h a l f b a k e r yBaker Street Irregulars
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Start a company that will sponsor people to wear t-shirts with company advertisements on them. Like a walking billboard.
So, people earn something like 50p per every day they wear the shirt, and the companies pay to have their shirtvertisements distributed through the network of people who are involved
in the scheme. The shirt-wearers would get to keep the shirts and would get paid a cheque for all the days that they wore the shirts. The updated shirts would be mailed out to the shirt-wearing network.
[link]
|
| |
i dunno, i'm more in favor of people
paying companies for the privilege of
wearing their logo. it's nicely
counterintuitive |
|
| |
Yeah.
The idea of people paying companies for the priviledge of wearing their logo is not quite the same thing. I'm talking about something like one of those ads that you see above urinals and on trains. And also the fact that companies do that already could be a good selling point for people to sign up for the scheme. Why spend your days promoting FCUK or NIKE for free, when you could be getting paid for doing the same thing. |
|
| |
Yeah, but why pay people when they'll do it for free, or even pay you for the privilege? |
|
| |
I baked a front door advertising idea .. I
was torn to shreds at the HB! But back
to your idea ..
I avoid any clothing that has a brand
name slapped across it, precisely for
the fact I had to buy it, so why should I
pay to have it ruined by ADIDAS, or
NIKE, or my most-hated brand name
FCUK? |
|
| |
Anyway, I'm all for companies paying
people to wear their clothes (you pay to
advertise in every other area of
commerce, yet people are duped into
advertising companies for free), but
with the population so willing to be a
part of the 'FCUK team', why would
companies start shelling out money? |
|
| |
A noble idea [royalfoxbridge], but it's
not going to happen on any worthwhile
scale. |
|
| |
I should have probably noted, this company wouldn't just give out money to people for wearing t-shirts. Advertising space would be sold on the shirts and this *would* actually be a "for-profit" business.. not just giving money away to people. |
|
| |
hahahahh! silly [fox] don't you know that
you have to pay companies to advertise for
them? |
|
| |
seems to me all those stupid clothing
companies out there love putting their
logos and names all over the clothes you
already buy. its perfect advertising already. |
|
| |
On the subject of insane-but-true advertising models; has anyone noticed how the cable tv companies manage to charge their clients (the consumers) to watch the adverts that they are paid by their other clients (the advertisers) to insert into their (increasingly shit) programming? Does that make ANY sense? |
|
| |
It'd be a bit weird, but i suppose it'd be possible for big label fashion companies to provide clothes for the poor for free, to give them a more positive image, but the idea makes me cringe. Therefore, i abstain. |
|
| |
I dont think the idea is too bad. Sure big , established companies get people to buy their shirts for $$ , like Nike,etc.. but smaller companies also want to have their company advertised..and may be willing to shell out a little bit, until they are a common house hold name too, and can then turn the charges around. |
|
| |
hmmm.. shitvertising. Where's [benfrost] when you need i'm? |
|
| |