Patagonia: The Paradox of an Eco-Conscious Company
Patagonia: The Paradox of an Eco-Conscious Company
Support OCC and get 20+ bonus, ad-free videos by signing up for Nebula: https://go.nebula.tv/occ/
With Patagonia as a guide, I look at the paradox of embracing an eco-conscious and sustainable message as a for-profit company.
Support me on Patreon: http://bit.ly/2iz4lIV
Twitter: https://twitter.com/OurClimateNow
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/occvideos/
Tumblr: https://occnow.tumblr.com
_________
NOTE: I am in no way affiliated with Patagonia. This is not an ad.
Sources:
1. Patagonia’s Worn Wear site: http://www.patagonia.com/worn-wear.html
2. On the Myth of Green Consumerism: https://groundswell.org/the-bottom-line-patagonia-north-face-and-the-myth-of-green-consumerism/
3. On Patagonia’s “Don’t Buy this Jacket” Ad: https://www.cspace.com/blog/patagonia-dont-buy-this-jacket-campaign/
4. The Paradox of the Outdoor Garment Industry: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/39851/1/gupea_2077_39851_1.pdf
Music: Lake Eerie by Silent Partner
I now use Artlist.io for all my music. You can get 2 months free of Artlist.io with this link: https://artlist.io/Charlie-278823
The fun part of breaking away from the consumerist culture is that you get to stop caring about what is hip and trendy.
I have been wearing my MEC Fleece Liner for 30 plus years.
Mocked by many; Don’t care.
I most certainly conform to the "Buy Once, Hold Forever" mantra.
Society must accept that long-lived items are to be respected and purchased.
I see these idiots putting up environmental signs all over Ventura,With no conception of reality these morons pander to illegal labor in some attempt at swaying the illegal vote,If ever there was an illegal voting here’s your proof
She’s a lot prettier than I would have guessed from her voice
this it a cool vid.
Just buy what you need. It can be any brand, not just Patagonia. Does one need a hundred pair of sneakers? No.
It’s Black Friday weekend 2021 as I’m typing this. I just went to the Patagonia website and there isn’t a single product on their home page. Instead there are multiple links to articles and websites about repairing, donating, and selling old clothes
Patagonia jackets are made with 90% of oil products in sweatshops. They are giant hypocrites.
"it could be worse" – says the primates as they continue to destroy their planet.
Patagucci’s customer base is chardonnay antifa.
Patagonia proves that a company can both be sustainable and profitable! That’s why they are a for profit company.
Patagonia high quality clothing making are famous country is sri 🇱🇰 sri lanka
Only buy things if you don’t already own something that fulfills the same purpose. That’s most important. Don’t be that person that buys an idea/image rather than an item. If there is no other way and you really need to buy something, I think it is reasonable to buy from Patagonia and similar brands (even though it is clear they are far from perfect).
As with any other brand, you buy a bit of a product and a lot of the feeling associated with the brand. Maybe it is even impossible for you to not think "I am that person who […]" (where you can insert anything from "always follows the latest trends" to "always wears that worn down old clothes and cares deeply about the environment"). That is why there are brand names on the product in the first place. Because people use that brand image to define themselves.
So, the ideal brand would use recycling materials and save water and do all that stuff but sell the product without any label. I guess this wouldn’t work, though. Remember? Many people are searching for some personality to buy. They could even be that guy who doesn’t wear brands. It’s simply capitalism, you buy anything, even your mindset.
After all, we as consumers have to behave responsibly. The circumstance that Patagonia offers repairs and have a second hand section on their website is already a step into the right direction. So let’s hope the "I now buy responsibly" is the last fabricated personality people take on and that they slowly stop buying new things for good.
There’s nothing paradoxical about it. It’s just applied reverse psychology. They got the 40% increase in sales they wanted. Their customers were able to feel good about themselves.
Patagonia is a role model for many companies that shows that you can try to be as environmentally friendly as possible while still making profits.
We‘re living in a capitalist world and this how things go. Patagonia honestly tries to be as sustainable as possible while still making profits, growing (and hopefully thus replacing less sustainable alternatives) and most importantly creating awareness for the public.
How do you know their improved their sales because of the ad ?
BUY SLOW is not said enough. People go on massive shopping sprees to then forget they even bought something. When I go to the store I have a clear need set in my head, like "I have no rain coat," and I feel that need and leave. No oh shoot look at these socks and chapsticks and candles
Outdoor Research is a much better value than Pattagucci.
I bought a patagonia jacket from trift store for like 30 euros and it was barely even used
Interesting how this video basically says "Patagonia is greenwashing". Meanwhile 5 years later, they literally become a non-profit dedicated to donating all of their income to fight climate change.
Capitalism sucks, but some corporations really really don’t.
I never knew, Much respect to Patagonia
Two of my patagonia shirts I got for $70 total I’ve had for 4+ years. Still two of my favorite shirts.
At least they work with ethic
I also made a video about greenwashing! Check it out here: https://youtu.be/mOpa8kd6fBI
even though patagonia relies on the consumerist market it campaigns against, i can really appreciate their focus on longevity. i think the goal for companies like patagonia should be creating a product where the amount of uses and time it will last should outweigh the carbon footprint it took to make it. if we can make more long lasting products (and get people to understand the idea that buying a long lasting product means you don’t keep buying more of it) i think it could all even out in the end.
It is a paradox, the company must pay It’s dues in order to stay up and running. Either we Pay to live or pay for the way we’re living.
Interessante! Obrigada por publicar este vídeo.
You have to come from an idea that clothes are going to be needed by billions of humans, so we don´t have an ecological choice to not produce them, but if we produce them we can make that production as much sustainable as we can. Production is never 100% eco, even our bodies burn more energy when we are working on something. But Patagonia atleast makes its production more eco and sustainable than most other brands, repairs the clothes, upcycles them- so the philisophy is not dont buy things, but if you buy something, then make it high quality, nice looking, eco production and re-create old into something new and support the idea that nature is cool (especially for young ppl), so we in the future and present (mainly younger customers) don’t destroy something that is cool right.
Man up! Don’t wear a jacket!
I think it’s also important to note that Patagonia is a benefit corporation, which means that they have a legal obligation to consider the planet as its stakeholder and that makes a huge difference – felt that it was a bit off when you mentioned that they’re still a for-profit company. Additionally, they give away 1% of their sales every year to support grassroots environmental organisations, which is amazing! I know there is a little bit of contradiction here, but they’re doing the best they can, which is miles ahead of any other company. So yeah they’re going good
Look at a brand call Picture, is a French brand that makes Patagonia look like BP
. The scratches bratchards
In the end it’s the consumer that changes the world. Don’t buy something if you don’t need it and if you need it buy responsibly.
Patagonia makes a way better product than The North Face. Yes, north face coats and jackets are better, but for everything else, Patagonia is a better garment and will most likely last longer than any north face garment.
Do not think of a pink elephant…
Incredible video.
I wish they wouldn’t use the name of an actual geographical region. Whenever people talk about southern Chile and Argentina and people are like "oh, like the clothing company," it really makes me cringe.
But it’s not a big deal.
Let’s be real. 99% of environmentally friendly consumers aren’t nearly as methodical in selecting the brands they buy from (or even more so, deciding whether they actually need what they want or learning about the true environmental impact of what they buy). Patagonia can afford to run ads like this because it knows that if you are an environmentally conscious consumer, you won’t have another choice beyond not buying. And well, at some point, you will need outdoor gear if you are in the audience Patagonia appeals to (mostly white, upper middle class folks).
Would recommend anyone to read their founder’s book: let my people go surfing by Yvon Chouinard. Very interesting book from an eco conscious mind running a global brand.
Here after the recent mind blowing news. We have some hope after all.
Patagonia also absolutely hates when you bring up their standard issue uniforms given to all of the special operations forces units in the US military. They don’t like it when you acknowledge that their clothing is used in war, yet continue the contract because it brings in heaps of money
Great video! I think there’s a missing key point regarding your commentary on Patagonia’s marketing approach, which is the "Don’t Buy This Jacket" campaign’s and in general the company’s counter-positioning against fast fashion brands…
It’s an implicit and humble yet bold theme of Patagona’s market positioning. I believe one of the specific objectives of the campaign messaging (re – "Don’t Buy…") is to say something along the lines of, "if this is how bad our supply chain is for the environment, just imagine how terrible other companies are."
Patagonia is THE anti fast-fashion brand. This is embedded in its brand ethos and positioning… e.g. As a consumer I specifically want to buy a Patagonia fleece because I know I’m not going to need to buy a new fleece for a really long time… and then I can also buy a couple o Patagonia f t-shirts for the same reason, and a Patagonia jacket for the same reason, etc., etc.
ur the best thank u
Anything to say after literally giving away the company to a non-profit organisation to fight climate change?
If you’re thinking of sustainability, think of in terms of community.
Pls post a update on the sale of Patagonia!
Anti-consumerist, yet they still price their jackets 5 times higher than an equivalent jacket. Okay…
This hypocritical irony of the ad campaign is not cute. Much better would be to develop a systematic plan to reduce its pollution of watersheds with vegetable dyes. Replace it’s bloated cardboard packaging with flexible, biodegradable starch packaging. It should lower its emissions with a planned procurement plan of electric trucks or electric trucking services, sourced from renewable power sources. Never use irony to forego responsibility. Better to do nothing at all than pollute noble ideals.
The real succession of majority-owners of the means of developing the commercial system have decided: "I’ve got a huge supply of a hugely versatile mineral. Therefore, shipping things must become intrinsically terrible. This reflects badly on neither my abilities, nor my popularity. Let’s burn it."
Obviously this is completely absurd, and the ability to come up with: "Popular reasons for doing something else with the minerals" should have been sought out, or created, then cherished and praised. EDIT: The ability to do that is called: "Being both allowed and predisposed to: Vote to: Pay taxes to: Listening to surveys EDIT: To which you say: Do that. Now that the minerals are versatile, don’t think that means that you know what I want. Ask me, and come up with other stuff. Don’t just assume I want you to burn them. I’m an adult.".
I support death of boybuns!