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.
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/-/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.
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.
Like giving away $10 million dollars?
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?
Various oil, cigarette, opioid and arms dealers have tried to clean up their image by donating, for instance to art galleries. The Getty Wing of the National Gallery, London is because of a donation and a genuine interest in art by Paul Jr. The Sackler family had their gift to the sister National Portrait Gallery turned down, a popular decision. Both have donated to National Gallery, Washington, among others. Sacrificing money is not a good measure. There will be Bible references for this.
Yes, they are spending their profits on it. And people like companies that do good things, so i'm sure it earns them some trust & brand loyalty. Does that mean it's ill intended?
This is part of their brand building. Ppl buying their overpriced jackets are not just buying a jacket they are buying "good feelings". They cannot justify the price just on just the quality of the jacket, they have to bundle intangible in their price. Outdoorsy ppl want they outdoors saved, its a no brainer for outdoor company to support this.
Their customers dont' give a shit about muslims in Chinese camps so they don't "run ad campaigns for saving muslims".
Why are you attributing some noble intentions behind basic 101 business marketing. Its clearly not the case per what i said above.
> Does that mean it's ill intended?
yes. I call BS.
I think people en masse are more price sensitive and lifestyle oriented than they are activist-by-proxy.
Patagonia also has an Ironclad Guarantee [1] - "If you are not satisfied with one of our products at the time you receive it, or if one of our products does not perform to your satisfaction, return it to the store you bought it from or to Patagonia for a repair, replacement or refund."
They stand by their products. You can even return more than a year later and get credit. Some buy stuff on resale and get it repaired or exchanged for new for cheap.
By this logic no one should work for or do business with American companies for all our atrocities in the middle east. There are a million issues in the world. You have to pick one or two if you want to have any kind of messaging other than "shits fucked up yo"
I am not saying ppl should or shouldn't do certain thing. Its up to them.
I am contradicting "petagonia is a noble company for boycotting FB". They clearly aren't because they are supporting far worse things.
Such as?
A good company is one that aligns its own profitability with good causes. Part of that includes understanding how to gain publicity for being a genuinely responsible company.
You can live a life completely devoid of ethical behavior beyond following the law, and nobody will say a word or think anything of it. But as soon as you put any effort to being extra ethical, expect endless criticism. Dave Eggars, in one of my favorite books "You Shall Know Our Velocity", has a quote that sums this up nicely: "The inactive must justify their sloth by picking nits with those making an attempt".
You could also put extra effort into being ethical, and just not tell anyone or publicize it in any way associated with increasing mind share.
The only problem is that it then is difficult to "lead by example" but I'm sure there are relatively quiet ways of accomplishing that, too.
Red state people don't enjoy fishing, climbing, skiing and hiking? Please.
The rest of your comment wilfully ignores the company structure (A public benefit corp), philosophy, history of transparency, and history of activism. Just one example -
>In June 2018, the company announced that it would donate the $10 million it received from President Trump's 2017 tax cuts to "groups committed to protecting air, land and water and finding solutions to the climate crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia,_Inc.#Activism
>Ppl blindly supporting this are politically motivated, obviously.
Sounds like you're the one making politically motivated attacks not based on evidence.
Please don't bother cherry picking their mis-steps as "proof" that I'm wrong. Looking at the big picture, their track record of trying to make ethical, transparent choices speaks for itself.
Anyways, Patagonia is a pretty small company despite their nationwide reputation, and they've always put values first and hoped/assumed things would work out, their founder has written about this himself. If your business model isn't a cost cutting / race to the bottom one, then a lot of traditional logic about how businesses are run can end up never implemented in the first place.
Around here, Canada Goose is the eerily ubiquitous spendy brand on campus.
i know this is a fighting word, but eco/conservation groups are a lot more intersectional and (in the US) bipartisan than you’d potentially expect.
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.
(Couldn’t edit the original)
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.
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.
See [1] for a bad article with a few interesting leads as a way to find out more but basically Chinese capital realized that made in China has a reputation problem and have bought italian brands and manufacturing businesses. I’m not suggesting that is nefarious but I am saying that is worth to learn more.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-sweatshop-insight-i...
Patagonia has been leading the way on ethical manufacturing for a long time. Easily since the late 1990s. They don't appear to be bargaining for rock-bottom price with their Chinese contractors -- they are asking for higher standards, both labor and environmental. According to their website, they have narrowed the list of contractors they work with so that they can monitor them better.
Also, as their website points out, it's important to not fetishize American clothes manufacturing as such. The American textile industry is much smaller than it once was, due to NAFTA and related agreements.
For a lot more, see: https://www.patagonia.com/stories/patagonia-clothing-made-wh...
In fact, just picked up a rugged duffle bag and a few more t-shirts from them last week.
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.
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?
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?