I wonder how common it is for the opposite to be true. I think visible logos on clothig are phenomenally tacky and have a strong immediate negative reaction to the people wearing them when I see them. This isn't really a reaction to certain brands, but to the idea of advertising them.
On the other hand, I might assume that these people are wealthier.
When shown a picture of their purported partner wearing a designer shirt, volunteers transferred 36% more than when the same person was shown with no logo (95 cents, as opposed to 70 cents). But when told that the partner was wearing a shirt given by the experimenters, the logo had no effect on transfers. The shirt no longer represented an honest signal.
This is actually quite comforting - it suggests that people aren't simply having a Pavlovian reaction to heavily advertised labels, but rather they're instinctively using them as evidence towards an assessment of their wealth. Which is a perfectly rational thing to do, so I'm not sure I see what's making people frown in this thread.
Some of the social hacks possible are so stupid that anyone falling for them deserves to be the subject of Dark Arts.
Important quote:
This study confirms a wider phenomenon. A work of art’s value, for example, can change radically, depending on who is believed to have created it, even though the artwork itself is unchanged.
http://www.economist.com/node/18483423?story_id=18483423&CFID=160796263&CFTOKEN=71303356
After reading this, I'm seriously considering finding someplace online that sells those little Lacoste crocodiles and sewing them onto all my shirts. The power of logos appears to be ridiculous for the trivial outlay.