Patagonia’s Anti-Growth Strategy (The New Yorker)
Disclaimer: I’m a huge Patagonia junkie. I own a fair share of gear that’s outlasted more than 90-percent of my wardrobe, and closely follow how the company’s actions reflect, or belie, their environmental branding. So far? It’s preaching the right message—reasoned consumption—and allowing consumers to direct their rate of production.
This article gives a holistic explanation of how Patagonia’s brand strategy has evolved over the past six years. Rich Ridgeway, VP of environmental affairs, helped the company capitalize on thriftiness’ growing value as a consumer trait by effectively plastering a ‘yield’ sign on all marketing material. Patagonia’s risk only bolstered its caché, underscoring its status as a company with seemingly genuine continued dedication to responsible growth—a company with a true ethics code. And by buying from Patagonia, consumers can self-define as “more ethical than others,” too.
But the thing is, even if Patagonia sells fewer items at higher prices (because its gear is higher quality, and you can get it repaired whenever you need to, because you’re one of those good people willing to sacrifice for the environment—see what I mean?), that doesn't mean it’s not growing. It’s exploding, and as the author mentions, its foreign marketing plans don’t necessarily put its sustainable ethos first. (Asian countries especially are still in the brand-name-status-symbol stage defined purely by a product’s retail value rather than its integrity). But Patagonia views its global expansion as the ‘lesser of two evils’: it’s better for a responsible company to gain more market share and peddle more goods to consumers who would otherwise buy fragile gear with short lifespans.
Key quotes:
“That narrative explains the Patagonia paradox: there’s bad growth, and then there’s good growth.”
“Patagonia has doubled its scale of operations in the past six years, and has opened forty new stores worldwide since 2011.”
“Since Ridgeway [published his essay declaring ‘growth is a dead end’]... Patagonia’s own expansion has continued unabated: this year, the company expects to gross about six hundred million dollars.”
“The company offers D.I.Y. garment-repair tutorials...[and] a thirty-dollar “expedition sewing kit” that resembles a prop designed for the Khaki Scouts in Wes Anderson’s “Moonrise Kingdom.” Click for more information on the kit and a typical marketing stratagem plays out: you will be offered six other Patagonia products.”
“The company cannot currently provide any numbers on how many people are hanging onto their Patagonia jackets and board shorts for one more year rather than buying something new.”
“Given Patagonia’s sales figures, it is clear that the company repairs and recycles only a very small fraction of the number of products sold each year. Not a revolution at this point, then, though surely a significant gesture—corporate social responsibility’s version of propaganda of the deed.”
“Environmentally literate, socially engaged, and with a clear sense that contemporary consumerism is a warm bath of contradictions, Baird is the shopper that Patagonia wants to be in business for—whether or not it really is.”
Summary: Individual products might be incredibly sustainable, but Patagonia’s still making more of all of them year over year—as a company, its goal is to sell to more people. As long as its current consumer demographics really decrease their purchasing to counteract growth in new Patagonia markets, buying from the company really will be one way to keep our collective material footprint level rather than increase it.
Read it here: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/patagonias-anti-growth-strategy