 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Oh good, I think the BBC had fixed the article as when I first read it I think it said "This will amount to around $100bn a year", I bit tricky I thought for a company with "its estimated revenue was $1.5bn this year".
I'm quite surprised as to the size of Patagonia if the revenue figure quoted is correct (but who knows the BBC has been wrong before), but in any case all this certainly fits with what Patagonia seems to have tried to do during its history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
1.5 billion USD revenue is accurate.
They are a massive company.
But one with commendable ethics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Walking the talk. And inventing a new model for business exit. Of course there is always the potential for all sorts of political fallouts in the trust in the future but it seems an interesting way for billionaires to ensure their legacy isn't squandered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
And one hell of a marketing strategy!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| And one hell of a marketing strategy!!! |
Well given the stakeholders are conceptually now "100% for the planet" they should be completely neutral between the company making and selling more "stuff" and a re-use, re-furbish, re-ccycle agenda i.e. conceptually the trust should be comfortable without growth if they are extending lifespan of existing goods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love it.
But I think it's slightly more subtle: if they take sales from more polluting "fashion" companies, that's a positive thing even if it doesn't reduce overall consumption, because their stuff is less bad than everyone else's. Not perfect, but the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| And one hell of a marketing strategy!!! |
Well given the stakeholders are conceptually now "100% for the planet" they should be completely neutral between the company making and selling more "stuff" and a re-use, re-furbish, re-ccycle agenda i.e. conceptually the trust should be comfortable without growth if they are extending lifespan of existing goods. |
Well you usually need to turn a profit to invest in R&D and they will still want to reach more consumers so who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
It also drives their competitors to be more sustainable too, as they won't want to be seen as operating poor policies. Look at down, for example. A few years ago, only companies like Patagonia were transparent about their down sourcing. Now everyone in the same market has to be just as good, or a lot of their customers won't touch their down products, which has the knock-on effect they they are suspicious of their other products as well.
I think it's a good move, and there is still scope for reinvesting within the company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| philwig wrote: |
I love it.
But I think it's slightly more subtle: if they take sales from more polluting "fashion" companies, that's a positive thing even if it doesn't reduce overall consumption, because their stuff is less bad than everyone else's. Not perfect, but the right direction. |
Oh I agree - I was just doing a thought experiment in whether this makes the first consumer products company that should take over the world and then slowly put themselves out of business through products which usefully live forever.
Of course we've all been taught to be consumers and seek new and improved so it remains a thought experiment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| And one hell of a marketing strategy!!! |
Well given the stakeholders are conceptually now "100% for the planet" they should be completely neutral between the company making and selling more "stuff" and a re-use, re-furbish, re-ccycle agenda i.e. conceptually the trust should be comfortable without growth if they are extending lifespan of existing goods. |
Patagonia have been pushing the re-use refurbish thing for a while - see wornwear
https://wornwear.patagonia.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| And one hell of a marketing strategy!!! |
Well given the stakeholders are conceptually now "100% for the planet" they should be completely neutral between the company making and selling more "stuff" and a re-use, re-furbish, re-ccycle agenda i.e. conceptually the trust should be comfortable without growth if they are extending lifespan of existing goods. |
Well you usually need to turn a profit to invest in R&D and they will still want to reach more consumers so who knows. |
Interestingly, they’ve been looking to degrow profit in NA market for the last few years - I was speaking to a senior exec in 2019 who said the NA side of the business had passed a big threshold which they were uncomfortable with given their values etc, and they were thinking hard about how to gently ease off the throttle in NA. While continuing to pursue growth in other markets - as you say, BobinCH, they’re keen to find new customers to whom they can communicate their message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YC has been walking his talk like few others for a long time now...the entire way, it appears. Folks often want to take shots, but he's gonna be hard to hit. From climbing dirtbag to this....I tip my cap. Well done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
Interestingly, they’ve been looking to degrow profit in NA market for the last few years
|
The brand is huge there. "Pata-gucci" is perhaps the iconic brand for people that want to the "outdoors person" look. It's basically become a fashion statement, so they sell plenty outside what they would probably consider their target market. The premium costs don't hurt profits either!
They make good stuff, and have been one of the more ethical brands for a while. Their repair/replace scheme was so generous ski bums would go buy ancient second hand Patagonia stuff that was falling apart, knowing when they sent it in the vast majority of the time they just got given a new equivalent.
| Quote: |
they’re keen to find new customers to whom they can communicate their message.
|
I'm not sure people are that bothered. We have picture organic in Europe that have done the environmentally friendly skiwear thing and it's not really blown up. The vast majority are more interested in specs/performance and price than environmental friendliness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
I'm not sure people are that bothered. We have picture organic in Europe that have done the environmentally friendly skiwear thing and it's not really blown up. The vast majority are more interested in specs/performance and price than environmental friendliness.
|
Isn't that kind of the point - If people want premium kit, and Pata deliver that WITH the environmental credentials to differentiate themselves (yes others do have some good schemes a-la Picture) in the market then they will elevate themselves while hopefully bringing the market in general in line with more ethical/environmental practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Overall I think it's very noble, but the flip side of me thinks is easy for a billionaire to be altruistic once they have become a billionaire...but fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| dunc999 wrote: |
| Overall I think it's very noble, but the flip side of me thinks is easy for a billionaire to be altruistic once they have become a billionaire...but fair play! |
Of course its easy once you already have all the comforts you'll need but there is still a difference between giving it away and hording it for the family dynasty or spending it on superyachts and Beyonce serenading your birthday party or even flying to Aspen and riding your horse into shops just to show what a fun guy you aren't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
| Quote: |
I'm not sure people are that bothered. We have picture organic in Europe that have done the environmentally friendly skiwear thing and it's not really blown up. The vast majority are more interested in specs/performance and price than environmental friendliness.
|
Isn't that kind of the point - If people want premium kit, and Pata deliver that WITH the environmental credentials to differentiate themselves (yes others do have some good schemes a-la Picture) in the market then they will elevate themselves while hopefully bringing the market in general in line with more ethical/environmental practice. |
Premium cost maybe, but I'm not sure their kit is as good as others across the board. For example I'm not sure many would say they make the best ski jackets, but you may disagree. Even if they were equal to others, there are so many other factors in play: cost, individual cut, availability, marketing, colour ways etc. which I think most people are going to put equal or maybe even more weight behind than environmental policies. It will definitely tip the balance in some cases for some people, but I don't see everyone moving directly to Patagonia or other brands going bankrupt or changing their current policies. I guess time will tell.
As much as this is the walking the walk it kind of opens them to even more scrutiny. For instance having Caroline gleich as an ambassador seems a little questionable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Interesting. I knew of Chouinard through his name on my climbing gear.
| Chouinard wrote: |
| We don’t care when you work, as long as the work gets done... If you’re a serious surfer, you don’t go, ‘Hey let’s go surfing next Thursday at 2pm’ – that’s what losers say. You go surfing when there’s surf, you go powder skiing when there’s powder. We wanted to have a job where we would be allowed to do that. And we wanted to go work with friends – we didn’t want to work with MBAs. |
Making money is easy when you understand stuff like that: a man after my own heart.
I had not discovered Powder Mag when that article was written, but it doesn't surprise me one bit that Chouinard skis,
knows Lopez, or rode helicopters at Blue River. I'd guess he's being modest, but I'll ask around.
| 2020 wrote: |
| For example I'm not sure many would say [Pat] make the best ski jackets, but you may disagree |
I don't know. I'm not convinced there is a "best" ski jacket - all the premium brands seem good and over-specified, even for extreme use.
These days I think for fit/slim people fit's the main issue, as most stuff is very big.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| philwig wrote: |
| 2020 wrote: |
| For example I'm not sure many would say [Pat] make the best ski jackets, but you may disagree |
I don't know. I'm not convinced there is a "best" ski jacket - all the premium brands seem good and over-specified, even for extreme use.
These days I think for fit/slim people fit's the main issue, as most stuff is very big. |
Couldn't agree more. Most are way over spec'd for 99% of users who could get something that meets all their needs at a much lower price point. So yeah I wouldn't buy premium either, but if you gave me the choice of any jacket for free I'd be trying on the likes of arcteryx and norrona before I even considered Patagonia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah he's hanging out with Paul Parker who literally wrote the book on modern telemarking so he's no slouch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only bit of pattagucci clothing I’ve ever owned is a cap (which is awesome at surviving being stuffed in a pack) but next time I need a new jacket or whatever I’ll definitely have a close look at their gear. It’s a great idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
"Patagucci"...obviously unfair to Patagonia! (shot in Terminal 5, btw)
Patagonia's stuff is good quality and not cheap; you decide if the value's there. My 2008 P down sweater is still going strong. For me, it just comes down to the combination of features I want being present. There's a couple brands that have earned some loyalty from me (Marmot seems to win the most) so I start there, but if they don't have what I need I move on.
Good on Yvon. I wonder how many other billionaires ate dented cans of cat food when they were young?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
Wikipedia has a biography of Yvon Chouinard here.
|
What a life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
