{"id":1025,"date":"2013-02-01T20:17:56","date_gmt":"2013-02-01T20:17:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nikwax.wordpress.com\/?p=1025"},"modified":"2024-10-24T10:05:41","modified_gmt":"2024-10-24T09:05:41","slug":"to-buy-or-not-to-buy-that-is-the-question","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nikwax.com\/en-us\/posts\/to-buy-or-not-to-buy-that-is-the-question\/","title":{"rendered":"To Buy or Not to Buy: That is the question"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"112811_NY-Times-main_2_F11\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

$65,000. That\u2019s a lowball estimate for the cost of a full-page ad in the New York Times<\/a>. We don\u2019t know what was actually paid, but $65,000 is a good guess at how much Patagonia<\/a> shelled out for a 2011 Black Friday advertisement imploring consumers not<\/i> to buy its products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You\u2019ve got to hand it to the PR wizards over at the much revered apparel company. The \u201cDon\u2019t Buy This Jacket<\/a>\u201d ad paid for itself many times over in the additional coverage it garnered for the company\u2019s controversial stance. We\u2019re willing to bet the ad increased the allegiance of an already loyal fan base, and ironically, ended up selling even more jackets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reason the ad was successful is that when Patagonia<\/a> tells us not to buy more stuff, we have no basis to doubt the authenticity of their message. The company, now a B-corporation<\/a> in California, has a long and proven history of transparently analyzing its own environmental impact. Nikwax<\/a> is a fan of both the company and of the message that product durability is one of the top tier necessities of environmental responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Durability (or longevity) is a soapbox Nikwax<\/a> has unabashedly stood atop for over 30 years. It\u2019s a compelling topic for our pocketbooks, for the environment, for resource use and for peace of mind. The challenge is how to make it sexy for a society that often places higher value on the latest, newest and shiniest toy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Think about it. When was the last time you heard, \u201cCute new coat\u201d?<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, when was the last time you heard, \u201cWow! If I\u2019m not mistaken, it looks like you may have washed your coat and revived the durable water repellency. That\u2019s hot.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Highlighting Patagonia again, the company\u2019s Common Threads Initiative<\/a> is a five-pronged approach to raising awareness to the philosophical and physical ramifications of over-consumption. Coupled with their increasingly transparent life cycle notes and supply chain realities<\/a> of being a global company, Patagonia is helping consumers understand the actual<\/i> impacts and stressors of each piece of clothing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Educating ourselves on the impacts of our purchasing decisions isn\u2019t as easy as it seems like it should be. In a global marketplace, where shipping Zircon containers half-way around the world is cheaper than sewing right next door, consumers need to have PhDs in resource use, production, supply chain management, transportation and technical textile manufacturing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take, for example, the 60% recycled polyester R2 Jacket<\/a> from the New York Times ad. Patagonia, a company known for minimizing negative environmental impacts, shared some sobering production facts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n