Lacoste Asks Police To Stop Norwegian Mass Killer Anders Breivik From Wearing Its Clothes
from the one-thinks-they-might-have-more-important-things-to-work-on dept
LawPUNK alerts us to an odd sort of Streisand Effect situation in Norway. Apparently, clothing brand Lacoste has asked police to block Anders Brievik from wearing its clothes. Breivik, of course, is the guy in Norway who recently went on a cold-blooded murderous rampage, killing dozens at a summer camp. Apparently, Lacoste is one of his favorite clothing brands — something that you or I would probably not know at all… until the company decided to let the world know by asking the police to stop him from wearing its clothing in court.
Filed Under: anders breivik, lacoste, norway, reputation, trademark
Comments on “Lacoste Asks Police To Stop Norwegian Mass Killer Anders Breivik From Wearing Its Clothes”
So his crimes for the record:
Premeditated mass murder, Marxist, Warcraft nerd and public nudity.
And if he was wearing a TD t-shirt that would be just fine?
This hardly seems to be a big deal. One can certainly understand why a company might not want its logo appearing on the clothing of someone like this murderer.
Re: Re:
I wasn’t aware that Mike had his own clothing line, but if Anders was allowed to buy it, why should he not be allowed to wear it?
Yeah, because god forbid an alleged criminal should be allowed to use their own posessions!
Re: Re:
One can understand it but one shouldn’t expect the police to have any role in Lacoste’s irrelevant desires.
Re: Re:
Yes, you are absolutely right. We should never allow personal freedom to interfere with corporate marketing. He shouldn’t be able to wear any clothing with logos, drive any vehicle, or use any toothpaste except store brands.
Yep, I’m dumber for having read the above post.
New marketing slogan: Lacoste – The Brand Used By More Mass Murders.
Re: Re:
And if he was wearing a TD t-shirt that would be just fine?
Who said it was “fine”? Certainly not Mike. What he did say was that by making the request to the police in the hopes of reducing the bad publicity of a mass murderer wearing their cloths, they actually brought about the exact opposite effect and spread the bad publicity to a global scale. A subcategory of situational irony that in these here parts we call “The Streisand Effect”.
One can certainly understand why a company might not want its logo appearing on the clothing of someone like this murderer.
This may be a bit harsh, but it’s this kind of simple-minded thinking that leads to big media to tilt at the piracy windmill instead of focusing on how to make money in the new marketplace because “stealing is wrong”. If what you’re doing is having the opposite effect as what you intended, then you’re doing it wrong.
Re: Re:
And if he was wearing a TD t-shirt that would be just fine?
Would it be fine? Under what terms? I wouldn’t like it. Just as I understand why Lacoste doesn’t like it. Would I contact the police and ask them to ban him from doing so? Hell no. Why call attention to that kind of thing?
This hardly seems to be a big deal. One can certainly understand why a company might not want its logo appearing on the clothing of someone like this murderer
You seem to have a savant-like ability to miss the point. What someone does not like is not the same thing as saying that this was a good or smart strategy.
Re: Re: Re:
Personal ridicule is, of course, always appreciated.
Of course I got your point. My comment was only that I could well understand why the company might not want a self-admitted murderer to wear its line of clothing during the course of pre-trial and trial proceedings.
Just because you would not make such a request does not mean that anyone who may act otherwise is shooting themselves in the foot.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personal ridicule is, of course, always appreciated.
And free of charge. Win-win!
So… how many people in the world would have noticed what brand clothes the guy was wearing until the company called attention to it? How many know now?
“Foot, meet my leettle fren, bazooka.”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> I could well understand why the company might
> not want a self-admitted murderer to wear its
> line of clothing during the course of pre-trial
> and trial proceedings.
> Just because you would not make such a request
> does not mean that anyone who may act otherwise
> is shooting themselves in the foot.
The point is that it’s not the proper role of the police or the government to be enforcing the marketing desires of a private business. It’s simply none of the government’s concern.
If they’re allowing him to wear civilian clothes– not requiring him to wear prison attire (orange jumpsuit, etc.)– then his choice of clothing is his own. He owns the shirts. They’re his property. Lacoste has no say in whether he can wear them or not, and it certainly isn’t appropriate for the government to enforce their wishes as a matter of official policy.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
According to various news reports all the company supposedly did was “ask”, and not “demand”.
Now, if it was inclined to file a lawsuit that would present a materially different matter.
Re: Re:
Tell me, before this post, did you know Anders wore Lacoste clothes? I didn’t, nor do I care. Lacoste here have directly enabled some people to say to themselves “Lacoste sold clothes to a mass murderer, therefore I myself won’t buy from them”.
Get it? There will be people who will do that. They wouldn’t have done it if Lacoste had kept its corporate mouth shut.
Re: Re: Re:
Even better: people will say to themselves “The mass-murderer wore Lacoste clothing. Therefore, if I wear Lacoste clothing, I will become a mass-murderer. I do not want to become a mass-murderer so I won’t buy Lacoste clothing.”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whatever way you word it, Lacoste will lose sales to people who will associate them to the mass murderer.
Just in case someone, oh I don’t know, brings up say, IBM and the Nazis, in that case, IBM actively helped mass murder. In this case, it was just the clothes the man wore.
Re: Re: Re:
So… In all reality.. Who the [expletive] is Lacoste? Not only did I not know he wore their clothing, I didn’t give the news reports the time of day to notice what he was wearing period. Furthermore, I’ve never heard of Lacoste clothing.
I hope it is a publicity stunt, because I can’t stand to live in a world where Lacoste truly believed the 8 clothing snobs out there who recognized their shirt would really be morally driven enough to stop wearing the same.
It’s, in my mind, the same sort of arrogance that leads to the MPAA/RIAA logic that if you happen to walk within 100 yards of someone playing a movie or song, you might have heard it, and that equates that you owe them money. (i haven’t heard of this happening yet, I was exaggerating for effect)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’ve never seen the little alligator logo? We call it Izod.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes.
Re: Re:
Hey, it’s a fair trade… you give them money — often a premium price — and they get a little spot of advertisement emblazoned on your shirt. Actually, it’s a double win for the manufac… ahh… marketer, premium price AND free advertising. If they don’t want there logo splashed all around the courtroom then perhaps they should stop stamping it on every square inch of material they sell.
Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
“certainly understand why a company might not want its logo appearing on the clothing of someone like this murderer.”
Lacoste puts its logo in a prominent place on its clothes in defiance of the wishes of many potential customers, who might otherwise buy. That practice does cost them sales. Lacoste is free to place its logo on an internal tag, as many other clothing manufacturers do. The fact that they do not, means that they are arrogant pricks. That can come back to bite them. So be it.
Nobody should get sympathy for self-inflicted injuries. The police should jeer at them.
Re: Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
I presume this means you refuse to purchase and wear anything that bears a logo (shirts, pants, shoes, belts, hats, etc.).
And I don’t want Nickleback to release another album, but I don’t see how this is a legal matter.
Advertising as positive effect?
Could the legal fees of the suit offer a greater advertising payoff than normal advertising due to the Streisand Effect?
Re: Advertising as positive effect?
Exactly what I was thinking, except that the free advertising is out there now – no legal fees required.
Before this, when was the last time anyone here thought of Lacoste?
Re: Re: Advertising as positive effect?
Everyone who was in the market for a $180 golf shirt………
Oedipus
And if he was wearing a TD t-shirt that would be just fine?
Who said it was “fine”? Certainly not Mike. What he did say was that by making the request to the police in the hopes of reducing the bad publicity of a mass murderer wearing their cloths, they actually brought about the exact opposite effect and spread the bad publicity to a global scale. A subcategory of situational irony that in these here parts we call “The Streisand Effect”.
One can certainly understand why a company might not want its logo appearing on the clothing of someone like this murderer.
This may be a bit harsh, but it’s this kind of simple-minded thinking that leads to big media to tilt at the piracy windmill instead of focusing on how to make money in the new marketplace because “stealing is wrong”. If what you’re doing is having the opposite effect as what you intended, then you’re doing it wrong.
Re: Oedipus
Doh. Thought I hit reply. Ignore this one.
Re: Re: Oedipus
Ok I ignored it.
How I see things :
people are forgetting about lacoste.
dude’s a celebrity and wearing a lacoste polo/shirt/whatever
mmh…
*contact police to tell em to make him stop wearing LACOSTE shirt*
police tells journalists/they find out somehow
they publish news
Free advertising.
Techdirt publishes said news and talks about it
More free advertisement.
Well played lacoste.
Re: Re:
The Lacoste CEO could also go to the pole and club baby seals and let everyone publicize the event. That would definitely mean in more sales for Lacoste. There is no such thing as bad publicity amirite?
product displacement
Although I think Lacoste may be running away from some you-couldn’t-buy-publicity-like-this gangsta chic, the real story appears at the bottom:
“US brand Abercrombie and Fitch… offered to pay the rowdy, hard-partying cast of an MTV reality show not to wear its clothes.”
No report on whether their decision to wear Abercrombie & Fitch involved accepting money from Land’s End.
So, wearing Lacoste makes you a mass murderer. Got it.
Re: Re:
and Lacoste knows it and they’re covering it up!
Does Streisand Effect translate well into Norwegian?
Smart Move
I actually think is sort of a smart (if devious) move by Lacoste.
* They establish that they don’t want to be associated with mass murders (duh)
* They manage to have their name brought into headlines
* While there is an association between the two (mass murders, Lacoste) that didn’t exist before, it’s not necessarily a bad one: they’re “against” mass murders, and could be remembered as much for denouncing the guy as by any direct association of his wearing their clothes.
It’s an abuse of and waste of police time to have to deal with it, but from a pure marketing standpoint it is kinda savvy. Hell, beforehand, I’d never even heard of Lacoste, and was interested enough that I wikipedia’d them just because of this article.
Re: Smart Move
“they’re “against” mass murders, and could be remembered as much for denouncing the guy as by any direct association of his wearing their clothes.”
So…they felt the need to publicly denounce a mass murderer? You’d think that that kind of denouncing wouldn’t actually be needed. Or do Lacoste actually think that unless they do something, people will associate them with murderers?
Re: Smart Move
That assumes people care enough to remember the whole thing. This headline gets reduced to “Anders Breivik + Lacoste clothes” in the minds of the TLDR crowd within 5 seconds of reading it.
It's not the bad publicity
It’s not the bad publicity – it’s the threat of secondary liability they’re worried about.
Re: It's not the bad publicity
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That was one of the best posts I’ve read in a LONG time!!
I don’t get it don’t they have the little black boxes in Norway if they don’t i am defiantly moving there. Here in America everything with a trademark is blurred or a sticker is put over the label *cough* apple *cough* you know though come to think of it I have noticed in foreign films they actually have apple computers so maybe their trademark stuff is different
Thank you Lacoste.... I will burn all my Lacoste products
Until now… I never noticed the clothes Anders Breivik wore , where Lacoste.
Guess Lacoste have a murder collection out ?
Thank you Lacoste for bringing it to my attention. I will avoid your products now.
That’s what you wanted .. right ?
Since his motives were political, that makes him a terrorist, not just a mass murderer.
I think it’s important to note that you don’t have to be brown to be a terrorist.
I think Lacoste are crying crocodile tears
In the CEO's mind
You wonder if the Lacoste CEO watches tennis and thinks, “boy Andy Roddick looked like crap in those first two sets against Nadal. I’m going to call the US Open and tell them to have Andy stop wearing my shirts before he totally devalues the brand.”
Re:
EVERYTHING in the music industry is a legal matter these days…