My 15-year-old son recently asked for a pair of Patagonia Baggies. Buying a pair for him coincided with Patagonia’s latest ad campaign - “Fashion is none of our business”, and it got me thinking about where we may have gotten off course as the outdoor industry.

I understand what Patagonia is saying with the ‘fashion is none of our business’ campaign. They make timeless apparel that stands the test of time. They’re not chasing fast-fashion trends. Case in point - my son is wearing the same style of shorts I wore 30 years ago.

But they’re a great example of where we’re getting it wrong as brands and consumers and the Baggies are the perfect place to start.

Baggies are the classic jack-of-all-trades piece of outdoor clothing. That’s what they were designed for. Their deep-set pockets were designed to hold two tennis balls, a design parameter set by Yvon Chouinard. Surf, climb and play tennis in the same shorts. Makes sense. 

This generalist design style was prevalent in outdoor apparel for a long time. But I think two things happened that started to get us off course:

Product line expansion - Brands expand their product lines to grow revenue. This goes in both directions: hyper-specialization for technical apparel and watered-down designs for lifestyle apparel.

Design legacy - Product designers at outdoor brands want to leave their mark and push the limits of fabric innovation and design. This leads to niche products designed for specific situations that benefit the brand’s athletes but are overkill for the average consumer.

Both of these things make sense to me. Product line expansion is a smart business strategy and any creative designer wants to push the limits and leave their mark on the industry.

But as these two things play out together over time we’re left with outdoor brands creating more products than consumers need and consumers trained to think we need specific gear for each outdoor activity.

In their famous ad campaign, Patagonia told us ‘Don’t buy this jacket’. But is there a point where we should be telling them ‘Don’t make this jacket’?

The Baggies are one of 34 different styles of shorts in the Patagonia Spring ‘24 collection. I’m not a Product Manager, but I bet they could get that down to 5 styles and they would still serve their customers well.

I understand the argument that says the more Patagonia sells the more money they have to invest in saving the planet. But at what point do the unintended consequences of economic growth catch up to altruism? 

It’s difficult to change the economic system that has built up around these large brands - many retailers, vendors, factories and people’s jobs rely on the industry's growth.

But making the biggest difference may mean choosing to be a smaller company. 

Maybe staying small means having a bigger positive impact on your customers and the environment.

P.s. I wouldn’t be in the outdoor industry if it wasn’t for Patagonia. I’ve been a fanboy since I was 14. They lead by example and have changed the way we think about running a business. I know that they wrestle with this topic internally and have thought through this extensively. This issue is certainly not exclusive to them.