From this mission statement, it is no surprise that Patagonia is known for its transparency. It once posted an ad that encouraged people not to buy one of its jackets because of the damage manufacturing it would cause to the environment. Pretty interesting technique right? Since the company is an advocate of the environment, it only makes sense for them to stay true to that. The purpose of the ad was to encourage customers to think hard if the jacket was something they needed. The ad actually boosted Patagonia’s sales from customers who “would have bought cheaper products from competitors. Patagonia somehow created a rare perception of quality and do-gooder aura that certain people believe is worth a higher price” (Quartz). I mean but what company actually tells you not to buy their product, and then gets more people to buy it? Patagonia is the only one I can think of. This is because they have listened, talked with, and are energizing the groundswell.
Because of this example of transparency we can see why Patagonia would encourage their customers to share reviews and stories. Patagonia understands the groundswell is who makes their brand what it is, not them. So instead of Patagonia doing all of the talking, they encourage the groundswell to do so.
Li and Bernoff discuss the idea of energizing the groundswell (Groundswell). They told us how 23% of the groundswell are Creators, one third are Critics, and two thirds are Spectators. Patagonia understood this. They gave the Creators a blog, and the Critics reviews, consequently giving the Spectators somewhere to look. Patagonia also has ambassadors who share the story of what Patagonia means to them- energizing the groundswell.
Patagonia created a blog called The Cleanest Line. From the description on the right we can see that openness, and transparency is something this company values. Blog posts are posted by anyone from their founder, to their employees, to their ambassadors, to every day people like you and me. On the blogs website, Patagonia gives us guidelines on how to submit a post. The blog is less about the specific products, but is more about Patagonia's brand. Which is why it's perfect for Creators. Patagonia gave Creators who are passionate about Patagonia and what they stand for a platform to share their stories. The posts range in topics: activism, sports, food, and much more. Not only can Creators get in on this blogging, but Critics and Spectators can too. Critics can leave comments on blogs and Spectators can read around.
Patagonia does not regulate the comments, but they do moderate them. Patagonia has this blog, and they, as well as everyone else, are finding out what their brand truly stands for. Li and Bernoff pointed out that the Mini brand has their own culture, Patagonia does as well. Patagonia realized this and provided a forum to energize its groundswell.
Patagonia also adheres to the Critics needs by allowing them to post their thoughts on the products. I went to look at what I consider one of their most popular items... the classic pullover. I mean come on, has anyone actually never seen this jacket before? I know I see it everywhere. Anyway, when looking at the product, in the top right corner you can see the star ratings. To read the comments you can simply click on the starts and it will scroll you down to where they are located. 
The overall rating of this product was a 4.6 with 340 total ratings. From the screenshot above, we can see the groundswell, especially the Critics, are eager to share their input on this jacket. The first post shows just how helpful the groundswell was in helping that customer order her jacket. The Critics did their part and helped others because Patagonia gave them the opportunity to. The cool thing about this rating system is that it has the stars, the explanation, the overall yes I would recommend, or no I would not, a place to scale the fit, and lastly a place where Spectators can acknowledge if a review was helpful or not.
Patagonia saw and understood their groundswell was a culture, and decided to create a forum for Creators to blog, a space for Critics to review, and an overall place for Spectators.
Patagonia energizes the groundswell and has ambassadors who will blog, post, and share the brand. They are also involved in helping to develop the gear for their particular sport.
I know that the more I learn about Patagonia from the groundswell, the more I want to buy their products. Would you buy from Patagonia too?
Nikki,
ReplyDeleteWow, so as soon as you mentioned that Patagonia advertised for their customers to NOT buy one of their items unless they really needed it... I almost lost the ability to focus on the rest of the blog post. I mean that is pretty extraordinary for a company to advertise against their product simply "for the good of the environment". I am left to wonder why they would even choose to create that product if they felt that its production/materials were harmful for the environment-- which is clearly important to them. Could they not have created a similar product that made less of an impact? regardless, I think the company made a good move (although risky) to publicize that the product was harmful. I wonder if they were afraid that customers would find out the truth about the product from an alternative source, could this have been preemptive damage control? Or, was the company just keeping their customers in the loop?
Nikki, I very much agree with Rachel's observations. It seems like this was a ploy to avoid possible push back from the groundswell - imagine the damage it would cause if the company kept this from their customers. What is odd is that there customers did not view this as a token effort. If the product is harmful to causes I care about, be it the planet, children, or turtles, as a conscious customer I would want that harmful product discontinued. Instead of an ad that discourages purchases, why not pull it remove it from circulation (or does the company not have the power to discontinue their products) and say something along the lines of, "we have removed product X upon our findings that indicate that product X is harmful to (insert cause the customers care about)." Might this example serve better to show the naivety of consumers and how easy it is to hoodwink them into buying more?
ReplyDeleteNikki,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting example of extreme honesty. I think telling the truth is almost always easier than covering up a lie. Though it was risky to be so blatantly honest, I think it was ultimately a smart move. Li and Bernoff write that you need to play to your base. I think that is exactly what Patagonia is doing by puttin environmental awareness over profits (which might yield more profits in the end). This kind of honesty may not work for everyone, but it was a good move for Patagonia because it's consistent with their message and culture.