Selling jackets won't solve climate change. But dismissing everyone who falls short of an impossible ideal leaves us with nothing but moral superiority.
the only real part of your piece that I disagree with are the overly kind words about me. other than that I agree with what you wrote. Patagonia has done a lot of good. they have supported good causes. They are incredibly good at playing into the guilt of affluent urbanites and capitalizing on that. I didn't write about it in the thing I wrote, but I was at Patagonia when they dont buy this jacket ad came out in the NYT. On the Monday after Black Friday, everyone was high fiving each other bragging about how it was the biggest sales weekend ever for the company specially in nyc. As someone who has spent the majority of my life in the outdoors and care deeply about them, I think it's very important to have conversations about whats actually happening.
Appreciate the comment, man. I think we're largely on the same page, if coming at it from slightly different angles. I heard a stat at some point (can't remember) that they've increased sales every time they've run a variation of that campaign, which feels entirely believable. Agree on the importance of conversations, there's often not enough depth or nuance in tackling more complicated topics these days.
a wiser man than me once told me: "perfect is the enemy of good". The world is full of greys, even when the trend of the days seems to be to polarize everything.
The piece you reference raises important points (rich boss acts like a dick, buying stuff ultimately sucks, American imperialism). But it was undermined by its own lack of self-awareness.
To continue the title metaphor, buddy's IG influencing helped convince hundreds of thousands of people to purchase the beer for the alcoholic.
I was hoping some emotional content around that situationship would be processed; instead I just come away with trend wave pump & dump vibes.
That Yvon can be an ass really can't be news to anyone, can it?
Whenever someone writes a hit piece on Patagonia, I just remember that they kick-started the organic cotton industry, worked with Polartex to develop a process for recycled fleece, and are trying to make regenerative agriculture a reality. This stuff is hard, and prone to failure. If they weren't doing it, it might not be happening at all.
They are a huge player in the advocacy space for American Public lands, too. The reality is this world we live in is not some schoolyard where boys and girls play nice. I liked Foster’s piece because I think it’s healthy to poke the bear and point out blinding contradictions.
This is a good & fair overview. Your comments about it is easy to bash the successful is so true. Textiles has been an easy victim for a while as so much of it falls into the desirable category as opposed to it being a necessity. One philosophy I do follow is that it is more important for a company to produce a profit that produce the best product. Without the company being here in 3 or 5 years to continue the educational journey for their users, then all their good work will be wasted. I know that the thinking is progressing all the while, so the best you can do (as there is still the endorphin hit of wanting to consume) is to have a Less Bad option...
Really apreciate this nuanced take. The systems-change versus individual-action tension is something I wrestle with constantly, and the Patagonia criticism often misses that imperfect institutional action at scale can generate more infrastructure change than perfect individual choices. That Scope 3 stat showing 99% of impact outside their control really ilustrates the constraint problem. Had a similar convo at a sustainability conference where people demanded perfection while ignoring the leverage question entirely.
Thanks for this writing. I can tell you, having worked during this same era at companies that were competitive with Patagonia, that you are absolutely correct. Patagonia and their, self declared, imperfect effort to be a better producer inspired every single company I worked with. Both reads were excellent, more companies should get down to the details here as you both have pointed out.
Agreed. Not perfect but more environmentally responsible than most manufacturers of outdoor gear that I am aware of. Need more B corporations in every industry.
I loved Huntington's piece. And I love this piece, equally. I feel like you both are sparking a conversation around outdoor marketing / being good stewards of the outdoors. Which those of us who have spent most of their lives hunting and fishing as well as working in the outdoors industry for more than two decades have experienced and can appreciate on a deep level.
This is how these discussions should be had. Point. Counterpoint. All for the betterment of being of more value to the outdoors we all hold so dear. Accountability is good. But so is acknowledging that there has been significant good done in the name of conservation while also being at odds with brand messaging and brand actuality.
Appreciate these reflections and mostly agree with your take. My sense is that there is a sweet spot between where you are and where Huntington’s essay lands. Agreed that a full takedown is unproductive and possibly harmful. At the same time, accepting flaws and imperfections and taking away the pedestal might also provide a slippery slope towards apathy. The middle ground feels to me as fertile soil for growing a movement in the right direction. Put the leaders on a pedestal and hold them to account especially when they don’t meet expectations, but don’t tear them down because you’re right, they are trying. I’d argue this discourse around Huntington’s essay is missing a big opportunity for thoughtful voices to pitch in ideas and avenues for Patagonia to improve in ways that bridge the gap between where they’ve whiffed. Magic wand time - if you were in charge of Patagonia how’d you be running things?! Totally naive, I get that, but rather than debate whether we should boycott or cut some slack, feels to me like some hive mind solutioneering would be the most productive and helpful response.
So many good things to say about this piece Kyle. And about your writing. I read Foster’s post and it just didn’t sit right with me. Not really because of what he said… the rant was valid in some ways and I agree with a lot of his sentiments- especially when it comes to the way we idealize brands.
But the nuance was lacking for a few VERY important notes- the most important two being the immense impact Patagonia has made already as well as the important distinction of how real change happens in this world.
Im sure he never intended this piece to blow up, god knows all my rants don’t need to go viral, but based on people’s over the top reactions to this and the black and white conclusions they drew, I think this articulate response was needed more than we knew.
Your premise “solving climate change” is flawed. Way too lofty and impossible.The issue with Patagonia is 1) thinking a clothing manufacturer can solve a worldwide, partially natural environmental problem, and 2) a clothing manufacturer who virtue signals, or at least pretends, that solving climate change is their overarching mission. Reminds me of the Cotopaxi CEO railing against capitalism, all the while selling ugly puffy coats for a profit in the outdoor marketplace. Patagonia is a business first and foremost. Nothing more, and nothing less. I will keep buying Patagonia as long as they manufacture a product that fits my outdoor needs, even if Yvon is an asshole.
the only real part of your piece that I disagree with are the overly kind words about me. other than that I agree with what you wrote. Patagonia has done a lot of good. they have supported good causes. They are incredibly good at playing into the guilt of affluent urbanites and capitalizing on that. I didn't write about it in the thing I wrote, but I was at Patagonia when they dont buy this jacket ad came out in the NYT. On the Monday after Black Friday, everyone was high fiving each other bragging about how it was the biggest sales weekend ever for the company specially in nyc. As someone who has spent the majority of my life in the outdoors and care deeply about them, I think it's very important to have conversations about whats actually happening.
Appreciate the comment, man. I think we're largely on the same page, if coming at it from slightly different angles. I heard a stat at some point (can't remember) that they've increased sales every time they've run a variation of that campaign, which feels entirely believable. Agree on the importance of conversations, there's often not enough depth or nuance in tackling more complicated topics these days.
a wiser man than me once told me: "perfect is the enemy of good". The world is full of greys, even when the trend of the days seems to be to polarize everything.
Thanks for a very well written article
The piece you reference raises important points (rich boss acts like a dick, buying stuff ultimately sucks, American imperialism). But it was undermined by its own lack of self-awareness.
To continue the title metaphor, buddy's IG influencing helped convince hundreds of thousands of people to purchase the beer for the alcoholic.
I was hoping some emotional content around that situationship would be processed; instead I just come away with trend wave pump & dump vibes.
That Yvon can be an ass really can't be news to anyone, can it?
Whenever someone writes a hit piece on Patagonia, I just remember that they kick-started the organic cotton industry, worked with Polartex to develop a process for recycled fleece, and are trying to make regenerative agriculture a reality. This stuff is hard, and prone to failure. If they weren't doing it, it might not be happening at all.
They are a huge player in the advocacy space for American Public lands, too. The reality is this world we live in is not some schoolyard where boys and girls play nice. I liked Foster’s piece because I think it’s healthy to poke the bear and point out blinding contradictions.
This is a good & fair overview. Your comments about it is easy to bash the successful is so true. Textiles has been an easy victim for a while as so much of it falls into the desirable category as opposed to it being a necessity. One philosophy I do follow is that it is more important for a company to produce a profit that produce the best product. Without the company being here in 3 or 5 years to continue the educational journey for their users, then all their good work will be wasted. I know that the thinking is progressing all the while, so the best you can do (as there is still the endorphin hit of wanting to consume) is to have a Less Bad option...
Really apreciate this nuanced take. The systems-change versus individual-action tension is something I wrestle with constantly, and the Patagonia criticism often misses that imperfect institutional action at scale can generate more infrastructure change than perfect individual choices. That Scope 3 stat showing 99% of impact outside their control really ilustrates the constraint problem. Had a similar convo at a sustainability conference where people demanded perfection while ignoring the leverage question entirely.
Thanks for this writing. I can tell you, having worked during this same era at companies that were competitive with Patagonia, that you are absolutely correct. Patagonia and their, self declared, imperfect effort to be a better producer inspired every single company I worked with. Both reads were excellent, more companies should get down to the details here as you both have pointed out.
Agreed. Not perfect but more environmentally responsible than most manufacturers of outdoor gear that I am aware of. Need more B corporations in every industry.
I loved Huntington's piece. And I love this piece, equally. I feel like you both are sparking a conversation around outdoor marketing / being good stewards of the outdoors. Which those of us who have spent most of their lives hunting and fishing as well as working in the outdoors industry for more than two decades have experienced and can appreciate on a deep level.
This is how these discussions should be had. Point. Counterpoint. All for the betterment of being of more value to the outdoors we all hold so dear. Accountability is good. But so is acknowledging that there has been significant good done in the name of conservation while also being at odds with brand messaging and brand actuality.
I enjoyed both pieces a lot. Thank you gentlemen.
Well put! A great side of the conversation, I appreciate seeing the discussion surrounding all this.
Nice piece Kyle
Appreciate these reflections and mostly agree with your take. My sense is that there is a sweet spot between where you are and where Huntington’s essay lands. Agreed that a full takedown is unproductive and possibly harmful. At the same time, accepting flaws and imperfections and taking away the pedestal might also provide a slippery slope towards apathy. The middle ground feels to me as fertile soil for growing a movement in the right direction. Put the leaders on a pedestal and hold them to account especially when they don’t meet expectations, but don’t tear them down because you’re right, they are trying. I’d argue this discourse around Huntington’s essay is missing a big opportunity for thoughtful voices to pitch in ideas and avenues for Patagonia to improve in ways that bridge the gap between where they’ve whiffed. Magic wand time - if you were in charge of Patagonia how’d you be running things?! Totally naive, I get that, but rather than debate whether we should boycott or cut some slack, feels to me like some hive mind solutioneering would be the most productive and helpful response.
So many good things to say about this piece Kyle. And about your writing. I read Foster’s post and it just didn’t sit right with me. Not really because of what he said… the rant was valid in some ways and I agree with a lot of his sentiments- especially when it comes to the way we idealize brands.
But the nuance was lacking for a few VERY important notes- the most important two being the immense impact Patagonia has made already as well as the important distinction of how real change happens in this world.
Im sure he never intended this piece to blow up, god knows all my rants don’t need to go viral, but based on people’s over the top reactions to this and the black and white conclusions they drew, I think this articulate response was needed more than we knew.
Your premise “solving climate change” is flawed. Way too lofty and impossible.The issue with Patagonia is 1) thinking a clothing manufacturer can solve a worldwide, partially natural environmental problem, and 2) a clothing manufacturer who virtue signals, or at least pretends, that solving climate change is their overarching mission. Reminds me of the Cotopaxi CEO railing against capitalism, all the while selling ugly puffy coats for a profit in the outdoor marketplace. Patagonia is a business first and foremost. Nothing more, and nothing less. I will keep buying Patagonia as long as they manufacture a product that fits my outdoor needs, even if Yvon is an asshole.
"imperfect efforts still matter" yesinddeedy.
Excellent and thoughtful response Kyle.