Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fricken | Hacker News Reader

The climbing apparel industry is the same way. Patagonia, North Face, Black Diamond and Arcteryx all began as brands that catered specifically to the needs of climbers and alpinists, but now sell primarily to yuppies.

It used to be that if you were wearing Canada Goose, it was because you were on some kind of expedition to the Arctic. Then movie directors decided Canada Goose was the way to go to stay cozy while on an outdoor movie set. I think it was Sundance 2007 and all of the sudden all the cool kids had Canada Goose parkas.

Now middle class people wear Canada Goose parkas to signal to others their propensity for getting ripped off.

View on HN

> Patagonia, North Face, Black Diamond and Arcteryx all began as brands that catered specifically to the needs of climbers and alpinists, but now sell primarily to yuppies.

They may sell a subset of their product to yuppies, but you can still outfit yourself for just about any outdoor pursuit with these companies and trust the gear they sell. TNF and BD tents are still high quality, TNF and BD and Patagonia jackets can be used on any trip. And Arcteryx is some of the highest quality cold weather clothing in the world. I would probably only prefer Western Mountaineering or Hilleberg to a combination of products from these 4 manufacturers. BD probably makes more money on selling headlamps to anglers and hunters than they do on yuppies buying climbing pants.

The brands are nowhere near the lowend lifestyle fashion grab-bags that Oakley, Hurley, Quiksilver or O'Neill are...

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

true but those brands don't make climbing shoes

except black diamond?

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.

Petzl is interesting in its primarily an industry outfitter, but also serves some outdoors activities.

I agree. The core product lines from the major technical outdoor brands are still very high quality, and field tested up the ying yang. More conventional fashion brands try to imitate the technical outdoor brands and they fail miserably.

(Moved comment)

Heck I’d even say many tech companies are like this. Their core product works and is for all intents and purposes “done”, but they still keep growing. Dropbox is a good example IMO.

You beat me to it. Virtually every outdoor sports brand makes a big chunk of its revenue and an even bigger chunk of its margin selling "lifestyle merch" -- T-shirts, sunglasses, etc. I fail to see how this is offensive or inappropriate.

Similarly, it is intuitive that professional investors are going to want to try to buy companies like Hurley and Billabong amidst a societal trend of more people wanting to seem more surfer-like and buying T-shirts that convey the message "I'm into surf culture".

The anticapitalist tone of the linked article is especially ironic given that the popularity of surfing in the non-Hawai'ian world was driven entirely by the post-WWII economic expansion in the US mainland and AUS that gave teenage baby boomers spending money in the early 60's. Surfing has always been co-opted by capitalism; there are old dudes in the lineup at Dana Point who were bitching about the fakeness of the Beach Boys and Gidget when they were young men 50+ years ago.

None of this is new.

used to be that if you were wearing Canada Goose, it was because you were on some kind of expedition

Isn’t their slogan now “built for urban winters”? They aren’t even pretending to be genuine any more, and that only makes them more appealing to posers, who think that “urban” means something else

Same for Helly Hansen that went from sailing/climbing gear to generic fashion.

Canada Goose was a consumer brand for many people in Seattle when I lived there 89-96.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com