Patagonia Competitive Forces

Environmental Scan
Competitive Factors
To effectively look at the competitive factors within the Outdoor Apparel and Equipment industry, implementing Porter’s Five Forces serves as an effective tool. In this section, the five forces are discussed in relation to Patagonia, North Face, Columbia, and REI. 1. Competitive Rivalry
Within the outdoor apparel industry Patagonia, North Face, Columbia, and REI make up a large amount of the market share. In regards to REI, the competitive rivalry within the industry is a different than that of Patagonia, North Face, and Columbia because REI is a retailer for outdoor companies rather than being a single branded entity. The competitive rivalry that Patagonia, North Face, and Columbia might experience
Patagonia and North Face have the greatest competitive rivalry because they both have a major focus on being lifestyle brands, greatly committed to corporate responsibility, environmental and social change, and they target the serious outdoorsman. Although they are very similar they are also very different. Patagonia has taken a less mass-market appeal approach to their business and has focused more on creating sustainable and dependable products for customers rather than being a “trendy” clothing company. North Face has taken the latter and followed a “trendy” mass-market approach to gain market share. Columbia differs from Patagonia and North Face because it doesn’t compete to earn the same customer base of extreme outdoorsman and adventurers but instead markets its products to the everyday individual. Since Columbia positions itself as an outdoor company for everyone, the company is less likely to gain the same customer loyalty that Patagonia and North Face have. Another major difference that Columbia holds from its competitors is its pricing. Patagonia and North Face tend to be on
The reason for the power being in the hands of the suppliers is based on the company’s focus’ are providing customers products that are made of specialized materials. By seeking out specialized materials, the numbers of suppliers are dramatically decreased. Patagonia and North Face found themselves in a situation where the supplier having more control over caused trouble for the company’s product offering. Both companies used Allied Feather & Down to supply the feathers for their down products. The supplier was found to be sourcing its feather form a farm where the geese were being force-fed to speed up the growth of the birds. Since, Patagonia and North Face found these practices to be unethical in regards to their business values and were faced with having to find a new supplier that followed similar beliefs and values. Patagonia now offers Traceable Down, in which they monitor the source of their down from the farm to the factory. This insures that the birds are not being force-fed or live-plucked. North Face took a similar approach and implemented the Responsible Down Standard on all their down products, to ensure the down was sourced ethically. Although both companies were able to eventually combat the supplier issue, both companies were initially faced with finding a new supplier or working to make changes with their current supplier because of the limited