It’s not you, it’s your carbon emissions. Silicon Valley bros recently got dumped by their favorite clothing retailer, Patagonia. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to endure the frigid Palo Alto temperatures, or if they will resort to — god forbid — the sleeved layers of the 99 percent.
photo courtesy of the @MidtownUniform Instagram account
In April 2019, Binna Kim, president of communications agency Vested, attempted to place an order for logo-embroidered fleece vests with a third-party Patagonia reseller. When Patagonia denied the wholesale request, Kim tweeted the rejection letter, and the news exploded.
Patagonia’s response was typical of the notoriously environmentally-conscious brand: “Patagonia has nothing against your client or the financial industry, it’s just not an area they are currently marketing through our co-brand division. While they have co-branded here in the past, the brand is really focused right now on only co-branding with a small collection of like-minded and brand-aligned areas; outdoor sports that are relevant to the gear we design, regenerative organic farming, and environmental activism.”
They later issued a formal press release explaining that they were prioritizing partnerships that aligned with the company’s climate-focused model. Patagonia’s corporate sales program would only work with “B” Corporations (companies that focus on benefitting their communities), 1% For The Planet members (organizations who contribute upwards of one percent of annual revenue to environmental causes), and other mission-driven companies that prioritize the planet. Apparently, from now on, only tree-hugging businesses get to flex the power vest.
The new wave of activism following the 2016 presidential election has caused a surge in social-justice themed marketing campaigns from industry juggernauts like Nike, Airbnb, Lyft, and, of course, Patagonia. The North Face recently released a line of t-shirts boldly emblazoned with the slogan “Walls are Meant for Climbing,” a clear reference to the Trump Administration’s anti-immigrant agenda.
However, Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard has been adamant about the company’s environmental focus since the company’s beginnings. In 1986, Patagonia committed to donating 10 percent of its annual profits to grassroots habitat restoration organizations. Two years later, they launched their first environmental advocacy campaign, focusing on the de-urbanization of Yosemite Valley. CEO Rose Marcario recently released a statement publicizing Patagonia’s commitment to donate $10 million that they saved through recent corporate tax cuts to environmental groups, aligning with their mission.
Patagonia has also become notorious for its unconventional approach to clothing sales. In 2011, they rolled out an eye-catching “Don’t Buy This Jacket Campaign” to protest Black Friday’s serial consumption. They also launched “Worn Wear” in 2017, a clothing repair and recycling service to extend the life of their products. While it may seem inconceivable that a company could be successful using anti-consumerist branding in the highly competitive outdoor clothing industry, Patagonia has earned considerable customer loyalty through its mission-driven approach and against-the-grain attitude.
Matt Rivitz, founder of the Sleeping Giants campaign that pressures companies to take their ads down from bigoted news sites, believes that profitability and a moral compass are not mutually exclusive. “When you have a company that is willing to not make as much money, to live with some values, I think that is actually a way to grow your business because people see that you are an honest enterprise. There aren’t a lot of those out there,” Rivitz said.
Wearing the Patagonia brand — particularly a puffy jacket, vest, or fleece — has become a status symbol. And it is not just the price tag that sends a message. The environmental consciousness of the brand has been popularized — perpetuating the myth that you have to be rich and able to buy products like Patagonia to display that you care about the environment. HBO’s Silicon Valley nails the outdoorsy-chic look to a T with its hybrid-driving, Apple-watch-wearing tech executives. Among teens, Patagonia’s “Synchilla” fleece has become the uniform of everyone from suburban lax bros to Soul Cyclers alike, screaming, “I’m wealthy, environmentally consciousness, and just a touch outdoorsy.”
It is no surprise, then, that the Patagonia apparel’s strong presence in the finance world has created its own subculture. When investment firms began buying branded Patagonia jackets, the famed “finance bro” uniform emerged: a crisp button-down, slacks, loafers, and a pristine Patagonia fleece vest with a company logo on the left breast. The sophisticated older brother to the West Coast “tech bro” look, the “finance bros” claim to fame has been mocked by the anonymously run Instagram page @MidtownUniform. The account has 138,000 followers, posts follower-submitted photos alongside witty captions, many of which include some variation of a joke about “in-vest-ment.”
Patagonia’s corporate sale restrictions are, in effect, an attempt to reclaim moral prestige and dissociate from the tech industry’s precarious reputation. It is certainly reasonable, from both a publicity and PR perspective, that the company would make an effort to align market conduct with its environmentally-focused mission. However, one key detail in the vest-fiasco press release indicates that perhaps the company is not as laudable as it may seem. At the end of Patagonia’s press release, it was specified that the restrictions would “not affect current customers in our corporate sales program.” This seemingly-insignificant detail could be indicative of larger inconsistencies within Patagonia’s aggressively contrarian branding. A controversial shift in corporate sales policy brought Patagonia publicity and a chance to flaunt their principled agenda, but if they refuse to cut ties with current partners, how progressive is it really?
It is to be expected that the decision to stop partnering with the corporate sector would elicit chatter from supporters and critics alike. While the vest-ban is not ethically flawless, it is undeniable that Patagonia’s agenda is starting a conversation around environmental-accountability in the retail industry. “As a society, we are always driven to make more money at all times, in any way we possibly can.” Rivitz said, “It is really refreshing for a company to actually have values and espouse them, but also live them.”
Co-written by Rafi Donohoe ’19 and Elliot Singer ’20
