Louder for the people in the back! I think it comes down to how founders and entrepreneurs define success for themselves. Unfortunately, most founders launch and then look around at the well-told success stories of other founders and follow suit.
The reality is that we can build a meaningful business that supports a great life by following our own playbook based on our definition of success.
Great post. I’d love to know more outdoor brands that follow a similar ethos and approach. I find it a nice counter to the giants of the industry (ie Patagonia) who exist in the irony of still touting quality yet continue to also seek growth.
Michael - thanks for this — and the Patagonia question is worth looking at, because I think the question is real but the conclusion might be slightly off.
Patagonia isn’t a cautionary tale in my read. They’ve held to things most companies quietly abandon the moment scale becomes possible — repair culture, 1% for the Planet, transparent supply chains, and ultimately Yvon Chouinard gave the whole company away rather than sell it. That’s not irony. That’s a different answer to the same question the slow goods companies are asking: what are we unwilling to sacrifice? Patagonia’s answer just happens to be compatible with significant growth, because their mission actually requires resources to execute.
The distinction I’d draw is between growth that changes what a company is versus growth that changes how many people it can serve. Melanzana and Sambob have made a deliberate calculation that size itself would compromise the thing — the place, the craft, the specific kind of work. Patagonia has made a different calculation, and so far has been unusually disciplined about defending it. Both can be true. The failure mode isn’t growth per se. It’s growth that gradually trades the original instinct for the quarterly number, and calls it something else.
On more brands in this vein — a few worth knowing: Voormi (Pagosa Springs, CO — performance wool made domestically), Vedavoo (fly fishing packs, small batch, Laramie), Fishpond (Steamboat Springs/Denver, fly fishing accessories, strong environmental commitment), and Tenkara USA, which built a genuinely different category and has stayed in it. None of them are household names, which may prove the point.
The critique I have of Patagonia is that their claim (and mission statement) of being in business to save the home planet seems misaligned with their decisions. I agree with what you mentioned in terms of what they have held on to as they have grown, especially their repair program.
I'd love more clarity on the idea that their mission requires resources to execute. I struggle to see how releasing new product lines every season with an update on graphics and sending out emails to help sell these items is beneficial to the planet. I'd be more interested in seeing how shrinking product lines and spending more time and money in building up their Worn Wear program would be a better move for the planet.
I'm not sure I can name an example, including Patagonia, of a company who has held onto their ethos and culture while also growing. That's why I am so intrigued with your post and the companies you shared who have rejected this model of 'progress'. Thanks for sharing a few more in your reply to my comment. In the outdoor industry, and perhaps beyond, Yvon has been seen as the ideal in how to do business ethically, but I'm not sure this narrative is entirely worthy of the attention.
Louder for the people in the back! I think it comes down to how founders and entrepreneurs define success for themselves. Unfortunately, most founders launch and then look around at the well-told success stories of other founders and follow suit.
The reality is that we can build a meaningful business that supports a great life by following our own playbook based on our definition of success.
Great post. I’d love to know more outdoor brands that follow a similar ethos and approach. I find it a nice counter to the giants of the industry (ie Patagonia) who exist in the irony of still touting quality yet continue to also seek growth.
Michael - thanks for this — and the Patagonia question is worth looking at, because I think the question is real but the conclusion might be slightly off.
Patagonia isn’t a cautionary tale in my read. They’ve held to things most companies quietly abandon the moment scale becomes possible — repair culture, 1% for the Planet, transparent supply chains, and ultimately Yvon Chouinard gave the whole company away rather than sell it. That’s not irony. That’s a different answer to the same question the slow goods companies are asking: what are we unwilling to sacrifice? Patagonia’s answer just happens to be compatible with significant growth, because their mission actually requires resources to execute.
The distinction I’d draw is between growth that changes what a company is versus growth that changes how many people it can serve. Melanzana and Sambob have made a deliberate calculation that size itself would compromise the thing — the place, the craft, the specific kind of work. Patagonia has made a different calculation, and so far has been unusually disciplined about defending it. Both can be true. The failure mode isn’t growth per se. It’s growth that gradually trades the original instinct for the quarterly number, and calls it something else.
On more brands in this vein — a few worth knowing: Voormi (Pagosa Springs, CO — performance wool made domestically), Vedavoo (fly fishing packs, small batch, Laramie), Fishpond (Steamboat Springs/Denver, fly fishing accessories, strong environmental commitment), and Tenkara USA, which built a genuinely different category and has stayed in it. None of them are household names, which may prove the point.
The critique I have of Patagonia is that their claim (and mission statement) of being in business to save the home planet seems misaligned with their decisions. I agree with what you mentioned in terms of what they have held on to as they have grown, especially their repair program.
I'd love more clarity on the idea that their mission requires resources to execute. I struggle to see how releasing new product lines every season with an update on graphics and sending out emails to help sell these items is beneficial to the planet. I'd be more interested in seeing how shrinking product lines and spending more time and money in building up their Worn Wear program would be a better move for the planet.
I'm not sure I can name an example, including Patagonia, of a company who has held onto their ethos and culture while also growing. That's why I am so intrigued with your post and the companies you shared who have rejected this model of 'progress'. Thanks for sharing a few more in your reply to my comment. In the outdoor industry, and perhaps beyond, Yvon has been seen as the ideal in how to do business ethically, but I'm not sure this narrative is entirely worthy of the attention.
Then this would be a worthy read for you by Foster https://arestlesstransplant.substack.com/p/akin-to-believing-light-beer-is-a?r=fovbq&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Thank you for the thoughtful counterargument to a cliche I’ve heard far too often — “If you aren’t growing, you’re dying.”
Fantastic read. Found a few new companies to look into and also making me do some thinking…