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.
Hi Hadley! I love your perspective and that you're putting new ideas out there, it's how we all get better. Keep them coming. When I reference "core" it's those users that are looking for the highest quality and most innovative gear or apparel that exists because they will push them to their limits. The idea has always been that the innovation and aspiration from that audience pulls others through. It's interesting to think about crafting that highest quality product that is instead intended for a different audience which is less intense about outdoor sports. Do you think they have the price elasticity to pay for top of the line gear as well? If so it's an interesting and different angle which I really like.
I too am inspired by the fashion collabs because I'm just as apt to wear something from TNF casually as I am for a performance. And of course creating apparel that is designed specifically for women is table stakes in this day an age. I believe TNF does that to some degree but you could say better how they weigh in there. Would love to hear.
We 100% buy clothes as a way to project our ideas/view/aspiration. Personally I fall far more into that category than the technical motivations. In that sense I'm not rational and I wouldn't agree that men are all rational/unemotional. You are correct that for a lot (most) users a nanogram jacket is absolutely frivolous. I just started a brand with a psychological/emotional value prop vs. a technical product value prop - something I think doesn't exist in running. I don't personally think that we need more technical and unsustainable clothing out there but those are my personal views and I don't think it fits TNFs business model. Do you think that without the context of high performance athletes, a highly technical nanogram jacket can still have that aspirational/emotional pul? Im assuming you think so but please correct me. How would you position a campaign that speaks to a more open interpretation of garment function? What would be the tone of that campaign? Where would it sit out in the market and how would it play with the existing campaigns? Thank you so much for your thoughts!
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.
Hi Hadley! I love your perspective and that you're putting new ideas out there, it's how we all get better. Keep them coming. When I reference "core" it's those users that are looking for the highest quality and most innovative gear or apparel that exists because they will push them to their limits. The idea has always been that the innovation and aspiration from that audience pulls others through. It's interesting to think about crafting that highest quality product that is instead intended for a different audience which is less intense about outdoor sports. Do you think they have the price elasticity to pay for top of the line gear as well? If so it's an interesting and different angle which I really like.
I too am inspired by the fashion collabs because I'm just as apt to wear something from TNF casually as I am for a performance. And of course creating apparel that is designed specifically for women is table stakes in this day an age. I believe TNF does that to some degree but you could say better how they weigh in there. Would love to hear.
We 100% buy clothes as a way to project our ideas/view/aspiration. Personally I fall far more into that category than the technical motivations. In that sense I'm not rational and I wouldn't agree that men are all rational/unemotional. You are correct that for a lot (most) users a nanogram jacket is absolutely frivolous. I just started a brand with a psychological/emotional value prop vs. a technical product value prop - something I think doesn't exist in running. I don't personally think that we need more technical and unsustainable clothing out there but those are my personal views and I don't think it fits TNFs business model. Do you think that without the context of high performance athletes, a highly technical nanogram jacket can still have that aspirational/emotional pul? Im assuming you think so but please correct me. How would you position a campaign that speaks to a more open interpretation of garment function? What would be the tone of that campaign? Where would it sit out in the market and how would it play with the existing campaigns? Thank you so much for your thoughts!