We Can Learn From the Comment Section
A look at the context around "We Play Different" from The North Face
The North Face launched a new brand message the other week. The reception seemed mixed. Let’s look at it a bit closer and see how/why a brand message can connect and what we can learn from the reaction.
“We Play Different” is an ode to the outdoors where we don’t have referees, rules or “games”. At its core I think the idea is excellent. It almost outright makes fun of ball sports by making them seem trivial. It certainly empowers outdoor athletes. With real consequences it’s never “play” out there. We all know “Type 2 Fun” is not your normal fun - and this isn’t your normal play. Nature certainly doesn’t play games and neither does TNF. While I like the message in-and-of-itself, there seem to be larger issues that make it problematic.
Let’s look at some public feedback. Is it too soft? Is the connotation too playful? There has been some pretty harsh critique - like this one from Ashwinn (@shwinnabegobrand)
After dropping this classic green screen rundown, Ashwinn goes on to roast the brand even harder throughout the comments section. He lights up the copywriting in particular. He jokes that TNFs agency must have been OpenAI. Savage.
Other comments pile it on in true social media fashion:
“They’ve gone from arctic expedition to “see you on the monkey bars”.
“It’ll be sold at Walmart soon. Patagonia speaks more to the lifestyle.”
“Most of their “gear” now is just trash for yuppie mall-hikers. It used to be that when you saw that logo on a piece of gear, it meant a potentially life-saving piece of kit.”
Some comments felt the message is a ripoff of Apple’s classic “Think Different” campaign which skipped the grammatically correct “different-ly” to emphasize their point. This point was lost on the grammar police in the comments.
A few felt different(ly) about Ashwinn’s take saying, “We play different” is literally the best explanation to people who don’t “get” how we think ______ is fun and not miserable/ too early/ too hard/ too cold, too scary, too high, too much work. It’s the best response to people who say I don’t get why people mountaineer, ice climb, white water kayak, run marathons etc. they don’t get it….. we play different.”
There is hope.
Other critical comments questioned use of the word “we” arguing that simply “Play Different” is more directive - much like “Never Stop Exploring”.
Speaking of that, what does this mean for Never Stop Exploring? Is it dead? It’s so iconic. The assumption being made in Ashwinn’s post is that “We Play Different” has replaced it. Let’s revisit the legendary messaging quickly. I found this brand anthem for NSE from 10 years ago.
So good.
I love NSE because we can apply it not just literally but figuratively as well. We can all see ourselves in it one way or another. The loose definition of “exploring” can simply mean tackling anything outside of your comfort zone with a level of vulnerability and bravery. I have a harder time making that jump with “We Play Different”. Can it apply to the world traveler? The astronomer? The grandma learning to swim for the first time? Not really. For that reason alone I’d hope it sits below the more ubiquitous NSE. NSE is a mindset, WPD is action.
While there is undoubtedly a lot of trash and trolls in a comments section, I’ve gone through all of them and some insights we can learn from.
Ashwinn’s comments call out the connotation emitted by the word “play”. Without even watching the film (which many won’t), people see “play” and they think soft and fun. TNF’s ironic use of the word was mostly lost. Why? Real world context.
Salomon had “Time to Play” for several years. That seemed to work despite coming from a brand that (like TNF) prides itself on innovative products for the hardcore consumer. Salomon’s “play” message was quite literal. It showed athletes actually playing, smiling and laughing and it came at a time in their evolution when they spoke primarily to a niche outdoor audience. They didn’t have the sell-out narrative looming over their shoulder like TNF. The context is different. I’m pulling off topic a bit, but, at this moment is Salomon actually in a similar position to where TNF was years ago? They’re a newly public company (Amer Sports) and a core performance outdoor brand that is in the infant stages of a culture pull into fashion. Their “Welcome Back to Earth” message misses on their GORP core Paris Fashion Week aspiration which then creates a real identity rub with high performance mountain athletes. I’ve heard it from the athletes. How do they keep the wheels on that bus 5 years from now? Its a sidebar convo but it gets me thinking nonetheless.
Point being, the real world context around a brand message matters. It is all storytelling. The context primes the audience interpretation - in this case the interpretation of “play” hits for Salomon but not for TNF despite TNF using it ironically.
Plenty of comments make jokes about product quality and distributing through Walmart. Did TNFs fashion flirtation over the years distract its focus and authenticity with the core outdoor consumers? Distribution decisions can have an effect on brand. If you’re branded as the authentic climbing brand but you cater your product design to Nordstrom then you have a problem - who really are you?
Wall Street has pushed VF/TNF to do something. Anything. We’ve all seen VF stock get hammered lately. The chart below is just gross. In its Q1 2025 (ending June 30th) TNF was down 2% YOY (down 10% in the Americas). VF as a whole was down a substantial 9% in the same period. They lost a net $258m in the quarter. Yikes. Layoffs and restructuring have cut $50m in Q1 alone and they’ve teased that more will be announced at their investor day Oct 30th. A second investor day toward the end of their fiscal year will focus on brand and commercial strategies. So they’re not done yet.
What is next? Is this new brand message an indication? Will they return to their roots with high end performance gear for K2 expeditions? Or did they just go softer to align better with those mainstream distribution and product decisions? Is it a realignment of their objectives away from core outdoor? Would leaving behind their foundation cause the entire thing to crumble into irrelevance? Finding the balance is tough when you reach a critical growth capacity and are pressed for even more growth by Wall Street.
I do think all of this context around fashion/product/distribution/reputation plays a part in any negative reception of the WPD campaign. When so much of the product on your website and at Dicks has become slings, totes and sweatpants, the claim that you “play different” rings pretty hollow. It doesn’t scream authenticity. It seems you play it pretty safe actually. The situation shows how deep brand must run within an organization. Your brand is defined by all of the ways it shows up in the world. Your product, distribution, all of it - not just your marketing. It all must align to be successful. It’s storytelling.
Apple’s “Think Different” worked because the behavior of their brand across the board was bucking convention. It was Steve Jobs’ entire ethos. It all synced.
So if TNF still wants to be the tip of the spear for performance outdoor brands there is work to be done beyond just marketing dropping a new brand video. The rest of the company must portray that message as well. That’s the bigger picture here and that falls on the executive leadership team at TNF and VF.
Leaving the boardroom and heading to the ground level, my guess is that the idea for WPD started far edgier but was toned down through entirely too many rounds of reviews (corporations amiright?). In the end the copywriting wasn’t provocative enough (read it all here) and the choice of font was unfortunate - it emits iPhone vibes not Uzbekistan expeditions (that story is insane). Artistically the mirror effect seems to confuse people. It doesn’t link with the message well enough to be used in so many (most) of the clips. I’m sure the TNF team could tell us the interpretation (competing against ourselves? maybe?) but it was too much of a stretch to be more than a creative accent.
I really don’t see why Never Stop Exploring would need to change in the first place. It’s legendary. It can live as the overarching brand ethos. It’s their mindset. Other campaigns can live under its umbrella. Nike still utilizes “Just Do It” but has others (“Winning isn’t for Everyone”) that direct the conversation from time to time. Like I mentioned at the start, I think the concept of elevating the authenticity of outdoor sports while trivializing the “play” involved in ball sports is solid. Ball sports can be a great enemy in certain consumer situations.
All of that being said, I’m here to tell you that “Never Stop Exploring” is NOT dead. I reached out to a friend at TNF to get clarity and both messages will in fact live together. This makes so much sense. If “We Play Different” sits in targeted spaces it could be very effective. So is this a complete repositioning of the brand? No. Is it a statement for specific markets? Likely. Imagine “We Play Different” sitting in those big box stores with the football section across the aisle. It could land very well in that context. It’s not a realignment of objectives but it is a sign that the mainstream objectives are here to stay. Those sling bags will unfortunately survive all of the cuts and restructuring.
As a next step I’d love to see a refreshed double-down on the Never Stop Exploring message. A refocus on the mindset and innovation that led the 2011 Meru expedition (my Meru ski shell is still going strong btw). It’d be amazing to see an anthemic message to that core outdoor audience that thinks product has slipped and a Parisian runway has stolen the brand’s heart. Give us a mic drop moment that says this is our show. When I came upon the outdoor world as a disgruntled cubicle soldier The North Face was as aspirational as it gets and it’s time to send the world a reminder. Just make sure the context is there first.
Hi Matt-interesting take on the campaign. I had my own reservations about the campaign-mostly in the way it contributes to the cognitive dissonance the outdoor industry wrestles when it comes to promoting exclusivity versus inclusivity. That with the current political and social landscapes, we don't need campaigns that promote more division.
But I wanted to push you a bit on your commentary (in a way that I hope doesn't create more division but fosters conversation)...
Your sentence "It’d be amazing to see an anthemic message to that core outdoor audience that thinks product has slipped and a Parisian runway has stolen the brand’s heart." confirms this idea that we are still gate-keeping who is core and who is not. We are still creating rather ridiculous divisions between outdoor users. We are still using clothes as a visual hectoring, mostly towards novice practitioners. I thoroughly enjoyed TNF's latest parisian runway collab. As a female, and professional outdoor athlete, I'm not exactly interested in dressing like a man in order to play outside, but for most of my career have been offered few alternatives to do so. The TNF-Bahnsen collection was the first time I've been truly inspired and excited by hiking clothes. You'll notice on the instagram posts of the TNF/Gucci collab that it was nearly, if not all, men making comments about how ridiculous the clothes are-how they aren't "appropriate" for the outdoors. Meanwhile, the females on the team (myself included) were all texting our TM's trying to figure out how we could get the clothes. Females like Christina Lusti and Emily Harrington, both of whom are certainly "core" climbers and skiers.
We buy clothes for technical function, of course, but they also are a way in which we project ourselves -our ideas, our views, our aspirations. The community continuously perpetuates the idea that the "right clothes" convey expertise. Rachel Gross, in her latest book "Shopping All the Way to the Woods" puts this point well: "men considered their choices in clothing and equipment rational, steady, and unemotional, for they were buying necessary hardware for survival, in contrast to the flighty impulse purchases of female shoppers". I enjoy, heck I LOVE fashion, and am a core, expert skier and don't believe the two loves fight against each other-both are just personal expressions.
In my mind, having a nanogram jacket is just as frivolous as having a beautifully draped hiking jacket-both aren't really necessary for having a good time in the mountains and at the same time users should be able to choose, without judgement, what functionality, be it speed or beauty or creative expression, is important to have in the garments they wear.
And maybe that's the campaign we need.