Please note: Throughout this post I talk about a few online retail stores but chose not to link them. I believe in buying within one's means, but also shopping local. These stores are easy enough to google but whenever possible I do encourage everyone to seek out a local retailer.
Last month I was perturbed to see a Merino shirt from the brand Veilance. It was a targeted ad from a discount site, and they had it on sale for $139.99. It is originally a $200 T-Shirt. This price might seem astonishing until you compare it to the rest of Veilance's line, and their price points. Take, for example, this waterproof Anorak for the low low price of $850 dollars.
Veilance used to be the urban apparel offshoot of Arc'Teryx, which specialises in rugged technical gear. Arc'Teryx stuff is also quite expensive, but it's accessible mountaineering apparel you'd take to Everest if you felt so inclined. Arguably Arc'Teryx itself has become a status symbol of sorts but the quality is high and I would never argue with the value for pricing when you consider the cost-savings of buying one good product instead of four or five inferior products over the years.
But I have to question $200 for a t-shirt, even if it's merino sheep's wool, Or, $850 for the Anorak. What is the purpose? Arguably, an Anorak is more stylish than functional. The research and development couldn't possibly have been that much more than Arc'Teryx spends to put together their $350 - $500 shells or $100 shirts. So, aside from the sleek aesthetics, there is no value. These are hyper-design based products intended to cater to the super-rich.
During all of my years working in the outdoor industry, I often faced a tough question: "Why is it so expensive?"
There's never any one answer. When I was selling bikes, I often had to talk about the value of a good quality bicycle built up by a professional mechanic in a dedicated shop versus a Wal-Mart product built by the same person who does their display BBQs. I point out manufacturing processes, brand-warranty and reliability. I would also talk frankly about the importance of supporting local, keeping money in the regional economy to fuel trail building, events and advocacy. Shop loyalty is also important, and a bicycle is never a once-and-done purchase. Often, one will build a relationship with their local store as they revisit for new gear and maintenance. This is true about skis, snowshoes, and even skateboards. Yes, sometimes one has to purchase the Wal-Mart bike because that's what they can afford, but the bicycle industry really works hard to make good quality product in competitive price ranges.
When it comes to soft-goods, the lines are a little less defined. From a manufacturer point of view, pricing is determined by the research and development that goes into creating a product. Brands are rushing to make the lightest most breathable gear, lately, for the comfort of consumers in myriad weather conditions. Meanwhile, purchases are more singular (you're not bringing your shirt back in for a tune-up) with people always hungry for the best deals because the mechanical value of a sweater isn't the same as that of a bicycle.
Many companies also have solid ethical guides to what they produce, and how they produce it, as well as the cost of things like buttons or zippers and the general supply chain of garments -- it's fine for Patagonia to say their assembly line workers are paid well and treated well, but what about the workers who made the zipper? Some companies I really like for this are indeed Patagonia, as well as Icebreaker and Arc'Teryx. There has also a paradigm shift in the outdoor industry to use recycled materials or full-on recycling past products (Patagonia has a dedicated site for their refurbished gear). Arc'Teryx offers a reasonable lifetime warranty, which means they guarantee its value over a longer period and you won't be wasting money on a new coat in two or three years' time. I've seen this honoured on multiple occasions, and only turned down once on a haggard jacket over ten years old (Because, reasonable lifetime -- you've got to take care of the products too).
The margins are then determined to try and create fair and competitive market between everyone who sells a particular brand. Sometimes when things are purchased in larger numbers, retailers get a discount on their order which could mean either wider profit for them or a lower price on the product as soon as it hits the shelf.
The margins are then determined to try and create fair and competitive market between everyone who sells a particular brand. Sometimes when things are purchased in larger numbers, retailers get a discount on their order which could mean either wider profit for them or a lower price on the product as soon as it hits the shelf.
My issue with all of this concerns accessibility, a T-Shirt, and what it means for the outdoor industry. I believe the wilderness should be available to everyone, and they should be able to access good quality gear in order to enjoy it comfortably. Whether it needs to be warm in -20c conditions or breathable in +25c, good gear does cost money. Ideally, in order to avoid waste, everything is produced with an intended purpose.
The only reason you pay $200 for a Merino T-Shirt is because you can, making its existence quite the waste of money and resources. Unless the Merino Sheep providing the wool are treated like actual royalty with personal butlers, I really can't think of any reason this T-Shirt should be any more expensive than one from Icebreaker: At an average of $90, the Men's Cool-Lite™ Sphere shirt is pretty reasonable value for money. Icebreaker have been lauded through the years for their ethical care of the animals supplying their wool and also treatment of workers along their supply chain, and their product is also very comfortable. In glancing at their web page, I see nothing that sets this Veilance product apart from anything Icebreaker offers. The features are the same: "Moisture wicking", "breathable", "lightweight", all typical characteristics of Merino products and the reason this fabric is so popular now. Basically, you're paying for the name. This is alarming.
To me, the existence of this shirt signals a departure for the outdoor industry from being environmentally sustainable and a problem for locally owned and operated retailers who are trying to stay afloat.
Many years ago while working at a local business I had someone challenge me on the cost of an Icebreaker shirt. Why, he asked, was this tee so expensive when he could go to Costco and buy a 3-pack for $40? I deferred to the value of ethical animal treatment. Museling, for example, is a cruel but common practice of removing strips of wool-bearing skin from around the breech butt of a sheep to prevent parasitic infection (yes I googled that to make sure I got it right). It can be quite painful and the end goal is achieved through other means from good farmers. Icebreaker only works with farmers who agree to a strict set of rules around how they treat their animals, and not using the museling technique is one of those rules. If I had to guess, the brand selling 3 for $40 Merino shirts at Costco might not adhere to the same ethics in their resource purchasing, which is reflected in pricing. In my experience though, a lot of people don't care about the back end of their product. "It's all the same", he told me at the time. It's something a lot of people would tell me. Even if that were true, though, Costco isn't out building local trails. Even if we set aside the ethical means of manufacturing products -- we shouldn't -- $200 for a t-shirt is yet another step along a scary trend for an industry built on the environment. The $200 shirt has no discernible difference from the $90 shirt, while the 3-for-$40 are ethically questionable. The 3-for-$40 shirts will probably fall apart faster meaning the purchase of more 3-for-$40 while the $90 shirt will last longer and waste less, but people will wonder why it's any different from the $200 and assume it has lower quality. This makes the pricing hard to justify for small business owners and employees who depend on the wider margins in soft-goods. People will probably lean towards the lower quality gear because, hey, "It's all the same". Right now, these same small businesses are already working hard to stay relevant in the age of online retail. If items continue to trend upwards in expense for no good reason, the local retailers will suffer well before the brands do.
Small business retailers are looking at their local market and try to anticipate buying trends a year out. When they make their orders, there is little to no risk for the manufacturers who know how much they'll sell because it has been ordered by the retailers, and then they manufacture it with some room for re-stocking popular items. Once the stock arrives on local shelves, it belongs to the store until it's sold. If something isn't popular, it sits in a small retailer. Larger chains like Sportchek can eat this cost more effectively than small businesses. They also have the option of moving it between different locations or selling it it for a steep discount which is subsidised by numerous other products being sold at full retail. Some brands also move unsold stock between stores or sell it in bulk. Consider, Winners. Or, online, look at the online retailer Altitude sports: When their stock from various brands doesn't move, they transfer it all to The Last Hunt with 35% - 45% off to start, followed by flash sales with further reductions or the usual Black Friday / Boxing Day / whatever-they-want-excuse deep reductions. It's a season old, but to a lot of shoppers that doesn't matter as much as the price for something they want. For many this is their first-stop shopping, whether they need the massive reductions or not. Small businesses really can't compete, and I've heard of instances where they've been asked to.
Many years ago while working at a local business I had someone challenge me on the cost of an Icebreaker shirt. Why, he asked, was this tee so expensive when he could go to Costco and buy a 3-pack for $40? I deferred to the value of ethical animal treatment. Museling, for example, is a cruel but common practice of removing strips of wool-bearing skin from around the breech butt of a sheep to prevent parasitic infection (yes I googled that to make sure I got it right). It can be quite painful and the end goal is achieved through other means from good farmers. Icebreaker only works with farmers who agree to a strict set of rules around how they treat their animals, and not using the museling technique is one of those rules. If I had to guess, the brand selling 3 for $40 Merino shirts at Costco might not adhere to the same ethics in their resource purchasing, which is reflected in pricing. In my experience though, a lot of people don't care about the back end of their product. "It's all the same", he told me at the time. It's something a lot of people would tell me. Even if that were true, though, Costco isn't out building local trails. Even if we set aside the ethical means of manufacturing products -- we shouldn't -- $200 for a t-shirt is yet another step along a scary trend for an industry built on the environment. The $200 shirt has no discernible difference from the $90 shirt, while the 3-for-$40 are ethically questionable. The 3-for-$40 shirts will probably fall apart faster meaning the purchase of more 3-for-$40 while the $90 shirt will last longer and waste less, but people will wonder why it's any different from the $200 and assume it has lower quality. This makes the pricing hard to justify for small business owners and employees who depend on the wider margins in soft-goods. People will probably lean towards the lower quality gear because, hey, "It's all the same". Right now, these same small businesses are already working hard to stay relevant in the age of online retail. If items continue to trend upwards in expense for no good reason, the local retailers will suffer well before the brands do.
Small business retailers are looking at their local market and try to anticipate buying trends a year out. When they make their orders, there is little to no risk for the manufacturers who know how much they'll sell because it has been ordered by the retailers, and then they manufacture it with some room for re-stocking popular items. Once the stock arrives on local shelves, it belongs to the store until it's sold. If something isn't popular, it sits in a small retailer. Larger chains like Sportchek can eat this cost more effectively than small businesses. They also have the option of moving it between different locations or selling it it for a steep discount which is subsidised by numerous other products being sold at full retail. Some brands also move unsold stock between stores or sell it in bulk. Consider, Winners. Or, online, look at the online retailer Altitude sports: When their stock from various brands doesn't move, they transfer it all to The Last Hunt with 35% - 45% off to start, followed by flash sales with further reductions or the usual Black Friday / Boxing Day / whatever-they-want-excuse deep reductions. It's a season old, but to a lot of shoppers that doesn't matter as much as the price for something they want. For many this is their first-stop shopping, whether they need the massive reductions or not. Small businesses really can't compete, and I've heard of instances where they've been asked to.
So, what we have is a competitive model leaning towards high-end gear that larger retailers can stock, initially selling off regular-price goods to those who can afford it for full price, in-turn subsidising heavily discounted product. Over time this erodes any competitive edge a local shop may have. In addition to people asking for The Last Hunt price-matches, with further discounts, I've also heard of people trying on Blundstones for size then pulling out their phones and ordering the shoe they want online while they're still in the store. There's a sales practice called "give them the pickle", which essentially suggests a happy customer is better than no customer regardless of what it is they are asking. Nowadays customers have more leverage than ever to ask for some pretty unsustainable pickles.
To tackle this, manufacturers are starting to edge their way more and more online. This is a poor response. locally owned and operated businesses are backbones of this industry. Many brands do sponsor events and trail building all the time. They donate to advocacy expeditions and documentary films about saving the environment. But, all of this only goes so far and at the end of the day is often driven by local people who are actually attending the builds or spending weeks and months putting the events together. It's people who live in communities that make the most impact rather than helicopter philanthropy, even though those funds can be important (Casual shameless plug for my buddy's film, below, which was made through the RaceFace creator series).
Pricing counts for a lot in keeping those businesses alive and thriving. "Buy and sell less expensive product" is a dismissive solution putting the onus on retailers and customers, again because good quality things do cost money. Everyone should be able to enjoy the outdoors with the same level of comfort as anybody else, and sometimes this comes down to the quality of gear. So, what's wrong with saying something is good enough, pricing it accordingly, and leaving it well enough alone? Enjoying a winter snowshoe with solid gear should not be restricted to the super rich, and even if it looks nice there really is no necessity for a $850 Anorak. If someone can afford that, imagine what a world we'd have if they bought one for even $450 and directed the rest of their buying power to a charity.
Super-expensive gear also leads to waste. Why was the $200 Veliance shirt made? What was the environmental footprint of its production? Was it really necessary to make so that someone feels fancy? In the pursuit of the next new technological breakthrough in the outdoor industry, I wonder how often manufacturers and brands stop to think whether they should before finding out whether they can. Much like the tech industry, this creates an atmosphere where the newest is coolest and old stuff is considered obsolete and disposable, meaning people are potentially buying something they already have within years of the last *~thing~*. This in turn creates an unnecessary clutter. The stuff is often thrown away, but lately there have been lots of consignment shops taking used brand name apparel, and gear swaps are highly useful for moving unused knick-knacks to new homes.
Furthermore, many brands really need to follow Patagonia's model of refurbishing old apparel and selling it. What is the possible downside!? There is potential to make money twice on one garment, and it also avoids waste like this: "Returned online purchases often sent to landfill, journalist's research reveals."
Nice things cost money and if you buy it right, you buy it once. This may mean paying a little more, but we've finally hit the limit of reasonable price versus practicality. Some people in the industry might tell me that new and exciting product releases are how they keep afloat and nobody wants what was around five years ago, but I'd really only accept this from a technological or mechanical perspective regarding bike materials or parts. Retro '80s and '90s aesthetics in clothing (like the Anorak) have been making a comeback for a decade now, so why are we rushing to define new style trends if our children are just going to bring back 00's emo grunge by the 2030s?
It's important to note this doesn't always happen, and many brands do better than others. But as a whole, the outdoor industry really should take a look at the consumerism it fosters, who it serves outside of the bottom line, and how sustainable it actually is for the long term on this planet we call home.
