{"id":420,"date":"2012-10-23T09:52:39","date_gmt":"2012-10-23T14:52:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=420"},"modified":"2013-07-07T15:23:07","modified_gmt":"2013-07-07T20:23:07","slug":"wrongest-product-award-nomination-ad-supported-underwear","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=420","title":{"rendered":"Wrongest Product Award nomination: ad-supported underwear"},"content":{"rendered":"

I generally go out of my way to avoid wearing clothing with brand names emblazoned on them. I figure that if I\u2019m going to be providing advertising for them, they ought to be paying me rather than the other way around.<\/p>\n

But what about when the advertising isn\u2019t visible? Would I still feel taken advantage of? Does that even still count as advertising? (If an advertisement falls in the woods and no one is there to see it\u2026)<\/p>\n

Why would this question even come up? A Japanese company is offering free underpants with ads on them. (Here\u2019s the Gizmodo post<\/a><\/span><\/span>. The company\u2019s site<\/a><\/span><\/span> is in Japanese.)<\/p>\n

On its own, underwear certainly doesn\u2019t qualify for the Wrongest Product Awards. But the addition of advertising, visible or otherwise, changes everything.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Previous Wrongest Product Award nominations<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/i>The Wrongest Product Awards will go to those products (and their designers) that embody the least amount of redeeming value while incurring the use of unnecessary, often gratuitous, materials or energy.<\/em><\/p>\n

How is this relevant to EcoOptimism, you might ask? Easy \u2013 it shows how extraneous so many products are, often in a \u201cwhat-were-they-thinking\u201d sense.<\/em><\/p>\n

Nominations are open.<\/em> Send yours to ImNotBuyinIt (at) EcoOptimism.com.<\/em><\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>