When bigotry makes you laugh your a$$ off - Page 5

FSETH · #41 01-21-2010, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl

I recall that when it was started, one of the key points of FUBU was that the clothes line was designed to be used by black folks because there is a need in the market. These clothes are cut and fitted to conform to the average black body. That is why it is for us - by us.

Mainstream clothes makers make ther clothes for european bodies (read: flat asses). Trying to fit into these clothes is a PITA.

I would say that is a stretch. FUBU's first items were hats and sweatshirts. Don't think there was much of a "fitment" issue for African American's with regards to sweatshirts and hats? Bottom line is they were designed to be street and urban for young African Americans. It was heavily based on sports and hip-hop. Sure anyone can buy them, but they were designed specifically for African Americans. Not only are they designed "for us", but it had to be advertised as made "by us" as well. Could you really imagine if some white owned company actually advertised for us and by us? It would be all over the news, it would be racist, it would be bigoted, etc. Total double standard.

Daymond John, CEO of Fubu, entered the retail industry after becoming frustrated with what he perceived as a paucity of street-smart, fashionable clothing in the menswear industry.

"For us, by us" was a phrase invented by John to indicate to the consumer that his was a business devoted to fulfilling the fashion needs of young African-American men.

Sponsored Links

StanF18 · #42 01-21-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krimson X

Some of the greatest players in the modern NCAA and NBA are white.

Hmmmmm....Dirk and Steve Nash would be in my top 10. But I have to give the top 5 mad skillz to Lebron, Dwayne Wade (my 2nd favorite), Kobe (dick), Dwight Howard, and my personal favorite Melo!

Krimson X · #43 01-21-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSETH

I would say that is a stretch. FUBU's first items were hats and sweatshirts. Don't think there was much of a "fitment" issue for African American's with regards to sweatshirts and hats? Bottom line is they were designed to be street and urban for young African Americans. It was heavily based on sports and hip-hop.

Daymond John, CEO of Fubu, entered the retail industry after becoming frustrated with what he perceived as a paucity of street-smart, fashionable clothing in the menswear industry.

"For us, by us" was a phrase invented by John to indicate to the consumer that his was a business devoted to fulfilling the fashion needs of young African-American men.

I'm not one to knock another man's hustle, but at best, FUBU exploited the stereotype of black men wearing excessively baggy jeans and big graphic prints. Tommy Hilfiger did too for a while. Its probably a big reason why the brands lacked staying power. Urban brands such as Sean John, Phat Pharm and Rockawear (to a degree) were able to adapt with the change in fashon.

Krimson X · #44 01-21-2010, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanF18

Hmmmmm....Dirk and Steve Nash would be in my top 10. But I have to give the top 5 mad skillz to Lebron, Dwayne Wade (my 2nd favorite), Kobe (dick), Dwight Howard, and my personal favorite Melo!

When I lived in Dallas, Nash and Dirk were my guys. Best tandem in the league at the time. However, they would both be banned from this league because they are both foreign born players

I only made the comment to say that white dudes do excell in the league. Off the top of my head I can give you a list as long as my arm of current white players that excelled at both college and pro levels.

P.S. I can't argue with your top 5. Watch out for rookie Brandon Jennings of Milwaukee.

Thunder22 · #45 01-21-2010, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krimson X

I'm not one to knock another man's hustle, but at best, FUBU exploited the stereotype of black men wearing excessively baggy jeans and big graphic prints. Tommy Hilfiger did too for a while. Its probably a big reason why the brands lacked staying power. Urban brands such as Sean John, Phat Pharm and Rockawear (to a degree) were able to adapt with the change in fashon.

While that is true, that's not the point. It's the name of the company and the intent.

There's a double standard, it happens in life.

FSETH · #46 01-21-2010, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krimson X

Some of the greatest players in the modern NCAA and NBA are white.

I know this. I was trying to say that there is plenty of opportunity for white players to excell already and there really isn't a need for this white american only league.

Meiac09 · #47 01-21-2010, 02:07 PM

I have a proposal: Lets rename Ed Hardy "For Guidos, By Guidos" and call it even. Deal?

blktoptrvl · #48 01-21-2010, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSETH

I would say that is a stretch. FUBU's first items were hats and sweatshirts. Don't think there was much of a "fitment" issue for African American's with regards to sweatshirts and hats? Bottom line is they were designed to be street and urban for young African Americans. It was heavily based on sports and hip-hop. Sure anyone can buy them, but they were designed specifically for African Americans. Not only are they designed "for us", but it had to be advertised as made "by us" as well. Could you really imagine if some white owned company actually advertised for us and by us? It would be all over the news, it would be racist, it would be bigoted, etc. Total double standard.

Daymond John, CEO of Fubu, entered the retail industry after becoming frustrated with what he perceived as a paucity of street-smart, fashionable clothing in the menswear industry.

"For us, by us" was a phrase invented by John to indicate to the consumer that his was a business devoted to fulfilling the fashion needs of young African-American men.

That may be true, but what a company produces and releases first, second, or later is not necessarily a harbinger of the overall goals of the company.

As for the marketing strategy... When you are directing your product to the majority of the population, there is not need to distinguish. In fact, it would be (as the discussion indicates) a detriment to shecificly say we are marketing to the majority.

FSETH · #49 01-21-2010, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl

That may be true, but what a company produces and releases first, second, or later is not necessarily a harbinger of the overall goals of the company.

All we can really do is go off what his early, original goals were, which from everything I have read was to make street-smart, fashionable clothing in the menswear industry for young African Americans with heavy influences from the hip-hop and sports world. It does not appear it was created out of necessity due to 'fitment issues" for African Americans. Maybe African American frames were taken into consideration later in a suit line or something, but that was not why the company was founded and I think saying so is a far reach.

Let's be honest about it, this was a street, hip-hop style clothing company focusing on young black men for fashion reasons only, not some company that set out to make clothes that properly fit African American frames because no other company fulfilled that need.

As far as the marketing thing goes, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Your wording is sort of confusing.

Sponsored Links