7 ms·

I 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. Th

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I hope they stay this way (or improve more) when future generations take over
rlander 6y ago
Yes! 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 ago
  He 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 ago
    Thanks, 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.
- cirgue 6y ago
  He’s also done a lot of work on dam removal/riparian ecosystem restoration
- rlander 6y ago
  *Edit: Let My People Go Surfing is the name of the book. (Couldn’t edit the original)
georgeburdell 6y ago
Still largely made in China. That means more recently than it used to.
- danpalmer 6y ago
  There may be quality reasons for this (source: I work in a company that produces clothes). There are typically two factors that are used to critique clothing production, ethics and quality. Ethically production in China is fairly easy to do well assuming you're not objecting wholesale to giving money to the Chinese economy. Working conditions are normally fine and can be great. In terms of quality, China is pretty good for a number of types of clothing. I don't know about activewear as we don't produce any, but for many categories at many price points they're basically as good as anywhere else. There are categories where they're not, regardless of how much you pay. I have a feeling that suits might have been one of these but not certain. For very high end clothing, production in Europe, particularly Italy, is a good sign. For anything else there's no reason why China can't compete on quality for most categories.
  - kls 6y ago
    The question is do they hold the same standard for Chinese politics and Chinese corporations? If not, then why the double standard?
    - cmdshiftf4 6y ago
      >If not, then why the double standard? China, whether we like it or not, is strong. The West, and particularly its corporations, have shown themselves to be incredibly weak when it comes to kowtowing to what amounts to populism. So then why bother splitting efforts with fights you know you can't win when you can 100% invest in trouncing those who've shown weakness? Also bringing up China in particular opens a massive can of worms that nobody is really comfortable with. There's been a bunch of companies we all "know and love" who've shown their support for their protests and the BLM political entity over the course of the last few weeks whose output comes from what is essentially slavery in Asia. Again though, that is a conversation nobody seems to be eager to have.
flattone 6y ago
Agree. A system set up in enough detail to allow this principle to exist would be great: ‘here is some of my money, because I believe in you. I would like a return on it in the event your org continues to grow.‘
annoyingnoob 6y ago
I was told by an ex-employee of Patagonia that they pay under market wages. This person left the headquarters office for better pay. This is some time ago, things may have changed. They make good products and have renowned corporate ethics.
- milofeynman 6y ago
  I would personally consider working at Patagonia to be working at a non-profit. Where I take a paycut for the values. See this post for an example as to why they might not be able to pay top dollar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23601699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23601699 If they're making value based decisions, they can't maximize profits like your facebooks or walmarts or amazons. Just a consideration.
- Yhippa 6y ago
  Sometimes you take below-market pay in exchange for other benefits.
dominotw 6y ago
But we don't know how much of their revenue is driven by FB ads. Its possible that its not that significant. revenue gain from publicity + brand strengthening > loss of revenue Their future customers aren't red state ppl. Its possible that they are using this formula. I don't get all the blind praise and "respect" from people who have no idea what equations were used to get to this decision. They should outline what sacrifices they are making otherwise i take this as a 'publicity stunt' . This stunt is particularly absurd given they have no problem making stuff in china. Ppl blindly supporting this are politically motivated, obviously. https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/default/dw29ab8345/PDF-US/Made_in_China_EN.pdf https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Libr... > Far more of our products are made by those Chinese suppliers than they are by the U.S factories because of their expertise and price > We’ve made the choice not to disengage from countries on the basis of their policies. Hilarious. Yet another hypocritical company jumping on the bandwagon.
- tobylane 6y ago
  That’s a lose lose situation. They could be slammed for sacrificing income for their shareholders, or they didn’t lose out therefore it couldn’t have been a genuine act. Especially in this case where iirc the company founders bought up land for one of the biggest national parks in South America, I can believe it’s sincere.
  - dominotw 6y ago
    > Especially in this case where iirc the company founders bought up land for one of the biggest national parks in South America, I can believe it’s sincere. Bill gates has been doing work with his foundation since the 90's. Founders personal passion projects are irrelevant. By your logic founder hates muslims by supporting Chinese regime making his company's stuff there. They need to show what personal sacrifice they are making or this is purely a marketing move.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      >They need to show what personal sacrifice they are making or this is purely a marketing move. Like giving away $10 million dollars? https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/11/28/patagonia-money-saved-trump-tax-cut-environmental-cause/2143733002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/11/28/patagonia-mo... You realize that actions can have marketing benefits while still being unequivocally positive right?
smooth_remmy 6y ago
> 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. Stay private = only accredited investors (millionaires) can invest in them Public companies = everyone can invest in them, including children, the poor, public pensions, etc. Why would you want them to stay private and have only wealthy investors? You expect a company that has investors that are 100% from the upper class to act ethically? How many POC are wealthy enough to be accredited investors?
excursionist 6y ago
> This is obviously the right move. Could you expand on this? Is this obviously right because it's FB being boycotted? I don't use FB - is it noticeably worse than youtube, reddit, twitter?
JPKab 6y ago
I have fond memories of Patagonia catalogs when I was a kid. Had a much older brother who could actually afford the stuff, and he'd give us the catalog. One bummer about the company: They used to make most of their products in the USA, where environmental regulations are enforced and could be monitored. The bulk of their manufacturing was outsourced in the last 2 decades. With their price points, it's not like they can't make a profit if they chose to make it here. They just don't. Pointing this out, because it's an area where companies that have strong brand loyalty and make consumers feel good about things have fallen off. They embrace consumer sentiments on political, racial, and environmental causes, but then pursue fundamental actions that, in practice, radically undermine their stated values.

JKCalhoun 6y ago

I 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 ago
I hope they stay this way (or improve more) when future generations take over

rlander 6y ago

Yes! 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 ago
He 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 ago
  Thanks, 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.
cirgue 6y ago
He’s also done a lot of work on dam removal/riparian ecosystem restoration
rlander 6y ago
*Edit: Let My People Go Surfing is the name of the book. (Couldn’t edit the original)

georgeburdell 6y ago

Still largely made in China. That means more recently than it used to.

danpalmer 6y ago
There may be quality reasons for this (source: I work in a company that produces clothes). There are typically two factors that are used to critique clothing production, ethics and quality. Ethically production in China is fairly easy to do well assuming you're not objecting wholesale to giving money to the Chinese economy. Working conditions are normally fine and can be great. In terms of quality, China is pretty good for a number of types of clothing. I don't know about activewear as we don't produce any, but for many categories at many price points they're basically as good as anywhere else. There are categories where they're not, regardless of how much you pay. I have a feeling that suits might have been one of these but not certain. For very high end clothing, production in Europe, particularly Italy, is a good sign. For anything else there's no reason why China can't compete on quality for most categories.
- kls 6y ago
  The question is do they hold the same standard for Chinese politics and Chinese corporations? If not, then why the double standard?
  - cmdshiftf4 6y ago
    >If not, then why the double standard? China, whether we like it or not, is strong. The West, and particularly its corporations, have shown themselves to be incredibly weak when it comes to kowtowing to what amounts to populism. So then why bother splitting efforts with fights you know you can't win when you can 100% invest in trouncing those who've shown weakness? Also bringing up China in particular opens a massive can of worms that nobody is really comfortable with. There's been a bunch of companies we all "know and love" who've shown their support for their protests and the BLM political entity over the course of the last few weeks whose output comes from what is essentially slavery in Asia. Again though, that is a conversation nobody seems to be eager to have.

flattone 6y ago

Agree. A system set up in enough detail to allow this principle to exist would be great: ‘here is some of my money, because I believe in you. I would like a return on it in the event your org continues to grow.‘

annoyingnoob 6y ago

I was told by an ex-employee of Patagonia that they pay under market wages. This person left the headquarters office for better pay. This is some time ago, things may have changed. They make good products and have renowned corporate ethics.

milofeynman 6y ago
I would personally consider working at Patagonia to be working at a non-profit. Where I take a paycut for the values. See this post for an example as to why they might not be able to pay top dollar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23601699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23601699 If they're making value based decisions, they can't maximize profits like your facebooks or walmarts or amazons. Just a consideration.
Yhippa 6y ago
Sometimes you take below-market pay in exchange for other benefits.

dominotw 6y ago

But we don't know how much of their revenue is driven by FB ads. Its possible that its not that significant. revenue gain from publicity + brand strengthening > loss of revenue Their future customers aren't red state ppl. Its possible that they are using this formula. I don't get all the blind praise and "respect" from people who have no idea what equations were used to get to this decision. They should outline what sacrifices they are making otherwise i take this as a 'publicity stunt' . This stunt is particularly absurd given they have no problem making stuff in china. Ppl blindly supporting this are politically motivated, obviously. https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/default/dw29ab8345/PDF-US/Made_in_China_EN.pdf https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Libr... > Far more of our products are made by those Chinese suppliers than they are by the U.S factories because of their expertise and price > We’ve made the choice not to disengage from countries on the basis of their policies. Hilarious. Yet another hypocritical company jumping on the bandwagon.

tobylane 6y ago
That’s a lose lose situation. They could be slammed for sacrificing income for their shareholders, or they didn’t lose out therefore it couldn’t have been a genuine act. Especially in this case where iirc the company founders bought up land for one of the biggest national parks in South America, I can believe it’s sincere.
- dominotw 6y ago
  > Especially in this case where iirc the company founders bought up land for one of the biggest national parks in South America, I can believe it’s sincere. Bill gates has been doing work with his foundation since the 90's. Founders personal passion projects are irrelevant. By your logic founder hates muslims by supporting Chinese regime making his company's stuff there. They need to show what personal sacrifice they are making or this is purely a marketing move.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    >They need to show what personal sacrifice they are making or this is purely a marketing move. Like giving away $10 million dollars? https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/11/28/patagonia-money-saved-trump-tax-cut-environmental-cause/2143733002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/11/28/patagonia-mo... You realize that actions can have marketing benefits while still being unequivocally positive right?

smooth_remmy 6y ago

> 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. Stay private = only accredited investors (millionaires) can invest in them Public companies = everyone can invest in them, including children, the poor, public pensions, etc. Why would you want them to stay private and have only wealthy investors? You expect a company that has investors that are 100% from the upper class to act ethically? How many POC are wealthy enough to be accredited investors?

excursionist 6y ago

> This is obviously the right move. Could you expand on this? Is this obviously right because it's FB being boycotted? I don't use FB - is it noticeably worse than youtube, reddit, twitter?

JPKab 6y ago

I have fond memories of Patagonia catalogs when I was a kid. Had a much older brother who could actually afford the stuff, and he'd give us the catalog. One bummer about the company: They used to make most of their products in the USA, where environmental regulations are enforced and could be monitored. The bulk of their manufacturing was outsourced in the last 2 decades. With their price points, it's not like they can't make a profit if they chose to make it here. They just don't. Pointing this out, because it's an area where companies that have strong brand loyalty and make consumers feel good about things have fallen off. They embrace consumer sentiments on political, racial, and environmental causes, but then pursue fundamental actions that, in practice, radically undermine their stated values.