It's called marketing.

Posted by: jones at October 4, 2004 12:48 AM

It's just like a clothing store in the US called Tres Cher, or some other variation thereof

(Sorry to all the francophiles out there, too lazy to do the proper accenting.)

Posted by: Patrick at October 4, 2004 09:02 AM

Is this some sort of reverse psychology? It seems absurd.

Posted by: PlantPerson at October 4, 2004 11:11 AM

Maybe it should be !expensive - that boolean condition at least makes sense...

Posted by: melanie at October 4, 2004 12:38 PM

Good one, melanie.

Posted by: Mark Hurst at October 4, 2004 02:44 PM

Or it could be "expensive?"

Posted by: Matt at October 4, 2004 04:40 PM

This is pure marketing. Remeber an old pefume called Joy? it's slogan was "The most expensive perfume in the world". Also Civas Regal scotch whisky was for many year advertised with the phrase "Looks expensive. It is". Then, the fact that something is expensive or appears to be expensive, quite often makes it really desirable and upscale. Not broken.....

Posted by: SAM at October 4, 2004 05:53 PM

There's a commercial for some weight loss drug which advertises the fact that it's expensive. "Why pay $157? Because it works!" or something like that. Problem is, the cheesy informercial style and fake "doctor" testimonials by actors make it seem cheap, regardless of price.

Posted by: Michael Spina at October 5, 2004 02:27 PM

I can see the commercial..."Wow, that top is fabulous! It must be expensive!"

Posted by: menolly at October 5, 2004 05:27 PM

Also seen in Rome. Link below.

Posted by: David at October 8, 2004 07:12 PM

If the products they sell are expensive, then the only people who will buy them are people that don't care that they are expensive. Especially if they sell things that are unique. That market might even WANT to pay a lot if they feel they are getting a conversation piece.

Then again, maybe they're dumb.

Posted by: Todd at October 8, 2004 07:42 PM

Expense may have it's attraction to some. Granted. But then why does the tag line contradict? Seems like a case of 'shocking gone wrong' to me.

Posted by: Alex Jones at October 21, 2004 12:24 PM

This simply draws on two very common consumer desires. 1) The desire for expensive "designer" items, and 2) the desire to find a bargain. The obscure placement of "not expensive," only heightens the perception in the consumers mind that they are in on some sort of secret, special deal.

If a company can effectively make a consumer think that they are saving a lot of money on "expensive" items, they have done their job well.

Posted by: dave at November 14, 2004 05:18 PM

"Expensive" As in, "If you see this bag without a person near by, grab it and run"

Posted by: John Smith at May 24, 2005 09:23 PM

The thing that really gets me is "not expensize fashion." Since the opposite of expensize is cheap it would seem to me to mean cheap fashion. The whole thing read together would then be !Expensize cheap fashion.

Posted by: Rick at May 26, 2005 04:22 PM

Goood One, Rick

Posted by: hbjudtuddfyutydudtfudty7utydudrtfhguarut iddyare5ydth fuuuuuu rdfgdftgefdgsr5ysdzth ck ygfssrtyrst at November 25, 2005 12:34 AM

I've been in this store while I was on vacation in Rome, the cloths they sell are actually pretty expensive. It was around 120 euros for a pair of jeans, and was one of the most expensive stores I went into while in Rome, so I have no idea why it would claim to not be expensive.

Posted by: ryo at December 11, 2005 10:31 PM