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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anders breivik, lacoste, norway, reputation, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Premeditated mass murder, Marxist, Warcraft nerd and public nudity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yep, I'm dumber for having read the above post.
New marketing slogan: Lacoste - The Brand Used By More Mass Murders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, if it was inclined to file a lawsuit that would present a materially different matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Get it? There will be people who will do that. They wouldn't have done it if Lacoste had kept its corporate mouth shut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Self-Inflicted Injury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising as positive effect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advertising as positive effect?
Before this, when was the last time anyone here thought of Lacoste?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Advertising as positive effect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oedipus
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oedipus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oedipus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
product displacement
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smart Move
* 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smart Move
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smart Move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not the bad publicity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not the bad publicity
That was one of the best posts I've read in a LONG time!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you Lacoste.... I will burn all my Lacoste products
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 ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it's important to note that you don't have to be brown to be a terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the CEO's mind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]