35 ms·
Patagonia joins growing list of companies boycotting Facebook ads
- salimmadjd 6y agoDoes Patagonia have influencers or ambassadors on Instagram? If so, this is a bit of virtual signaling as they're still advertising on FB but not directly. Facebook/IG ads is one of the best ad placements left on the market, IMHO.
- benkarst 6y agoGiven there are a very large amount of nearly identical t-shirts and caps you can buy, a clothing company's sole strategy is marketing. If you think this "boycotting" isn't also marketing, you're a sucker. Stop with all the comments about their "principles". They sell goddamn t-shirts. Manufactured in China btw.
- linuxftw 6y agoSeems like a marketing ploy. Everyone is cutting spending right now due to the economic downturn. What better way to cut spending you were going to cut than turn it into a publicity stunt that translates into likes on Twitter! Great time to buy outdoor apparel ads on FB, btw.
- rubber_duck 6y agoI sort of agree with the first part but I fail to see how this translates into "great time to buy outdoor apparel ads" when the market leaders are forced to cut spending.
- rodiger 6y agoProbably more room for the smaller players to get their ads seen. Idk if pricing or visibility is realistically affected by market saturation though.
- jayparth 6y agoIt's cheaper to get clicks because there's less competition for the keyword. True for a lot of categories right now.
- rubber_duck 6y agoBut are those clicks worth as much if spending is down ?
- lowmemcpu 6y agoSince they're only stopping for the month of July, I now suspect that you're presumption is correct.
- pentae 6y agoWow what a nothingburger this is, and the press took it hook line and sinker. Amazing PR
- jeromegv 6y agoPR is the whole point, but it's also PR against Facebook. For sure this won't make Facebook cry for the lost of ads dollar, but it's another day in the press where Facebook is being looked as the bad guy, and ultimately that might influence Facebook.
- ryneandal 6y agoAnother poster covered this point better than I could: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23602328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23602328
- libertine 6y agoI think you underestimate what vision and mission of companies are, maybe because for a lot of them it's fluff. I'll reframe it: it's being leverage by marketing, it's not a marketing ploy in itself. And that's fine - they are letting their audience, and potential new audiences, know their stance on a specific matter, to try to make a change. If it's amplified by media, it's great, that's why it's called "earned media". Plus, they are not saying "We won't allow anyone in our supply chain to use Facebook Ads to advertise our products.", so they're are not hurting any businesses. They are simply taking a position and owning it - like they did with a lot of things. Patagonia understands branding quite well, and they understand the power of consistency when you want to build a long term and sustainable brand. Specially if you want to change the world. You don't have to be a tech company that develops the next level of AI, or a new efficient fuel light-weight fuel, or a pharmaceutical company that develops the cure for a type of cancer, to make effective change. Patagonia caters to a specific audience. They are doing their part to try to make what they believe is positive change.
- baddox 6y agoIf it were a great time to buy outdoor apparel ads, and Patagonia were only concerned with their bottom line, then I expect they would not stop buying outdoor apparel ads. You really can’t have this both ways.
- chillacy 6y agoI think the parent is implying that it's a good time to buy outdoor apparel ads _because_ Patagonia is no longer buying ads. Ad impressions are sold as price per impression, so if a major player is no longer there to bid up the prices, then prices should be lower in theory.
- linuxftw 6y agoExactly right. Prices for the smaller players will drop or otherwise be easier to get broader exposure for the same product category. If I was running an ecommerce business, this would be a strong signal to buy placement on FB.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- citilife 6y agoThey also wont let banks or oil companies purchase co-branded clothing... https://boingboing.net/2019/04/02/fintech-bros-not-welcome.html https://boingboing.net/2019/04/02/fintech-bros-not-welcome.h... IMO the whole refusing service is weird, not giving out advertisement dollars to specific companies make sense though.
- shoulderfake 6y agoWhy is refusing service weird ? They are signalling their values with their checkbook, more than 99.9% than everyone else out there that just put up a few ig posts in "solidarity"
- xhkkffbf 6y agoRefusing service is the basis for racism, sexism, classism and sometimes all of them mixed together. Oh sure, they may claim that they're doing it for some principle, but somehow the principles fall hardest on the wrong people. The Saudis, Latin America and Nigeria are some of the biggest oil producers. Are they really after oil execs? Or just Muslims, Latinos and West Africans? We'll never know. Denying service is discrimination.
- beart 6y agoDo you also disagree with musicians refusing their music be used in certain contexts? This seems like a form of 'refusing service'. For example: https://www.vulture.com/2018/11/the-history-of-musicians-rejecting-donald-trump.html https://www.vulture.com/2018/11/the-history-of-musicians-rej...
- na85 6y agoCorporations aren't people for the purposes of discrimination.
- bronco21016 6y agoWhat does that even mean? So it’s ok for corporations to discriminate? Maybe I missed the /sarcasm?
- hprotagonist 6y agoI respect the hell out of Patagonia and always have. I could go on and on about things they do that are capital-C Correct. This is obviously the right move. They’re a very rare company in terms of being bullheaded about their principles: for sure, something they maintain from their founder. I’d love to own stock in them but i’m happier to have them stay private and not beholden to anyone else’s interests.
- JKCalhoun 6y agoI spend more than I should there in part because of who they are as a company. In fact, just picked up a rugged duffle bag and a few more t-shirts from them last week.
- justaguyhere 6y agoI hope they stay this way (or improve more) when future generations take over
- rlander 6y agoYes! Btw, the founder, Yvon Chouinard, a renowned mountain climber, wrote a great book about the story behind the company which is regarded as the “philosophical manual for the employees of Patagonia”. Awesome read imo.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- PascLeRasc 6y agoHe did a great podcast episode on How I Built This too: https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/572558864/patagonia-yvon-chouinard https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/572558864/patagonia-yvon-chou...
- luigibosco 6y agoThanks, highly recommended. It's nice to hear Yvon in his own words, always aspiring to do better. I'm not sure why Patagonia boycotting Facebook ads is even news. Given Facebooks track record i don't know why people use their service or advertise there at all.
- shiado 6y agoAre there any people trading on companies trading their profitability for moral righteousness? Many companies are doing poorly now anyways, but I wonder if it is actually possible to convert these types of actions into gains.
- starpilot 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_responsible_investing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_responsible_investing I don't think this makes sense in general. It's more effective to trade in whatever is profitable, then donate to causes you care about. Jim Cramer talked about investing in tobacco companies then donating his profits to antismoking charities.
- baddox 6y agoTwo obvious potential problems come to mind. First, not all types of “damage” and “repair” completely annihilate each other with no lasting effects. Protected areas like national parks are a great example of that. Donating to a charity that plants trees does not just “undo” investments in old-growth logging companies. Secondly, the economies of scale that your tobacco company investments contribute toward may overwhelm the economies of scale that your charity donations contribute toward.
- catacombs 6y agoNot a chance. To Wall Street, social justice, "good morals" and ethics are not profitable.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- AnHonestComment 6y agoThere’s various funds that do. Eg, https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/overview/vftax https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/overview/...
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y agoI do t think advertised boycotts will really sway Facebook. At the end of the day, they provide access to a billion users. That is valuable, and companies are going to pay money to advertise to those users.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y agoBoycotting Facebook ads for a month and a half. Then they'll be back at it. https://twitter.com/patagonia/status/1274832569398292480 https://twitter.com/patagonia/status/1274832569398292480
- catacombs 6y agoCorrect. This was a pointless move. Even if Facebook felt a fraction of pressure from Patagonia, they won't budge because the company will just return in August with ad-buys. The better move was to stop ad purchases _permanently_.
- libertine 6y ago> effective immediately, through at least the end of July, pending meaningful action from the social media giant. The important part is the "pending meaningful action" - end of July is the minimum timing, which can extend if no meaningful action is taken. The pressure on Facebook is not about the media spend of Patagonia, is being called out by them and taking a stand.
- staticassertion 6y ago"through at least the end of July" at least As in, they're starting here, and they'll continue if they don't see action. Patagonia is privately held and they seem like an organization that would follow principals over profits, in general. This is a clearer message to Facebook than an outright loss. Facebook now has to say "We lost this month, are we willing to lose next month? And the month after?" as opposed to "Well, we lost the revenue, no use crying over spilled milk".
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y agoPatagonia gets the PR bump today for axing Facebook advertising. If they resume in a month, without FB changing its ways, they get to walk to walk without talking the talk. By giving Patagonia a huge amount of free coverage, it's on them to actually maintain their values until FB changes-- and we have no means of holding them accountable to this.
- elchin 6y agoWill they still let Facebook buy co-branded clothing?
- bzb3 6y ago...during July. Goes to show which of the two companies is actually more powerful.
- alloutblitz85 6y agoI think you misunderstood their statement.
- thedogeye 6y agoWhat are they asking Facebook to do?
- hoorayimhelping 6y agohttps://www.stophateforprofit.org/productrecommendations https://www.stophateforprofit.org/productrecommendations It's definitely interesting. I like these two: >At the request of a member of a private group, provide at least one Facebook-affiliated moderator per group with more than 150 members. Consider more moderators for even larger groups. Spy on any group with more than 150 members if a someone asks you to spy on them. >Create an internal mechanism to automatically flag content in private groups associated with extremist ideologies for human review. This content and associated groups would then be reviewed by internal subject matter experts on extremism. Read private group content, analyze it, and flag it if it's thoughtcrime.
- jb775 6y agoIt sounds like they're demanding that Facebook censor content and advertisements, as long as it aligns with Patagonia's politics. And they are using the power of the mob to guilt trip other companies into joining them.
- mhoad 6y agoIt would be hard to come up with a less charitable interpretation than that. You're all through this thread making salty comments. It does seem somewhat ironic that you seem to be making some kind of free speech argument for Facebook... by getting irrationally upset that a company decided to exercise theirs by not giving them money for a while.
- 6AA4FD 6y agoIf I'm a small business owner and I buy billboard space from a guy (Jimmy) who also sells billboard space to advertisers who publish racist/sexist content, is it unreasonable for me to spend my money elsewhere until Jimmy quits his bs? What if Jimmy freely sends mailers too, to anyone who asks, and I want him to not send mailers if they are racist? If I was in that position and you told me you had a problem with what I was doing, I would tell you to get off my lawn.
- jb775 6y agoThey're getting an awful lot of free advertising by grandstanding that they won't pay for advertising.
- jb775 6y agoFacebook should indefinitely suspend any company who partakes in this from using their platform (advertising, fan pages, groups, etc). See how much those companies like censorship when it impacts their bottom line.
- cmdshiftf4 6y agoOne would have to approach that very carefully without completely spooking your advertising customers. Suspending a company for suspending its marketing spend on your platform would be one hell of a precedence to set. Enshrining something like a zero tolerance policy for anti-FB activism on the platform would be one avenue to pursue, but that is also threading a fine line. Shadow banning activists might be a nice intermediary e.g. you can still post to your page but it absolutely will not show up on other people's feeds.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rsynnott 6y ago"My customers are annoyed with me? I'd better declare war on them." That's... not usually a very sensible route for a company to go.
- stale2002 6y agoThis would have a massively detrimental PR effect on Facebook. It would strongly incentivize people to look for other options, and to diversify.
- rconti 6y ago"censorship" sorry, but it's business.
- ojhughes 6y agoThey really do make the best clothing I have ever owned, fantastic comfort, practical, good styling and colour palettes. A great bonus that they also have a strong ethics. My jacket uses down that is certified as being cruelty free, the factories are checked for fair working practices.
- kerkeslager 6y agoThis is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I haven't used Facebook for years, because their entire platform is based on collecting data and manipulating users to sell ads. They sell the collected data even when it's a gross violation of users' privacy, and manipulate even when it causes depression, addiction, fear, and anger. I absolutely support boycotting Facebook and in fact all social media[1]. But like it or not, Facebook has become a communications platform for a huge portion of our population, and as such, they have a responsibility to protect the free speech of their users. Starting off as a communications platform and then turning into a censored platform at this point would be a bait and switch, and a serious step toward totalitarianism. Totalitarianism enforced by corporations isn't better than totalitarianism enforced by government. Free speech is an inalienable human right, and doesn't disappear because you've (foolishly) put a corporation in charge. And while I do agree that totalitarianism enforced on behalf of good ideas like anti-racism is better than totalitarianism enforced on behalf of bad ideas is better, once we decide to give totalitarian power to corporations, there's no going back. I don't trust corporations with that power--Facebook has already shown that they cannot be trusted with this power when they censored Palestinian journalists in Israel, and cooperated with totalitarian regimes during the Arab spring to censor pro-democracy content. History has shown us over and over again that totalitarianism in the name of noble ideals always becomes corrupt. [1] I'm notably a hypocrite with regards to Reddit. But just because I'm a hypocrite doesn't mean I'm wrong.
- astannard 6y agoAs a consumer, I have lost all confidence in facebook adverts. I see no shortage of scams with no real way to report them as a scam. One example was a series of adverts for a bike computer / light / alarm that was launched on kickstarter that I backed. I saw repeated adverts from various companies reporting to sell these devices for $15 to $20. I checked with the actual company who confirmed they were not real. Every time I blocked / reported the advert a few weeks later the same advice would reappear but a different seller. Often adverts show you a great product sold for a third of what should be charged. If you buy they send you something worth a fraction of what you paid. If you pay they ask you to send it back for a full refund or they might offer to return some of the money. You need to pay for the return though. Facebook have these scams all over the place. I have lost all trust in the platform!
- tootahe45 6y agoWhere's that picture of obama giving himself a medal when you need it?
- lone_haxx0r 6y agoI much prefer Facebook's relatively laissez faire approach instead of Twitter's politically biased approach where hateful things are allowed as long as they are from the left side of the political spectrum. Drawing the line on what is hate speech is a hard enough problem already, and companies like Google, Twitter don't even try to be impartial, their execs have clearly taken a side. Add to that the weird times we're living in and how people's fundamental moral ideas have diverted so much in the last 10 years, and you have a perfect disaster. Facebook's approach is less harmful than the alternative right now.
- Voloskaya 6y ago> where hateful things are allowed as long as they are from the left side of the political spectrum Citation needed. It's not because you hear more often in the media about the right being censored that it means that hateful stuff from the left is allowed.
- Darmody 6y agoNeed a citation? Get on twitter and see how right wingers get banned on heated discussions with left wingers where BOTH are aggressive to each other. The left also mass report stuff they don't like as "hate speech" which automatically results in a ban. Sorry, but the hate speech stuff is just a new way to censor stuff some people don't like and in the end it'll affect us all, no matter if left or right wing.
- spiderfarmer 6y agoI am on Twitter all the time and couldn’t care less about American politics, but the vocal minority of right wingers always think there’s some sort of complot against them. You’re no exception.
- kukx 6y agoWell, objectively the Twitter is biased against conservatives. See a talk on Joe Rogan with Tim Pool and CEO of Twitter. So, the most obvious example is, if you are conservative and assert that there are only two sexes and happen to refer to someone according to your stance - you can get banned for misgendering.
- hoorayimhelping 6y agoI applaud Patagonia for being principled and for standing for something. I deeply question justifying the decision based on this list of wrongs facebook did: https://www.stophateforprofit.org/#comp-kba0i6jc https://www.stophateforprofit.org/#comp-kba0i6jc This is not very convincing. It's very emotional and I couldn't find a single source, or link, or evidence of these any of these claims on that website. It's basically one large corporation not really known for its ethics (the ADL) saying "side with us!" and telling you to hate the other large, faceless corporation not known for its ethics.
- pascalxus 6y agoI find it scary that so many companies are asserting their political will so aggressively. I don't think this will end well.
- bastawhiz 6y agoCan you elaborate on that? What about this story is scary to you?
- fennecfoxen 6y agoFacebook has made a point that they'd rather not build a world where Mark Zuckerberg's schmucks decide who can express their opinions and who can't. Patagonia is targeting Facebook not because Facebook is full of hate, but for failing to censor things they deem hateful. Patagonia's stance against hate some merit to it, but it is in the end an illiberal stance, one which fails to acknowledge the concept that freedom of speech may be a broadly good thing. As society becomes more illiberal, the list of "hate" will grow broader and the list of approved politicians and causes will grow narrower. I am sure that there are a few on these pages who would be ever so thrilled to ban the entire Republican party from advertising entirely. We have had similar episodes in this nation's history. The Red Scare comes to mind. The House Unamerican Activities committee set out to find the Communists and Russian agents who were infiltrating government and society at all levels. And there were, in truth, a lot of Russian agents who had infiltrated American government. And yet today we mostly do not talk about that, for instead, we must talk about how the HUAC, its blacklists which would ban people from industry, was a deranged exercise in paranoia, guilt-by-loose-association, and its own forms of hatred. Today's cancel culture, in which Patagona's boycott is but the smallest plank, is the new HUAC. It differs in that it is not run by government and it is generally leaderless. It is the same in that there are a lot of things which are legitimately problems, and it finds some of them. It is the same in that it deploys abusive media and social-media attention on small-time nobodies, destroying their careers and their livelihoods, in an effort to create an atmosphere of fear and silence its opposition. And I can only hope that future generations will look back on us aghast and ask, "what the hell was wrong with these people?"
- chrisco255 6y agoIncreasingly, I'm bothered by corporate activism. Now, it's not merely a transactional exchange of value, but one of ideological posturing. I prefer business to be transactional, because it's honest and straightforward. Everything else is a facade. This company doesn't care about me. Google, for example, doesn't care about "not being evil". They just want dominance and money. They were supposed to be the anti-Microsoft and now, like the pigs in Animal Farm, I can't tell the difference between them and the humans. Same goes for all the other tech monopolies.
- diego_moita 6y ago> I prefer business to be transactional, because it's honest and straightforward No corporation or politicians will ever be "transactional" because that just doesn't sell. You just can't make branding or marketing without posturing. And for a fashion corporation (e.g.: Patagonia) posturing is even more essential. They don't sell clothes, they sell posturing. Deal with it: everybody is always acting, even you.
- chrisco255 6y agoPlenty of corporations are transactional. You just don't hear about them, they don't get PR points for being transactional. They just hum along and work quietly in the background and we often rely on their services and products.
- rconti 6y agoI think pressure from individuals on corporations to act (or pretend to act) "responsibly" is a natural consequence of the unchecked power of those corporations, and politics failing to step in responsibly (and likely those two are related).
- amachefe 6y agoYawn... So what happened to the #DeleteFacebook campaign. With the number of times Facebook has been cancelled, one is still shocked their is anything to boycott. Haven't been a fan of Zucks but he has earned my respect for being the sane head in the Chaos. Funny, they are also using Facebook to organize to boycott... That should say something to them
- anonymousiam 6y agoSitting here in my Patagonia shorts thinking that I will never buy another product from them. If they want to play in politics, they will lose half of their customer base.
- snowwrestler 6y agoHaving opinions about politics is not exactly new for Patagonia. I mean, they changed their homepage to say THE PRESIDENT STOLE YOUR LAND when Trump shrank Bears Ears.
- Fellshard 6y agoMeta: what's with the top-level comments in here? A lot of serious tangents, praising or digging at Patagonia's practices, instead of focusing on the subject at hand. Trying to signal moral standing of the party in question, so people can decide how to respond to this action?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- devWithABlast 6y agoI don't like Facebook ads, and I wish there was no hateful messages. BUT I hate censorship even more and I think Facebook's approach is better than Twitter's. And personally even if I like Patagonia and North Face (own multiple products of both), I just won't be able to buy their products anymore with a clear conscience because they push censorship. I think it's fine to be a left leaning company, I know North Face and others have support immigration policies, which I'm all for. But trying to force other businesses to shut up is another level. The beauty of this country is diversity. But if you are applying selective diversity until it fits 100% your views that's not good either.
- fatnoah 6y agoOne of my concerns with censorship is that I want to know if people in power are saying these terrible things. When it's simply deleted or hidden, it's like it never happened. I'd much rather it be out there for the world to see.