Spring Video Showdown: Brooks Brothers v. The Hilfigers

The spring marketing videos from Brooks Brothers and Tommy Hilfiger both feature outdoor parties full of stylish clothes, attractive people, good food and drink, and fun and frivolity.

If you could crash either party, which would you choose and why?

The Brooks party may be good for networking, but the Hilfiger party has ping pong.

Tough call.

53 Comments on "Spring Video Showdown: Brooks Brothers v. The Hilfigers"

  1. Perhaps a bit dated (2010 collection), but I’d go to this Ralph Lauren party over either BB or TH: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFjVHM-Lams#t=00m16s

  2. This is a question of partying with the Buchanans or Mr. Gatsby. Horses or dancing.

    Agreed: touch call.

  3. Christian | March 1, 2011 at 5:50 pm |

    The Buchanans or Gatsby — nice analogy.

  4. Neither? They all seem insufferable.

  5. Tough choice. Everyone looks stylish and happy. The Hilfigers do appear to be having a better time, but the apparently tropical setting strikes me as counterintuitive.

  6. It doesn’t look like they’re saying anything at the BB party, they’re just moving they’re lips. But I really hate the whole “Deuschy Royal Tannenbaums” party at the Hilfigers, although the chicks are hotter and, yes, the are playing cool lawn party games. Maybe I’d crash the Hilfiger party with the Brooks Brothers gang.

  7. Old School | March 1, 2011 at 9:44 pm |

    It’s a question of Style vs. Fashion.

    I’d turn down an invitation to the Hilfiger party.

  8. Elizabeth V. | March 2, 2011 at 1:54 am |

    Why choose just one? I’d crash them both with the gang from the Rugby video posted by Mark.

  9. BB looks like it’s shot somewhere in Napa Valley, but can’t place the spot. A portion looks like the pond at Chateau Montelena.

  10. Well since people of color aren’t invited to the BB party, I guess I’ll hit up the Hilfiger’s.

  11. Christian | March 2, 2011 at 9:35 am |

    Open your eyes and look at the still shot on the BB video. Then watch it again. Then come back and say “oops, my bad.”

  12. I’ll go to the Hilfigers. Golf, tennis, pretty girls, and if I survive the day, there’s even some old people like myself to play backgammon with. I’d enjoy the food and drink, too. Cheers!

  13. Palmer Woodrow | March 2, 2011 at 11:08 am |

    Simple – I’d go to the Hilfiger party. I belong to a private club in Palm Beach and we have a lot of fun – so we’ll call it the Hilfigers Club – a lot of younger members. I have been to other private clubs on the island and they are stiff and boring – a lot of older members and some younger members dying to get wild – we’ll call those clubs the BB clubs.

    The Hilfiger type club is always much much more fun — and there is PLENTY of networking oppotunities. Networking never happens though, business just seems to work through in time.

    Everyone can say what they want — but the reality is if you are a minority, don’t bother showing up to either club — which unfortunately, makes either ad not very realistic.

  14. I wear Brooks Brothers, but their “party” looks segregated (and dull) to me. “Separate but equal” is not cool.

  15. Bill Smith | March 2, 2011 at 12:01 pm |

    I’m a BB fan but I’d crash the Hilfiger bash any day.

  16. Christian | March 2, 2011 at 2:51 pm |

    Not sure why this is called a preppy smackdown:


  17. Jesser, Justin, Palmer,

    Why is it OK for minorities to gather in racially-exclusive groups, but it’s not OK for whites?

    The fact of the matter is that people naturally gravitate towards people who are like themselves. This is about as remarkable as the fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

  18. It did strike me as odd that the black people in the Brooks video are never shown with the white people, but I was hoping that was an unfortunate coincidence.

  19. BB = The Waltons
    The Hilfigers = The Royal Tenenbaums

    i’d crash the Tenenbaums !!!

  20. smackdown, showdown, face off whatever you want to call it. both videos were pretty weak.

  21. ScoobyDubious | March 2, 2011 at 7:52 pm |

    @Henry opined:

    “Why is it OK for minorities to gather in racially-exclusive groups, but it’s not OK for whites?”

    once again you are talking about race….not that you care about race or anything, right?

    BTW, I haven’t noticed a shortage of white people gathering in “racially-exclusive groups”. I think you can rest assured that you will always find a group of whites who “naturally gravitate towards people who are like themselves.”.

  22. Yeah ,right. Minorities are the ones who can be found at ,and originated
    and cultivated the country club set of America………
    Time for brutal honesty. Whether its the black in the tweed outfit
    referred to in a previous post or this current post, Brooks,Hilfiger,
    Polo RL,all kiss the behind of left wing were “ALL EQUAL” bs.
    That’s what it really is Henry, might as well just come out and say it.
    That’s what makes it all so S-T-U-P-I-D with a capital S. They’re not
    simply advertising their merchandise. No, because we live in an era
    where the “NAACP” and other self righteous organizations will rally
    to attack free enterprise if they dare not follow lock step in the never
    ending promoting of “equality”. How dare Polo or Brooks or other
    related labels show only “whites” to model the wear, why they’d be
    reflecting reality. We need to come together as one. Let’s make
    pretend inequality, the natural order of life, is evil. There’s no
    escaping it Henry. Until a certain big mouth fallen angel who got
    kicked out of heaven along with his sympathizers who are the “minorities”
    of heaven are put away permanently in a deserved eternal fire,
    you’ll never here the end of it. IF we are equal then maybe…just maybe..
    like some hippie bum once said in a song, “Imagine there’s no heaven”….
    because then…..there’s no hell……Isn’t that nice??? Then the pathetic
    anti -authority stupid human ego can rest. “EQUALITY FOR ALL”
    You certainly are. And you’ll all share equally when there’s a hot time
    in the old town way down south. What’s up Scooby? You follow along
    with the worlds view toward everything coward you.

  23. Christian | March 2, 2011 at 9:07 pm |

    Next showdown: Jinx vs. Charlie Sheen

  24. ScoobyDubious | March 2, 2011 at 9:13 pm |


    Like anyone is even going to bother….

    “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig”

  25. No wonder why then Scoob, you never taught yourself to sing.
    Mystery solved! That was an easy one! Ask Shaggy for a snack.
    Course no one’s going to bother. And that’s just fine.

  26. Richard Meyer | March 3, 2011 at 7:06 am |

    Both Jinx and Henry are overt racists. P.S.-I would go to neither party, but I would love to party with Paul Winston!

  27. I would crash with Brooks, the Hilfiger looks a bit costumy for my tastes. Richard, agreed, it’s always great to hang out with Paul Winston…so many great stories about the old days.

  28. I think I puked during the Brooks ad.

  29. Christian | March 3, 2011 at 9:47 am |

    From what?

  30. It just seemed very fake, I hate Tommy but the women were better looking.

  31. How nice for you, Richard. I’m sure your mother loves you.

  32. Arthur Orton | March 3, 2011 at 4:36 pm |

    Black/white, who cares?

    As long as there are no Jews.

  33. April Inez Kaplowitz | March 3, 2011 at 6:13 pm |

    It is almost as if the Tommy Hilfiger ad is parodying the Brooks Brothers, racial segregation included. The Hilfiger family looks quite similar to my own: gorgeous, well-dressed, and interracial, whereas the Brooks Brothers seem to evoke more of a “vomit” type response.

    All of my best,
    April Inez Kaplowitz

  34. refined gentlefolk vs. vulgar, ostentatious parvenus

  35. ScoobyDubious | March 4, 2011 at 1:59 am |

    insufferable vapid models vs. zany goofballs.

    If it’s a party you’re looking for, hang with the Hilfigers.
    The BB “party” looks excrutiatingly dull.

  36. @Arthur Orton

    No Jews?

    What do you call Max and Noah in the Hilfiger clip?

  37. Gordon Ramsey | March 4, 2011 at 9:43 am |

    The racial commentary and ad campaigns is pure Bollocks! Now have seat at the kiddie table and have a box of juice and get over yourselves.

  38. Anonymous | March 4, 2011 at 5:27 pm |

    @Old Trad

    The “refined gentlefolk” as you so politely put it are also the “terminally dull” group. At least the Hilfigers know how to have some fun!

    On the racial debate, there are blacks and whites in both videos… I’m confused as to what the problem is. We do not, never have, and my never live in a world where all people are equal, but if you have enough feeling about the matter to be angry, then go out and do something! Don’t just sit in front of your computer lamenting the circumstances of the minority, go out and CHANGE the circumstances. That’s the only way anything ever gets done… when people make the decision to go out and Do something, rather than sit back and complain.

  39. ScoobyDubious | March 4, 2011 at 5:40 pm |

    “Gordon Ramsey” is telling you to get over yourselves…

    nuff said.

  40. Yeah….ol,Gordon spells his last name Rams-A-y, Scooby doo doo.
    Wow, a televised culinary chef’s remark outweighs all the rest.
    You “were all equal” people are the ones that need to get “over it”.
    You never shut up and accept reality.

  41. Starched Collar | March 4, 2011 at 9:24 pm |

    The Brooks gentry wouldn’t care to be seen at the same locale as the Hilfiger “zany goofballs”.

    Trad propriety vs. Preppy immaturity.

  42. Brooksman | March 5, 2011 at 1:45 am |

    Good Taste vs. Lack of Taste

  43. ScoobyDubious | March 5, 2011 at 1:13 pm |


    Oh, you mean that wasn’t the TV Gordon? Gosh, was I hoodwinked again?

    Maybe someday someone will care what you have to say. Maybe. Someday.
    But not today.

  44. ScoobyDubious | March 5, 2011 at 1:15 pm |

    @ Starched Collar

    1) It’s not real
    2) It’s not real
    3) Did I mention it’s not real?

    Little less starch in the collar might do wonders for your disposition.

  45. Christian | March 5, 2011 at 1:19 pm |

    Awful bellicose around here lately…

  46. The production value of the Hilfiger was better. The brooks brothers video was probably paid for with marketing soft dollars from Supima Cotton (Logo in bottom right) and thus there was a limited budget. Also I would say the other huge difference is the Hilfiger promo used models with acting experience. The Brooks video used their catalog models who quite frankly gave off an awkward aura. I still wouldn’t buy Hilfiger.

  47. The difference is that no matter how hard they try, Jews can never really become a part of the social set depicted in the Brooks clip, whereas the “zany” Hilfiger crowd is open to anyone who wants to tweak the noses of the frigid Brooks-types.

  48. Christian | March 7, 2011 at 6:01 pm |

    Muffy didn’t say which party she’d rather attend…

  49. Uh, jinx–the gig is up! That clever Richard Meyer sniffed us out.

    Let’s meet at the Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops Robert C. Byrd Klan Klubhouse and regroup.

    Maybe Senator Byrd (D, WV) was referring to some of the posters here in 2001 (http://www.ihatethemedia.com/remembering-robert-byrd).

    You remember the outrage when he said that? Yeah, me too: deafening silence. Gee, I really, really wonder why.

  50. Richard Meyer | March 8, 2011 at 5:07 am |

    Henry’s remarks are repulsive. Yes, my late mother loved me. Jinx is also repulsive, but, as the SCOTUS reminded us, free speech is better than not allowing repulsive speech. Oh, well, back to Paul Winston, who has class!

  51. The comments from Jinx and Henry are unwarranted, paranoid, and actually quite pathetic. Thank God I’m not a racist.

    Many of my friends, colleagues, and family are people of different nationalities. Nothing will break down the barriers more than being a guest in someone’s home and getting to know them on a human level. Sometimes I forget how tribalistic some people still are. I don’t regularly interact with racial chauvinists.

  52. Oh yeah, I forgot: when writing, one must include plenty of emoticons to indicate sarcasm or irony, otherwise the reader will never suspect that one is employing these arcane literary devices.

    See, here’s what I was saying: Robert Byrd, former high-ranking Klan member and beloved of liberals, used the N word as recently as 2001. Had he been a conservative, or a Republican, he would have been excoriated for it. As it turned out, he got nothing more than a mild chastisement, and was allowed to issue an apology, whereupon the whole thing was dropped.

    And why is that? Because for liberals, “racism” isn’t actually about intolerance of other races. It’s about using the “racism” club to beat back non-liberal whites. Byrd, being a liberal, was given a pass. Ultimately, for liberals, there is no objective standard of racism; what they have instead is a political tool used to gain power over their opponents.

    Moving right along, since I imply it’s OK for whites to gather with other whites, I must be “racist.”

    Of course, I also think it’s OK for men to gather with other men, women with women, blacks with blacks, Christians with Christians, Jews with Jews, Freemasons with Freemasons, people named “John Smith” with people named “John Smith,” pimiento loaf-eaters with pimiento loaf-eaters, et cetera, et cetera, ad naseum. In fact, I think it’s OK if groups actively exclude people not like themselves! It goes along with my belief in this obscure and irrelevant old scrap of paper we call “the Bill of Rights,” and this horrible “freedom of association” concept contained within it.

    I must be the most evil person around since–oh, I dunno. Scott Walker?

    P.S. to Jinx: How naughty of you to look behind the curtain! Surely you heard the wizard telling you to ignore than man back there, didn’t you?

  53. Indeed Henry. No worries mate. The divine discipline coming for all
    who believe in the man”behind the curtain” and his backwards
    self righteous logic, will have them wishing they were never born.

Leave a Reply