If nothing else, Patagonia’s Black Friday ad was the rare kind that caught a harried reader’s attention and held it. The header, an unexpected imperative in capital letters, was qualified in the fine print below. “This is a 60% recycled polyester jacket, knit and sewn to a high standard,” it read, though not before reminding us that all clothing production contributes to environmental bankruptcy. For example, the ad pointed out, the pictured R2 jacket required enough water during the manufacturing process to “meet the daily needs of 45 people” and “generated nearly 20 pounds of carbon dioxide” on one leg of its transportation journey. Patagonia posted the same ad on its website through Cyber Monday and Emailed it to about 750,000 customers.
The ad was analyzed by the Harvard Business Review, the International Business Times, Forbes, and innumerable blogs. AdWeek named it its ad of the day for the boldness of the appeal. Gawker, meanwhile, called it sanctimonious: “You are the reason people think liberals are smug.”
Indeed, it read like a brilliant piece of reverse psychology, a self-righteous celebration of the brand cloaked in an earnest plea to rethink a culture of unchecked consumerism and its effect on the environment. The text read “DON’T BUY THIS JACKET,” but some thought Patagonia was really saying, “Purchase high-quality products from our conscious company instead of crap from evil corporations.”
“Of course we want people to buy from us,” says Christina Speed, Patagonia’s marketing director. “We’re a company that makes clothes, and we need to be profitable. But everyone needs to consume less.”
She says the campaign was inspired by a page in the 2004 Patagonia catalog that asked people not to buy a best-selling shirt. “The message is absolutely sincere. If you don’t agree with what we’re doing and the ad made you angry, then don’t buy from us.”
Not that the company is hurting for supporters. One purpose of the ad was to spread awareness of Patagonia’s Common Threads Initiative, an extension of the “reduce, reuse, recycle” mantra that guides their its (and consumers’) practices. Recently, it ramped up its repair center for quicker turnarounds and will recycle worn-out clothing into new fabric. This fall, Patgonia hooked up with eBay to facilitate the exchange of used apparel. Sellers who list Patagonia goods on eBay will get a free listing on the apparel maker's used-clothing-and-gear site.
Though few people would accuse Patagonia of greenwashing, the ad’s double-edged sentiment lead to kickback from some consumers. On the company’s Cleanest Line blog, readers said they found the message patronizing and wondered why Patagonia didn’t close stores if it was serious about boycotting the retail frenzy. Others noted that Patagonia bemoans carbon emissions while continuing to manufacture its goods overseas.
Still, Patagonia is a proven supporter of environmental initiatives. It cofounded 1% for the Planet in 2002, which donates 1 percent of annual sales to environmental causes. Roughly 1,400 companies have since joined the nonprofit (Outside is a member). They shifted to 100 percent organic cotton in 1996, long before eco-friendly materials became part of the vernacular. And it encouraged its employees to take time off to volunteer for grassroots environmental organizations, while it continued to pay full salary and benefits.
Comments
Tough to question patagonia after decades of activism and fundraising. I think it is legit. Still my top 2 go to outdoor/ lifestyle companies.
Flag ThisI am a Patagonia customer because I still have and regularly use the first 2 shirts that I purchased from Patagonia in 1997. They are in good shape( a bit discolored/ some thread worn sleeve ends) and in regular rotation in my wardrobe. The shirts cost a bit more than I usually would spend but I, in no way, could foresee these shirts lasting 14 years(and still going). So worth the extra $$, for quality that lasts. Meaning that I am consuming less. Taking less from the environment. When I do need another shirt then it will be a Patagonia shirt.
Flag ThisI bought a fiber filled jacket from the store in NYC a few years back . When I got it home a higher priced sticker had been affixed on top of the original price tag, I returned the item and wrote a letter to HQ asking about price gouging. They sent me a $10 gift certificate and no explanation. I sent it back with the observation that there is nothing in their overpriced store for$10. As an American the best thing you could do for the environment is kill your over consuming family and then yourself.
Flag ThisBest facts come at the end of the story: You don't change business models by slashing profits and closing stores. You change business by showing you can STILL make a profit while being environmentally responsible. Patagonia is head and shoulders above the vast majority of US businesses, and that includes the entire Outdoor Industry (of which I've been a member for more than 20 years).
Flag ThisIf they really believe, then they should call for activities that don't require so much from the earth. Otherwise they are elitists like Gore.
Flag ThisUnfortunately the US's consumerism won't stop, and so the goal must be to flood the market with quality products that have the least amount of environmental impact. If a "green" company can convince a consumer to spend their money on their product as opposed to a product constructed with no regards to environmental integrity, then I see it as a net gain in the big scheme of things. If the consumer has it in his or her mind to buy the product, it's better that X% of the material that went into that product by Company A didn't go into some form of environmental degradation, as opposed to 0% by everyone else.
Flag ThisUnfortunately the US's consumerism won't stop, and so the goal must be to flood the market with quality products that have the least amount of environmental impact. If a "green" company can convince a consumer to spend their money on their product as opposed to a product constructed with no regards to environmental integrity, then I see it as a net gain in the big scheme of things. If the consumer has it in his or her mind to buy the product, it's better that X% of the material that went into that product by Company A didn't go into some form of environmental degradation, as opposed to 0% by everyone else.
Flag ThisUnfortunately the US's consumerism won't stop and so the goal must be to flood the market with quality products that have the least amount of environmental impact. If a "green" company can convince a consumer to spend their money on their product as opposed to a product constructed with no regards to environmental integrity, then I see it as a net gain in the big scheme of things. If the consumer has it in his or her mind to buy the product it's better that X% of the material that went into that product by Company A didn't go into some form of environmental degradation, as opposed to 0% by everyone else.
Flag ThisGucci Gucci goo. A lot of the people above seem to be rationalizing. What about the catalogs they hit you with? I've had to call them several times to get them to stop sending me catalogs. Kind of rubs me the wrong way - they seem to re-start the catalogs every time I order - I know where to find them online, thank you. I order over the phone and tell them no catalogs! While they do make some great stuff, and I own a bunch of it, their designs seem to be as much about branding as their logo (which I remove whenever I can without damaging). I have one of their lightweight fleeces that I bought at a ridiculous sale a few years back that is very functional, and the color is low-key, but even with the label removed, I've been pondering donating it to the Salvation Army because the design of it just looks so.....Patagucci. It's kind of embarrassing, I tell ya! While I'm at it, as for mountain town people - they are not the standard of cool. If they hang around long enough, it seems they can become "mountain town provincial" - with smallish world views. But they do love to sport their Patagonia (or Cloudveil, or...).
Flag ThisGucci Gucci goo. A lot of the people above seem to be rationalizing. What about the catalogs they hit you with? I've had to call them several times to get them to stop sending me catalogs. Kind of rubs me the wrong way - they seem to re-start the catalogs every time I order - I know where to find them online, thank you. I order over the phone and tell them no catalogs! While they do make some great stuff, and I own a bunch of it, their designs seem to be as much about branding as their logo (which I remove whenever I can without damaging). I have one of their lightweight fleeces that I bought at a ridiculous sale a few years back that is very functional, and the color is low-key, but even with the label removed, I've been pondering donating it to the Salvation Army because the design of it just looks so.....Patagucci. It's kind of embarrassing, I tell ya! While I'm at it, as for mountain town people - they are not the standard of cool. If they hang around long enough, it seems they can become "mountain town provincial" - with smallish world views. But they do love to sport their Patagonia (or Cloudveil, or...).
Flag ThisWe're talking about a brand of clothing. Mission accomplished, Patagonia.
Flag ThisPatagonia has attracted a loyal consumer base, including myself, with its environmental responsibility, overall quality, and with ads like these. While their products are expensive, the prices represent an amount closer to the true environmental cost of consumer goods. In other words, you're paying (to some extent) for mitigation of the environmental damage up front, instead of years later.
Flag ThisMakes me wonder why they are selling to Bloomingdales then?
Flag This