MEJO 379 - Patagonia vs. Fratagonia

Patagonia Vs. Fratagonia

Insights on Patagonia Cause Marketing

Meet Woah! Communications

Sutton Cavalchire

Caroline McClatchey

Sara Young

Maris Whitley

Caroline Willard

RUSH ΡA𝚪ΔGΦΠIΛ

Background ●

Current Brand Content ○

●

Void of traditional advertising

Focus on Mission vs. Product Specs ○

Save the planet

RQ: Validity of Patagonia’s cause marketing strategies ●

Our Research ○ ○ ○ ○

Focus Group Interviews Survey Split Run

Insight #1

Type 1: Outdoors/Mountains

Type 2: Quality/Durability

Type 3: Preppy/“Fratagonia”

106 mentions

23 mentions

32 Mentions

“Environmental” “Sustainable” “Adventure” “Hiking” “Earthy” “Granola hiker vibes”

“Quality” “Durability” “Fuzzy” “Soft”

“Fratty/frat” “Popular” “Expensive” “Preppy”

Insight #2 Sustainability is not the first priority of most customers.

Insight #3

Social Media

Word of Mouth

News

Online Research

Conclusion #1: Patagonia customers fall into three different categories

Key Insights

#2: Sustainability is not the main reason customers purchase Patagonia products

#3: Consumers get their company information from a variety of sources

Recommendations To address Insight #1 ●

Create ad campaigns that targets the three different subcategories of consumers

To address Insight #2 ●

Focus marketing on quality and durability, instead of prioritizing environmental aspects

To address Insight #3 ●

Keep monitoring brand traffic and push out content where most customer presence is

Split Run Kept visuals the same Altered text copy Sustainable Purchasing vs. Quality Consumerism HYPOTHESIS: ‘Quality Consumerism’ focused ad will be more successful