Weaving Ethics Into Business: Patagonia Cuts off Finance Bros

At the highest levels of power in the finance industry, there is one gold standard, one unifying symbol that binds together all titans in the industry: the Patagonia vest with an embroidered corporate logo, also known as, “the Power Vest.”

Dollar Bill, a character in “Billions.” | Jeff Neumann/Showtime

The vest may now vanish to distant memory, similar to Gordon Gekko’s pinstriped suits, due to a shift in policy at Patagonia. This shift in policy was first reported by Binna Kim, president of the communications agency Vested, whose order of branded vests for a hedge-fund client, something her firm had done in the past through a reseller for Patagonia’s corporate sales, was rejected. 

“Patagonia has nothing against your client or the finance industry, it’s just not an area they are currently marketing through our co-brand division,” read a corporate statement Kim tweeted. “While they have co-branded here in the past, 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,” it continued. 

The statement, which came not from Patagonia but from an unnamed retail partner, said the company’s shift in focus is meant to align with Patagonia’s new mission statement, “We’re in business to save our home planet.” 

The statement continues, stating that Patagonia is “reluctant to co-brand with oil, drilling, dam construction, etc. companies that they view to be ecologically damaging” and while orders are approved on a case-by-case basis, this includes “financial institutions.” 

Patagonia confirmed this change to its corporate program, saying the company “recently shifted the focus of this program to increase the number of Certified B Corporations, 1% For The Planet members and other mission-driven companies that prioritize the planet. This shift does not affect current customers in our corporate sales program.” 

The individual behind the Instagram @MidtownUniform, the founder of the term “Midtown Uniform,” which refers to the button-up, vest and slacks combination, stated, “In light of its big branding moves toward awareness of environmental issues, I was wondering when Patagonia would be putting the kibosh on outfitting the finance world. It was only a matter of time.” 

The Origin of the Power Vest

The Midtown Uniform appears to have taken hold post-2008, when many financial firms loosened their once-strict suit-and-tie dress code. The message was: We know your salary is down, but at least you get to dress casual on Friday. 

“The payouts regressed, so just like every industry that has payment difficulties, they find other ways to satisfy employees and dress is one of the easiest ones,” said a 35-year-old stock trader in New York City. He was on the floor during the 2008 recession and described how the sport coats and wool slacks gave way to vests and cotton chinos in its aftermath. 

Though midtown New York has now become especially associated with this new dress code, the vest’s roots lie in Silicon Valley. “If you go to the Whole Foods here, you’re going to see [the vest] everywhere,” said Christina Mongini, the costume designer for HBO’s parodic sitcom “Silicon Valley” and a Bay Area native. 

Jared Dunn, a character on “Silicon Valley.” |John P. Johnson/HBO

Jared Dunn, the show’s type-A COO, wears a fleece vest over a button-down in nearly every scene in which his character appears. “Jared’s style is really perceived as the normal basic understated business-casual attire,” said Mongini. 

Outdoorsy fleece vests match the youthful, countercultural Silicon Valley spirit in a way suits and ties never did. Bay Area C-suite executives, such as Apple’s Tim Cook, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and PayPal cofounder Max Levchin have boasted of cycling or hiking during the work week. As Mongini said, “You can hop on your bike and throw your vest on and head over to Santa Cruz on your lunch break if you wanted to.” 

Across the nation, the vest was an easy sell. “It’s very difficult to just sit there and work in a suit jacket,” said the 35-year-old stock trader. In a vest, “I can sit at my desk and feel a little bit more comfortable.” Aiding and abetting the trend toward sleevelessness, a couple of years ago brokerage houses and trading platforms shrewdly started giving away the vests as a freebie to entice traders. The vests’ low cost was a way around financial regulations, which cap gifts to traders at $100, and the wearable promotions were more functional than the giveaways they replaced, such as candy tins and Nerf Footballs. These promotional vests, with “Equifax” or “Merrill Lynch” embroidered along the chest, are now a common sight in New York. 

The trend has become self-perpetuating: People wear the vest because it is what people wear. “Now it’s the new thing: It’s not suspenders and a Bengal-striped shirt,” said Will Crowley, a 25-year-old investment banker who lives in Hoboken, N.J. “It’s a Patagonia vest and a button-down shirt.” He added that the “bro culture” of finance has helped reinforce this look, with its scores of men following the same path from prep school to an Ivy League college to a job in finance. Looking like your peers is part of the package. “If you want to be successful, part of it is wanting to fit in,” said Crowley.

Patagonia’s Place Among the Vest Industry

Although many companies, including The North Face, make fleece vests, the Patagonia fleece vests quickly became, as Jeffrey Leeds, co-founder of Leeds Equity Partners and longtime fleece-wearer, said, “the Tiffany blue box” of the culture: an immediately recognizable visual sign of elite status. Part of this can be attributed to the co-branding – the Patagonia name on one side and a company name on the other. 

Patagonia became so linked to the financial sector uniform that one website poked fun at the whole thing by offering a “VC starter kit” for $499. “Nothing says SF VC casual like a Patagonia Better Sweater Vest paired with gray Allbirds runners. You’ll fit right into Demo Day,” the promo read. 

VC starter kit from vcstarterkit.com

The Timing of Patagonia’s Decision

Patagonia’s shift in policy to focus on increasing the number of Certified B Corporations, 1% For The Planet members and other mission-driven companies that prioritize the planet seems to align with Patagonia’s brand, especially with its relatively new mission statement. However, it is interesting to note the macroscopic view of the timing of this decision.

In November 2018, Patagonia received $10 million as a result of what it called an ‘irresponsible tax cut” by President Donald Trump. The Activist Company, as Patagonia calls itself, promptly donated the money to environmental charities. 

Since 2017, Patagonia has also been sharply critical of President Trump’s decision to drastically reduce the size of some national monuments. In the case of Bears Ears National Monument in southeast Utah – shrunk an astounding 85 percent – the company has put up resources to fight in court.

The two bluffs known as the “Bears Ears” in the Bears Ears National Monument. | George Frey/Getty Images

“We have to fight like hell to keep every inch of public land,” Patagonia CEO Rose Marcario told HuffPost in 2017, shortly after the Bears Ears decision was announced. “I don’t have a lot of faith in politics and politicians right now.”

Although Patagonia’s history of environmental activism spans longer than its efforts in the Bears Ears decision, its relatively recent shift in focus to stop working with the finance industry in its corporate sales program seems abrupt in Patagonia’s macroscopic timeline. 

Jake Flanagin, a reporter for Esquire, wrote a piece about why all of these business bros were wearing the same vest. His article was released on July 9, 2018. When writing the article, he contacted Patagonia to inquire about their marketing relationship with the financial sector, and the response he received was less than enthusiastic. This was approximately 10 months before Patagonia’s shift in policy became publicized. 

In a rather terse email from Patagonia’s communications team, Flanagin was told they have “no idea” how or why the vests became so popular with the young corporate set – they build their products specifically for “environmentalists and laborers who work in the elements.”

In April 2019, Binna Kim then released a set of tweets that publicized Patagonia’s corporate shift in policy, which affected all of its retail partners and future clientele. Patagonia, however, never released an official statement announcing this decision prior to the tweets. Rather in response to Kim’s tweets and the conversation that ensued afterward, Patagonia confirmed its shift in policy to specific news outlets that asked about it. 

Patagonia’s decision to shift the focus of its corporate sales program seems abrupt, and the lack of marketing Patagonia conducted for it seems like Patagonia was correcting what should have been occurring in the first place: the vest should have never been a part of the Midtown Uniform in the first place. 

Patagonia’s Intersection Between Ethics and Business

Patagonia’s shift in policy to increase the share of its corporate partners that make environmentalism a top priority only affects any new corporate clients that wanted to work with Patagonia and did not have any corporate social responsibility toward environmentalism. Therefore, the power vest will not be disappearing since its existing corporate customers will not be affected. 

Patagonia’s decision, however, does serve as an example of the various ways businesses are making their social stances part of how they operate and of how Patagonia in particular weaves its ethics into business. 

Before, companies would try to stay neutral on politics. Recently, that is not much of an option says Daniel Korschun, an associate marketing professor at Drexel University who studies corporate political activism. “Consumers and employees are looking for deeper purpose from companies,” he says, and Korschun calls Patagonia the “gold standard in corporate activism” because it has consistently aligned itself with issues that make sense for the brand and that its customers care about. 

Although Patagonia may be seen as the gold standard in corporate activism, it is not the only outdoor retailer weaving ethics into business. 

The North Face, one of the three most popular outdoor retailers among Patagonia and Columbia, recently refused to fill an oil company’s vest order saying, “There are times when we choose not to engage with other companies or organizations because they do not align with our brand values and mission to move the world forward through exploration.” 

Some industry watchers have criticized Patagonia for taking political stances that are too “uncompromising.” While Marcario admits that occasionally the company has heard from customers who disagree with Patagonia’s actions, she says the response for its unapologetically political stance has been “overwhelmingly positive.” When viewing Patagonia’s revenue and profit these past few years, this sentiment does reign true. 

The CEO of Patagonia, Rose Marcario. | Patagonia

Marcario took up the CEO role for Patagonia in 2014, and since then Patagonia has seen its revenue and profit quadruple. The company will not disclose its exact revenue, but the CEO said in March last year that sales were approaching $1 billion. Marcario has helped nurture new lines of business, including its Patagonia Provisions food line, used goods program Worn Wear, and the venture fund Tin Shed Ventures, which has at least $75 million to help environmentally responsible startups. 

As a result, the founder of Patagonia, Yvon Chouinard, has called Marcario the best leader the company has ever had. Since Marcario took leadership of the company, Patagonia has leaned further into its self-appointed role as the Activist Company.

A sign at the Outdoor Retailer & Snow Show in the Colorado Convention Center in Denver. | David Zalubowski/Associated Press

Although the finance industry will not necessarily be left out in the cold without their coveted vests, Patagonia’s decision to shift its focus and lose a large market share of potential clients shows the importance of staying true to its brand identity in today’s times and how it pays off to do so. 

Sources

Goodbye Black Friday

With more shopping moving online, Black Friday is dying at a rapid rate. 

Clint Grant | The Dallas Morning News

“I think the traditionalists will have a hard time stomaching that Black Friday is dying,” Josh Elman, a consumer and retail analyst with Nasdaq Advisory Services, told Business Insider. “But I think at the end of the day, the whole idea and concept of Black Friday deals in store will diminish over time.”

He continued, “Ultimately, consumers really want convenience, and they want to get their item and get out of the store quickly. They don’t want to wait in long lines. They don’t want to wait for a store to open anymore.”

Frederic J. Brown | Getty Images

According to the National Retail Federation, 99 million people said they shopped in stores on Thanksgiving weekend last year. This was a 3 million drop from the year before, and according to Elman, this number will only continue to fall. 

Meanwhile, 108 million people shopped online on Thanksgiving weekend the same year. This was a five million increase from the year before. 

Other than the shift to e-commerce over in-store purchases, another issue arises. People are becoming used to having deals available all year round. 

Tory Ho | Getty Images 

There is no longer a single day – the day after Thanksgiving – that retailers offer amazing deals. These deals are now spread out throughout the holiday season and the rest of the year, and they now appear online and in stores. 

However, Black Friday still helps to kick off a critical period for retailers. But, Elman mentions that the holiday season start date is inching earlier and earlier since companies are desperate to survive the “retail apocalypse.”

Offering Black Friday-like sales before Thanksgiving may assist retailers in boosting their business compared to rivals, but it also dilutes the importance of Black Friday as a single day for destination shopping, which affects the entire retail market.

“It’s a little sad. But it’s just a sign of the times,” Elman stated. “It’s really the paradigm shift that’s occurring. I think retailers understand what’s transpiring, and ultimately are doing everything in their power to meet customers’ needs.”

Sources

The End of “Let’s Order In”

There is currently a paradox that confronts the restaurant industry. On the one hand, restaurant companies consider the rise of delivery as an increasingly important source of growth. On the other, GrubHub Inc. just announced disappointing quarterly results and said that food delivery is only a means to an end, unlikely to ever be profitable on its own. There is a considerable amount of risk associated with this conclusion from GrubHub toward the broader restaurant industry. 

Jennifer Marston/The Spoon

The GrubHub Phenomenon

Restaurants have based much of their recent growth on consumer deliveries and rely heavily on only four companies – GrubHub, DoorDash Inc., Postmates Inc., and Uber Eats. Combined, these four companies have a 95% share of the market, which makes GrubHub’s latest quarter seem even more ominous. In a letter to investors, GrubHub stated that it did not believe “that a company can generate significant profits on just the logistics component of the business.”  In other words, delivery will always be a low-margin business, so profits cannot significantly be derived from conducting only deliveries.  

More specific to GrubHub, the company found that new customers tend to order fewer deliveries than earlier users. Customers are losing their brand loyalty and are more willing to switch to rival services, which may be due to an increase in competitors in the online food delivery industry. Lastly, those rival services now offer delivery from a wider range of restaurants than GrubHub. This all resulted in a net income of $1 million for GrubHub versus $22.7 million in the same quarter a year before. 

The Daily Rail

In defense of these results, GrubHub has argued that its value to restaurants lies in its potential as an online advertising partner and that delivery services are just a vehicle for generating ad sales. Therefore, GrubHub is profitable, but meal delivery just isn’t where the money is. However, where does that leave DoorDash and Postmates, both of which are unprofitable and have a combined valuation of $15 billion? Both companies must now strive to accept the initial public offerings each received this year since no one would want to bother putting more money into these unprofitable companies when investors can buy shares for much less in GrubHub. 

Uber Eats is a slightly different case than DoorDash and Postmates because of its parent company, Uber Technologies Inc. However, Uber is a huge money loser, and its shares have declined by almost 30% since the company went public in May and investors are looking for signs of profitability. Therefore, despite having a parent company, Uber Eats is in a similar predicament as DoorDash and Postmates.

A Painful 2020 for the Restaurant Industry

If food-delivery services start cutting back because of its lack of profitability, then this will affect the restaurant industry tremendously in 2020. For example, in a conference call to discuss its latest quarterly results, Cheesecake Factory Inc. said that off-premise sales now comprise 16% of revenue with delivery being 35% of that amount. Cheesecake Factory uses DoorDash for its deliveries. This means that restaurants are currently dependent on companies with a significant amount of risk associated with it.

So, if GrubHub continues to hurt its own stock, then there is a high chance that the restaurants it works with will be hit as well in 2020.

Ridester

Sources

TikTok: The Beginning of China’s Digital Influence

Source: Wired

Although China has found major success in global hardware markets, they have yet left any major footprints in the digital space. Many anticipated that Chinese digital giants, such as Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, and JD, would take over the tech world. Yet, their efforts have been disappointing and their results left many believing that China’s ability to crossover into the digital market would not occur. That is, until now.

In 2018, the most downloaded apps in the U.S. included Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, and unknowingly for many, TikTok. TikTok became one of the most downloaded apps in the App Store for Apple users, and the Google Play Store for Android users.

Source: TechCruch

What is TikTok?

TikTok is a video sharing platform that started with short music videos but has now expanded to include content that relates to cooking, travel, fashion, and so on. Videos on TikTok can be no longer than 15 seconds, but in those 15 seconds, content creators can add music and special effects through the use of the app’s simple tools. Because of TikTok’s easy-to-use functions, virtually anyone can become a content creator on TikTok. However, the most popular TikTok videos that have crossed over into Instagram and YouTube are high on entertainment value and set trends that many other creators on TikTok follow.

Although TikTok comes from China, it is not owned by one of the Chinese tech giants. Despite massive investments in video platforms, Chinese tech giants, such as Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu, were never able to dominate this area of the digital realm. TikTok, known in China as Douyin, was launched in 2016 by ByteDance, a Beijing-based tech company traditionally focused on news. Its news app, Toutiao, uses advanced AI algorithms that learn user preferences, then provides customized news feeds. ByteDance uses the same algorithms to provide relevant video feeds to TikTok users.

By the start of 2017, Douyin had become China’s most popular mobile video app. In November of the same year, ByteDance spent $1 billion to acquire a competing video sharing site called Musical.ly. While Musical.ly was also founded in China, most of its users were based in the U.S. The combined global reach of TikTok and Musical.ly created a powerful combination that has generated China’s footprint in the digital market and a hopeful outlook on China’s digital future.

Source: Facebook

Competition Looms

By the end of 2018, TikTok had more than half a billion active users, around 40% of them outside of China. Therefore, it is no surprise that Chinese tech giants have been closely studying TikTok’s successful approach of simple design, active promotion, and its utilization of trends in order to succeed in global markets.

Tencent is already trying to enter the short-video streaming industry by investing in Kuaishou, TikTok’s main local competitor, and reportedly giving out subsidies to promote its own platform Weishi. Those in the U.S. are also taking note, with Facebook quietly launching a TikTok competitor app called Lasso in November 2018. 

Source: Android Police

Lasso has been downloaded by an estimated 70,000 U.S. users since launching in November 2018. This pales in comparison to TikTok’s 39.6 million U.S. users that downloaded the app in the same time frame. Although U.S. users make up a large portion of TikTok’s downloads, there is an undeniable presence TikTok has among the teens of the world with 500 million active users worldwide.

Source: Oberlo

The Trajectory of TikTok

It is clear that TikTok’s growth is unheard of in the Chinese digital market and in the global space. However, ByteDance, the company behind TikTok, cannot become complacent with TikTok’s current place in the market, especially if it wants TikTok to build its position as the first globally successful “made in China” app.

The implications of TikTok’s success spans beyond materialistic accomplishments. It shows the global market that China has the ability to become major players in the digital realm, even without the backing of one of its tech giants. Therefore, combining large investments with TikTok’s successful strategic approach may lead to a “made in China” app market that competes with its global hardware markets.

Sources

Motor Vehicle Sales Predict the Future of the U.S. Economy

(Photo Credit to Brookings.edu)

Motor vehicles have become a major part of the U.S. economy since its creation. They continue to rule the streets of the U.S. in the forms of cars, trucks, and buses. Although it has become such an integral part of our daily lives, the total sales of motor vehicles are the key to predicting the future of the U.S. economy. 

In the last 29 years, the U.S. economy has gone through tremendous ups and downs. The lowest the economy has fallen in the last 29 years was from 2007 to 2009. This period is known as the Great Recession. During the Great Recession, the unemployment rate doubled from 5% to 10%, about 3M households were foreclosed on from 2005 to 2009, and the GDP in the U.S. declined by 4.3%. For those living in the U.S. during this time, it became clear that there was something very wrong with the economy. 

To indicate how the economy is transforming through any time, economists may analyze the Gross Domestic Product, the Consumer Price Index, or the interest rate. However, an economic indicator that may not seem as apparent as the GDP, for example, is the total motor vehicle sales in the U.S. 

According to Julia Kagan at Investopedia, the total motor vehicle sales is “the number of domestically produced units of cars, SUVs, mini-vans and light trucks that are sold.” The total number of motor vehicle sales in the U.S. is measured by the reported sales by individual manufacturers on the first business day of every month. Although one may categorize the sale of motor vehicles as a part of consumer spending in general, motor vehicles play such an integral role in our society that it may act as an economic indicator.   

In Figure 1, it is clear that leading up to the Great Recession, the total vehicle sales in the U.S. was steadily positive from the period of 1991 to the middle of 2007. Then, the Great Recession occurred, and all motor vehicle sales dropped significantly until the beginning of 2009. Although there are various factors associated with this significant drop, it is important to note that, during this time, the Big Three automakers in the U.S. had to ask Congress for help similar to the bank bailout. At that point, General Motors Company and Chrysler LLC faced bankruptcy, and the Ford Motor Company needed help to compete with other automakers. Eventually, sales began to rise and have now started falling. 

In 2019, the first-quarter auto sales have dropped by nearly 2.5% from the previous year, according to J.D. Power and LMC Automotive. This is due to auto manufacturers producing more expensive cars rather than cheaper cars, which helps the used car industry but hurts the new vehicle market. However, it is important to also think about the demand for new cars. The demand for new cars may be decreasing due to various economic factors that relate to consumer confidence. Therefore, the total motor vehicle sales in the U.S. acts as an economic indicator that is telling of the future of the U.S. economy. 

(Photo Credit to Huntington Beach Ford)

Sources

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/motor_vehicle_sales.asp

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/us-auto-sales-are-falling-and-cars-are-more-expensive-than-ever.html(J.D. Power and LMC Automotive)

https://www.yardeni.com/pub/ecoindauto.pdf(Figure 1)

https://www.thestreet.com/politics/what-was-the-great-recession-14664025(Statistics: The Great Recession in Numbers)

https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/great-recession-timeline

https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chrysler-3305670