To say that the lightweight backpacking movement has fostered a broader trend within the outdoor industry would be a grand understatement. Indeed, one could now make the uncontroversial argument that claims about "lightness" have reached a point where the term-like other outdoor marketing buzzwords-means very little when it comes to evaluating a particular product, manufacturer, or retailer. From backpacks to apparel, the term 'lightweight' has been repackaged within the mainstream outdoor market without a meaningful context or clear definition. Fewer features, standard fabrics, and a tiny reduction in overall weight are sold as 'lightweight' shellwear. Thinner tents in the same traditional designs are produced by major manufacturers, and every small accessory you've ever owned now has 'lightweight' printed on the packaging. Avoiding a real need for education, the fundamental skills and techniques of lightweight hiking are still largely dismissed as fringe interests while the language of our approach has been warmly adopted and worked, without much concern, into technical doublespeak.
After six years work in the outdoor industry with the intent to promote and develop lightweight within the broader market in whatever way I could, I'm very partial to an approach that builds an alternative gear market. As a salesperson, my hope that major outdoor brands would get serious about lightweight hiking disappeared with the release of each new 'lightweight' product range that was less than substantial. Although the situation varies from country to country, I believe those lightweight hikers who remain optimistic regarding the mainstream industry do not have many reasons to be very encouraged about a more meaningful acceptance of the lightweight approach, despite recent developments toward real innovation within the wider market. Overall, economic woes have continued to drive larger American and British producers toward the nontechnical consumer and greater consolidation, while those manufacturers focused on Australia and New Zealand (with a few exceptions) have continued to stagnate to the point of being thoroughly out of touch with wider trends.
Standing in brilliant opposition to these market realities is the emergence and rise of cottage lightweight manufacturers, MYOG promoters, and small independent retailers. Not only has the development of the cottage industry meant the availability of gear that meets the immediate needs of lightweight hikers, but it has also resulted in other positive outcomes: greater communication between producer and consumer (in contrast to the often confused looks and hostile replies encountered when the specific requirements of lightweight hikers are brought up with major trade representatives); an ethical commitment to 'buying local' and 'within the community'; and the sense that one is buying a product of handmade quality.
So what does one do when a noble commitment to supporting smaller enterprises starts to look like blind faith rather than a reasonable response to an unresponsive market? As Ryan Jordan has noted in his Cottage Stagnation and Recent Gems article, the margin of advantage held by cottage brands over the mainstream is quickly narrowing as cottage producers struggle to maintain a combination of high product quality, innovation, aesthetic appeal, higher-volume production, and acceptable customer service. A year and a half since that critique and little has changed. The success of a few operations that now seem poised to straddle the divide between cottage popularity and serious production has been encouraging, but significant developments have not yet eventuated.
With these realities in mind, what kind of consumer commitment should we make to drive change in the market? That is, as a community, should we take a position on the kinds of businesses that garner our support? Depending on our choices, we could be responsible for the death of cottage production as a viable alternative or, on the other hand, patronizing big manufacturers could likely result in the further dilution of the lightweight philosophy due to the overwhelming ability these organizations have to pursue technical innovation and drive consumer behavior.
There is, I think, a middle way between these two possibilities. However, it is not simply taking a more critical tone toward cottage production or running enthusiastically into the arms of corporate outdoor manufacturers and retailers when minor concessions are made toward lightweight backpacking philosophy. In order to generate a discussion regarding the broader issues at stake, I suggest the following two strategies should be adopted: Support the decentralization of the outdoor industry
Buying from cottage manufacturers is preferable, but it isn't enough. The lightweight community should bring about the greater decentralization of the outdoor industry as a whole by supporting smaller retailers (not just those making gear); larger companies developing innovative products and doing business in ways that are in line with lightweight backpacking philosophy; and opposing the chokehold a few major corporations have on the market. One identifiable problem is the dominance of US-based enterprises, cottage or corporate. A diverse outdoor market requires products that are appropriate to the local climate and terrain as a global matter. Australians buying from American cottage manufacturers won't fix that problem, but a more decentralized industry would address such issues. Moreover, but supporting innovation and quality first and foremost, we will drive innovation in a way that even the largest corporations cannot manage alone.
Build a more comprehensive lightweight hiking philosophy; this is not a new idea, but one that is critical in order to develop a meaningful market for lightweight gear. Lightweight means more than counting ounces and grams, and our approach to gear should recognize that and take a critical approach to how the term is employed. Quality should be critically important, durability shouldn't get lost in the mix, and technical marketing should be as accurate as possible. Additionally, we shouldn't let technical concerns override other considerations. I'd like to see ethical issues (environmental sustainability and labor standards, for example) become as important to lightweight backpacking philosophy as pack weight. The concept of lightweight has already been expanded and explored beyond backpacking, and the continuation of this approach will only enhance our perspective.
Should we continue to buy from cottage manufacturers? Absolutely. But the emphasis on cottage production ensures that we continue to ask the wrong questions. We should buy quality gear that doesn't weigh much, but we should do so cognizant of the future we want for the lightweight hiking philosophy and the outdoor industry at large.
ARTICLE OUTLINE
# WORDS: 1070
# PHOTOS: 1
Member Exclusive
A Premium or Unlimited Membership* is required to view the rest of this article.
* A Basic Membership is required to view Member Q&A events
Discussion
Become a member to post in the forums.
Companion forum thread to:
The Politics of Cottage Consumption
Noble thoughts.
In the end the marketplace will decide — that is: supply and demand. Light weight isn't new. I have seen very few innovative designs in the past few decades. What I have seen are new and improved raw materials that the outdoor industry uses; Cuben and titanium come to mind. The smart consumer will by the best product at the best price, without prejudice as to what segment of the industry produced it, or where it was produced.
The smart consumer will by the best product at the best price, without prejudice as to what segment of the industry produced it, or where it was produced.
Ahhhhhh, the smart consumer … does that sub-species make up enough of the market to lead the "broad market" producers anywhere other than into the realm of perception (rather than reality)?
"An educated consumer is the best customer"- Sy Sims
For some, the latter things are part of the criteria used to determine best.
If the answer is true innovation, how about we as UL consumers partner with a willing gear manufacturer and crowdsource new and truly innovative products that exactly meet our needs, rather than waiting for someone to get "close enough"?
I'm actually thinking of doing something very similar to that, Curtis.
There is a ton of momentum in many different industries around crowdsourcing, which minimizes R&D costs, provides a stronger guarantee of adoption and sales. A large photography community worked closely with Nikon to build a camera that married the best features of recent Nikon and Canon cameras and perfectly met the large community needs. The challenge is the size, reachability, and financials of the desired audience which determines the ROI.
There is a HUGE level of expertise here in this community, and some (but not necessarily all) cottage manufacturers have been very willing to listen to gear wishes and design recommendations.
I wonder if the first step might be to create a crowdsourced wish-list of gear or improvements that this community would vote on. The outcome should be a prioritized list of high value, low investment gear elements to either build or use to approach willing manufacturers.
Backpacking is just walking in the wilderness. Many do it these days with some pretty light gear, to include thru hikes of major long distance trails. Given that, what innovative gear or equipment do people seek that would enhance or simplify their hiking? Do people seek solutions that are substitutes for skill and experience?
It certainly is, and I think it will only become a more common way to research, develop, and fund new products. I was thinking of developing one product (a backpack, most likely) to begin with, and seeking community input on design, features, materials, etc.
I know the collective memory here is rather short but didn't BPL take this crowdsourcing approach with the packs they briefly sold in ~2010 before fetting out of the gear business? I recall taking a survey and then being offered the opportunity to purchase a pack.
In general not sure how I feel about groupthink and design by committee. Having said that I have long felt that a crowdsourced approach to building an ultralight data logger sized GPS device with the ability to display locations in multiple coordinate systems would be a great project. One that many have asked for and spec'ed out in these forums over the years.
"In general not sure how I feel about groupthink and design by committee."
It is a recipe to inhibit innovation. It drives compromise and development of the average.
Nick,
That has been my experience as well, the greater the number of people, the greater the compromises and the less elegant and successful the final design. That is only my limited experience, perhaps there are successful examples found elsewhere. I'm genuinely curious about this, and in particular how the BPL packs were received and perceived. They definitely do not seem like a popular pack these days? But that may be a function of their availability.
Seems like everyone is making a pack these days. The innovation comes from the exceptional individual who understands what works and what the public wants. Marry those two items and you can be successful. But look at everything on the market and they are just clones of something that has already been produced. They only thing that has truly changed are the materials used, and those were not developed by the backpacking industry.
Dick Kelty was an innovator. Whoever built the first internal frame pack was an innovator (no consensus on who this was).
Because I own a couple, I can say Dan McHale is an innovator. His integration of past designs by others, his awesome hip belts, construction techniques, and his patented P&G extensions and by-pass harness are all innovative and make for excellent packs. I have owned many packs over the years, and having used my McHales a lot, I now find the whole subject of backpacks boring.
Crowd sourcing is just a scam by wannabes who don't have a viable product that can secure financing through traditional means.
Bottom line… There is a plethora of good quality lightweight gear available today. This endless search for the perfect item for each piece of grear to create the nirvana of kit is just plain rediculous.
I think people should forget about what is best and just get out and hike a lot. That is the bottom line, isn't it?
I´m sure there are people here with more insight in these things than me, but I have just done a bit of reading on brainstorming, groupthink and collective creativity.
As far as I can read the research, groupthink becomes problematic when members of the group are trying to "manage their presentation of self" (ie, impress). Brainstorming and other such ideas do not work well as long as the members are trying to achieve status of some kind. And most people are, most of the time. If not actively looking for status, most people are (thank God) somewhat socially self-conscious.
I guess the problem with design by committee, is that you tend to get everyones veto-es, rather than everyones ideas.
However, collecting the ideas and knowledge from a larger team is usually a good way to higher quality (though certainly not a time-saver). Apparently, the trick is to find a situation where people generate and communicate their ideas outside of a collective group context. Brainstormings work better if the group is asked to write down all their ideas for three minutes, and then hand in their contributions anonymously to an administrator that then mixes and mashes the ideas before the group again gets the ideas in return for further refinement and evaluation.
Crowdsourcing at BPL would do well to avoid a general brainstorming in the forums. Many people would feel that the threshold is too high for their ideas, and still more would go down the "lighter-than-thou" path. But getting members of BPL to share their wisdom and experiences will certainly be useful. An anonymous poll, or a personal message system, or some other mechanism to sever self-presentation from genuine creativity would be useful.
I think one of the reasons why crowdsourcing on the web sometimes is a success, is that it is a community of strangers (more or less). You get the benefit of the group, but, if done right, not the disadvantages of status anxiety.
>groupthink becomes problematic when members of the group are trying to "manage their presentation of self" (ie, impress). Brainstorming and other such ideas do not work well as long as the members are trying to achieve status of some kind."
True that.
" I have owned many packs over the years, and having used my McHales a lot, I now find the whole subject of backpacks boring."
ya.. huh ?
it gets like that after awhile.
—
Nick and David are quite clued in on this sort of social/production subject matter.
—
i enjoyed reading the orig article. it seemed to have the word "should" in it an AWFUL lot of times. and since those multiple "should"s seem like they might pertain at me, i wonder if the guy who worte it might anti up and produce something on his own outside of directives for the creative individuals who are doing the work that makes cottage industry products available.
the whole subject of "how are we going to most effectively tell chicken little how to make bread ? " is sort of obtuse to my way of thinking.
—
peter is likely Deep into "self presentation". it's just one of a plethora of self pleauring things you can do online.
> Avoiding a real need for education, the fundamental skills and techniques of
> lightweight hiking are still largely dismissed as fringe interests while the language
> of our approach has been warmly adopted and worked, without much concern, into
> technical doublespeak.
And onwards.
I wonder: was this article written in the heat of the moment? It has fire and passion and real understanding. No cold sterile maunderings from a spin doctor trying for buy-buttons.
I love it!
Cheers and Hurrahs
PS: a committee is a dead end into which good ideas are carfully herded to be quietly buried.
PS: a committee is a dead end into which good ideas are carfully herded to be quietly buried.
Here's another one … "a camel is a horse designed by a committee"
hi Ben,
"while those manufacturers focused on Australia and New Zealand (with a few exceptions)have continued to stagnate "
Nice to see one exception, that Aarn pack, on you back.
BTW, BPL here hasn't been the same since you left.
Yes, much better now.
Anyway , thank you for your LW evangelising efforts in the retail industry, much appreciated.
Aarn could do so much more, Franco. Innovation has to be tempered by a clear aesthetic in order to be successful, in my view.
By the way, Tarptent DR did well in Indonesia, tropical rain and all.
Fantastic article. It might be more clear to replace "outdoor industry" with "world" in the last sentence.
I assume a big part of what Mr. Payne is getting at here is that traditional cost-benefit models need to be rebalanced and broadened. While it may be foreign to our current definitions, it doesn't take too much imagination to see how various ethical and humanistic rubrics might be included. The world needs this, and in ignoring it I think Nick goes wrong here.
"I can say Dan McHale is an innovator."
Indeed, his invention of the daisy chain was…
Actually, I was surprised to see that he has adopted bottom compression straps similar to the Golite Jam packs and those available from MLD.
Viva la Cottage.
"The world needs this, and in ignoring it I think Nick goes wrong here."
Ah, but that is due to different philosophies. And this thread is not the forum to discuss them :)
Good news is we both like to get outdoors a lot.
"…traditional cost-benefit models need to be rebalanced and broadened…"
Yeah, I'd rather pay a little more if they paid their people a fair salary, or made in the U.S. (or some country we have balanced trade with), or used more environmental methods (although that can be hard to determine).
And ha, ha, ha, it's fun to think of examples where committees have made ridiculous decisions, but there are many problems that require many people to solve, computers and medical stuff and atomic bombs… Maybe making a tent or backpack can be done by one person.
Become a member to post in the forums.