they owned products from as
higher in status though they listed them as lower in Estimated Cost. Consumer Identity also
made little difference in Brand Status from the values provided for the cropped shirts displayed
in Pilot Study Part 3 Groups F, G, and H. Furthermore, it is likely the case that the T-shirt is too
insignificant within the scope of designer fashion to impact a brands market image based on a
single wearer. A T-shirt is a relatively simplistic garment and consumers generally have little
appreciation for the nuance of innovative distinction that may be incorporated into its design

262
beyond the ‘cleverness’, originality or creativity of its graphics. The majority of the
conspicuously branded T-shirts were basic logo driven prints, which inherently lacked an
explicit sense of innovation or quality in their design schemes, graphic or otherwise. Moreover
the fact that the shirts were being observed as computer generated images further obstructed the
participant’s likely limited ability to appreciate Innovation, Quality, and Brand Status based
upon the shirt’s construction and design.
Thus we find that Consumer Identity has no effect on either lowering or increasing
Brand Status when presented on T-shirts according to the brand or consumers perceived
status.

263
CHAPTER 4:
DISCUSSION AND SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS
—WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
It is important to elaborate on the results of this research in order to contextualize its
significance within the real world. The section that follows conducts a theoretical synthesis of
the qualitative and quantitative findings produced in this work with that goal in mind.
One of the most important implications of this study regards insights about the free
market economy and its assumptions of incentives. Neo-classical theorists have posited that the
free market—in its current configuration—will lead to the greatest level of competition,
meaning that the most fairly priced products and services should achieve the highest level of
demand at the most practical level of quality. However, the results produced here serve as a
demonstration of real market conditions beyond economic theory, which grant legitimacy to the
vast presence of activities that undermine the theories of free market economics including
planned obsolescence, arbitrary pricing, and conspiratorial positioning on behalf of producers,
distributors, and gatekeepers, in addition to the irrational behavior perpetrated by consumers.
The focus of this work was neither to pontificate upon the material quality and economic value
of consumer goods nor the rational behavior of consumers. Rather, this research was intended to
evaluate the symbolic value of such goods and their role in the judgments and decision making
of everyday people concerning those goods and their consumers.
As a study of communication this project emphasizes the efficacy of brand identity as a
signifier of social identity, values, and economic status for individuals when their identity is
mediated by wearing T-shirts. This research does not consider, in specific
77
, corporate structure,
alliances, market capitalization, share or volume of the brands it has assessed. It also

77
Though it does consider these tangentially.

264
significantly neglects the many specifics of the individual asset values of brand equity, age,
historic performance, network access, distribution reach, marketing expenditures, intended
target audiences, product portfolios or the self-stated goals of these firms. All of these may have
a profound impact on a brand’s ability to assert its values and market position and effect change
in the signaled identity of consumers with different self-presentational status and to conversely
resist or be affected by the influence of change in identity brought about by different consumers.
Yet the, broad categorizations used here to determine market position have been informed by
the precise measures of price and product, which have in turn denoted place and promotion—
commonly referred to collectively as the ‘four p’s’ in marketing theory—which are essential to
controlling a brand’s ability to influence the market (McCarthy, 1964). Therefore, this simple
method of outlining the brand hierarchy of the current fashion industry, though lacking the
details of the many important, aforementioned specifics, has nonetheless achieved a high degree
of accuracy alongside those measures in discerning differences in value between brands
engaged in the T-shirt market as far as that particular garment and the brands’ identities are
concerned. While the corporate profiles of brands may differ, the real market position of a
brand, as outlined above, has greater pertinence to its sociocultural significance—the value of
which is highly instrumental in raising a company’s profile in the stated categories and therefore
its profitability.
This research does not explicitly examine how individuals will be treated differently
depending on their identity as determined by their self-presentation. It does, however, obtain
information about how individuals are perceived with regard to several critical identity
domains, which have been detailed throughout the literature as having significant impact on
interpersonal interaction, public treatment, and overall quality of life. Furthermore, it asserts

265
these findings with regard to the highly ubiquitous T-shirt as the modifying medium of identity
communication.
It was surprising to find that the general assumption—which was underscored by the
expert interviews—that high-status branded T-shirts would be more effective in augmenting
consumer status did not hold true. Though counterintuitive, the experimental research found that
mass-luxury brands and in some cases mass-market brands out-performed some luxury brands.
However, the nucleus of these results reveals a more complex phenomenon. Upon deeper
analysis, one discovers that the industry experts were quite accurate in their assertion of the
caveat that “It depends”. To elaborate, the pilot study found that lower status brands generally
had a greater level of familiarity—for the most part, the higher the brand’s status, the lower its
familiarity rating. Furthermore, lower familiarity tended to coincide with decreased status
ratings, estimated cost and WTP, and yet estimated cost and WTP failed to correlate with brand
status in Experiment 2, meaning that although consumers understand a brand to charge
premiums for their products, this does not necessarily determine their opinions about the
brand’s prestige in the market with comparison to other brands. However, these findings were
mere tendencies not rules, and consequently their likelihood of holding true was inconsistent, as
it ‘depended’ on which brands were being taken into consideration from one condition to the
next. There were no clear-cut or universal answers as to why one low-, mid- or high-level brand
did better or worse than others in ratings for status or familiarity. Such an assessment would
need to be delivered on a case by case basis involving in-depth analysis of a firm’s history,
performance, and marketing activities. The interview participants were a valuable source of
information regarding such details, and proved highly knowledgeable in their insights about
these types of factors for brands throughout the fashion industry. Yet empirical research would

266
require first-hand access to data and stakeholders within the firms themselves in order to build
definitive arguments around the unexpected results gathered here.
Because consumers had their own pre-established perceptions of brand identity, which
often differed strikingly from the market positioning of those brands, results were scattered and
the ability of a brand to influence consumer identity based on the brand’s proposed image and
actual market position was limited to the participants’ knowledge of that image and its
associated marketing activities. The fact that the survey was conducted using a low pay,
crowdsourcing sampling methodology may have also limited the external validity of the
findings given the fact that these participants were unlikely to be knowledgeable about the
correct valuation of fashion hierarchies as a result of the low status source of income being
exercised at the site of participation. More specifically, as mentioned earlier, ordinary
consumers now have greater knowledgability and access to luxury lifestyles, yet this does not
mean that their access to knowledge is being used all the way to the top of the consumer
hierarchy. Silverstein, Fisk and Butman (2008) assert that ordinary consumers are trading up for
mass luxury brands offering lifestyle statements as part of their cachet. The findings presented
in this study suggest that, because respondents were highly familiar with Armani Exchange but
even more familiar with Gucci, while being oblivious to Alexander McQueen, there is a current
of mainstream status branding along which the general population has developed an ecology of
knowledge, and beyond this the access to luxury is largely lost in terms of understanding status.
In other words, The modern obsession with elitism and lifestyle is largely limited to widely
popular Old Guard prestige brands such as Louis Vuitton and Chanel, and more accessible mass
luxury labels, especially those diffused from superpremium couture fashion houses such as
Ralph Laruen Denim & Supply, Boss Orange or Armani Exchange. Therefore from one

267
condition to the next the brands were subject to be rated contradictory to their actual market
position.
There were five brands in each brand image category and in nearly every group there
was at least one and often two or more brands that either strayed from the market segment or
failed to be ranked alongside the majority that had scored in a different segment. In either case it
was a regular occurrence that brands did not retain their market-based position in the eyes of the
participants. This produced highly lopsided results, yet still allowed for significant findings in
terms of changes in consumer status perception. However, when taking account of brand status
solely according to perceived status rather than market positioning, it becomes evident that the
effect on consumer status was strong. This was also seen in conditions where difference
according to brand status achieved statistical significance, which were then thrown off in the
group mean by the disproportionate ratings of brands like Adidas and Armani Exchange against
brands in the top tier such as McQueen as seen with Consumer No. 1. These findings reveal the
limitations of branding efforts by fashion firms in the ability to control dynamic perception with
regard to competitors, and they also provide an assumedly accurate sample of the general
population’s perception of the fashion brand hierarchy because, market positioning and low
income recruitment platforms not withstanding, they suggest that the general public either does
not understand or is not concerned with the legitimate positioning of brands based upon price
when considering T-shirts Phau & Cheong (2009).
78
Moreover, as proclaimed by the expert
interviewees, within the scope of the general population we may find that most people do not

78
While it remains possible that the unexpectedly lower rankings of many of the luxury brands is the result of luxury brand T-shirts being
considered low-status, this is questionable due to the established correlations with familiarity and the finding that more familiar brands tended to
be ranked higher—though luxury brands did suffer greater depreciations in status from standalone logos to standalone T-shirts and images of
models wearing T-shirts. However it should be noted that though some brands may have been familiar in name, as demonstrated in part 2 of the
pilot study, when presented on a T-shirt with only the brand logo or a trademark design, as in the case of Versace and Burberry, familiarity, and
likewise brand status tended to diminish. This is possibly the result of the reduced clarity of communication from standalone logo to stylized
garment, or possibly the an effect of the increased cognitive load bearing on the observer in the brief time duration as a result of added pertinent
information as well as noise. Note. As much noise as possible was eliminated by presenting all models, shirts, and logos on plain white
backgrounds.

268
shop designer brand names of any particular status, especially high, and mid-level, when it
comes to clothing, especially with T-shirts.
79
The expansiveness of the independent T-shirt
market is evidence for this assumption, and the lucrative practices of stores like Wal-Mart and
Target further validate its position.
T-shirts serve as incredibly popular canvases to a wide array of artwork ranging from
political ideology to merchandising imagery, which has no relevance to the concerns of designer
names or brand status in the sense of fashion hierarchy.
80
Therefore we may assume that the
participants were not necessarily committed to the validity of brand status and consequently
consumer status when mediated by T-shirts, regardless of pricing factors. It is also important to
point out that luxury and even mass-luxury brands have limited audiences, especially with their
T-shirt sales. While luxury brands intentionally attempt to confine their consumer bases to the
elite and extremely wealthy, mass market brands (including masstige brands)—especially those
that sell T-shirts—are typically targeted towards status conscious, pop culture oriented youth; a
good percentage of which would have been ineligible for the survey given the age restrictions.
Furthermore, beyond these limited audiences, most people are not wealthy by any standard in
general (Mishel & Sabadish, 2012; Bebchuk & Grinstein, 2005), and given the rate of
compensation for the survey, it is assumed that the majority of the participants did not fit into
those target audiences—which is likely the case with most of the American public. Therefore
the sample, though restricted, was valuable as a representation of popular opinion.

79
Luxury and mass luxury T-shirts tend to be targeted at-, and consumed by a particular segment of the population—namely middle-, to upper-
class youth and young adults—which constitutes a small percentage of the total population. Though brands are fully aware that there is a low-
income segment of poseurs who appropriate their image for status assertion (Goldman et al., 2012), these are not their target, they are likely a
minority in terms of total consumption as their potential for total volume share is limited, and they mostly do not approximate the images that
brands idealize in their proposed consumer identity through their advertisements, particularly with concerns to their self-presentation, peripheral
styling factors, and obvious lifestyle.
80
For example a plain white T-shirt, a super hero T-shirt or political statement T-shirt is usually the product of some merchandising interest,
independent concept, or promotional campaign, and shirts of this nature make up a greater share of the total market volume than shirts that
display designer brand identity as an artifact of aspirational consumption, name brand recognition, or the assertion of innovation, quality or
status in the relation thereof, conspicuous or otherwise.

269
Participants in Study 1 made several important observations about the current state of
the T-shirt market within the context of the modern sociocultural climate, along with predictions
about its future. Their insights were highly accurate and were consistently reinforced by the
quantitative findings of Study 2. The interviews confirmed that T-shirts are a youth driven
market and that the direction of that market is largely the effect of a constant reaction to
individual and group expression stimulated by a countercultural worldview. Independent
designers and firms are the foundation of the T-shirt market in terms of its creative energy, the
leadership of its innovative momentum, and the sociopolitical orientation of the linguistic and
visual communication articulated in its trends, which tend to be drawn from the wealth of
cultural diversity found in coastal metropolitan locales. While mainstream commercial brands
may often serve as leaders in the fashion industry under top-down models of trend distribution
(Veblen, 1899), T-shirts are a market segment where trickle-up theories (Craik, 1994; Entwistle,
2000) appear to be substantiated, largely as an effect of the simplicity of the post-production
footprint which they depend on for the majority of their communicative value. Furthermore, that
communicative value is in many ways more potent than any other garment class as a result of its
explicit mode of expression—that is to say, through text, graphics or a combination of the two.
Though large-scale commercial firms may achieve equal ground in the T-shirt segment due to
its openness, they mostly lack the incentive to dominate this sector as its trends move forward
on small scales at a rapid pace, and seek to challenge the status quo in a way that may be
inconceivable for an organization with complex interests, culturally divested stakeholders and
financially centered business goals. Nevertheless, these matters are complicated by the fact that
the interviews and market research of Study 1 revealed that while commercial firms regularly
appropriate trends from the underground or counterculture market segment, many designers

270
working within the space of large fashion entities are either simultaneously, have in the past, or
will at some point in time be involved with the production of independent apparel, which most
always includes T-shirts. Moreover, members of fashion’s creative labor force tend to shift
indiscriminately from one major organization to the next, with some freelancing for multiple
firms at the same time. In this way we find that the theoretical models of fashion distribution are
not always as simple and concrete as they appear. Major brands appropriate not only designs
from the organic style-currents of the street, but they appropriate their designers from these
spaces as well.
In Study 1 several of the interviewees stated that T-shirt fashion was trending back
towards logo driven designs, which had thrived throughout the 90s but had since then largely
fallen off—eventually being deemed as ostentatious and tacky. The pilot study and experiments
of Study 2 supported these predictions as they revealed that esteemed brands with prominent
log-driven graphics, especially from the mid-level sector, were ranked high in Status, Estimated
Cost and WTP. While such trends would otherwise be especially noted as passé with
aspirational brands, mass-market brands might easily evade such harsh critique as their lack of
status-seeking-identity positions their logo driven designs as more of a promotional feature
carried out by the brand than an attempt by the wearer to assert status through association with
the brand image. Many of the brands selected for inclusion in this study were chosen as a result
of the frequency of their mention in Study 1, which led to a clear exhibition of Veblen’s (1899)
top-down distribution model, as brands such as Balmain and McQueen showed very low
ownership scoring but had significantly higher estimated cost ratings in comparison. This may
likely be the effect of increased recognition (though not yet familiarity) from the high
enthusiasm received in the upper echelons of the fashion world according to the industry experts

271
interviewed. This observation provides a detailed perspective of the inner workings of the
fashion industry as a social institution, inescapably pervading and influencing the lives of
individuals from every walk of life.
The results of Study 2 simultaneously challenged the top-down theory of the distribution
of cultural tastes, suggesting that the value proposition of a brand is meaningless beyond its
ability to be successfully assimilated into the conscience of the general population. In other
words, when left to uncertainty people will construct their own hierarchies for brand status.
These hierarchies, though vastly inaccurate, were found in this study to be strongly correlated
with levels of familiarity, meaning that outside of recognition, brand status was arbitrarily
estimated as low—as demonstrated in the Inconspicuous conditions of Groups F, G, and H,
where the mean rating was 3.96 on the 7-point Likert scale; a difference of 0.89 below the
lowest conspicuous condition mean despite an average retail value of $126.66, which is $102.40
greater than the mean retail value of the groups with low-level brand image. Furthermore the
Kanye West x A.P.C. plain White T fell 1.06 points below these inconspicuously branded
graphic shirts with a mean Brand Status score of 2.63 and an estimated cost of $28.62, despite a
retail value roughly four times that amount. One might assume that this is because the symbolic
meaning assigned to the design of a logo driven T-shirt is semiotic in nature, lacking any
definitive, empirical value beyond the contextual framework of its cultural impact and the
availability of its marketing propaganda. Luxury brands such as McQueen and Versace practice
austerity marketing campaigns conventional to that market segment, and lack the extended
historic legacies as well as the highly conspicuous and easily recognizable print patterns of
more popular luxury lines such as Gucci, which faired much better in the surveys. Thus we find
lower degrees of familiarity and lower status rankings for the former.

272
The interview participants were notably accurate in their assumptions about the public
perception of luxury and mass luxury brands being often too limited to make a clear distinction
between the two in terms of status. To elaborate, Armani Exchange T-shirts received ratings on
par with the luxury branded T-shirts of couture fashion houses outstripping four of the five
high-end brands on perceived Brand Status and three out of five on estimated cost. This is most
likely explained by the fact that masstige marketing is often executed in a manner that is in
many ways indistinguishable from that of true luxury brands with the exception of pricing. The
data supports the assumption stated earlier that mass luxury and diffusion brands are in many
respects a lucrative attempt to sew confusion in the market amongst unwitting aspirational
consumers with limited disposable income, who might seek to display brand status prominently
to one another with great effect, but lack the wherewithal to realize that many of these lines
carry the brand identity in name alone and are viewed by members higher on the social ladder as
ostentatious attempts to portray prestige through inferior displays of ‘entry level’ symbolic
material acquisition. Armani Exchange most likely received these high ratings due to its
affiliation with the Giorgio Armani principle brand famed for its exorbitantly priced made-to-
measure men’s suits and couture women’s fashion collections. Participant No. 1 specifically
stated that many mass-market consumers most likely purchase U.S. Polo Association under the
misperception that they are purchasing Polo Ralph Lauren or some derivative thereof.
Participant No. 1
It’s good for the corporate business and people think that they’re getting a piece of the
dream. They’re only getting a piece of the dream! When you’re taking a Chaps T-shirt
and you’re like, “I’m wearing Ralph Lauren.” They think they’re wearing Ralph
Lauren... It depends on where and who you’re speaking to, because when I see Chaps

273
I’m like, “Ahhh it’s Ralph Lauren but it’s barely Ralph Lauren.” But…or when I see
like a U.S. Polo Association I’m like, “You think that’s Ralph Lauren but it’s not.” So I
think…it depends on…I’m more judgmental because I’m in the fashion industry, so I
can see that. But if I were to think about it or really look at it, if I wasn’t in the know
then I would be like, “Oh that’s just a nice T-shirt.” I think people are willing to pay a
premium just to wear a brand even though it’s not…
Participant No. 22 also expressed similar sentiments.
Participant No. 22
Let’s take U.S. Polo Association okay. U.S. Polo Association is banking on the fact
that…the reason why they have a store in Times Square and they don’t have a store in
Brooklyn is because that they understand that the tourist will come here and they fall in
love with American brands. It’s one of the reasons why Levi’s has always remained
strong in Europe. It’s…you know Coca-Cola has remained strong. These are American
brands, they’re classic American brands. So their taking from Polo—Ralph Lauren—and
they’re giving you that aesthetic at a [lower] price point. Now you don’t see U.S. Polo
Association have a store in Fulton Street Brooklyn because people in Brooklyn, they’re
not trying to stay at that price point, they’re trying to go up. So they’re going to rock the
Polo Ralph Lauren, the Rugby, the RLX because status is important to them. The U.S.
Polo Association, to the tourist, has a status because it’s an “American brand” and that’s
it. So I don’t think you’ll see that. I don’t think you’ll see…anyone who takes fashion
seriously say, “I’m going to go with U.S. Polo Association.” Because if that was the
case wouldn’t Chaps Ralph Lauren be a super huge brand. I’m just saying wouldn’t that
be the case because it’s the same Ralph Lauren?

274
These claims were directly supported by the survey responses as U.S. Polo Association
also received inordinately high ratings for a low cost brand with a Low-level Brand Image—
beating out four of the five luxury brands in Status ranking and three of the five masstige
brands—and it is assumed that these results were achieved due to the fact that the brand was
confused with Polo Ralph Lauren—a notion frequently stated by respondents in the in-depth-
interviews and reiterated by the brand itself on its media and garment tags with the statement,
“NOT AFFILIATED WITH POLO RALPH LAUREN CORP.”—A disclaimer likely
implemented as a preemptive legal protection against the frequent misidentification of the two
brands as being affiliated, which is the direct result of the former actively pursuing the
aesthetics of the latter, appropriating its trade dress and a imitating its design motifs.
Meanwhile, Ralph Lauren Denim & Supply outranked four high-level brands while being
situated in the middle tier and Levi’s beat three mid-tier and three luxury brands hailing from
the lowest brand image level according to price-based market positioning. Adidas also did well
from the bottom tier, outperforming four high-level brands and three mid-level brands. However
it is likely that Adidas may have been viewed in a light, which allowed it to circumvent the
constraints of the fashion status hierarchy as a result of its upward diffusion into the lifestyles
markets with its SLVR and Y-3 brands, in addition to its market position as a performance
sporting goods and apparel brand dawned by professional athletes around the world, as opposed
to a purely mass-market fashion oriented brand such as American Eagle. Exceptions such as
these were intentionally incorporated into the selection in an effort to demonstrate the
exceedingly intangible symbolic structure of the brand hierarchy in the fashion market.
In the online experiments T-shirt quality had no common point of reference, and could
only be deduced from the images based on brand identity. Luxury brands that produce T-shirts

275
are limited in their familiarity amongst the general population. Quality for a basic designer T-
shirt is irrelevant to the common consumer beyond the current standards established at low costs
by big box retailers such as Old Navy, H&M, Forever 21, Target, and UNIQLO. Although
brands such as Levi’s and Adidas may be a mass-market brands, they do not appear to register
in the minds of consumers as the equivalent of discount oriented brands such as Old Navy, in
part because the former have begun to market themselves heavily within the lifestyles market;
attaching themselves to celebrated designers and tastemakers in capsule collections, and using
high-end retail practices, exclusive events, and innovative technologies and designs in the hopes
of retaining their popular appeal while shedding the appearance of their generic mass-market
symbolism for a more refined and sophisticated aspirational image.
The Study 1 interview participants listed a mean of µ = $68 (σ = $36.63) for the
maximum price of a T-shirt. Meanwhile, the survey respondents from Study 2 produced a
composite estimated cost mean µ
fgh
= $44.03 (σ
fgh
= $19.19) of and a WTP mean of µ
fgh
=
$29.52 (σ
fgh
= $12.15) for all standalone T-shirts without models in pilot study part 3 Groups F
through H. The Kanye West x A.P.C. Plain White Hip Hop T-shirt received low scores on a
headless model torso while the models dressed in plain white T-shirts received high scores
across the board. This may possibly have been an effect of the Hip Hop T-shirt being elongated
as an essential component of the design. No plain white T-shirts used on the models in the
Experiment 1 control groups were tested with the heads cropped out. However it is ironic that
all of the shirts used in the control group were undergarments taken from brands such as Hanes
and Fruit of the Loom, usually sold in plastic 3-packs at prices between $10 and $20, while the
Kanye West shirt retailed at $120 stand alone.

276
Interview respondents were largely divided on the question of whether consumers could
alter brand identity by wearing designer T-shirts. The survey results suggest that the individual
cannot single-handedly diminish the impression of a fashion brand in the eyes of onlookers
through the conspicuous display of that brand’s image on a T-shirt. Those that predicted this
outcome mostly stated that it was because the brands engage in extensive efforts in the
construction and maintenance of their image and that T-shirts are too insignificant to produce
such an effect. Therefore the singular incident of seeing a low status consumer wearing a brand
should yield no significant drop in the brand’s perceived status. Contrarily, the Study 1
interview participants predicted that it would be even less likely that a consumer alone might
raise a brand’s status through the conspicuous display of its image on a T-shirt. This assumption
was consistent with Kahneman & Tversky’s (1979) prospect theory, in that the interviewees
suggested that the gains should be perceived as much smaller than the losses. This hypothesis fit
well with the theory, as it was the complete goal of this study to measure status perception.
Since a status decrease did not occur, it was expected that no significant increase in status
would be observed.
One must take care in assessing these results to note that, simply because no significant
findings were made in the consumer’s ability to alter brand status, this is not conclusive
evidence that such change could not occur under any circumstances. That is to say, the findings
of Experiment 2 did not decidedly prove that consumers could not change the perception of a
brand’s status, only that a single consumer cannot alter a brand’s perception through a brief
exposure by wearing a conspicuously labeled T-shirt. Experts proposed that frequency would
play an important role in this outcome, stating that if such an alteration in brand status
perception were to occur it would necessitate an excess of notably incongruent consumer

277
identities. Such a project was not feasible in the current study but the results produced here do
warrant the development of a more elaborate experimental design in order to test this
possibility. Some also implied that the incongruent observations would have to occur within a
certain time frame and constitute a given percentage of the total number of observations. It is
possible that while the chosen domain for consumer identity (facial piercings) was able to
produce marked reductions in perceived consumer status, other domains, such as grooming,
body type or height, may produce stronger dichotomies in consumer identity, and therefore
yield stronger effects on brand status. Lack of facial piercings is not a high-status condition in
its essence to begin with; it merely fails to symbolize decidedly low status. Several
interviewees, including Participant No. 18 questioned whether physical attributes alone could
bring about such change, arguing that an individual’s entire outfit would play a role in
producing this effect.
Participant No. 18
For example I was working at Timberland when I saw this, and I was like, “Yo! This is
what we need to do!” So when you’re at a company you get paid…you actually get paid
to travel and seek the information on the ground to bring to the fashion house and that’s
how it works. So yes, the people or the consumer that’s wearing product or wearing a
particular trend…some type of fashion, that dictates what your fashion house does…It’s
hard to answer your question…I mean at the end of the day you’re selling cool. Your
selling cool…Cool is confidence. I’ve seen Lower East Side cats who didn’t have a
penny, you know and was like Vans, some nice skinny jeans, a sweatshirt and he was
just sitting smoking a cigarette and I was like, “Yo that [guy] is cool as shit!” because he
was confident, he knew who he was. But then I’ll see somebody in California who’s

278
rocking an Ed Hardy fucking T-shirt, fucking antique denim, and some fucking shoes
that are loud as hell and I’m like, “Yo this [guy] is confused and he has all the money in
the world.” So you can’t say class has to do anything with it. At the end of the day
you’re selling cool.
Interviewees did not list specific identity domains along which status might be most
easily determined but frequently reiterated that it ‘depends’ on both the individual and the
context of the situation. They did, however, point out on several occasions that demeanor was
extremely important in the net effect of signaled consumer identity on brand status. It is also
possible that the T-shirt is subject to be ineffective in producing this change with comparison to
more expensive, higher profile products. The interviewees stated this as well. Yet another
possibility is that survey participants were unwilling to downgrade the status of brands, which
they owned or aspired towards. According to Alexander (1972) an individual’s status perception
is dependent on their status within the system of observation as well as their idealized
assumption of their own status and the status to which they aspire. Rauscher (1993) argues that
status seeking produces externalities such that the rise in status for an individual necessitates a
depreciation in status for at least one other individual, suggesting that status is a competitive
construct leading to a rat race and ultimately a high likelihood of cyclical and chaotic patterns of
consumption. This would explain why the survey respondents would be reluctant to give
anything other than high status ratings from brands that they were highly familiar with and
owned themselves—instead ranking down the wearers and shirts of brands costing 10 to 20
times the amount. Most likely it is because they would otherwise be essentially increasing the
status of others to the detriment of their own status.

279
The fact that the models in white T-shirts were deemed as near the same value or higher
in annual income than the models in most branded T-shirts says something important about the
trend and the ‘classic’.
81
Multiple respondents mentioned plain white T-shirts as one of the most
prominent historical trends they could think of, some pointed to simplicity as the central tenet of
a T-shirt which is hot or desirable, while others pointed to the future of T-shirt design being led
by a movement to “clean up” the tendency for highly embellished designs with a movement
“back to basics” and simplicity. Interviewees suggested that the future of fashion would be
dependent on trends from the past. They also argued that trendiness was more important than
price when considering a consumer’s ability to assert status with a T-shirt. Results from the
experiments tended to support these arguments set forth by the experts.
The interviews confirmed the changing of market dynamics outlined in the literature (De
Long, 2005; Francis, 2001; Thomas, 2007; Franke et al., 2009) including rapid production
schedules and profitability, audience size, and total competition. The experimental study also
supported these findings as demonstrated in the ambiguous scoring of the various measures of
brand status across different market segments. All of the brands selected for the experiments
were global fashion companies. The fact that these brands scored ambiguously across the
various status measures lends support to the notion that consumers are uncertain of brand status
when observing T-shirts and this uncertainty becomes more pronounced when brands are paired
with consumers of different social identity. Brands would do well to take heed to these findings
as the T-shirt market shifts in the direction of mass customization and independent expansion.
Interview participants stated many times that the most desirable shirts come not from large-
scale international brands that mostly chase trends and genericize them for mass consumption,

81
Plain is often idealized as classic because it resists the type of embellishment that necessitates movement from one form to the next and
eventual outmoding.

280
but from the cutting edge innovations of independent producers at the street level. Global
brands would benefit not only from integrating the consumer into the production process, and
streamlining designs appropriated from the independent market, but also engaging the artists
and business models that come from this segment. While many of the designers working for
corporate brands were also involved in the production of more subversive art and design, many
of them insinuated that their corporate work was solely for income and they were not interested,
encouraged, or even allowed to bring cutting edge artistic, style and business practices exercised
in the ‘underground’ to the world of high corporate business. Most importantly in the current
unstable market a brand must stay up to speed with rapid shifts in the momentum of cultural and
aesthetic tastes, and one important way of doing this would be by resisting the stagnation of
fixed business practices and the impediments to performance, which are inevitable with inflated
bureaucratic structures (Hattwick, 1989). A brand might benefit by employing independent
appendages that work directly in the street market and have strong ties to countercultural spaces
and movements without the restraint of strict corporate oversight. Such initiatives should be free
to innovate production and distribution strategies apart from the stagnation that plagues large-
scale operations.

281
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION—WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
This research has used qualitative methods in order to produce a substantive overview of
the sociocultural phenomena driving the infinitely complex behavior of the dynamic consumer
fashion market. It has taken that overview and used it as a framework for the design of a
qualitative study and a quantitative experiment aimed at streamlining the core tenets of that
market’s functionality into precise and tangible measures for the purpose of empirically
evaluating previously untested activities which have been observed as having a meaningful
impact on the state of our society and the constant human interactions maintained therein, which
involve processes of communication. The results of this study have provided significant insights
as to the nature of the T-shirt as a dry, durable commodity used as fashion apparel, a vehicle for
brand exposure, and a conspicuous label for identity signaling in social contexts.
Contribution
There are plentiful examples of the material consequences of consumer-brand
relationships on society as an effect of the way brands and consumers choose to identify
themselves, and how that identity is interpreted by others—especially when considered along
the domain of status. In the early 2000’s a group of working class youth from London’s East
End, pejoratively referred to in the media as Chavs, adopted the trademarked check print of the
Burberry fashion house as a symbol of their subcultural expression (Walker, 2005). Alongside
their affinity for gaudy jewelry and gold teeth, the East Enders could be seen sporting
ensembles tackily over-loaded from head to toe with the beige fielded Burberry tartan. In this
way what had once stood as an emblem of luxury for London high society and upscale
consumers across the world, had been compromised. It was not merely the fact that the youths
had exploited the prominent trademark as a designated signifier of their own aspirational

282
tastes—for this was indeed the intended purpose of the well-recognized motif. But they had
done so in a way, which was contrary to the cultural and aesthetic value propositions of the
brand by mixing this elite status symbol, which was already highly conspicuous, with a
multitude of working class, ostentatiously status-seeking, and in many ways crass sensibilities
drawn from their own deviant cultural milieu. The brand had been appropriated and the
superficial subtext of its trademark had been repurposed from an image of elitist elegance to one
associated with uncouth young poseurs obnoxiously obsessing over the acquisition of a status
image, which they were in the process of actively degenerating. Burberry would later undertake
an extensive rebranding initiative, which involved eliminating the check from all but ten percent
of their merchandise amongst other actions performed in an effort to symbolically reclaim their
trademark.
82

In a similar case French wine house Louis Roederer came under heavy criticism when
its president and CEO, Frédéric Rouzaud, stated in an interview that the widespread attention
spawned upon the brand through its recent association with hip-hop entertainers and culture was
largely unwanted (Rachman, 2006).
"What can we do? We can't forbid people from buying it. I'm sure Dom Pérignon or
Krug would be delighted to have their business."
–Frédéric Rouzaud, Louis Roederer, President & CEO
The brand had become a staple of elitist lifestyle, maintaining a low profile typical of
exorbitantly priced luxury goods. When parvenu African-American hip-hop recording artists
began to extol the brand’s Cristal label for its symbolism of economic status to the disregard of

82
The Burberry check pattern, which had caused such an uproar in Britain, had fairly moderate familiarity in the survey and received lower
average ratings for status and estimated cost than some less expensive mass luxury labels as a result. This speaks further to the notion that the
mediated effects of mass homogeneity are limited in their ability to supersede localized values.

283
the inherent, deeply embedded class implications, the house of Roederer began to feel
threatened. They were largely afraid that the musicians’ intermingling the association of their
champagne with a sub-culture rooted in narratives and imagery involving narcotics trades,
pimping and prostitution, gun violence, and otherwise criminal class activity, could be a turn-off
for their targeted consumers. As artists spit mouthfuls of the prestige cuvée into video camera
lenses on the sets of their rap videos, Rouzaud’s statement was taken by the hip hop community
at large to be racist—sparking hip-hop mogul, Jay Z, to initiate a boycott of the brand within the
community (Wine Business.com, 2006)—and not without impetus given the established current
of upper-class French sentiment towards outside groups, let alone against the non-French,
moreover non-Europeans, and especially blacks. However, one cannot overlook the fact that the
brand’s integrity was being blatantly undermined through its association with the stark
underworld tales of machismo, and the crass braggadocio of vulgar, frivolous excess prevalent
in modern, mainstream hip-hop music. Meanwhile, Krug quickly rebutted with a statement that
it had no intentions on ostracizing any of its consumers, and that all publicity received from the
patronage of hip-hop culture, braggadocio or otherwise, was both welcomed and appreciated
(Wine Business.com, 2006).
"We fully support the hip-hop community and we're happy to be served to anyone that
enjoys quality wine…We're a diverse company and we expect that our products would
be enjoyed by a diverse group of people."
–Ryan Harris, Vice President, Marketing & Business Development, Domaine Chandon
More recently, in 2013 the upscale Manhattan department store Barneys New York
became the subject of public outrage after allegations came to light that they had been
disproportionately profiling minority consumers for theft and credit fraud at their Madison

284
Avenue flagship boutique (Santora, 2014). Most notably, two young black patrons had filed
lawsuits after being detained by onsite police officers under wrongful accusations (Moore &
Adams Otis, 2013; Marsh, 2013; Santora, 2014). In February of 2013 Kayla Philips, 21, was
swarmed by officers, searched and detained under false charges that she had committed credit
fraud after purchasing a $2,500 orange sued Céline handbag on her debit card (Moore & Adams
Otis, 2013). Later in April of that same year, Trayon Christian, age19, had purchased a
Salvatore Ferragamo black leather belt worth $350 before being pursued and arrested by plain-
clothes officers several blocks from the Barneys storefront under erroneous allegations of
having stolen the high priced accessory (Marsh, 2013).
These incidents speak not only to the shifting of social organization and the symbolic
value of fashion commodities, but also to the real human consequences of the interaction
between consumer identity and the economic value embedded within consumer brands. It has
been the primary concern of this research to understand these phenomena as they relate to our
expectations and interpretations of identity, perception, and ultimately power. As
communication is the medium of social organization, the contribution of this work to its field of
study involves the systematic, empirical analysis of the T-shirt as a meaningful artifact within
the construct of fashion, which communicates information about brand and consumer identity to
observers along the domain of status. Research has firmly established the role of consumption—
more specifically fashion consumption—in the pursuit and assertion of status for the purpose of
obtaining social esteem (Veblen, 1899; Maslow, 1943; Belk, 1988; Leary, 1996; Elliot &
Wattanasuwan, 1998; Rauscher, 1993; Richins, 1994a; 1994b; Corneo & Jeannne, 1997;
Eastman, Goldsmith & Flynn, 1999; Gardyn, 2002; Piacentini & Mailer, 2004; Collett, 2005;
Husic & Cicic, 2004; Rege, 2006; 2008; Truong et al., 2008; Han et al., 2010; Eastman &

285
Eastman, 2011; Goldsmith et al., 2012). Rege (2008) tells us that status consumption is
important because it serves as a demonstration of non-observable abilities and these signals
communicate a likeness, which attracts other individuals of equal ability in order to produce
what are called complimentary interactions whereby they might produce for one another,
mutual enhancements of welfare. She theorizes the presence of a separating Nash equilibrium in
which everyone seeks status and the benefits of status signaling supersede the costs. The macro
economic effect of this is that there is an under-consumption of non-status, utilitarian goods,
while there is an over-consumption of symbolic status goods. We see this Nash equilibrium
playing out in the market as firms from the luxury segment down to the discount sector attempt
to capitalize on aspirational values as a critical component of their branding strategies.
At its most basic levels the observance of status is a check on security, trustworthiness,
and safety. In the abstract sense, the fact that one is of a lower status necessitates the assumption
of a risk factor, such that there is a threat that one will take what they do not have from those
that do. As demonstrated in the examples above, many of the issues that arise from the
incongruence of brand and consumer identity deal with the presence of criminal concerns and
the misappropriation of a brand identity by individuals of social standing which is perceived as
being inferior, and consequently demonized as malicious, violent or dangerous. Violent crime is
disproportionately committed by individuals from the lowest income (i.e. status) segments of
the population, and the public understanding of this fact is exacerbated by the occurrence of
what theorists term the mean world syndrome (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). It does not help the
case that many countercultural movements—as political reactions to oppression and
disenfranchisement from society’s conformist mainstream—are rooted in the symbolism of
aggressive and violent temperament as a mechanism of self-defense.

286
However, in a more practical sense, Rauscher’s (1993) assertion of the inherent rat race
of the status hierarchy reveals the self-indulgent nature of status seeking behavior, and the
tendency toward discrimination that it inevitably results in. Husic and Cicic’s (2009) “snob
effect” informs us that the distinction of taste outlined by theorists (Macdonald 1952; Fussel,
1983; Bourdieu, 1984) as a qualifier of class and therefore life experience, has a high potential
for employment in the conduct of systemic oppression. Beyond the benefits of identification and
product certainty, the labeling of consumer goods according to brand yields the demarcation of
brand status within a market hierarchy. The conspicuous display of brands on products—
especially those whose value propositions are premised on assertions of status—results in the
labeling of people according to a social hierarchy. This, in turn, leads to the coordinated
schematizing of a categorical ‘other’ who is irrationally assumed to hold different values from
the in-group when they are of lower status. In fashion all groups aspire towards the highest level
and seek to distinguish themselves from groups of lower status through the consumption of
trends, which are validated by the groups above them (whether they have initiated them or not)
(Veblen, 1899; Goffman, 1956). This results in those who are ‘others’ being idealized as
undesirable, stereotyped as problematic, and feared as potentially dangerous. The net effect of
this is demonstrated in the above stated public accounts, which present a threat to the stability of
our society. This research has brought forth evidence for the notion that brands can raise or
lower the perceived status of an individual in the eyes and minds of observers, and this is a
valuable insight to brands, to consumers and to the discipline of communication. It provides
society with the impetus to direct brands to assert their market status in a way that is socially
responsible; to engage consumers with their products based upon qualitative values rather than
the deceptive artifice of superficial prestige. It provides consumers with a clearer understanding

287
of the tangible effects of their self-presentational decisions and useful knowledge for warding
off biases, prejudice, and discrimination. Finally, it provides scholars with a fundamental
reference point for the future assessment of brand value, social status perception, and the
communication of identity.
Implications
This research is useful to marketers because pricing schemes and market positioning
have become disrupted such that there is no longer a clear delineation of the combined pricing,
quality level, and perceived social status offered by different brands (Meyers, 2004). This is
because many brands with low prices now offer exceptional quality and have secured
consumers from status levels across the market spectrum, while high priced brands have in
many cases lost ground to more affordable lines not traditionally held as competitive product.
Meanwhile, consumption patterns appear to be more dynamic than ever across consumer
demographics complicating the identities of the ideal consumers of different brands and
therefore the proposed images of those brands and likewise their value propositions (Gardyn,
2002; Meyers, 2004; Truong et al., 2008). The pricing, the product expectations, and the real
world perception of a brand have all become ambiguous and capricious. It is important for
brands and consumers to have a precise idea about these values.
Brands need to know where they stand in the eyes of the public, whether their target
consumers are effectively conveying their band image through conspicuous product
consumption and to what degree non-target consumers are affecting that image and in what
ways. Similarly, consumers asserting-, aspiring towards-, or avoiding the misconception of a
given status need to have a sound idea about the quality offered at particular price points by the
brands they consume as well as the legitimacy of the value propositions those brands offer in

288
the eyes of their select social milieus as well as the general public (Eastman, Goldsmith &
Flynn, 1999; Han et al., 2010; Eastman & Eastman, 2011). With the exception of cost
prohibitive luxury fashion houses, and niche apparel lines, it is highly unlikely that a large
fashion brand will be able to maintain a loyal or even engaged consumer audience that is
exclusively composed of its target population (Gardyn, 2002; Meyers, 2004; Truong et
al.,2008). Transitions in the modern sensibility of fashion consumption have brought about a
more democratic structure within the fashion system whereby large firms are forced to compete
with independent producers. Expansions in new media technology, especially in printing but
also in communication, have reshaped the landscape of production and consumption in fashion
(Jenkins, 2006; Jenkins et al., 2013).
Corporations might use these communicative structures to sell goods other than T-shirts.
Participants in the in-depth-interviews repeated time and again the intuition that the future of the
T-shirt industry is pointed towards mass customization. The research literature also supports
these first-hand professional observations. This prediction is consistent with the current
direction of several other business models from automobiles, to apparel, to music, to television,
and fast food.
Recommendations
Business models offering customized preferences to the consumer should be gradually
integrated into models with standardized selection. Fashion brands should be quick to innovate
and slow to follow trends if market dominance is a long-term strategy. Mass-market brands
would do best to rely on the appeals of the graphic design to the exclusion of any conspicuous
designer label branding. Mass luxury lines would benefit most by dominating their competition
in the middle tier. The ability to do this is likely dependent on their association with luxury

289
brands and/or upscale consumers in order to secure the greatest number of middle and low
status consumers who desire to appear otherwise through their association with these product
lines.
If profitability is the primary goal, mid-, and low-tier brands entering or repositioning in
the market should emulate the marketing and aesthetic philosophies employed by firms in the
upper echelons of the fashion hierarchy and mix them with distribution and sales strategies
typical of the discount segment. On the contrary, brands from the higher ranks of fashion should
seek to engage in collaborative collections with respected, high style, budget and discount
labels, preferably operating on fast fashion models. These campaigns produce a legitimate space
for luxury labels to break with the austerity marketing definitive of their segment, which serves
to maximize WTP and therefore profit margins, while minimizing exposure, and therefore
profitability. By descending to the lower market consumer many luxury brands will gain much
needed recognition—as demonstrated in the experiments with brands like Balmain and
McQueen—and enhance the esteem for their principle collections by offering a small taste of
their value proposition, which is consistent with their brand ethos yet accessible without
compromising its exclusivity. Fast fashion business models, especially the collaborative capsule
collections, have recontextualized the value systems that have maintained the façades of brand
status in the fashion industry for decades. As both name and image are now subject to the
challenges of a well-informed consumer audience that has been empowered with the ability to
produce and distribute their own trends in fashion, corporate organizations, both high and low,
would do well to engage every section of the market lest they be deposed due to
overconcentration in a single sector that is suddenly overrun by rapid market changes.

290
Brand prominence is beneficial for fashion labels seeking saturation and popularity more
than esteem. Therefore brands with these agendas should include explicit brand identification
conspicuously about the outer surface of their T-shirts. This advice is given with the caveat that
this profitability enjoys a limited timespan after which the brand’s cachet is subject to become
bankrupt. It should also be acknowledged that oversaturation under these strategies is likely to
accelerate the bankruptcy process if an excess of non-targeted consumers engages the brand,
such as older audiences or groups from socially deviant fringe cultural movements or if the
brand and its products, though popular, are found to be vulgar or in bad taste.
83

Though it was not demonstrated during the experiment that non-target consumers would
necessarily lower perceived brand status with T-shirts, these findings were produced under a
specific set of limited circumstances. One of the most profound findings of this study was that
brands were perceived as being of lower status when presented on a T-shirt. Furthermore model
images in general, even with cropped heads, tended to lower perceived brand status. Therefore
fashion firms seeking to maintain or augment status would benefit, in the current climate, to sell
T-shirts without conspicuous identifying trademarks or models. Results from the in-depth-
interviews suggested that repeated exposure with non-targeted consumers would alter the
perceived value proposition and status of the brand in the absence of heavy defensive marketing
activities to counter these perceptions. However such an experiment was beyond the scope of
the current study due to issues of feasibility.
The drive towards customization is universal but the use of communicated identity along
the specified frequency of a unique niche being utilized as a point of value may appeal to
consumers in certain markets, and to set that niche as a status symbol may prove to be a
valuable lure to non-targeted consumers. This is especially important considering that with T-

83
As in the case with—according to interviewees the now passé —Ed Hardy clothing license line by Christian Audigier.

291
shirts the product cycle renews itself upon the initiation of a trend’s distribution to groups
external to the target. As fashion is always seeking ‘the new’ the target audience (i.e.
innovators) on the cutting edge of trends in design will withdraw from its use by the time it
reaches secondary consumers (i.e. early adopters). The organization that capitalizes on these
dynamics with a distribution strategy catering closely to fashion’s rapid paced diffusion of
innovation will maximize returns as competitors trail behind. Most important to such a strategy
is an understanding of the sociocultural climate and the momentum of the current market, which
is necessary for making accurate predictions about the future direction of tastes, trends, and
business practices.
Limitations
The sampling method for Study 1 had definite limits, which were potential compromises
to both internal and external validity. The snowballing technique for the in-depth interviews,
even though rooted from multiple distinct sources, increases the probability that like-minded
respondents were recruited for the study, and that these individuals have shared opinions,
biases, preferences, and worldview. However, the fashion industry, like most prestige career
fields in the arts and entertainment, is composed of a very small circle of members. The industry
is exclusive and occupies some of the most elite social spaces in the world (e.g. fashion shows,
awards ceremonies, etc.). Access to these circles is very difficult to come by, and once obtained
it became obvious that there was a heavy overlap in degrees of separation between members of
the sector. This became especially apparent when, in conducting this research, interviewees
sourced from different root contacts were discovered to have known one another. Interview
respondents were also randomly reencountered in the streets, in retail spaces, and at events on
several separate occasions. In other words, had a more randomized sampling method been used,

292
it is still likely that participants would have held shared a similar degree of opinions, biases and
preferences as there is a very limited range of separation between any one member of this
industry and another.
The use of mTurk workers on the Amazon crowdsourcing website also presented
compromises to the validity of the research and findings of Study 2. Because the experiment
sought to build a solid argument through extensive condition testing and large sample size, the
rate of compensation per participant was driven down. The low value of the assignment likely
diminished the quality of the responses taken from an outlet that already represents a non-
standard segment of the population. Although the $0.25 and $0.50 were confirmed to have no
statistically significant difference in response, it is likely that the difference between $0.50 and
$1.00 or $2.00 will not have been as close. Workers on mTurk who have not attained Master
certification—which was not set as a criteria for this study in order to maintain cost—frequently
earn less than the federal minimum wage, meaning they legally earn less for their labor than
nearly the entire population. This places them in a special condition, which is decidedly not
representative of the general population and presents uncertainty in their ability to provide valid
responses to a questionnaire rather than rushed and ill-considered answers.
Another significant limitation in terms of applicability involves the lack of diversity in
the stimulus. For the sake of control only white males whose photographs were taken from
rosters of major modeling agencies were used in the survey design. Their heads were then
superimposed onto the bodies of commercial catalog models from the online stores of brands,
boutiques and department retailers. Despite the fact that the piercings served as a valid
attenuator of the various measures of status, the models and the torsos used all belonged to
individuals who by dint of their very narrowly acquired professions have been certified by the

293
arbiters of taste and fashion as being at the pinnacle of physical attractiveness through their
presence in the aforementioned sources. Because their images were so high to begin with,
whatever values were lost as a result of the piercings may not have been enough to lower or be
lowered by the status of a brand using a T-shirt in the same way that it would for ordinary
people. Moreover, piercings are probably one of the less common ways that individuals are
downgraded in perceived status by onlookers with comparison to other aspects of self-
presentation such as body-type, grooming, facial symmetry, skin tone and clarity, race, eye
color, hair color, demeanor, speaking style, vocal tone, accent, use of grammar, accessories,
clothing fit, clothing detailing, facial expression, context, etc. It was obvious by the special
conditions using suits that the brand of T-shirt was much less significant in determining
perceived status than the class of garments used for dress and the total styling of the individual.
Part of the intended design of this dissertation was to provide an analysis of the T-shirt
as a medium for identity from a diverse and comprehensive intellectual framework. Although
this method has subtracted from the specificity of the study, it has given it an advantage in its
ability to assess its subject through multiple scholastic lenses simultaneously, thereby providing
a rich space for the contemplation of its arguments from unique perspectives. The intention here
was to introduce an academic conversation driven by cosmopolitan values and an appreciation
for knowledge and learning beyond the esoteric scope of our nominal disciplines; moreover, one
that could reach beyond the boundaries of the academy at large offering insights to general
audiences on a wide array of social activity. As a field of research, communication lends itself
to this plurality of interests because it embraces every area within the social sciences while
maintaining a well-defined canonical legacy and unique group of theories and methodologies
designated to its practice.

294
Future Research
Study 2 was able to collect demographic data including information for resident state
and zip code. The analysis of this data was beyond the feasible scope of this already extensive
project; however, future research may utilize this information to produce assessments of
consumer perceptions according to socio-political configurations, population density, and
geographic boundaries. Studies drawn from this research could provide profound understanding
on the distribution of certain sociopolitical values such as the understanding of class, the
significance of material possessions, and the basis of normative stereotypes in different regions.
Research of this nature could lead to further lines of inquiry regarding the often-cited notion of
cultural homogenization brought about by modern telecommunications. This work would apply
to studies on social justice, equality, and the role of brands in processes of discrimination based
on appearance as well. Such findings would also be useful to marketers by providing indications
of brand penetration, preference, and taste—determining the need for market spending and
having the potential to identify untapped audiences who have a proclivity for aspirational
spending but have lagged behind the mainstream obsession with lifestyle and status branding.
It would be interesting to determine in what ways different products influence brand
perception and consumer perception. While T-shirts may be the most conspicuous of fashion
garments, there are others that also have high degrees of conspicuousness and may be viewed
by observers as more significant in the determination of status as a result of their higher profile
within the scope of a collection. Handbags and other accessories may serve well as alternatives
to the T-shirt, despite their higher production costs, lower levels of accessibility, and potentially
lower profit margins. Such a study would also shift the sample of brands that could be utilized
for its analysis because loud conspicuous branding of accessories is most prominent in the

295
luxury and aspirational sectors, and is relatively uncommon to many of the brands selected here
such as VAN’S, Old Navy, True Religion, Gap, and Levi’s. This line of inquiry might also be
interesting because accessories are often viewed as the last line of mass accessibility into the
luxury market. Likewise, it may also be of benefit to conduct a similar study testing for high-
ticket items from the principle collections of luxury brands alongside middle-, and low-level
brands. It is important to decipher the various conditions under which the influence of identity
for both brands and consumers is effective through the consumption and conspicuous display of
brands. Fashion is a multi-billion dollar industry, much of which is hinged on the assumptions
of brand value propositions as valid social constructs. To elucidate the inner workings of the
system that maintains those propositions would be of tremendous value to stakeholders of every
variety.
Another topic of interest, which was addressed frequently throughout the interviewing
process but proved beyond of the scope of this study was the issue of counterfeiting, including
the circumstances surrounding its assumed incidence and its sustained tendency to devalue both
brand and consumer status. To test authentic goods against counterfeit goods and against
consumer identity, given a well-defined set of parameters, would not only be insightful, but it
could challenge the legitimacy of branding as a business practice altogether in many respects.
On a deeper philosophical level such research would bring to attention the conflict that arises
from the complex and arbitrary notion of intellectual property. Fashion is somewhat unique in
that an apparel design cannot be copyrighted, trademarked, or patented against imitation on the
merits of its form factor alone, but brand identities—meaning names and logos—are always
protected by trademark and/or copyright law.

296
Because apparel brands cannot deny the sale of their property to specific consumers they
must exercise proximate measures of audience control through exclusionary sales tactics such as
pricing, sizing, and distribution. Yet, even with these deterrents the most incongruent consumers
often tend to be the most extroverted, vociferous, and flamboyant about their appropriated use
of brands, especially status brands. When considerations of counterfeiting are brought into this
conversation it becomes evident that the strength of any brand’s identity is fleeting in the face of
the power of the crowd in the current market environment. There are multiple levels of quality
within the black markets that facilitate counterfeit goods. When that quality matches and even
exceeds the quality of the authentic products, what then becomes the significance of our
idealized notion of authenticity and counterfeit?
We typically think of counterfeiting in terms of fiat currency—which mediates the
storage of value in a rational exchange economy—such that a party has violated the symbolism
of the fiat by producing currency that has not been staked against any tangible value of material
object or action. Though the value of a brand identity is symbolic, we understand that the
magnitude of that symbolic value has, in many cases, failed to be pitted against a
proportionately valued good or service or combination thereof. Therefore, the brand, unlike the
fiat—which has been notoriously decried as suspect in terms of its validity—is a construct of
artifice in its own right, because it has proposed a value, which has not been publicly sanctioned
by any official standard, and holds no guarantee of its continuance. When a brand has been
counterfeited, unless the consumer is unwitting to the fraud, the seller has not truly subtracted
anything from the economy of the brand’s market.
84
They have in many cases committed a
lesser fraud than the brand because in terms of the economy of rational exchange, they have

84
Corporations are notorious for insisting that every form of regulation doled upon their activities is a violation of the fair and free market
economy, while simultaneously insisting that their intellectual property rights be protected and enforced by the laws of the same governments
that seek to protect the interests of all of their constituents through the regulation of business.

297
provided a good whose exchange value lies within closer proportion to the material value of its
production. However, brands argue that by allowing individuals who cannot afford their
products to purchase them at discounted prices
85
, the counterfeiter has undermined the validity
of the brand’s value proposition by putting its products in the hands of consumers who have not
obtained the status necessary to properly exemplify the brand’s values through their association.
On the contrary, by allowing individuals who can afford their products to purchase them at
discounted prices, the counterfeiter has stolen a customer who would otherwise have no means
of acquiring that brand’s quality products and its proposed material and symbolic value other
than to purchase them from their rightful creator.
When observers view counterfeit goods, if they do not recognize them as fraudulent,
they must determine how well the consumer’s identity exemplifies the brand’s proposed values,
then consider whether or not the goods are authentic or fake. If the goods are authentic and they
are assumed to be fake because the consumer’s identity is incongruent with that of the brand,
then the fact that there are counterfeiters to take into consideration has provided a service to the
brand by preserving its sense of exclusivity, but compromised the brand by deterring potential
consumers with concerns of their purchase being confused with counterfeits. If the goods are
fake and assumed to be authentic because the consumer’s identity fits well with the brands
proposition, then the brand has benefited from the positive impression left by association with a
‘desirable’ personal image, and they have been compromised by the loss of the sale. To
determine the outcomes of these judgments of authenticity and when they are most likely to
occur in a given direction would be important to the field. Likewise, to determine their effects
on brand and consumer identity would also be of great value.

85
Unless sold under terms of deceit, counterfeit goods are usually sold at heavily discounted rates as the main attraction for their acquisition.

298
The original intent of this study was to measure brand status perceptions according to
frequency of exposure on many different model images, however due to time-constraints and
other issues of feasibility this proposed study was forgone for the present work, and the
consideration of consumer status was added in. Such a study still warrants examination and may
provide a more accurate simulation of real world experience. Ideally it would be best if an
experiment could be conducted in the field whereby participants would be asked to rate actual
people who’s identity has been modified to depict certain stereotypes. The practicality of such
an experiment would grant substantial credence to the current line of inquiry if similar results
could be found.
Closing
From Abercrombie & Fitch to Louis Roederer, the executives of brands in the
aspirational and luxury segments attempt to bolster and control their images by means of
pricing, distribution, advertising and marketing contrary to the inherent notion of the free
market. While many of these efforts prove futile, the sciences of communication, psychology,
and marketing have rendered immense power of population control into the hands of the
knowing strategist. For the most part people build status perceptions based upon life experience
and mediated reference. Despite the efforts of some higher-level firms to dictate the will of the
free market, both the interviews and experiments confirmed that some brands at the mass-
market level have mastered the concept of the public domain, and profited greatly from anti-
discriminatory, alternative marketing campaigns including mass customization programs,
departures from establishment values, and the innovative exploration of new aesthetic standards
and business practices. Furthermore, some of these brands have gained competitive rank with
brands in the top tier in terms of perceived status by appropriating many of the marketing

299
strategies long observed as exclusive to that segment. With T-shirts we find increasingly that
the distribution of social and cultural influence has been pried from the relentless grip of
cultural gatekeepers and redistributed to the public in the onset of what has now become an
open season for competitive creative expression, which might seek to articulate the sentiments
and the worldview of any individual or group with the desire to share and the ambition to
produce.

300
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York: Free Press
Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3),
347-356.
Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of
Marketing Research, 36(1), 45-57.
Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1987). Dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Akira, S., & Ossei-Mensah, L. (2014). The construction of taste: Television and American
home décor. In K. Ryan, D. Macy, & N. Springer (Eds.), How television shapes our
worldview: Media representations of social trends and change, (331-350). Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
Albert, S. & Whetten, D. (1985). Organizational identity. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in
Organizational Behavior, 163-95.
Alexander, C. N. (1972). Status perceptions. American Sociological Review, 37(6), 767-773.
Andersen, K. (2012). You say you want A devolution? Vanity Fair, New York: Condé Nast
Publications, Inc.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status?
Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 116-132.
Arnold, R. (2005). Vivienne Westwood. In V. Steele (Ed.), Encyclopedia of clothing and
fashion volume 3: Occult dress to Zoran, (427-429). New York: Thomson Gale.

301
Arvidsson, A. (2011). Branding. In D. Southerton (Ed.), Encyclopedia of consumer
culture. (110-118). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Atwal, G., & Williams, A. (2009). Luxury brand marketing—the experience is everything.
Journal of Brand Management, 16(5-6), 338.
Baggaley, T., Cheever, V. J., & Mobley, C. (2011). Facial piercings: Do children prefer a dental
assistant with or without them? Dental Assistant, 80(5), 6.
Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. New York:
Free Press.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing:
Seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3), 248-291.
Balmer, J. M. T., (2008). Identity based views of the corporation: Insights from corporate
identity, organizational identity, social identity, visual identity, corporate brand identity
and corporate image. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9), 879-906.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (1999). Corporate identity and corporate communications:
creating a competitive advantage. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 4(4), 171 – 177.
Balmer, J.M.T., & Gray, E.R. (2003) Corporate brands: What are they? What of them?
European Journal of Marketing, 37(7), 972-997.
Balmer, J.M.T., & Greyser, S. A. (2006). Corporate marketing: Integrating corporate identity,
corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate
reputation. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7), 730-741.
Barthes, R. (2004). The language of fashion. New York: Bloomsbury.

302
Bartholmé, R. H. & Melewar, T. C. (2011). Remodeling the corporate visual identity construct:
A reference to the sensory and auditory dimension. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, 16 (1), 53 – 64.
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand
purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183-194.
Beaudoin, P., Lachance, M. J., & Robitaille, J. (2003). Fashion innovativeness, fashion
diffusion and brand sensitivity among adolescents. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal, 7(1), 23-30.
Bebchuk, L., & Grinstein, Y. (2005). The growth of executive pay. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, 21(2), 283-303.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2),
139-168.
Benhamou, R. (2005). Sumptuary laws. In V. Steele (Ed.), Encyclopedia of clothing and fashion
volume 3: Occult dress to Zoran, (238-240). New York: Thomson Gale.
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and
product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 121-134.
Berger, J. (2008). Identity signaling, social influence, and social contagion. In M. J. Prinstein, &
K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents, (181-
199). New York: Guilford Press.
Besemer, S. P. & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis.
The Journal of Creative Behavior, 15(3), 158-178.

303
Bhat, S. & Reddy, S. K. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 15(1), 32-43.
Blumer, H. (1969). Fashion: From class differentiation to collective selection. The Sociological
Quarterly, 10(3), 275-291.
Botkin, M. (2005). Jersey. In V. Steele (Ed.), Encyclopedia of clothing and fashion volume 2:
Fads to nylon, (276-277). New York: Thomson Gale.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press.
Bréda, C., Delattre, M. & Olcer, R. (2008). The story behind identitites: From corporate
discourse to individual recognition. Tamara Journal, 7(1), 82-90.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-82.
Brewer, M. B. & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this "we"? Levels of collective identity and self-
representations Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83.
Bull, M. (1994). Scheming Schemata. British Journal of Aesthetics, 34(3), 207-217.
Chan, C., Berger, J., & Van Boven, L. (2013). Identifiable but not identical: Combining social
identity and uniqueness motives in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 561-
573.
Chang, Y., & Ko, Y. J. (2014). The brand leadership: Scale development and validation. The
Journal of Brand Management, 21(1), 63-80.
Chemi, E., & Giorgi, A. (2014, Jul 22). The pay-for-performance myth. Bloomberg
Businessweek.

304
Christensen, L. T. & Askegaard, S. (2001). Corporate identity and corporate image revisited: A
semiotic perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3), 292-315.
Christopher, A. N., Lasane, T. P., Troisi, J. D., & Park, L. E. (2007). Materialism, defensive and
assertive self–presentational tactics, and life satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 26(10), 1145-1162.
Coleman, R. P. (1983). The continuing significance of social class to marketing. Journal of
Consumer Research, 10(3), 256-280.
Collett, J. L. (2005). What kind of mother am I? Impression management and the social
construction of motherhood.Symbolic Interaction, 28(3), 327-347.
Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, S.A. & Balmer, J. M.T. (2007). Social identity, organizational
identity and corporate identity: Towards an integrated understanding of processes,
patternings and products. British Journal of Management, 18, S1-S16.
Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 9(4), 341-359.
Corneo, G., & Jeanne, O. (1998). Social organization, status, and savings behavior. Journal of
Public Economics, 70(1), 37-51.
Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 9(4), 341-359.
Craik, J. (1994). The face of fashion: Cultural studies in fashion. New York: Routledge.
Cruikshank, J. (2006). The Apple way. New York: McGraw Hill.
Dahl, D. W., Argo, J. J., & Morales, A. C. (2012). Social information in the retail environment:
The importance of consumption alignment, referent identity, and self-esteem. Journal of
Consumer Research, 38(5), 860-871.

305
Dar-Nimrod, I., Hansen, I. G., Proulx, T., Lehman, D. R., Chapman, B. P., & Duberstein, P. R.
(2012). Coolness: An empirical investigation. Journal of Individual Differences, 33(3),
175-185.
Davis, G.F. (2003). American cronyism: How executive networks inflated the corporate bubble.
Contexts, 2(3), 34-40.
Davis, J. A. (1956). Status symbols and the measurement of status perception. Sociometry,
19(3), 154-165.
de Chernatony, L. (2002). Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate name?Corporate
Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 114-132.
De Long, M. (2005). Fashion theories. In V. Steele (Ed.), Encyclopedia of clothing and fashion
volume 1: Academic dress to eyeglasses, (21-27). New York: Thomson Gale.
Denizet-Lewis, B. (2006). The man behind Abercrombie & Fitch. Salon. Retrieved January 23,
2015, from http://www.salon.com/2006/01/24/jeffries/.
Diamond, N., Sherry, J., Muñiz, A., McGrath, M., Kozinets, R., & Borghini, S. (2009).
American Girl and the brand gestalt: Closing the Loop on sociocultural branding research.
Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 118-134.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285-290.
Dobuzinskis, A. (2009, July 17). Movie studios try to harness “Twitter effect”. Reuters.
Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/17/us-twitter-studios-
idUSTRE56G74H20090717

306
Dodd, C. A., Clarke, I., Baron, S., & Houston, V. (2000). Practitioner papers: 'looking the part':
Identity, meaning and culture in clothing purchasing - theoretical
considerations. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 4(1), 41-48.
Dong, L., & Tian, K. (2009). The use of western brands in asserting Chinese national identity.
Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 504-523.
Eastman, J. K., & Eastman, K. L. (2011). Perceptions of status consumption and the economy.
Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9(7), 9-19.
Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E., & Flynn, L. R. (1999). Status consumption in consumer
behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
7(3), 41-52.
Eastman, J. K., & Liu, J. (2012). The impact of generational cohorts on status consumption: An
exploratory look at generational cohort and demographics on status consumption. The
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 93-102.
Escalas, J.E. & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what you eat: The influence of reference groups
on consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339-348.
Escalas, J.E. & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self‐Construal, reference groups, and brand meaning.
Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389.
Elliott, R. & Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of
identity. International Journal of Advertising, 17(2), 131.
Englis, B.G., & Solomon, M. R. (1995). To be and not to be: Lifestyle imagery, reference
groups, and "the clustering of America". Journal of Advertising, 24(1), 13-28.
Entwistle, J. (2000). The fashioned body: Fashion, dress, and modern social theory. Cambridge:
Blackwell.

307
Ewen, S. (1976). Captains of consciousness: Advertising and the social roots of the consumer
culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fan, X. J. (2000). Linking consumer debt and consumer expenditure: Do borrowers spend
money differently? Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 28(3), 257-400.
Fan, J. X., & Burton, J. R. (2002). Students’ perception of status-conveying goods. Financial
Counseling and Planning, 13(1), 35-47.
Fayrene, C. Y. L., & Lee, G. C. (2011). Customer based brand equity: A literature review.
Researchers World, 2(1), 33.
Fennis, B. M., & Pruyn, A.T.H. (2007). You are what you wear: Brand personality influences
on consumer impression formation. Journal of Business Research, 60(6), 634-639.
Ferraro, R., Bettman, J.R. & Chartrand, T. L. (2009). The power of strangers: The effect of
incidental consumer brand encounters on brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research,
35(5), 729-741.
Fershtman, C., Murphy, K. M., & Weiss, Y. (1996). Social status, education, and growth.
Journal of Political Economy, 104(1), 108-132.
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 75 (1978)
Fisk, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-
based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention
and interpretation. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
23, (1-74). New York: Academic Press.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-373.

308
Foust, S., Cassill, N. L., & Herr, D. (1999). Diffusion of innovation: The casual workplace
phenomenon. Journal of Fashion Marketing, 3(4), 311-323.
Francis, R. (2001). Luxury for the masses. Brandweek, 42(26), 16-20.
Franke, N., Schreier, M., & Kaiser, U. (2010). The "I designed it myself" effect in mass
customization. Management Science, 56(1), 125-140.
Fussell, P. (1983). Class: A guide through the American status system. New York: Summit
Books.
Garcia, C. B., & Gould, F. J. (1993). Survivorship bias. Journal of Portfolio Management,
19(3), 52-56.
Gardner, H. (1987). The theory of multiple intelligences. Annals of Dyslexia, 37(1), 19-35.
Gardyn, R. (2002). Oh, the good life. American Demographics, 24(10), 31-35.
Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living With Television: The Violence Profile. Journal of
Communication, 26(2), 172.
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive
instability. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63-81.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1973). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Woodstock, NY: The Overlook
Press.
Goldsmith, R., Flynn, L. R., & Clark, R. A. (2012). Materialistic, brand engaged and status
consuming consumers and clothing behaviors. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 16(1), 102-119.

309
Goldsmith, R. E., Flynn, L. R., & Kim, D. (2010). Status consumption and price sensitivity.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 18(4), 323-338.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories,
history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13-23.
Gross, L. (1973). Modes of communication and the acquisition of symbolic competence. In G.
Gerbner, L. Gross, & W. Melody (Eds.), Communication Technology and Social Policy,
(189-208). New York: Wiley.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, S. Hall, D.
Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in
Cultural Studies, 1972-79. (128-38). London: Hutchinson.
Hamlin, J. (2006, Sep 30). Don Ed Hardy’s tattoos are high art and big business. San Francisco
Chronicle.
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J.C. & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of
brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15-30.
Harris, A. (1996). The white T. New York: HarperStyle.
Hattwick, R. E. (1989). Behavioral economics: An overview. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 4(2), 141-154.
Heaney, J., Goldsmith, R., & Jusoh, W. (2005). Status consumption among Malaysian
consumers: Exploring its relationships with materialism and attention-to-social-
comparison-information. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 17(4), 83-98.
Hustwit, G. (Director & Producer), Veer (Firm), Swiss Dots Ltd and Plexifilm (Firm).
(2007). Helvetica [Motion Picture] Brooklyn, N.Y: Plexifilm.

310
Hollingshead, A.B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished working paper,
Department of Sociology, Yale University
Holt, D. B. (1998). Does cultural capital structure American consumption? Journal of
Consumer Research, 25(1), 1-25.
Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and
branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70-90.
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to
belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3),
248-264.
Howlett, N., Pine, K., Orakcioğlu, I., & Fletcher, B. (2013). The influence of clothing on first
impressions. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal,
17(1), 38-48.
Husic, M., & Cicic, M. (2009). Luxury consumption factors. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 13(2), 231-245.
Im, S., Bhat, S., & Lee, Y. (2015). Consumer perceptions of product creativity, coolness, value
and attitude. Journal of Business Research, 68(1), 166-172.
Interbrand. (2014). Interbrand’s brand valuation methodology. Retrieved from
http://www.bestglobalbrands.com/2014/methodology/
Irmak, C., Vallen, B. & Sen, S. (2010). You like what I like, but I don’t like what you like:
Uniqueness motivations in product preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3),
443-455.
Ivanic, A. S., Overbeck, J. R., & Nunes, J. C. (2011). Status, race, and money: The impact of
racial hierarchy on willingness to pay. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1557-1566.

311
Jackson, P.W. & Messick, S. (1965). The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual
problems in the assessment of creativity. Journal of Personality, 33(3), 309-329.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New
York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. B. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in
a networked culture. New York: New York University Press.
Johnson, A. R., & Folkes, V. S. (2007). How consumers' assessments of the difficulty of
manufacturing a product influence quality perceptions. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 35(3), 317-328.
Kahneman, D. (2002). "Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The
American Economic Review. 93(5), 1449-1475.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under
risk. Enonometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Kamali, N., & Loker, S. (2002). Mass customization: On‐line consumer involvement in product
design. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 7(4).
Kanazawa, S. (2011). Intelligence and physical attractiveness. Intelligence, 39(1), 7-14.
Kang, M., Sklar, M., & Johnson, K. K. P. (2011). Men at work: Using dress to communicate
identities. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 15(4), 412-427.
Kapp, M., Tyrnauer, M., (Producers), & Tyrnauer, M. (Director). (2008). Valentio: The last
emperor. [Video] Los Angeles: Acolyte Films.
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: Research findings and future
priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6, 25th Anniversary Issue), 740-759.

312
Khatri, N., Tsang, E. W. K., & Begley, T. M. (2006). Cronyism: A cross-cultural analysis.
Journal of International Business Studies, 37(1), 61-75.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: How to create uncontested market
space and make the competition irrelevant. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School
Press.
Kim, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2014). The impact of power-distance belief on consumers' preference for
status brands. Journal of Global Marketing, 27(1), 13-29.
Kleine, S. S., Kleine, R. E., & Allen, C. T. (1995). How is a possession "me" or "not me"?
Characterizing types and an antecedent of material possession attachment. Journal of
Consumer Research, 22(3), 327-343.
Kuhn, T. & Nelson, N. (2002). Reengineering identity. Management Communication Quarterly,
16(1), 5.
Laver, J. (1937). Taste and Fashion. London: Harrap.
Leary, M. (1996). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1984). Everyday life in the modern world. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C. S., & Harich, K. R. (1995). Brand equity: The halo effect measure.
European Journal of Marketing, 29(4), 57-66.
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Management Review, 48(11), 40-43.
Lisjak, M., Lee, A. Y., & Gardner, W. L. (2012). When a threat to the brand is a threat to the
self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1120-1132.
Maconald, D. (1952). Against the American grain. New York: Random House.

313
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Markus, H. R. & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969.
Marsh, J. (2013, Oct 24). Barneys busted student for ‘shopping while black’. New York Post.
Marx, K. (2000). Karl Marx: Selected writings. D. McLellan (Ed.), New York: Oxford
University Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
McCarthy, J. E. (1964). Basic Marketing. A Managerial Approach. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
McCracken, G. D. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account for the structure and
movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research,
13(1), 71-84.
McCracken, G. D. (1988). Culture and consumption, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
McElroy, J. C., Summers, J. K., & Moore, K. (2014). The effect of facial piercing on
perceptions of job applicants. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,
125(1), 26.
Meyers, T. (2004). Marketers learn luxury isn't simply for the very wealthy. Advertising Age,
75(37), S2-S10.
Mishel, L., & Sabadish, N. (2012). CEO pay and the top 1 percent: How executive
compensation and financial-sector pay have fueled income inequality. The Economic
Policy Institute. 331, 1-7. Retrieved January 14, 2015, from
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib331-ceo-pay-top-1-percent/.
Money, K., Rose, S., & Hillenbrand, C. (2010). The impact of the corporate identity mix on
corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 18(3), 197-211.

314
Moore, T., & Adams Otis, G. (2013, Oct. 23). Another black Barneys shopper accused of credit
card fraud after buying $2,500 purse: claim. New York Daily News.
Morrison, K. R., & Johnson, C. S. (2011). When what you have is who you are: Self-uncertainty
leads individualists to see themselves in their possessions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37(5), 639-651.
Muniz, A. M. & O’Guinn, T.C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research,
27(4), 412-432.
Muzellec, L. & Lambkin, M. C. (2009). Corporate branding and brand architecture: A
conceptual framework. Marketing Theory, 9(1), 39-54.
Nash, R., Bryer, O., & Schlaghecken, F. (2010). Look who's talking! Facial appearance can bias
source monitoring. Memory, 18(4), 451-457.
Nguyen, J., & Brown, B. B. (2010). Making meanings, meaning identity: Hmong adolescent
perceptions and use of language and style as identity symbols. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 20(4), 849-868.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of
judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4),
250-256.
O'Cass, A., & McEwen, H. (2004). Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(1), 25-39.
Oiwa, K., Hirabayashi, M., Kojima, H., & Ohashi, H. (2013). Modeling of effects of noise-
mediated enhancements of risk perception against normalcy bias. Paper presented at the
2013 International Symposium on Computational Models for Life Sciences, 1559(1),
343-352.

315
Olson, K. M., & Goodnight, G. T. (1994). Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and
fashion: The social controversy over fur. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80(3), 249-276.
Owens, T. (2006). Self and identity. In Delamater J. (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology,
New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Packard, V. O. (1957). The hidden persuaders. New York: D. McKay
Pan, B., & Holland, R. (2006). A mass customised supply chain for the fashion system at the
design-production interface. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An
International Journal, 10(3), 345-359.
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image
management. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135-145.
Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1977). Students and housewives: Differences in susceptibility to
reference group influence. The Journal of Consumer Research, 4(2), 102-110.
Park, J.K. & John, D.R. (2010). Got to get you into my life: Do brand personalities rub off on
consumers? Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 655-669.
Perreault, W. D. (1975). Controlling order-effect bias. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 39(4),
544-551.
Phau, I., & Cheong, E. (2009). How young adult consumers evaluate diffusion brands: Effects
of brand loyalty and status consumption. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
21(2), 109-123.
Piacentini, M., & Mailer, G. (2004). Symbolic consumption in teenagers' clothing choices.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(3), 251-262.

316
Podnar, K., & Melewar, T. C. (2010). Understanding and interpreting the relationship between
human and corporate identity: An empirical study. Global Business and Management
Research: An International Journal, 2(4), 366.
Prati, L. M., McMillan-Capehart, A. & Karriker, J. H. (2009). Affecting organizational identity:
A manager's influence. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(4), 404-415.
Price, K., & Gioia, D. A. (2008). The self-monitoring organization: Minimizing discrepancies
among differing images of organizational identity. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(3),
208.
Quesinberry, A. A. (2005). Organizational identity and persona. in R. L. Heath (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of public relations (pp. 596-598). Thousand Oaks: Sage Reference.
Rachman, G. (2006, May 8). Bubbles and bling. The Economist, 20.
Rahman, K. (2013). Wow! it's cool: The meaning of coolness in marketing. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 31(6), 620-638.
Rauscher, M. (1993). Demand for social status and the dynamics of consumer behavior. The
Journal of Socio-Economics, 22(2), 105-113.
Rege, M. (2008). Why do people care about social status? Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 66(2), 233-242.
Richins, M. L. (1994a). Special possessions and the expression of material values. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21(3), 522-533.
Richins, M. L. (1994b). Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions. The
Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 504-521.
Robinson, D. (1958). The Rules of Fashion Cycles. Harvard Business Review 1(4), 62.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

317
Rivera, L. A. (2010). Status distinctions in interaction: Social selection and exclusion at an elite
nightclub. Qualitative Sociology, 33(3), 229-255.
Saxton, G. (2005). Collections of cool. Young Consumers, 6(2) 18-27.
Santora, M. (2014, Aug 11). Barneys agrees to pay $525,000 in racial profiling inquiry. New
York Times.
Schloss, K. B., Strauss, E. D., & Palmer, S. E. (2013). Object color preferences. Color Research
& Application, 38(6), 393-411.
Seiter, J., & Sandry, A. (2003). Pierced for success?: The effects of ear and nose piercing on
perceptions of job candidates' credibility, attractiveness, and hirability. Communication
Research Reports, 20(4), 287.
Sewell, D. (2005). T-shirt. In V. Steele (Ed.), Encyclopedia of clothing and fashion volume 3:
Occult dress to Zoran, (341-343). New York: Thomson Gale.
Silverstein, M., Fiske, N. & Butman, J. (2008). Trading up: Why consumers want new luxury
goods—and how companies create them. New York: Penguin Group.
Simões, C., Dibb, S., & Fisk, R. P. (2005). Managing corporate identity: An internal
perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 153-168.
Spindler, A. M. (1997, Jul 16). Gianni Versace, 50, the designer who infused fashion with life
and art. New York Times.
Stafford, J. E. (1966). Effects of group influences on consumer brand preferences. Journal of
Marketing Research, 3(1), 68-75.
Steele, C.M. & Liu, T.J. (1983). Dissonance processes as self-affirmation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 7(1), 5-19.

318
Steele, V. (2005). Fetish fashion. In V. Steele (Ed.), Encyclopedia of clothing and fashion
volume 2: Fads to nylon, (80-81). New York: Thomson Gale.
Stets, J. E., & Harrod, M. M. (2004). Verification across multiple identities: The role of status.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(2), 155-171.
Swami, V., Stieger, S., Pietschnig, J., Voracek, M., Furnham, A., & Tovée, M. J. (2011). The
influence of facial piercings and observer personality on perceptions of physical
attractiveness and intelligence. European Psychologist, 17(3), 213-221.
Swaminathan, V., Page, K. L. & Gürhan‐Canli, Z. (2007). “My” brand or “Our” brand: The
effects of brand relationship dimensions and Self‐Construal on brand evaluations.
Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 248-259.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, (33- 47), McGraw-
Hill.
Taylor, V. (2013, Jul 16). Kanye West's A.P.C. clothing collection sells out, crashes French
fashion brand's website. New York Daily News.
Thomas, D. (2007). Deluxe: How luxury lost its luster. New York: Penguin Press.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 4(1), 25-29.
Traflet, J. (2009). Branding. In C. Wankel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business in today's
world. 180-182). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Truong, Y., McColl, R., Simmons, G., & Kitchen, P. (2008). Status and conspicuousness: Are
they related? Strategic marketing implications for luxury brands. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 16(3), 189-203.

319
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819).
Tuner, J.C., Brown, R.J. & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup
favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2), 187-204.
Tungate, M. (2009). Luxury world: The past, present and future of luxury brands. Philadelphia:
Kogan Page.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D., (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Science. 211(4481), 453-48.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1993). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Tyler, W. D. (1957). The image, the brand, and the consumer. Journal of Marketing, 22(1), 162.
van den Bosch, A.L.M., de Jong, M.D.T. & Elving, W.J.L. (2005). How corporate visual
identity supports reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
10(2), 108-116.
van Riel, C. B. M. & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: The concept, its measurement
and management. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 340-355.
Veblen, T. (1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Macmillan.
Velthuis, O. (2013). Talking prices: Symbolic meanings of prices on the market for
contemporary art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (2004) Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of
Brand Management, 11(6), 448-506.
Vyas, S., & Kumaranayake, L. (2006). Constructing socio-economic status indices: How to use
principal components analysis. Health Policy and Planning, 21(6), 459-468.
Walker, R. (2005, Jan 2). The good, the plaid, and the ugly. New York Times.

320
Wayne, L. (1983, Oct 16). At Tiffany, a troubled transition. New York Times.
Wheeler, S. C., Petty, R. E. & Bizer, G.Y. (2005). Self‐Schema matching and attitude change:
Situational and dispositional determinants of message elaboration. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(4), 787-797.
White, K., & Argo, J. J. (2011). When imitation doesn’t flatter: The role of consumer
distinctiveness in responses to mimicry. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(4), 667-680.
White, K., Argo, J. J., & Sengupta, J. (2013). Dissociative versus associative responses to social
identity threat: The role of consumer self-construal. Journal of Consumer Research,
40(1), 240-255.
White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2006). To be or not be? the influence of dissociative reference
groups on consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 404-414.
White, K. & Dahl, D.W. (2007). Are all Out‐Groups created equal? consumer identity and
dissociative influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 525-536.
Williams, A. (2012, Nov 21). Guerilla fashion: The story of SUPREME. New York Times.
Wine Business.com (2006, Jun 21). Louis Roederer’s Cristal boycotted by hip hop community.
Wine Business, Retreived February, 14, 2015, from
http://www.winebusiness.com/news/?go=getArticle&dataId=43522
Wooten, D. B. & Reed II, A. (2004). Playing it safe: Susceptibility to normative influence and
protective self-presentation. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 551-556.
Wren-Lewis, J. (1983). The encoding / decoding model: Criticisms and redevelopments for
research on decoding. Media, Culture & Society, 5(2), 179-197.

321

APPENDIX A: IN-DEPTH-INTERVIEW—SOLICITATION, CONSENT FORM & SCRIPT

Solicitation
Hello ____,
My name is Stylés Akira and I'm a PhD Student at USC doing research on the fashion industry.
The title of my project is "Designer ID: Brands, T-shirts, and the Communication of Identity". It
basically seeks to determine the influence that fashion brands and consumer identity can have
on one another when mediated by designer T-shirts. If you have any time to meet up or can
recommend anyone else who you feel may be interested, please contact me at your earliest
convenience so that we can set something up.

Thank you,

Stylés Akira

In-Depth-Interviews: 20 Questions About T-shirts
The purpose of this interview is to gain insights about the influences of the social
environment on brand image, consumer identity, and T-shirt design and vice versa.

Interviews will be conducted with participants from the 2 major regional U.S. markets of New
York and Los Angeles representing the East Coast and West Coast respectively.

Within each market an assortment of at least 3 designers, 3 marketers, 3 retailers, 3 fashion
journalists, and 3 tastemakers, will be interviewed and video recorded for a total of no less
than 30 in-depth-interviews nationwide.

The interviews will be conducted as follows:

Disclaimer

This interview is being conducted as part of an academic study in an effort to gain information
from your personal insights about trends and currents in the fashion industry, particularly as
they involve branded T-shirts in your regional market. The following series of questions is
meant only to assess your perspective on these issues and does not seek to disclose any private
information about you. If at any time during the interviewing process you feel discomfort you
may decline to respond to any question or discontinue the interview in its entirety with no
repercussions.

I,
Print Name:_____
_________________________ agree to participate in this interview as part of an
academic research study. I understand that my responses will be video and/or audio recorded,
and will become part of a published dissertation. I grant full permission for my responses to be

322
used for this purpose. I understand that these questions are not meant to disclose any private
information about me, and I intend to answer each question to the best of my ability with
truthful statements related to the subject. I am at least 18 years of age at the time of this
interview. I understand that I may forfeit this process at any time after it begins, and I enter into
it willingly with full consent.

VIDEO AUDIO

Date:_____
__________________________________

Signature:_____
________________________________

The following questions are meant to establish basic information about the participant and
corresponding market in question:

1. For the record could you please state your name, and describe your vested interest in the
fashion industry as well as your involvement with T-shirts?

2. How long have you been involved with fashion in this capacity…with T-shirts?

3. How long have you worked in the regional market in question? What other regional markets
have you worked in and what are some of the key similarities and differences you’ve
noticed between these markets and other major U.S. markets more generally in terms of T-
shirts? Who wears them, in what settings, what types of designs and what brands are they
wearing?

The following questions are meant to determine the participant’s perspective of the dynamic
role of the T-shirt as an article of identity-signaling fashion apparel across time:

4. What does a T-shirt signify to you as an article of fashion?

5. What are the most important components of T-shirt design to you and why?

6. What are some of the most prominent historical trends in T-shirt design that stick out in
your mind? What would you say were the primary cultural influences of those trends? What
are some of the most outstanding T-shirt designs you can ever recall seeing? What makes a
T-shirt’s design ‘hot’ or outstanding to you?

7. What are the current trends in T-shirt design that you’ve noticed on the street? What
graphics, typefaces, cuts, colors, and brands are currently the most popular? What would
you say were the primary cultural influences of these trends?

323
8. Where do you see future trends in T-shirt design going? What would you say were the
primary cultural influences of those trends?

The following questions are meant to determine the participant’s perspective of the T-shirt
within different segments of the consumer market:

Luxury brands are fashion labels which claim to offer superior standards of quality and
recognition of social prestige which are evidenced in there super-premium pricing
schemes, meant to serve as a barrier of exclusion to consumers who do not already carry
high social status.

9. Name the top three luxury brands at the moment in terms of respect in the fashion world for
their most recent collections.

10. Name the top three luxury brands at the moment in terms of the popularity and power
(meaning ability to charge and sell at a high premium) for their brand.

11. What luxury brands would you say offer the best T-shirts in terms of quality...in terms of
design?

‘Diffusion’ and/or ‘mass luxury’ brands are fashion sub-labels, usually of principle luxury
brands, or stand-alone labels which offer more affordable high-end apparel for mass
consumption, under the presumption of higher than ordinary quality and prestige. These
brands are sold at a premium prices, in many cases in connection with the parent brand
(e.g. Armani Exchange is a diffusion brand of the Giorgio Armani principle fashion label;
Abercrombie & Fitch is a stand-alone mass luxury brand which charges premiums under
the assumption of its quality and brand status). Note all diffusion brands are mass luxury
brands but not vice versa.

12. What are your feelings on diffusion and mass luxury brands in terms of their offering to
consumers as a lifestyle experience? In terms of diffusion brands’ influence on principle
brands’ status, especially when producing T-shirts?

13. What mass luxury brands would you say offer the best T-shirts in terms of quality…in terms
of design?

Boutique street brands are relatively well recognized but independent fashion labels
(outside of a corporate superstructure), which produce T-shirts usually with a limited
scope of distribution, being primarily available at independent boutiques and online.

14. What boutique or street brands would you say offer the best T-shirts in terms of quality…in
terms of design?

Mass consumer brands are ordinary fashion brands which propose no definitive standard
of quality, and which carry no particular air of social prestige. These brands carry no
exclusionary pricing schemes, as they are meant for consumption by the general public.

324

15. What mass consumer brands would you say offer the best T-shirts in terms of quality…in
terms of design?

16. In the total U.S. consumer market, what brands would you say offer the best T-shirts
currently available in terms of quality…in terms of design? What are the price-ranges of
those shirts? What are the market segments of the companies?

17. Do you feel there is a tangible difference in the quality and design of T-shirts produced by
companies selling shirts at different price ranges, and in different market segments? What
do you feel those differences are? All things being equal, notwithstanding the cost of
production, what do you think is the legitimate limit for the price of a designer T-shirt?

18. What do you feel about the importance of trendiness vs. price, in T-shirts, as a signal of
social status for brands…for consumers?

19. Do you feel brands are able to alter the identity of an individual through the conspicuous
display of brand image in a T-shirt’s design? If so, how? What are the most effective ways
of altering that individual’s identity (e.g. pricing, image control through advertising, other
brand products, etc.)? How do you feel that change is influenced by the individual’s
adherence to or divergence from the brand’s proposed image? Do you feel an individual
(non-celebrity) or group of consumers can do the same thing to a brand? How? What are the
most effective ways? What role does status play in the ability of this change to take place
for brands? For consumers? (e.g. high, low)

20. At what point (in terms of percentages) do you feel that consumers with identities
inconsistent with a brand’s image begin to change the image of that brand…completely
reposition the brand’s image? At what point does this occur with a design? (give numerical
%’s)

That concludes our session. Feel free to ask any further questions you have for me
concerning this interview. Thank you for your participation!

325
APPENDIX B: IN-DEPTH-INTERVIEW RESULTS—RESPONSES
T-shirts in the Market
Regional Comparisons
What are some of the key similarities and differences you’ve noticed between [your
current] market and other major U.S. markets more generally in terms of T-shirts? Who
wears them, in what settings, what types of designs and what brands are they wearing?
(Particularly in New York and Los Angeles)

Participant No. 1
Yes! I feel like it’s completely different! In New York it’s…a fashion T-shirt from all these different
stores and shops in So Ho and then you get like the same thing that you would get across the country in
like Old Navy or a GAP. So it’s very different. I feel like there’s much more specialization in New York
City more so than anywhere else in the country. Maybe it would be something if it was internationally but
I think New York has a special niche for T-shirts and fashion T-shirts and things of that sort. In L.A. it’s
more relaxed, I feel like it’s not as…maybe comical? New York it’s like kind of ‘chic-y’ and like a nod to
some of the popular trends. I think the funniest that I’ve seen in a while is a Celine T-shirt that says
Celine…well it’s not a Celine T-shirt—it’s a T-shirt that says, “Celine Dion” instead of just “Celine”. So I
think that’s you know kind of funny and poking fun at some of these really expensive T-shirts out here
and I don’t know that that exists so much in L.A. I feel that it’s more relaxed and more…not necessarily
with as much print and graphic on them.
86

Participant No. 3
I’ve noticed a lot of similarities basically everywhere when it comes to the fashion and like the T-shirts.
You know everybody can...it’s easy to make and at the same time it’s like it’s actually an easy market if
you know what you’re doing…nationwide it’s the same. If you know what you’re doing it’s the same
everywhere. The T-shirts?…it depends on you know like what type of T-shirts a lot of people make. So
sometimes it will be based off a street brand, off the streets and stuff like that, so you can’t really wear
those street brand T-shirts in clubs and stuff like that… When I say street brand I mean like straight off the
street, just popped up yesterday…Anything. When I say street brand I mean like…a hood brand, basically
like urban stuff…like a shirt with maybe some weed on it or guns and stuff like that, naked women and
stuff like that. You can’t really wear that always to a club or to a lounge or anything like that so that’s
what I mean by the street brands or the urban brands… You may see a difference a lot in the urban brands.
You know like The Hundreds you know what I mean urban wear like that…Stüssy, Obey, things like that.
A lot of people wear that between New York and L.A. But then you have a lot of brands that are
sometimes based out of L.A. or based out of New York and you may not catch too many people out in
L.A. or out in New York… Yeah you’ll see it everywhere like Stüssy, SUPREME, you know brands like
that. I notice in L.A. a lot of people might have brighter colors…the tropical colors…I say in L.A. you’ll
catch more of those colors. In New York it’s more of...depending on the season.. [Nationwide you see]
that same you know slim cut fit…try to slim it down…[it depends on] the crowd you roll with or you’re
trying to. That’s what it is a lot of people trying.

Participant No. 8
I think that in one respect there is a certain person in every market from New York to LA but I think in the
upper tiers there are certain things that grab people’s eyes. In New York I think it’s a very luxurious type
of design, which sometimes isn’t a graphic, sometimes it’s cut and sew. Lately there have definitely been
brands that have brought luxury and graphic print together. On the west coast I think sometimes when I
look at it depending on the brand that I’m focusing on, it’s a little bit more simplistic. The graphics are
phrases as opposed to complete graphics all the time. There’s more of a quick striking message that
they’re trying to put out there and they do it with words as opposed to actually putting a face up there or a
scene or a picture. It’s a different way of storytelling…If you go into high-end brands I think one of the
biggest brands that people know about right now is Givenchy. They have a very strong graphic element to

86
Many participants made reference to the made popular trend at the time—brought to the forefront of designer street fashion by Brian
Lichtenberg—of parodying luxury brands on T-shirts, sweatshirts and hats.

326
the clothes that they are making right now. They are very focused, in my opinion, on finding a way to
bring the everyday garment that everyone wears, which is a T-shirt, and giving it a luxury feel for that
customer who can afford to purchase something and puts them on a higher level…I think the reality of it is
that guy who has money to spend, that’s his everyday T-shirt you know it doesn’t really matter. Whereas
for the guy who’s going out to the club who doesn’t have a big budget, that same shirt becomes, “I’m only
wearing it to the club…or the special occasion.”
Participant No. 9
I would say the history of the T-shirt has more roots in California because I’m originally from California
and streetwear was basically birthed in California. I think nowadays with the internet and with everyone
connected the lines are blurred so to speak. And I don’t think there’s much of a difference. The only
thing[s] I see are people following trends…I think there’s not really…coast to coast I think LA and New
York are such a…you know their hierarchy is different than someone from the Midwest. You know so
people from the Midwest or somewhere might not be rocking the same stuff from New York or LA and I
think New York and LA share similar tastes. You know maybe just the weather changes what you can
wear but I don’t see any big difference…only because of the weather and the surf culture.
Participant No. 12
Well you know I don’t know if there’s that much difference in the business side of it, maybe in the sense
that consumers are looking for different things. I think, you know L.A. has really changed as a fashion
center. I think even 10 years ago, certainly 15 years ago L.A. was not considered to set any fashion trends
and was not a place where fashion was, you know felt to be burgeoning and then I think that as fashion in
general got more casual, and because New York sort of got more expensive L.A. has really grown as a
place where people are designing and coming up with labels that are really relevant… You know I think
that L.A. tends to have sort of more of the casual sort of relaxed look. So you know you don’t see as much
James Perse in New York as you do in L.A. but you see a lot more…I feel like you see a lot more graphic
tees, like a Wild Fox out here in L.A. than you do in New York, but you’ll see more high end tees like you
know even a Proenza Schouler or a Balenciaga tee in New York, where as in L.A. I feel like people
don’t…they’re not spending huge amounts on T-shirts in L.A. I mean they’re still spending $80 bucks,
which is ridiculous but they’re not spending $300 bucks.
Participant No. 19
I guess to start out if I was to talk about the early years when we first started I would say the west coast
brands way back in the day were brands like ConArt and here there were brands like us and 555 Soul at
the time. There was a Canadian brand called 2 Black Guys…these were like the early, early brands and
then probably the most important I would say or influential for me at least of the California brands at the
time was Stüssy. Stüssy was like a surf brand but he was doing T-shirts and really kind of inspired me to
start doing it because I felt like a lot of kids in New York were just starting to wear Stussy and I felt like
New York needed to have their own streetwear brand to represent them and I felt like me and my friends
were probably the best people who could do it and have a New York perspective…I think it’s closer to
being homogenized now. I think definitely there was a difference then. I mean we were coming from…I
would say like the streetwear coming out of California maybe at that time was a lot more blatant sort of
“graffiti-ish” not to shit on anybody but I’m thinking of brands like Tribal Art and stuff like that or its just
blatant sort of like graffiti-ish tag style and what we were doing, where we were coming from was, I think,
something that was a little more…not as blatant you know what I mean. We were trying to get the culture
across in a more nuanced way.
Participant No. 21
[It’s] massive, it’s great to bring up Los Angeles because it’s always more. So I think what happens in
Cali in just their culture not just T-shirts but in T-shirts you can see it…like their T-shirts reflect the
environment. They’re very happy. A lot of the brands are like surf brands out there because it’s what
happens out there—it’s surf, it’s skate… Like surf brands in Cali. Well in New York it’s like…well the
funny thing now, it’s kind of like almost even but like in New York it’s like cutting edge is like Stüssy,
Diamond, which is a California brand but kids wear it out here. Kids out here wear a lot of…Brooklyn
Circus is really popular in New York. I’m trying to think what else is really popping…I mean Rocksmith.
Atlanta—Dirty Ghetto Kids, Rocksmith is big in Atlanta too. Dirty Ghetto Kids like they’re a skate brand,
T-shirt brand…I mean it’s really weird how like the big brands are regionalized and localized. But then
you have the big probably like 5 brands…street brands in T-shirts that are like saturated. They’re almost
like essential.in every market. You have to have your Stüssy, SUPREME, I would say like a good Nike

327
Sportswear [collaboration], STAPLE is one of those brands that’s up there, 10 Deep—they’re
definitely…I think 10 Deep is probably like one of the most worn brands in New York City, and I think
that’s a reflection of style like I don’t really see a lot of that 10 Deep style on the west coast…just cultural
differences.

T-shirt as Fashion
What does a T-shirt signify to you as an article of fashion?

Participant No. 3
It could be your statement, it could be your staple. It could solidify you as an up and coming brand or it or
it could be your downfall. So a T-shirt can really be the start of you and it could really be the end of you at
the same time… As a brand. As a consumer? A T-shirt I feel like that’s just a big piece of your clothing
because you know…that T-shirt man you can throw that on under anything like a flannel, a jacket, a zip
up hoodie, like you can present that any type of way. So I feel like a T-shirt is definitely is a big thing.
Participant No. 9
I’m just going to go back to the California lifestyle and a T-shirt has always been not only about being
comfortable but it’s a statement of what the shirt is, what is on the shirt. You know you go to school and
you would be like…as a kid the T-shirt is such an iconic thing…a slogan, the print, what is on the T-shirt
is part of a recognition of who you are and the lifestyle that you lead.
Participant No. 11
I guess that’s what I was saying it’s kind of a basic staple form of fashion. I always kind of like varying it
up…I’m not just like…I know that there are people out there that just wear like T-shirts all the time and
that’s cool and all but I always like to vary it up and wear different stuff but you know as far as T-shirts go
I consider it like the bare-bones staple of it and like if you’re doing other clothing and not doing T-shirts
it’s like…or some kind of like tank-top or some kind of like very casual shirt, it’s like, “What are you
doing?” [laughing] You have to be at least making T-shirts.
Participant No. 14
I think it’s definitely a classic, classic piece; you can never go wrong. With even just a plain white T-shirt,
it tells you a lot about a guy or a girl, and of course the graphics that go on the T-shirt—it also represents
who you are. And it’s a loud message if anything because the majority of graphics that go on shirts is just
the very front, so that’s what you focus on when you design a T-shirt as well.
Participant No. 15
There are a few elements that are really intriguing: one is that it’s really utilitarian and it is just kind of
like the perfect basic item to wear. But most importantly I think is that the graphic communication…I
always use like the airport example. If I go to an airport an airport is like always to me like such a
mishmash of people. It’s such a representation of the city you live in but it’s also probably a much more
honest representation of it because you’re not hanging out with your clique or in your neighborhood or
whatever it is. You’re seeing humans and that’s when it’s kind of really anonymous and I’ll always see
someone that’s like, “Oh, that’s a cool T-shirt!” Like “That guy must be a cool person.” or like I’ve gone
up to people and been like, “That’s just a fucking amazing shirt. That’s really clever. I haven’t seen that.”
So I think that it surprisingly breaks boundaries or helps you understand the person in a way…Like
everyone uses like Ed Hardy example. Like if someone is wearing Ed Hardy you’re like, “I know that
character!” or “I know a little bit more about that character!” And then it’s funny because at certain levels
of T-shirt obscurity or brand obscurity you might see someone wear a shirt that 99% of the people at the
airport or whatever it is think, “It’s just a shirt, there’s nothing special about it.” But you’re like, “Holy
Shit! You have that shirt!” …So I think it helps in creating like that...bond between people very quickly
because there is like a significance to what that graphic is. You know so it’s easier to read someone or
their interests or understand…I’ve struck up more random conversations off of someone’s T-shirt or
people have struck up…definitely more people have talked to me randomly about a shirt I’m wearing than
any other topic ever. I mean it’s always…and people want to talk to each other…if someone’s wearing an
interesting shirt it’s really easy to just kind of be like, “That’s cool!” because you know they deliberately
wore that and you’re just acknowledging it.

328
Participant No. 20
A T-shirt is one of the cheapest things that you can buy but it creates the biggest statement and it’s the
easiest thing to do to start a business. You have to be different, you have to be innovative. Graphics are
important. Product placement is important but you know T-shirts…anybody can relatively start out a
company and start out with T-shirts. It’s what you put on it that makes it more valuable.
Participant No. 22
I actually think that T-shirts are disposable fashion. I feel like T-shirts…kind of date where your fashion
is. I remember going from just wearing all plain white tees to wearing artistically driven graphic tees to
typeset message tees. But for me personally I just think that tees are something that you buy seasonally to
update your wardrobe as far as color—what’s trending in the market. It’s not something that I see as a
staple for me to say I’m a T-shirt guy. I’ve thrown away more T-shirts than I can count because I just
don’t see any value in retaining them past 2 to 3 years.
Participant No. 24
So this is actually exactly what I do. So we do find a market and based off of the market, the empirical
research that goes on, we tailor-make products for a specific company…or for a specific line. So, for
example, you have a line of hipster… [T-shirts] because that’s the market that I’m more familiar with. So
you have a line of hipster socks, you have a line of diva socks, you have a line of prep [T-shirts] and each
one of these categories obviously signifies who that person is…So for the diva you have [T-shirts] with
diamonds in them, for a [hipster] you have the stereotypical things like headphones, a mustache, a
monocle etc., which are both helpful for selling purposes, obviously right away, and kind of harmful for a
consumer because you get locked into one specific stereotype. See, this whole fashion thing is a little bit
of a…it’s all pretend. It’s people who think that they know…for example, we know that hipsters like
mustaches. So we’re going to put a T-shirt with a mustache on it and everybody who…and then we’re
going to force people to start getting into categories, and the more people who get into categories the
more, obviously, big business thrives. We know that girls like, for example, stereotypical diamonds. So
the more women who wear diamonds, the more they want those things, obviously the more business
thrives. So brand recognition is all about stereotypes…unfortunately, but beneficially for a company.
87

Participant No. 27
I think overall it’s like within fashion the T-shirt is the most democratic form and it’s kind of ironic
because you know within fashion it’s always been exclusive in many ways. You look at high fashion it’s
always been about what can I create that other people cannot get into and that’s what they aspire to be. But
I think T-shirts, you know there’s so many levels to T-shirts as a form of communication. We all know the
power of graphics and its…once again its democratic in the sense that it’s generally the most accessible
and I think that it’s very relevant to youth culture on the basis that it’s a tool of communication. It’s
something that…For me I always look at…using A Bathing Ape (BAPE) in Hong Kong as an example. I
think in Hong Kong it always…part of its strength was its ability to kind of exude…I guess wealth in a
way…Because everyone knows if you’re wearing a Bathing Ape T-shirt you’re dropping let’s say $60 -
$70 USD and that’s a critical and important part of the landscape in Asia, in Hong Kong anyways…about
exuding wealth, letting people know I have the means to...purchase a Bathing Ape shirt. So I think that it’s
deeply tied to youth culture and I think that before kids sort of expand and develop their taste it’s always
going to be one of the first things they pick up (a T-shirt) and they always…obviously you’re going to get
into T-shirts before you get into any other form of fashion. That goes without saying. I’m very confident
when I say that. And I also think that what’s also important is that since the youth is such an important and
critical part of society and culture it’s kind of…whatever youth are doing now is a barometer for society
and culture. So that’s why I think by virtue and association with that, that’s…what I think T-shirts are.

87
This coincides the findings of Englis and Solomon (1995) who found that marketers capitalize off of social identity drives and motivations by
clustering consumers into image and lifestyle based groups.

329
T-shirt Components

What are the most important components of T-shirt design to you and why?

Participant No. 4
I think for me T-shirts are really important but I don’t really do the graphic thing, you know, like for me
I’m more about like style and cut and fabric.
Participant No. 6
Honestly the most important component of a T-shirt for me…the fabric content. That is absolute…I
actually bought a $50 T-shirt once from Sicily because of the fabric content. I didn’t even care about the
design. The design was like this foil design with probably like hearts or something, it was something
completely not me but the fabric was this modal mixed with cotton, it was the perfect blend, perfect
amount of stretch, soft…I had to get it.
Participant No. 9
I think all of the components are equal. You can’t have a great design on a shitty piece of material.
Participant No. 12
Well I guess it sort of…you can either have great comfort, great fit, or a great message and I don’t think
that…I think it’s hard for a T-shirt to get all of those things. And a shirt with a message is probably the
one that people would sacrifice fit and sacrifice comfort if they really liked the message. And then comfort
or sort of the feel of the fabric is something that’s really come along in the last several years because when
it went from being, “Hey this is purely…I’m going to wear it to work out, I’m going to wear it to the
beach.” to, “This is a fashion item.” The comfort side of it grew a lot.
Participant No. 13
Cut is really important. I think now after…there was a big T-shirt boom and people were just wearing
regular T-shirts, a lot of different brands and all that stuff. People are kind of tired of that now. They want
the extra pocket, the inside-out look, the V-neck in the back, the V-neck in the front, the stitching work in
the back, the little tail. A lot of different components are being added to T-shirts now to make it look a
little more fashionable.
Participant No. 17
Yeah, I’m kind of a big dude so. I wanted to have a big shirt…Well, when I first started printing, the T-
shirt was the hardest thing to acquire. You had to…a lot of people have ideas but it was all about the
equipment, the right shirt, printing it right. So there’s a whole journey involved with that. But in the end
the…I started noticing that you know the shirts that I was just getting at the thrift store or downtown L.A.
for a buck or something like that…they had just funky fits and it was kind of weird and no matter how
cool the message is if the shirt just doesn’t fit or something you just can’t rock it. So it was important for
me to just make a shirt that was, you know, I felt comfortable in. And I think that that’s something that
crosses over into, you know just the overall comfort-ability of a shirt. You know it says what you want it
to say. It’s projecting out to the world like how you want it to…a message you want to convey.
Participant No. 28
I would say the most important to me is the fabric, the textile, like what it’s made of, how many wears I
can get out of it. You know you take now how important separates are to a full collection, and you can
have a high quality basic tee that can last for some time in contrast to when I was younger, you know
when I wanted a classic white tee, I might go to Wal-Mart or the dollar store or something like that and
buy a pack of Fruit of the Loom or Hanes and you get one wear out of it because once you wash it, it
shrinks and you know there’s not really another like crispy wear. But now you have like quality cotton in
other variance of textile where you’re able to actually wash the tee and you’re able to get kind of like a
timeless wear out of the tee. So textile is most important to me, you know just being able to get something
nice that’s durable that I can wear more times than once. You know the ability to maybe pay a premium
price point for that tee to get more wears out of it is something that’s important to me.
Participant No. 29
Well it depends because a T-shirts are different things for everyone. Right? For some people a T-shirt is a
statement of self like, “This is who I am, this is what I’m doing.” For some people it’s something to keep
them warm. For some people it’s something so that their dress shirt doesn’t get stains on the armpit. There

330
are a lot of different sort of things. But if we’re talking about graphic or fashion tees. Everyone is like,
“Oh yeah, the material is important.” And nouveau fashion heads are like, “The cut is important.” But the
graphic is what sells the shirt. If all of a sudden some dudes are wearing the most uncomfortable heavy ass
shirt but they’re like popping and it has some graphic on it, people are going to forego the comfort to be
en vogue.
Participant No. 30
The most important is the collar. There are different collars of course you have V-neck you have a wide
V-neck, long V-neck, you have a high neck, you may have some type of mock neck but in the end that
signifies what the T-shirt is more-so than if you’re talking about the length of the sleeve…the color and
the fabric…the fabric can be mercerized, it can be bi-washed…Bi-washed is another form of
mercer…well it’s not actually mercerized but it gives you the effect of mercerized for a cheaper price
when you manufacture it. So in that case why I say the collar is because the collar gives you the distinct
look of what it is; of what the T-shirt is going to be, because you can dress it up or not dress it up or wear
it a certain way. If you get a bigger size and wear it baggy or you won’t wear it baggy, you wear it fitted
then you put a blazer on or something like that; or you just use it as a layering factor…on top of a thermal.
So that dictates it.
Participant No. 31
The image on the front is obviously a focal point for me as a merchandise manager it’s always the most
important thing being that I’m selling clothing online. You can’t touch it, you can’t feel it, you can’t really
try it on before you buy it. So 90% of the purchase decision is probably that image on the front in most
cases. I do have cut and sew T-shirts now with pockets on them and a contrast pocket or a trim to it that
may also kind of do the same thing. But all in all 90% of your T-shirts it really is going to be that image.

Historical Trends

What are some of the most prominent historical trends in T-shirt design that stick out in
your mind? What would you say were the primary cultural influences of those trends?

Participant No. 2
I think in the 90s it was all about logos and labels and people had like DKNY and you
know…it was just trendy and now it’s taken on a different form…it’s still trendy but I
think there’s a lot more meaning behind and it also shows like your level of disposable
income unless you’re aware of the trends in fashion.
Participant No. 6
The first thing that came to mind was Cross Colors. Like I remember being really, really young, but my
brother was much older than me and I remember the Bugs Bunny shirts with the baggy clothes and
everything and I think that then it was more cool, but now if you look back on it, I think that was a major
break in urban culture as far as clothing goes because it shows something that everyone was familiar
with…dressed…depicted as someone that society was learning to fear more. You know like the black kids
with the baggy pants and backwards clothes and whatever but it’s…Bugs Bunny and [Daffy] Duck and
stuff. I think that’s cool because it made it relatable. It made you see it was fashion. It was a lifestyle. I
think it was the music. It was that age when music was changing, it was evolving, like hip-hop was
becoming you know, more so its own. And they’ve got music videos out now so everyone can see the hip-
hop too you know. So I think it was music.
Participant No. 8
I think one of the ones I think that we could never forget is Ed Hardy…I’ll say unfortunately. [laughing] I
think it was status. It was one of these things where you felt like you were a part of something if you had
the shirt. Obviously it wasn’t an expensive shirt like Givenchy but it wasn’t cheap. It was like $75-$85 for
a T-shirt. And if you had it, you saw that your favorite celebrity or someone like that had it on, then that’s
what it meant to you.
Participant No. 10
I’m from Harlem and I remember the ‘icy white’ was like what you had to have. And then heads definitely
did do the 3x icy white you know. You know like as we have come through the game we’ve seen like as a

331
youth I definitely wore something oversized. As I’ve gotten older they’ve become more form fitting. I’m
not the one for ‘smedium’ [a portmanteau of small + medium meaning too tight] but I definitely want
something to fit me comfortably. That’s hip hop…that’s true thug. Every cat uptown wanted to look
crispy whether they were broke or they had a billion dollars. They were rocking the icy white at the
Rucker (Annual basketball tournament held in Harlem) and you had to rock an icy white at the Rucker. If
you came in and your white was like crusty or off color or you had stains you know, they would let you
know quick fast.
Participant No. 16
For me personally I definitely think that Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren really kind of
launched like the whole T-shirt craze in the 1970s with the punk movement and I really think they’re the
fore-mother, and –father of T-shirts. So that’s definitely where I would think that it all stemmed
from…was from that movement.
Participant No. 20
There are a lot of brands that stick out in my mind…Givenchy is one of them. Marcelo Burlon that’s
another one. Anybody that’s doing something different and unique that makes everybody else look at it
and they say, “Wow! I’m going to pay $200 or $300 or $500 for a T-shirt!” that to me is key… The
exclusivity of it, the quality of it, the uniqueness of the design, the origin of where it comes from. Hip-hop
drives a lot of trends. The guys are involved in hip-hop, they always want the best of the best; the Gucci’s
the Louis Vuitton’s; the “Who’s hot but you don’t know it, you don’t know that this T-shirt cost $500!”
that’s what they’re about. Those people set the trends. So if they wear your stuff you’re hot. Whether your
T-shirt’s $24 or it’s $500. So hip-hop plays a big… a huge, huge importance on building brands. So they
like to buy things that don’t exist in this country. They’re all over the world from London to Paris to Milan
so they see the best of the best. So they go shopping out there also, so they want to stand out. They want to
be different. They don’t want to be like everybody else…Money is universal so if anybody wants to look
like money they’re buying things that look like money, feel like money, smell like money…you know that
could be from Japan, it could be from Italy, it could be from Paris or it could be from New York. So you
know it’s really ‘the haves and the have-nots’. The ‘haves’ they want the hottest and the latest and the
newest and the best so they buy from everywhere.
Participant No. 27
I think a lot of it comes down to what sort of elements, what sort of pillars of culture have always been
closely tied to the youth. And you know music, I think is one of the most important pillars of culture. And
you look back in T-shirts and sort of the association created by listening to this band. And I think the
evolution of that became more…you know in the70s you have a lot of punk bands and then the evolution
of that sort of now in this present day is, as we move into fashion, it’s who has sort of off line
movements…when I [say] offline I mean for example let’s use Pigalle in Paris as an example of what
have they done that has all of a sudden like garnered this massive movement. And I think that those are
the ones that…the stuff that…basically you need shit happening offline for it to even be memorable in any
capacity, I think. And it’s movements like actually going out and doing. So I think for me it’s…let’s say
whatever…you can throw in any cliché sort of punk bands from the 70s that were sort of very seminal and
pioneering. But for me personally I think the ones that really stuck out to me were just really clean logo
driven designs from brands that stood for something. So like when I grew up in Canada I actually grew
up…I didn’t grow up in Vancouver or Toronto I kind of grew up in a smaller place and for me something
like Stüssy actually meant a lot more. Probably more than it meant to a lot of people. Because for me that
was…I never really took it for granted when I saw Stüssy was indicative of…it kind of represented, “Oh
shit! This is something that pertains to my interests in sports/footwear like sneakers.” So that for me was
really important.
Participant No. 30
I remember one time the white T-shirt—plain white T-shirt was to me…I don’t care where you went at
one time in any state, the urban youth picked the white T-shirt and then you wear your white sneakers no
matter what sneakers they were and then you wear your blue jeans and that was a staple. And that was the
one time that I can remember in the whole history of me being in fashion that you couldn’t
distinguish…you could look at any borough in any city and they all…everybody looked alike by
dress…Maybe like 1999, 2000 something like that. And no matter where you went; Memphis, Houston,
everybody had a white T-shirt on. But now your haircut was distinctive, your dialect would be distinctive.
Other than that, if I look at you and just cut your head off I wouldn’t know where you were from.

332
Participant No. 31
If I had to name one thing that really was kind of interesting it was that time when street culture was really
being driven by crime and gang culture, which I kind of think it’s gotten away from. But there was a time
when a lot of the designs you saw on T-shirts were kind of based around…criminology and committing
crimes and getting away from them. There was a big ‘Stop Snitching’ campaign with T-shirts. ‘Warn A
Brother’, I thought that was really interesting. I think that’s kind of passé at this point but it really kind of
recognizes this solidarity between people in the street really not wanting to let each other get prosecuted,
get arrested, get in trouble with the law. So a lot of people would say that it was negative but to me there
were certain positive elements to that because of the street solidarity that permeated a lot of what was
going on.

Best T-shirts Ever

What are some of the most outstanding T-shirt designs you can ever recall seeing?

Participant No. 6
It was actually a simple shirt. It had a thumbprint on it. But it was like the colors they used. It was like an
olive green with like a blue… like an electric blue…and the thumbprint was like electric blue, the
thumbprint was like this big [signaling the entire front of shirt]. And no explanation or anything it [was]
just like randomness but the colors were fly, it’s kind of cool.
Participant No. 8
Oooh! I definitely can’t be the person to say I have one. There’s a bunch of [them] out there that have
meaning but I can’t recall just one at the moment. You know what I’ll say…the first Nike shirt I ever
bought. I was a huge Nike fan, I played basketball a lot as a kid growing up, so it was the thing to have
Nikes…just a straight Swoosh of Nike…but at the end of the day I hated that shirt because the quality
wasn’t great.
Participant No. 13
Honesty James Pierce…it was a plain, it was strictly a design…he has different colors; white, black brown
grey. The fabric [made it exceptional to me], the feel, the fit, it lasts forever. It’s just a good quality shirt.
Participant No. 14
I’m all about something that is within my price range that fits well and I think one of the best…the best is
Johnson Motors and their fit is really good. Overall I have to say…the best ever…I think my favorite is
just my Rolling Stone T-shirt. I’ve had it for maybe 10 years and it’s grey; it started out as a dark grey
when I was a kid and it was huge but now that I’m bigger it fits just right, but it’s soft and it’s got the
silhouette on it and it’s just…it’s really simple…it’s really simple, almost abstract art graphic.
Participant No. 16
That’s a hard question. [laughing]. I think it changes and I think that you know when I was in Junior High
my favorite T-shirt was my Bauhaus T-shirt. So it was just the simple Bauhaus logo from their album
cover artwork. So that’s a great classic to me personally but then if you bought me to this day, I happen to
have a T-shirt that’s a throwback, it’s a Detroit Lions T-shirt and I just love it, it’s just soft and cozy and
people always stop me in the streets and ask me if I’m from Detroit, and it’s just kind of …I don’t know,
it’s just kind of a cool…kind of a cool tee.
Participant No. 21
I think it might be that Malcom T-shirt…this was in the 90s there was a Malcom-X T-shirt…it was just so
popular…I mean people probably still wear it, I’ve seen 1 or 2 people with it. It was a huge print of
Malcom, and it was an all-over-print, and it had orange and yellow faded X’s all over it. I remember
seeing that T-shirt thinking, “Oh Shit!” It was on a white tee, the body, and it had a huge black and white
Malcom face with the picture of him pointing, and it had yellow and orange X’s. It was an amazing, well-
done T-shirt and it was the first T-shirt that I saw spread like wildfire. And I love that design until this day
because people still do tees like that, like big prints, huge color.
Participant No. 24
I really like superheroes. So I have a Green Lantern T-shirt that I absolutely love.

333
Participant No. 27
I have this T-shirt from Broken Home…I think it is…it’s just a very simple graphic, like a two-tone…it’s
black shirt with a white graphic and it says, “Hard Luck Club” on it. To me, to be honest there’s nothing
super innovative or anything but the lay it’s laid out, the type, the design and just the meaning behind it. I
mean growing up I never felt I was…I was fortunate in some capacities but also unfortunate in other
capacities. And I always felt that I’m not going to…just because some shit didn’t go right, I was never
going to let it hold me down. And just kind of embracing the fact that you have hard luck but what can
you make of it, basically.

What Makes It Hot?

What makes a T-shirt’s design ‘hot’ or outstanding to you?

Participant No. 7
What it stands for. It has to stand for something. Just don’t put out a shirt just to make a dollar, like your
shirt has to make a statement…the message.
Participant No. 12
I think you have to have cultural relevance. I think it has to tap into either nostalgia…authenticity so that it
has to feel like it’s not trying to exploit the owner, and humor. Well humor and just cool design so that it
has that sort of feeling of , “I wouldn’t have been able to either come up with this phrase or this look or I
really like the way that it’s represented.” And then obviously people who are wearing it can add a huge
part to it.
Participant No. 15
Today I would say that something that...people really want to represent things that are personal to them
and they like. An example…the way the trends are going today for instance…I’ve noticed that for
instance, more than ever pop culture is now again becoming acceptable to fringe kind of customers. So for
instance like in the first 10 years of my business you would never…I mean it was so anti-main stream that
like you’d never have a shirt referencing a TV show. It’s like, “What the hell!” Like if we had a shirt
about Friends or something it would just be…that’s not it. But now for instance if I made a Breaking Bad
shirt it would sell like fucking crazy…because first of all the pop culture is getting better in the sense that
all the shows have their own fringe followings. But for instance no-one wants to wear…in our community
nobody would want to wear like just a Breaking Bad shirt from the show. That’s silly. But if it has a
reference to that…so for instance someone had made a shirt that was the logo of the fried chicken store
that the cartel owned the Hermanos con Pollo whatever…and it’s like, “That’s a perfect graphic!” Because
it’s referencing that thing…like if I’m just walking down the street wearing that and you don’t know the
show you’re like, “That guy’s wearing a chicken restaurant shirt, cool.” But when you know the show it’s
like, “Holy shit! So where did you…” and it’s so subtle…so I think the perfect graphic is the one that
attracts the conversation you want to have. If you’re going out somewhere and you want to meet like an
intelligent lady and your shirt says something…like has some intelligent political message on it and
that…it like helps them…to me a good graphic is the one that works in real life. It’s not just the one you
see online and you’re like, “Ooh, Ooh I’ve got to have that!” It’s the one that like when you’re wearing
people are like, “First of all where the hell did you get that?” Like finding it and knowing that that was
good is part of what makes it amazing. So I think that a rare shirt that speaks the language you want it to
speak or creates the conversations you want to have—those are the ones that I like. And it just really
depends on the person themselves, like what they want to put out there in the world...So nostalgia is really
big more and more now that people are really like cultural nerds like the deeper the reference the more
you know that like if someone gets this they’re really like…and you’re usually like…when you wear a
really dope shirt that’s very undercover in its own way…the people that do comment on it, then you’re
like, “Yo! Let’s have a 2 hour conversation about this shit!”…that is what eliminates that feeling of total
anonymity in the giant world. So I think like it’s a chance for you to have some self-expression—the type
of expression you want to have, the type of conversation you want to have. And I think that that’s kind of
the most interesting tool about it…and a lot of times when I see someone wearing the most cutting edge,
cool shirt that’s really trending on all the blogs, like I’ll make the same judgment about them I’ll be like,
“Oh, maybe that’s just a rich dude that wants to be cool.” You know so there are things where you can

334
make a judgment based on like knowing when and where the guy got that shirt; if it was just a typical
shirt. Like if you can almost see if the guy made a conscious decision to buy that shirt in particular or if it
was something that his girlfriend said, “That looks nice on you.” So you can read a lot from that, I think.

Current Trends

What are the current trends in T-shirt design that you’ve noticed on the street? What
graphics, typefaces, cuts, colors, and brands are currently the most popular? What would
you say were the primary cultural influences of these trends?

Participant No. 1
Currently... like two weeks ago when Kanye West did his line with APC and he had a $120 white V-neck
tee. I mean it had nothing at all and it was a whit e V-neck tee. Also from the street but then also you see
a lot more celebrity influence… I mean Egyptian Cotton, it’s nice cotton but it’s not… It’s just long grain
cotton and it’s just the staple of the cotton, it doesn’t make it…that’s crazy to me because you can go get a
Hanes T-shirt with no label on the inside…that also plays a lot into when people are feeling and touching,
they don’t know what they’re feeling and touching until you tell them what they’re feeling and touching. I
just think that like a celebrity trend is…It’s celebrity driven.
Participant No. 2
If you’re doing T-shirts…something that adheres to something [that’s been down] the runway. I think it’s
the rappers. It’s coming from tastemakers like Kanye West, Rhianna, Jay-Z and their affiliates who are
wearing them and they’re adding that cool factor.
Participant No. 3
I’m noticing right now you’ll notice a lot of black T-shirts with a lot of religious…like that religious
look…yeah, like religion [motifs are] becoming a big trend now. You’ll have the T-shirts with you know,
it’ll be a black tee but it will have ancient Greek pictures or something like that or Christianity or you
know stuff like that, so that’s a big trend right now, the religion. I’m going to say that it actually came
from music. Once everybody…you know what I mean the fashion and music…everyone wanted to…you
know “Trap Lord” and you know “Bless Up” and the hands together and praying and stuff like that…that
new religion that’s what brought about that…the clothing…So it’s like they have to have…clothing and
music in the media go hand-in-hand so it’s like the music is coming out, you have to have something to go
with it so that’s where all that came from. You know the religion with the crosses on the shirts and stuff
like that.
Participant No. 4
Logos I guess. A lot of logos and then a play on logos, right? Like… I would say a lot of…I mean what
I’ve been seeing is like people playing off of like existing, like established brands and kind of doing a play
on words with their typefaces. You know what I like about men’s wear now is that they play with the
feminine a little bit and guys aren’t afraid to play with that. You know like putting floral prints on a T-
shirt, guys are with it, I really appreciate that. know I think that fashion is more accessible right now, you
know? And so, and it’s…you know, it’s not…that has invaded certain other spaces, cultural spaces like in
music. And I think that that’s had a huge influence.
Participant No. 13
Foils, I feel like people are picking up on foils and putting up the gold and the silver type of look. I don’t
know…Celebrity [culture is driving this trend]…I think music has a lot to do with what people believe
today in general so yeah I think it affects designers a lot.
Participant No. 15
I think that part of the biggest answer I can give is that there’s almost no answer anymore because the
most prominent trend that I’m seeing is that T-shirt…manufacturing shirts, printing shirts—all this stuff
has become so easy, meaning that you have hundreds and hundreds of little brands and it’s so easy to
distribute. So before brands would have to go through a store like me. I mean 15 years ago they had to go
through a store on the street. So you’d have to literally make the T-shirt then go to a trade show or start
calling people, collect all your orders, print them and then ship them. So you’re talking about at least a
six-month timeline before your idea that you have today becomes a T-shirt on someone’s body. What that

335
does is it means that you’re doing very careful calculation of, “This shirt is hot, it’s going to be hot in 6
months, it will be hot in a year, it will be hot in two years and if I’ve got to make 5 or 6 shirts like that it’s
an effort.” So 10 years ago I’d see that a brand would put out 10 T-shirts a season, 20 T-shirts a year and
that would…still have filler in it. So the same way you see in music where 10 – 15 years ago a rapper
might put out one album every 2 years, now it’s like you’ve got 2 albums a year, a mix tape, a couple of
features…because it’s like the guy can phone in his verse. You know it’s like it’s not hard to make this
stuff anymore and also it’s gotten to a point where like nobody has a gripe about being on an average song
anymore. Everyone’s like whatever, it’s just music. It’s just moving so fast like I couldn’t tell you what
my favorite songs of 2012…I can barely remember what was even out. So what I’m getting at is that more
and more you’re seeing less and less of the same shirts repeating. It’s very atypical to see like…Yeah
within your little sub-cultures, you have like the skate culture they all wear this thing or they all…there are
still huge lines at SUPREME the other day for people fighting to buy the same shirt and you’re all the
same people and the only people that care are in that line and you’re going to all own the same shirt.
That’s kind of like just a 20 year tradition of whatever that is. But more and more what I’m getting at is
that there are tons of small brands making tons of product…putting out 10, 20 shirts at a time. And so
more and more you’re seeing shirts where you don’t recognize it…and the trend is moving forward. I
know within a year the…basically for now what’s happening is that there’s a lot of the amounts of brands
are growing like crazy, the technology is growing like crazy, you can print 20 shirts of something. We do
a lot of pre-orders where someone…it’s like, “Hey if we get 20 orders on this we’ll print it and you’ll get
it in 6 or 7 days. So there’s a lot of things where things are being made to order for people, people are
picking the kinds of designs they want. You really can find your ultimate shirt. Like if you come up with a
T-shirt idea chances are you could look it up online and buy it. Chances are it already exists because like
all the basic references already exist. I think that the same way for instance like Instagram made
everybody like a photographer and it’s convincing…it’s very rare that I like see someone’s Instagram
account and I’m like, “This is garbage! This is all garbage!” It’s like, “Yeah you’re using filters like
everybody else, they’re good filters. It’s your personal life. You’ve learned the ropes of 2 years of using it.
You’re not taking complete…there’s still complete garbage out there. My point is like these are people
that weren’t photographers and now people are getting their rhythm where they’re like, “I know what’s a
nice photo.” And the same thing is happening with T-shirts where someone…people are having a lot more
confidence and it’s a lot less of a burden to even buy something so it’s a lot more likely that you’ll see
someone that’s wearing a T-shirt from his boy’s mini record label and, “This guy gave me a shirt.” And
“That photographer hooked me up.” So I think…the sheep mentality of, “That’s a really hot shirt
now!”…I mean you still see it in high fashion, like I’ve noticed a lot of these animal…like Givenchy and
a few of these companies were doing like these barking dogs and like those kinds of trends, but you see
how like ridiculous it is. If your trend ends up in US Weekly in like a ‘Who Wore It Better’ thing it’s kind
of like nobody wants to be the guy wearing that shirt. Ironic tees are trending very hard. You have like the
hipster culture where everything is ironic but more and more I’m seeing less and less of the same shirt
repeating. And I think that that’s kind of the biggest trend that I see right now is that we’re moving
towards many more designs and much more kind of really unique expression.
Participant No. 19
In terms of colors there’s a lot of graphic black and white color stories. There’s a lot of big words, big
numbers, a lot of stars, when I travel around that’s what I see a lot in terms of the graphics. There’s a ton
of animals. You could break it down different ways, that whole Givenchy thing with the ferocious
animals, there’s tons of that. Some kids are wearing like The Slowbucks like that animated snail, you’ve
got that. [With regards to Riccardo Tisci and the ferocious animal prints at Givenchy] I think that was him
trying to swim downstream and try to capture that. And then the other thing, the Slowbucks thing that’s
definitely linked to street. It’s coming from both ways.
Participant No. 23
In terms of trends I mean my approach to trends has always been from a distance, especially in my
industry where everyone follows the trends so I kind of scan them as a ‘what not to do’ when I’m creating
work. Because it’s very easy for me personally to be influenced by whatever is around me. So I don’t
necessarily…I’m not on all the fashion blogs and all of the London fashion week and fashion week blogs.
In terms of T-shirt designs that I’ve seen especially on the streets of London, you know it’s really
interesting, there’s this move kind of back to what I kind of call like early 90s hip-hop. You know kids
wear like Air Jordans but the rebooted versions, like very skinny pants, skinny jeans, you have these

336
oversized T-shirts. And they’re not baggy as they were baggy when I was coming up but they’re kind of
structurally loose with…slogans are making a big impact as well as a lot of animal prints; animal prints in
terms of…leopard print all over or kind of pop art-ish photos or appliques or more prints of animal heads
made in different formats and different variations. And it’s quite interesting because some of it’s being
inspired by high fashion—the Kenzos of the world the Givenchys. It’s always kind of trickled up so this
one has kind of bubbled down from fashion into street culture and in the same way it’s kind of trickled up
from street culture and informed and inspired a lot of these ideas. So I find that something that’s quite
interesting, that people kind of wear T-shirts, almost in tandem with outerwear or quite simple even when
the weather’s not so great. So that’s the main thing I’ve seen. Women’s style is a lot more casual, a bit
more boyish. So there’s not like the ideal fitted T-shirts. I don’t see much of that they’re quite loose, quite
boxy. And I wonder if that’s some kind of statement to how the genders relate, or how women see
themselves around the idea of gender and femininity. So these are things I kind of find quite interesting—
more what creates these trends as opposed to what’s hot right now…I haven’t been to the States for a
minute so it’s hard for me to comment on what’s happening in the last year and a half. So I don’t really
want to do that to be fair. I don’t have enough in-depth knowledge to say that. From what you see from
media…it’s always a tricky one because media is often very…it’s framed. The artists, you always
question whether they’re making a statement themselves or whether it’s a stylist or creative director that
said, “This is a really hot tee and it’s one of the several outfit changes or options that we’ve given you.”
And they’ve just popped it on without any kind of thought to what statement they’re making I find that’s
hard.
Participant No. 30
I’ve been in business for 20 years so I can say what I want to say. I think that the designer today, they’re
not looking at the past to start the future, they’re just actually looking at what they think is hot. But they
don’t have any schooling, they didn’t intern, they’re not doing the due diligence to know what goes into it.
So after a while if you dumb things down so much where do you go next? Hopefully you go higher. I’ve
taken fashion or items and I’ve embellished it or changed the stitch and done so much so when you look at
it and you pass by a black T-shirt, and let’s say the black T-shirt is solid, and you pick out this one T-shirt.
Why? One, because I did…let’s say a red T-shirt….Why?...Because what I do is, instead of…I take a
pantone color that I know that someone…in your lifetime…how many times have you seen a Coca-Cola
soda can…A billion times right?...What I do is I take a pantone color of that particular can…I make that
the color of the shirt right? And for some reason when you look at the shirt you say, “Why do I like this
shirt?” I can say, “Don’t Buy This Shirt” on it. So they are not doing their homework and understanding
the logic behind why people buy, none of that. They just go, “Oh this is hot!” Why is it hot? Give me the
reason. What’s so hot about it? If I can make it in shop class…or they’ll take a T-shirt, cut the tag, put
something on it and say they have a line. That’s not a line. Now how are you going to merchandise it?
That’s just a T-shirt. That’s not a line. If your company is not making more than $10,000 a month it’s still
a hobby. So when you come back to me and you tell me that… a lot of the times I hear about my brand,
“Oh it’s old…Nobody wants that…It’s wack...” and it’s this, that and the other. Well what do you have?
Well what do you like? “Oh I like Versace.” [Spreads his hands making a silent facial expression of
dumbfounded perplexity?] I rest my case! You know I’m in The Great Black Wax Museum….All four of
us…the partners have a figure of us…you know I’m immortalized. I have awards beyond awards and
you’re telling me that I’m wack because you’ve got a T-shirt line.

Future Trends
Where do you see future trends in T-shirt design going? What would you say were the
primary cultural influences of those trends?

Participant No. 1
I think everything goes in cycles. So right now we’re in more of a slim fitted cut and I think that’s going to
continue. I mean who knows how long a trend is going to continue. I think it will continue for a really
long time just like skinny jeans continued for women. Nobody wanted to wear really, really skinny jeans
and now you can’t find two people in the street without skinny jeans on because they make you feel good,
they make you…they show off what you have. So if you work to have muscles or if you work to do

337
whatever, you want to show it off, and a skinny tee allows you to do that. Yes. I think also T-shirts will
become more and more niche. They’ll become smaller and smaller. You’ll have more and more brands
doing more and more specialized things… I don’t think [fashion cycles] will go that fast… I don’t think it
will be a day …but I think it will plateau at some point, but with the amount of social media and
globalization and people looking at everything, I mean there’s only but so long until you can say you
know, “I knew about this three years ago and now yall are just getting on it.” I don’t think that that’s going
to be… Even from city to city. You even see it in your bigger retail stores. While Barney’s isn’t the
biggest retail store…it’s the most prestigious and the most specialized because you see a lot of different
things that you don’t see everywhere else. One T-shirt design could be really important, that the buyer
found through a connection and now this person has notoriety because they’re in Barney’s, but they
wouldn’t have had notoriety before because they’re looking for the same T-shirts or the same business that
everybody else is looking for.
Participant No. 8
I think they all go through their phase and this one is coming back around a little bit where luxury is
coming into play. When you think about how fashion kind of progresses, it’s always in my opinion, a
rejection of something that just happened. So while color is very vibrant and it’s happening right now
there’s always someone in the back end that’s saying, “Nah, let’s get back to the roots!” whether it’s
blacks whether it’s whites whether it’s greys…whatever those things [are] and the person is looking at,
“How do I make this appealing?” Those are the…I think that the challenges of a designer or anybody
who’s doing something creative. “How do I still bring appeal to something that’s already been done?”
Participant No. 12
I think that probably…I mean I think whenever you have a trend you tend to have a backlash to the
trend… T-shirts are a lot simpler. Right now…and it might go back to the ‘back to basics’ look for a little
while, but I also think it’s going to be about integrating technology so that …you have your Google feed
through your T-shirt or you have all your passport stored in your T-shirt or something like that because I
think that that’s what we’re going to launch.
Participant No. 15
It’s definitely happening. I’m working with a couple of companies that are working on this idea and it will
happen in the next year or so where mass customization for T-shirts is on the way. So a year from now
you’ll be able to put your Instagram photo on a T-shirt and buy it for $25 bucks…The printers are doing
sales but like for instance there’s a company that’s setting up in China now and you can literally seam to
seam full body print it, 1 piece, get it shipped, I could have it here tomorrow and it will be like my full
face on a shirt. You can change the placement and put it anywhere. So you’re going to see a lot more
companies that are going to say, “Hey, these are the15 graphics we have, mix and match them as you
like.” So people are going to start creating really, really unique 1-off shirts. In the longest run…I think that
T-shirts are almost going to become like a currency because it’s going to get to the point…not like a real
currency but like a very…because I see it a lot now. People that make shirts always trade shirts…or
whenever we needed to win our UPS guy over you know we’d be like, “Hey what size shirt do you wear?”
and like you realize 3 T-shirts gets you a lot more than anything you could have asked for. So you have
this thing of like…there’s something really awesome about giving people a shirt and there’s really
something awesome about if you’ve met someone you really like and…like if I meet an artist and they’re
really cool and they give me a shirt it gives me pride to wear that shirt and like I have a story behind it. So
I think that you’re going to have a lot more of a personal connection with T-shirts. You’re going to have a
lot more in a situation where someone says, “Hey, that’s a really cool shirt.” It’s like, “Yeah this is from a
trip I took to so and so and we saw this creature…” You know so because of the way that technology is
going and because of people’s increasing creative expression, especially the young generation man…I
mean you’re seeing the…Photoshop is not this enigma that it used to be like there’s only 10% of the
population that can use it. Every kid knows how to use it now. They know how to do the basic stuff. That
technology is getting better. So I do see a future where almost everyone is a T-shirt designer and they
design their own things and they’re trading them. So it will actually get to a much better place where on a
one-to-one level the T-shirt will lose its value because one of the other things we’ve been talking about is
the same way that music became very difficult to copyright or kind of hold on to, the same thing is
happening in visual graphics. I mean like you can’t…I could print a Mona Lisa and put it on my shirt right
now. What are you going to do? Like who’s going to get me for one shirt? So that’s what’s going to
happen a bit. It’s like if someone comes to my house and takes a photo of my art they could put it on a

338
shirt. The artist can’t say anything, I can’t say anything about it. I could try to sue them for $28 bucks. So
because of that…and you see it when you look through like tumbler for instance…I mean people are
churning out graphics faster than we’ve ever seen. I mean I see enough graphics in a day that…there are
T-shirt lines, easy T-shirt lines that can be made out of it. So I think that visual communication is going to
become much more unique because everyone is going to be able to make their own expression and you’re
probably much more likely going to have kids that….you know kids that are growing up that are born
today like my nieces are 4 or 5…by the time they’re 16 and 17 like they’re certainly going to be designing
their own T-shirts and it won’t even be considered designing it would be like…just like you have an
Instagram account or what you post on your Facebook. You know like how someone builds up their news
feed or they want it to look a certain way or they want their Instagram feed to look a certain way or their
Pintrest board to look a certain way, It’s going to be the same thing. You’re going to have a shirt that
matches that or you can have accentuations that match that. So I think…and it’s exciting. I think it’s much
more exciting to have less…and I think the brands will then play the role of just curating visual
communication because there always will be people that someone may not be able to spend 3 hours a day
searching for the ultimate thing they want or thinking about the ultimate thing they want. So there can be
people that are putting out graphics that you then use for your own T-shirt graphics but I do think that
that’s the general direction it’s going in. So less brands, more people.
Participant No. 19
It’s hard to say, it’s always changing. I think it’s cleaning up to be honest. I think it’s really cleaning up.
It’s more about fit, about color, about wash, maybe even styling details. I think that’s what’s coming
around the corner. It’s already here in a sense. I just think the guy doesn’t want to walk around with a
graphic per se on his T-shirt. I think it’s just cleaning up a little bit and it’s becoming…things like an all-
over patterns are becoming more of the graphic than an actual graphic.

Brands in the Market
This concluded the assessment of the T-shirt market across space and time. The section
that follows builds from these inquiries by examining the relationship between T-shirts and
brands. Here the participants were challenged to evaluate the equity of brands in relation to their
market position and consider the legitimacy of market segmentation with regard to price, quality
and status when concerning T-shirts.

Luxury Brands

Name the top three luxury brands at the moment in terms of respect in the fashion world
for their most recent collections.

Participant No. 6
Armani, I think his respect will never die out to be honest. He’s just…I mean he’s the only person in the
fashion industry who has built their empire the way that he built it so there is really no wrong Armani can
do. After Armani I would definitely say Ralph Lauren. Ralph Lauren is one of those luxury brands where
it does reach down to the street level, like you know in the lower lines. But his luxury line still holds up to
being a luxury line. You don’t lose anything from it. [It’s] very classic. And I was almost going to say
Dior but I have to renege on that. I love Dior but their team is suffering after their great loss recently. So
I’m going to go with Chanel.
Participant No. 20
Gucci, Louis Vuitton, and Versace…and that changes very quickly. Versace wasn’t up there. Gucci and
Louis Vuitton have managed to stay there. Versace…Versace, Versace, Versace.
88
But who knows how
long that’s going to last.

88
In the summer of 2013 the Atlanta hip-hop trio Migos were propelled to mainstream popularity as their single Versace—in which they
methodically chant the fashion houses name ad nauseam “Versace, Versace, Versace…”—climbed the U.S. Billboard charts after receiving a
remix verse from superstar Drake. These events caused a reinvigoration in popularity across the urban community for the waning brand, which

339
Participant No. 21
Oh yeah, the obvious ones. Louis Vuitton, Gucci, you know, I should have mentioned Tom Ford. I think
Tom Ford is really popular, I mean any time Jay [Z] is saying your name in a song it makes it really
popular but rightfully so I mean he is probably the best designer out there hands down.
Participant No. 25
Versace, Gucci and Givenchy…Because they’re scooping up international sales and I they’re
concentrating on an untapped market in America at the same time. I think that’s what they’re really doing.
Participant No. 26
Ralph Lauren will always be in my top 3 brands period, end of story. I feel like my answers are going to
just be so obvious. Ralph Lauren does a really good job. I love the reinvention of Louis Vuitton. And
unlike what a lot of people think, I like the direction that Saint Laurent is going right now and I think
they’ve got a bright future once people can move on.
Participant No. 28
Givenchy has really been like killing it and on the tip of a lot of people’s tongues with what Ricardo Ticci
has been able to do with Givenchy and also creating a brand around him as a designer. He’s pretty dope.
The same for Alexander Wang. Wang has been able to do a lot. And again, it’s subjective as it relates to
these two designers because you could very-well speak of both of those brands as being streetwear brands,
like high street. We could really get into those elements and it’s an entirely different conversation. Dior.

Name the top three luxury brands at the moment in terms of the popularity and power
(meaning ability to charge and sell at a high premium) for their brand.

Participant No. 4
It’s the same. They’ll always be the same. Like, they’re such old established brands and their market
shares are so huge, it’s really hard for these other brands to really…
Participant No. 6
Popularity would definitely be Gucci, Versace, and Louis Vuitton. Like…Because at this point right now
our culture is kind of weighing on trending. That’s what’s in every song so that’s what the rappers are
going to spend their money on, and that’s what anybody who gets a few coins is going to go try to spend
their money on because that’s what the rappers are doing, that’s cool. So they know they have the power. I
mean these brands were great before they became trendy definitely. But now that they are trending they
are able to make more things that are appealing to street wear style and sell it and charge whatever they
want.
Participant No. 11
When you say streets wise and you say well what are the high-end…what do people name with luxury,
like it’s easy you say Armani, Versace, Louis Vuitton.
Participant No. 14
I mean…I think Louis Vuitton for sure, Gucci and I mean Prada is like whatever but still charges a shit ton
of money.
Participant No. 15
I think those brands all apply [Givenchy, Louis Vuitton, Fendi]. I mean Gaillard for instance is another
one that like I’ve seen be able to sell at any price. I think when Louis Vuitton really brought in Murakami
he’s able to sell a lot of prices. Jeremy Scott for instance, I really am baffled by a lot of the stuff. But
when you travel in Asia there [are] lines for that kind of stuff. So really anything that…if you’ve ever seen
a line outside of the store those are the people that can charge whatever they want, because they’re also
barely catering to the underclass in a way.
Participant No. 16
Well then I would think like Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and…who else would I pick? It’s kind of a hard one,
because for salability I think that those brands are…that’s what the mass knows about. I know I’ve got to

had been a luxury mainstay within hip-hop circles throughout the mid-, to late-90s but had since entered into the realm of passé with its gaudy,
Renaissance-inspired prints.

340
think of one more right. God why can’t I think of one? I could say Hermès. [Regarding the
conspicuousness of the brands]…Yeah because I think there’s something with the 90s sort of this
like…this glorious, sort of like, if you’re rich, if you have money and you’re going to flaunt it and you’re
going to wear a big logo…like you know that you’re wearing Louis Vuitton, like because its
monogrammed or it screams Louis Vuitton. I think there’s something with that, that the person maybe
nouveau riche is you know really going to be attracted to.
Participant No. 20
There’s more than three, there’s several but I would say Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Versace.
Participant No. 30
It would be the same brands [Givenchy, Lanvin, Versace] and I mean there are tons of things out there.
Although, you know you’re paying for the marketing, you’re paying for the stores, you’re paying for all
that. That’s all you’re paying for.
89

What luxury brands would you say offer the best T-shirts in terms of quality...in terms of
design?

Participant No. 3
I’m going to say Givenchy. Their design is sick. And the quality of the shirt is real…it’s not too
heavy…for the design of the shirt, you would think it would be a heavy shirt like, “I’m going to be hot in
this.” It’s real light.
Participant No. 7
I like Commes des Garçon T-shirts even though they are simple, I actually like their shirts. Design wise I
would pick Givenchy.
Participant No. 8
Givenchy is up there…both. I think they found a great way to bring something to our level that we want to
aspire to have at the end of the day. Christopher Kane he’s doing really well with that.
Participant No. 11
I’m generally not that impressed with the T-shirts that most luxury brands are doing. There are some that
are definitely nice quality…but as far as like luxury brand I can’t say I guess I haven’t had a luxury brand
T-shirt or worn one in a long time but I do see like…I don’t know, like I’ll go around and like I’ll feel
some of them and some of them do feel nice. I know there are some super nice Versace T-shirts out there
that are just like the materials used are like super nice but are people still paying outrageous amounts? It’s
a T-shirt! Now it could be normally oh that T-shirt whatever may be, “Oh that’s an $80 T-shirt.” Well
Versace may sell it for $500 but people still buy it because it’s a Versace T-shirt. It still is a high-end T-
shirt and may be a $50 to $80 T-shirt which still is a lot of money for a T-shirt…for me that would be a lot
of money for a T-shirt. But can these designers get somebody to pay a few hundred dollars for it? Oh
yeah!
Participant No. 14
I would say Commes des Garçon or Yoshi Yamamoto. The Japanese are really good with T-shirts because
I think one of their main requirements are as a graduate in the fashion industry is if you make the perfect
T-shirt.
Participant No. 15
I haven’t really…honestly in the luxury world I haven’t seen much in the T-shirts. Like I said I think the
Givenchy ones are really killing it right now and everyone’s all over them. But to me…there
isn’t…there’s a certain peak of quality then after that it’s just bullshit. It really doesn’t exist. There’s really
no reason for your shirt to be more than $30 bucks, really. I mean like I’ve seen the best quality shirts

89
Here the participant is describing the tautological nature of consumer behavior in the luxury fashion industry, whereby brands charge
superpremium prices for goods in order to maintain exclusivity through product unaffordability [following an inverted demand curve] and in
some ways this pricing is partially justified through the high degree of financial resources which are expended on the promotion and marketing
of these products in constructing the lifestyle intended to be associated with the brand. In this way, the brand is charging consumers more
money in order to be able to profitably afford to spend more money convincing the consumer of the brand’s status as a result of it having so
much money to spend; money which has been generated by revenue gained from the high prices of the brand’s products which are justified in
their expensiveness (and thus their profitability) by the spending of financial resources on marketing which aims to produce the brand’s high
status, increasing its desirability, salability, and profitability…and so on, ad infinitum

341
made…for instance Obey—if you go to their warehouse they have every kind of shirt quality and there are
some that it’s like it’s complete butter, there’s no way it gets better than this. I mean it’s the best, it’s using
the best printing technology. There’s really no reason for anything to be over $30 bucks and especially
these brands, they’re making them for so much cheaper, except it just gets to a point where it’s a lot easier
to sell a $150 shirt to your clientele. So I don’t think that there’s such a thing really as a T-shirt quality
that warrants a price. If you’re building up the trend and your marketing dollar is in there I can see how
the price goes up but I don’t see it…I think in the high-end fashion world…I’m not saying that it’s
something that I would particularly respect...I don’t think any of the high-end brands have done anything
that’s like that shocking. I think Marc Jacobs did something remotely interesting last year in that they had
some guy, this graffiti artist Kidult vandalized their store and he was doing it…he did it to SUPREME and
a couple of other different stores. They took that vandalism and stuck it on a shirt. I think those things are
interesting when you realize that you’re kind of the joke as well and it’s interesting when people do that.
But I think outside of it I wouldn’t say I feel like…in the luxury world I don’t think the T-shirt culture
really applies. It’s very trite to me. The person that would buy that really expensive shirt; it says that thing
about them…you’re insisting on buying the expensive thing. So you’re already putting yourself in a
certain class and I also think that the whole point of T-shirts is that it’s a….well I’d like it to be a level
playing field. You know if the kid down the street can make 30 shirts for $6 bucks each I’m sure you’re
major label is making them for like $2 bucks each. So there’s nothing in the graphic…you know it’s just
the most mainstream graphic that you could possibly have.
Participant No. 16
So for T-shirts that’s kind of tough because I don’t feel like a lot of luxury brands really do T-shirts. So, I
did a little bit of research though because I was looking, and I noticed that Givenchey was doing some T-
shirts and also Vivien Westwood who always does, and then Maison Martin Margiela who I love but
usually isn’t known for tees necessarily but I was just trying to see like who was doing a tee in that…you
know, high-end spectrum.
Participant No. 22
I wouldn’t have any idea…when they do [do T-shirts] the marginal quality from a luxury brand T-shirt to
a premium brand T-shirt is not that much. I mean you can find brands that use the best Egyptian cotton or
the best Pima cotton or the best North Carolina cotton and what separates that fine quality of cotton from a
Louis Vuitton T-shirt? It’s the name! So understanding what it costs to make goods…what is it that you’re
going to really have that distinguishes one T-shirt from another? The name…Honestly, I just sourced
some T-shirts for a promotional event, really good stock of fabric, I paid $2.25[each].
Participant No. 25
I think as far as quality, Polo Ralph Lauren. I mean the first one that comes to my mind is Versace just
because they’re shit is so outlandish and to actually make all of those prints is super involved. I mean
you’re talking about 7 – 15 colors. Like the shit is cut in half, it’s made out of silk. There’s a lot of
different things that go into a Versace shirt.
Participant No. 26
I don’t know. I don’t think luxury brands offer the best T-shirts. I think luxury brands offer the best of a
lot of other things, not T-shirts…I mean Philip Lim tees are always great tees. Marc Jacobs always has
great tees.

Mass Luxury Brands
What are your feelings on diffusion and mass luxury brands in terms of diffusion brands’
influence on principle brands’ status, especially when producing T-shirts?...In terms of
their offering to consumers as a lifestyle experience?

Participant No. 1
I think it’s good because I mean it’s good for business. It’s good for the corporate business and people
think that they’re getting a piece of the dream. They’re only getting a piece of the dream! When you’re
taking a Chaps T-shirt and you’re like, “I’m wearing Ralph Lauren.” They think they’re wearing Ralph
Lauren... It depends on where and who you’re speaking to, because when I see Chaps I’m like, “Ahhh it’s
Ralph Lauren but it’s barely Ralph Lauren.” But…or when I see like a U.S. Polo Association I’m like,

342
“You think that’s Ralph Lauren but it’s not.” So I think…it depends on…I’m more judgmental because
I’m in the fashion industry, so I can see that. But if I were to think about it or really look at it, if I wasn’t
in the know then I would be like, “Oh that’s just a nice T-shirt.” I think people are willing to pay a
premium just to wear a brand even though it’s not…they get richer…I don’t think it brings the brand up. I
think there’s a lot of other companies who would look down on your business if you did a diffusion line.
Louis Vuitton isn’t doing a diffusion line like never, not ever. Gucci… They don’t even do clearance, they
don’t do sample sales. They’re not doing that. They do have an outlet. But I don’t think it… I think they
have stores in luxury outlet centers.
Participant No. 4
I think that they try to and they use it as a tactic to get customers into a different like entry points right?
But I don’t know, I appreciate that. I think it works from a branding standpoint, yeah. I think they buy into
it. as a lifestyle. Or they want to, they aspire to…You know I think that’s a case by case…And it’s really a
matter of how that company sort of manages their brand and how much money and investment they put
into their sub-branding vs their [top] tier brand. You know like, if you look at a Ralph Lauren, they’ll
spend most of their marketing dollars in their top level marketing and it just trickles down. But
umm…yeah, it really depends on how each brand is investing money…I think
Participant No. 5
I think it’s good. Almost every brand has a sub-brand because they can capture a whole different audience.
Some of the brands it’s clear that it’s the offspring of a main line but since they’re pretty different I think
it’s a good thing when brands do that and for the consumer too…I think it’s good because…How many
people can you reach with one brand? Only a certain amount because it’s a certain style but if you create
another sub-brand you can reach different types of audiences, so you can, you know reach more people…I
mean look at Marc Jacobs and then Marc by Marc Jacobs I mean it’s different but it’s from the same
designer. I think most big brands they have sub brands.
Participant No. 6
I mean in all honesty, like what I’ve learned from being in the fashion industry…because I wasn’t
interested in doing any type of like lower lines or mass-market lines like that…street wear…but when the
business comes into it you have to…because that’s where the income really comes from. It comes from
the lower lines because that’s what the majority of the people are able to afford. I mean Armani Exchange,
they do put in design effort like when it comes to their jackets. I think Marc by Marc Jacobs seems to be
kind of legit. Across the board Chaps and like Ralph Lauren, no. I think it’s more so just a head game for
people who want to feel like they have more. I kind of think of diffusion brands kind of like training
brands. You know like when you’re a kid and you shop at Armani Exchange and you shop at like…you’re
buying Polo instead of Ralph Lauren and stuff, it’s kind of like you’re training, like you’re getting familiar
with the line…you know the other stuff they have. So I think it’s good marketing, especially when they
have the T-shirts with just the name and the kids are getting it.
Participant No. 8
I think one thing that people have to understand is that any brand that chooses to go in that direction is
doing it because they see that there is some strength in what they’re already producing. The person who
was originally buying it felt like they were buying it because it was something that allowed them to aspire
or it was in their range of what they wanted to have. When it comes down to a tier, now you have masses
that can actually afford it and obtain it so the person who originally was buying it is saying, “I had you for
a reason and that reason is no longer relevant so I’m going to move on to the next thing.” But the truth of
the matter is when you look at that, they’re (the brand) looking and saying, “Yeah, but you’re a small
market.” Once it gets to the masses it becomes dollars and cents…it becomes about money. The thing that
I always think is important is, they have to find a happy medium between keeping the essence of what
their brand is and at the same time being able to broaden their range so somebody feels like, “You know
what?...Yes they’ve mass produced but they’ve kept a level of quality to something where okay, I’m not
going to leave you.”
Participant No. 11
I think there’s definitely a want for that just because of the fact that they want to be associated with that
brand but there’s…you know not everybody wants to spend…I like how these designers have even…I
actually respect kind of how they flipped it because it’s a matter of them saying, “Okay well this is our
high-end brand vs this is our mid-tier brand.” and they may have 3 different tiers or whatever there. You
have to respect what these people are doing because they’re seeing what the market is calling for and

343
they’re just giving it to the market as. I think it still allows people that are drawn to that or aspiring to that
or want to wear the high-end designer stuff like…Some people are just there they want to…no matter if
they have it or if they don’t they want to look it. Everybody wants to look good but for you to like wear
this just wear expensive line or just the diffusion line or whatever and have that name on it just to look that
way, that to me is real played out but that’s how…I don’t like it but you know why they’re doing it. If
anything it probably does further help their status a little bit because you know have created this tier and
it’s like, “Ok this is our basic like starting level, this is our baller…”
Participant No. 12
I think it’s great in terms of being able to offer it to the consumer because I think that it opens the brand to
so many people who wouldn’t have been able to afford it before, so I think in that respect it’s great. And
then in ultimately sort of diffusing the brand, I don’t actually think it does that much because I feel like the
consumer…there are just certain things that people can and can’t afford, and so I think it allows one
consumer to buy at one level but then the…you know the high, high-end consumer is still going to want
the “real deal” the more expensive version.
You know I think that, you know they have to do what they have to do to survive. A lot of companies
will…their high-end price point is their hobby and then their low-end price point is going to support this
little hobby that they have, because honestly like this premium shit, we can survive for maybe about a
year, two years…the hype dies and then you’re in the shit hole. So you have to create something that
consumers are willing to invest in, you know, are willing to buy. Because they are still supporting your
brand, they just don’t want to buy you know a $10,000 purse every month. Because honestly who can
really afford that? But they’ll buy your little bag, you know a little coin purse for $60 and you can sell that
shit all day long. You know so…and you know what, on the back end of things you get what you pay for.
So maybe the leather is cheaper, and you know maybe it’s stitched in Thailand or Vietnam instead of
Italy…You know, I mean as, if you’re talking about a purist then I would…I guess I can’t say that I would
take either side, because I do understand the back end of it and how you need to survive as a premium
brand, but at the same time I’m a purist and I stay true to the quality, stay true to yourself as a brand.
Because anybody that starts out brand new, you have a mission and you want to follow through and these
sub-brands, I think it’s almost just to do it…just to water it…it’s almost…it’s so watered down it’s almost
like shit sometimes, you know. And it’s not like the designer has anything to do with it. They’re not sitting
there designing the sub-brands, you know, but…., but the difference is that the people watching over
them; the quality control, the QC guy, and the people training them have a different culture. You know,
let’s say if things get stitched up in China, which, not really anything gets stitched up in China anymore,
it’s [not] about quantity: get that shit in, get it out, get paid. In a different state of mind, in an artisan state
of mind it’s get it done right and be proud of what we make.
Participant No. 16
I think that that’s where you make your money and so umm…you know… The lifestyle experience… No,
because if you can really afford it you’re going to buy either the handbag or the suit or the dress. Like if
you don’t have the money to afford it then you’re probably going to buy the T-shirt so… I think it just
promotes the brand more so than anything. It’s almost marketing for them.
Participant No. 19
I think that those designers of the principles brands are very much involved in those second…you know
lower tier or diffusion brands. And I think there’s integrity there, I think they’re just trying to tap into a
different market share. I think they’re just trying to grow…well it could [dilute the brand]…[depending
on] how it’s executed…the diffusion brand. It could water it down ..I think they’re just trying to grow.
Participant No. 21
I have a strong opinion about that because Adidas makes SLVR right? I’m personally a Y3 fan, I love the
real Y3s and if I can’t afford the Y3s that day I’m just not going to go and buy SLVR. I do think some
brands do make really good stuff regardless no matter what. Like Adidas SLVR is one. Polo Sport is a
good example of that versus Polo, like they still keep their standard and they offer you something slightly
different, somewhat different price point. I think it’s legitimate when it’s done by the right brand, but
what’s important is I don’t think enough brands respond to that, that don’t have diffusion brands yet. I
think some brands should have been had it because their larger overall brand is played out. It helps. It
definitely helps because it’s a weird psychology how it works with the consumer. Like you might be sick
of MTV because there’s not really any music but then let’s go to MTV2.

344
Participant No. 22
I think it is [legitimate]. I mean fashion is supposed to be aspirational, it is. It’s supposed to be functional
but also it’s supposed to be aspirational, it should reflect the lifestyle that you live. So if you can’t afford
Margiela the brand but you can go to H&M to get the Margiela H&M collaboration and that makes you
feel good for your fashion sense…Perfect! Do it. You know you can get the name and you can get the
accessibility from…Armani Exchange…
Participant No. 23
Yeah I think these brands, they do sort of sell a lifestyle and they do entice people with this lifestyle. And
there’s these two sides to the coin. There’s 1) the customer who is that guy who has those sensibilities and
lives a certain lifestyle that they appeal to and I think a lot of it is wrapped up in status and class and
aspiration. So status and class are for the guy who has it already and wants to keep propping up you know
items that he believes fit within his lifestyle and sensibilities and [2)] on the flip side there are people that
aspire to this lifestyle and these sensibilities and they’re hooked by the aspirational values that brand
promotes and markets. I think everyone does that to varying degrees and sell a lifestyle alongside a
product. I think brands are pretty savvy in how they manage their brands and I think they…promote and
push their brands in different markets and essentially increase the market value. And they’re extremely
savvy and they generate enough revenue to be able to hire the best firms, PR, [campaign] companies,
individuals. So diluting the brand has always been something the brand is very wary of, which is why
they’ll create sub-brands and spin-offs and do collaborations as a way to keep the brand cool, keep the
brand being talked about as well as other activities that the brand does that don’t necessarily fit in with its
primary identity source. They’ll do this hence a Marc by Marc Jacobs which appeals to a different type of
customer.
Participant No. 26
I think it’s definitely legitimate. I mean at the end of the day luxury brands are aspirational. Let’s be
serious. Only 5% of the population can afford multiple luxury items in any given season. So financially
the majority of the world is never going to get luxury brands period, end of day. But luxury brands do
have an aesthetic that lower priced brands may not have. So when they do a diffusion, if they can keep
that same aesthetic or create something around a similar aesthetic and build out a story around it, I
definitely think it works. A lot of times it doesn’t work.
Participant No. 27

Overall…I think it definitely cheapens the product for sure. And I think it relates back to what I said you
know when you think of Margiela you’re not thinking of a T-shirt brand. You’re thinking of innovation
and communication through fashion. To be honest…as you’re really just providing an outlet for people to
buy into a brand that probably haven’t put enough consideration into the overall picture of the brand or the
label. So that, to me…I understand how it works when you have shareholders you need to appease but
overall, if I was to be really romantic about it all I think it’s…I’m not a big fan of it. They’re giving up
brand equity for sure…by opening up to a certain demographic, I think. It’s funny because when I look at
A Bathing Ape…So A Bathing Ape, recently with their…new diffusion line A.A.P.E….the new one they
do now, it’s still not cheap but it’s more affordable. Everyone wears it now, and I’m just thinking it
doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me and these people are just buying into it…you know kind of
piggybacking off of the hype of the original APE, so it’s kind of…I don’t really see the purpose in it aside
from purely a money play because people that are buying that stuff are probably the people that arguably
aren’t really innovative to begin with. They’re not people that are really…let’s just say they’re like the
sheep of fashion, right…the people that want to get on to something. It’s kind of interesting because
everything we do at HYPEBEAST has never been really…we try not to be too calculated about it but
there is a point where it has to be. So everything that we’ve done over the last 7 years was almost purely
based on intuition. So like, the things you say make sense, but we’ve never been able to, we’ve never felt
the need to like break it down into a science where it’s like, “This is why people are doing this…”
Participant No. 28
I think that some brands have done it very well. I think that T by Alexander Wang, for instance, has done
a great job of creating an awesome diffusion brand that still has those quality touch points that you get in
proper Alexander Wang. But then there are brands that haven’t done so good of a job with it. I’m not such
a fan of Michael Kors…and what he’s done with the brand and just, like subjectively I haven’t been a big
fan of Armani Exchange either…I was never [laughing]…What (Ralph Laruen) CHAPS stood for was

345
Could’ve Had A Polo Shirt! Yeah CHAPS was never one to win. But you know I think on the other side I
personally…if I’m going to go diffusion outside of like a brand that hasn’t done it well, I’d rather go the
fast fashion root… I think it can go either way based on the branding around it: the communication, the
narrative, the target consumer. All of those things play into how it’s received and how it’s relatable within
a market over a span of time. So it can go one way or another. There are brands that have executed it
properly and there are brands that have completely lost control of it to where their diffusion got so large
[and] I feel that they lost control of the brand.
Participant No. 31
To a certain extent I think it is. Yeah. I think that’s very much of a name driven market and I think they
would be doing themselves a disservice to build up their names as strong as they have and not try to—is
my capitalist mind working—but you know try to get some more money. I think it’s got to dilute the
brand to a certain extent. If you look at the high-end brands who don’t have those kinds of things going
on, the Fendi’s the Givenchy’s…I haven’t seen extensions of those kinds brands and I think they do kind
of hold somewhat of a higher taste level and cachet to a certain extent.

What mass luxury brands would you say offer the best T-shirts in terms of quality…in
terms of design?

Participant No. 2
It’s the same because the material design is the same, the country of manufacture is the same…There are
some brands like Balmain that are like super expensive and you’d never cheapen brands that are super
expensive. So that’s the same and then some like Thakoon…you get like a great garment regardless.
Participant No. 5
I want to say Zara. I mean they’re fast but they’re not cheap….I think they do…even more design than
quality. I think they (Zara) do…even more design than quality…Their design is definitely forward. You
know people follow what they do.
Participant No. 8
The best one in my opinion at the end of the day is Polo. I think overall they’ve shown that they’re
capable of doing it to an extent that no one else can really do.
Participant No. 11
Abercrombie & Fitch are you kidding me!!? It’s a basic thing like J. Crew stuff even, which whatever,
some of their stuff you feel it. I guess there’s some nice stuff or whatever but because everything right
now, again, is based on like…how many Guess shirts have you seen where it just says Guess with a basic
thing? And it’s like it’s all [logo driven]…To me there’s no difference if you’re a $5 T-shirt man or base
entry level, okay well even entry level with street now is going to be $20 to $30 bucks now…if you’re that
level vs. having a $100 or $200 shirt and it’s all a logo shirt, one doesn’t impress me more than the other,
like it’s all the same logo driven shirt. Like what makes it…as far as what I’ve seen recently [shaking head
no].
Participant No. 14
You know actually, Club Monaco, they do make a good T-shirt for a very slim, like very crew cut kind of
guy…J. Crew. It just depends on like the type of body too, but as far as like a good T-shirt…can I say
Lucky Brand? Because I worked on the back end of lucky brand and I have to say [their T-shirts are
good]…you know it’s classic cut…design as well too. Even if it’s just…there’s the Lucky Brand high-end
and then there’s the Macy’s Lucky Brand, you know, we still use the same fabric, it’s just the printing on
it, we don’t use as many shades…stuff like that but still a good T-shirt.
Participant No. 20
Armani Exchange, and they offer excellent quality coming out of Peru as well as Turkey, for an affordable
price. That’s kind of the direction I would like to go in. I want to sell everybody not just a certain race or
culture. I just want to sell people that want a good value for their dollar. Something that’s timeless. That’s
what I’m interested in making.
Participant No. 23
I’m not particularly drawn to these T-shirts because a lot of them don’t speak on a deeper level than just,
“Be a part of our lifestyle.” And so for me, in terms of who offers the best…for research purposes I look at

346
them but I don’t really study them too hard. So there’s not anything that I really particularly lean towards
and say, “You know what? They produce the best T-shirts. They create a greater price point.” I think there
are some, like I said before, that are very interesting. I know that they are moving forward and pushing,
you know the T-shirt market in their luxury category but even mass luxury I don’t really think there’s
anyone that’s doing anything amazing with T-shirts.
Participant No. 26
If you look at Marc by Marc and what Marc Jacobs has done with that, they take a lot of the same
elements from the top tier design. They put those designs into a lower price point but yet Marc by Marc
has a completely different identity that I think at times is even more robust and dynamic than what Marc
Jacobs is doing itself. So under the right context I think it can definitely work. And it’s proven to work on
multiple occasions not just Marc by Marc…You know for a long time Armani Exchange did really good
tees. I used to buy a lot of white and black T-shirts from them. They’ve changed who’s making the shirts
now, where they get it from, so it feels a little bit cheaper. But for a long time an Armani Exchange black
tee was like awesome…But that’s also what proves why legacy brands tend to stick around because when
you do make quality garments and if you make a quality T-shirt, that T-shirt is the same T-shirt that
people wore in college that they wear years after that’s in a closet, it’s in a box that they dig up and they
can wear it back again. But when you make a cheap tee, it lasts a season. Everyone forgets about it, it’s
not around.

Streetwear and Boutique Brands
What boutique or street brands would you say offer the best T-shirts in terms of
quality…in terms of design?

Participant No. 1
In terms of street brands, I can’t think of any street brands that I’m like, “I really like their quality.” I like
the designs… SUPREME, Scotch & Soda… The [brands are] weak. Not to say that it won’t grow but…
Participant No. 15
Obey to me has the best overall quality of everything. Design too because it’s serving the exact purpose it
needs to have right now. And that’s one of the things…when you’re a brand you have to evolve and that’s
one of the most difficult things to do and I think they’ve done it well and that like now I see everybody
wearing an Obey shirt, but still within that shirt that they’re wearing that seems like it’s not saying
anything, there are a lot of graphic elements that say stuff or kind of reference an older graphic or there is
some culture still remaining in it. But one thing I liked about them is Obey the clothing brand was really
backed by a couple of very smart guys that made money in the industry, you know in a company called
Red Sand from back in the day. And so they knew what they were doing so when they started making the
brand it started hitting different markets so it hit the urban market at the same time it hit the mainstream
college market; it’s hitting white kids and black kids at the same time. So it’s kind of like all over the
place. And whenever I would order product from them the guy is saying, “Hey you know you can get this
on slim cut, you can get it on a boxy cut, you can get it on Pima cotton, you can get it on…” and when you
go through it you realize like, I mean they’ve mastered it. They’ve really gotten to a point…not that they
have anything available to them that no-one else does but when you are open minded to like, “Hey, we’re
going to do like 5 different styles of shirts in all different qualities and cuts…” and that’s when I
realized…I mean the most expensive shirt you would buy—normally a T-shirt wholesale, you’re paying
$12 for it, the most expensive one $18, $19 bucks if it’s on the best cotton, I mean just the best stuff, it’s
pre-washed, the print is like water based instead of like Plastisol…so you have a lot of these…that’s kind
of like the peak of it, and I really don’t think it gets much worse or better than that. On the worst side you
have a lot of people that stick with one cut. They’re like we always do this cut, “We always do this
quality. People know us for it.” And they get locked into that. So I like the streetwear brands that are
offering a variety of the shirts based on…I don’t think there’s a universal quality standard or a universal
cut standard. So the people that do it on a bunch of different things and I think Obey always has done that
really well.

347
Participant No. 21
Stüssy. Stüssy is a model brand. I don’t give a fuck what you say…Stüssy is a model brand because
they’re one of the original heritage brands. They’re one of the brands that were around in the beginning of
streetwear and now it’s like…I mean imagine a rapper from the 80s, 90s that is the big rapper now…So
you know Stüssy…they continue to innovate, and they’re always doing something new and fresh.
Participant No. 26
That’s hard because the T-shirts that you use in one season aren’t the T-shirts that you use in another
season. I mean in the contemporary category nowadays most men’s brands are going to have a very solid
T-shirt for you to buy that’s going to be around $12 -$18. And in streetwear specifically, T-shirts are such
a big part of what streetwear is and there are so many brands that have…pretty much their identity lives
around a T-shirt…brands like Diamond Supply Co. or Bobby 100’s or Johnny Cupcakes. So those
brands—the T-shirt is the front piece of their story and they will always and have remained always
making great T-shirts in a streetwear space for stuff like that.
Participant No. 27
In terms of quality I would say whoever has the best blanks…I couldn’t tell you which T-shirt brands are
making their own T-shirt bodies. A lot of them are just, “Okay let’s take Gilden. Let’s get whatever pre-
existing T-shirt body exists on the market.” right? So quality is not really a factor. To be very honest a few
weeks ago…It sounds stupid but usually sometimes we get drunk…we just have a ‘turn-up’ and we like
rip people’s T-shirts for some reason. Let’s say a guy has on a T-shirt, I’ll just rip his T-shirt in half
[literally]. And this guy that we were with had on a Rare Panther T-shirt]…and we tried to rip this guy’s
T-shirt and it just wouldn’t fucking rip it was ridiculous. It would be seriously two guys ripping at each
side and it wouldn’t rip. If I was to say quality, whatever brand of T-shirts Rare Panther uses. It was
ridiculous I think someone had to like poke a hole with keys and then rip it. In terms of design…I think
SUPREME consistently has a little more consideration. Not every T-shirt but I think a lot of T-shirts have
a little more consideration and thought behind it. I think that, whether I like them or not, I could say at
least The Hundreds…I think Bobby Hundreds actually puts some kind of element of thought. It’s not just
like, “Let’s just slop together some cliché things that represent Californian culture.” So I think that those
stand out for me. I think overall that would probably be…
Participant No. 28
I think SUPREME does an awesome job. I would say on design…on what they tap into from a graphic
design standpoint on their shirts, I wouldn’t say that they do so well when it comes to the quality of their
tees but graphically they do a good job. I think WeSC, they do a good job …We Are the Superlative
Conspiracy, they do a good job. 10 Deep does a good job with their graphics and what not. Again, I don’t
think that any of these brands…they’re not like on the top of the list for me as far as the quality of their
textile. From a streetwear perspective as it relates to graphic tees.

Mass Market Brands
What mass market brands would you say offer the best T-shirts in terms of quality…in
terms of design?

Participant No. 4
I think UNIQLO does an exceptional job at what they do. You know they’re about basics right? They’re
not really like doing like the H&M or like the Forever 21 thing. I would say the quality on those are like
shit but I think UNIQLO does their thing. They know what they’re doing.
Participant No. 5
Quality is kind of tough with mass market...I mean GAP has pretty good quality T-shirts. American
Apparel has good quality T-shirts. I want to say TOPMAN. I want to say Target maybe design because of
their collaboration with others. Urban outfitters is good for design.
Participant No. 7
[In terms of quality] I would say like UNIQLO and the GAP, they don’t ever run out of style…American
Apparel is very expensive, just for plain T-shirts and sweat tops and things of that nature it’s like…their
quality is just like any other T-shirt. It’s a little bit softer…UNIQLO T-shirts used to be really

348
good…they’re not as soft as they used to be and their shirts are cut bigger now. I like GAP the GAP T-
shirts were always the best T-shirts to me. [In terms of design] I would say H&M.
Participant No. 8
I like H&M’s blank T-shirt just in general if I’m talking from that perspective. The first thing I’ll say is,
while Target is actually making their own T-shirt they do bring in brands that I think are relevant. H& M
same thing.
Participant No. 12
I think there isn’t a big difference in them, I think they’re all trying to…I think the quality isn’t great but I
think the quality doesn’t need to be great at the price point that they are offering so I think that’s fine if
that makes sense. And I think again people want that sort of disposable fashion that you feel is sort of cool
and of the moment.
Participant No. 15
I was going to say UNIQLO. They don’t have it here as far as a mass brand…and UNIQLO was one of
the ones that made me realize that a lot of the industry as we know it is over because a UNQLO T-shirt
will cost me…I think it’s like $9 bucks or $5 bucks depending on what you get. Like I’ve had a V-neck
from them that’s still the best one that I wear…I mean the quality that they make…UNIQLO to me I put it
in the same category as something like how I see J. Crew. You can get good basics. I mean they’ve made
it so that every cut is good, the fabrics are good, the style is good, you can mix and match stuff. So
UNIQLO to me really has nailed it and it’s funny when they do collaborative shirts with artists they
usually pick good artists. I mean they have like…and that’s when I started to realize our significance as far
as being the people that are picking out shirts and knowing…like that has a certain time phase where it
works. And now it’s like the stuff is out there really…I think the mass luxury brands actually have the
ability to take advantage of the trends and the way it’s going but someone like UNIQLO has done it, what
I would consider like the perfect way. If you can sell me a $10 or $12 shirt and it’s an artist
shirt…someone got me a Star Wars, like an R2D2 shirt from UNIQLO, super good quality, and it’s like
it’s an official Star Wars shirt…It’s like it hits me on so many levels and it’s probably $12 bucks. So then
it eliminates the guy that’s making the bootleg Star Wars shirt on the average quality thing. So you know
those are the people that can muscle everyone out.
Participant No. 20
Mass market—Hudson, [laughing] they’re famous for taking inspiration from everybody else that’s hot
and incorporating it into their brand and turning it into a dollar so the mass market can buy it. Hudson has
been very successful in that. They’ve been doing leather for years and all of a sudden they jumped into the
sportswear market and they’ve knocked-off everybody from the high-end to the street guys.
Participant No. 23
I would say, and this is going to be controversial, in terms of quality for the price point, Primark. Primark
is like a super, super, super cheap brand that sells T-shirt for like £3 to £5 like super cheap. I mean it’s a
place where personally I don’t shop at. I’ve bought maybe one or two items in there and the quality isn’t
great in terms of what I would expect from a T-shirt I would pay £30, £40, £50 for. For a T-shirt that costs
£3, £5 and they’re always on the ball with fashion trends, I always find it quite amazing that you know for
a T-shirt that you can buy, wear it once or twice and then…I’m not someone into waste and you know
disposable fashion…the fact that you can then you know you can bin it, you know put it in the charity box
or whatever and then come back for some new clothes, I think this is quite amazing. Of course there’s a
lot of difficult issues around “how do you produce such cheap items and is the producer living in which
country?” And I think that’s called up a lot of ethical issues which is really probably the reason why I
shouldn’t highlight that as one of my favorite brands. I’m not going to say it’s my favorite brand but I find
it amazing that they can produce quite on trend garments at a price that reaches everybody. And of course
I do think that it does bring up ethical issues in terms of how they produce and who produces them but I
find that quite interesting how that affects the fashion world. I think it makes everyone else’s game a lot
better.
Participant No. 26
UNIQLO…right now when I want the best $6, $7 tee and I go on a trip…every trip I go and pick-up a
handful of UNIQLO T-shirts. Or I go to Bloomingdales or I go to Macy’s and I go downstairs and I get
like a 3-pack of Tommy Hilfiger or Polo T-shirts…like white tees. You know they’re cheap, they’re good,
they last a decent amount of time.

349
Participant No. 27
When I think mass…it doesn’t really fall under…like Kirkland…Those Costco T-shirts are indestructible.
I don’t really buy H&M but I’m pretty partial to UNIQLO has these bag T-shirts that are like $5 US
bucks, those are pretty good. But in terms of like design, when I go to a mass consumer brand, like a fast
fashion brand, I’m mostly thinking about basics. I don’t really think about going to get graphics from a
brand…let’s say Abercrombie. That would never cross my mind. I think that UNIQLO is kind of cool
because they’re pretty innovative in their U Tee, their T-shirt brand. So they’ll bring in like cool
designers…Like Pharrell just did one. Japan has this really popular messaging app called ‘Line’…people
basically contribute stickers, which are basically just an emoticon or whatever…if that’s really big then
they’ll just turn that into a bunch of T-shirts. I think UNIQLO they’re pretty good. They did T-shirts with
a French confectionary brand for example. It’s just like shit like that that was kind of like off the cuff but
pretty interesting.

Total Market
In the total U.S. consumer market, what brands would you say offer the best T-shirts
currently available in terms of quality…in terms of design? What are the price-ranges of
those shirts? What are the market segments of the companies?

Participant No. 1
I would think in quality, it would be something along the lines of like Gucci. I mean Gucci makes great T-
shirts. They feel great they look great. They look different…and it has like a… A slinky sheen to it…I do
like this [rubbing fingers together]…It’s like it reminds me of like oily but it’s not oily it just has like a
sleek… it has a nice drape to it. I’m not really sure if there’s a luxury brand that I can think of that I’m
like, “Wow! I remember that T-shirt because it was so innovative...” I think some of the best T-shirts are
coming from no-name designers. I mean I think the stuff that people are wearing that I see in the street…
That impresses me is…I would be like, “Where did you get that from and who made it?” It’s not like, “Oh
I got this from H&M.” It’s like, “I got this from this little store down in the East Village and that’s the
only store that they really have.” That’s what impresses me. [Streetwear] Large cities with urban areas,
because it’s not just a large city it’s a large city with urban clientele that can set a trend or work on a trend
in that way.
Participant No. 5
If I would go for T-shirts I would probably go to Urban Outfitters for the best variety of choice. Quality I
would say still American Apparel.
Participant No. 8
To me the top brand at the end of the day goes to Polo and the truth of the matter is you can ask
anybody…Polo shirts do range on the price that you’re paying, it always comes into play. But overall they
have some of the best quality you’re ever going to get out of a product.
Participant No. 23
I think to a point you do pay for quality. I mean I’ve got some great T-shirts, I’ve got…a couple of great
T-shirts by Hussein Chalayan and you know one T-shirt I bought when I was abroad and it cost £80. And I
remember just going into the store and it was like this super, super fine fabric that was double layered.
And I remembering putting it on just to see, you know, what kind of T-shirt costs £80—I thought it was
ridiculous personally. And I put it on and the fit was amazing, it felt great and I thought I’m going to get
this. And at a certain level…I mean he’s quite conceptual with his designs…I mean to a certain point…his
perspective on design and then the quality that he puts into it, I think definitely is worth the price and
definitely was value for money. Then with T-shirts you can get great T-shirts from independents. I’ve
gotten…some of my favorite T-shirts cost £10, £15, £20…I think with T-shirts it’s such a great leveler.
Because you can get a really cool T-shirt from someone who printed it like yesterday in their back yard,
you know what I mean…the quality of a T-shirt, you know you want it to a certain level but I think
definitely there’s something quite equal about who can produce a great T-shirt. Of course the fabric
quality will change and differ but generally T-shirts are a level playing field to me.

350
Participant No. 25
I think UNIQLO is making a difference in the lower price point because they’re offering a premium
quality tee for the lowest price possible. I think that Target, Mossimo is popping. I think that that on the
under, for how much it cost the quality is pretty damn good. You can get a $7.99 burnout tee that you can
wear on the beach all summer, and it’s a pretty nice pop color and it feels good.
Participant No. 28
I think the streetwear is really getting it…[in terms of] quality and design as it relates to their target
segment, which is the Millennial population which is the largest consuming generation that this planet has
ever seen. And so I feel like streetwear is speaking to this demographic as it relates to their aspirations and
their desires in knowing that they’re not necessarily the richest demographic that has graced this planet
either. So the ability to give them design and quality from a brand perspective that’s economical based on
what they can afford…I think streetwear is really getting it. So brands like, again, SUPREME, Crooks &
Castles, 10 Deep, and a lot of the offerings that…let’s say an empire like Karmaloop offers…platforms
like that and the brands that they carry, I think are really getting it right.
Participant No. 30
In some cases. In the cases that we used to do yes, there was a distinction. But…unless you’re using
viscose, I get it You’re using silk blends, I get it. Alright, it’s going to cost a little bit more. Other than that
a T-shirt is a T-shirt. Cotton is cotton. Like I had mentioned earlier, you can do a bi-wash a double wire
wash where they comb-off the ends of the fabric and make it look like its mercerized and sell it at
mercerized prices. You know mercerized is defined, the finer the yarn you know the more sheen it’s going
to get or the more fine it’s going to look. Okay it looks like it’s ‘more expensive’. In the end, yes, it’s a
little bit more expensive because of the process but if I’m charging you $225 because it’s Hermès or $350
because it’s Hermès, it’s the same T-shirt that I could get you for a cheaper price. But again you’re paying
for the name and the mystique of it.

Do you feel there is a tangible difference in the quality and design of T-shirts produced by
companies selling shirts at different price ranges, and in different market segments? What
do you feel those differences are?

Participant No. 3
It could be quality at $50 and bullshit at $200, and design. I think it’s all in the brand and their status.
Participant No. 4
I think they’ve got the right kind of fabrication and the way that it falls. I think that umm… It’s the fiber
content. And then it’s about the design like the pattern you know, and it’s like having it fit like in a more
interesting shape or cut or asymmetric you know.
Participant No. 5
There’s higher quality…not always…I mean the luxury brands they definitely have a better quality but
they are asking a lot for it. I think the street brands are more trendy because I think that those designers or
the luxury [brands] are probably looking at those street brands. I think they’re faster to get the trend right
so when there’s something going on they will design the T-shirt and it’s there.
Participant No. 6
A tangible difference? No. It’s very rare to really…You know what I’m saying you may see things such as
like maybe they put more detail into the label…but overall when I look at a $15 T-shirt and an $80 T-shirt
they usually have the same fabric content. [laughing]
Participant No. 7
I would say yes. The difference is that the more high-end that it gets, that’s the bigger the budget and the
more that they can do quality wise, design wise as well because the possibility is infinite if you have the
funds for it.
Participant No. 11
No, even though it should be…[In terms of quality Holds up fingers to signify “minimally”]
Participant No. 14
Well every design company has margins that they have to follow so just depending on the company, how
big the company is, how big the corporate is, if it’s smaller end, they’re just going to order their T-shirts

351
from American Apparel, and we all have the same T-shirt just different graphics, so then it all becomes
about design. Quality yes. Quality, because when you have more money to spend you can buy better
fabrics and then you can actually pay someone to sew up your T-shirt for you as opposed to just a mass,
like amount…this is the, same cut, same fit, same style, you’re going to get the same damn color and then
whatever graphics you want to put on it, that’s on you. You know so…
Participant No. 17
All hype!
Participant No. 25
Yes and no. It depends on the label. I think it depends on the individual design because I was a production
manager. But as far as a T-shirt is concerned…and one of the things that I used to tell all of the graphic
designers that worked under me is that you’re not making another arm…a T-shirt is a T-shirt. There are
only a couple of things we can do to make this T-shirt doper. First is obviously the manufacturing. You
know like, once again, as long as you have an overlap machine and the right needle you’re pretty good.
Most T-shirts are going to be the same. So then the next thing you have to go through is what kind of
quality fabric are you using? And then from there it’s pretty much open because, once again, all the
silkscreen shit is there. Like you can silkscreen it here locally, all the way to Cali, to overseas…all that
stuff is pretty much…you can do sublimation prints now here, you can do everything here, so it’s really up
to the design at that point, and the brand and the creative director at that moment of who and what. So I
think that the only real difference would be…and I don’t know if it’s justifiable in such a big jump in
price…but I think the only real difference would be…the noticeable difference to the consumer would be
the actual…the fabric. But I don’t know…I mean I do know that fabric does not justify the price. Because
the fabric is literally only a dollar, two dollars more when you’re buying it from the fabric house…So
Supima cotton literally is cents on the dollar more than normal cotton. But since Ralph Lauren uses it and
then certain things they just have 100% cotton, they’ll be like…Supima cotton is the $120 shirt and the
normal one will be $60. So I understand it from a manufacturing standpoint where you can now make a
justification for it but I don’t necessarily think it’s justified…And I mean it’s going to cost more to do that
extra…like even the inside of the tee where you’re not feeling the over-lock stitching. If you notice the
high-end tees, a lot of the time in the over-lock they’ll actually cover it. Like Ralph will cover it with the
little piece of twill. Like those are the details that you have to like kind of look at to justify to me. A lot of
the times when you go into a SUPREME room or whatever…and that’s the dope thing about SUPREME
…when you look at some of their exclusive stuff, they’re going to go to a point but they’re not going to
charge you $300 for a T-shirt. The most they’re going to go is like $90 bucks or whatever and it’s because
it’s exclusive and it’s heavy gauge cotton but they’re not going to go there. Same with their Vans or their
Oakley’s: It’s going to be $110 bucks for those Oakley’s that are all gold, which I should have fucking
bought but didn’t…you not but it’s like they’re not going to hit you over the head.
Participant No. 29
Certainly not. The more you spend doesn’t necessarily mean the better product you’re going to get.
Something could be just red hot, hard to get, hard to find and so it demands a premium but it could be a
piece of shit.

Pricing
All things being equal, notwithstanding the cost of production, what do you think is the
legitimate limit for the price of a designer T-shirt?

Participant No. 3
[At] $40 you’re OD’ing (overdosing) for a T-shirt. It depends like…now when you…when people say,
“Oh $100 for a T-shirt.” If I’m paying $100 for a T-shirt, to me that says…I’m looking for rarity. So if
I’m paying $100 for a T-shirt that means it’s going to be me and maybe 3 to 15 other people who have
that T-shirt in like the world or maybe the U.S. or something like that. Rarity costs, so if it’s like…if
you’re charging me $100 or something like that it better be only 20 tees made. That’s how I feel about
that…the pricing. But other than that if me and somebody else from Tijuana has on the shirt and 6,000
other people, I don’t want to pay $100 for that T-shirt.

352
Participant No. 4
What’s the cap? I don’t know I think like 150. I think like 150’s like max. Yeah. I think that’s fair because
it’s just you know. You’re not like embroidering Swarovski crystals onto my T-shirt. I think that’s fair,
yeah.
Participant No. 6
Granted that it doesn’t have golden flakes on it…I would say I think it should stop around $60, like, it’s a
T-shirt. Like we should not be paying $300 for a white tee.
Participant No. 11
I mean I would think legitimate limit should be…There are some really dope artistic stuff that I really
respect out there…like I could see somebody paying $80 for. But I don’t know I’m thinking like $80,
$100, like I even think $100 would be too much so I’m thinking more like $80 should be like…It’s a
freaking T-shirt.
Participant No. 13
$56. Fifty-six dollars. In the fifties…I just think that it does not cost that much money to produce a T-
shirt. I understand if you have a little bit more trim work and you’re putting in a little bit more into the T-
shirt—charge more. I think it should be anywhere in between $24 to $56 and if they’re talking really high-
end $120…If you’re talking high-end because of the name. I don’t think it should go a penny more than
that.
Participant No. 17
Ooh I don’t know. Well I think it is relative because it has been fun once we start doing things in different
markets as far as like the world because what a T-shirt costs in Australia or New Zealand is much different
than what we would…pay for it here. So, you know, it’s like we try to keep our cost really low because
we’re not trying to compete with that. But it’s just like, you know,I don’t know, we charge like $20, $25
bucks for a shirt all the time. We don’t really ever… I think that there is such a thing as an artist shirt, you
know, an artist should be paid for their art …but, you know, I think that I don’t know if I would buy it.
Participant No. 19
Well it depends on the person I mean, I get a little I guess turned off. If I do go into a Fred Segal or a Ron
Hartman and I do see a shirt that literally is just a cotton shirt that just has a two color screen print on it
and it’s you know retailing for $150 I think that’s just a little ridiculous for what it is…here is no special
make in it, okay the cotton is really soft, it’s Peruvian cotton or whatever, you know Pima cotton but at the
end of the day I think it’s a little ridiculous. But there are more expensive that are pretty much basic, there
are more expensive T-shirts than $150 out there. But I think that’s pretty crazy. I mean for me the limit is
like $40 bucks…$50 is not a go.
Participant No. 23
£60 [=$98]…I actually don’t think there’s a limit I think if you’re willing to pay for it you know…I don’t
think anyone’s paying that much ($5,000) for a T-shirt. I think it’s easy to look at extremes and you know
I believe if you want to pay a grand for a T-shirt, for you…cool, do you. You know I’m really like that.
For me personally I have a limit but I’ve broken the limit before. You know when I feel it’s worth it. So I
know that idea is going to change. You know I’m designing T-shirts that cost more than that among them
and I don’t see a problem with it because you put the quality in. So yeah it’s a tough one to say what’s
worth it. I think what’s worth it is what you’re willing to pay. And then if you go back to the chain, to the
people that are making it, whether it compensates them you know for these garments, I think that’s more
of the thing that I’d be concerned about.
Participant No. 24
That’s a good question. All things considered, not including if all factories are equal?...If all factories are
equal…Well let me…can I do a little lead up here? All factories…it’s very inexpensive to make a T-shirt.
You’re talking about…maybe not even a dollar. So let’s say $1 to make a T-shirt from the factory, then
they ship it over so that costs something. You have like airspace or whatever, the shipping is a little, the
landing or whatever. It’s mostly getting it over here from China, from Taiwan, from Pakistan, from
Korea…and then they make huge margins. Any store wants to make at least 50% to 60%. So if they’re
getting the T-shirt for $10 they want to sell it for $20 to $25. So I know that people are not making…T-
shirts don’t cost $10 so I would…all things considered, I would really like [to not pay more than] $25 -
$30 for a T-shirt…At the…for a really nice shirt. Which is inexpensive but that’s really…when you see a
$50 shirt…Come on! Even a $30 shirt…better…all my shirts shrink. I don’t know what’s happening. I put

353
hot water or cold water…they’re….$150 for most of America…Most Americans live pay check to pay
check. Where are they getting $150 from? These are for elite people and it’s just…One of my specialties
is in children’s wear. In baby outfits…baby outfits that half the material are also the same price. And I
always go into a store and I say look, “I don’t want to have a pair of pants…pants cost $40 and now I’m
looking at shorts…shorts should cost $20, its half the material. How could shorts and pants be the same
thing [in the same material] it’s from the same factory. It doesn’t make sense.”
Participant No. 25
In my personal opinion…I think that the Kanye West A.P.C. blank T-shirt for $120…you’re playing
yourself buying a blank T-shirt for $120…The legitimate limit is probably the Givenchy shirt, once I
found out that it was a sublimation print on silk and it’s like how much is the price point for that one….
Oh okay…shit! I mean $30 dollars, like $40 bucks, like I don’t know! For me especially, once again, you
start doing production…I was production manager, so you start seeing the actual real costs of this shit, and
it kind of fucks you up. So it’s like for me I know that to produce this shirt, even if it’s made in the Gucci
factory, it’s a $20 shirt. Let’s be realistic, I guess $45 dollars, about $45 you’re getting into the played
yourself…I’ve played myself though…I’m not saying I haven’t played myself. But I think you know $45
is just when I’m like, “Damn dude, really you’re going to pay $45 for this…”

Consumers in the Market
The section that follows concludes the in-depth-interviews and focuses on identity,
particularly along the domain of status. These inquiries ask the respondent to think about brand
identity and consumer identity as they relate to one another when interfaced by T-shirts.

Consumers Influencing Brands
What do you feel about the importance of trendiness vs. price, in T-shirts, as a signal of
social status for brands?

Participant No. 1
I think there’s a weird inverse relationship with trendy versus the amount that you pay for it. So there’s a
trendy…and then when you get extremely trendy you’re going to be paying a large premium for it so
those kind of go together. I mean with those “I Love New York” T-shirts you can buy them for $3 in any
souvenir shop. So that’s a very trendy shirt with a little price. Super trendy, but if you’re looking at
like…it’s almost a weird…it’s a weird relationship because your trendiest shirt is going to be cheaper…
That $700 shirt is more a status symbol than it is a trend because I’m not starting a trend by wearing a
$700 shirt. Because I was thinking you know, a Polo shirt is trendy, in all the different iterations of it it’s a
trendy shirt. But they don’t cost a ton. They’re not more than $100. So I’m not looking at a Polo shirt to
say it’s really trendy. I’m not looking at a J. Crew shirt be like, “Oh this is really cute this is trendy.” But
it’s not costing me over $100. I think it’s more trend than it is price.
Participant No. 11
I would say for the brand people, you want them to note so you want to become trendy but I think price is
something that like all these things are considered because they say well, “What can we legitimately ask
for and what can we whatever?” and everybody wants to be on the upper echelon because people want to
sell a couple of hundred dollar T-shirt. People want to be whatever, so for them, for these brands they
want to be able to place themselves at a very like high point, so I think like you know…because it almost
gives them that status if they have that. So I feel like price becomes whatever…what they want their T-
shirts to sell so they want it to be trendy as well. So I think as far as that goes price plays probably a bigger
difference.
Participant No. 12
For the brand I think it’s…about the look because I think that really that’s where they get…that’s where
people notice and when someone wants to say, “Hey who made that?” or “Where did that come from?”
that’s when they get the street cred versus sort of saying, you know it looks like a Hanes T-shirt but it
really cost $250 and that will just make them feel stupid.

354
Participant No. 13
[Brands] Trendiness makes them [expensive]. [When trend is lacking]…so you know what it is, it’s
basically they’re not producing as much and it’s an intricate design maybe, if that’s the case. [
Do you feel an individual (non-celebrity) or group of consumers can change the status of a
brand? How? What are the most effective ways?

Participant No. 1
I don’t think they’re altering the image of the brand…I think measurably so. I think that they’re able to
change the way other people see the brand. I don’t think the brand’s identity is changed I think… All these
good thinking questions!…I think that the person who was wearing the Supreme shirt a year ago or a year
and a half ago, two years ago, is always on the cusp of fashion. Once it becomes, “Oh a grandmother’s
wearing.” Or, “These stockbrokers are wearing it.” They don’t want it anymore just because they feel like
they’re no longer on the cusp of fashion. Fashion is so quickly moving that if you’re not always right there
on the cutting edge then you’re late.
Participant No. 2
Honesty…it has changed because of rappers and their visibility and [their affiliation with] the
brands…changed the whole outlook of the house and added that cool factor and now a lot of the runway
shows portray more T-shirts…Louis Vuitton definitely…sometimes they have items that they gear
towards the rappers. They might not say it explicitly but they understand that really the only color that
matters is green. So they will make items that will speak to this aesthetic. It’s not just the brand Givenchy
like Riccardo Tisci also had a hand in designing these Marcelo Burlon T-shirts that you know at first
glance you would never think that tee had anything to do with them but there was this whole rash of
rappers wanting to…wear those shirts and at one point it was a little bit more than around $150 so it’s a
state of mind and like the actions that he has and who wears it and it kind of has that effect on the brand…
Participant No. 3
I feel that it could, but I don’t feel that it would be dominant. I feel that it would slightly change. Large
numbers, just a large quantity of people wearing it. Status plays a big role [for brands]. [On high status
consumer raising the status of a low status brand] It’s a double standard. Because it’s like if it was
someone who wasn’t anybody and they did it…someone would just be like, “Yo that joint is fake!” But if
it’s someone we all know and she’s beloved by everyone, Joan Rivers or someone like that… non-
celebrity, yeah. You know someone we…she’s not a celebrity but people know her… Looks like Joan
Rivers something like that. Yeah. You see her you’d be like, “She looks like Joan Rivers…I can rock it
too.”…But that status though… I’m talking about with the celebrity status, they can also change the look
of your brand also like your brand could be a straight street urban brand and someone like say Miguel the
R&B singer takes your shirt and swags his whole thing with it you know…and you know he’s really
casual, suited up type of guy…he could take your brand from that street image and make it something else
that you wouldn’t even plan on it being. It’s like now you have a whole new market.
Participant No. 6
No. Because like the image that they have…like the brands work for so long on their images, and they
make sure that that image is in all of their media that it doesn’t matter who else buys it outside of that
because for them they are like, “This is the image that we show, what other people do on the street that
doesn’t matter, we’re just making more sells.”…I mean with a new brand I think it would affect more but
not an established brand. An established brand is always going to have what they’ve established.
Participant No. 7
It’s just basically whoever they want to wear it, like they decide who they want to wear and how they want
to wear it. They have their own influence on it. At the end of the day those brands want to get into those
certain markets so they have to find a way to cater to them. So they’ll change their direction to cater to
different markets to make more means by them.
Participant No. 26
Yes. If enough numbers did it, absolutely. Because it has to happen on a grand scale because unless there
are enough eyeballs or there are enough people doing it until there’s enough people to recognize the
pattern it won’t move the needle.

355
Participant No. 27
I definitely feel that individuals can definitely…I think that’s kind of the cool thing, is that brands also
have their own example of how they want things to play out but obviously that’s more theoretical. But
then the real world is obviously much different. It’s kind of like so many brands adopted by ‘tribes’. Let’s
say it’s Stone Island and soccer hooligans and what not; It think that’s something that definitely…I think
Canada Goose is another big one too where…I think that you just see everyone wearing…basically in
Canada anyways, Canada Goose is really for gangsters and Asians. And you know that’s kind of the way
it sort of played out. Which I think might go against what…because I think that what certain brands might
actually want to be associated with. Those people are often either disinterested or they…can’t afford it. So
I definitely feel that that’s something that can be changed. What are the most effective ways? I feel it’s
through creative a movement of something. When I think creating a movement it sounds…I don’t know if
it sounds simple or not. But I feel like it’s lacking quite often where people are like, “I’m going to do this
I’m going to do that.” But they never do it. So that’s kind of the lack of movement that exists. So when
you have people going out there and you have people creating a movement that people can get behind that
obviously will elevate any message they may have. To use a brand like Pigalle, if they’re doing parties
like every so often, once a month in Paris and people are going to these parties and having a lot of fun,
that elevates any sort of messaging they may have, whether it’s T-shirts or…hey, maybe they’re really big
into North Face fanny packs. All of a sudden that becomes the association, that becomes iconic to them
and people want to get behind that.
Participant No. 28
Absolutely, I mean it’s been done more times than not in the past 25 years of culture. Look what the urban
segment of culture did with Timberland. Look what we did with Sergio Tacchini, Le Coq Sportif…With
T-shirts…look at what happened with Versace. And that goes back to…You know my first job out of
college in the industry and how I found myself as a marketing executive at Versace was, you know you
had Biggie, Lil Kim, CL Smooth, Wu-Tang, Foxy Brown talking about Versace which was at the time a
brand for the ‘rich, Italian, homosexual, gay guy or girl’ and then you had these African Americans in
these impoverished communities wearing the brand, talking up the brand and it actually lead to them
creating a horizontal diffusion collection in Versace Classic.

What role does status play in the ability of this change to take place for brands? (e.g. high,
low)

Participant No. 4
Oh. I don’t know if that really…I mean I guess…I guess to a point for a high level brand like you don’t
want to be too accessible. If you’re a luxury brand you don’t want to be…you know like you want to
control the demand and control how much product is out there. You don’t want to oversaturate your
market and decrease the value of your product. So it would be…but think they’re both equally important.
You still want that high level customer that has the money to be buying your product. And there’s
other…there’re so many brands now that are around the same price point you want them to buy your
brand not others.
Participant No. 8
I think if a brand is up here and I have someone down here wearing it, it will bring it down definitely. If
the brand is down here and the consumer’s up here it can help a little. I don’t think it’s going to reverse
fortune. It always depends but…a consumer at the top and I’m wearing something at the bottom I’m going
to get looks, I’m going to be questioned, “What is he doing?” But if I’m someone down here and I’m
wearing a brand that’s up here I can change it…I eventually can change it.
Participant No. 15
Yeah I think like, you know take Tommy Hilfiger in the 90s. It wasn’t just rappers wearing it. It started
not from…I mean like people were… Like I remember the time when Snoop [Dogg] wore a Hilfiger top
on an SNL performance and that was always signified as like the crossover for Hilfiger. But before that
happened, the trend existed. The trend where all of hip-hop…it was Polo, Nautica…you know it was all
that kind of like super crispy preppy style stuff and a lot of these companies were really heavily pushing
back against it. Like for instance I remember in ’99 when I went to my first trade show I was at the
Nautica booth and they were playing some really obscure rap track by that guy Nine who was big at the

356
time…and they’re playing at the booth and there were a couple of executives from Nautica and they were
like kind of like laughing and just bewildered by the whole thing like, “This is crazy. Like now we’re a
rap brand all of a sudden.” So I do think the way people co-opt a brand can really change the way it’s
seen. You know you had it with like, there was a kind of debacle with the whole [Louis Roederer] Cristal
thing for instance where they were pushing back like…and probably in the history of the brand that might
not have been a bad move to be like, “Hey fuck you guys we don’t want you talking about our shit
anymore.” And everyone was like bewildered but it’s like yeah you had billionaires drinking that and now
millionaires are talking about it and nobody wants to fuck with it anymore. So it’s like there is like…yeah
trends can really move a brand in a direction that it may not want to even go in but I think most of the
smart brands roll with it. I mean like despite everything that was said about Hilfiger not really being down
with it. Like that’s not actually true. He was more than happy. He loved it…He loves all the attention he
got. I mean there are a lot of rumors that he didn’t like it or he said this and he doesn’t want black people
to wear his shit but that’s not true. Every interview you read with the guy he’s amped on it and the brand
was never ever as big as it was after he did it. And I think like that really inspired Phat Farm and all those
brands to come out to kind of defeat or like kind of take over that role in a way.

How do you feel that change (for brands) is influenced by the individual’s adherence to or
divergence from the brand’s proposed image?

Participant No. 21
This is what I see happening: A high-end consumer can bring a low-end brand up and I think…just from
being inside brands, and just my personal take on how brands work…I think…and you can’t really control
who buys your brand ultimately. But if you have intentions and you have an outline, a blueprint of what
your brand is and who your consumer is and what lifestyle you’re trying to attach your brand to and the
opposite people buy it, you’re screwed, period, and you might just have to go with them because they’re
paying the bills. You’re selling now but you’re selling to the wrong customer essentially. And I think that
can ultimately bring your brand down because if you are a luxury brand and…and Kanye West good
example of this…if you’re a luxury brand and red necks, people in trailer parks, poor black people are just
wearing your brand out …not even counterfeit, the real shit, buying the real shit, spending their last little
bit of money on the real shit…so much so and it’s so visible that the real lifestyle consumer that can afford
it doesn’t want to be associated with it, then you’re done as that type of brand. Like take Kanye taking the
confederate flag. The Confederate flag to a certain group of people is their logo, it is their symbol of
patriotism and the old south and what the old south stood for. In his new march he literally jacked the
confederate flag and put it…he’s a black rapper…that brand is destroyed now. Highly outspoken about
[racism] and has taken it and going, “You know what I’m going to show you the power of how the shit
flips so fast.” And that is exactly to that point.
Participant No. 22
Yes because it happens all the time. Look at what happened in the early- to mid-2000s. You know the
fusion of cultures of Rock & Roll and hip-hop and skate and surf. That was a grass roots people
movement. It wasn’t something that was made popular by an artist; it actually worked the other way
around. It was regular everyday people seeing this, basically subscribing to this and then it trickled up…It
has been [the most effective way] because it’s not life imitating art it’s art imitating life. It’s the elite
taking from the everyday man and being influenced by that and taking that up. It’s not an everyday person
seeing a music video and saying, “Oh this artist is wearing some dope whatever and I’m going to wear
that.” It happened the other way around.
Participant No. 29
It might actually get you more popping. If you’re not like the heterosexual white male image of what
brand x is selling, on you it’s going to look more interesting because you’re not what people see in the
ads. That’s what brothers were doing in the 90s with the Polo shirts. You had 15 12 year old kids wearing
thousands of dollars wearing clothing that was not made for them. I think it’s about the whole critical
mass idea. People adopt something, everyone starts wearing it…that’s just kind of how trend begins. The
celebrities aren’t the first on it, they’re often the last on it because some hood-booger and their friends
start wearing something in a particular way and it starts a look or a trend whatever and that’s it. They
(consumers) can bring it up or down. Like all of a sudden if something is the biggest thing in Long Island

357
and Jersey and it’s a bunch of ‘those people’ that are wearing it. All of a sudden it could be like “Damn,
that shit’s not hot anymore! I don’t want to wear that shit!” Like “Oh snap! All the cool kids wherever are
wearing that shit. That shit’s dope!” I think it takes a lot to do that. Because I think there will be a
marketing team to push to not let that happen and not let that be.

At what point (in terms of percentages) do you feel that consumers with identities
inconsistent with a brand’s image begin to reposition that image? (give numerical %’s)

Participant No. 5
I think pretty high…like 80%. I think high because it takes a lot for the perception to change about the
brand. Because when you see someone wearing a certain T-shirt but it’s not the person that you think of
you would still think like, “Oh okay he’s wearing that because he likes it but it really doesn’t do too much
to the brand itself.”
Participant No. 6
I think it’s easier for a brand to come up…I think it works one way more so than the other definitely as far
as bringing a brand up or down. I think it would definitely have to be like at least like a good 75%. If it’s a
high status brand…it doesn’t because the thing is with a T-shirt, high-end brands make T-shirts so that
people will buy them, you know what I’m saying. Like that’s their marketing, like that’s their billboard,
so…yeah everything else in the store costs $600 plus but this T-shirt here costs $100 or costs $50 so that
way people can afford it, they are going to buy it. Yeah it would have to be a good 70% to make a
difference.
Participant No. 11
I guess if you saw like 100 people that looked like bummy or whatever but the thing is somebody’s
generally going to wear that even if they don’t have a lot of money they’re going to wear that. They’re
going to try to make the rest of their outfit look good so they’re going to make sure they look good …I
think if a line creates an aura and enough of whatever like around itself they could probably give away
their shirts to homeless people and have everybody on Skid Rowe wearing their shirts and it wouldn’t
bring down their line, you know what I’m saying. Because they’ve already created that.
Participant No. 12
I think there is that tipping point…probably…I feel like if…If every other person you see wearing it is not
someone who you consider aspirational, it’s probably ultimately going to hurt your opinion of the
brand…45%.
Participant No. 15
I think that, especially in the acceleration that you’d see someone doing it…So if it’s like If I haven’t seen
a punk rock guy wear a Chanel shirt ever and 25 of the next 100 I see I would start to think that the trend
is going in a particular direction and I think between 25% and 50% at a fast pace. That’s the point at
which it becomes significant and once people start noticing it…that’s the thing I think the tipping point is
25% in that once I notice it then I start mentioning it and then it starts becoming, surprisingly it might be
this thing where I might say like to my dad, “Hey, you should buy this Dolce & Gabbana it’s hot with the
older people.” You know it might be something where like it starts becoming its own self-fulfilling
prophecy. So I think that in a short period of time whenever you see…and I think 25% is like your first
chunk of significant audience…10% would never do it. You know but once it hits like that (25%) point
there’s no turning back in a way.
Participant No. 18
I’ll say…it’s probably like 70%. I think since the days of Tommy Hilfiger—and that’s kind of where it all
started, people want to protect their brand. I mean I’ve seen it all man. I was in Timberland meetings when
the field boot was losing its sales [Nike’s ACG boots] and they were like “What is going on?” and they
were trying to figure out why the field boot isn’t working. I remember stealing Timberland clothes as a kid
trying to be cool and shit. And as I sat in that office and as I looked at that tree hearing these [executives]
talk about how we can get our brand back, and that it was never meant for the people who made them who
they are, it was sickening to my stomach…I’ll say 70%.
Participant No. 19
I don’t know I mean I think that it…I don’t know if you could change even if 50%, 60% of a demographic
that is not the target, even if that many people bought in to that, which I think is a little high I don’t think

358
it would be that much, but let’s say it was. I don’t know if it could change the years and years and years of
what this customer is supposed to be. I don’t think it could change it.
Participant No. 22
That’s a very good question, (high-status consumers can bring a low-status brand down) that’s very tough
because, let’s take U.S. Polo Association okay. U.S. Polo Association is banking on the fact that…the
reason why they have a store in Times Square and they don’t have a store in Brooklyn is because that they
understand that the tourist will come here and they fall in love with American brands. It’s one of the
reasons why Levi’s has always remained strong in Europe. It’s…you know Coca-Cola has remained
strong. These are American brands, they’re classic American brands. So their taking from Polo—Ralph
Lauren—and they’re giving you that aesthetic at a [lower] price point. Now you don’t see U.S. Polo
Association have a store in Fulton Street Brooklyn because people in Brooklyn, they’re not trying to stay
at that price point, they’re trying to go up. So they’re going to rock the Polo Ralph Lauren, the Rugby, the
RLX because status is important to them. The U.S. Polo Association, to the tourist, has a status because
it’s an “American brand” and that’s it. So I don’t think you’ll see that. I don’t think you’ll see…anyone
who takes fashion seriously say, “I’m going to go with U.S. Polo Association.” Because if that was the
case wouldn’t Chaps Ralph Lauren be a super huge brand. I’m just saying wouldn’t that be the case
because it’s the same Ralph Lauren? I had a Chaps…I can’t front, I had a few Chaps plaid woven in high
school okay, and people would say, “Oh that’s Chaps!” and I would be say, “It’s still Ralph Lauren.” And
I’d just be like, “You know what I like the shirt.” I’ll wear it. I’ll wear it if I like it. I don’t get swayed by
status when it comes to clothing unless they’re my own. I’m going to say 0% [of low-status consumers
can bring a high status brand down] because people don’t bring brands down, brands bring bands down
and how they do it is they oversaturate, okay. I worked for a brand, I’m not going to name the name, but
they were hot for a 3 year span and they sold…and it was a T-shirt brand and they sold T-shirts at $60
retail—very expensive T-shirts. They flooded the market with it to where I remember people giving me a
call saying that the brand was being sold at a highway rest stop and it was real product, because the sales
guy in that region just gave it to everybody. That brand also would sell their base retailer the same product
that they would sale an off-price retailer like Burlington Coat Factory or Century 21. The same product!
So why would a kid go into one of your base retailers and spend $60 on a T-shirt when they can go to
Burlington Coat Factory and get it for $25?...The same exact tee, the same exact product. So people don’t
bring brands down, brands bring brands down.
Participant No. 24
I have a Target T-shirt, that’s my green lantern T-shirt that I love more than life itself and because that
becomes the new trend, if you see somebody with dreadlocks and facial tattoos wearing Chanel, Chanel is
now, “Oh look at this high-class person who can afford Chanel and can also be herself. So it liberates the
brand? Yes…Because brands are meant to put people in categories—that’s what I stared saying. You
have a hipster, you have a diva, you have the prepster. Those are all categories and once a social deviant
kind of breaks that stereotype…that, “I can be an Abercrombie model who also likes Hot Topic socks or
shoes” and somebody sees that you’ve clashed your brands, you’ve actually kind of hurt the brand because
that’s not the point…but for everybody else it’s kind of like, “Oh, I can mix and match. I can shop at thrift
stores and be in the top class. I can wear David Yurman jewelry and have a Target shirt.”
Participant No. 25
It could be 1% [low status consumers to bring a high status brand down] to be honest. Depending on the
brand or whatever they might be on some shit. So like I wouldn’t say 1% but I would say like 10%.
Because there are not that many people…come on, like my boy he shops in Gucci he’s like, “There are not
that many black people buying Gucci right now or Versace as opposed to before.” It’s just that a couple of
rappers have said it. But I think that…I don’t know if Versace is so happy about…I mean they’re an over-
garish label so maybe they don’t give a shit. But I think that just by Migos doing that song (Versace) kind
of brought the label down in some sense or brought a new consumer to the label. I don’t know if they
perceive it as down-trending but I would assume if they are bourgeois they would. Unfortunately.
Participant No. 27
Let’s say 15%. The thing is that I guess for us it’s like…I feel like mass, mass trends are more for the
mainstream. Let’s put it this way, at [my firm] maybe it’s more like the…if something is all of a sudden
getting to the point where it’s on the cusp of being really big, some stuff is just not interesting anymore.
Like it sounds kind of conceited or whatever, pretentious but I guess that’s kind of…if everyone’s into it

359
then it’s not interesting to us anymore. And like15% has enough legs to become 15% becomes 25%
becomes 30%, etc. So you want to pre-empt those if anything. At least that’s how I look at it.
Participant No. 29
I think it’s about the whole critical mass idea. People adopt something, everyone starts wearing it…that’s
just kind of how trend begins. The celebrities aren’t the first on it, they’re often the last on it because some
hood-booger and their friends start wearing something in a particular way and it starts a look or a trend
whatever and that’s it. They (consumers) can bring it up or down. Like all of a sudden if something is the
biggest thing in Long Island and Jersey and it’s a bunch of ‘those people’ that are wearing it. All of a
sudden it could be like “Damn, that shit’s not hot anymore! I don’t want to wear that shit!” Like “Oh snap!
All the cool kids wherever are wearing that shit. That shit’s dope!” I think it takes a lot to do that. Because
I think there will be a marketing team to push to not let that happen and not let that be.

Brands Influencing Consumers
What do you feel about the importance of trendiness vs. price, in T-shirts, as a signal of
social status for consumers?

Participant No. 2
I think when it comes to T-shirts it’s just the expensive ones [trending]…the only ones that matter are the
ones that are designer…like no-one’s going to look twice at a T-shirt…you just sort of think of it being
cool…like at the end of the day a T-shirt’s a T-shirt. If you have those design elements that’s what makes
people trendy and stop and stare. The unfortunate thing about these things is that they’re so trendy that
when you’re wearing a shirt from two years ago it’s faded. So that means like you have this kind of like
need for you to continue to buy these pieces so you don’t look out of style. It can be like a very…like
swaying on a pendulum to try to keep up…Only the really rich can afford to buy $500 T-shirts every
season without feeling it in their pockets. I feel like when it comes to urban street wear it comes to a
whole different...because…[It’s different for different markets]. Because people wear…urban markets
wear everything.
Participant No. 3
It’s definitely how he wears it. Like I’m saying you can be walking down the street and have on a
Givenchy shirt and I know it’s Givenchy but I look at you and just be like, “Bruh you know you…Bruh
come on.” Yeah that’s what I’m saying it’s all about how you wear it because it’s like…Alright if you
know you have on a Givenchy shirt that means you have some type of style…It’s a different story…Like
it kills me when I see someone with a Givenchy shirt on and they have on maybe some…it’s nothing
wrong with Levi’s you know what I mean, but your Levi’s are huge. You’re 6’2”, maybe about 150lbs and
you wear a size 32 in jeans maybe and your Levi jeans are a 40 and you have on a Givenchy shirt. That
tells me right there, “What are you doing? That’s dead not your style. That’s not something you belong
in.” But I can see you down the street and you have on a shirt that you got from Conway, but the way you
put it on I’m like, “…Who is that?” You seem more important when you exude it. It’s not all about your
clothes, it’s how you wear it.

Participant No. 8
I think while some people might turn their nose up at it, and I might be one of those people at times…I
think the trendiness is important but I think it works along with the price…in the beginning, let me put it
that way…in the beginning of the trend. You’ve got to remember everything starts at a certain point. So
when it’s up there, let’s say it costs $1,500 for some T-shirt, by the time it gets down to mass production
from everyone who’s knocking it off it might be $45. But what allowed the industry to have it was the
trend and the price, that’s how it started. They go hand-in-hand. You can’t have one without the other.
Participant No. 13
I’m going back to my denim example. Denim: What was the most popular brand back in the day? I’m
talking 2 years ago. Seven. I think it made a difference in a group of people if somebody was wearing
H&M jeans and somebody was wearing Sevens people automatically looked at a person differently. It also
goes back to my clothing line. I think that people react to you differently when you dress a certain way. I

360
don’t think the price should be that high, I definitely think that we should…but trendiness equals higher
prices…
Participant No. 28
I think based on the society that we live in it’s going to be the trendier shirt because I think more
people…their eyes are caught by what is fashion in contrast to style in those elements. So I think for a
consumer it’s going to be like the trendier shirt.

Do you feel brands are able to alter the identity of an individual through the conspicuous
display of brand image in a T-shirt’s design? If so, how? What are the most effective ways
of altering that individual’s identity (e.g. pricing, image control through advertising, other
brand products, etc.)?

Participant No. 1
It can alter your social identity but not to the point where it’s like a homeless person into a non-homeless
person. I think like, “Oh well she wears Ralph Laruen as opposed to Hanes or he wears Dolce & Gabbana
as opposed to H&M.” That makes a little bit of an altering of the person’s identity…But only a small part.
It’s not so much like you’re homeless or you’re not homeless or you’re rich or you’re poor. The image
control, the image control. Not so much the actual price because… Price then image, but image only in so
far as what’s going on in the advertising.
Participant No. 4
I think they can alter someone’s perception of an individual. Yeah. I mean I think so. Certainly. I think
what you wear…people do judge books by their cover. I think it’s both. It’s about the brand equity, you
know ultimately it’s about pricing and it’s about image.
Participant No. 6
I don’t think so…Not too extreme, not enough to really matter. I mean usually I’ll see somebody with
dirty tennis shoes and stuff and be like, “That person probably is like one of the billionaires in New York
City.” You know what I mean like…because they didn’t care what they wore today, they didn’t, and they
are okay with not caring. So I don’t think it reflects too much. I mean we all have our first thoughts and
mine are probably just a little screwed and twisted compared to others. But I usually feel like when people
have…when they are over-dressed…Chanel actually said this, this is one of my favorite quotes, “It’s
better to be under-dressed than over-dressed.” And I think that still holds true because it’s like every time I
see someone that’s just overdressed, you know just labels everywhere, it’s like yes you have on nice
things but you’re so over-dressed to the point where you’re trying, you’re reaching really hard and now
you know it’s like I don’t feel like you have all of this at all. But you see someone under-dressed and they
are just comfortable like I think that makes a better impact than someone that’s over-dressed.
Participant No. 12
I think it’s possible except that I feel like there are so many elements to it that it’s hard to say it’s just, you
know, say the T-shirt or just one thing that they’ve done with the T-shirt because I think that few brands
are created or sort of based solely on that. Yes is the answer. I do think that…you know it’s…but I think
it’s all about the perception of the brand in general and I think that these days who’s wearing it is a big a
part as anything. I think advertising or marketing in general…and that could be anything from, you know,
events their doing to search media to anything like that, those all effect it. And then I think at the end of
the day…I guess one question is, “Can you get someone to wear a really irate T-shirt just because it’s a
really cool designer?” Yes, I think you can, I think people will. But I don’t think they will consistently
wear something that’s super-ugly just because it’s a cool designer. And I think that, you know, it’s more
about…at the end of the day unless you’re just talking about white T-shirts, I think it’s about the design.
But I think all those other parts have to work really well because you can have a great T-shirt design and if
nobody knows about it then chances are it’s not going to do that well.
Participant No. 16
Yeah, well I feel like if you’re part of a group, like if you skate, and you are going to be considered a
skater, that you’re going to be drawn to those T-shirts and if…like I was saying before too, if you’re like
uhh…into like Mod, then you’re going to be wearing, you know, probably some T-shirts that are more
like London street style related. So I don’t know if it’s the brand or the consumer [laughing] because the

361
consumer’s the one who has to be drawn to it and it has to fit their… No. I mean marketing definitely
controls the image. So if that marketing appeals to you and then you’re going to buy those clothes, then
that could shape your aesthetic.
Participant No. 17
For sure. I think so. But that doesn’t…it doesn’t. You know, it’s just lumping people into bigger faceless,
bland categories, you know. I don’t think people should be, you know, lumped together that way or
something.
Participant No. 21
Yeah because it’s a status symbol, so if you pay more for it you feel like, “I’m doing it” or “I’m
successful”. We use everything in this country as a symbol of our success. So you might feel more
successful if you bought that $100 T-shirt and it may not reflect your ideas as far as the design but what it
does reflect is your ideas as far as what success is. And it might inspire you to go and spend more money
on, “I’m going to buy a $300 pair of jeans now because I have to match it with the $100 T-shirt that I
bought.” And so that becomes your process. That becomes your culture. But I think if they have a
celebrity that’s pushing it, you’re only going to go even further.
Participant No. 22
Absolutely. I would just say like the branding, like T-shirts are the one piece of fashion where you can
brand your garment to actually be advertising and it’s very acceptable. If you took a T-shirt and the
graphic that’s on a T-shirt and then you took that same graphic and you put it on a woven button-up you
would probably say that woven button-up is wack (in poor taste) but on a T-shirt it’s supposed to be
branded, it’s supposed to be advertising for your company. It’s the one piece that clothing companies can
use to jam the brand name down your throat and still be acceptable, still be classy because it’s a T-shirt,
that’s what it’s meant for.
Participant No. 24
Yes. I feel terrible saying that. In the general public it’s a…Yes. I take the subway every day. When I sit
in the subway and look at people’s shoes and socks and “Where are they getting it?” and basically who
they are. If you’re an executive and you have a suit from The Men’s Warehouse, how important are you?
That sounds terrible. Oh my god. You don’t have to cut it out. I would like it if you kept it in there
because that’s like the terrible truth. It’s something as a society that we should be over. Well let me say
this…before I got into this marketing game, I worked for [various non-profit organizations], I was a
campaign director and I would stand out on the streets every day and I would raise money for gay rights,
women’s rights, prejudice awareness seminars. I mean going into low income neighborhoods and talking
to them about the importance of education, some of the most fulfilling things ever and everybody loves
the grassroots movement from the bottom up. Whatever new trend is going to come, and it will come, it’s
going to come from the people. It’s going to come from the 99% so to speak; the people who want to rise
up, which is why you see T-shirts with those verbal one liners that say “I am strong”, “I am powerful”, “I
am brave”. You see positive imaging commercials now for Kay that say, “How much do you weigh? I
weigh…happiness” you know whatever it is. And so that’s the new trend that we should see so that we’re
not defined by how we dress and how we look and rather we’re defined by who we are and how we feel
which is obviously a much more powerful and importance stance.
Participant No. 28
Absolutely, I think the individual who is able to afford that T-shirt or that brand that is on the cusp of
trend, that’s trendy, that’s kind of popular by the populace just because it’s on trend but it’s also of a
premium price point or what have you, that individual who can consistently wear those brands is going to
be looked at as being premium in nature, being important, kind of being an influencer of style more times
than not. So I think that brands do have the power and the potential to change the perceptive identity of
individuals. I think it depends on the brand and it depends on the individual. Because if the individual just
has style and they’re able to kind of…you know there’s a difference between being fashionable and being
stylish. A stylish person can go into H&M and come out of H&M with an outfit and look better than that
dude who goes into Gucci and spends $1,500. I feel like I align fashion with trend and style just being
indicative of a person’s personality just being communicated through [taste]…taste speaks volumes over
trend and what’s fashionable.

362
What role does status play in the ability of this change to take place for consumers (e.g.
high, low)?

Participant No. 11
I think from high to low it really doesn’t because there are so many wealthy people that will wear just
basic shirts. From low to high I don’t know if it really does but people think it does so that’s why they do
it.
Participant No. 13
Yes, I think by wearing high brands you could bring yourself up. [In terms of lowering status] people will
look at him a little differently, it depends if he’s wearing it on a day to day basis or not. This stuff is so
shallow it’s crazy. It drives me crazy if the world is like this.
Participant No. 21
You don’t even have to be that popular…I think it’s way more powerful than people think, I think it’s just,
like I said it’s a quick advertisement. But if you’re the right person and all of the rest of your accessories
are fly and people are constantly looking at you like, “What’s that dude wearing today?” And then you
wear it a certain way like, when I used to sell my T-shirts on the street I used to watch the way people
would wear them and realize what they thought about the T-shirt. Like if I would see people in a club
wearing it I would get happy like, “Oh you consider this like one of your best pieces.” And I would
always look around and see it like, I would be disappointed like, I never saw this, like somebody cutting
the grass in your T-shirt. I would never want to see that. I want to see you taking this and putting it in the
closet with your best shit and then you wear it on the night when you want to look your best. [Low-end
brands are not able to bring high-end consumers down] because you’re not going to stop being…the thing
is, you’re a high-end consumer, you’re not aspiring down you’re aspiring up. You might buy a generic
something one day but you’re a high-end consumer. Your lifestyle overall, you have money. We
experienced this in the last 20 years or so. Timberland, for example, didn’t want to be associated with the
African-American consumer because they intended their product to be for a certain lifestyle. They wanted
it to be for outdoorsmen, hunters, etc. “You guys are making it hip-hop.” They felt like we were bringing
their damn brand down but we were keeping their brand alive. Nobody was checking for that shit. I mean
all of these brands…Polo! What’s weird about Polo is I haven’t seen any acknowledgement from Ralph
Lauren to the African-American consumer. I mean you’ve got this whole sect of people called The
LoLifes, you would think he would show up to one of their events and acknowledge that. Like these are
the people ultimately who are driving the brand.
Participant No. 25
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Joe Shmoe the gangster is now hip if he puts a Vans shirt on. He’s not gangster any
more, he’s now part of the cool hipster set.

How do you feel that change (for consumers) is influenced by the individual’s adherence to
or divergence from the brand’s proposed image?

Participant No. 7
If you’re looking at them, yeah you would think that because it’s just after looking at them. The marketing
and the people’s relation to the brand, the relation to the design, how they feel when they put it on,
because at the end of the day it’s their confidence that plays a major part in that too and how they put the
T-shirt all together (in their total outfit). It plays a strong role because you have to put it together
correctly…because now that brand stretches their clothing a particular way and if you want to go to
Giorgio Armani you’re going to get a slim cut, tight. So you’re expecting it to be fit so that’s going to be
perceived as that.
Participant No. 15
I think a high level brand relative to a low-status consumer is like what traditionally used to be done where
you felt like the brand had a certain cachet and if I can own that then I’m that person. But the low-status
consumer you’re entering the losing race. You’ll never be able to really flex on someone that is a high-
status consumer. So I don’t think…it’s a good short run thing where I bought Dior sunglasses and like that
takes me up a little bit, but to live that lifestyle you have to always consistently be dropping that stuff. So I

363
think that from a high-level brand [to] low-level consumer it works short run. Low level brand [to] high-
level consumer is interesting because let’s say if we’re saying low-status brand meaning if it’s good
quality but not maybe trendy that is an effective one for both people because the high-level consumer is
stepping out of the realm of saying I wear the typical things you…I think it’s one of the most
powerful…it’s like when you see a powerful person that is wearing that obscure thing you know you find
like…I’ve seen someone like Jay Z do that quite a lot where he’ll wear a T-shirt where we’ll always
bewildered like, “Where…?” He knows the shirts to wear to get them street level respect sometimes and
I’ve seen him pull it off a bunch of times and it works. He’s one of the good ones with it. And people
prefer to see that once in a while from someone like him and you’ll see that like now he’s really kind of
dressing down a lot like white button-ups and slacks. Like it’s just kind of like a very consistent look and
someone like him has to really step away from seeming like he’s following trends so I think it works in
that way. And then for consumers I think…again I think it really is about…I think it’s hard for a consumer
to really…I think it’s really hard for a consumer to lower their status by wearing something lower. I think
that when they do it if their doing it on purpose…I mean if it’s a guy…if it’s a billionaire that’s just
shopping at Marshall’s because he has no other ideas it might be a bit strange but it never hurts the ultra-
rich to also appeal to the regular people, however you want to make that connection. And I think that
anyone aspiring—low-status consumer or low-income consumer in the aspirational stuff, you really get a
lot more credit long run for being a high style individual as opposed to like a high-income brand, high
purchasing power individual almost in every circle. I mean the richest brands, the richest designers always
respect the guy who can dress and nowadays it’s not a function of money really because they make
disposable clothes, they make H&M stuff…fast fashion and you can dress it up. You can be the guy
that…and I find that it’s much more powerful when…see for instance I’ve been having meetings with a
really, really high level suit designer and the guy designs suits for…he’s designed suits for 4 living [U.S.]
presidents, during all the debates and stuff and the elections the suits that Obama was wearing and
Romney was wearing—both designed by him. And he’s not really well known because he just has one
boutique but he dresses the best. But like for instance when I go to see him I’ll never wear a suit because
this guy could pick your suit apart no matter what it is because he sells $85,000 suits and he can always
get you on the suit level. But if I wear a combination of casual clothes…that’s how I can win that.
Because to him it’s like he doesn’t know casual. So he sees guy who’s very comfortable and casual in his
own clothes and then might be like, “Well what’s that T-shirt about?” And then the fact that you have as
much comfort in what you’re wearing as he does in his$100,000 suit, then that’s what elevates my status.
If I showed up to like a guy that knows everything about suits and was wearing like a $2,000 suit he could
still kill me…I think it applies too in the sense that the general population, the one thing they don’t think
about is like if you’re low-level and you’re trying to impress another low-level person…Yeah, get a Louis
Vuitton bag. That person will be impressed but when you walk into a Louis Vuitton store you’re still a
clown. And that’s the problem it’s like you have to defeat a luxury brand if you want the respect from the
luxury brand and it’s like a losing race to begin with because…why get in that game that is way too
expensive for you to win where it’s a lot easier to win the game of, “I could buy that but it’s wack to
me.”…Like I would prefer someone bought a Louis Vuitton bag and got like an ill artist to paint on it to
the point where you go to the store and they’re like, “Hey what’s that?” you know like, “What’s that thing
that you have?” You know so that I think is the winning move all the time when you can really trump
them when it’s not just something like, “Oh yeah that cheap purse that we had?” you know.
Participant No. 16
Yeah, well I feel like if you’re part of a group, like if you skate, and you are going to be considered a
skater, that you’re going to be drawn to those T-shirts and if…like I was saying before too, if you’re like
uhh…into like Mod, then you’re going to be wearing, you know, probably some T-shirts that are more
like London street style related. So I don’t know if it’s the brand or the consumer [laughing] because the
consumer’s the one who has to be drawn to it and it has to fit their… No. I mean marketing definitely
controls the image. So if that marketing appeals to you and then you’re going to buy those clothes, then
that could shape your aesthetic. Well I suppose if you are really into it then you are going to adhere to the
brand [laughter]. But if the marketing goes in a different way or if a celebrity that they aren’t necessarily
attracted to is part of their marketing campaign then that is when they are going to diverge from the brand.
Participant No. 17
I don’t know. I know that if like, we had 100 [of our] crew standing in front of this camera and they were
all wearing [one of our] shirts. Not one of them would look alike but you would know that every single

364
one of them was [our] shirt. So I think that there’s something about individual expression that becomes its
own trend or something like that. You know, it’s not about a color, a look, or a graphic, a size and stuff
like that. It’s all just an ethos. That’s why punk was like a movement, it wasn’t a fashion style.
Participant No. 18
For example I was working at Timberland when I saw this, and I was like, “Yo! This is what we need to
do!” So when you’re at a company you get paid…you actually get paid to travel and seek the information
on the ground to bring to the fashion house and that’s how it works. So yes, the people or the consumer
that’s wearing product or wearing a particular trend…some type of fashion, that dictates what your
fashion house does…It’s hard to answer your question…I mean at the end of the day you’re selling cool.
Your selling cool…Cool is confidence. I’ve seen Lower East Side cats who didn’t have a penny, you
know and was like Vans, some nice skinny jeans, a sweatshirt and he was just sitting smoking a cigarette
and I was like, “Yo that [guy] is cool as shit!” because he was confident, he knew who he was. But then
I’ll see somebody in California who’s rocking an Ed Hardy fucking T-shirt, fucking antique denim, and
some fucking shoes that are loud as hell and I’m like, “Yo this [guy] is confused and he has all the money
in the world.” So you can’t say class has to do anything with it. At the end of the day you’re selling cool.
Participant No. 24
I’m sure that it would move you to some degree…I mean if you had facial tattoos, if you had piercings…I
used to have dreadlocks so that’s a good example. I use d to have long dreadlocks, you know, down past
my shoulders and I’d wear a nice suit, I’d wear David Yurman jewelry, I mean so my hair is socially
deviant but my clothes are representative of somebody from a higher socio-economic place…I mean if it’s
a T-shirt that says Burberry, of course. Because social deviance, even though it’s the most important thing
in all of America, and every great…movement, is based off of social deviance, including evolution,
whatever…Social deviants…[are trendsetters]…Look at Free People, look at Urban Outfitters…those
types of companies are aimed at people that are “socially deviant” that want to look free.

At what point (in terms of percentages) do you feel that consumers with identities
inconsistent with a brand’s image begin to reposition that image? (give numerical %’s)

Participant No. 4
I would say like…I guess if you’re like…of like the 100 people that people are seeing… I guess if it tips
towards like 60, 70 percent. I think that would shift someone’s perception. If the number of…I think 60 is
where people start questioning and then 70 is like you’re done! [laughing] I think that it changes the
impression of that individual…The one-off yeah like that one-off. If all gangsters started doing that.
[laughing]. I think the criteria for gangsterdom changes when that happens. Just like basketball shorts
getting longer and shorter, you know, that kind of shit or like baggy jeans versus tight jeans. Yeah. The
definition changes I guess. Like guys used to dance. You know?...that’d be cool. [Now] you can’t do that
shit. But it’s changing though I think it’s changing back. There’re just more entertainers dancing. I think
that it’s shifting again.
Participant No. 5
It’s pretty high too probably. I think that’s also high…70% then
Participant No. 17
I think there’s a deeper psychological issue about like other people judging other people’s status in life
based on their clothing. You know that’s…every individual has their own thing like some people probably
still can’t get over people wearing sneakers. Like old people can’t stand the way we sag our pants. It’s like
we don’t even do it on purpose. It’s just like how these jeans are made or something. Maybe it’s genetic, I
don’t know. But it’s just like…people will interpret something way beyond like what it was originally
meant to be. I don’t really know…I don’t really understand the question. I don’t really know. I don’t really
know what you mean. Well you know what? This goes back to like clothes do not make the person. Like
fuck all that. Like there is no percentage in whatever you’re talking about. Like, that whole thing clothes
make the man…like, “Yeah?”…Nah! Fuck that! People are people and if you’re just looking at people’s
clothes and you’re not looking at like who they are and what they’re doing you’re in a bubble man. So I
don’t know about any of that stuff. Yeah I don’t know. I think its…I think maybe…I think maybe there
was a time when like Ed Hardy or something like that…like that brand maybe like an older person started
wearing it and then maybe like women started doing their version with all this bedazzling all over it and

365
shit like that. And it started becoming like this whole other thing that was like, “Whoa!” Like that’s
clearly this other thing. But I don’t know if that hurt a T-shirt. I think that it’s always just going to be one
of the running jokes of like, “Oh fuck that went too far!” like Hammer pants. You know, it’s just like you
went out there and you tried but I don’t know. It’s not for me but I don’t think that, you know Ed Hardy
didn’t ruin the T-shirt. Hell no! [laughing] It made that dude…it made somebody rich, that Christian
Audigier dude like……a bigger douche than he probably already was. Maybe 2 million times a bigger
douche. [laughing]
Participant No. 21
I say that for the consumer that’s wearing an old heritage brand because that’s where the trend is going.
And it usually happens in that kind of happens in that kind of number…it’s like you take 100 kids and you
send them…you go to Vinnie’s right now, you can go to Atrium, it’s right beside Vinnie’s. And that’s a
good example of both. Vinnie’s has all the new, hot, young streetwear brands. Atrium has old heritage
brands. They’ve got the old denim brands. They’ve got the old Penfield. You know they’ve got all those
old brands but it’s the trend. And so you see the split, you see the divide; the kids who go in who they
might buy a sweatshirt from Vinnie’s and then you’ve got that 30% consumer who knows streetwear but
he’s more sophisticated. “I want a vest from Pendleton or Penfield” or “I want Scotch & Soda” so I’m
going to go next door and I’m going to buy something a little more classy and be just a little fresher.
Participant No. 26
I think it’s still around 50%. It sounds so weird. You know you think back in the early 90s and it was like
all these white people that had these perceptions of what a colored minority our of like Harlem or
Brooklyn should sound, speak or dress like. But out of the hundred he had to meet 50 that were the other
way before finally he was like wait a minute…you know if he met 20 he just thinks it’s like the cool 20.
But at 50 he’s like, “Well if half the people I know are like this then maybe I just haven’t met enough
people and the majority of the people are like this.” So it’s got to be somewhere around 50. Well I think
it’s harder to go up than to go down…It’s probably the same on both ends in that specific case when it’s
considering the consumer then. That’s the thing about it and that’s why the T-shirt is an interesting part of
this conversation, just to bring it full circle, because you can see the most paid individuals with a basic
white tee and no-one is like, “Why would he just get a basic white tee?” Like, “Why does he just have a
Hanes shirt on?” You don’t question that. Now when you see a poor kid wearing a white tee you’re just
like, “It’s a white tee.” You’re not like, “Why isn’t he paying…” you know what I’m saying. That’s the
one thing about a T-shirt. It’s sort of that medium that’s accepted within the fashion industry high or low,
that it’s a T-shirt.
Participant No. 27
I probably would not ever think…Maybe I would look at it in a different way…let’s say all of those [non-
target] consumers are wearing like $500 T-shirts, I would maybe if I saw let’s say 10% of them wearing
$500 T-shirts, I would probably start to perceive that brand as having inroads with that social group…I
would always think that fashion brand would necessarily be part of a movement but it would be an
important element of defining their identity. The way I look at it now, let’s say that [non-target consumer],
I would also take into account where he hangs out, what music he listens to, and fashion would just be a
component. It wouldn’t be a thing that would define. I would look at it more like that, but then again
fashion is the first thing that’s obviously visible. You would look at him and be like, “Oh shit, he’s
wearing that.” But I think overall…I’ve never been in a position where like, “Okay that guy wears that
and that surprises me.” If that makes sense…like there’s some people, I think you’ve seen enough…I’d
like to think anyways that there’s nothing that surprises me as much anymore where it’s like…because
like I said, I’ll use the example of a grandma wearing like A Bathing Ape or something or whatever…it’s
the kind of stuff where it’s surprising but it wouldn’t blow my mind.
Participant No. 29
That’s too difficult of a question for me to answer with any honesty. How do I put an answer to that
question? It’s not just volume. It has to be a more sophisticated equation that has proximity, time, all of
those factors….You see like 70 people in something…you clump them into this pile. It takes a long
time…and I’ll say tattoos, for the longest time it was like, “Oh only social deviants and tough guys have
tattoos.” And they’ve become like the most like…[more people have tattoos than] have their ears pierced.
But it doesn’t say anything. It’s not like, “Oh tattoos make you smart.” I don’t want to skew your data…I
can’t I’m sorry. I can’t do it.

366
Participant No. 31
I think that what you’re describing is a lot of what has changed now. I mean tattoos an d piercings for
instance—so much more socially acceptable. I think clothes play a role in everything but I think that the
whole idea of being a computer programmer and making $200,000 a year and not having to wear a
business suit…I think that that’s more of what changed it. I think that society, because of how young
people make money…the understanding of what success is…the look of what success is, is completely
different…Who’s wearing these $400 T-shirts? I think the range of people that are wearing these $400 T-
shirts is wide. I think that it’s a lot of aspirational people…There are so many trends…It definitely
depends. It depends on what lane you’re in. I mean certain things are trendy to certain people. Society is
so much more diverse and segmented at this point…Clothes do not define the man. I think that if you tried
to guess that right 10 out of 10 times, I think you’d be right maybe 2 or 3… So many people don’t
care…It depends. That’s why I think for so much of this branded stuff, the newness comes from the youth
because young people care. Older people don’t care as much and the funny thing about it is that it’s these
really old brands that are salient to these older consumers, which makes it a luxury brand because they’re
the people who can afford it. Right?

367
APPENDIX C: IN-DEPTH-INTERVIEW RESULTS—TABLES

Table 1: Gender

Table 2: Location of Operation

Table 3: Job Classification

22

9

0
5
10
15
20
25

Male

Female

Gender

Gender

21

7

1

1

1

0
5
10
15
20
25

New
York
City

Los
Angeles

Virginia

London

Hong
Kong

Loca+on
of
Opera+on

LocaHon

18

13

0
5
10
15
20

CreaHve

AdministaHve

Job
Classifica+on

Job
ClassificaHon

368

Table 4: Affiliated Firm Size

Table 5: Years in the Fashion Industry

17

6

8

0
5
10
15
20

Large

Medium

Small

Affiliated
Firm
Size

Firm
Size

2

0

1

0

3

1

1

2

1

6

0

1

4

1

1

1

0

0

2

3

0

1

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Years
in
the
Fashion
Industry

Years

369

Table 6: Similarities Across Markets (NY/LA)

Table 7: Differences Across Markets (NY/LA)

8

3

2

6

4

5

2

3

2

2

1

8

3

0
2
4
6
8
10

Everyone
wears
T-‐shirts

Individualism

It
depends
on
what's
trending

People
follow
naHonwide
rather
than
regional

The
same
customer
exists
in
different
markets

The
internet
has
homogenized
the
U.S.
market

Big
box
retailers
have
homogenized
the
U.S.

It
depends
on
the
consumer
demographic

T-‐shirts
have
strong
youth
culture
affiliaHon

U.S.
consumers
prefer
t-‐shirts
from
major
fashion

Slim
cut
is
in
fashion

No
response

Other

Similari+es

SimilariHes

4

7

2

3

2

2

3

11

4

8

2

2

2

2

2

2

10

3

5

23

3

0
5
10
15
20
25

NY
has
more
luxury/chic

NY
is
more
diverse

NY
wears
LA
streetwear
brands

NY
is
more
influenced
by
street
culture

LA
is
cleaner/more
simplisHc

LA
uses
slimmer
cuts

LA
has
more
graphic
t-‐shirts

LA
has
brighter
colors

Weather
disHnguishes
NY
from
LA

Indie
brands
are
more
localized
to
their
region
of

No
response

Differences

Differences

370

Table 8.1: What Does a T-shirt Signify as an Article of Fashion?

Table 8.2: What Does a T-shirt Signify as an Article of Fashion?

28

3

0
5
10
15
20
25
30

Significant

Insignificant

T-‐shirt
as
Fashion

T-‐Shirt
as
Fashion

13

3

2

2

3

5

6

7

10

1

9

2

3

1

4

5

5

3

4

1

2

1

1

2

1

7

0
5
10
15

Centerpiece/Statement
piece

Simple
choice
of
aere

Casual
aere

Diverse
garment

Comfortable

Communicates
internal
feelings

Communicate
tastes

Communicates
poliHcs/values/
worldview

Communicates
social
idenHty/
Creates
bonds

Rebellious

Blank
canvas/Other
form
of
conspicuous
self-‐
Demonstrate
status/luxury

Classic/Staple
of
American
aere

Signifies
youth
culture

Signifies
current
trends/Dates
fashion

EssenHal
part
of
fashion
collecHons

AdverHsement/MarkeHng/Propoganda
device
for

Entreé
into
prohibiHvely
expensive
luxury
brands

Easy/Cheap/Profitable
sale
item
for
brands

PotenHally
compromising
to
brand

UHlitarian/Year-‐round/layering
piece

SenHmental
keepsake

Color
contrast

Not
a
necessity/staple

Disposable
fashion

Other

T-‐shirt
as
Fashion

T-‐shirt
as
Fashion

371

Table 9: Most Important Component of T-shirt Design

14

6

18

3

2

1

19

0
5
10
15
20

Cut

Color

Fabric

SHtching

Detailing

Applique

Design/Message

Component

Component

372

Table 10.1: Most Prominent Historical Trends in T-shirt Design

4

5

1

3

3

6

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

2

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Logo
t-‐shirts

Photographs

Afrocentric
design

Paint
splash

Taioo
based
designs

Skatewear

V-‐neck
t-‐shirts

Long
t-‐shirts

SublimaHon/All-‐over-‐prints

Logo
parody
t-‐shirts

PoliHcal
t-‐shirts

Independent
producHon
t-‐shirts

Vintage/Distressed
t-‐shirts

Other

Historical
Trend

Historical
Trend

373

Table 10.2: Cultural Influences of
Most Prominent Historical Trends in T-shirt Design

3

2

5

10

5

1

3

5

8

4

1

1

2

2

4

1

2

1

1

5

1

1

3

0
2
4
6
8
10
12

Assert/Aspire
for
socioeconomic

Visual
culture/GraffiH

Individuality/Uniqueness

Music

Celebrity

DIY
culture

Counter
culture

Street
culture

Hip
Hop
culture

Punk
culture

Hippie
culture

Hipster
culture

Skate/BMX
culture

Surf/Beach
culture

Youth
culture

Pop
culture

African
American
culture

Tourism

UHlitarianism

Social/PoliHcal
consciousness

American
heritage

GlobalizaHon

Other

Cultural
Influences

Cultural
Influences

374

Table 11: Most Outstanding T-shirt Design

2

1

5

5

3

1

2

1

1

3

5

3

1

5

0
1
2
3
4
5
6

Logo
t-‐shirts

Photographs

Overt
graphics

Band/Concert
t-‐shirts

Back
to
basics

SublimaHon/All-‐over-‐prints

PromoHonal
t-‐shirts

Logo
parody
t-‐shirts

PoliHcal
t-‐shirts

Luxury
brand
t-‐shirts

Independent
producHon
t-‐shirts

AthleHc
team
t-‐shirts

Criminology
t-‐shirts

Other

Best
T-‐shirt

Best
T-‐shirt

375

Table 12: What Makes A T-shirt Hot or Outstanding?

2

7

6

1

14

6

2

2

3

6

2

3

3

1

3

1

3

3

4

2

5

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16

Cut

Color

Fabric

SHtching

Graphic/Design/Message

Uniqueness

Social/Cultural/PoliHcal
significance

Trendiness

Simplicity/Minimalism

Personal
Relevance

Nostalgia

Cool

ArHstry

Logo

Wit/Cleverness

Concept

Durability

Humor

AienHon
grabbing

EclecHc
appeal

Other

What
makes
it
Hot?

What
makes
it
Hot?

376

Table 13.1: Most Prominent Current Trends in T-shirt Design

1

5

2

1

1

1

2

3

2

3

2

2

7

2

4

2

2

1

1

4

4

3

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

2

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Plain
white
t-‐shirt

AnHque
design
moHfs

Logos

Parody

Feminine
prints

Band/Concert
t-‐shirts

Pockets

Leopard/Cheetah
prints

Foil
prints

ArHsHc
graphics

Fiied
t-‐shirts

Color
blocking

SublimaHon/All-‐over
prints

Bright
colors

Black
&
White

Retro
characters

Luxury
Parody

Irony

Editorial

Overt
graphics

Retro
era
nostalgia

Animals

CustomizaHon

Geometric
shapes

Sex-‐Money-‐Rock
&
Roll

Slogans

Hyper
colors

Simplicity/Minimalism

High
quality
t-‐shirts

Long
t-‐shirts

AlternaHve
fabrics

Back
to
Basics

AthleHc
design

Stars

Dip
dye
t-‐shirts

Fashion
driven

Other

Current
Trends

Current
Trends

377

Table 13.2: Cultural Influences of the
Most Prominent Current Trends in T-shirt Design

5

6

1

2

3

10

1

1

3

3

5

2

1

2

2

2

1

1

3

1

0
2
4
6
8
10
12

Celebrity

Music

Tastemakers

Assert/Aspire
for
socioeconomic

Increased
accessibility
of
fashion

Individuality/Uniqueness

AienHon
seeking

Europe

Counter
culture

Street
culture

Hip
Hop
culture

Hipster
culture

Pop
culture

High
culture

Sports
culture

Social/PoliHcal
consciousness

Technology

Ease
of
color
coordinaHon

Other

No
answer

Cultural
Influences

Cultural
Influences

378

Table 14.1: Future Trends in T-shirt Design

1

1

3

4

1

1

1

1

3

1

3

2

1

4

2

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5

Fiied
t-‐shirts

Shorter
fashion
cycles

Unpredictable

Simplicity

"Inspired
by"/Retro

Logos

Music

PoliHcs

Alternate
fabrics

T-‐shirts
expand

Luxury
t-‐shirts

It
depends
on
the
consumer

Afrocentric
design

Back
to
basics

Integrated
technology

Retro
era
nostalgia

CustomizaHon

DIY

American
heritage

Overt
graphics

Vintage/Distressed
graphics

Sports
based
design

Fashion
driven

One-‐liner
t-‐shirts

#Hashtag
t-‐shirts

Cut
&
Sew

Beier
quality

Other

Future
Trends

Future
Trends

379

Table 14.2: Cultural Influences of Future Trends in T-shirt Design

1

4

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

4

1

7

1

2

2

1

4

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Display
physique

Nostalgia

Nature
of
fashion

Music

PoliHcs

ConservaHon

Newness/Novelty

Universal
appeal

SubjecHve

It
depends
on
the
consumer

Hip
Hop
culture

Technology

Increased
accessibility
to
fashion

Individuality/Uniqueness

American
Heritage

Luxury
brand
status

Desire
for
durability

Other

No
Answer

Cultural
Influences

Cultural
Influences

380
Table 15: Top Luxury Brands at the Moment

8

6

4

5

10

1

1

3

1

1

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

6

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

3

1

2

1

1

2

1

3

0
2
4
6
8
10
12

Louis
Vuiion

Gucci

Chanel

Polo
Ralph
Lauren

Givenchy

Mary
Katranzou

Peter
Piloio

Rick
Owens

Y3

Yojhi
Yamamoto

Dior

Hermès

Dolce
&
Gabbana

Armani

ChrisHan
LoubouHn

Balmain

KTZ

Diane
von
Fursgenberg

Prada

Yves
Saint
Laurent

BLK
DNM

J
Brand

Céline

Alexander
McQueen

Issa

Burberry

Helmut
Lang

Zac
Posen

Marc
Jacobs

Comme
des
Garçons

Fendi

Kenzo

Lanvin

Marc
McNairy

Public
School

Versace

Philip
Lim

Hood
By
Air

Maison
MarHn
Margiela

Alexander
Wang

Other

None

I
don't
know

Top
Luxury
Brands

Top
Luxury
Brands

381
Table 16: Most Popular Luxury Brands at the Moment

19

11

2

3

11

2

2

1

1

1

3

1

3

1

2

6

1

1

2

1

2

3

1

4

1

1

2

1

2

4

1

1

0
5
10
15
20

Louis
Vuiion

Gucci

Fendi

Prada

Givenchy

Céline

Balenciaga

Rick
Owens

Y3

Yojhi
Yaamoto

Chanel

Dior

Hermès

Dolce
&
Gabbana

Yves
Saint
Laurent

Versace

Christain
LoubouHn

Guiseppe

Diane
von
Furstenberg

Prada

Armani

Lanvin

Issa

Burberry

Gaillard

Jeremy
Scoi

Ralph
Lauren
Polo

Maison
MarHn
Margiela

Tom
Ford

Other

I
don't
know

Alexander
Wang

Popular
Luxury
Brands

Popular
Luxury
Brands

382
Table 17.1: Best Luxury Brands T-shirts (Quality)

2

9

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

3

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Gucci

Givenchy

Céline

Balenciaga

D-‐Squared

Dolce
&
Gabbana

Marc
Jacobs

Comme
des
Garçons

Versace

James
Perse

Yojhi
Yamamoto

Vivienne
Westwood

Maison
MarHn
Margiela

Lanvin

Hugo
Boss

Kenzo

Alexander
McQueen

Ralph
Lauren
Polo

Philip
Lim

Visvim

Armani

Other

None

I
don't
know

Luxury
Quality

Luxury
Quality

383
Table 17.2: Best Luxury Brands T-shirts (Design)

1

10

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

8

3

1

1

0
2
4
6
8
10
12

Gucci

Givenchy

Céline

Balenciaga

D-‐Squared

Dolce
&
Gabbana

Christopher
Kane

Marc
Jacobs

Vivienne
Westwood

Maison
MarHn
Margiela

Lanvin

Kenzo

Alexander
McQueen

Versace

Philip
Lim

Armani

Other

None

I
don't
know

Comme
des
Garçons

Yojhi
Yamamoto

Luxury
Design

Luxury
Design

384
Table 18: Mass Luxury Brands’ Influence on Principle Brands

Table 19: Mass Luxury Brands Offering of Lifestyle Experience

10

27

5

1

0
5
10
15
20
25
30

It
depends

Benefits
the
brand

Compromises
the
brand

No
answer

Mass
Luxury
Influence
on
Principle

Mass
Luxury
Influence
on

Principle

10

21

10

1

0
5
10
15
20
25

It
depends

Benefits
the
consumer

At
the
expense
of
the
consumer

No
answer

Mass
Luxury
Lifestyle
Experience

Mass
Luxury
Lifestyle

Experience

385
Table 20.1: Best Mass Luxury Brands T-Shirts (Quality)

4

1

2

1

6

4

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

2

12

1

1

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14

Polo
Ralph
Lauren

Calvin
klein

Zara

United
Colors
of
Beneion

Marc
by
Marc
Jacobs

J.
Crew

Club
Monaco

Lucky
Brand

asos

JoyRich

Armani
Exchange

Adidas
SLVR

Miu
Miu

t
By
Alexander
Wang

Other

None

I
don't
know

No
answer

Mass
Luxury
Quality

Mass
Luxury
Quality

386

Table 20.2: Best Mass Luxury Brands T-Shirts (Design)

4

5

4

2

2

1

3

1

1

1

2

11

1

1

1

1

1

0
2
4
6
8
10
12

J.
Crew

Marc
by
Marc
Jacobs

Polo
Ralph
Lauren

Abercrombie
&
Fitch

Zara

Lucky
Brand

Armani
Exchange

Adidas
SLVR

Miu
Miu

t
By
Alexander
Wang

Other

None

I
don't
know

No
answer

Club
Monaco

asos

JoyRich

Mass
Luxury
Design

Mass
Luxury
Design

387

Table 21.1: Best Streetwear Brand T-Shirts (Quality)

1

2

1

4

4

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

6

3

1

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Brian
Lichtenberg

BAPE

SSUR

10Deep

Supreme

Patricia
Fields

The
Dolphins

Obey

Mishka

Kid
Robot

Ice
Cream

Play
Clothes

Diamond
Supply

Rob
Smith

STAPLE

Scotch
&
Soda

Cohesive

The
Hundreds

Stussy

KTZ

JoyRich

Stussy

Folk

Visvim

Kapital

Fresh
Goods

Lost
Projects

Junya
Watanabe
Man

APC

Collapse

Paul
Smith

Red
Air

Johnny
Cupcakes

Rare
Panther

Other

None

I
don't
know

Crooks
&
Castles

Streetwear
Quality

Streetwear
Quality

388
Table 21.2: Best Streetwear Brand T-Shirts (Design)

7

1

6

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

4

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

3

2

1

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Supreme

SSUR

10Deep

BAPE

Scotch
&
Soda

Brian
Lichtenberg

Patricia
Fields

The
Dolphins

Obey

Mishka

Kid
Robot

Ice
Cream

Play
Clothes

The
Hundreds

Diamond
Supply

Rob
Smith

Marc
Ecko

Cohesive

STAPLE

KTZ

JoyRIch

Stussy

Folk

Visvim

Kapital

Fresh
Goods

Lost
Projects

APC

Collapse

Paul
Smith

Red
Air

Johnny
Cupcakes

WeSC

Other

None

I
don't
know

Crooks
&
Castles

Junya
Watanabe
Man

Streetwear
Design

Streetwear
Design

389
Table 22.1: Best Mass-Market T-Shirts (Quality)

Table 22.2: Best Mass-Market T-Shirts (Design)

2

4

2

13

2

5

1

5

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

4

2

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14

Hanes

Zara

Urban
Ousiiers

UNIQLO

GAP

American
Apparel

TOPMAN

H&M

Target

Forever
21

American
Rag

Hudson

American
Eagle

Primark

Kirkland

None

I
don't
know

Mass-‐Market
Quality

Mass-‐Market
Quality

8

3

3

12

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14

H&M

Zara

Urban
Ousiiers

UNIQLO

Target

Forever
21

Ecko
Unlimited

American
Rag

Hudson

American
Eagle

Primark

None

I
don't
know

No
answer

Mass-‐Market
Design

Mass-‐Market
Design

390

Table 23.1: Best Total Market T-Shirts (Quality)

1

1

1

4

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

5

8

3

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Gucci

Stussy

t
By
Alexander
Wang

American
Apparel

Sicily

GAP

H&M

Polo

Ecko
Unlimited

Mark
Ecko

Cohesive

Marc
Jacobs

Comme
des
GarÃ§ons

Yves
Saint
Laurent

Givenchy

Vivienne
Westwood

Maison
MarHn
Margiela

UNIQLO

Hanes

10Deep

Hussein
Chalayan

Mossimo

Supreme

Crooks
&
Castles

It
depends

None

No
answer

Total
Market
Quality

Total
Market
Quality

391

Table 23.2: Best Total Market T-Shirts (Design)

5

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

8

2

1

4

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Independent
Designers

Givenchy

Balenciaga

Stussy

t
By
Alexander
Wang

American
Apparel

H&M

Scotch
&
Soda

Polo

Ecko
Unlimited

Mark
Ecko

James
Perse

Cohesive

Marc
Jacobs

Comme
des
Garçons

Yves
Saint
Laurent

Vivienne
Westwood

Maison
MarHn
Margiela

UNIQLO

Hanes

10Deep

Hussein
Chalayan

Mossimo

Supreme

Crooks
&
Castles

None

No
answer

Urban
Ousiiers

It
Depends

Total
Market
Design

Total
Market
Design

392

Table 24: Tangible Difference Between Market Segments

10

3

5

2

1

1

7

6

13

1

1

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14

Yes,
higher
status
equals
higher

quality
and
design

Yes,
higher
status
equals
slightly

higher
quality
and
design

Yes,
higher
status
equals
higher

quality

Yes,
higher
status
equals
slightly

higher
quality

No,
street
brands
have
beier
designs

No,
independent
designers
have

beier
designs

No,
good
and
bad
quality
quality
and

design
found
in
every
segment

No,
design
is
subjecHve

It
depends
for
quality
and
design

No,
low
status
equals
higher
quality

No

Tangible
Difference

Tangible
Difference

393

Table 25: Legitimate Price Limit for a T-shirt

$50

$500

$40

$150

$60

$40

$50

$95

$50

$80

$120

$25

$100

$120

$35

$75

$30

$40

$40

$45

$60

$100

$98

$150

$40

$1,000

$30

$100

$50

$40

0

$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200

ParHcipant
No.
1

ParHcipant
No.
2

ParHcipant
No.
3

ParHcipant
No.
4

ParHcipant
No.
5

ParHcipant
No.
6

ParHcipant
No.
7

ParHcipant
No.
8

ParHcipant
No.
9

ParHcipant
No.
10

ParHcipant
No.
11

ParHcipant
No.
12

ParHcipant
No.
13

ParHcipant
No.
14

ParHcipant
No.
15

ParHcipant
No.
16

ParHcipant
No.
17

ParHcipant
No.
18

ParHcipant
No.
19

ParHcipant
No.
20

ParHcipant
No.
21

ParHcipant
No.
22

ParHcipant
No.
23

ParHcipant
No.
24

ParHcipant
No.
25

ParHcipant
No.
26

ParHcipant
No.
27

ParHcipant
No.
28

ParHcipant
No.
29

ParHcipant
No.
30

ParHcipant
No.
31

T-‐shirt
Price
Limit

T-‐shirt
Price
Limit

394

Table 26: Trendiness vs. Price in the Assertion of Brand Status

Table 27.1: Do Consumers Alter Brand Status with T-shirts?

11

3

18

11

1

1

3

2

0
5
10
15
20

Trendiness
is
more
important

than
price

Price
is
more
important
than

trendiness

Trendiness
influences
price

Price
influences
trendiness

Trendiness
exists
at
low
price

points

Trendiness
exists
at
high

price
points

It
depends

Neither

Brand
Trendiness
vs.
Price

Brand
Trendiness
vs.
Price

25

3

2

7

3

0
5
10
15
20
25
30

Yes,
consumers
can
alter

brand
image

Yes,
consumers
can
alter

brand
image
slightly

No,
consumers
cannot
alter

brand
image

It
depends

Other

Consumers
Alter
Brand
Image

Consumers
Alter
Brand
Image

395

Table 27.2: How Does Consumer Status
Influence Change in Brand Status with T-shirts?

Table 27.3: How Does Consumer Adherence to a
Brand’s Proposed Image Influence Change in Brand Status?

19

11

1

4

2

15

1

0
5
10
15
20

Low
status
consumers
can
bring

a
high
status
brand
down

High
status
consumers
can
bring

a
low
status
brand
up

Low
status
consumers
bring
a

high
status
brand
up

Low
status
consumers
cannot

bring
a
high
status
brand
down

High
status
consumers
cannot

bring
a
low
status
brand
up

It
depends

No
answer

Consumers
Alter
Brand
Status

Consumers
Alter
Brand
Status

2

1

11

17

0
5
10
15
20

Non-‐target
consumers
can
lower

a
brand's
status

Non-‐target
consumers
can
raise
a

brand's
status

It
depends

No
answer

Adherence/Divergence

Adherence/Divergence

396

Table 27.4: How Do Non-Target Consumers Alter Brand Status?

Table 27.5: At What Point Do Non-Target Consumers Alter Brand Status?

6

5

17

2

6

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18

Consumers
lower
brand
status

Consumers
raise
brand
status

Consumers
change
brands
(unspecified)

I
don't
know

No
answer

How?

How?

23%

45%

48%

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

Consumers
lower
brand
status

Consumers
raise
brand
status

Consumers
change
brands

(unspecified)

At
What
Point?

At
What
Point?

397

Table 28: Trendiness vs. Price in the Assertion of Consumer Status

Table 29.1: Do Brands Alter Consumer Identity with T-shirts?

17

1

12

7

3

2

5

2

0
5
10
15
20

Trendiness
is
more
important

than
price

Price
is
more
important
than

trendiness

Trendiness
influences
price

Price
influences
trendiness

Higher
priced
shirts
indicate

lower
status

Lower
priced
shirts
leave

status
undetermined

It
depends

Neither

Consumer
Trendiness
vs.
Price

Consumer
Trendiness
vs.
Price

26

8

0
5
10
15
20
25
30

Yes,
brands
can
alter

consumer
idenHty

It
depends

Brands
Alter
Consumer
Iden+ty

Brands
Alter
Consumer
IdenHty

398

Table 29.2: How Does Brand Status
Influence Change in Consumer Status with T-shirts?

Table 29.3: How Does Consumer Adherence to a
Brand’s Proposed Image Influence Change in Consumer Status?

25

10

1

6

11

0
5
10
15
20
25
30

High
status
brands
can
bring

low
status
consumers
up

Low
status
brands
can
bring

high
status
consumers
down

High
status
brands
cannot

bring
low
status
consumers
up

Low
status
brands
cannot

bring
high
status
consumers

down

It
depends

Brands
Alter
Consumer
Status

Brands
Alter
Consumer
Status

1

1

1

12

17

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18

Non-‐target
consumers
are
less

affected
by
high
status
brands

Non-‐target
consumers
are
more

affected
by
high
status
brands

Non-‐target
consumers
are
less

affected
by
low
status
brands

It
depends

No
answer

Adherence/Divergence

Adherence/Divergence

399

Table 29.4: How Do Brands Alter Non-Target Consumer Status?

Table 29.5: At What Point Do Brands Alter Non-Target Consumers Status?

4

5

19

3

4

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

Brands
raise
consumer
status

Brands
lower
consumer
status

Brands
change
consumers
(unspecified)

I
don't
know

No
answer

How?

How?

39%

43%

51%

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

Brands
lower
consumer

status

Brands
raise
consumer
status

Brands
change
consumer
status

(unspecified)

At
What
Point?

At
What
Point?

400
APPENDIX D: EXPERIMENTAL INSTRUMENT—RECRUITMENT FORM & SURVEYS
Figure No. 1

401
Figure No. 2

402
Figure No. 3

403
Figure No. 4

404
Figure No. 5

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415
APPENDIX E: EXPERIMENT—RESULTS TABLES

Table 1: Brand Image and Consumer Identity
as Influences of Perceived Consumer Status (Experiment 1)

(n
1
= 495 )
Consumer Identity
High
(Original)
Low
(Modified)
Brand Image
High High : High High : Low
Medium Mid : High Mid : Low
Low Low : High Low : Low
Inconspicuous Incon. : High Incon. : Low

Table 2: Consumer Identity and Brand Image
as Influences of Perceived Brand Status (Experiment 2)

(n
2
= 372 )
Brand Image
High Medium Low Inconspicuous
Consumer
Identity
High
(Original)
High : High High : Mid Low : High High : Incon.
Low
(Modified)
Low : High Low : Mid High : Low Low : Incon.

Table 3: Consumer-Brand Arrangements (with Garment Price)
Condition
Consumer/Group
No. 1
(Orig/Mod)
No. 2
(Orig/Mod)
No. 3
(Orig/Mod)
No. 4
(Orig/Mod)
No. 5
(Orig/Mod)

Brand
&
Price
High Status
McQueen
($310)
Gucci
($245)
Burberry
($150)
Balmain
($182)
Versace
($295)
Mid Status
Armani
Exchange
($32.50)
GAP
($29.95)
True
Religion
($68)
Ralph Lauren
Denim &
Supply
($40)
French
Connection
($44)
Low Status
Adidas
($22)
Levi’s
($19)
Old Navy
($10)
VANS
($22)
U.S. Polo
($15)
Inconspic.
American
Eagle
($19.95)
Marc by
Marc
($98)
Dolce &
Gabbana
($425)
Abercrombie
& Fitch
($24)
Diesel
($66.33)
White Tee N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Suit
Burberry
Navy
($1995)
Burberry
Grey
($2195)
Canali
Black
($1895)
Canali
Navy
($1995)
Canali
Navy
($1895)
Kanye West
x A.P.C.
Kanye West x A.P.C.
($120)

416

Table 3.1: Consumer-Brand Rearrangements by Perceived Brand Status (7-Point Likert Scale)

Rank
Consumer/Group
No. 1
(Orig/Mod)
No. 2
(Orig/Mod)
No. 3
(Orig/Mod)
No. 4
(Orig/Mod)
No. 5
(Orig/Mod)

Brand
&
Price

High
Status
Gucci
6.35
Armani
Exchange
5.74
Ralph Lauren
Denim & Supply
5.47
U.S. Polo
Assn.
5.25
Adidas
5.13
Mid
Status
Balmain
4.63
Levi’s
4.58
McQueen
4.74
GAP
4.40
True
Religion
4.40
Mid/Low
Status
French
Connection
4.35
Versace
4.33
VANS
4.29
Levi’s
4.58
Old Navy
3.63

417
Table 4: Designer ID: Brands, T-shirts, & the Communication of Identity
Group Description (N = 1237)
Pilot Study (n 0 = 370)
A (n
a
= 43) 5 Original Consumer Headshots
B (n
b
= 46) 5 Modified Consumer Headshots with Piercings
C (n
c
= 49) 6 High-Status Logos (1 Inconspicuously used Brand)
D (n
d
= 47) 8 Middle-Status Logos (3 Inconspicuously used Brands)
E (n
e
= 48) 6 Low-Status Logos (1 Inconspicuously used Brand)
F (n
f
= 46) 5 High-Status T-Shirts + 5 Inconspicuous + Kanye West x A.P.C
G (n
g
= 43) 5 Middle-Status T-Shirts + 5 Inconspicuous + Kanye West x A.P.C
H (n
h
= 48) 5 Low-Status T-Shirts + 5 Inconspicuous + Kanye West x A.P.C
Experiment 1: Consumer Identity (n 1 = 495)
I (n
i
= 46) 5 Original Consumers wearing High-Status T-Shirts
J (n
j
= 51) 5 Modified Consumers wearing High-Status T-Shirts
K (n
k
= 48) 5 Original Consumers wearing Middle-Status T-Shirts
L (n
l
= 50) 5 Modified Consumers wearing Middle-Status T-Shirts
M (n
m
= 48) 5 Original Consumers wearing Low-Status T-Shirts
N (n
n
= 50) 5 Modified Consumers wearing Low-Status T-Shirts
O (n
o
= 53) 5 Original Consumers wearing Plain White T-Shirts
P (n
p
= 48) 5 Modified Consumers wearing Plain White T-Shirts
Q (n
q
= 51) 5 Original Consumers wearing Designer Suits
R (n
r
= 50) 5 Modified Consumers wearing Designer Suits
Experiment 2: Brand Image (n 2 = 372)
S (n
s
= 48) 5 Original Consumers wearing High-Status T-Shirts
T (n
t
= 47) 5 Modified Consumers wearing High-Status T-Shirts
U (n
u
= 48) 5 Original Consumers wearing Middle-Status T-Shirts
V (n
v
= 44) 5 Modified Consumers wearing Middle-Status T-Shirts
W (n
w
= 41) 5 Original Consumers wearing Low-Status T-Shirts
X (n
x
= 48) 5 Modified Consumers wearing Low-Status T-Shirts
Y (n
y
= 49) 5 Original Consumers wearing Inconspicuously Branded T-Shirts
Z (n
z
= 47) 5 Modified Consumers wearing Inconspicuously Branded T-Shirts

418

Table 5: Mean Consumer Status Perceptions with Headshots (Pilot Study)
Group Consumer Attractive Intelligence Cool
SES
(<) ($K)
Consumer No. 1
A (n
a
= 43) Original 5.23 4.53 5.05 $83.25
Standard Deviation 1.38 1.24 .97 $34.38
B (n
b
= 46) Modified 4.80 3.89 4.20 $53.26
Standard Deviation 1.63 1.12 1.47 $22.87
Consumer No. 2
A (n
a
= 43) Original 4.67 4.70 4.51 $72.00
Standard Deviation 1.29 1.10 1.10 $23.91
B (n
b
= 46) Modified 4.07 3.85 3.52 $47.75
Standard Deviation 1.51 1.05 1.28 $24.28
Consumer No. 3
A (n
a
= 43) Original 5.00 4.47 5.14 $64.25
Standard Deviation 1.38 1.01 1.13 $29.65
B (n
b
= 46) Modified 4.15 3.78 4.15 $46.75
Standard Deviation 1.66 1.11 1.48 $21.65
Consumer No. 4
A (n
a
= 43) Original 5.51 4.98 5.14 $84.25
Standard Deviation 1.10 .89 .83 $32.29
B (n
b
= 46) Modified 4.46 3.93 4.00 $52.75
Standard Deviation 1.76 1.16 1.59 $27.83
Consumer No. 5
A (n
a
= 43) Original 4.70 4.72 4.60 $71.50
Standard Deviation 1.23 .98 1.07 $24.14
B (n
b
= 46) Modified 3.70 3.78 3.50 $46.75
Standard Deviation 1.66 1.21 1.47 $26.20
Consumer Sample Mean
A (µ
a
= 43) Original 5.02 4.68 4.89 $75.05
Standard Deviation 1.28 1.04 1.02 $28.87
B (µ
b
= 46) Modified 4.24 3.85 3.87 $49.45
Standard Deviation 1.64 1.13 1.46 $24.57
(7-Point Likert Scale)

419

Table 6.1: Mean Brand Status Perceptions with Logos (Pilot Study: Part 2) pg. 1

Group Brand Logo
Familiar/
Ownership%
Innovation Quality Status
Group No. 1 (Brands Assigned to Consumer No. 1)
C (n
c
= 49) McQueen
( Hi)
2.16/0% 4.10 4.67 4.76
Standard Deviation 1.94 1.16 0.97 1.09
D (n
d
= 47) A/X
(Mid)
4.91/11% 4.74 5.57 6.04
Standard Deviation 1.85 1.19 1.17 1.10
E (n
e
= 48) Adidas
(Lo)
6.27/54% 5.04 5.63 5.27
Standard Deviation 1.01 1.18 1.04 1.22
E (n
e
= 48) Amer. Eagle
*
5.77/35% 4.33 5.02 5.04
Standard Deviation 1.45 1.31 1.33 1.38
Group No. 2 (Brands Assigned to Consumer No. 2)
C (n
c
= 49) Gucci
(Hi)
5.90/12% 4.86 5.86 6.43
Standard Deviation 0.96 1.19 0.87 0.71
D (n
d
= 47) GAP
(Mid)
6.38/64% 4.11 5.28 4.68
Standard Deviation 0.90 1.39 1.06 1.38
E (n
e
= 48) Levi’s
(Lo)
6.58/77% 4.77 6.02 5.08
Standard Deviation 0.58 1.32 1.00 1.43
D (n
d
= 47) Marc
*
3.43/9% 4.26 5.00 5.15
Standard Deviation 2.31 1.24 1.18 1.30
Group No. 3 (Brands Assigned to Consumer No. 3)
C (n
c
= 49) Burberry (Hi) 4.22/8% 4.47 5.41 5.67
Standard Deviation 2.11 1.19 1.15 1.18
D (n
d
= 47) True Rlgn (Mid) 2.64/2% 3.98 4.23 4.06
Standard Deviation 2.17 1.33 1.13 1.34
E (n
e
= 48) Old Navy (Lo) 6.33/63% 4.60 4.98 3.92
Standard Deviation 1.02 1.43 1.28 1.49
C (n
c
= 49) D&G
*
4.69/14% 4.61 5.41 5.61
Standard Deviation 2.01 1.04 1.14 1.20
(7-Point Likert Scale)

*
Inconspicuously Branded

420

Table 6.2: Mean Brand Status Perceptions with Logos (Pilot Study: Part 2) pg. 2

Group Brand Logo
Familiar/
Ownership%
Innovation Quality Status
Group No. 4 (Brands Assigned to Consumer No. 4)
C (n
c
= 49) Balmain
(Hi)
1.61/0% 4.02 4.41 4.43
Standard Deviation 1.24 0.69 0.89 1.00
D (n
d
= 47) Ralph D&S
(Mid)
4.64/9% 4.34 5.32 5.47
Standard Deviation 1.55 1.20 1.12 1.20
E (n
e
= 48) Vans
(Lo)
5.06/19% 4.35 4.79 4.10
Standard Deviation 2.05 1.12 1.22 1.26
D (n
d
= 47) A&F
*
5.87/36% 4.15 4.60 5.00
Standard Deviation 1.38 1.47 1.23 1.35
Group No. 5 (Brands Assigned to Consumer No. 5)
C (n
c
= 49) Versace
(Hi)
4.96/8% 4.67 5.59 6.10
Standard Deviation 1.83 1.14 1.06 0.96
D (n
d
= 47) Fr. Con.
(Mid)
2.68/0% 3.96 4.02 4.11
Standard Deviation 2.10 1.27 1.07 1.31
E (n
e
= 48) U.S. Polo
(Lo)
5.15/29% 4.44 5.58 5.63
Standard Deviation 1.92 1.03 0.99 1.12
D (n
d
= 47) Diesel
*
3.49/4% 4.02 4.36 4.11
Standard Deviation 2.01 1.11 1.15 1.22
Group Sample Mean (All Brands)
C (µ
c
= 49) High 3.79/6% 4.42 5.19 5.48
Standard Deviation 1.62 1.07 0.99 0.99
D (µ
d
= 47) Mid 4.25/17% 4.23 4.88 4.87
Standard Deviation 1.71 1.28 1.11 1.27
E (µ
e
= 48) Low 5.88/46% 4.64 5.40 4.80
Standard Deviation 1.32 1.22 1.11 1.30
µ
cde*
Inconspicuous 4.65/20% 4.27 4.88 4.98
Standard Deviation 1.83 1.23 1.21 1.29
(7-Point Likert Scale)

*
Inconspicuously Branded

421

Table 7.1: Mean Brand Status Perceptions with T-shirts (Pilot Study: Part 3) pg. 1
Group Brand Logo
Fam./
Own %
Inn.
Qua
l.
Stat
us
Est.
Cost
(<)
($K)
WTP
(<)
($K)
Retail
Group No. 1 (Brands Assigned to Consumer No. 1)
F (n
f
= 46) McQueen
(Hi)
3.11/2% 4.30 4.72 4.74 $64.25 $36.50
$310
Standard Deviation 2.23 1.81 1.70 1.77 $37.88 $23.40
G (n
g
= 43) A/X
(Mid)
4.63/16% 4.65 5.23 5.74 $59.88 $35.47
$32.50
Standard Deviation 1.98 1.00 0.92 0.98 $19.01 $15.65
H (n
h
= 48) Adidas
(Lo)
6.27/48% 4.94 5.63 5.13 $43.75 $31.25
$22
Standard Deviation 0.84 1.23 1.10 1.27 $18.23 $14.12
µ
fgh*
Amer. Eagle
*
1.54/0% 3.58 3.94 3.45 $39.08 $28.10
$19.95
Standard Deviation 0.97 1.43 1.12 1.24 $14.85 $8.27
Group No. 2 (Brands Assigned to Consumer No. 2)
F (n
f
= 46) Gucci
(Hi)
5.89/15% 4.89 5.89 6.35 $77.75 $41.25
$245
Standard Deviation 1.10 1.30 0.82 0.95 $33.01 $20.56
G (n
g
= 43) GAP
(Mid)
6.40/63% 4.14 5.16 4.40 $37.79 $30.23
$29.95
Standard Deviation 1.00 0.99 0.75 1.24 $12.64 $10.29
H (n
h
= 48) Levi’s
(Lo)
6.38/67% 4.42 5.83 4.58 $40.63 $29.69
$19
Standard Deviation 0.98 1.35 1.02 1.41 $25.07 $12.27
µ
fgh*
Marc
*
1.56/0% 4.40 4.23 3.97 $49.00 $29.53
$98
Standard Deviation 1.06 1.46 1.05 1.21 $22.18 $10.91
Group No. 3 (Brands Assigned to Consumer No. 3)
F (n
f
= 46) Burberry
(Hi)
1.98/2% 4.33 4.52 4.20 $53.75 $33.75
$150
Standard Deviation 1.63 1.25 1.13 1.31 $32.90 $16.85
G (n
g
= 43) True Rel.
(Mid)
3.00/0% 4.19 4.47 4.40 $45.93 $31.98
$68
Standard Deviation 2.01 1.24 0.88 1.35 $18.04 $23.98
H (n
h
= 48) Old Navy
(Lo)
6.33/46% 4.04 4.48 3.63 $29.69 $27.60
$10
Standard Deviation 0.72 1.40 1.44 1.54 $11.13 $7.72
µ
fgh*
D&G
*
1.64/0% 4.07 4.13 3.89 $47.43 $30.30
$425
Standard Deviation 1.15 1.41 1.19 1.25 $19.00 $11.16
(7-Point Likert Scale)

*
Inconspicuously Branded

422

Table 7.2: Mean Brand Status Perceptions with T-shirts (Pilot Study: Part 3) pg. 2
Group
Brand
Logo
Fam./
Own %
Inn. Qual. Stat.
Est.
Cost (<)
($K)
WTP
(<) ($K)
Retail
Group No. 4 (Brands Assigned to Consumer No. 4)
F (n
f
= 46)
Balmain
(Hi)

2.13/0% 4.20 4.67 4.63 $59.75 $32.50
$182
Standard Deviation 1.76 1.33 1.28 1.45 $29.57 $18.91
G (n
g
= 43)
Ralph
D&S
(Mid)

5.88/44% 4.84 5.67 5.47 $51.74 $34.30
$40
Standard Deviation 1.22 1.33 1.08 1.24 $15.81 $13.39
H (n
h
= 48) Vans
(Lo)
4.98/23% 4.35 4.90 4.29 $42.19 $30.21
$22
Standard Deviation 1.93 1.39 1.12 1.34 $17.23 $10.26
µ
fgh*
A&F
*
1.65/0% 3.50 3.85 3.40 $34.20 $27.03
$24
Standard Deviation 1.15 1.23 1.07 1.23 $13.17 $6.82
Group No. 5 (Brands Assigned to Consumer No. 5)
F (n
f
= 46)
Versace
(Hi)

1.89/2% 4.83 4.72 4.33 $56.50 $34.75
$295
Standard Deviation 1.59 1.27 1.20 1.30 $33.10 $24.99
G (n
g
= 43)
Fr. Con.
(Mid)

2.53/12% 3.98 4.47 4.35 $44.19 $29.07
$44
Standard Deviation 1.88 1.10 0.74 1.29 $17.11 $9.34
H (n
h
= 48)
U.S.
Polo
(Lo)

5.19/15% 4.13 5.10 5.25 $53.13 $32.81
$15
Standard Deviation 1.67 1.27 1.34 1.56 $18.32 $13.80
µ
fgh*
Diesel
*
1.75/4% 3.83 3.97 3.72 $44.12 $29.34
$66.33
Standard Deviation 1.30 1.35 1.19 1.33 $16.65 $10.27
Sample Mean (All Brands)
F (µ
f
= 46) High 3.00/4% 4.51 4.90 4.85 $62.40 $35.75
$236.40
Standard Deviation 1.66 1.39 1.23 1.36 $33.29 $20.94
G (µ
g
= 43) Mid 4.49/27% 4.36 5.00 4.87 $47.91 $32.21
$42.89
Standard Deviation 1.62 1.13 0.87 1.22 $16.52 $14.53
H (µ
h
= 48) Low 5.83/40% 4.38 5.19 4.58 $41.88 $30.31
$17.60
Standard Deviation 1.23 1.33 1.20 1.42 $18.00 $11.63
µ
fgh₣
Incon.
*
1.65/1% 3.89 3.98 3.69 $39.34 $23.63
$126.66
Standard Deviation 1.13 1.37 1.12 1.25 $17.17 $9.49
Kanye West x A.P.C.
µ
fgh₣

White
T
₣

1.65/2% 2.10 3.17 2.63 $28.62 $25.72
$120
Standard Deviation 1.13 1.27 1.26 1.37 $10.95 $4.18
(7-Point Likert Scale)

*
Inconspicuously Branded

423
(7-Point Likert Scale) Table 8.1: Brand Image and Consumer Identity as
*
Inconspicuous
Influences of Mean Perceived Consumer Status with T-shirts (Experiment 1) pg. 1

Group Brand : Consumer Attr. Intell. Cool SES (<) ($K)
Consumer No. 1
I (n
i
= 46) McQueen
(Hi)
: Orig. 4.76 4.22 4.85 $71.74
Standard Deviation 1.62 0.92 1.30 $31.45
J (n
j
= 51) McQueen
(Hi)
: Mod. 4.82 4.14 4.47 $70.10
Standard Deviation 1.23 1.04 1.12 $26.93
K (n
k
= 48) A/X
(Mid)
: Orig. 5.85 4.71 5.23 $92.71
Standard Deviation 0.97 1.09 1.17 $30.49
L (n
l
= 50) A/X
(Mid)
: Mod. 5.12 4.14 4.62 $68.00
Standard Deviation 1.61 1.29 1.68 $23.71
M (n
m
= 48) Adidas
(Lo)
: Orig. 5.73 4.21 4.92 $73.96
Standard Deviation 0.98 0.90 1.22 $26.78
N (n
n
= 50) Adidas
(Lo)
: Mod. 5.14 4.36 4.80 $67.50
Standard Deviation 1.41 1.06 1.43 $27.32
O (n
o
= 53) White T
*
: Orig. 5.34 4.70 4.94 $83.02
Standard Deviation 1.27 1.05 1.49 $29.73
P (n
p
= 48) White T
*
: Mod. 5.19 4.29 4.60 $68.23
Standard Deviation 1.36 0.90 1.45 $26.16
Q (n
q
= 51) Suit
*
: Orig. 5.41 4.73 5.06 $91.67
Standard Deviation 1.34 1.18 1.22 $29.86
R (n
r
= 50) Suit
*
: Mod 4.74 4.24 4.46 $82.50
Standard Deviation 1.32 1.30 1.43 $31.24
Consumer No. 2
I (n
i
= 46) Gucci
(Hi)
: Orig. 4.74 4.28 4.57 $84.24
Standard Deviation 1.47 1.11 1.29 $34.30
J (n
j
= 51) Gucci
(Hi)
: Mod. 4.27 3.94 4.29 $63.24
Standard Deviation 1.44 1.17 1.40 $27.55
K (n
k
= 48) GAP
(Mid)
: Orig. 4.77 4.56 4.33 $74.48
Standard Deviation 1.34 1.05 1.55 $23.34
L (n
l
= 50) GAP
(Mid)
: Mod. 3.74 3.92 3.62 $48.50
Standard Deviation 1.43 1.14 1.59 $16.30
M (n
m
= 48) Levi’s
(Lo)
: Orig. 5.19 4.42 4.60 $66.67
Standard Deviation 1.21 0.82 1.27 $27.93
N (n
n
= 50) Levi’s
(Lo)
: Mod. 4.08 3.92 3.88 $54.00
Standard Deviation 1.41 1.45 1.69 $25.93
O (n
o
= 53) White T
*
: Orig. 4.66 4.36 4.47 $71.70
Standard Deviation 1.36 1.02 1.30 $27.75
P (n
p
= 48) White T
*
: Mod. 4.27 3.96 4.02 $55.21
Standard Deviation 1.65 1.40 1.69 $24.17
Q (n
q
= 51) Suit
*
: Orig. 4.96 4.94 4.53 $91.67
Standard Deviation 1.39 1.05 1.10 $30.28
R (n
r
= 50) Suit
*
: Mod 4.38 4.18 4.44 $73.50
Standard Deviation 1.43 1.30 1.36 $24.95

424
(7-Point Likert Scale) Table 8.2: Brand Image and Consumer Identity as
*
Inconspicuous
Influences of Mean Perceived Consumer Status with T-shirts (Experiment 1) pg. 2

Group Brand : Consumer Attr. Intell. Cool SES (<) ($K)
Consumer No. 3
I (n
i
= 46) Burberry
(Hi)
: Orig. 4.85 4.26 4.89 $67.93
Standard Deviation 1.62 0.93 1.20 $28.70
J (n
j
= 51) Burberry
(Hi)
: Mod. 4.51 4.24 4.35 $63.24
Standard Deviation 1.36 1.11 1.35 $23.64
K (n
k
= 48) True Rlgn
(Mid)
: Orig. 4.77 4.19 4.52 $66.67
Standard Deviation 1.49 1.45 1.58 $27.45
L (n
l
= 50) True Rel.
(Mid)
: Mod. 3.92 4.10 4.18 $51.00
Standard Deviation 1.44 1.23 1.69 $18.18
M (n
m
= 48) Old Navy
(Lo)
: Orig. 4.38 3.69 3.83 $45.83
Standard Deviation 1.39 1.06 1.42 $18.11
N (n
n
= 50) Old Navy
(Lo)
: Mod. 3.42 3.48 3.70 $45.00
Standard Deviation 1.47 1.34 1.58 $25.25
O (n
o
= 53) White T
*
: Orig. 4.77 4.19 4.66 $64.15
Standard Deviation 1.31 1.21 1.41 $33.08
P (n
p
= 48) White T
*
: Mod. 4.44 3.94 4.21 $55.21
Standard Deviation 1.61 1.14 1.60 $28.23
Q (n
q
= 51) Suit
*
: Orig. 5.29 4.69 5.02 $84.80
Standard Deviation 1.15 1.32 1.21 $27.42
R (n
r
= 50) Suit
*
: Mod 4.50 4.30 4.50 $73.00
Standard Deviation 1.31 1.30 1.37 $28.05
Consumer No. 4
I (n
i
= 46) Balmain
(Hi)
: Orig. 4.74 4.65 4.93 $78.80
Standard Deviation 1.41 0.87 1.08 $34.55
J (n
j
= 51) Balmain
(Hi)
: Mod. 4.02 3.76 3.90 $54.90
Standard Deviation 1.41 0.95 1.33 $20.63
K (n
k
= 48) Ralph D&S
(Mid)
: Orig. 5.50 4.65 5.00 $80.73
Standard Deviation 1.05 1.00 1.19 $29.73
L (n
l
= 50) Ralph D&S
(Mid)
: Mod. 4.28 4.10 4.20 $58.50
Standard Deviation 1.43 1.23 1.53 $23.48
M (n
m
= 48) Vans
(Lo)
: Orig. 5.04 4.42 4.65 $72.40
Standard Deviation 1.29 1.05 1.42 $25.39
N (n
n
= 50) Vans
(Lo)
: Mod. 4.12 4.00 4.22 $51.50
Standard Deviation 1.53 1.25 1.49 $19.17
O (n
o
= 53) White T
*
: Orig. 5.08 4.53 4.81 $75.94
Standard Deviation 1.11 1.08 1.29 $25.46
P (n
p
= 48) White T
*
: Mod. 4.23 4.10 4.23 $59.38
Standard Deviation 1.65 1.21 1.59 $26.11
Q (n
q
= 51) Suit
*
: Orig. 5.43 5.10 5.06 $98.53
Standard Deviation 1.24 1.01 1.24 $32.18
R (n
r
= 50) Suit
*
: Mod 4.38 4.42 4.40 $74.00
Standard Deviation 1.48 1.33 1.29 $24.72

425
(7-Point Likert Scale) Table 8.3: Brand Image and Consumer Identity as
*
Inconspicuous
Influences of Mean Perceived Consumer Status with T-shirts (Experiment 1) pg. 3

Group Brand : Consumer Attr. Intell. Cool SES (<) ($K)
Consumer No. 5
I (n
i
= 46) Versace
(Hi)
: Orig. 4.61 4.22 4.59 $70.65
Standard Deviation 1.56 1.13 1.20 $29.49
J (n
j
= 51) Versace
(Hi)
: Mod. 4.14 3.90 4.14 $58.33
Standard Deviation 1.39 1.20 1.34 $24.32
K (n
k
= 48) Fr. Con.
(Mid)
: Orig. 4.79 4.44 4.44 $72.92
Standard Deviation 1.25 1.20 1.29 $25.70
L (n
l
= 50) Fr. Con.
(Mid)
: Mod. 3.74 3.78 3.78 $54.00
Standard Deviation 1.63 1.23 1.57 $21.04
M (n
m
= 48) U.S. Polo
(Lo)
: Orig. 4.83 4.27 4.27 $67.19
Standard Deviation 1.28 1.14 1.12 $26.38
N (n
n
= 50) U.S. Polo
(Lo)
: Mod. 4.12 4.00 4.20 $55.50
Standard Deviation 1.67 1.39 1.64 $21.00
O (n
o
= 53) White T
*
: Orig. 4.47 4.89 4.36 $77.83
Standard Deviation 1.53 1.28 1.15 $35.58
P (n
p
= 48) White T
*
: Mod. 4.04 4.00 3.88 $50.00
Standard Deviation 1.62 1.13 1.45 $26.30
Q (n
q
= 51) Suit
*
: Orig. 4.59 4.80 4.39 $89.71
Standard Deviation 1.49 1.02 1.20 $26.54
R (n
r
= 50) Suit
*
: Mod 4.12 4.26 4.10 $68.00
Standard Deviation 1.44 1.34 1.45 $22.04
Consumer Sample Mean
I (µ
i
= 46) Hi : Orig. 4.74 4.33 4.77 $74.67
Standard Deviation 1.54 0.99 1.21 $31.70
J (µ
j
= 51) Hi : Mod. 4.35 4.00 4.23 $61.96
Standard Deviation 1.37 1.09 1.31 $24.61
K (µ
k
= 48) Mid : Orig. 5.14 4.51 4.70 $77.50
Standard Deviation 1.22 1.16 1.36 $27.34
L (µ
l
= 50) Mid : Mod. 4.16 4.01 4.08 $56.00
Standard Deviation 1.51 1.22 1.61 $20.54
M (µ
m
= 48) Lo : Orig. 5.03 4.20 4.45 $65.21
Standard Deviation 1.23 0.99 1.29 $24.92
N (µ
n
= 50) Lo : Mod. 4.18 3.95 4.16 $54.70
Standard Deviation 1.50 1.30 1.57 $23.73
O (µ
o
= 53) White T
*
: Orig. 4.86 4.53 4.65 $74.53
Standard Deviation 1.32 1.13 1.33 $30.32
P (µ
p
= 48) White T
*
: Mod. 4.43 4.06 4.19 $57.61
Standard Deviation 1.58 1.16 1.56 $26.19
Q (µ
q
= 51) Suit
*
: Orig. 5.14 4.85 4.81 $91.28
Standard Deviation 1.32 1.12 1.19 $29.26
R (µ
r
= 50) Suit
*
: Mod 4.42 4.28 4.38 $74.20
Standard Deviation 1.40 1.31 1.38 $26.20

426

Table 9.1: Consumer Identity and Brand Image as
Influences of Mean Perceived Brand Status with T-shirts (Experiment 2) pg. 1
Group Consumer : Brand
Fam./
Own%
Inn. Qual. Stat.
Est. Cost
(<)
WTP
(<)
Retail
Consumer No. 1
S (n
s
= 48) Orig. : McQueen
(Hi)
2.67/0% 4.21 4.31 4.52 $63.54 $31.77
$310
Standard Deviation 2.00 1.56 1.37 1.35 $28.23 $16.90
T (n
t
= 47) Mod. : McQueen
(Hi)
2.77/0% 3.89 4.13 4.21 $65.96 $35.64
Standard Deviation 2.31 1.81 1.78 1.64 $41.52 $27.46
U (n
u
= 48) Orig. : A/X
(Mid)
4.75/17% 4.79 5.60 5.83 $65.10 $34.90
$32.50
Standard Deviation 2.11 1.40 1.12 1.42 $24.59 $16.09
V (n
v
= 44) Mod. : A/X
(Mid)
4.64/11% 4.34 5.00 5.45 $67.61 $31.82
Standard Deviation 1.88 1.27 1.22 1.32 $22.61 $12.49
W (n
2
= 41) Orig. : Adidas
(Lo)
6.44/44% 4.80 5.51 5.10 $40.24 $29.88
$22
Standard Deviation 0.81 1.40 1.03 1.28 $16.66 $10.03
X (n
x
= 48) Mod. : Adidas
(Lo)
6.10/50% 4.67 5.27 4.92 $39.06 $29.17
Standard Deviation 1.40 1.64 1.47 1.51 $13.55 $9.42
Y (n
y
= 49) Orig : AE
*
1.41/0% 3.27 3.69 3.57 $45.41 $29.59
$19.95
Standard Deviation 0.76 1.41 1.12 1.10 $18.87 $11.03
Z (n
z
= 47) Mod. : AE
*
1.38/0% 3.34 3.94 3.68 $44.68 $29.26
Standard Deviation 0.87 1.63 1.21 1.18 $17.24 $9.50
Consumer No. 2
S (n
s
= 48) Orig. : Gucci
(Hi)
5.71/8% 4.52 5.50 6.25 $84.38 $42.19
$245
Standard Deviation 1.09 1.15 1.19 0.79 $28.07 $21.36
T (n
t
= 47) Mod. : Gucci
(Hi)
5.85/11% 4.45 5.36 6.15 $89.36 $44.15
Standard Deviation 1.10 1.46 1.24 1.12 $41.29 $27.69
U (n
u
= 48) Orig. : GAP
(Mid)
6.19/46% 4.08 4.79 4.38 $38.54 $27.60
$29.95
Standard Deviation 1.16 1.41 1.29 1.39 $13.60 $7.72
V (n
v
= 44) Mod. : GAP
(Mid)
6.50/55% 3.86 4.64 4.20 $39.20 $29.55
Standard Deviation 0.73 1.21 1.37 1.36 $13.64 $11.14
W (n
w
= 41) Orig. : Levi’s
(Lo)
6.59/66% 4.61 5.73 4.78 $38.41 $29.27
$19
Standard Deviation 0.63 1.43 1.00 1.54 $14.89 $9.52
X (n
x
= 48) Mod. : Levi’s
(Lo)
6.46/65% 4.46 5.58 4.73 $40.10 $27.60
Standard Deviation 0.80 1.49 1.29 1.62 $20.46 $7.72
Y (n
y
= 49) Orig : Marc
*
1.29/0% 3.92 3.84 3.92 $55.61 $30.61
$98
Standard Deviation 0.58 1.51 1.14 1.15 $25.65 $12.77
Z (n
z
= 47) Mod. : Marc
*
1.19/0% 3.62 3.51 3.60 $51.06 $29.79
Standard Deviation 0.54 1.29 1.23 1.19 $20.16 $12.38
(7-Point Likert Scale)
*
Inconspicuously Branded

427

Table 9.2: Consumer Identity and Brand Image as
Influences of Mean Perceived Brand Status with T-shirts (Experiment 2) pg. 2
Group Consumer : Brand
Fam./
Own%
Inn. Qual. Stat.
Est.
Cost
(<)
WTP
(<)
Retail
Consumer No. 3
S (n
s
= 48) Orig. : Burberry
(Hi)
2.31/6% 4.06 4.46 4.25 $60.42 $36.98
$150
Standard Deviation 1.86 1.46 1.34 1.39 $28.64 $22.47
T (n
t
= 47) Mod. : Burberry
(Hi)
1.87/2% 3.23 4.09 3.57 $55.85 $31.91
Standard Deviation 1.50 1.42 1.19 1.35 $32.64 $16.24
U (n
u
= 48) Orig. : True Rel.
(Mid)
2.21/0% 4.10 4.25 3.75 $44.27 $28.13
$68
Standard Deviation 1.71 1.52 1.28 1.69 $16.50 $9.82
V (n
v
= 44) Mod. : True Rel.
(Mid)
3.30/2% 4.27 4.30 4.41 $50.00 $32.39
Standard Deviation 2.18 1.21 1.23 1.47 $21.57 $12.74
W (n
w
= 41) Orig. : Old Navy
(Lo)
6.44/51% 3.85 4.37 3.54 $30.49 $26.22
$10
Standard Deviation .95 1.44 1.55 1.53 $11.87 $7.81
X (n
x
= 48) Mod. : Old Navy
(Lo)
6.08/46% 3.65 4.21 3.06 $29.69 $27.60
Standard Deviation 1.18 1.47 1.69 1.52 $9.86 $7.72
Y (n
y
= 49) Orig : D&G
*
1.33/0% 3.39 3.94 3.82 $53.57 $30.61
$425
Standard Deviation 0.66 1.40 1.05 1.11 $21.65 $12.77
Z (n
z
= 47) Mod. : D&G
*
1.34/2% 3.30 3.83 3.60 $50.00 $30.85
Standard Deviation 0.70 1.44 1.24 1.23 $21.49 $12.99
Consumer No. 4
S (n
s
= 48) Orig. : Balmain
(Hi)
1.44/0% 3.63 4.19 4.10 $56.77 $32.81
$182
Standard Deviation 1.05 1.18 1.27 1.21 $25.65 $12.80
T (n
t
= 47) Mod. : Balmain
(Hi)
1.68/0% 3.45 3.85 4.00 $64.89 $34.04
Standard Deviation 1.32 1.49 1.33 1.55 $35.61 $24.69
U (n
u
= 48) Orig. : Ralph D&S
(Mid)
5.33/40% 4.38 5.29 5.42 $49.48 $29.69
$40
Standard Deviation 1.98 1.44 1.17 1.30 $20.30 $9.86
V (n
v
= 44) Mod. : Ralph D&S
(Mid)
5.68/32% 4.41 5.11 5.23 $55.68 $33.52
Standard Deviation 1.70 1.44 1.24 1.49 $21.47 $15.20
W (n
w
= 41) Orig. : VANS
(Lo)
5.49/37% 4.83 5.27 4.51 $42.07 $34.76
$22
Standard Deviation 1.82 1.60 1.34 1.36 $21.97 $21.56
X (n
x
= 48) Mod. : VANS
(Lo)
5.79/35% 4.75 5.13 4.27 $40.10 $28.65
Standard Deviation 1.52 1.45 1.23 1.51 $14.35 $11.52
Y (n
y
= 49) Orig : A&F
*
1.55/2% 3.08 3.59 3.27 $45.92 $29.08
$24
Standard Deviation 1.16 1.30 1.27 1.27 $20.63 $10.64
Z (n
z
= 47) Mod. : A&F
*
1.19/0% 3.38 3.87 3.49 $42.02 $27.66
Standard Deviation 0.54 1.21 0.90 1.12 $16.57 $7.79
(7-Point Likert Scale)

*
Inconspicuously Branded

428

Table 9.3: Consumer Identity and Brand Image as
Influences of Mean Perceived Brand Status with T-shirts (Experiment 2) pg. 3
Group Consumer : Brand
Fam./
Own%
Inn. Qual. Stat.
Est.
Cost
(<)
WTP
(<)
Retail
Consumer No. 5
S (n
s
= 48) Orig. : Versace
(Hi)
1.73/2% 4.27 4.29 4.19 $58.85 $36.46
$295
Standard Deviation 1.22 1.23 1.07 1.04 $20.30 $17.07
T (n
t
= 47) Mod. : Versace
(Hi)
1.66/0% 3.51 3.96 3.77 $56.38 $33.51
Standard Deviation 1.31 1.53 1.20 1.34 $27.32 $24.05
U (n
u
= 48) Orig. : Fr. Con.
(Mid)
2.04/0% 3.69 4.21 3.98 $44.79 $27.60
$44
Standard Deviation 1.43 1.22 1.03 1.41 $17.07 $7.72
V (n
v
= 44) Mod. : Fr. Con.
(Mid)
2.84/5% 3.77 4.36 4.07 $47.73 $27.84
Standard Deviation 2.21 1.40 1.04 1.42 $17.73 $8.03
W (n
w
= 41) Orig. : U.S. Polo
(Lo)
4.95/12% 4.05 4.80 4.83 $51.83 $32.32
$15
Standard Deviation 2.19 1.40 1.47 1.60 $20.46 $11.52
X (n
x
= 48) Mod. : U.S. Polo
(Lo)
4.52/15% 4.00 4.69 4.73 $48.44 $31.25
Standard Deviation 1.95 1.17 1.43 1.57 $17.42 $13.15
Y (n
y
= 49) Orig : Diesel
*
1.49/2% 3.27 3.71 3.59 $49.49 $29.08
$66.33
Standard Deviation 1.02 1.24 1.08 1.14 $20.08 $10.64
Z (n
z
= 47) Mod. : Diesel
*
1.62/0% 3.02 3.79 3.47 $45.74 $29.26
Standard Deviation 1.33 1.41 1.25 1.28 $16.75 $10.83
Brand Sample Mean
S (µ
s
= 48) Orig. : Hi 2.77/3% 4.14 4.55 4.66 $64.79 $36.04
$236.40
Standard Deviation 1.44 1.32 1.25 1.16 $26.18 $18.12
T (µ
t
= 47) Mod. : Hi 2.77/3% 3.71 4.28 4.34 $66.49 $35.85
Standard Deviation 1.51 1.54 1.35 1.40 $35.68 $24.03
U (µ
u
= 48) Orig. : Mid 4.10/21% 4.21 4.83 4.67 $48.44 $29.58
$42.89
Standard Deviation 1.68 1.40 1.18 1.44 $18.41 $10.24
V (µ
v
= 44) Mod. : Mid 4.59/21% 4.13 4.68 4.67 $52.04 $31.02
Standard Deviation 1.74 1.31 1.22 1.41 $19.40 $11.92
W (µ
w
= 41) Orig. : Lo 5.98/42% 4.43 5.14 4.55 $40.61 $30.49
$17.60
Standard Deviation 1.28 1.45 1.28 1.46 $17.17 $12.09
X (µ
x
= 48) Mod. : Lo 5.79/42% 4.31 4.98 4.34 $39.48 $28.85
Standard Deviation 1.37 1.44 1.42 1.55 $15.13 $9.91
Y (µ
y
= 49) Orig : Incon.
*
1.41/1% 3.39 3.75 3.63 $50.00 $29.79
$126.66
Standard Deviation 0.84 1.37 1.13 1.15 $21.38 $11.57
Z (µ
z
= 47) Mod. : Incon.
*
1.34/0% 3.33 3.79 3.57 $46.70 $29.36
Standard Deviation 0.80 1.40 1.17 1.20 $18.44 $10.70
(7-Point Likert Scale)

*
Inconspicuously Branded

429

Table 10: One-Way ANOVA and Mean Differences
Consumer Identity – Groups A-B (Pilot Study: Part 1)
Variable F df1 df2 Sig. Mean
a-b
SD
a-b

Consumer No. 1
Attractive 1.78 1 87 0.185 0.43
†
-0.25
†

Intelligent 6.61 1 87 0.012 0.64
†
0.12
†

Cool 10.21 1 87 0.002 0.85
†
-0.50
†

SES 27.99 1 87 0.000 $29.99 $11.51
Consumer No. 2
Attractive 4.17 1 87 0.044 0.60
†
-0.22
†

Intelligent 13.83 1 87 0.000 0.85
†
0.05
†

Cool 15.25 1 87 0.000 0.99
†
-0.18
†

SES 30.33 1 87 0.000 $24.25 -$0.37
Consumer No. 3
Attractive 6.82 1 87 0.011 0.85
†
-0.28
†

Intelligent 9.14 1 87 0.003 0.69
†
-0.10
†

Cool 12.48 1 87 0.001 0.99
†
-0.35
†

SES 17.38 1 87 0.000 $17.50 $8.00
Consumer No. 4
Attractive 11.32 1 87 0.001 1.05
†
-0.66
†

Intelligent 22.38 1 87 0.000 1.05
†
-0.27
†

Cool 17.54 1 87 0.000 1.14
†
-0.76
†

SES 31.33 1 87 0.000 $31.50 $4.46
Consumer No. 5
Attractive 10.39 1 87 0.002 1.00
†
-0.43
†

Intelligent 15.99 1 87 0.000 0.94
†
-0.23
†

Cool 16.83 1 87 0.000 1.10
†
-0.40
†

SES 29.49 1 87 0.000 $24.75 -$2.06
Consumer Sample Mean
Attractive 6.90 1 87 0.049 0.78
†
-0.36
†

Intelligent 13.59 1 87 0.003 0.83
†
-0.09
†

Cool 14.46 1 87 0.001 1.02
†
-0.44
†

SES 27.30 1 87 0.000 $25.60 $4.30
(
†
7-Point Likert Scale)

430

Table 11: Component Matrix – Social Desirability
Groups A-B (Pilot Study: Part 1)
Attractive Intelligent Cool
Consumer No. 1
0.846 0.835 0.800
Consumer No. 2
0.855 0.751 0.841
Consumer No. 3
0.860 0.817 0.860
Consumer No. 4
0.857 0.845 0.922
Consumer No.5
0.873 0.819 0.880
Mean
0.858 0.813 0.861

Table 12: One-Way ANCOVA – Consumer SES
Groups A-B | Interaction Effects (Pilot Study: Part 1)
Effect F df1 df2 Sig.
Annual Income
Difference (<) (K)
SD
Consumer
Identity
X
Social
Desirability
Consumer No. 1
0.150 1 87 0.700 µ
a-b
= $29.99K $11.51
Consumer No. 2
0.869 1 57 0.354 µ
a-b
= $24.25K -$0.37
Consumer No. 3
4.904 1 87 0.029 µ
a-b
= $17.50K $8.00
Consumer No. 4
0.384 1 87 0.537 µ
a-b
= $31.50K $4.46
Consumer No. 5
0.379 1 87 0.540 µ
a-b
= $24.75K -$2.06
Consumer Sample Mean
1.34 1 87 0.432 µ
a-b
= $25.60 $4.30

431

Table 13: One-Way ANCOVA – Consumer Status
Groups A-B | Main Effects (Pilot Study: Part 1)
Effect F df1 df2 Sig.
Partial
Eta
2
Power

Annual
Income
Dif.
SD
Consumer No. 1
Consumer
Identity
19.414 1 87 0.000 0.184 0.992
$29.99 $11.51
Social
Desirability
9.113 1 87 0.003 0.096 0.847
Consumer No. 2
Consumer
Identity
21.319 1 87 0.000 0.199 0.995
$24.25 -$0.37
Social
Desirability
0.347 1 87 0.557 0.004 0.090
Consumer No. 3
Consumer
Identity
25.705 1 87 0.000 0.230 0.999
$17.50 $8.00
Social
Desirability
0.217 1 87 0.643 0.003 0.075
Consumer No. 4
Consumer
Identity
17.458 1 87 0.000 0.169 0.985
$31.50 $4.46
Social
Desirability
1.386 1 87 0.242 0.016 0.214
Consumer No. 5
Consumer
Identity
17.988 1 87 0.000 0.173 0.987
$24.75 -$2.06
Social
Desirability
1.499 1 87 0.224 0.017 0.228
Consumer Sample Mean
Consumer
Identity
20.38 1 87 0.000 0.191 0.992
$25.60 $4.30
Social
Desirability
2.51 1 87 0.334 0.027 0.291

432
Table 14: Mean Differences – Brand Image | Groups C-E (Pilot Study Part 2)
Config. Familiar Innovative Quality Brand Status
Group No. 1
Mean
c-d
-2.75 -0.64 -0.90 -1.28
SD
c-d
0.09 -0.03 -0.20 -0.01
Mean
c-e
-4.11 -0.94 -0.96 -0.51
SD
c-e
0.93 -0.02 -0.07 -0.13
Mean
d-e
-1.36 -0.30 -0.06 0.77
SD
d-e
0.84 0.01 0.13 -0.12
Group No. 2
Mean
c-d
-0.48 0.75 0.58 1.75
SD
c-d
0.06 -0.20 -0.19 -0.67
Mean
c-e
-0.68 0.09 -0.16 1.35
SD
c-e
0.38 -0.13 -0.13 -0.72
Mean
d-e
-0.20 -0.66 -0.74 -0.40
SD
d-e
0.32 0.07 0.06 -0.05
Group No. 3

Mean
c-d
1.58 0.49 1.18 1.61
SD
c-d
-0.06 -0.14 0.02 -0.16
Mean
c-e
-2.11 -0.13 0.43 1.75
SD
c-e
1.09 -0.24 -0.13 -0.31
Mean
d-e
-3.69 -0.62 -0.75 0.14
SD
d-e
1.15 -0.10 -0.15 -0.15
Group No. 4
Mean
c-d
-3.03 -0.32 -0.91 -1.04
SD
c-d
-0.31 -0.51 -0.23 -0.2
Mean
c-e
-3.45 -0.33 -0.38 0.33
SD
c-e
-0.81 -0.43 -0.33 -0.26
Mean
d-e
-0.42 -0.01 0.53 1.37
SD
d-e
-0.50 0.08 -0.10 -0.06
Group No. 5

Mean
c-d
2.28 0.71 1.57 1.99
SD
c-d
-0.27 -0.13 -0.01 -0.35
Mean
c-e
-0.19 0.23 0.01 0.47
SD
c-e
-0.09 0.11 0.07 -0.16
Mean
d-e
-2.47 -0.48 -1.56 -1.52
SD
d-e
0.18 0.24 0.08 0.19
Sample Mean

µ
c-d
-0.46 0.19 0.31 0.61
σ
c-d
-0.09 -0.21 -0.12 -0.28
µ
c-e
-2.09 -0.22 -0.21 0.68
σ
c-e
0.30 -0.15 -0.12 -0.31
µ
d-e
-1.63 -0.41 -0.52 0.07
σ
d-e
0.39 0.06 0.00 -0.03
(7-Point Likert Scale)

433

Table 15: One-Way ANOVA – Brand Image | Groups C-E (Pilot Study: Part 2)
Variable F df1 df2 Sig.
Group No. 1
Familiar 77.743 2 141 0.000
Innovative 8.087 2 141 0.000
Quality 12.292 2 141 0.000
Brand Status 15.527 2 141 0.000
Group No. 2
Familiar 8.744 2 141 0.000
Innovative 4.736 2 141 0.010
Quality 7.610 2 141 0.001
Brand Status 27.452 2 141 0.000
Group No. 3
Familiar 47.991 2 141 0.000
Innovative 2.961 2 141 0.055
Quality 11.943 2 141 0.000
Brand Status 25.663 2 141 0.000
Group No. 4
Familiar 63.549 2 141 0.000
Innovative 1.643 2 141 0.197
Quality 8.510 2 141 0.000
Brand Status 18.037 2 141 0.000
Group No.5
Familiar 23.423 2 141 0.000
Innovative 4.808 2 141 0.010
Quality 35.914 2 141 0.000
Brand Status 40.063 2 141 0.000
Sample Mean
Familiar 44.290 2 141 0.000
Innovative 4.447 2 141 0.054
Quality 15.254 2 141 0.000
Brand Status 25.348 2 141 0.000

434

Table 16: Component Matrix –
Brand Reputation Groups C-E (Pilot Study: Part 2)
Familiar Innovative Quality
Group No. 1
0.649 0.743 0.778
Group No. 2
0.623 0.783 0.860
Group No. 3
0.696 0.840 0.884
Group No. 4
0.728 0.819 0.860
Group No.5
0.843 0.796 0.885
Mean
0.708 0.796 0.853

Table 17: One-Way ANCOVA – Brand Status
Groups C-E | Interaction Effects (Pilot Study: Part 2)
Effect F df1 df2 Sig.
Brand Image
X
Brand
Reputation
Group No. 1
0.438 2 141 0.646
Group No. 2
2.930 2 141 0.057
Group No. 3
0.457 2 141 0.634
Group No. 4
1.703 2 141 0.186
Group No. 5
1.338 2 141 0.266
Consumer Sample Mean
1.37 2 141 0.360

435

Table 18: One-Way ANCOVA – Brand Status
Groups C-E | Main Effects (Pilot Study: Part 2)
Effect F df1 df2 Sig. Partial Eta
2
Power

Group No. 1
Brand Image 15.73 2 141 0.000 0.183 0.999
Brand Reputation 87.00 2 141 0.000 0.383 1.000
Group No. 2
Brand Image 34.21 2 141 0.000 0.328 1.000
Brand Reputation 44.33 2 141 0.000 0.241 1.000
Group No. 3
Brand Image 58.61 2 141 0.000 0.456 1.000
Brand Reputation 171.62 2 141 0.000 0.551 1.000
Group No. 4
Brand Image 29.33 2 141 0.000 0.295 1.000
Brand Reputation 116.22 2 141 0.000 0.454 1.000
Group No. 5
Brand Image 12.13 2 141 0.000 0.148 0.999
Brand Reputation 127.52 2 141 0.000 0.477 1.000
Group Sample Mean
Brand Image 30.00 2 141 0.000 0.282 0.999
Brand Reputation 109.34 2 141 0.000 0.421 1.000

436

Table 19.1: One-Way ANCOVA – Brand Image
Groups F-H | Mean Differences (Pilot Study Part 3) pg. 1
Brands Config. Fam. Inn. Qual.
Brand
Status
Est. Cost
(<) ($K)
WTP
(<) ($K)
Retail
Group No. 1
McQ
(Hi)

—A/X
(Mid)

Mean
f-g
-1.52 -0.35 -0.51 -1.00 $4.37 $1.03
$277.50
SD
f-g
0.25 0.81 0.78 0.79 $18.87 $7.75
McQ
(Hi)
—

Adidas
(Lo)

Mean
f-h
-3.16 -0.64 -0.91 -0.39 $20.50 $5.25
$288
SD
f-h
1.39 0.58 0.60 0.50 $19.65 $9.28
McQ
(Hi)

—AE
*

Mean
f-*
1.57 0.72 0.78 1.29 $25.17 $8.40
$290.05
SD
f-*
1.26 0.38 0.58 0.53 $23.03 $15.13
A/X
(Mid)
—

Adidas
(Lo)

Mean
g-h
-1.64 -0.29 -0.40 0.61 $16.13 $4.22
$10.50
SD
g-h
1.14 -0.23 -0.18 -0.29 $0.78 $1.53
A/X
(Mid)

—

AE
*

Mean
g-*
3.09 1.07 1.29 2.29 $20.80 $7.37
$12.55
SD
g-*
1.01 -0.43 -0.20 -0.26 $4.16 $7.38
Adidas
(Lo)

—AE
*

Mean
h-*
4.73 1.36 1.69 1.68 $4.67 $3.15
$2.05
SD
h-*
-0.13 -0.20 -0.02 0.03 $3.38 $5.85
Group No. 2
Gucci
(Hi)

—
GAP
(Mid)

Mean
f-g
-0.51 0.75 0.73 1.95 $39.96 $11.02
$215
SD
f-g
0.12 -0.05 -0.20 -0.46 $7.94 $8.29
Gucci
(Hi)
—

Levi’s
(Lo)

Mean
f-h
-0.49 0.47 0.06 1.77 $37.12 $11.56
$226
SD
f-h
0.12 -0.05 -0.20 -0.46 $7.94 $8.29
Gucci
(Hi)
—

Marc
*

Mean
f-*
4.33 0.49 1.66 2.38 $28.75 $11.72
$147
SD
f-*
0.04 -0.16 -0.23 -0.26 $10.83 $9.65
GAP
(Mid)
—

Levi’s
(Lo)

Mean
g-h
0.02 -0.28 -0.67 -0.18 -$2.84 $0.54
$11
SD
g-h
0.02 -0.36 -0.27 -0.17 -$12.43 -$1.98
GAP
(Mid)
—

Marc
*

Mean
g-*
4.84 -0.26 0.93 0.43 -$11.21 $0.70
-$68
SD
g-*
-0.06 -0.47 -0.30 0.03 -$9.54 -$0.62
Levi’s
(Lo)

—Marc
*

Mean
h-*
4.82 0.02 1.60 0.61 -$8.37 $0.16
-$79
SD
h-*
-0.08 -0.11 -0.03 0.20 $2.89 $1.36
(7-Point Likert Scale) (# Inconspicuous Control Condition) (₣ Kanye West x A.P.C.)

437

Table 19.2: One-Way ANCOVA – Brand Image
Groups F-H | Mean Differences (Pilot Study Part 3) pg. 2
Brands Config. Fam. Inn. Qual.
Brand
Status
Est.
Cost
(<) ($K)
WTP
(<)
($K)
Retail
Group No. 3
Burberry
(Hi)
—
True Rel.
(Mid)

Mean
f-g
-1.02 0.14 0.05 -0.20 $7.82 $1.77
$82.00
SD
f-g
-0.38 0.01 0.25 -0.04 $14.86 -$7.13
Burberry
(Hi)
—
Old Navy
(Lo)

Mean
f-h
-4.35 0.29 0.04 0.57 $24.06 $6.15
$140.00
SD
f-h
0.91 -0.15 -0.31 -0.23 $21.77 $9.13
Burberry
(Hi)
—D&G
*

Mean
f-*
0.34 0.26 0.39 0.31 $6.32 $3.45
-$275.00
SD
f-*
0.48 -0.16 -0.06 0.06 $13.90 $5.69
True Rel.
(Mid)

—Old Navy
(Lo)

Mean
g-h
-3.33 0.15 -0.01 0.77 $16.24 $4.38
$58.00
SD
g-h
1.29 -0.16 -0.56 -0.19 $6.91 $16.26
True Rel.
(Mid)

—D&G
*

Mean
g-*
1.36 0.12 0.34 0.51 -$1.50 $1.68
-$357.00
SD
g-*
0.86 -0.17 -0.31 0.10 -$0.96 $12.82
Old Navy
(Lo)

—D&G
*

Mean
h-*
4.69 -0.03 0.35 -0.26 -$17.74 -$2.70
-$415.00
SD
h-*
-0.43 -0.01 0.25 0.29 -$7.87 -$3.44
Group No. 4
Balmain
(Hi)
—
Ralph D&S
(Mid)

Mean
f-g
-3.75 -0.64 -1.00 -0.84 $8.01 -$1.80
$142.00
SD
f-g
0.54 0.00 0.20 0.21 $13.76 $5.52
Balmain
(Hi)

—Vans
(Lo)

Mean
f-h
-2.85 -0.15 -0.23 0.34 $17.56 $2.29
$160.00
SD
f-h
-0.17 -0.06 0.16 0.11 $12.34 $8.65
Balmain
(Hi)

—A&F
*

Mean
f-*
0.48 0.7 0.82 1.23 $25.55 $5.47
$158.00
SD
f-*
0.61 0.10 0.21 0.22 $16.40 $12.09
Ralph D&S
(Mid)

—Vans
(Lo)

Mean
g-h
0.90 0.49 0.77 1.18 $9.55 $4.09
$18.00
SD
g-h
-0.71 -0.06 -0.04 -0.10 -$1.42 $3.13
Ralph D&S
(Mid)

—A&F
*

Mean
g-*
4.23 1.34 1.82 2.07 $17.54 $7.27
$16.00
SD
g-*
0.07 0.10 0.01 0.01 $2.64 $6.57
Vans
(Lo)

—A&F
*

Mean
h-*
3.33 0.85 1.05 0.89 $7.99 $3.18
-$2.00
SD
h-*
0.78 0.16 0.05 0.11 $4.06 $3.44
(7-Point Likert Scale) (# Inconspicuous Control Condition) (₣ Kanye West x A.P.C.)

438
Table 19.3: One-Way ANCOVA – Brand Image
Groups F-H | Mean Differences (Pilot Study Part 3) pg. 3
Brands Config. Fam. Inn. Qual.
Brand
Status
Est.
Cost
(<) ($K)
WTP
(<)
($K)
Retail
Group No. 5
Versace
(Hi)
—
Fr. Con.
(Mid)

Mean
f-g
-0.64 0.85 0.25 -0.02 $12.31 $5.68
$251.00
SD
f-g
-0.29 0.17 0.46 0.01 $15.99 $15.65
Versace
(Hi)
—
U.S. Polo
(Lo)

Mean
f-h
-3.30 0.70 -0.38 -0.92 $3.37 $1.94
$280.00
SD
f-h
-0.08 0.00 -0.14 -0.26 $14.78 $11.19
Versace
(Hi)
—
Diesel
*

Mean
f-*
0.14 1.00 0.75 0.61 $12.38 $5.41
$228.67
SD
f-*
0.29 -0.08 0.01 -0.03 $16.45 $14.72
Fr. Con.
(Mid)

—U.S. Polo
(Lo)

Mean
g-h
-2.66 -0.15 -0.63 -0.90 -$8.94 -$3.74
$29.00
SD
g-h
0.21 -0.17 -0.60 -0.27 -$1.21 -$4.46
Fr. Con.
(Mid)

—Diesel
*

Mean
g-*
0.78 0.15 0.50 0.63 $0.07 -$0.27
-$22.33
SD
g-*
0.58 -0.25 -0.45 -0.04 $0.46 -$0.93
U.S. Polo
(Lo)

—Diesel
*

Mean
h-*
3.44 0.30 1.13 1.53 $9.01 $3.47
-$51.33
SD
h-*
0.37 -0.08 0.15 0.23 $1.67 $3.53
Sample Mean
High — Mid
µ
f-g
-1.49 0.15 -0.10 -0.02 $14.49 $3.54
$194.00
σ
f-g
0.04 0.26 0.36 0.14 $16.77 $6.41
High — Low
µ
f-h
-2.83 0.13 -0.29 0.27 $20.52 $5.44
$219.00
σ
f-h
0.43 0.06 0.03 -0.06 $15.29 $9.31
High — Incon.
µ
f-*
1.35 0.62 0.92 1.16 $23.06 $12.12
$110.00
σ
f-*
0.53 0.02 0.11 0.11 $16.12 $11.45
Mid — Low
µ
g-h
-1.34 -0.02 -0.19 0.29 $6.03 $1.90
$25.00
σ
g-h
0.39 -0.20 -0.33 -0.20 -$1.48 $2.90
Mid — Incon.
µ
g-*
2.84 0.47 1.02 1.18 $8.57 $8.58
-$83.77
σ
g-*
0.49 -0.24 -0.25 -0.03 -$0.65 $5.04
Low — Incon.
µ
h-*
4.18 0.49 1.21 0.89 $2.54 $6.68
-$109.06
σ
h-*
0.10 -0.04 0.08 0.17 $0.83 $2.14
Kanye West x A.P.C.
High — Kanye
µ
f-₣
1.35 2.41 1.73 2.22 $33.78 $10.03
$116.40
σ
f-₣
0.53 0.12 -0.03 -0.01 $22.34 $16.76
Mid — Kanye
µ
g-₣
2.84 2.26 1.83 2.24 $19.29 $6.49
-$77.11
σ
g-₣
0.49 -0.14 -0.39 -0.15 $5.57 $10.35
Low — Kanye
µ
h-₣
4.18 2.28 2.02 1.95 $13.26 $4.59
-$102.40
σ
h-₣
0.10 0.06 -0.06 0.05 $7.05 $7.45
Incon. —
Kanye
µ
*-₣
0.00 1.79 0.81 1.06 $10.72 -$2.09
$6.66
σ
*-₣
0.00 0.10 -0.14 -0.12 $6.22 $5.31
(7-Point Likert Scale) (# Inconspicuous Control Condition) (₣ Kanye West x A.P.C.)

439

Table 20: Sample Mean Differences – Brand Status by Consumer Identity
Groups F–H (Pilot Study: Part 3) and Groups C-D (Pilot Study: Part 2)
I.D. Brands Config. Fam. Inn. Qual. Status
Group Sample Mean
Shirt —
Logo
High
µ
f-c
-0.79 0.09 -0.29 -0.63
σ
f-c
0.04 0.32 0.24 0.37
Shirt —
Logo
Middle
µ
g-d
0.24 0.13 0.12 0.00
σ
g-d
-0.09 -0.15 -0.24 -0.05
Shirt —
Logo
Low
µ
h-e
-0.05 -0.26 -0.21 -0.22
σ
h-e
-0.09 0.11 0.09 0.12
Shirt —
Logo
Incon.
*

µ
fgh*-cde*
-3.00 -0.38 -0.9 -1.29
σ
fgh*-cde*
-0.7 0.14 -0.09 -0.04
(7-zoint Likert Scale)

440
Table 21: One-Way ANOVA – Brand Image Groups F-H (Pilot Study: Part 3)
‡

Variable F df1 df2 Sig
Group No. 1
Familiar 37.34 2 134 0.000
Innovative 2.43 2 134 0.092
Quality 5.86 2 134 0.004
Brand Status 5.95 2 134 0.003
Estimated Cost 7.64 2 134 0.001
WTP 1.07 2 134 0.344
Group No. 2
Familiar 3.51 2 134 0.033
Innovative 4.27 2 134 0.016
Quality 9.43 2 134 0.000
Brand Status 35.72 2 134 0.000
Estimated Cost 35.60 2 134 0.000
WTP 8.67 2 134 0.000
Group No. 3
Familiar 104.28 2 134 0.000
Innovative 0.56 2 134 0.571
Quality 0.03 2 134 0.972
Brand Status 3.74 2 134 0.026
Estimated Cost 13.10 2 134 0.000
WTP 1.57 2 134 0.213
Group No. 4
Familiar 61.64 2 134 0.000
Innovative 2.71 2 134 0.070
Quality 8.97 2 134 0.000
Brand Status 8.99 2 134 0.000
Estimated Cost 7.67 2 134 0.001
WTP 0.91 2 134 0.406
Group No.5
Familiar 48.76 2 134 0.000
Innovative 6.29 2 134 0.002
Quality 3.68 2 134 0.028
Brand Status 6.68 2 134 0.002
Estimated Cost 3.11 2 134 0.048
WTP 1.23 2 134 0.297
Group Sample Mean
Familiar 51.11 2 134 0.007
Innovative 3.25 2 134 0.150
Quality 5.59 2 134 0.201
Brand Status 12.22 2 134 0.006
Estimated Cost 13.42 2 134 0.010
WTP 2.69 2 134 0.252

(
‡
Conspicuous Only)

441

Table 22: Component Matrix – Brand Reputation
Groups F-H (Pilot Study: Part 3)
Familiar Est. Cost
Group No. 1
0.737 0.737
Group No. 2
0.722 0.722
Group No. 3
0.722 0.722
Group No. 4
0.742 0.742
Group No. 5
0.825 0.825
Group Mean
0.750 0.750

Table 23: One-Way ANCOVA – Brand Status
Groups F-H | Interaction Effects (Pilot Study: Part 3)
Effect F df1 df2 Sig.
Brand
Image
X
Brand
Reputation
Group No. 1
1.06 2 134 0.351
Group No. 2
0.97 2 134 0.381
Group No. 3
5.10 2 134 0.007
Group No. 4
1.46 2 134 0.237
Group No. 5
0.43 2 134 0.649
Consumer Sample Mean
1.81 2 134 0.325

442

Table 24: One-Way ANCOVA – Brand Status
Groups F-H | Main Effects (Pilot Study: Part 3)
Effect F df1 df2 Sig. Partial Eta
2
Power

Group No. 1
Brand Image 6.16 2 134 0.003 0.085 0.885
Brand Reputation 83.58 2 134 0.000 0.386 1.000
Group No. 2
Brand Image 27.73 2 134 0.000 0.304 0.999
Brand Reputation 29.02 2 134 0.000 0.173 1.000
Group No. 3
Brand Image 2.37 2 134 0.098 0.034 0.472
Brand Reputation 14.01 2 134 0.000 0.095 0.960
Group No. 4
Brand Image 5.37 2 134 0.006 0.075 0.835
Brand Reputation 30.83 2 134 0.000 0.188 1.000
Group No. 5
Brand Image 0.65 2 134 0.524 0.010 0.157
Brand Reputation 44.92 2 134 0.000 0.252 1.000
Group Sample Mean
Brand Image 8.46 2 134 0.126 0.102 0.670
Brand Reputation 40.47 2 134 0.000 0.219 0.992

443

Table 25: One-Way ANCOVA – Brand Status
Groups F-H | Interaction Effects (Pilot Study: Part 3)
Effect F df1 df2 Sig.
Estimated
Cost
X
Familiarity
Group No. 1
0.50 2 134 0.773
Group No. 2
0.28 2 134 0.922
Group No. 3
1.79 2 134 0.135
Group No. 4
1.57 2 134 0.200
Group No. 5
0.25 2 134 0.864
Group Sample Mean
0.88 2 134 0.579

Table 26: One-Way ANCOVA – Brand Status
Groups F-H | Main Effects (Pilot Study: Part 3)
Effect F df1 df2 Sig. Partial Eta
2
Power

Group No. 1
Estimated Cost 8.27 2 134 0.000 0.278 1.000
Familiarity 41.01 2 134 0.000 0.241 1.000
Group No. 2
Estimated Cost 15.41 2 134 0.000 0.418 1.000
Familiarity 1.63 2 134 0.204 0.012 0.245
Group No. 3
Estimated Cost 11.43 2 134 0.000 0.305 1.000
Familiarity 1.54 2 134 0.217 0.012 0.234
Group No. 4
Estimated Cost 5.52 2 134 0.000 0.175 0.989
Familiarity 23.79 2 134 0.000 0.155 0.998
Group No. 5
Estimated Cost 5.38 2 134 0.000 0.172 0.987
Familiarity 14.72 2 134 0.000 0.102 0.968
Group Sample Mean
Estimated Cost 9.20 2 134 0.000 0.270 0.995
Familiarity 16.54 2 134 0.084 0.104 0.689

444
Table 27.1: Mean Differences
Consumers by Brand Image | Groups I–R (Experiment 1) pg.1
Brands I.D. Config. Attract. Intel. Cool SES (<) ($K)
Consumer No. 1
McQueen
(Hi)
—
A/X
(Mid)

Orig.
Mean
i-k
-1.09 -0.49 -0.38 -$20.97
SD
i-k
0.65 -0.17 0.13 $0.96
McQueen
(Hi)
—

Adidas
(Lo)

Orig.

Mean
i-m
-0.97 0.01 -0.07 -$2.22
SD
i-m
0.64 0.02 0.08 $4.67
McQueen
(Hi)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
i-o
-0.58 -0.48 -0.09 -$11.28
SD
i-o
0.35 -0.13 -0.19 $1.72
McQueen
(Hi)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
i-q
-0.65 -0.51 -0.21 -$19.93
SD
i-q
0.28 -0.26 0.08 $1.59
A/X
(Mid)
—

Adidas
(Lo)

Orig.

Mean
k-m
0.12 0.50 0.31 $18.75
SD
k-m
-0.01 0.19 -0.05 $3.71
A/X
(Mid)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
k-o
0.51 0.01 0.29 $9.69
SD
k-o
-0.30 0.04 -0.32 $0.76
A/X
(Mid)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
k-q
0.44 -0.02 0.17 $1.04
SD
k-q
-0.37 -0.09 -0.05 $0.63
Adidas
(Lo)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
m-o
0.39 -0.49 -0.02 -$9.06
SD
m-o
-0.29 -0.15 -0.27 -$2.95
Adidas
(Lo)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
m-q
0.32 -0.52 -0.14 -$17.71
SD
m-q
-0.36 -0.28 0.00 -$3.08
White T
*
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
o-q
-0.07 -0.03 -0.12 -$8.65
SD
o-q
-0.07 -0.13 0.27 -$0.13
McQueen
(Hi)
—
A/X
(Mid)

Mod.
Mean
j-l
-0.30 0.00 -0.15 $2.10
SD
j-l
-0.38 -0.25 -0.56 $3.22
McQueen
(Hi)
—

Adidas
(Lo)

Mod.

Mean
j-n
-0.32 -0.22 -0.33 $2.60
SD
j-n
-0.18 -0.02 -0.31 -$0.39
McQueen
(Hi)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
j-p
-0.37 -0.15 -0.13 $1.87
SD
j-p
-0.13 0.14 -0.33 $0.77
McQueen
(Hi)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
j-r
0.08 -0.10 0.01 -$12.40
SD
j-r
-0.09 -0.26 -0.31 -$4.31
A/X
(Mid)
—

Adidas
(Lo)

Mod.

Mean
l-n
-0.02 -0.22 -0.18 $0.50
SD
l-n
0.20 0.23 0.25 -$3.61
A/X
(Mid)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
l-p
-0.07 -0.15 0.02 -$0.23
SD
l-p
0.25 0.39 0.23 -$2.45
A/X
(Mid)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
l-r
0.38 -0.10 0.16 -$14.50
SD
l-r
0.29 -0.01 0.25 -$7.53
Adidas
(Lo)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
n-p
-0.05 0.07 0.20 -$0.73
SD
n-p
0.05 0.16 -0.02 $1.16
Adidas
(Lo)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
n-r
0.40 0.12 0.34 -$15.00
SD
n-r
0.09 -0.24 0.00 -$3.92
White T
*
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
p-r
0.45 0.05 0.14 -$14.27
SD
p-r
0.04 -0.40 0.02 -$5.08
(7-Point Likert Scale)
*
Inconspicuous

445
Table 27.2: Mean Differences
Consumers by Brand Image | Groups I–R (Experiment 1) pg.2
Brands I.D. Config. Attract. Intel. Cool SES (<) ($K)
Consumer No. 2
Gucci
(Hi)
—
GAP
(Mid)

Orig.
Mean
i-k
-0.03 -0.28 0.24 $9.76
SD
i-k
0.13 0.06 -0.26 $10.96
Gucci
(Hi)
—

Levi’s
(Lo)

Orig.

Mean
i-m
-0.45 -0.14 -0.03 $17.57
SD
i-m
0.26 0.29 0.02 $6.37
Gucci
(Hi)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
i-o
0.08 -0.08 0.10 $12.54
SD
i-o
0.11 0.09 -0.01 $6.55
Gucci
(Hi)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
i-q
-0.22 -0.66 0.04 -$7.43
SD
i-q
0.08 0.06 0.19 $4.02
GAP
(Mid)
—

Levi’s
(Lo)

Orig.

Mean
k-m
-0.42 0.14 -0.27 $7.81
SD
k-m
0.13 0.23 0.28 -$4.59
GAP
(Mid)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
k-o
0.11 0.20 -0.14 $2.78
SD
k-o
-0.02 0.03 0.25 -$4.41
GAP
(Mid)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
k-q
-0.19 -0.38 -0.20 -$17.19
SD
k-q
-0.05 0.00 0.45 -$6.94
Levi’s
(Lo)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
m-o
0.53 0.06 0.13 -$5.03
SD
m-o
-0.15 -0.20 -0.03 $0.18
Levi’s
(Lo)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
m-q
0.23 -0.52 0.07 -$25.00
SD
m-q
-0.18 -0.23 0.17 -$2.35
White T
*
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
o-q
-0.30 -0.58 -0.06 -$19.97
SD
o-q
-0.03 -0.03 0.20 -$2.53
Gucci
(Hi)
—
GAP
(Mid)

Mod.
Mean
j-l
0.53 0.02 0.67 $14.74
SD
j-l
0.01 0.03 -0.19 $11.25
Gucci
(Hi)
—

Levi’s
(Lo)

Mod.

Mean
j-n
0.19 0.02 0.41 $9.24
SD
j-n
0.03 -0.28 -0.29 $1.62
Gucci
(Hi)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
j-p
0.00 -0.02 0.27 $8.03
SD
j-p
-0.21 -0.23 -0.29 $3.38
Gucci
(Hi)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
j-r
-0.11 -0.24 -0.15 -$10.26
SD
j-r
0.01 -0.13 0.04 $2.60
GAP
(Mid)
—

Levi’s
(Lo)

Mod.

Mean
l-n
-0.34 0.00 -0.26 -$5.50
SD
l-n
0.02 -0.31 -0.10 -$9.63
GAP
(Mid)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
l-p
-0.53 -0.04 -0.40 -$6.71
SD
l-p
-0.22 -0.26 -0.10 -$7.87
GAP
(Mid)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
l-r
-0.64 -0.26 -0.82 -$25.00
SD
l-r
0.00 -0.16 0.23 -$8.65
Levi’s
(Lo)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
n-p
-0.19 -0.04 -0.14 -$1.21
SD
n-p
-0.24 0.05 0.00 $1.76
Levi’s
(Lo)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
n-r
-0.30 -0.26 -0.56 -$19.50
SD
n-r
-0.02 0.15 0.33 $0.98
White T
*
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
p-r
-0.11 -0.22 -0.42 -$18.29
SD
p-r
0.22 0.10 0.33 -$0.78
(7-Point Likert Scale)
*
Inconspicuous

446
Table 27.3: Mean Differences
Consumers by Brand Image | Groups I–R (Experiment 1) pg.3
Brands I.D. Config. Attract. Intel. Cool SES (<) ($K)
Consumer No. 3
Burberry
(Hi)
—
True Rlgn
(Mid)

Orig.
Mean
i-k
0.08 0.07 0.37 $1.26
SD
i-k
0.13 -0.52 -0.38 $1.25
Burberry
(Hi)
—

Old Navy
(Lo)

Orig.

Mean
i-m
0.47 0.57 1.06 $22.10
SD
i-m
0.23 -0.13 -0.22 $10.59
Burberry
(Hi)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
i-o
0.08 0.07 0.23 $3.78
SD
i-o
0.31 -0.28 -0.21 -$4.38
Burberry
(Hi)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
i-q
-0.44 -0.43 -0.13 -$16.87
SD
i-q
0.47 -0.39 -0.01 $1.28
True Rlgn
(Mid)

— Old Navy
(Lo)

Orig.

Mean
k-m
0.39 0.50 0.69 $20.84
SD
k-m
0.10 0.39 0.16 $9.34
True Rlgn
(Mid)

— White T
*

Orig.

Mean
k-o
0.00 0.00 -0.14 $2.52
SD
k-o
0.18 0.24 0.17 -$5.63
True Rlgn
(Mid)

— Suit*
Orig.

Mean
k-q
-0.52 -0.50 -0.50 -$18.13
SD
k-q
0.34 0.13 0.37 $0.03
Old Navy
(Lo)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
m-o
-0.39 -0.50 -0.83 -$18.32
SD
m-o
0.08 -0.15 0.01 -$14.97
Old Navy
(Lo)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
m-q
-0.91 -1.00 -1.19 -$38.97
SD
m-q
0.24 -0.26 0.21 -$9.31
White T
*
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
o-q
-0.52 -0.50 -0.36 -$20.65
SD
o-q
0.16 -0.11 0.20 $5.66
Burberry
(Hi)
—
True Rlgn
(Mid)

Mod.
Mean
j-l
0.59 0.14 0.17 $12.24
SD
j-l
-0.08 -0.12 -0.34 $5.46
Burberry
(Hi)
—

Old Navy
(Lo)

Mod.

Mean
j-n
1.09 0.76 0.65 $18.24
SD
j-n
-0.11 -0.23 -0.23 -$1.61
Burberry
(Hi)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
j-p
0.07 0.30 0.14 $8.03
SD
j-p
-0.25 -0.03 -0.25 -$4.59
Burberry
(Hi)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
j-r
0.01 -0.06 -0.15 -$9.76
SD
j-r
0.05 -0.19 -0.02 -$4.41
True Rlgn
(Mid)

— Old Navy
(Lo)

Mod.

Mean
l-n
0.50 0.62 0.48 $6.00
SD
l-n
-0.03 -0.11 0.11 -$7.07
True Rlgn
(Mid)

— White T
*

Mod.

Mean
l-p
-0.52 0.16 -0.03 -$4.21
SD
l-p
-0.17 0.09 0.09 -$10.05
True Rlgn
(Mid)

— Suit*
Mod.

Mean
l-r
-0.58 -0.20 -0.32 -$22.00
SD
l-r
0.13 -0.07 0.32 -$9.87
Old Navy
(Lo)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
n-p
-1.02 -0.46 -0.51 -$10.21
SD
n-p
-0.14 0.20 -0.02 -$2.98
Old Navy
(Lo)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
n-r
-1.08 -0.82 -0.80 -$28.00
SD
n-r
0.16 0.04 0.21 -$2.80
White T
*
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
p-r
-0.06 -0.36 -0.29 -$17.79
SD
p-r
0.30 -0.16 0.23 $0.18
(7-Point Likert Scale)
*
Inconspicuous

447
Table 27.4: Mean Differences
Consumers by Brand Image | Groups I–R (Experiment 1) pg.4
Brands I.D. Config. Attract. Intel. Cool SES (<) ($K)
Consumer No. 4
Balmain
(Hi)
—
Ralph D&S
(Mid)

Orig.
Mean
i-k
-0.76 0.00 -0.07 -$1.93
SD
i-k
0.36 -0.13 -0.11 $4.82
Balmain
(Hi)
—

VANS
(Lo)

Orig.

Mean
i-m
-0.30 0.23 0.28 $6.40
SD
i-m
0.12 -0.18 -0.34 $9.16
Balmain
(Hi)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
i-o
-0.34 0.12 0.12 $2.86
SD
i-o
0.30 -0.21 -0.21 $9.09
Balmain
(Hi)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
i-q
-0.69 -0.45 -0.13 -$19.73
SD
i-q
0.17 -0.14 -0.16 $2.37
Ralph D&S
(Mid)

—VANS
(Lo)

Orig.

Mean
k-m
0.46 0.23 0.35 $8.33
SD
k-m
-0.24 -0.05 -0.23 $4.34
Ralph D&S
(Mid)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
k-o
0.42 0.12 0.19 $4.79
SD
k-o
-0.06 -0.08 -0.10 $4.27
Ralph D&S
(Mid)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
k-q
0.07 -0.45 -0.06 -$17.80
SD
k-q
-0.19 -0.01 -0.05 -$2.45
VANS
(Lo)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
m-o
-0.04 -0.11 -0.16 -$3.54
SD
m-o
0.18 -0.03 0.13 -$0.07
VANS
(Lo)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
m-q
-0.39 -0.68 -0.41 -$26.13
SD
m-q
0.05 0.04 0.18 -$6.79
White T
*
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
o-q
-0.35 -0.57 -0.25 -$22.59
SD
o-q
-0.13 0.07 0.05 -$6.72
Balmain
(Hi)
—
Ralph D&S
(Mid)

Mod.
Mean
j-l
-0.26 -0.34 -0.30 -$3.60
SD
j-l
-0.02 -0.28 -0.20 -$2.85
Balmain
(Hi)
—

VANS
(Lo)

Mod.

Mean
j-n
-0.10 -0.24 -0.32 $3.40
SD
j-n
-0.12 -0.30 -0.16 $1.46
Balmain
(Hi)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
j-p
-0.21 -0.34 -0.33 -$4.48
SD
j-p
-0.24 -0.26 -0.26 -$5.48
Balmain
(Hi)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
j-r
-0.36 -0.66 -0.50 -$19.10
SD
j-r
-0.07 -0.38 0.04 -$4.09
Ralph D&S
(Mid)

—VANS
(Lo)

Mod.

Mean
l-n
0.16 0.10 -0.02 $7.00
SD
l-n
-0.10 -0.02 0.04 $4.31
Ralph D&S
(Mid)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
l-p
0.05 0.00 -0.03 -$0.88
SD
l-p
-0.22 0.02 -0.06 -$2.63
Ralph D&S
(Mid)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
l-r
-0.10 -0.32 -0.20 -$15.50
SD
l-r
-0.05 -0.10 0.24 -$1.24
VANS
(Lo)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
n-p
-0.11 -0.10 -0.01 -$7.88
SD
n-p
-0.12 0.04 -0.10 -$6.94
VANS
(Lo)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
n-r
-0.26 -0.42 -0.18 -$22.50
SD
n-r
0.05 -0.08 0.20 -$5.55
White T
*
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
p-r
-0.15 -0.32 -0.17 -$14.62
SD
p-r
0.17 -0.12 0.30 $1.39
(7-Point Likert Scale)
*
Inconspicuous

448
Table 27.5: Mean Differences
Consumers by Brand Image | Groups I–R (Experiment 1) pg.5
Brands I.D. Config. Attract. Intel. Cool SES (<) ($K)
Consumer No. 5
Versace
(Hi)
—
Fr. Con.
(Mid)

Orig.
Mean
i-k
-0.18 -0.22 0.15 -$2.27
SD
i-k
0.31 -0.07 -0.09 $3.79
Versace
(Hi)
—

U.S. Polo
(Lo)

Orig.

Mean
i-m
-0.22 -0.05 0.32 $3.46
SD
i-m
0.28 -0.01 0.08 $3.11
Versace
(Hi)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
i-o
0.14 -0.67 0.23 -$7.18
SD
i-o
0.03 -0.15 0.05 -$6.09
Versace
(Hi)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
i-q
0.02 -0.58 0.20 -$19.06
SD
i-q
0.07 0.11 0.00 $2.95
Fr. Con.
(Mid)
—

U.S. Polo
(Lo)

Orig.

Mean
k-m
-0.04 0.17 0.17 $5.73
SD
k-m
-0.03 0.06 0.17 -$0.68
Fr. Con.
(Mid)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
k-o
0.32 -0.45 0.08 -$4.91
SD
k-o
-0.28 -0.08 0.14 -$9.88
Fr. Con.
(Mid)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
k-q
0.20 -0.36 0.05 -$16.79
SD
k-q
-0.24 0.18 0.09 -$0.84
U.S. Polo
(Lo)
—

White T
*

Orig.

Mean
m-o
0.36 -0.62 -0.09 -$10.64
SD
m-o
-0.25 -0.14 -0.03 -$9.20
U.S. Polo
(Lo)
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
m-q
0.24 -0.53 -0.12 -$22.52
SD
m-q
-0.21 0.12 -0.08 -$0.16
White T
*
—

Suit*
Orig.

Mean
o-q
-0.12 0.09 -0.03 -$11.88
SD
o-q
0.04 0.26 -0.05 $9.04
Versace
(Hi)
—
Fr. Con.
(Mid)

Mod.
Mean
j-l
0.40 0.12 0.36 $4.33
SD
j-l
-0.24 -0.03 -0.23 $3.28
Versace
(Hi)
—

U.S. Polo
(Lo)

Mod.

Mean
j-n
0.02 -0.10 -0.06 $2.83
SD
j-n
-0.28 -0.19 -0.30 $3.32
Versace
(Hi)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
j-p
0.10 -0.10 0.26 $8.33
SD
j-p
-0.23 0.07 -0.11 -$1.98
Versace
(Hi)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
j-r
0.02 -0.36 0.04 -$9.67
SD
j-r
-0.05 -0.14 -0.11 $2.28
Fr. Con.
(Mid)
—

U.S. Polo
(Lo)

Mod.

Mean
l-n
-0.38 -0.22 -0.42 -$1.50
SD
l-n
-0.04 -0.16 -0.07 $0.04
Fr. Con.
(Mid)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
l-p
-0.30 -0.22 -0.10 $4.00
SD
l-p
0.01 0.10 0.12 -$5.26
Fr. Con.
(Mid)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
l-r
-0.38 -0.48 -0.32 -$14.00
SD
l-r
0.19 -0.11 0.12 -$1.00
U.S. Polo
(Lo)
—

White T
*

Mod.

Mean
n-p
0.08 0.00 0.32 $5.50
SD
n-p
0.05 0.26 0.19 -$5.30
U.S. Polo
(Lo)
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
n-r
0.00 -0.26 0.10 -$12.50
SD
n-r
0.23 0.05 0.19 -$1.04
White T
*
—

Suit*
Mod.

Mean
p-r
-0.08 -0.26 -0.22 -$18.00
SD
p-r
0.18 -0.21 0.00 $4.26
(7-Point Likert Scale)
*
Inconspicuous

449
Table 27.6: Mean Differences
Consumers by Brand Image | Groups I–R (Experiment 1) pg.6
Brands I.D. Config. Attract. Intel. Cool SES (<) ($K)
Consumer Sample Mean
High — Middle Orig.
µ
i-k
-0.40 -0.18 0.07 -$2.83
σ
i-k
0.32 -0.17 -0.15 $4.36
High

—

Low

Orig.

µ
i-m
-0.29 0.13 0.32 $9.46
σ
i-m
0.31 0.00 -0.08 $6.78
High —

White T
*
Orig.

µ
i-o
-0.12 -0.20 0.12 $0.14
σ
i-o
0.22 -0.14 -0.12 $1.38
High — Suit*

Orig.

µ
i-q
-0.40 -0.52 -0.04 -$16.61
σ
i-q
0.22 -0.13 0.02 $2.44
Middle —

Low

Orig.

µ
k-m
0.11 0.31 0.25 $12.29
σ
k-m
-0.01 0.17 0.07 $2.42
Middle —

White
T
*
Orig.

µ
k-o
0.28 -0.02 0.05 $2.97
σ
k-o
-0.10 0.03 0.03 -$2.98
Middle — Suit*

Orig.

µ
k-q
0.00 -0.34 -0.11 -$13.78
σ
k-q
-0.10 0.04 0.17 -$1.92
Low — White T
*
Orig.

µ
m-o
0.17 -0.33 -0.20 -$9.32
σ
m-o
-0.09 -0.14 -0.04 -$5.40
Low — Suit*

Orig.

µ
m-q
-0.11 -0.65 -0.36 -$26.07
σ
m-q
-0.09 -0.13 0.10 -$4.34
White T
*
— Suit*

Orig.

µ
o-q
-0.28 -0.32 -0.16 -$16.75
σ
o-q
0.00 0.01 0.14 $1.06
High — Middle Mod.
µ
j-l
0.19 -0.01 0.15 $5.96
σ
j-l
-0.14 -0.13 -0.30 $4.07
High

—

Low

Mod.

µ
j-n
0.17 0.05 0.07 $7.26
σ
j-n
-0.13 -0.21 -0.26 $0.88
High —

White T
*
Mod.

µ
j-p
-0.08 -0.06 0.04 $4.35
σ
j-p
-0.21 -0.07 -0.25 -$1.58
High — Suit*

Mod.

µ
j-r
-0.07 -0.28 -0.15 -$12.24
σ
j-r
-0.03 -0.22 -0.07 -$1.59
Middle —

Low

Mod.

µ
l-n
-0.02 0.06 -0.08 $1.30
σ
l-n
0.01 -0.08 0.04 -$3.19
Middle —

White
T
*
Mod.

µ
l-p
-0.27 -0.05 -0.11 -$1.61
σ
l-p
-0.07 0.06 0.05 -$5.65
Middle — Suit*

Mod.

µ
l-r
-0.26 -0.27 -0.30 -$18.20
σ
l-r
0.11 -0.09 0.23 -$5.66
Low — White T
*
Mod.

µ
n-p
-0.25 -0.11 -0.03 -$2.91
σ
n-p
-0.08 0.14 0.01 -$2.46
Low —

Suit*

Mod.

µ
n-r
-0.24 -0.33 -0.22 -$19.50
σ
n-r
0.10 -0.01 0.19 -$2.47
White T
*
— Suit*

Mod.

µ
p-r
0.01 -0.22 -0.19 -$16.59
σ
p-r
0.18 -0.15 0.18 -$0.01
(7-Poin
t
Likert Scale)
*
Inconspicuous

450
Table 28.1: Mean Differences
Consumers by Consumer I.D. | Groups I–R (Experiment 1) pg.1
I.D. Brands Config. Attract. Intel. Cool SES (<) ($K)
Consumer No. 1
Orig. —
Mod.
McQueen
(Hi)

Mean
i-j
-0.06 0.08 0.38 $1.64
SD
i-j
0.39 -0.12 0.18 $4.52
Orig. —
Mod.

A/X
(Mid)

Mean
k-l
0.73 0.57 0.61 $24.71
SD
k-l
-0.64 -0.20 -0.51 $6.78
Orig. —
Mod.

Adidas
(Lo)

Mean
m-n
0.59 -0.15 0.12 $6.46
SD
m-n
-0.43 -0.16 -0.21 -$0.54
Orig. —
Mod.

White T
*

Mean
o-p
0.15 0.41 0.34 $14.79
SD
o-p
-0.09 0.15 0.04 $3.57
Orig. —
Mod.

Suit*
Mean
q-r
0.67 0.49 0.60 $9.17
SD
q-r
0.02 -0.12 -0.21 -$1.38
Consumer No. 2
Orig. —
Mod.
Gucci
(Hi)

Mean
i-j
0.47 0.34 0.28 $21.00
SD
i-j
0.03 -0.06 -0.11 $6.75
Orig. —
Mod.

GAP
(Mid)

Mean
k-l
1.03 0.64 0.71 $25.98
SD
k-l
-0.09 -0.09 -0.04 $7.04
Orig. —
Mod.

Levi’s
(Lo)

Mean
m-n
1.11 0.50 0.72 $12.67
SD
m-n
-0.20 -0.63 -0.42 $2.00
Orig. —
Mod.

White T
*

Mean
o-p
0.39 0.40 0.45 $16.49
SD
o-p
-0.29 -0.38 -0.39 $3.58
Orig. —
Mod.

Suit*
Mean
q-r
0.58 0.76 0.09 $18.17
SD
q-r
-0.04 -0.25 -0.26 $5.33
Consumer No. 3
Orig. —
Mod.
Burberry
(Hi)

Mean
i-j
0.34 0.02 0.54 $4.69
SD
i-j
0.26 -0.18 -0.15 $5.06
Orig. —
Mod.

True Rel.
(Mid)

Mean
k-l
0.85 0.09 0.34 $15.67
SD
k-l
0.05 0.22 -0.11 $9.27
Orig. —
Mod.

Old Navy
(Lo)

Mean
m-n
0.96 0.21 0.13 $0.83
SD
m-n
-0.08 -0.28 -0.16 -$7.14
Orig. —
Mod.

White T
*

Mean
o-p
0.33 0.25 0.45 $8.94
SD
o-p
-0.30 0.07 -0.19 $4.85
Orig. —
Mod.

Suit*
Mean
q-r
0.79 0.39 0.52 $11.80
SD
q-r
-0.16 0.02 -0.16 -$0.63
(7-Point Likert Scale)
*
Inconspicuous

451

Table 28.2: Mean Differences
Consumers by Consumer I.D. | Groups I–R (Experiment 1) pg.2
I.D. Brands Config. Attract. Intel. Cool SES (<) ($K)
Consumer No. 4
Orig. —
Mod.
Balmain
(Hi)

Mean
i-j
0.72 0.89 1.03 $23.90
SD
i-j
0.00 -0.08 -0.25 $13.92
Orig. —
Mod.

Ralph D&S
(Mid)

Mean
k-l
1.22 0.55 0.80 $22.23
SD
k-l
-0.38 -0.23 -0.34 $6.25
Orig. —
Mod.

VANS
(Lo)

Mean
m-n
0.92 0.42 0.43 $20.90
SD
m-n
-0.24 -0.20 -0.07 $6.22
Orig. —
Mod.

White T
*

Mean
o-p
0.85 0.43 0.58 $16.56
SD
o-p
-0.54 -0.13 -0.30 -$0.65
Orig. —
Mod.

Suit
*

Mean
q-r
1.05 0.68 0.66 $24.53
SD
q-r
-0.24 -0.32 -0.05 $7.46
Consumer No. 5
Orig. —
Mod.
Versace
(Hi)

Mean
i-j
0.47 0.32 0.45 $12.32
SD
i-j
0.17 -0.07 -0.14 $5.17
Orig. —
Mod.

Fr. Con.
(Mid)

Mean
k-l
1.05 0.66 0.66 $18.92
SD
k-l
-0.38 -0.03 -0.28 $4.66
Orig. —
Mod.

U.S. Polo
(Lo)

Mean
m-n
0.71 0.27 0.07 $11.69
SD
m-n
-0.39 -0.25 -0.52 $5.38
Orig. —
Mod.

White T
*

Mean
o-p
0.43 0.89 0.48 $27.83
SD
o-p
-0.09 0.15 -0.30 $9.28
Orig. —
Mod.

Suit
*

Mean
q-r
0.47 0.54 0.29 $21.71
SD
q-r
0.05 -0.32 -0.25 $4.50
Consumer Sample Mean
Orig. —
Mod.
High
)

µ
i-j
0.39 0.33 0.54 $12.71
σ
i-j
0.17 -0.10 -0.10 $7.09
Orig. —
Mod.

Middle
µ
k-l
0.98 0.50 0.62 $21.50
σ
k-l
-0.29 -0.06 -0.25 $6.80
Orig. —
Mod.

Low
µ
m-n
0.85 0.25 0.29 $10.51
σ
m-n
-0.27 -0.31 -0.28 $1.19
Orig. —
Mod.

White T
*

µ
o-p
0.43 0.47 0.46 $16.92
σ
o-p
-0.26 -0.03 -0.23 $4.13
Orig. —
Mod.

Suit
*

µ
q-r
0.72 0.57 0.43 $17.08
σ
q-r
-0.08 -0.19 -0.19 $3.06
(7-Point Likert Scale)
*
Inconspicuous

452

Table 29: Sample Mean Differences – Consumer Status by Brand Image
Groups I–R (Experiment 1) and Groups A and B (Pilot Study: Part 1)
Brands I.D. Config. Attract. Intel. Cool SES (<) ($K)
Consumer Sample Mean
High — Pilot Orig.
µ
i-a
-0.28 -0.35 -0.12 -$0.38
σ
i-a
0.26 -0.05 0.19 $2.83
High

— Pilot

Mod.

µ
j-b
0.11 0.15 0.36 $12.51
σ
j-b
-0.27 -0.04 -0.15 $0.04
Mid — Pilot

Orig.

µ
k-a
0.12 -0.17 -0.19 $2.45
σ
k-a
-0.06 0.12 0.34 -$1.53
Mid

— Pilot

Mod.

µ
l-b
-0.08 0.16 0.21 $6.55
σ
l-b
-0.13 0.09 0.15 -$4.03
Low — Pilot

Orig.

µ
m-a
0.01 -0.48 -0.44 -$9.84
σ
m-a
-0.05 -0.05 0.27 -$3.95
Low

— Pilot

Mod.

µ
n-b
-0.06 0.10 0.29 $5.25
σ
n-b
-0.14 0.17 0.11 -$0.84
White T — Pilot

Orig.

µ
o-a
-0.16 -0.15 -0.24 -$0.52
σ
o-a
0.04 0.09 0.31 $1.45
White T

— Pilot

Mod.

µ
p-b
0.19 0.21 0.32 $8.16
σ
p-b
-0.06 0.03 0.10 $1.62
Suit — Pilot

Orig.

µ
q-a
0.12 0.17 -0.08 $16.23
σ
q-a
0.04 0.08 0.17 $0.39
Suit

— Pilot

Mod.

µ
r-b
0.18 0.43 0.51 $24.75
σ
r-b
-0.24 0.18 -0.08 $1.63
(7-Point Likert Scale)
*
Inconspicuous

453

Table 30: One-Way ANOVA | Consumer Status – Original by Brand Image
Groups I, K, M, O, and Q (Experiment 1)
Variable F df1 df2 Sig
Consumer No. 1
Attractive 5.36 4 241 0.000
Intelligent 3.35 4 241 0.011
Cool 0.64 4 241 0.632
SES 5.13 4 241 0.001
Consumer No. 2
Attractive 1.20 4 241 0.310
Intelligent 3.31 4 241 0.012
Cool 0.31 4 241 0.869
SES 6.04 4 241 0.000
Consumer No. 3
Attractive 2.73 4 241 0.030
Intelligent 4.23 4 241 0.002
Cool 5.52 4 241 0.000
SES 12.53 4 241 0.000
Consumer No. 4
Attractive 3.11 4 241 0.016
Intelligent 3.33 4 241 0.011
Cool 0.85 4 241 0.495
SES 5.93 4 241 0.000
Consumer No. 5
Attractive 0.56 4 241 0.695
Intelligent 3.47 4 241 0.009
Cool 0.45 4 241 0.772
SES 4.51 4 241 0.002
Consumer Sample Mean
Attractive 2.59 4 241 0.210
Intelligent 3.54 4 241 0.009
Cool 1.55 4 241 0.554
SES 6.83 4 241 0.001

454

Table 31: One-Way ANOVA |Consumer Status – Modified by Brand Image
Groups J, L, N, P, and R (Experiment 1)
Variable F df1 df2 Sig
Consumer No. 1
Attractive 1.08 4 244 0.369
Intelligent 0.37 4 244 0.833
Cool 0.47 4 244 0.760
SES 2.73 4 244 0.030
Consumer No. 2
Attractive 1.48 4 244 0.210
Intelligent 0.36 4 244 0.834
Cool 2.22 4 244 0.067
SES 8.12 4 244 0.000
Consumer No. 3
Attractive 5.53 4 244 0.000
Intelligent 3.57 4 244 0.008
Cool 1.96 4 244 0.101
SES 9.62 4 244 0.000
Consumer No. 4
Attractive 0.44 4 244 0.781
Intelligent 1.95 4 244 0.102
Cool 0.78 4 244 0.538
SES 7.06 4 244 0.000
Consumer No. 5
Attractive 0.58 4 244 0.676
Intelligent 0.98

Asset Metadata

Creator Akira, Stylés (author)

Core Title Designer ID: brands, T-shirts, & the communication of identity

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication

Publication Date 06/18/2015

Defense Date 04/06/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag brand image,consumer identity,identity signaling,OAI-PMH Harvest,status,t‐shirts

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Advisor Hollingshead, Andrea B. (committee chair), Riley, Patricia (committee chair), Cody, Michael J. (committee member)

Creator Email akira@casaladonicce.com,akira@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-573495

Unique identifier UC11300980

Identifier etd-AkiraStyls-3481.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-573495 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AkiraStyls-3481.pdf

Dmrecord 573495

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Akira, Stylés; Akira, Styles

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines the dynamics of the relationship between brand image and consumer identity when mediated by designer T‐shirts. A qualitative and quantitative study were undertaken in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of these phenomena. Study 1 conducted (N = 31) in‐depth‐interviews with industry professionals involved in fashion in a diverse range of business and creative capacities. These interviews were performed in an effort to establish an overview of the cultural significance of the T‐shirt, its history and the evolution of its trends in fashion. The interviews were also used to produce an organizational perspective on the business of fashion, branding strategy, and the retail T‐shirt market. Responses informed the design of the study that followed. Study 2 included a pilot study and two online experiments wherein (N = 1237) respondents were divided into 26 sample cells of (41 ≤ n ≤ 53) and issued self‐administered questionnaires asking them to provide opinions of brand and consumer status given a multitude of conditions involving T‐shirts. Results found that branded designer T‐shirts are capable of both raising and lowering the perceived status of consumers based upon the image of the brand