
Patagonia joins growing list of companies boycotting Facebook ads - onewhonknocks
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/22/patagonia-joins-growing-list-of-companies-boycotting-facebook-ads.html
======
hprotagonist
I respect the hell out of Patagonia and always have. I could go on and on
about things they do that are capital-C Correct. This is obviously the right
move.

They’re a very rare company in terms of being bullheaded about their
principles: for sure, something they maintain from their founder.

I’d love to own stock in them but i’m happier to have them stay private and
not beholden to anyone else’s interests.

~~~
dominotw
But we don't know how much of their revenue is driven by FB ads. Its possible
that its not that significant.

revenue gain from publicity + brand strengthening > loss of revenue

Their future customers aren't red state ppl.

Its possible that they are using this formula. I don't get all the blind
praise and "respect" from people who have no idea what equations were used to
get to this decision.

They should outline what sacrifices they are making otherwise i take this as a
'publicity stunt' . This stunt is particularly absurd given they have no
problem making stuff in china.

Ppl blindly supporting this are politically motivated, obviously.

[https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Libr...](https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Library-
Sites-PatagoniaShared/default/dw29ab8345/PDF-US/Made_in_China_EN.pdf)

> Far more of our products are made by those Chinese suppliers than they are
> by the U.S factories because of their expertise and price

> We’ve made the choice not to disengage from countries on the basis of their
> policies.

Hilarious.

Yet another hypocritical company jumping on the bandwagon.

~~~
exacube
You could say that about any company doing good. "But we don't know how much
of this is politically motivated". For example, they run ad campaigns for
voting/saving public lands.

Yes, they are spending their profits on it. And people like companies that do
good things, so i'm sure it earns them some trust & brand loyalty. Does that
mean it's ill intended?

~~~
dominotw
> they run ad campaigns for voting/saving public lands.

This is part of their brand building. Ppl buying their overpriced jackets are
not just buying a jacket they are buying "good feelings". They cannot justify
the price just on just the quality of the jacket, they have to bundle
intangible in their price. Outdoorsy ppl want they outdoors saved, its a no
brainer for outdoor company to support this.

Their customers dont' give a shit about muslims in Chinese camps so they don't
"run ad campaigns for saving muslims".

Why are you attributing some noble intentions behind basic 101 business
marketing. Its clearly not the case per what i said above.

> Does that mean it's ill intended?

yes. I call BS.

~~~
Spivak
I feel like its a weird stance to say that Patagonia jackets are overpriced
and only justify their value due to their political opinions. Like they're
some of the best $/quality on the market and they have great resale value.
They turned up on my shortlist before I knew anything about their
environmental/political stances.

I think people en masse are more price sensitive and lifestyle oriented than
they are activist-by-proxy.

~~~
exclusiv
Agreed.

Patagonia also has an Ironclad Guarantee [1] - "If you are not satisfied with
one of our products at the time you receive it, or if one of our products does
not perform to your satisfaction, return it to the store you bought it from or
to Patagonia for a repair, replacement or refund."

They stand by their products. You can even return more than a year later and
get credit. Some buy stuff on resale and get it repaired or exchanged for new
for cheap.

[1] [https://help.patagonia.com/s/article/Ironclad-
Guarantee](https://help.patagonia.com/s/article/Ironclad-Guarantee)

------
astannard
As a consumer, I have lost all confidence in facebook adverts. I see no
shortage of scams with no real way to report them as a scam. One example was a
series of adverts for a bike computer / light / alarm that was launched on
kickstarter that I backed. I saw repeated adverts from various companies
reporting to sell these devices for $15 to $20. I checked with the actual
company who confirmed they were not real. Every time I blocked / reported the
advert a few weeks later the same advice would reappear but a different
seller.

Often adverts show you a great product sold for a third of what should be
charged. If you buy they send you something worth a fraction of what you paid.
If you pay they ask you to send it back for a full refund or they might offer
to return some of the money. You need to pay for the return though. Facebook
have these scams all over the place. I have lost all trust in the platform!

------
citilife
They also wont let banks or oil companies purchase co-branded clothing...

[https://boingboing.net/2019/04/02/fintech-bros-not-
welcome.h...](https://boingboing.net/2019/04/02/fintech-bros-not-welcome.html)

IMO the whole refusing service is weird, not giving out advertisement dollars
to specific companies make sense though.

~~~
jjice
An oil company ordering Patagonia would be delicious irony, but why banks? Are
banks known for serious damage to their environment? Genuine question.

~~~
dylan604
The FratBro culture at a lot of the financial sector was using the Patagonia
vests as part of their "dress code". Patagonia decided they did not want to be
associated with that culture.

~~~
annoyingnoob
Exactly this, Patagonia did not want to be supportive of a certain business
culture.

------
hoorayimhelping
I applaud Patagonia for being principled and for standing for something.

I deeply question justifying the decision based on this list of wrongs
facebook did:

[https://www.stophateforprofit.org/#comp-
kba0i6jc](https://www.stophateforprofit.org/#comp-kba0i6jc)

This is not very convincing. It's very emotional and I couldn't find a single
source, or link, or evidence of these any of these claims on that website.
It's basically one large corporation not really known for its ethics (the ADL)
saying "side with us!" and telling you to hate the other large, faceless
corporation not known for its ethics.

------
kerkeslager
This is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

I haven't used Facebook for years, because their entire platform is based on
collecting data and manipulating users to sell ads. They sell the collected
data even when it's a gross violation of users' privacy, and manipulate even
when it causes depression, addiction, fear, and anger. I absolutely support
boycotting Facebook and in fact all social media[1].

But like it or not, Facebook has become a communications platform for a huge
portion of our population, and as such, they have a responsibility to protect
the free speech of their users. Starting off as a communications platform and
then turning into a censored platform at this point would be a bait and
switch, and a serious step toward totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism enforced by corporations isn't better than totalitarianism
enforced by government. Free speech is an inalienable human right, and doesn't
disappear because you've (foolishly) put a corporation in charge.

And while I do agree that totalitarianism enforced on behalf of good ideas
like anti-racism is better than totalitarianism enforced on behalf of bad
ideas is better, once we decide to give totalitarian power to corporations,
there's no going back. I don't trust corporations with that power--Facebook
has already shown that they cannot be trusted with this power when they
censored Palestinian journalists in Israel, and cooperated with totalitarian
regimes during the Arab spring to censor pro-democracy content. History has
shown us over and over again that totalitarianism in the name of noble ideals
always becomes corrupt.

[1] I'm notably a hypocrite with regards to Reddit. But just because I'm a
hypocrite doesn't mean I'm wrong.

------
chrisco255
Increasingly, I'm bothered by corporate activism. Now, it's not merely a
transactional exchange of value, but one of ideological posturing. I prefer
business to be transactional, because it's honest and straightforward.
Everything else is a facade. This company doesn't care about me. Google, for
example, doesn't care about "not being evil". They just want dominance and
money. They were supposed to be the anti-Microsoft and now, like the pigs in
Animal Farm, I can't tell the difference between them and the humans. Same
goes for all the other tech monopolies.

~~~
diego_moita
> I prefer business to be transactional, because it's honest and
> straightforward

No corporation or politicians will ever be "transactional" because that just
doesn't sell. You just can't make branding or marketing without posturing.

And for a fashion corporation (e.g.: Patagonia) posturing is even more
essential. They don't sell clothes, they sell posturing.

Deal with it: everybody is always acting, even you.

~~~
chrisco255
Plenty of corporations are transactional. You just don't hear about them, they
don't get PR points for being transactional. They just hum along and work
quietly in the background and we often rely on their services and products.

------
lone_haxx0r
I much prefer Facebook's relatively laissez faire approach instead of
Twitter's politically biased approach where hateful things are allowed as long
as they are from the left side of the political spectrum.

Drawing the line on what is hate speech is a hard enough problem already, and
companies like Google, Twitter don't even try to be impartial, their execs
have clearly taken a side. Add to that the weird times we're living in and how
people's fundamental moral ideas have diverted so much in the last 10 years,
and you have a perfect disaster.

Facebook's approach is less harmful than the alternative right now.

~~~
Voloskaya
> where hateful things are allowed as long as they are from the left side of
> the political spectrum

Citation needed.

It's not because you hear more often in the media about the right being
censored that it means that hateful stuff from the left is allowed.

~~~
Darmody
Need a citation? Get on twitter and see how right wingers get banned on heated
discussions with left wingers where BOTH are aggressive to each other.

The left also mass report stuff they don't like as "hate speech" which
automatically results in a ban.

Sorry, but the hate speech stuff is just a new way to censor stuff some people
don't like and in the end it'll affect us all, no matter if left or right
wing.

~~~
Voloskaya
That's doesn't provide any evidence. Twitter doesn't block tweets for being
"agressive", they block tweets for some very specific things like call to
violence etc.

* Can you show that one side gets censored more often than the other? Not just based on your biased personal timeline.

* If yes, can you show that both sides breaks the ToS as often? Both sides are politically very different, and appeal to very different people, it's not hard to imagine that one side may indeed be more violent than the other.

So yes, I would like a citation.

~~~
shripadk
Alright since you asked for citation here is one:
[https://www.opindia.com/2019/04/popular-twitter-account-
true...](https://www.opindia.com/2019/04/popular-twitter-account-trueindology-
suspended-again-after-suspended-bureaucrat-threatened-to-use-his-contacts-to-
block-it/)

This is a really popular right wing Twitter account in India which only dealt
with exposing false narratives spread by leftist historians with facts. Facts
from published books, memoirs of Kings who ruled India, sculptures and ancient
artifacts. "True Indology" did not break any rules. Was not violent nor did he
threaten anyone. Just exposing false narratives through facts. He was banned
with no reason provided. This was not the first time his account was
suspended. It was done multiple times. You can read complete details of what
he experienced on Twitter here: [https://www.mynation.com/views/true-indology-
exposes-the-vic...](https://www.mynation.com/views/true-indology-exposes-the-
vicious-plan--pqtqwo)

The number of right wing accounts shadow banned and suspended in India by
Twitter is staggering. You never hear left wing accounts being suspended. No
matter how much hate speech you come across. Heck those left wing accounts
that get exposed for hate speech automatically turn their accounts private.
That doesn't mean that Twitter doesn't know what is contained within the
account right? It can still close down the account for violation of its
policies. But it doesn't do that. There is a strong undercurrent against left-
leaning biased social media sites like Twitter in India. It will just erupt
one day just like Indians have erupted against TikTok. It is only a matter of
time. Twitter is doing a big mistake by treating right wingers in India
unfairly.

~~~
commoner
OpIndia is a propaganda website.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpIndia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpIndia)

~~~
shripadk
More Golden quotes from the Co-Founder of Wikipedia:

"It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV
(i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that that
they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with
its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one.4 It
might be better to embrace a “credibility” policy and admit that their notion
of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism, traditional
religiosity, and minority perspectives on science and medicine—to say nothing
of many other topics on which Wikipedia has biases.

Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change; they live in a
fantasy world of their own making.5"

So much for neutrality!

Source: [https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-
biased/](https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But honestly, without 'bias' unmoderated public forums (fora?) become flooded
with 'minority perspectives' e.g. nonsense and conspiracy theories.

~~~
shripadk
Then don't say that there is no bias. It insults our intelligence when you on
the one hand stand for freedom of speech, take grandstanding that there is no
bias whatsoever and when it is inconvenient for you say that bias exists and
is needed and go ahead to justify it! This isn't freedom of speech by any
means. Moderation cannot be denial of freedoms. Moderation can only be with
regards to things that are universal. Like not being violent. That applies to
both left and right wing. But even there, left-wing social media sites fail
miserably. They suspend ring-wing accounts that are abusive (which I am all
for) but they don't suspend left-wing accounts that are abusive. Why this
double standards?

------
JMTQp8lwXL
Boycotting Facebook ads for a month and a half. Then they'll be back at it.

[https://twitter.com/patagonia/status/1274832569398292480](https://twitter.com/patagonia/status/1274832569398292480)

~~~
staticassertion
"through at least the end of July"

 _at least_

As in, they're starting here, and they'll continue if they don't see action.

Patagonia is privately held and they seem like an organization that would
follow principals over profits, in general.

This is a clearer message to Facebook than an outright loss. Facebook now has
to say "We lost this month, are we willing to lose next month? And the month
after?" as opposed to "Well, we lost the revenue, no use crying over spilled
milk".

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
Patagonia gets the PR bump today for axing Facebook advertising. If they
resume in a month, without FB changing its ways, they get to walk to walk
without talking the talk. By giving Patagonia a huge amount of free coverage,
it's on them to actually maintain their values until FB changes-- and we have
no means of holding them accountable to this.

~~~
staticassertion
OK, but to link the tweet, say "It's only July", and not mention that they
state they'll continue to do so is disingenuous.

~~~
lowmemcpu
A better statement would be "until Facebook does X" instead of "at least until
deadline". Clever use of language is not lost on their marketing/PR/legal
teams

------
shiado
Are there any people trading on companies trading their profitability for
moral righteousness? Many companies are doing poorly now anyways, but I wonder
if it is actually possible to convert these types of actions into gains.

~~~
catacombs
Not a chance. To Wall Street, social justice, "good morals" and ethics are not
profitable.

------
pascalxus
I find it scary that so many companies are asserting their political will so
aggressively. I don't think this will end well.

~~~
bastawhiz
Can you elaborate on that? What about this story is scary to you?

~~~
fennecfoxen
Facebook has made a point that they'd rather not build a world where Mark
Zuckerberg's schmucks decide who can express their opinions and who can't.
Patagonia is targeting Facebook not because Facebook is full of hate, but for
failing to censor things they deem hateful.

Patagonia's stance against hate some merit to it, but it is in the end an
illiberal stance, one which fails to acknowledge the concept that freedom of
speech may be a broadly good thing. As society becomes more illiberal, the
list of "hate" will grow broader and the list of approved politicians and
causes will grow narrower. I am sure that there are a few on these pages who
would be ever so thrilled to ban the entire Republican party from advertising
entirely.

We have had similar episodes in this nation's history. The Red Scare comes to
mind. The House Unamerican Activities committee set out to find the Communists
and Russian agents who were infiltrating government and society at all levels.
And there were, in truth, a lot of Russian agents who had infiltrated American
government. And yet today we mostly do not talk about that, for instead, we
must talk about how the HUAC, its blacklists which would ban people from
industry, was a deranged exercise in paranoia, guilt-by-loose-association, and
its own forms of hatred.

Today's cancel culture, in which Patagona's boycott is but the smallest plank,
is the new HUAC. It differs in that it is not run by government and it is
generally leaderless. It is the same in that there are a lot of things which
are legitimately problems, and it finds some of them. It is the same in that
it deploys abusive media and social-media attention on small-time nobodies,
destroying their careers and their livelihoods, in an effort to create an
atmosphere of fear and silence its opposition. And I can only hope that future
generations will look back on us aghast and ask, "what the hell was wrong with
these people?"

~~~
cryptoz
> one which fails to acknowledge the concept that freedom of speech may be a
> broadly good thing.

How does Patagonia's stance do anything to freedom of speech? I don't follow
your post after this assertion.

Is Patagonia not exercising its rights directly? Are you suggesting that a
more-free-speech approach would be having the government force you to sell
your products directly to people you don't want to?

I'm confused how you connected Patagonia's actions to free speech. They are
standing up for free speech and free actions, if anything, and it sounds like
you're suggesting that they are against free speech with this move.

But free speech is the very idea that supports and protects this move.

~~~
fennecfoxen
Patagonia's actions are 100% within their rights. Patagonia's actions are 100%
about exercising their rights, as you say. Both Facebook and Patagonia are
entitled by the First Amendment, as reiterated by _Citizens United_ , to
exercise the freedom of speech directly, on behalf of their owners or
shareholders. There is no First Amendment violation of any sort.

Nevertheless, the thing that Patagonia are exercising their rights to do is a
call for censorship. The point of the boycott is to pressure Facebook to
censor users' content, with the aims of preventing certain viewpoints from
being expressed. These viewpoints are likely noxious.

This is a call for censorship in practice. This exercise in free speech seeks
to undermine the exercise of free speech. This movement is a call to reduce
the freedoms which is made available in practice to the people of the world.

I do not believe it will stop here. I believe it will not stop until it is
very harmful. I believe someday the fruits of this movement, if successful,
will gravely harm the freedoms of expression generally.

I therefore condemn and denounce it (though I will not call for it to be
censored.)

------
amachefe
Yawn... So what happened to the #DeleteFacebook campaign.

With the number of times Facebook has been cancelled, one is still shocked
their is anything to boycott.

Haven't been a fan of Zucks but he has earned my respect for being the sane
head in the Chaos.

Funny, they are also using Facebook to organize to boycott... That should say
something to them

------
ojhughes
They really do make the best clothing I have ever owned, fantastic comfort,
practical, good styling and colour palettes.

A great bonus that they also have a strong ethics. My jacket uses down that is
certified as being cruelty free, the factories are checked for fair working
practices.

------
devWithABlast
I don't like Facebook ads, and I wish there was no hateful messages. BUT I
hate censorship even more and I think Facebook's approach is better than
Twitter's. And personally even if I like Patagonia and North Face (own
multiple products of both), I just won't be able to buy their products anymore
with a clear conscience because they push censorship. I think it's fine to be
a left leaning company, I know North Face and others have support immigration
policies, which I'm all for. But trying to force other businesses to shut up
is another level.

The beauty of this country is diversity. But if you are applying selective
diversity until it fits 100% your views that's not good either.

~~~
fatnoah
One of my concerns with censorship is that I want to know if people in power
are saying these terrible things. When it's simply deleted or hidden, it's
like it never happened. I'd much rather it be out there for the world to see.

------
thedogeye
What are they asking Facebook to do?

~~~
jb775
It sounds like they're demanding that Facebook censor content and
advertisements, as long as it aligns with Patagonia's politics.

And they are using the power of the mob to guilt trip other companies into
joining them.

~~~
6AA4FD
If I'm a small business owner and I buy billboard space from a guy (Jimmy) who
also sells billboard space to advertisers who publish racist/sexist content,
is it unreasonable for me to spend my money elsewhere until Jimmy quits his
bs? What if Jimmy freely sends mailers too, to anyone who asks, and I want him
to not send mailers if they are racist? If I was in that position and you told
me you had a problem with what _I_ was doing, I would tell you to get off my
lawn.

~~~
jb775
The underlying topic here is free speech. I'm sure you were on-board with
YouTube censoring the "Plandemic" video last month, right? You probably said
"YouTube is a private company and they have the right to do whatever they
want". Well, Facebook is a private company and they can also "do whatever they
want".

But at least Facebook is letting natural market forces play out rather than
become a subjective information gatekeeper.

~~~
scollet
How does this affect free speech?

------
elchin
Will they still let Facebook buy co-branded clothing?

------
jb775
They're getting an awful lot of free advertising by grandstanding that they
won't pay for advertising.

------
bzb3
...during July.

Goes to show which of the two companies is actually more powerful.

~~~
alloutblitz85
I think you misunderstood their statement.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I do t think advertised boycotts will really sway Facebook. At the end of the
day, they provide access to a billion users. That is valuable, and companies
are going to pay money to advertise to those users.

------
anonymousiam
Sitting here in my Patagonia shorts thinking that I will never buy another
product from them. If they want to play in politics, they will lose half of
their customer base.

~~~
snowwrestler
Having opinions about politics is not exactly new for Patagonia. I mean, they
changed their homepage to say THE PRESIDENT STOLE YOUR LAND when Trump shrank
Bears Ears.

------
Fellshard
Meta: what's with the top-level comments in here? A lot of serious tangents,
praising or digging at Patagonia's practices, instead of focusing on the
subject at hand. Trying to signal moral standing of the party in question, so
people can decide how to respond to this action?

------
tootahe45
Where's that picture of obama giving himself a medal when you need it?

------
benkarst
Given there are a very large amount of nearly identical t-shirts and caps you
can buy, a clothing company's sole strategy is marketing. If you think this
"boycotting" isn't also marketing, you're a sucker. Stop with all the comments
about their "principles". They sell goddamn t-shirts. Manufactured in China
btw.

------
jb775
Facebook should indefinitely suspend any company who partakes in this from
using their platform (advertising, fan pages, groups, etc).

See how much those companies like censorship when it impacts their bottom
line.

~~~
cmdshiftf4
One would have to approach that very carefully without completely spooking
your advertising customers. Suspending a company for suspending its marketing
spend on your platform would be one hell of a precedence to set.

Enshrining something like a zero tolerance policy for anti-FB activism on the
platform would be one avenue to pursue, but that is also threading a fine
line.

Shadow banning activists might be a nice intermediary e.g. you can still post
to your page but it absolutely will not show up on other people's feeds.

------
linuxftw
Seems like a marketing ploy. Everyone is cutting spending right now due to the
economic downturn. What better way to cut spending you were going to cut than
turn it into a publicity stunt that translates into likes on Twitter!

Great time to buy outdoor apparel ads on FB, btw.

~~~
lowmemcpu
Since they're only stopping for the month of July, I now suspect that you're
presumption is correct.

~~~
pentae
Wow what a nothingburger this is, and the press took it hook line and sinker.
Amazing PR

~~~
jeromegv
PR is the whole point, but it's also PR against Facebook. For sure this won't
make Facebook cry for the lost of ads dollar, but it's another day in the
press where Facebook is being looked as the bad guy, and ultimately that might
influence Facebook.

------
salimmadjd
Does Patagonia have influencers or ambassadors on Instagram?

If so, this is a bit of virtual signaling as they're still advertising on FB
but not directly.

Facebook/IG ads is one of the best ad placements left on the market, IMHO.

