6 ms·
"Yet anti-consumerism is clearly helping to build the Patagonia brand. Indeed, the company is seeing double-digit annual growth." My mind spins on that stateme
by eplanit 11y ago
"Yet anti-consumerism is clearly helping to build the Patagonia brand. Indeed, the company is seeing double-digit annual growth."
My mind spins on that statement. Kudos to the marketing genius who increases sales (= consumers) by convincing customers that they're being "anti-consumers". Companies that use group/political identity (in their case perhaps even 'cult') as part of their scheme take quite a risk in doing so, but Patagonia is one of the companies that has proved remarkably effective and successful in that genre -- consistently over a long time.
Regardless, I actually like their products.
- organsnyder 11y agoAnti-consumerism and growth for this company don't have to be mutually exclusive (though there is natural tension between them). I wasn't very familiar with them before—I assumed they were an expensive brand for people with more money than sense—but now I'm wondering if I should consider them when I buy the jacket I've put off purchasing for the past couple of years. There's definitely a market for durable, repairable goods (see the BIFL subreddit for examples), and Patagonia's growth could be coming at the expense of more traditional brands.
- mturmon 11y agoSince you asked: You should consider them. Their stuff is generally well-designed and holds up. I still use Patagonia shells and jackets I bought in the 1990s. Try to find a brick-and-mortar store.
- stephengillie 11y agoI'd rather support the 10-year hoodie.
- ISL 11y agoI have a Patagonia fleece that I received as a gift in ~1997. Still in good+ shape, and keeps me warm.
- porker 11y ago> There's definitely a market for durable, repairable goods I like the sound of Paramo jackets for that reason, but my partner won't be seen dead with me wearing one. Which is a shame.
- schmichael 11y agoIt may sound strange, but it makes sense. Imagine a phone maker advertising that their phone lasts 6 years without needing replacing. Their market share could grow while the overall number of phones sold shrank due to increased longevity. Just because there's a local (Patagonia) increase in a metric (sales) doesn't mean there isn't a global decrease.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- colechristensen 11y agoYou have to frame it exactly right. Patagonia could reasonably gain market share (number of people wearing Patagonia) while lowering sales-per-person with the net outcome being higher sales overall. This only makes business sense if consumers _want_ durable goods and 'punish' businesses adequately that make shorter lived products. Consumers have to want it enough and have enough information in order to provide the correct market pressure.
- larrymcp 11y ago> phone maker advertising that their phone lasts 6 years without needing replacing And you know what, phones actually do last 6 years without needing replacing. All they'd have to do is simply point that out. heh
- biggerbob 11y agoGoogle cuts off Android (OS) updates when phones are older than 2.5 years. The minimum OS version supported by apps is continually rising. A 6 year old Android phone is near useless.
- Ma8ee 11y agoI don't replace my phones before they break, and it is a long time since any of them lasted more than 3 years.
- mc32 11y agoIt seems there is something related to the exclusivity and cubbishness many people seek out in order to stand out by not standing out. Many higher end brands seem to eventually reach a point where they have to figure out how to keep growing without 'diluting' the brand (ie becoming too mass market). The Coaches, Burberrys, etc. Some bring out sibling brands in order to accommodate both markets, some fail and fizzle out.
- calinet6 11y agoThe wild part, in the grand scheme of things, is that their message is significantly true. They're not convincing consumers that they're being anti-consumers; they're actually consuming less by buying more durable goods that last longer and have a better lifecycle. It's not only true, the truth of it makes it incredibly authentic, and if there's anything that appeals to the market these days, it's authenticity. The supposedly 'crazy idea' that sustainability is, in fact, economically sustainable and even beneficial is a pretty amazing thing. It's a way to be more successful; it is not a cost. For more, check out Bill McDonough's excellent book "Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way we Make Things" -- http://www.mcdonough.com/speaking-writing/cradle-to-cradle/ http://www.mcdonough.com/speaking-writing/cradle-to-cradle/ Side note, I grew up extremely close to Patagonia for about 25 years (literally—went to kindergarten there), my father was highly influential in the leadership and direction of the company, helped come up with the "Don't Buy This Jacket" campaign and led many sustainability efforts. Ask me anything.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cushychicken 11y agoI have nothing to ask in the way of questions, but I do feel compelled to ask you to pass on a "thank you" for the company opening an outlet in Dillon, MT. I grew up in Bozeman, and I love that Patagonia would open a store in a place that most businesses would ignore wholesale.
- calinet6 11y agoHa, I'll try to pass it on. Patagonia has a lot of roots in Bozeman. I remember visiting once, and they had a warehouse and office of about 10 people for a period in the 90's. Good folks. They tend to value the places that matter.
- germinalphrase 11y ago
- natural219 11y agoCue the famous Bill Hicks bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEnA29wK7uM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEnA29wK7uM
- thwest 11y ago> Companies that use group/political identity Isn't this every brand since Bernays came along?