Even with those if you sort their products by price the higher cost ones have a subtler logo because you're right, it does cheapen the product. The higher cost/higher end from these brands are basically a separate company with a shared name.
The lower cost ones have the logo because that's how the people you're around will know. The higher cost ones don't have the logo because the people around you will recognize quality.
The literal brandlessness of Brandless is and always was a complete red herring.
People are making apt comparisons to AmazonBasics, grocery in-house brands -- apt because these are all brands. People choose those goods for a variety of reasons including the reputation of those brands.
With a modestly trained eye, people can spot the difference between a logo-free Old Navy white t-shirt and a Gap one (not to mentiono a Hanes t-shirt.) The lack of a logo doesn't make something without brand.
This dynamic may have been lost on entrepreneurs more concerned with VC decks and tech stacks.
Worse yet, even some of the traditional "expensive, but built like a tank" companies are starting to shift to being "better branding, advertising" from your list.
It can be easy to mimic the good without it being the same quality, and it still results in devaluing the brand since it’s now associated with a cheaper good.
reply