How Patagonia’s Ad Changed the View of Clothing

Patagonia is a nationally known American company created in 1993 by Yvon Chouinard, specializing in the production, sale, and maintenance of outdoor clothing. Not only is Patagonia the lead merchant of outdoor clothing, but the company also ranked 1 out of 100 in regards to reputation according to the Axios Harris Poll (“The 2021″ 1). Much of this current reputation

may be attributed to an ad the company released on Black Friday of 2011. By doing so, Patagonia responded through this ad to consumers everywhere. The ad, contradictory to what a business wants you to do, spend your money with them, prompts the consumer to do the opposite, and think about whether purchasing that item is ‘necessary’. One might say this is counterintuitive or rhetorical if you will.

Rhetorical situations are those comprised of “a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence” (Bitzer 6). In short, these situations, intentional or not, induce the

Heck 1

audience to critically analyze the meaning behind them on a deeper level. While many occurrences can be constituted as rhetorical situations, rhetorical situations contain exigence and an audience, which prevent every situation from being rhetorical. Exigence, “an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be” (Bitzer 6). In the Patagonia ad, the exigence is the issue of fast fashion and its effects on the environment. Finally, the audience of a rhetorical situation is limited to those “persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change” (Bitzer 8). When Bitzer states mediators of change, he is further explaining that this is an element rhetorical situations must involve.

The ad as shown above seems contradictory to what an ad’s purpose is. Ads target viewers of all sorts to persuade them to do something; whether that be to embark on a trip, try a new product, experience something new, and even apply for a job. The purpose of ads, much like an author’s, is to either persuade, inform, or entertain the reader. In terms of Patagonia’s ad, it can be concluded that the purpose is to respond to an ethical issue at a moral level, completely opposite to the stereotypical ads we see daily. Ultimately, Patagonia wants consumers to take a step back and reflect on their consumer behavior; this reflection is prompted by listing how their product impacts the environment negatively. The timing of this ad can be noteworthy as well. With the drastic increase of clothing produced in the last decade, Patagonia is providing the beginning steps of a solution to the problem through this ad.

When determining to whom this ad is for, it is imperative to think about both, who the customers of Patagonia are as well as the readers of the New York Times, where the ad was published. Initially, one might say that the intended audience was and remains to be consumers in general. That is not the case. Like all advertisements, the point of them is to persuade the

Heck 2

reader to do something, in this case, think twice about buying a jacket. On account of this, however, consumers in this instance constitute a portion of individuals that are more elite, ones that recognize this ad as a rhetorical situation, not as a selling point. The demographic of Patagonia’s customers consists of “ men and women aged 18-35, […] with disposable income[s], […]active lifestyle[s], enjoy[ment] [of] nature and outdoors, [and] value for quality products” (Patagonia: Where). Similarly, the New York Times’ “readership is 51% male and 49% female, meaning that men and women read it equally. Most of its readers are young — 34% are aged 30–49, and 29% are aged 18–29. It attracts people from all income classes, but most (38%) earn more than $75,000 a year” (Djordjevic). From these statistics, it can be presumed that the ad is presented to a relatively younger audience who make ‘liveable’ wages either individually or in pairs. What else does this generalization of individuals have in common? The majority of them lean left on the political spectrum. It can be inferred that since the consumers of Patagonia support a company that urges the “need to elect climate leaders”, that they are in agreement with that statement as well (Campbell). Additionally, Djordjevic states that of all readers of the New York Times, “91% of its readers identify as Democrats.” Overall, it can be concluded that the intended audience of this ad is left-leaning, millennial individuals who want change.

The exigence that Patagonia is referencing through their ad is consumption. More specifically, the consumption habits of consumers in this day and age in relation to clothing, otherwise known as fast fashion. Fast Fashion as a term can be briefly summarized as “cheap clothes bought and cast aside in rapid succession as trends change” (Davis). While this definition seems harmless and innocuous, every aspect of this practice produces negative effects on the environment. Due to the speed at which clothing is now being produced, the material is mostly synthetic, as plants like cotton cannot be harvested quickly enough for the demand. As a result,

Heck 3

this synthetic material will not
decay as cotton would,
accumulating more waste for a
longer period of time. In addition to
this, articles of clothing now use
significant amounts of water and
chemicals to meet demand, both of
which deplete and pollute one of the
most important natural resources we
have on Earth. The clothing
factories and modes of transportation of said articles account for 10% of global emissions (Charpail). Finally, clothing that is not sold in addition to the percent of clothing and not worn accounts for about 80% of the total clothing waste (Morgan McFall-Johnsen). Furthermore, the discarded clothing is typically sent back to the impoverished that created the clothing due to how cheap it is to discard them there as opposed to more developed nations. The entire process in which fast fashion operates is extremely immoral and careless. It is through initiatives like Patagonia’s that things may be changing for the better.

One obvious constraint of this ad would inevitably be those that do not fit the category of the intended audience. Those individuals who are not conceptualizing the purpose of the ad are those that either lack knowledge on the issue or maintain lower regard for said issue. This ad that Patagonia published is in response to the growing fast fashion industry. More characteristically, educating and combating the issue through their actions. The perfect way to describe this is in the words of Patagonia’s Chief Product Officer Lisa Williams, “A root of the problem lies in our

Heck 4

excessive consumerism: we buy 10 while our grandmothers bought 2.” This idea of bigger and better has been a trend gaining traction for years. This consumption behavior has manifested itself into various aspects of our lives, especially those related to clothing. Take a second to think about how frivolous we as consumers have become compared to just generations before us. Especially within the younger generation, Generation Z, the rise of consumerism in the fast fashion industry remains highly threatening to our environment. Through the education of consumers, constraints will not be as prominent in this issue to then catalyze change. Another constraint of this ad would be that some individuals would immediately look away once they saw the brand Patagonia. This would be because the average price of a jacket is almost $300, a price which many cannot justify. One affordance of this ad is the way it has spread to competitor companies. Consumers see this response and begin to expect the same from other companies. When said companies change their sustainability habits, this problem of fast fashion should, in theory, decrease as major retailers change their ways.

Patagonia, however, has made its audience aware of the effect clothing has on the environment. For this reason, they have released details about how they as a company will combat this issue. The company has launched a program called, “The Worn Wear Program” which operates as an online store to send and purchase used Patagonia products rather than purchasing new ones. Customers are
encouraged to send the articles they no
longer wear for credit towards used and
new products. In addition to this program,
Patagonia has joined “1% For The Planet”
which is a nonprofit organization that

Heck 5

allocates 1% of gross incomes from companies into acts that will prolong the life of the Earth. The greatest way Patagonia is changing the way their clothing is made is through their substance. The company claims to use only cotton that is grown organically. The company also uses almost 75% of recycled materials in their current manufactured products. Similar to how persistent fast fashion is to negatively impact the environment, Patagonia shares that persistence is positively impacting the environment.

In contemplating the effectiveness of this ad, it is in the hands of those within the intended audience. Being a part of that group accedes to the fact that this advertisement is effective, in more than one way. The ad was effective in terms of sales, “sales rose 30% following the campaign” (Explains). Because of record-breaking sales and the consistent clientele following the ad, Patagonia was able to donate millions of dollars to various organizations to protect the environment. On a greater scale, this advertisement paved the way for other companies to do the same, meaning identifying malpractices and investing in the future of the Earth. Subsequently, the purpose of this ad since its publishing remains to educate those about the non-monetary cost of clothing, but the effects it has on our environment. Through the remarks on their advertisement which read, “WE make useful gear that lasts a long time YOU don’t buy what you don’t need WE help you repair your Patagonia gear YOU pledge to fix what’s broken WE help find a home for Patagonia gear you no longer need YOU sell or pass it on WE will take back your Patagonia gear that is worn out YOU pledge to keep your stuff out of the landfill and incineration” and their mission statement, Patagonia believes it, “is true of all the things we can make and you can buy, this jacket comes with an environmental cost higher than its price. There is much to be done and plenty for us all to do. Don’t buy what you don’t need. Think twice before you buy anything (Patagonia).

Heck 6

Works Cited
Bick, Rachel, and Erika Halsey. “The Global Environmental Injustice of Fast Fashion.”

Environmental Health, vol. 17, no. 92, 27 Dec. 2018. BioMed Central,

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-018-0433-7. Accessed 3 Oct. 2021.
Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 1, no. 1, 1968, pp. 1-14.

JSTOR, www.jstor.org.nuncio.cofc.edu/stable/40236733. Accessed 5 Oct. 2021. Campbell, Maeve. “Patagonia Gets Political with Labels Saying ‘Vote the A**holes Out.'”

EuroNews.green, 16 Sept. 2018, www.euronews.com/green/2020/09/16/patagonia-gets-political-with-labels-saying-vote-t he-a-holes-out. Accessed 6 Oct. 2021.

Charpail, Mathidle. “Fashion’s Environmental Impact.” Sustain Your Style, 2017, www.sustainyourstyle.org/old-environmental-impacts. Accessed 6 Oct. 2021.

Davies, Nalah. Patagonia Mission Statement. 28 July 2021.
Davis, Nikola. “Fast fashion Speeding Toward Environmental Disaster.” The Guardian, 7 april

2020, www.theguardian.com/fashion/2020/apr/07/fast-fashion-speeding-toward-environmental- disaster-report-warns. Accessed 6 Oct. 2021.

Djordjevic, Milos. “25 Insightful New York Times Readership Statistics [The 2021 Edition].” Letter.ly, 14 Mar. 2021, letter.ly/new-york-times-readership-statistics/. Accessed 6 Oct. 2021.

“Don’t Buy This Jacket.” The New York Times [New York City], 25 Nov. 2015.
Explains, Kenji. “‘Don’t Buy This Jacket’ — Patagonia’s Daring Campaign.” Better Marketing,

june 2020,

Heck 7

bettermarketing.pub/dont-buy-this-jacket-patagonia-s-daring-campaign-2b37e145046b#: ~:text=Though%20the%20ad%20wasn’t,of%20an%20increasingly%20pressing%20probl em.&text=The%20proliferation%20of%20fast%20fashion,of%20consumerism%20on%2 0the%20environment. Accessed 7 Oct. 2021.

“How Can We Reduce Our Fashion Environmental Impact?” Sustain Your Style, www.sustainyourstyle.org/en/reducing-our-impact. Accessed 6 Oct. 2021.

Morgan McFall-Johnsen, Morgan. “The Fashion Industry Emits More Carbon than International Flights and Maritime Shipping Combined. Here Are the Biggest Ways It Impacts the Planet.” The Insider, octob 2019, www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-impact-pollution-emissions-waste- water-2019-10. Accessed 6 Oct. 2021.

Patagonia. patagonia.com.
“Patagonia: Where Do They Stand?” Katesblog, University of Brighton Blog Network site, 14

Dec. 2018, blogs.brighton.ac.uk/katesblog/2018/12/14/patagonia-where-do-they-stand/.

Accessed 6 Oct. 2021.
The True Cost of Fast Fashion. Produced by The Economist, 2019. “The 2021 Axios Harris Poll 100 Reputation Rankings.” Axios. Axios,

www.axios.com/the-2021-axios-harris-poll-100-reputation-rankings-af44bec1-4e00-4af4- 9952-7bf4caa06cd6.html. Accessed 5 Oct. 2021.