Why does Old Navy put stripes on the inside of the collar?

January 19, 2005 1:42 PM

Why does Old Navy put stripes on the inside of the collar where it will never be seen when it is worn?
I have 2 different shirts from Old Navy, one is a V neck wool sweater, the other is a V neck cotton shirt, and they both have stripes on the inside of the collar that can only be seen when the shirt is on a hangar. Yes, this is an fairly unimportant question, but there must be some reason why they would waste time (and I would assume money) putting stripes on a shirt this way, and I must know!
posted by internal to clothing, beauty, & fashion (13 comments total)

Because not everyone shops logically. I know for me, there's a lot of emotion involved in browsing through a store and very small details with catch my eye. I've been known to pick up one of these Old Navy sweaters because it was green and that stripe sewn on the inside of the collar was in a complimentary green. Check out women's shoes for more of this phenomenon. I will very often skip over the current section of shoes I'm standing in front of and head over towards another shelf because I scanned a pretty print, only to realize I was just attracted to the fabric on the inside.

Now usually, common sense takes over and I will realize that I'm falling for a marketing ploy and not buy it. But essentially, it worked because it caught my eye and made me take notice.
posted by mileena at 1:53 PM on January 19, 2005

Well, go figure. I have on a sweater from Arizona, not Old Navy , and it has the same thing. There's a grey strip running around the inside of the collar of a red acrylic sweater. The outside of the collar is solid red.

Maybe so it looks good on a hangar? All they care about is that you buy it.
posted by smackfu at 1:54 PM on January 19, 2005

Also, why are t-shirts with pockets less expensive than t-shirts without pockets? Why are they spending materials and labor to create the lower value item? I have avoided buying a ton a shirts over the years because of that had everything going for them -- style, price, quality, etc. -- only to abandon it because the pocket threw off the equation.
posted by blueshammer at 1:55 PM on January 19, 2005

My theory on this is that higher-end stores often have touches like this. Banana Republic or JCrew, for example, will have a contrastic color of fabric sewn into the inside waistline of pants or the inner collar of a sweater. Old Navy is just picking up on the trend. Shoppers find it whimsical, appealing, and evocative of more expensive clothes. Then they buy the stuff, which makes Old Navy happy.
posted by bonheur at 1:59 PM on January 19, 2005

Yeah, clothes are about fun, not just utility. It's like wearing crazy boxers or something--you know it's there.
posted by josh at 2:41 PM on January 19, 2005

I'm always attracted to relatively plain coats which have really nice, colourful silk lining. Then I try to figure out how to wear them inside out. Bah!
posted by stray at 4:13 PM on January 19, 2005

I saw a button-up shirt recently with a bright, complimentary pattern on the inside of the sleeve cuff, so it was only visible when the sleeves were folded up. Somewhat unrelated, but a very cool look, I thought. (Not to derail, but if anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'd love to find something like that...)
posted by rfordh at 4:24 PM on January 19, 2005

fwiw, rfordh, the couple Tommy Hilfiger dress-ish shirts I got recently have such things (one's white with light green plaid and the cuffs are red underneath). Not sure if they're current styling. Both were casual dress though.
posted by mrg at 6:21 PM on January 19, 2005

See also numerous shoes with colored soles which will never be seen while they're worn.
posted by kenko at 8:19 PM on January 19, 2005

Also, why are t-shirts with pockets less expensive than t-shirts without pockets? Why are they spending materials and labor to create the lower value item? I have avoided buying a ton a shirts over the years because of that had everything going for them -- style, price, quality, etc. -- only to abandon it because the pocket threw off the equation.

You answered your own question. Since some people like t-shirts with pockets, they make and sell them. As long as they can make and sell them for a profit, they're fine.

But you, like most people nowadays, like t-shirts without pockets. You don't want to buy t-shirts with pockets. So, the manufacturer and the retailer can charge a little bit more for the shirt without pockets because you'll pay it.

(Alternatively, or in combination, say that as the transition in general taste went from pockets to no pockets, the manufacturer and retailers started dropping the price of the pocketed shirts to keep them attractive to buyers.)

If very, very few people liked t-shirts with pockets, the economics would change because there wouldn't be the scaling benefit of being able to make and sell lots of them. In that case, t-shirts with pockets would be a speciality item, they'd be more expensive to make, and, also, as a speciality item, the people that want them probably really want them. So they'd pay more, probably. Then, the t-shirts with pockets would cost more than the one without.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:53 AM on January 20, 2005

Call them and see if they'll tell you.
posted by agregoli at 8:42 AM on January 20, 2005

"It's those fifty cent extras that sometimes mean the five-dollar upcharges."

A marketing person at my company mentioned this once in an email about changing thread colors inside pants. The idea (often) is if it looks more expensive, you'll pay more for it.
posted by codger at 10:41 AM on January 20, 2005

I've got a pair of jeans that for some reason have a label with "Enjoy" on it stitched inside the fly. It can be a good conversation starter, depending on how drunk I am...
posted by idontlikewords at 3:43 PM on January 20, 2005