Patagonia Warranty

Just thought I would draw attention to something that many people on the WTB/WTT forum seem to be missing-
All Patagonia clothing is backed by the most bomber warranty policy EVER:
Send in any piece of clothing for any reason and you will get a new one.
Wrong size? No prob. Worn out? No prob. Coffee stain? No Prob.
I like the fit and materials of Arcteryx and Marmot better than Patagonia, but I only buy Patagonia because it is truly the last one of (insert piece of clothing here) I will ever buy.
Not to mention that Patagonia is the only company that is actually putting any money and time towards true environmental responsibility.

yup

At least they have a good warranty to go along with all their delicate clothing...
I ordered a whole box full of Patagucci wear during their 2010 end of year sale. I am thankful they let me return most of the items when they fell apart in the first few months!

i'd actually like to hear some stories of folks who have had this kind of amazing service. I'm not saying it doesn't happen I'd just like to hear some actual accounts.
I called about getting a new zipper put in an old softshell i've used for ice for about 9 years and was told they "can't put in a two way zipper" and "would probably be able to put in a new one way zipper for a fee." My shell is beat to hell, not even close to being water resistant anymore, stained with blood and spilled cocoa, and only one of the pockets does not have holes torn through. I'd be super surprised if I sent it back to them and they gave me a new one.

People who abuse a policy like that are the ones who ruin it for the rest of us. Not too long ago almost every outdoor company had the same policy and now it is very rare. Vasque is a good example. EVERYBODY and their mother returned their Sundowners after they were fully trashed and now they have a year warranty instead of lifetime.

logan johnson wrote: Just thought I would draw attention to something that many people on the WTB/WTT forum seem to be missing.... Not to mention that Patagonia is the only company that is actually putting any money and time towards true environmental responsibility.

Yeah that's a great reason for returning anything for any reason (coffee stain?) ala REI.

Maybe most folks selling Patagonia stuff here at MP and elsewhere have at least SOME ethics.

Wow Coldy- Never thought that as someone who supports a company and tries to promote their policies I would be accused of having no ethics.

Josh- Send it in for sure, the instructions are on their website.

Adam- I see your point. I had a friend who wore out a pair of rock shoes and did the REI return thing, said he still feels pretty dirty about it. At the same time, if you have something that does not fit or is worn out why not get a new one if the company offers to replace it?

logan johnson wrote:. At the same time, if you have something that does not fit or is worn out why not get a new one if the company offers to replace it?

This is from their website :

"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, you may return it to us for repair, replacement, or refund. Damage due to wear and tear will be repaired at a reasonable charge."

Am I missing something? It seems like they'll replace something if you're not satisfied with its performance, but not if it's dirty, doesn't fit, or is just worn out. They'll repair stuff "at a reasonable charge." I'd be interested to know if it's really as good as, say, REI. It seems like there's quite a bit of wiggle room in the performance criterion. Can I say some that wore out too fast didn't perform to my satisfaction? Maybe. But I don't think I can say that about something that's dirty or the wrong size. Or about a several year old piece of clothing that's seen many trips and has a few holes. What am I missing?

This topic bugs me. Yes, their policy will allow you to return anything. They know people buy from them because they can count on them to replace a product should ANYthing go wrong.

That's great. I like the policy. I've used it when I felt it was justified.

But if you think your jacket SHOULD last you for the next 60 years (e.g. "last one of these I will ever buy ala the OP) then...well...you are ridiculous. If you can't see the difference between a 100% satisfaction guarantee and "you never need to buy another one" then you are one dense, self-centered "user".

We, as a group, USE gear and we typically use it a lot harder than the average city-folk. We buy our gear with the expectation that it will perform to a certain standard. But it's stupid to think that it can ever be built to last forever and still be uber-light, uber-efficient, uber-whatever-is-the-latest-greatest. The days of canvas and full-grain leather are gone. And it's stupid to claim coverage under a satisfaction policy that assumes we have at least enough intelligence to understand that satisfactory performance does not mean it's the last one you'll ever buy.

jeez. people.

logan johnson wrote:Just thought I would draw attention to something that many people on the WTB/WTT forum seem to be missing- All Patagonia clothing is backed by the most bomber warranty policy EVER: Send in any piece of clothing for any reason and you will get a new one. Wrong size? No prob. Worn out? No prob. Coffee stain? No Prob. I like the fit and materials of Arcteryx and Marmot better than Patagonia, but I only buy Patagonia because it is truly the last one of (insert piece of clothing here) I will ever buy. Not to mention that Patagonia is the only company that is actually putting any money and time towards true environmental responsibility.

They wont replace their pants if you punch a hole in them with a crampon.

So your coffee stain comment and several others probably aren't too close to accurate.

:D

We'd all get a lower initial price if they didn't have to factor in enough margin to cover for the morons who abuse the system. When you return the item that you screwed up to exchange it for a new one - because you are entitled - you are stealing from every other paying customer.

Eric Engberg wrote:We'd all get a lower initial price if they didn't have to factor in enough margin to cover for the morons who abuse the system. When you return the item that you screwed up to exchange it for a new one - because you are entitled - you are stealing from every other paying customer.

Nope.

Classic economics states market prices trend towards the intersection of the maximum of what the consumer is willing to pay and the minimum of what the producer is willing to accept.

Do really think Patagonia is outrageously expensive because of their warranty?!?

REIs crap is pretty damn cheap and they have a better warranty.

Outdoor Research's crap is cheaper and they have a better warranty.

Patagonia is expensive because there are people willing to pay the prices for Patagonia gear.

DaveBarn wrote: Nope. Classic economics states market prices trend towards the intersection of the maximum of what the consumer is willing to pay and the minimum of what the producer is willing to accept...

And, classic product management states that you should include all cost factors in your P&L. What you're saying about the market dictating prices is correct.

But, it's also true that we pay for the warranties in the retail price. And, it's true to say that people who abuse the warranties drive up the retail price for the rest of us.

DaveBarn wrote: Nope. Classic economics states market prices trend towards the intersection of the maximum of what the consumer is willing to pay and the minimum of what the producer is willing to accept. Do really think Patagonia is outrageously expensive because of their warranty?!? REIs crap is pretty damn cheap and they have a better warranty. Outdoor Research's crap is cheaper and they have a better warranty. Patagonia is expensive because there are people willing to pay the prices for Patagonia gear.

"Classic" Econ 101 maybe. The real world is a little more complex today. But assume that is true. The seller is going to feel a need to make a profit (can only sell at a loss so long - to stay competitive - at least in classic economics). That profit is going to be distilled into a margin and the overhead of returns is going to shrink that margin. But you are right that most people (OP aside)aren't going to base their decision to but Patagonia simply on a return policy - more likely on perceived quality of the perception of the type of company that it is. As you pointed out many companies have good return policies.

My point was more directed at the mentality of the OP. And I lump it together with those that make little "white lies" on their tax returns or insurance claims - everyone else does - I'd be foolish not to - and then whines about the tax or insurance rates.

DaveBarn wrote: Nope. Classic economics states market prices trend towards the intersection of the maximum of what the consumer is willing to pay and the minimum of what the producer is willing to accept. Do really think Patagonia is outrageously expensive because of their warranty?!? REIs crap is pretty damn cheap and they have a better warranty. Outdoor Research's crap is cheaper and they have a better warranty. Patagonia is expensive because there are people willing to pay the prices for Patagonia gear.

Wrong.

-Master's student at the London School of Economics

Edit: Ok, only mostly wrong.

I've always thought it was pretty dick for people to take advantage of generous warranty policies like Patagonia and REI have. Returning something after regular wear&tear, or with a coffee stain on it? You suck, and you probably have the same entitled, parasitical attitude toward climbing areas as well.

I buy a lot from Patagonia, not only because I believe that durability wise it's one of the best brands available, but I respect the company on a whole for taking a stand and being at the forefront of environmental stewardship as it relates to commerce and business ethics. As far as people having issues with the warrenty, I use thier wading boots (the only example of an item I've ever bought from them that I felt didn't stand up to the beating it should have) extensively for work, and have burned through two pairs in the last three years, and both times I've taken them back to the store, once to Reno and once to Santa Cruz, and gotten timely replacements shipped to me free of charge without any hassle whatsoever.

"Classic" Econ 101 maybe. The real world is a little more complex today. But assume that is true. The seller is going to feel a need to make a profit (can only sell at a loss so long - to stay competitive - at least in classic economics). That profit is going to be distilled into a margin and the overhead of returns is going to shrink that margin...

...more likely on perceived quality of the perception of the type of company that it is....

Well we're actually in agreement, perhaps my previous statement was a bit too terse.

Anyways, I would never assume the manufacturer to operate at a loss, but it's undoubtedly true that the consumer will pay a premium for (1) an appearance (i.e. luxury items) and (2) for a perceived value the company itself adds to the world (i.e. Patagonia taking on environmental issues).

In this case I would believe that the price paid for a Patagonia item falls more into one of the two above categories than for a satisfaction guarantee. Same goes for other companies such as Arc'teryx who demand an absolute premium for their goods yet offer crap customer service once purchased.

jesus, there's a lot of drama running in this thread!

I have several friends who work/worked at Patagonia in Boston. if anyone walked in with a Patagonia product, no matter how old and beat up it was, they would give them a new version, no questions asked.

this is the policy I have in mind when I buy Patagonia. they are very forward about it. if the policy changes, I'll probably still buy their stuff because I like it.

tl;dr: I am an entitled parasite.

tons of companies have straight up swap warranty ...

REI, OR, Eddie Bauer, MEC, etc ...

often at more reasonable prices ....