5 ms·

> They may sell a subset of their product to yuppies I think you have this backwards. They make their profit off the yuppies buying the latest product year aft

> They may sell a subset of their product to yuppies I think you have this backwards. They make their profit off the yuppies buying the latest product year after year. The hardcore users aren't buying new tents, jackets, snow pants, etc every year.

jswizzy 7y ago
Some items wear out fast. Climbing shoes have to be replaced or at least resoled yearly.
- rienbdj 7y ago
  true but those brands don't make climbing shoes except black diamond?
Fricken 7y ago
Hardcore users can actually burn through their gear pretty fast. A $600 gore-tex shell will last a long time so long as you aren't climbing mountains in it every weekend.
- soared 7y ago
  An arcteryx shell should last nearly your entire life with proper maintenance - if you’re doing an activity that would damage it you’re using the wrong gear.
look_lookatme 7y ago
And those products have high margins, but they haven't sold out their core ideals and quality in order to cater to these markets because their core business is woefully inadequate, which is the point that original commenter made. And those yuppies may convert to hardcore outdoor users, and bring their brand loyalty with them. If anything these companies are a pretty good example of a kind of principled capitalism, in so much as their operations are coextensive with both lifestyle stuff the commenter derides and their initial principles and commitment to quality. And on top of that, if one thinks these are outliers, two of these companies where started by the same guy, in different times.
PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
Nothing you just wrote contradicts what you quoted. "They may sell a subset of their product" ... this doesn't say anything about the amount of revenue associated with "the subset". The idea is that they sell part of their line to yuppies (and whoever else wants to wear them while still within proximity to more than 5 other people) and sell a different part of their line to people who actually get out there. Yes, the revenue from the first case may greatly exceed the revenue from the second case, but that doesn't invalidate the point.

jswizzy 7y ago

Some items wear out fast. Climbing shoes have to be replaced or at least resoled yearly.

rienbdj 7y ago
true but those brands don't make climbing shoes except black diamond?

Fricken 7y ago

Hardcore users can actually burn through their gear pretty fast. A $600 gore-tex shell will last a long time so long as you aren't climbing mountains in it every weekend.

soared 7y ago
An arcteryx shell should last nearly your entire life with proper maintenance - if you’re doing an activity that would damage it you’re using the wrong gear.

look_lookatme 7y ago

And those products have high margins, but they haven't sold out their core ideals and quality in order to cater to these markets because their core business is woefully inadequate, which is the point that original commenter made. And those yuppies may convert to hardcore outdoor users, and bring their brand loyalty with them. If anything these companies are a pretty good example of a kind of principled capitalism, in so much as their operations are coextensive with both lifestyle stuff the commenter derides and their initial principles and commitment to quality. And on top of that, if one thinks these are outliers, two of these companies where started by the same guy, in different times.

PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago

Nothing you just wrote contradicts what you quoted. "They may sell a subset of their product" ... this doesn't say anything about the amount of revenue associated with "the subset". The idea is that they sell part of their line to yuppies (and whoever else wants to wear them while still within proximity to more than 5 other people) and sell a different part of their line to people who actually get out there. Yes, the revenue from the first case may greatly exceed the revenue from the second case, but that doesn't invalidate the point.