Why I won’t be buying an Arc’Teryx jacket
As a semi-fashion conscious semi-outdoorsman living in San Francisco it has been hard to ignore the meteoric rise of the luxury outdoor outfitter Arc’Teryx. What was once a niche brand specific to climbing community insiders and diehard outdoor enthusiasts has now become a staple of the San Francisco tech bro. How did this happen? Like with any lifestyle brand there’s a story that needs to be understood for us to arrive at the social context Arc’Teryx thrives in today.
Arc’Teryx came into being along the same trajectory as its contemporaries and competitors The North Face and Patagonia. That is: “Prolific adventurer discovers need for quality equipment and takes it upon himself to produce it.” That was the general path for David Lane, who founded the company (then Rock Solid Manufacturing) in 1989, Vancouver Canada (i). Two years later Lane partnered with fellow climber Jeremy Guard and together they rebranded as Arc’Teryx, which comes from “Archaeopteryx Lithographica,” the first bird to evolve from reptiles (ii). The brand’s logo today is an illustration of this lizard-bird’s fossilized form. The evolutionary theme of this branding is nothing short of genius as the products themselves represent the idea of environmental adaptation embodied by this pre-historic creature.
In 1995 Arc’Teryx were licensed by W.L Gore & Associates to utilize their propriety Gore-Tex fabric in the construction of their outerwear (iii). Using Gore-Tex’s breathable waterproof material the brand developed the “Alpha SV” jacket, an ice climbing jacket that became the gold standard of waterproof hard shells in the outerwear space. Arc’teryx was one of the first manufacturers to begin producing soft-shell jackets as well, a more breathable alternative to the hard shell designed for wind, light rain or snow. Arc’Teryx even makes their own zippers (rather than sourcing from YKK) which are designed to be slide resistant and easily operated with one hand for climbing. By remaining on the cutting edge of product design, Arc’Teryx established itself as an innovator despite having relatively low share of the market.
It is through this uncompromising focus on quality design that the brand was able to position itself as a luxury good within the Outerwear market, and enjoy the price premium that accompanied it. In order to grow sales of a luxury good it is important to maintain a high level of brand equity: “a value premium that a company generates from a product with a recognizable name when compared to a generic equivalent.”(iv) Here the “value premium” that consumers enjoy is made up of a mixture of the genuine and perceived quality of the good. The genuine quality is the measurable differences in the construction of an Arc’Teryx jacket versus a comparable one produced by a competitor. The perceived quality is tougher to pin down, as it is the subjective feeling that the consumer experiences. The perceived quality is influenced by a variety of factors including social proof, subconscious associations, as well as a host of mental shortcuts like confirmation bias. A person who spends $300 for a jacket instead of $200 is likely to think their jacket is superior simply because they paid more for it. After all, if there was no difference between the two why would they have paid more?
What I am working towards here is that many of the people buying these expensive jackets nowadays can’t actually tell the difference. Regardless of what they tell you when you ask, people are influenced by the “cool” factor more than they would like to think. In this instance “cool” is masquerading itself as “quality” in the minds of people who believe they require the most advanced technology possible to keep them warm during their morning commute. I am not here to say that Arc’Teryx doesn’t make quality gear. Anyone on outdoorgearlab.com will tell you they do. I am also not here to say that the products are not worth the price; quality design is expensive and when lives are on the line there are no corners to cut. What I am trying to say is that Arc’Teryx is not worth the money to the people who buy it to wear on the streets of San Francisco, Seattle, New York, or any other major metropolitan area. While none of these individuals would admit it, they are caught up in a trend. This puts the brand in a precarious position, as they will have to take some form of action in response to the eventual fading of this fad. “Cool” doesn’t last forever, and like the lizard-bird of their namesake Arc’Teryx will need to adapt.
The looming danger the brand may be facing is the weakening of its core audience. When I say “core” I do not mean the average consumer. I mean the people that Arc’Teryx is designing their goods for. Enthusiasts. “Cool” starts at the top, in most cases it is a form of aspiration that an individual has towards a group. As a parallel example in men’s fashion, skateboarders and surfers have always been the tastemakers of streetwear. They have dictated the rise and fall of brands like Vans, DC, RVCA, Quicksilver, and Billabong. More recently Supreme and Palace have been driven to great heights by securing the hearts of a core audience that others could aspire to. If skaters suddenly stopped wearing Supreme (which I suspect they might) the rest of us would eventually follow suit and their so far uninhibited growth would stagnate.
How does a brand isolate itself from its core audience? There are two potential factors: the first is what I call negative social proof. If an enthusiast with a preference for Arc’Teryx consistently perceives out-group individuals wearing the brand this will, I suspect, erode their affinity over time. You are what you wear, but for brands you are “who wears you,” and if the core sees their brand co-opted by outsiders it will no longer be a marker for their tribe. The second factor at play is something that Arc’Teryx can control: their communications and advertising. Through these channels the brand can directly interface with their core audience to combat the problem, or, contribute to it.
The good news is that for the most part, Arc’Teryx does a good job of appealing to their core audience through their brand communications and advertising. They sponsor a number of well known professionals, produce their own climbing films, and showcase the kind of intense use that their products are designed for in their advertising. The brand does well to ignore their casual audience for the most part, focusing on the enthusiasts. All that I would recommend that they do now is not compromise; in fact I think it is time to double down.
My main problem with Arc’Teryx’s brand image is that it’s way too clean. Products meant to be tested in the harshest environment should not be spotless, crispy clean every time. I also think that their store designs are trying too hard and seem to have more in common with an avant garde fashion boutique than an outdoor gear retailer. While the brand itself may not be catering to the “elite” directly, the stores certainly fit the bill. I have a hard time picturing a grizzled outdoorsman shopping in an Arc’Teryx store. Something about all of that glass, concrete, and minimalism seems disconnected from the great outdoors. A little bit of wood, and landscape prints could go a long way to make the mountain men and women feel more at home. Nitpicking aside, I think it is important for the brand to embrace dirt and wear more generally. If your products are meant to be tested against the elements, show that. If it is meant to last a lifetime emphasize durability, warranty protection, as well as return and recycle options. Something about an ice climber wearing a jacket that looks like it’s fresh off the shelf feels phony.
Arc’Teryx also seems to come off as more “capitalist” than its competitors in The North Face and Patagonia. It could simply be the price point and lack of discounts, but the other brands (especially Patagonia) fight capitalism with environmentalism. Patagonia’s “Don’t buy this jacket” (v) and REI’s “Opt Outside” (vi) were very successful (ironically) by encouraging people not to shop on Black Friday. Patagonia frequently advertises its donations to non-profits and its commitment to sustainability. Arc’Teryx should take note of this, especially as people begin to “vote with their dollar” more and more as purchasing decisions have become expressions of moral righteousness. If Arc’Teryx wants to be able to compete with Patagonia, The North Face, and REI in a battle for the ethical high ground they need to prove to us that they are protecting the environment for which they are designing.
I should say that Arc’Teryx actually does sustainability right. They will repair your jacket, buy it back from you, or recycle it depending on the situation. They will sponsor your sustainability project through their community grant program. Their labor is sourced humanely, their materials are sourced sustainably, and they have fully mapped out the life cycle of all of their products. The only problem is that nobody knows. I know all of this because I dug into their website which is full of information and neat info-graphics (vii); but not everyone spends their free time researching and writing essays about outdoor brands. The rest of the world is getting the impression that Arc’Teryx wants to make money and Patagonia wants to save the world.
Another contributing factor to this capitalist image is co-branding. An increasingly casual dress code among an array of businesses has lead companies to offer branded fleeces and shells. This shift driven by progressive tech and creative firms has lead even major financial institutions to loosen their ties and don embroidered Patagonia vests. Until recently, everyone from Google to Goldman was rocking co-branded Patagonia. Then the company began discretionarily limiting their corporate partners. Patagonia formally rejected an order request through one of their re-sellers to a financial institution and issued a statement which included: “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.” (viii) This seems like a radical move, Patagonia is selectively partnering solely with companies that meet their ethical standards. Regardless of your politics, this is a smart marketing move. Patagonia understands the effects of negative social proof and doesn’t want their sustainable image poisoned by the gluttony of Wall Street. This is essentially a “brand equity buyback” in the sense that Patagonia is foregoing potential sales to solidify their reputation among their core. Nike made a similar wager when they signed controversial former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick launching a wave of boycotts while simultaneously boosting purchase intent among their core audience. (ix) Apolitical is no longer a viable position for a brand and Arc’Teryx should keep an eye on who is branding alongside them. I saw one of their jackets branded with a local bank here in SF the other day. It triggered me.
I have spoken to a few friends and acquaintances all of whom are young and outdoorsy to try to get a sense if they feel this way about Arc’Teryx and the people who wear it. I am not sure if it is surprising they agreed with me considering most all of them come from a very similar cultural perspective. However one interview was particularly insightful with a friend who had surprisingly strong feelings about the brand. (Arc’Teryx) “Is so damned expensive that I automatically have a visceral hate for almost anyone who wears it, even if they are discernibly outdoorsy.” Visceral hatred is a pretty extreme reaction toward someone just for their clothing choice. Another important point is the afterward, “even if they are discernibly outdoorsy.” This implies that individuals who are not outdoorsy are deserving of additional scorn. Even tribe members are no longer safe. He goes on to say “more than anything the brand seems to be an emblem of just that: hi, this jacket is expensive, ergo I’m most likely a careless consumer” he then informs me that when he went to buy a new puffer recently, he chose a Patagonia. This is important because I know that he owns an Arc’Teryx jacket (REI used gear sale) which he assumedly refuses to wear. Now that his clothing choice is more in line with his self image he says: “I feel better about myself now.”
All of this begs the question: will hurting the brand actually hurt the business? Business strategy comes first, and as far as I can tell Arc’Teryx is in full on growth mode. Their parent company Amer sports lauds the brand’s growth (11% globally) in their 2018 financial review, especially in China. (x) To this end the company might not care so much for the diminished brand image, so long as it equates to an increase in sales. But maintaining growth is a tricky business, especially when it rests on something as fickle as public perception. As Arc’Teryx continues to mature as a brand and as a business they ought to focus their efforts on maintaining a healthy customer base rather than simply growing a big one.
Bringing this back to me for a second, the real reason I don’t have an Arc’Teryx jacket is that I couldn’t afford it when I wanted one. So why don’t I want one now? The answer lies in what my friend helped me understand. The act of wearing Arc’Teryx for me, and others, has fundamentally changed over the last few years. The exact same brand is now saying something completely different about the wearer as a person. Wearing the brand used to say something like “I love hiking and climbing, and it is important to me that I have gear that is designed thoughtfully.” In this instance price is the means through which quality is achieved, it is a barrier to the utility that I seek out of the brand. Now through this cultural shift (trend) the message is more like “I am wearing this brand because it is the coolest, most expensive jacket on the market.” Now the price is creating the quality in a way that has nothing to do with how the product is made, but rather how it is perceived. Wearing an Arc’Teryx Jacket no longer sends a message consistent with my identity and that’s why I won’t be buying one.
Sources:
(i)https://www.grailed.com/drycleanonly/guide-to-arcteryx-brands
(ii) https://arcteryx.com/us/en/explore
(iii) https://arcteryx.com/ca/en/explore/gore-tex-guide
(iv) https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brandequity.asp
(v) https://www.patagonia.com/blog/2011/11/dont-buy-this-jacket-black-friday-and-the-new-york-times/
(vi) http://www.aaaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/VBP-REI-OptOutside-Silver.pdf
