6 ms·

> "Don't be evil" is simply impossible for large corporations I see Patagonia as the antithesis of this broadly accepted assertion. It's possible, it just tak

> "Don't be evil" is simply impossible for large corporations I see Patagonia as the antithesis of this broadly accepted assertion. It's possible, it just takes having a goal for your company that's more than greed.

Invictus0 3y ago
Patagonia didn't take VC money, and reddit wouldn't have even survived this long if they hadn't
- moomoo11 3y ago
  How true is that honestly? The more I talk to people the more I feel like people just like to party/waste money more than work.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    > The more I talk to people the more I feel like people just like to party/waste money more than work. Is... that a surprise to you?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- paxys 3y ago
  > and reddit wouldn't have even survived this long if they hadn't The parts of Reddit that people actually like – a single lightweight web app (old.reddit.com) minus all the fluff (constant redesigns, broken video player, live streaming service, overengineered mobile apps, avatars, NFTs, coins/gifts, social networking, chat, clubhouse competitor, expensive acquisitions) – would have survived perfectly well without VC money.
  - srverma 3y ago
    How so? It costs money to store & retrieve this content, at reddit scale (100m active monthly?). Ads clearly weren't paying enough of the bills, so what's the next best option?
    - 11101010001100 3y ago
      You know: solving the engineering problem you just described...
    - paxys 3y ago
      Reddit made $500M in revenue last year, yet is unprofitable. The reason isn't its AWS bill, but the "must 5x every year no matter what" mentality of their VCs who are looking for their exit. This pushes companies to overhire, add useless features and waste money on user acquisition just to chase that growth chart and have a successful IPO roadshow.
rednalexa 3y ago
Isn’t Patagonia privately owned though?
- nocoiner 3y ago
  I don’t know the details of Patagonia’s ownership either now or before they put it in the trust, but Reddit is also privately owned (for now, anyway).
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Not just privately owned, but given away irrevocably by said owner to charity, and done in a way that intentionally incurred a large tax bill. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/climate/patagonia-climate-philanthropy-chouinard.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/climate/patagonia-climate...
  - unsupp0rted 3y ago
    I didn’t know this before and now I’m inclined to buy Patagonia items at every opportunity. Seriously- I’ve had my eye on a Patagonia black hole duffle and now I’ll pull the trigger.
    - chimerasaurus 3y ago
      If you are an REI member, they often have stuff in the used (Garage) site that is in excellent quality and also less expensive. Patagonia also has worn wear that does the same thing. Win-win - awesome stuff, no need to make a new one for you, and less expensive! - The guy who now has too many nanopuff jackets, but I will die on this hill.
      - nocoiner 3y ago
        I found out about worn ware a couple weeks ago. I am now accruing nanopuff jackets at a dangerous clip.
  - ravitation 3y ago
pphysch 3y ago
Fashion companies like Patagonia and online social platforms like Reddit are radically different with how they interact with network effects. Fashion benefits from exclusivity and brand identity. It behooves Patagonia to brand itself as "not evil" or "not capitalist" or whatever, it's ultimately a fashion statement. Social networks suffer from exclusivity, and brand identity is an afterthought. I'd wager that most Reddit users have a neutral/negative view of the Reddit brand, but they use Reddit anyways because of network effects (everyone is there) and the brand doesn't really impact their favorite subreddits. There have been many attempts at "exclusive" social networks with carefully crafted brand identity, and they always fail. There's a theory that social media also has fashion phases, but I don't think we have enough data to back that up. MySpace lasted about 6 years. Facebook is 19 and Twitter is 17 and both are going strong.
mpalczewski 3y ago
Patagonia is pushing polyester with its associated micro-plastics, instead of the renewable natural fibers that they were using before like wool. Good, evil, depends on who is counting.
- mulmen 3y ago
  Patagonia is clear about that decision though [1]. Microplastics are bad but not the whole story. They still offer natural fibers which have their own problems. I don't think this is Patagonia chasing short term profits, I think they are trying to remain true to their corporate goals. [1]: https://www.patagonia.com/stories/an-update-on-microfiber-pollution/story-31370.html https://www.patagonia.com/stories/an-update-on-microfiber-po...
  - tweetle_beetle 3y ago
    Their statement sounds and looks good at first, but the actions amount to: you should keep buying our products, you should buy a new washing machine, you should buy a filter and we will keep thinking about it. Patagonia do make high performance plastic products for activities where performance matters and in a better way than most, but have not been a performance focused company for decades. The original breakthrough of using plastic fleece in the wilderness due to it's non water absorbing properties doesn't really justify the size of their production with those materials today. They make most of their money selling plastic fleeces for people to wear to coffee shops. This segment of the market didn't realy exist before brands like Patagonia so they while they may offer a better alternative today, they are helped to create this particular problem. And if you've ever seen their clearance lists, they're as bad as other fashion companies for overproduction - new colours every season which need to make way the following season. Replacing plastics in their casual ranges and extending the lifecycles of the colours alone would make a bigger difference than a couple of research grants, but is risky for sales and less sexy. So take those statements with a pinch of salt.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      I'm confused on what you think Patagonia should do differently. Should I boycott them for some reason? Should I feel bad about wearing their products? How bad are they environmentally on the scale of all apparel manufacturers from worst to best? Is Cotopaxi ok?
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
You are right, but as others have noted, I should have put a caveat on my assertion that the incentive mismatch is really there for companies with "outside owners", either in the form of a publicly traded company or large VC/PE investors. If you keep a company private, and you don't take sizable outside funding, you can pretty much do whatever you want with your company.

Invictus0 3y ago

Patagonia didn't take VC money, and reddit wouldn't have even survived this long if they hadn't

moomoo11 3y ago
How true is that honestly? The more I talk to people the more I feel like people just like to party/waste money more than work.
- mulmen 3y ago
  > The more I talk to people the more I feel like people just like to party/waste money more than work. Is... that a surprise to you?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
paxys 3y ago
> and reddit wouldn't have even survived this long if they hadn't The parts of Reddit that people actually like – a single lightweight web app (old.reddit.com) minus all the fluff (constant redesigns, broken video player, live streaming service, overengineered mobile apps, avatars, NFTs, coins/gifts, social networking, chat, clubhouse competitor, expensive acquisitions) – would have survived perfectly well without VC money.
- srverma 3y ago
  How so? It costs money to store & retrieve this content, at reddit scale (100m active monthly?). Ads clearly weren't paying enough of the bills, so what's the next best option?
  - 11101010001100 3y ago
    You know: solving the engineering problem you just described...
  - paxys 3y ago
    Reddit made $500M in revenue last year, yet is unprofitable. The reason isn't its AWS bill, but the "must 5x every year no matter what" mentality of their VCs who are looking for their exit. This pushes companies to overhire, add useless features and waste money on user acquisition just to chase that growth chart and have a successful IPO roadshow.

rednalexa 3y ago

Isn’t Patagonia privately owned though?

nocoiner 3y ago
I don’t know the details of Patagonia’s ownership either now or before they put it in the trust, but Reddit is also privately owned (for now, anyway).
ceejayoz 3y ago
Not just privately owned, but given away irrevocably by said owner to charity, and done in a way that intentionally incurred a large tax bill. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/climate/patagonia-climate-philanthropy-chouinard.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/climate/patagonia-climate...
- unsupp0rted 3y ago
  I didn’t know this before and now I’m inclined to buy Patagonia items at every opportunity. Seriously- I’ve had my eye on a Patagonia black hole duffle and now I’ll pull the trigger.
  - chimerasaurus 3y ago
    If you are an REI member, they often have stuff in the used (Garage) site that is in excellent quality and also less expensive. Patagonia also has worn wear that does the same thing. Win-win - awesome stuff, no need to make a new one for you, and less expensive! - The guy who now has too many nanopuff jackets, but I will die on this hill.
    - nocoiner 3y ago
      I found out about worn ware a couple weeks ago. I am now accruing nanopuff jackets at a dangerous clip.
- ravitation 3y ago

pphysch 3y ago

Fashion companies like Patagonia and online social platforms like Reddit are radically different with how they interact with network effects. Fashion benefits from exclusivity and brand identity. It behooves Patagonia to brand itself as "not evil" or "not capitalist" or whatever, it's ultimately a fashion statement. Social networks suffer from exclusivity, and brand identity is an afterthought. I'd wager that most Reddit users have a neutral/negative view of the Reddit brand, but they use Reddit anyways because of network effects (everyone is there) and the brand doesn't really impact their favorite subreddits. There have been many attempts at "exclusive" social networks with carefully crafted brand identity, and they always fail. There's a theory that social media also has fashion phases, but I don't think we have enough data to back that up. MySpace lasted about 6 years. Facebook is 19 and Twitter is 17 and both are going strong.

mpalczewski 3y ago

Patagonia is pushing polyester with its associated micro-plastics, instead of the renewable natural fibers that they were using before like wool. Good, evil, depends on who is counting.

mulmen 3y ago
Patagonia is clear about that decision though [1]. Microplastics are bad but not the whole story. They still offer natural fibers which have their own problems. I don't think this is Patagonia chasing short term profits, I think they are trying to remain true to their corporate goals. [1]: https://www.patagonia.com/stories/an-update-on-microfiber-pollution/story-31370.html https://www.patagonia.com/stories/an-update-on-microfiber-po...
- tweetle_beetle 3y ago
  Their statement sounds and looks good at first, but the actions amount to: you should keep buying our products, you should buy a new washing machine, you should buy a filter and we will keep thinking about it. Patagonia do make high performance plastic products for activities where performance matters and in a better way than most, but have not been a performance focused company for decades. The original breakthrough of using plastic fleece in the wilderness due to it's non water absorbing properties doesn't really justify the size of their production with those materials today. They make most of their money selling plastic fleeces for people to wear to coffee shops. This segment of the market didn't realy exist before brands like Patagonia so they while they may offer a better alternative today, they are helped to create this particular problem. And if you've ever seen their clearance lists, they're as bad as other fashion companies for overproduction - new colours every season which need to make way the following season. Replacing plastics in their casual ranges and extending the lifecycles of the colours alone would make a bigger difference than a couple of research grants, but is risky for sales and less sexy. So take those statements with a pinch of salt.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    I'm confused on what you think Patagonia should do differently. Should I boycott them for some reason? Should I feel bad about wearing their products? How bad are they environmentally on the scale of all apparel manufacturers from worst to best? Is Cotopaxi ok?

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

You are right, but as others have noted, I should have put a caveat on my assertion that the incentive mismatch is really there for companies with "outside owners", either in the form of a publicly traded company or large VC/PE investors. If you keep a company private, and you don't take sizable outside funding, you can pretty much do whatever you want with your company.