re: Patagonia products

quote:

---

I've never worn Patagonia because it's overrated and overpriced.

---

Politics aside, that's just inaccurate. I have a Patagonia pullover that's like 20 years old. It was my dad's. I ripped it about 10 years ago and they fixed it for free. I have several other pieces of their clothing and it's very high quality stuff.

quote:

---

Politics aside, that's just inaccurate.

---

Yeah, I'm wearing a Better Sweater right now. Not only high quality, fairly high value. Some of the stuff gets expensive, but if you look at competing products, the pricing isn't that out of whack.

Outdoor products (clothing and equipment) is largely a "two class" economy. You either pay for the good stuff (and that varies from mid-tier or higher brands like Mountain Hardware, MSR, Patagonia, North Face, Marmot, Arc'teryx, Kelty, etc.) or you get "good enough" like Coleman, Columbia or Ozark Trails from Academy or Wal-Mart.

And I don't even want to put the stink on those last 3 brands - I have products from all 3 brands and Columbia, in particular, has some better stuff, but this illustrates the divide.

If you don't like Patagonia company politics, fine, but I at least respect their consistency.

quote:

---

Huh?

---

Patagonia's company politics are relatively consistent and unchanging - far left, but they're open and consistent with it.

I respect that.

quote:

---

It doesnt quite jive with the fact that they have major military contracts.

---

So far left is by definition anti-military? I get that would be an assumption, but I'm just not there, yet.

I mean, that's like saying that Woody Guthrie was a "no shite" Marxist and hardcore environmentalist (at least for his day) and that means he couldn't love America. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was just wrong about the Marxism part, but it is unquestionable that he loved America.

quote:

---

Look I’m not trying to not call you out, and their environmental efforts are very good and all. That said, this sounds like plain good business practice, in optimizing their shipping practices. Of course it can also easily be passed off as “we’re doing this for the environment.”

---

quote:

---

That's why I hardly ever get worked up over these things. With a few exceptions, most of these "mission statement" motivated decisions are often backed by a ton of market research and are done because they will help the bottom line in the long run. Be willing to bet they just got tired of nickel and dime personalized orders and aren't seeing a very good return on that area of their business.

---

Except this is simply one facet of a much larger plan... There are only so many ways to reduce carbon footprint and still deliver a good... But the company in general has a long track record of making moves in favor of the environment, not all of which necessarily benefit them financially directly.

quote:

---

“Patagonia manufactures its products in the very best factories around the world that promote fair labor practices, safe working conditions and environmental responsibility," she says. "We take pride in quality products that are built responsibly and offer more Fair Trade Certified products than any other brand in the apparel industry.” The brand provides details of all its facilities and their environmental footprint here.

What about the use of petroleum products in its goods? "Patagonia has one of the most aggressive plans to reduce its reliance on virgin petroleum in the apparel industry,” says Kenna. “By 2025, we will use only renewable or recycled materials in our products and by next year, we will use only renewable electricity for our stores, regional and global offices, and headquarters. In 1993, we were the first company to divert plastic bottles from landfills and use them to make fleece.”

And carbon emissions? “We are committed to going carbon neutral across our entire business, including our supply chain, by 2025," says Kenna. "There is a lot of confusion and greenwashing around all these carbon terms—for Patagonia 'carbon neutral' means that we will reduce, capture or otherwise mitigate all of the carbon emissions we create, including the emissions from the factories that make our textiles and finished clothing.”

---

I'm not naive enough to think they don't calculate out what is the most financially viable method of doing something and then figure out what the most environmentally friendly way of doing it is and finding a compromise... *that* is smart business. Take the tradeoffs where you can get them and do the best you can. They are a business.

And there is a "branding" value to the efforts they are going through as well... but you'd be hard pressed to find a retailer who has actually put their money where their mouth is at a higher clip than Patagonia with regards to caring about the environment.

I'm not a huge fan or anything, I've got a few random clothes... probably have a branded fleece somewhere through my work... But I think in general, we'd be a lot better off if more organizations put a fraction of the effort into reducing their negative impacts that Patagonia has and continues to do so...

It seems awfully strange to get bent out of shape because Patagonia doesn't want to co-brand clothing with an employer or an industry... If you disagreed with their politics/position before this announcement but still bought their clothes, what about this specific change is really shifting the paradigm? They're still the same company with the same core values. But I think *most people* are way too reactionary these days...

quote:

---

Patagonia's company politics are relatively consistent and unchanging - far left, but they're open and consistent with it.

---

Yet they are largely responsible for fleece:

quote:

---

In the late 1970s, Malden Mills, an American textile maker now known as Polartec, began experimenting with polyester’s potential.

In 1981, the company introduced fleece to the sportswear market thanks to a collaboration with Yvon Chouinard, owner of a then-little-known mountaineering outfitter called Patagonia

---

Man, I am not sure I could possibly dislike this company more. Hypocritical liberals with mental disorders.

quote:

---

How do they ship their products?

---

Pretty much the only way they can. As stated in other posts they are trying to streamline their process to leave as little of a carbon footprint as possible. I see nothing wrong with trying to be better to the earth.

Overpriced hippie shite

quote:

---

I can't believe anyone who opens this board, other than Salmon, supports a company promoting environmental activism.

---

I don't necessarily buy in 100% to the whole human caused climate change thing but I spend most of my free time outside so yeah, I support environmental activism to some extant. I'm not an "end all drilling" type of guy but I'm all for companies trying to curb pollution and crap like that without being forced to.

What % Commie are you then?