5 ms·

Patagonia donating 100% of Black Friday sales to environment organizations

140 points by soroushjp 10y ago

TylerE 10y ago
This is rather disingenuously worded. It's NET sales aka profit, which is rather a bit different from the gross sales you would assume from reading the giant headline.
- caminante 10y ago
  Careful. Net sales isn't "aka profit." Net sales is typically gross sales adjusted for things like returned items. The different flavors of profits occur further down the income statement and reflect expenses, which net sales effectively doesn't.
- B4CKlash 10y ago
  Giving up NET profit for a single day is still huge. That being said, the hyperbole doesn't bother me. Voting with your wallet is the single most important thing an individual can do (akin to reverse Citizens United). Giving consumers this clear cut prospective is an important function of that model (rather than crossing my fingers and hoping they don't invest those net profits in a sweatshop). My hope is that more business will follow suit.
  - bch 10y ago
    Voting with your wallet is something, but it's certainly not fair, so not necessarily the "single most important thing an individual can do". Why? The votes (money) aren't evenly distributed.
    - dpark 10y ago
      Fairness and importance are orthogonal. The fact that money is unevenly distributed says nothing about whether spending money in ways that influence certain social changes is the "most important thing". It's not fair that the I was born into a wealthy nation while some are born into impoverished war zones. Nonetheless it seems important that my money be put to good use.
  - weaksauce 10y ago
    Yvon is a rich dirtbag(in the good sense of the word as a climber) that made Patagonia into an ethical company. The clothes are expensive but quality. He openly states that he'd rather you repair the clothes vs buying the latest fashion every year. Iirc he was either one of the first adopters as an ethical company or possibly the one that created the legal distinction. 180 degrees south is a pretty fun movie if you are into adventure. He was a prolific rock climber and entrepreneur. Black diamond and Patagonia were his two main companies... Both quite successful though he did have some lawsuits with his chouinard equipment brand that he spun into bd.
- pcl 10y ago
  What's your source? The link says sales, as does the referenced letter from the CEO. Edit: Their tweets further point towards 100% of sales, not net profit: https://twitter.com/themartincox/status/801097512622944256 https://twitter.com/themartincox/status/801097512622944256 But it does seem weird that they haven't come out and said "we mean 100% of the price our customers pay, not net profit."
  - justin66 10y ago
    Mentions "net sales" at the bottom under "1% For The Planet:" http://www.patagonia.com/blog/2016/11/100-percent-today-1-percent-every-day/ http://www.patagonia.com/blog/2016/11/100-percent-today-1-pe... I don't think they could handle the loss that would come from giving away a huge chunk of money equivalent to Black Friday's gross sales...
    - pcl 10y ago
      Page 8 of their 2014 annual report defines "net revenue" thusly: "For purposes of this specific public benefit purpose, “net revenue” means Patagonia’s total sales of goods and services and revenues from other operations, less returns, discounts and allowances: [...]" Also, their announcement says: "100% of purchases made in Patagonia® stores and online at patagonia.com and patagoniaprovisions.com" My read is that "net sales" means pretty much "whatever was bought, less returns". [1] http://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/Sites-patagonia-us-Site/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/en_US/PDF-US/bcorp_annual_report_2014.pdf http://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/Sites-patagoni...
      - justin66 10y ago
        I'm surprised by the discussion on this. In the absence of clearer information I will choose the interpretation that does not entail them taking an enormous, ruinous loss to their financial bottom line.
- whyenot 10y ago
  > It's NET sales aka profit Their website states the following: "100% of purchases made in Patagonia® stores and online at patagonia.com and patagoniaprovisions.com". If you have different information, please share your source.
  - TylerE 10y ago
    Read deeper on their own site.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Do you have a link?
    - pcl 10y ago
      Having read deeper (see the links in my response elsewhere in this subthread), the details are in line with the generous reading of the headline.
    - whyenot 10y ago
      Provide a link or a direct quote. something, that supports your assertion. Your unwillingness to do so comes off as intellectual dishonesty.
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  It's worded as clear as a bell, and you are 100% wrong. It states unambiguously that they are donating, "100% of purchases made in Patagonia® stores and online at patagonia.com and patagoniaprovisions.com"
  - mmaunder 10y ago
    Came here to point out it appears to be revenue, not profit, which is quite impressive.
- Unbeliever69 10y ago
  I can think of NO company that cares about the environment more than Patagonia. A shame on your ignorance!
shanev 10y ago
Maybe they're feeling guilty for creating mostly polyester-based clothing that pollutes our oceans with microfiber plastic.
- grzm 10y ago
  Is this a criticism of Patagonia in particular? They've done a lot to be environmentally aware. They've been using recycled polyester in their clothing for years. I also doubt that Patagonia-produced polyester clothing contributes even 0.01% of the polyester refuse in the ocean. If you have specific criticisms of Patagonia, I would be very interested to learn more about them. Please share.
  - atk123 10y ago
    They commissioned this study. They also pioneered the use of polyester in outdoor clothing... http://brenmicroplastics.weebly.com/project-findings.html http://brenmicroplastics.weebly.com/project-findings.html Has been reported in a few places... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/microfibers-plastic-pollution-oceans-patagonia-synthetic-clothes-microbeads https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/microfib... http://www.outsideonline.com/2131886/its-time-retire-your-old-unsafe-avalanche-beacon http://www.outsideonline.com/2131886/its-time-retire-your-ol...
    - grzm 10y ago
      Thanks for the links. Why create a throwaway account to post them?
      - atk123 10y ago
        It's not a throwaway :) Only an occasional reader, first time I've wanted to reply to something.
- nl 10y ago
  1) Most of their clothes aren't polyester 2) For those that are, they use recycled plastic[1], which both reduces waste and reduces oil usage. It doesn't seem a bad compromise to me. [1] http://www.patagonia.com/recycled-polyester.html http://www.patagonia.com/recycled-polyester.html
icantdrive55 10y ago
1. I'd rather have them up 1% to 10%. 2. After all, the customers are over paying for the word Patagonia. 3. The cost of goods must be low? I could be wrong? Patagonia must make all their gear in the USA. They wouldn't dare charge those prices for Chinese made goods? I disavow number 3. (Trump is rubbing off.) 4. This will be a nice end of year right off? 5. The Goodwill will be more than any loss today. 6. The 501C3's look like a lot of "feel good" nonprofits. I recognized one that has people literally running around federal parks parks and pulling non native plants, while the founder makes a very good living. (I should "out" her.) 7. I wish I wasen't so cynical.

140 points by soroushjp 10y ago

This is rather disingenuously worded. It's NET sales aka profit, which is rather a bit different from the gross sales you would assume from reading the giant headline.

caminante 10y ago
Careful. Net sales isn't "aka profit." Net sales is typically gross sales adjusted for things like returned items. The different flavors of profits occur further down the income statement and reflect expenses, which net sales effectively doesn't.
B4CKlash 10y ago
Giving up NET profit for a single day is still huge. That being said, the hyperbole doesn't bother me. Voting with your wallet is the single most important thing an individual can do (akin to reverse Citizens United). Giving consumers this clear cut prospective is an important function of that model (rather than crossing my fingers and hoping they don't invest those net profits in a sweatshop). My hope is that more business will follow suit.
- bch 10y ago
  Voting with your wallet is something, but it's certainly not fair, so not necessarily the "single most important thing an individual can do". Why? The votes (money) aren't evenly distributed.
  - dpark 10y ago
    Fairness and importance are orthogonal. The fact that money is unevenly distributed says nothing about whether spending money in ways that influence certain social changes is the "most important thing". It's not fair that the I was born into a wealthy nation while some are born into impoverished war zones. Nonetheless it seems important that my money be put to good use.
- weaksauce 10y ago
  Yvon is a rich dirtbag(in the good sense of the word as a climber) that made Patagonia into an ethical company. The clothes are expensive but quality. He openly states that he'd rather you repair the clothes vs buying the latest fashion every year. Iirc he was either one of the first adopters as an ethical company or possibly the one that created the legal distinction. 180 degrees south is a pretty fun movie if you are into adventure. He was a prolific rock climber and entrepreneur. Black diamond and Patagonia were his two main companies... Both quite successful though he did have some lawsuits with his chouinard equipment brand that he spun into bd.
pcl 10y ago
What's your source? The link says sales, as does the referenced letter from the CEO. Edit: Their tweets further point towards 100% of sales, not net profit: https://twitter.com/themartincox/status/801097512622944256 https://twitter.com/themartincox/status/801097512622944256 But it does seem weird that they haven't come out and said "we mean 100% of the price our customers pay, not net profit."
- justin66 10y ago
  Mentions "net sales" at the bottom under "1% For The Planet:" http://www.patagonia.com/blog/2016/11/100-percent-today-1-percent-every-day/ http://www.patagonia.com/blog/2016/11/100-percent-today-1-pe... I don't think they could handle the loss that would come from giving away a huge chunk of money equivalent to Black Friday's gross sales...
  - pcl 10y ago
    Page 8 of their 2014 annual report defines "net revenue" thusly: "For purposes of this specific public benefit purpose, “net revenue” means Patagonia’s total sales of goods and services and revenues from other operations, less returns, discounts and allowances: [...]" Also, their announcement says: "100% of purchases made in Patagonia® stores and online at patagonia.com and patagoniaprovisions.com" My read is that "net sales" means pretty much "whatever was bought, less returns". [1] http://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/Sites-patagonia-us-Site/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/en_US/PDF-US/bcorp_annual_report_2014.pdf http://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/Sites-patagoni...
    - justin66 10y ago
      I'm surprised by the discussion on this. In the absence of clearer information I will choose the interpretation that does not entail them taking an enormous, ruinous loss to their financial bottom line.
whyenot 10y ago
> It's NET sales aka profit Their website states the following: "100% of purchases made in Patagonia® stores and online at patagonia.com and patagoniaprovisions.com". If you have different information, please share your source.
- TylerE 10y ago
  Read deeper on their own site.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Do you have a link?
  - pcl 10y ago
    Having read deeper (see the links in my response elsewhere in this subthread), the details are in line with the generous reading of the headline.
  - whyenot 10y ago
    Provide a link or a direct quote. something, that supports your assertion. Your unwillingness to do so comes off as intellectual dishonesty.
throwaway5752 10y ago
It's worded as clear as a bell, and you are 100% wrong. It states unambiguously that they are donating, "100% of purchases made in Patagonia® stores and online at patagonia.com and patagoniaprovisions.com"
- mmaunder 10y ago
  Came here to point out it appears to be revenue, not profit, which is quite impressive.
Unbeliever69 10y ago
I can think of NO company that cares about the environment more than Patagonia. A shame on your ignorance!

shanev 10y ago

Maybe they're feeling guilty for creating mostly polyester-based clothing that pollutes our oceans with microfiber plastic.

grzm 10y ago
Is this a criticism of Patagonia in particular? They've done a lot to be environmentally aware. They've been using recycled polyester in their clothing for years. I also doubt that Patagonia-produced polyester clothing contributes even 0.01% of the polyester refuse in the ocean. If you have specific criticisms of Patagonia, I would be very interested to learn more about them. Please share.
- atk123 10y ago
  They commissioned this study. They also pioneered the use of polyester in outdoor clothing... http://brenmicroplastics.weebly.com/project-findings.html http://brenmicroplastics.weebly.com/project-findings.html Has been reported in a few places... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/microfibers-plastic-pollution-oceans-patagonia-synthetic-clothes-microbeads https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/microfib... http://www.outsideonline.com/2131886/its-time-retire-your-old-unsafe-avalanche-beacon http://www.outsideonline.com/2131886/its-time-retire-your-ol...
  - grzm 10y ago
    Thanks for the links. Why create a throwaway account to post them?
    - atk123 10y ago
      It's not a throwaway :) Only an occasional reader, first time I've wanted to reply to something.
nl 10y ago
1) Most of their clothes aren't polyester 2) For those that are, they use recycled plastic[1], which both reduces waste and reduces oil usage. It doesn't seem a bad compromise to me. [1] http://www.patagonia.com/recycled-polyester.html http://www.patagonia.com/recycled-polyester.html

icantdrive55 10y ago

1. I'd rather have them up 1% to 10%. 2. After all, the customers are over paying for the word Patagonia. 3. The cost of goods must be low? I could be wrong? Patagonia must make all their gear in the USA. They wouldn't dare charge those prices for Chinese made goods? I disavow number 3. (Trump is rubbing off.) 4. This will be a nice end of year right off? 5. The Goodwill will be more than any loss today. 6. The 501C3's look like a lot of "feel good" nonprofits. I recognized one that has people literally running around federal parks parks and pulling non native plants, while the founder makes a very good living. (I should "out" her.) 7. I wish I wasen't so cynical.