Originally Posted by mrzinwin
I only care about two things: price and quality.
Really? How about availability?
How about if two equal skis were available and one was made in a factory where workers had good conditions, reasonable pay, and healthcare coverage, but the other was made by workers chained to a machine without clothing in a cold dark building, paid almost nothing, and beaten if they screwed up? Would you not prefer one over the other, all else being equal?
How about marketing? You're immune to the influences of marketing? Because most people aren't, and I'd say that falls outside the quality/price equation.
Is design a quality issue, or a price issue? In my opinion it's not really either, although it can drive both.
I agree that that if you want to affect real change that you aren't going to do it solely with your own pocketbook (well, most of us aren't anyway). That doesn't mean you shouldn't spend in a way that you feel is socially conscious if it makes you feel good. Not all value is tangible.
I also agree that quality and price are two important factors in any buying decision. But they are far from the only ones.
If quality and price are the only factors to consider, how do you explain the success of something like Red Bull?
And, as for companies like Patagonia, here's my opinion on that, because I know you all want to hear it.
Patagonia stuff is nice. Or I hear it is anyway. The price of the stuff is beyond what I consider generally reasonable, even though I can afford it. I'd like to see their financials to understand their profit margins, but I suspect they are well above the industry norm. That's fine, that's their strategy and they are welcome to it. But they shoudn't yap about how socially responsible they are until they can bring it to the masses in an affordable way. Otherwise it's just a marketing strategy, not a sustainability / green strategy. Sustainable practices that only a small portion of the population can afford to support dont' really have much impact. Patagonia should put their money where their mouth is and make attempts to bring those practices to a wider audience (via another brand if necessary so not to dilute the Patagonia label) or partner with someone who has the resources to do so.
What was the topic of this thread?