Hacker News Reader

You could say that about any company doing good. "But we don't know how much of this is politically motivated". For example, they run ad campaigns for voting/saving public lands.

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?

> they run ad campaigns for voting/saving public lands.

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 feel like its a weird stance to say that Patagonia jackets are overpriced and only justify their value due to their political opinions. Like they're some of the best $/quality on the market and they have great resale value. They turned up on my shortlist before I knew anything about their environmental/political stances.

I think people en masse are more price sensitive and lifestyle oriented than they are activist-by-proxy.

Agreed.

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.

[1] https://help.patagonia.com/s/article/Ironclad-Guarantee

> Their customers dont' give a shit about muslims in Chinese camps so they don't "run ad campaigns for saving muslims".

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"

> By this logic no one should

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.

>They clearly aren't because they are supporting far worse things.

Such as?

What? Even if someone is doing other bad things, it still is a good thing when they reduce the number of bad things that they do.

Why are you ascribing basic 101 business marketing to one of the most successful brands on the planet?

Wasn't it the founder that got the Three Cups of Tea guy to build schools for Muslims in Baltistan precisely because he thought the customers didn't give a shit?

It's noble but somehow not as noble as it would be if the company actually suffered harm from it. Otherwise it's just a "strategy credit": https://stratechery.com/2013/strategy-credit/

Possibly. But this kind of thinking is pretty universally used against any person or organization trying to do something good.

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".

lol. So you were convinced that coca cola was really striving to get rid plastic packaging by 2015?

That is an amazing quote, but:

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.

A good company isn't one that sacrifices profits for good causes, since such a company will go out of business eventually as more profitable companies outcompete it.

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.

I think you might be overestimating the thought processes behind this, and underestimating the lack of thought among many people who buy their clothing. They're known as "Fratagonia" at colleges and universities nationwide because of their popularity as status symbol clothing with certain groups. I'll leave which groups for you to guess.

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.

Hmm. I'd always heard "patagucci".

Around here, Canada Goose is the eerily ubiquitous spendy brand on campus.

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.

> 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.

>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?

I already set out why they could be considered bad for the sacrifice.

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.

>Their future customers aren't red state ppl.

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.

When a company has a history of Doing The Right Thing they earn the benefit of the doubt. It's called "good will".

re: “red staters”, you would be quite surprised how bipartisan the fly fishing community is. And how into it Choiunard and thus Patagonia are.

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.