Surf industry paradox: Surfing, by its nature, contradicts basic capitalism(beachgrit.com)
beachgrit.com
Surf industry paradox: Surfing, by its nature, contradicts basic capitalism
https://beachgrit.com/2020/02/the-surf-industry-paradox-surfing-by-its-very-nature-inherently-contradicts-basic-capitalism/
156 comments
It's more nefarious and subtle than that.
The trick is that you first get popular among actual surfers. That's a tiny population, the population doesn't like to spend money, it takes expensive R&D, expensive materials, difficult manual assembly for the abusive and difficult environment: not a lot of profit or market cap there.
But the dark pattern that the 'surf industry' have discovered and exploited, is that you then silently pivot to the market of people who wished they looked cool like surfers. That's a much bigger population, they have more money, and they don't care about the materials or performance of the gear.
Starting out as an actual surf business is optional, but encouraged, as it will help you market the story that you make cool surf gear. Skip that step if people will come into your department store anyways, just make the logo look similar to a prominent manufacturer. Similar tactics can be employed effectively in selling just about anything: SUVs and sports cars, ski gear, health food, artistic furniture...
The trick is that you first get popular among actual surfers. That's a tiny population, the population doesn't like to spend money, it takes expensive R&D, expensive materials, difficult manual assembly for the abusive and difficult environment: not a lot of profit or market cap there.
But the dark pattern that the 'surf industry' have discovered and exploited, is that you then silently pivot to the market of people who wished they looked cool like surfers. That's a much bigger population, they have more money, and they don't care about the materials or performance of the gear.
Starting out as an actual surf business is optional, but encouraged, as it will help you market the story that you make cool surf gear. Skip that step if people will come into your department store anyways, just make the logo look similar to a prominent manufacturer. Similar tactics can be employed effectively in selling just about anything: SUVs and sports cars, ski gear, health food, artistic furniture...
How is this a dark pattern? The people buying the goods are happy with the exchange, and it's not like they don't know they're posers buying into the culture.
Even that is a little harsh. Board shorts work just fine in the pool or hot tub or anywhere else you might go swimming. They're comfortable and fast drying and come in all kinds of colors and designs. Just because they were initially created for one purpose and people have realized they have a wider use, I don't see why that makes you a poser if you wear them.
It just seems like a perfectly normal way that clothing trends evolve. Are you a poser if you wear Northface or Patagonia gear in the city, since it's made for roughing it in the outdoors?
It just seems like a perfectly normal way that clothing trends evolve. Are you a poser if you wear Northface or Patagonia gear in the city, since it's made for roughing it in the outdoors?
I tend to take these brands at face value. If North Face tells me their gear is for adventurers climbing K2, I'm certainly not going to wear that to the office. For many years Apple presented it as the purview of the cool and creative - as I'm neither, I assumed their products were for someone else.
Advertising may not tell the complete story about how a product can be used effectively in practice.
Once I worked in an office that was absurdly cold but North Face gear kept me warm and comfortable. Many people, cool or otherwise, find Apple devices to be usable and reliable for very ordinary activities like sending email, writing documents, or making phone calls.
Once I worked in an office that was absurdly cold but North Face gear kept me warm and comfortable. Many people, cool or otherwise, find Apple devices to be usable and reliable for very ordinary activities like sending email, writing documents, or making phone calls.
>Are you a poser if you wear Northface or Patagonia gear in the city
no, you are a banker or tech bro
no, you are a banker or tech bro
that_jojo(2)
How is this a dark pattern?
It’s OK if there is no overlap but in practice that doesn’t really happen. When North Face switched to being a fashion brand it dragged other, previously genuine, manufacturers with it, because they couldn’t leave the money on the table. Basically, hipsters ruin everything.
It’s OK if there is no overlap but in practice that doesn’t really happen. When North Face switched to being a fashion brand it dragged other, previously genuine, manufacturers with it, because they couldn’t leave the money on the table. Basically, hipsters ruin everything.
That sounds a lot more like yuppies than hipsters
The people buying the goods may be happy with the exchange, but it's inauthentic/dishonest. I don't think they'd be as happy buying "Lookalike cheap boardshorts from husk of surf company", as evidenced by the fact that they stop buying that brand and Hurley gets sold by Nike to a brand management company and cuts all their sponsored athletes.
Furthermore, it makes it difficult for genuine participants to cut through the marketing BS. Want to buy a lightweight backpack for some day hikes? Go to Walmart and you'll see rows on rows of "rugged" bags with 'biner accessory clips, "super-strong" zippers and "comfort straps". But don't try to take those up a mountain, you'll end up with gear on the ground.
Informed consumers make capitalism work efficiently. This pattern abuses consumer trust for a temporarily profitable scheme. That's what I'd call a dark pattern.
Furthermore, it makes it difficult for genuine participants to cut through the marketing BS. Want to buy a lightweight backpack for some day hikes? Go to Walmart and you'll see rows on rows of "rugged" bags with 'biner accessory clips, "super-strong" zippers and "comfort straps". But don't try to take those up a mountain, you'll end up with gear on the ground.
Informed consumers make capitalism work efficiently. This pattern abuses consumer trust for a temporarily profitable scheme. That's what I'd call a dark pattern.
You just described Apple business model.
Remember the push for professional users? audio, film, devs. But then we got race to the thinnest laptop, Final Cut Pro X prunning pro users, new T2 chipped macs dropping audio samples from USB interfaces etc.
The same as Harley Davidson as a lifestyle brand that sells motorcycles on the side.
Ferrari makes more profit from licensing and apparel than they do from selling cars.
[deleted]
There aren't enough surfers in the world to support the needs of capital at the scale of Wall Street. There aren't enough surfers because it's hard to partake in surfing and partaking involves being cold and wet and many mouthfuls of salt water. Regularly partaking means living somewhere with good surf. That's not most of the world. Regularly partaking means having a lifestyle that affords time for surfing. That's not most lifestyles. Surfing is and has always been mostly aspirational.
Steve Jobs on Nike:
"But the best example of all and one of the greatest jobs of marketing that the universe has ever seen is Nike. Remember, Nike sells a commodity. They sell shoes! And yet when you think of Nike you feel something different than a shoe company. In their ads, as you know, they don’t ever talk about the product, they don’t ever tell you about their air soles and why they're better than Reebok’s air soles.
What is Nike doing in their advertising? They honor great athletes and they honor great athletics. That’s who they are, that’s what they are about."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz1_tOXfSeM
"But the best example of all and one of the greatest jobs of marketing that the universe has ever seen is Nike. Remember, Nike sells a commodity. They sell shoes! And yet when you think of Nike you feel something different than a shoe company. In their ads, as you know, they don’t ever talk about the product, they don’t ever tell you about their air soles and why they're better than Reebok’s air soles.
What is Nike doing in their advertising? They honor great athletes and they honor great athletics. That’s who they are, that’s what they are about."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz1_tOXfSeM
Jobs did great things but the halo effect on this website gets too much. Theres nothing profound or even really interesting in that quote. It's the stuff you'd hear in a primer marketing class.
This is identical to every other "hobby as culture". For example, hunting and the cornucopia of camo-patterned clothes and random objects. Camo easy chairs. Pink deer bumper stickers.
Country-western and cowboy culture also come to mind.
Weird that non-surfers don't want clothes with a comfortable range of motion. I buy pants from REI just to be comfortable while sitting at my desk writing code.
hello!
not actually replying to this comment - was just trying to figure out a way to get in touch with you!
I just moved to Durham from NYC for work, and was looking through HN to see if there were any ongoing meetups, etc. in the area. Saw your post about an RTP meetup (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6754755), any luck getting this started?
Even if not, would love any tips you might have for meeting new people / getting involved in the tech community around here. Or even meeting up in person just to chat!
Thank you - hope you have a wonderful weekend
not actually replying to this comment - was just trying to figure out a way to get in touch with you!
I just moved to Durham from NYC for work, and was looking through HN to see if there were any ongoing meetups, etc. in the area. Saw your post about an RTP meetup (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6754755), any luck getting this started?
Even if not, would love any tips you might have for meeting new people / getting involved in the tech community around here. Or even meeting up in person just to chat!
Thank you - hope you have a wonderful weekend
Howdy, It's funny, I'm actually the worst person to ask about Raleigh meetups. My interest is more in finding excuses to never actually go to a meetup. If you need help there, I'm your man.
not sure how I can send you my contact info without it being public - but if you see this, let me know and we can figure it out!
That's an excellent articulation of the Tyranny of the Minimum Viable User, but in wetwear rather than software or hardware.
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/69wk8y/the_tyr...
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/69wk8y/the_tyr...
So you're saying, then, that it's some sort of cowabunga lifestyle?
Uh they are not doing fine, hence the issues at Hurley apparently, and the fact that all those brands have crashed in value.
This is more the classic “brand X is now bloated and failing because it forgot its roots when going mainstream” argument. Nothing to do with capitalism (author was a bit confused there, or clutching at straws), everything to do with losing view of your core values and value proposition.
This is more the classic “brand X is now bloated and failing because it forgot its roots when going mainstream” argument. Nothing to do with capitalism (author was a bit confused there, or clutching at straws), everything to do with losing view of your core values and value proposition.
> This is more the classic “brand X is now bloated and failing because it forgot its roots when going mainstream” argument. Nothing to do with capitalism
I'm not sure I'd say nothing to do with capitalism. Underneath many of these "bloated" brands you find the same pattern. A niche or well-respected brand purchased by a private equity firm. They proceed to hollow out the brand (move production, cut warranties and customer support, etc.) while simultaneously playing financial tricks to extract money (saddle the company with debt/management fees).
This pattern may or may not be one unique to capitalism, but it's surely one which occurs frequently in the US implementation.
I'm not sure I'd say nothing to do with capitalism. Underneath many of these "bloated" brands you find the same pattern. A niche or well-respected brand purchased by a private equity firm. They proceed to hollow out the brand (move production, cut warranties and customer support, etc.) while simultaneously playing financial tricks to extract money (saddle the company with debt/management fees).
This pattern may or may not be one unique to capitalism, but it's surely one which occurs frequently in the US implementation.
When Eddie Bauer declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, I was amused to see the New York Times describe it as an "outdoorsy" brand. Well, in those days you could be an Eddie Bauer branded sports ute.
Eddie Bauer, once, a long, long, long time ago, was an actual outdoor-gear supplier. At least that's what it began as in the 1920s. It was Bauer down parkas that the first American summitting Everest in 1963 wore.
By the 1980s the line was better suited to arduous treks across a muddy quad to the campus coffeehouse, though outerwear garments from that era may remain serviceable. Today any modest muscular development simply exceeds the tailoring tolerances of upper or lower-body garments.
The "brand" still trades, or tries to, off its century-old origin story. That is an absolute lie.
By the 1980s the line was better suited to arduous treks across a muddy quad to the campus coffeehouse, though outerwear garments from that era may remain serviceable. Today any modest muscular development simply exceeds the tailoring tolerances of upper or lower-body garments.
The "brand" still trades, or tries to, off its century-old origin story. That is an absolute lie.
author's point is that capitalist values is at odds with the core values and value proposition that these brands had at their genesis
Capitalism is kind of like evolution, you can't argue against it by giving the example of a poorly run company going extinct. That's capitalism at work.
Note quite. It’s easy to argue that making say very high quality chocolate and capitalism are at odds because it’s more profitable to make slightly worse chocolate in larger quantities. It’s not a question of any one company when market forces push companies in a different direction.
Further, stability is not necessarily an overriding goal. A 50% shot at 100m is generally preferred over a 100k/year lifestyle business.
PS: I don’t think this is even a downside of capitalism. More people enjoy a Micdonads hamburger in a day than eat at a given 5 star restaurant in a year.
Further, stability is not necessarily an overriding goal. A 50% shot at 100m is generally preferred over a 100k/year lifestyle business.
PS: I don’t think this is even a downside of capitalism. More people enjoy a Micdonads hamburger in a day than eat at a given 5 star restaurant in a year.
You are confusing revenue with profit. The profit margin for a high-end chocolate is higher than a snickers bar's.
Not necessarily, high end chocolate is often a brutal low margin business. Generally, food companies increase profit margins by lowering quality.
Massive companies also have low average profits, but it’s not low quality driving down profits so much as growing to the edge of unprofitability because high profit margins are not inherently as useful as total profits. If say Budweiser increased their price by say 10c a can their overall profit would decrease even if their profit margin would increase.
Massive companies also have low average profits, but it’s not low quality driving down profits so much as growing to the edge of unprofitability because high profit margins are not inherently as useful as total profits. If say Budweiser increased their price by say 10c a can their overall profit would decrease even if their profit margin would increase.
If say Budweiser increased their price by say 10c a can their overall profit would decrease even if their profit margin would increase.
--------
That's not neccesarily the case. The ideal price point for maximum profits is ever-changing.
Would Budseiser's profits increase if they lowered the price by $0.10?
The answer is the same: it depends.
--------
That's not neccesarily the case. The ideal price point for maximum profits is ever-changing.
Would Budseiser's profits increase if they lowered the price by $0.10?
The answer is the same: it depends.
While I don’t disagree with your point, I am going to assume a company like Budweiser is going to be very good at selecting a nearly optimal price.
Making 20% on sales of $100k nets you $20k. Making 5% on sales of $1M nets you $50k. So in that scenario, do you prefer profit or revenue?
Revenue and Profit are intimately intertwined, with their cousin Cost riding shotgun.
Revenue and Profit are intimately intertwined, with their cousin Cost riding shotgun.
It depends on what other options you have for investing the $900k. The grandfather's ghost of opportunity cost is always watching...
It’s extremely unlikely for a profitable company to need x$ in capital to drive x$ in sales. Cash flow is generally much faster than that.
I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate?
Let’s say you’re a gas station. You need to spend 500k to get things running including buying 100k of gas. Every week rent and people’s salaries add up to 19k and you sell gas costing you 80k for 100k.
So, after 1 week you have 20k in gas and 100 - 19 = 81k in cash. You need to spend 80k of that on more gas for text week resulting in a net profit of 1k or a 1% profit margin.
But, repeat that for one year and you bought 80k x 52 weeks of gas = 4.16 million even though you only had 500k in capital. Further your profit margin might be low but your ROI was 52/500 or 10.4% which is not bad.
So, after 1 week you have 20k in gas and 100 - 19 = 81k in cash. You need to spend 80k of that on more gas for text week resulting in a net profit of 1k or a 1% profit margin.
But, repeat that for one year and you bought 80k x 52 weeks of gas = 4.16 million even though you only had 500k in capital. Further your profit margin might be low but your ROI was 52/500 or 10.4% which is not bad.
What he means is simple. Like at least 1 other poster, you seem to have considered the numbers I gave to represent capital investment: invest $100k, make $20k vs. invest $1M, make $50k.
But that's not the scenario at all. The scenario is about sales, not capital investment. The point is that its very unlikely (for retail at least) that you need to invest $X of capital in order to sell $X of merchandise. The question about returns here is not about returns on capital investment, but profit margins on sales.
But that's not the scenario at all. The scenario is about sales, not capital investment. The point is that its very unlikely (for retail at least) that you need to invest $X of capital in order to sell $X of merchandise. The question about returns here is not about returns on capital investment, but profit margins on sales.
I prefer the 20% margin, of course.
Why would I tie up an extra $900k to make 5% ?
You make the 20% with the 100k, and hopefully find similar opportunities with your other 9 stacks of 100k's.
Profit is the only driving force in the market.
You make the 20% with the 100k, and hopefully find similar opportunities with your other 9 stacks of 100k's.
Profit is the only driving force in the market.
Like others, you seem to have completely missed the context, set up by the grandparent post.
The comparison is not about investing $X and making $Y profit. It's about selling $X with a given profit margin.
The actual capital requirements to sell $X are assumed to be roughly the same for both scenarios.
The comparison is not about investing $X and making $Y profit. It's about selling $X with a given profit margin.
The actual capital requirements to sell $X are assumed to be roughly the same for both scenarios.
[deleted]
I'd say capitalism really doesn't have values, it's just an economic system for how resources get distributed. People are already greedy by nature. So capitalism is a healthier way for greedy people to compete, versus other systems that become corrupt messes due to human greed.
> So capitalism is a healthier way for greedy people to compete, versus other systems that become corrupt messes due to human greed.
Yeah, that never happens with capitalism...
Yeah, that never happens with capitalism...
Greedies gonna greed
A suspect most of what you blame on corrupt capitalism is in fact corrupt govts trying to regulate capitalism to achieve some political agenda. But of course I'm only guessing here as your post contributes nothing but snark.
My point was that corruption isn't inherent to any economic system, but an unfortunate part of the human condition.
Trying to scapegoat a particular economic or political system as inherently corrupt is naive at best, and disingenuous or dishonest at worst.
And there's never been (and never will be) a 100% capitalist society, so even if they could be corruption free it doesn't help much.
Trying to scapegoat a particular economic or political system as inherently corrupt is naive at best, and disingenuous or dishonest at worst.
And there's never been (and never will be) a 100% capitalist society, so even if they could be corruption free it doesn't help much.
Given your last couple posts I suspect you might not be aware of the forum guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Brainstorming a range of negative interpretations of my words then providing appropriate insults for each, isn't my idea of responding to the strongest plausible interpretation of my words. For that matter, if you can't imagine anything that isn't insult-worthy, you might simply ask me what I mean. The answer would be that I was arguing capitalism has a relatively unusual feature of actually channeling greed rather than trying to stamp it out. If "the new soviet man" makes a decision for personal profit versus that of society they are corrupting their communist system. Whereas a capitalist can do so completely within their capitalist system. It has nothing to do with name-calling or about who is and isn't "corrupt" as some inherent human or systemic flaw. Do you still not get my point?
Brainstorming a range of negative interpretations of my words then providing appropriate insults for each, isn't my idea of responding to the strongest plausible interpretation of my words. For that matter, if you can't imagine anything that isn't insult-worthy, you might simply ask me what I mean. The answer would be that I was arguing capitalism has a relatively unusual feature of actually channeling greed rather than trying to stamp it out. If "the new soviet man" makes a decision for personal profit versus that of society they are corrupting their communist system. Whereas a capitalist can do so completely within their capitalist system. It has nothing to do with name-calling or about who is and isn't "corrupt" as some inherent human or systemic flaw. Do you still not get my point?
It's a cult, some say these "surfers" are the hipsters of the 90's.
Maybe not cult, but 'trendy' for sure. It was skateboarding, windsurfing, surfing etc .... trends come and go.
In the US windsurfing never really crossed over into a mainstream casual fashion trend. Snowboarding did though.
Most of the best boards don’t come off factory presses instead they are built by someone with great passion in a small warehouse or garage. These guys are happy just getting by and sharing the stoke with customers they know. Moreover, once you become addicted to surfing that’s all one cares about. True surfers don’t care about the hype around the latest thing, once you buy your board and a wetsuit all you care about is getting that glide. If I didn’t have a family to support I’d make the yearly circuit from Sri Lanka, Peru, etc and just live on the beach for less than $10 a day and would be perfectly satisfied. I feel sorry for my office mates who don’t have any hobbies or escapes and instead are focused on the next bonus or promotion either for their egos or so they can buy more stuff. I just want more time off to travel with my family and surf. After 3 startups and 23 years in tech and many, many 12 hour days I can tell you the whole system is empty. Despite recognition or financial success there’s nothing in the system that brings true long term happiness, but the natural meditation when waiting on the wave or for the next set does.
True surfers
Consider the statement: "A true surfer would be surfing, not commenting on Hacker News." No True Scotsman is fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Consider the statement: "A true surfer would be surfing, not commenting on Hacker News." No True Scotsman is fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Everyone knows that, but everyone, like you I suspect, is playing the game to optimize their children’s (or family’s) position in the social order.
Desire to secure their future resource/financial security really throws a wrench in “letting it all go”.
Desire to secure their future resource/financial security really throws a wrench in “letting it all go”.
In the social order of surfers, optimization is living at the waves so the kids can surf with mom and pop. And with grandma and grandpa when there are grandkids. Locals are always the top of every surfing pecking order.
Have you read "All our waves are water" by Jaimal Yogis? Based on this comment, I think you would enjoy.
That's great, but from a capitalist standpoint it doesn't seem surprising that a company would struggle when they have a labor intensive product and their customers are largely cash poor. Worse, they set up shop in expensive coastal cities. It's kind of a miracle the companies survived at all. I get that the guy who runs it is passionate and is willing to also be cash poor, but the city has got to be breathing down his neck about the property taxes in a town where half a duplex goes for over a million dollars.
"Surfers, for the most part, don’t need more stuff, don’t want more surfers, don’t care about grabbing attention, etc."
This is actually completely true. I'm friends with a guy who owns a surf shop in one of the highest grossing areas for surfing equipment/clothing in southern california, his biggest gripe with the industry is that surfers spend no money. They won't pay for parking, won't pay for surf apps, won't buy a new board unless they have to, don't really buy the clothes, etc. It's part of the culture.
Edit:
To add to his perspective, it's not about getting wealthy from surfing. The guy has been surfing his whole life, is a lifelong lifeguard, surfs 20 foot waves.
He just wishes the industry could grow and innovate, but instead sees it stagnate. Sure the vibe and love for surfing is there, but I think he is frustrated that there is no wealth in the industry to foster further growth and investment.
But then again, the way I see it is surfing as a sport is extremely limited, you can only do it on coasts, and only some coasts are actually consistently good for it.
This is actually completely true. I'm friends with a guy who owns a surf shop in one of the highest grossing areas for surfing equipment/clothing in southern california, his biggest gripe with the industry is that surfers spend no money. They won't pay for parking, won't pay for surf apps, won't buy a new board unless they have to, don't really buy the clothes, etc. It's part of the culture.
Edit:
To add to his perspective, it's not about getting wealthy from surfing. The guy has been surfing his whole life, is a lifelong lifeguard, surfs 20 foot waves.
He just wishes the industry could grow and innovate, but instead sees it stagnate. Sure the vibe and love for surfing is there, but I think he is frustrated that there is no wealth in the industry to foster further growth and investment.
But then again, the way I see it is surfing as a sport is extremely limited, you can only do it on coasts, and only some coasts are actually consistently good for it.
>He just wishes the industry could grow and innovate...
What does that even mean? If all of the surfers are happy, why does the industry need to innovate? Why is constant innovation always seen as a good thing?
What does that even mean? If all of the surfers are happy, why does the industry need to innovate? Why is constant innovation always seen as a good thing?
Well maybe industry thinks that butterfly surfboards like butterfly keyboards is innovation worth having.
When we go to the beach twice a day for a surf - who can afford to pay for parking? Plus the jog to the beach is good for you.
And some people what to look like a surfer. I am a surfer who wants to look like a normal person.
Who buys a new board if they don't have to? Madness. I choose my equipment carefully, it has to match my style. Standing on some clever foam out in the middle of the ocean is tricky and very personal.
I wouldn't say it's part of the culture, it's just being normal. I don't upgrade my PC to stay on trend. I don't upgrade my surfboard to stay on trend. They are tools.
And some people what to look like a surfer. I am a surfer who wants to look like a normal person.
Who buys a new board if they don't have to? Madness. I choose my equipment carefully, it has to match my style. Standing on some clever foam out in the middle of the ocean is tricky and very personal.
I wouldn't say it's part of the culture, it's just being normal. I don't upgrade my PC to stay on trend. I don't upgrade my surfboard to stay on trend. They are tools.
Do you think propensity to spend is perfectly equal across all hobbies? Is it possible that surfers spend less relative to something like photography or sailing?
By saying it's "just being normal", you're signaling that sensible frugality is normal to you. It's possible that value has some correlation with your identity as a surfer, no?
By saying it's "just being normal", you're signaling that sensible frugality is normal to you. It's possible that value has some correlation with your identity as a surfer, no?
Sailing is a big set of categories. Folks how have a Laser and work that into the ground are rather like surfers. Lasers are all the same. Get out there and sail. When you have worn out your sail, grudgingly buy a new one. Patch the fiberglass in your deck when it needs it.
Folks who have wooden keelboats are about as into working on the boat as they are into sailing the boat. They spend money, but it's not on flashy gear. It's on another five gallons of bottom paint and another box of sandpaper because that varnish has to be redone again. Marketing and brand doesn't really help you sell these or increase margins on them, because a bunch of ratty guys are on the dock comparing how long they had to go between repainting the bottom with that manufacturer versus this one.
Folks who have big glitzy boats as a status symbol spend money, but generally you're not selling to them. You're selling to a designer or to workmen. And all the life jackets are still the same orange ones off the shelf from West Marine or the like.
Folks who have wooden keelboats are about as into working on the boat as they are into sailing the boat. They spend money, but it's not on flashy gear. It's on another five gallons of bottom paint and another box of sandpaper because that varnish has to be redone again. Marketing and brand doesn't really help you sell these or increase margins on them, because a bunch of ratty guys are on the dock comparing how long they had to go between repainting the bottom with that manufacturer versus this one.
Folks who have big glitzy boats as a status symbol spend money, but generally you're not selling to them. You're selling to a designer or to workmen. And all the life jackets are still the same orange ones off the shelf from West Marine or the like.
> Lasers are all the same.
It's interesting you chose that specific boat given the dust-up between the trademark owner and the builders over the past year, and the recent controversy in the 2024 Olympic selection committee. I've only barely followed it, but at least some of the controversy seems to be about the lack of innovation in the class.
It's interesting you chose that specific boat given the dust-up between the trademark owner and the builders over the past year, and the recent controversy in the 2024 Olympic selection committee. I've only barely followed it, but at least some of the controversy seems to be about the lack of innovation in the class.
The dust up is actually about one of the manufacturers continually refusing to play the game nicely and abusing the de-facto monopoly they're granted in the regions they supply by the class governing body and generally trying to push everyone around.
It all came to a head because someone made a complaint to the EU that the way that Olympic sailing equipment is supplied is anti-competitive. World Sailing chooses equipment for some of the events which has a single or limited number of suppliers because the rules for that class require trademarks owned by those suppliers to appear on the equipment (true for the Laser, RS-X Windsurfer, Nacra 17).
All Olympic classes are having to change their model to allow anyone to become a builder/supplier of that equipment. The Laser builder who holds the trademark in the EU, Americas and most of Asia didn't play ball so the class rules were changed to remove the requirement for the trademark that they hold to appear on the boats and sails. At the same time they were in breach of a contract that they have with the class association to do with factory inspections and other governance matters relating to the supply of equipment and they have now been kicked out.
Not exactly the free and easy relaxing image that you might associate with sailing!
Interesting fact: Although lasers all look like they're all the same, the manufacturing tolerances are such that they're definitely not when it comes to the top level of competition, and the top sailors have to expend large amounts of effort to avoid duff boats and other equipment.
Source: I'm someone who sails a Laser competitively and has skin in this game.
It all came to a head because someone made a complaint to the EU that the way that Olympic sailing equipment is supplied is anti-competitive. World Sailing chooses equipment for some of the events which has a single or limited number of suppliers because the rules for that class require trademarks owned by those suppliers to appear on the equipment (true for the Laser, RS-X Windsurfer, Nacra 17).
All Olympic classes are having to change their model to allow anyone to become a builder/supplier of that equipment. The Laser builder who holds the trademark in the EU, Americas and most of Asia didn't play ball so the class rules were changed to remove the requirement for the trademark that they hold to appear on the boats and sails. At the same time they were in breach of a contract that they have with the class association to do with factory inspections and other governance matters relating to the supply of equipment and they have now been kicked out.
Not exactly the free and easy relaxing image that you might associate with sailing!
Interesting fact: Although lasers all look like they're all the same, the manufacturing tolerances are such that they're definitely not when it comes to the top level of competition, and the top sailors have to expend large amounts of effort to avoid duff boats and other equipment.
Source: I'm someone who sails a Laser competitively and has skin in this game.
> Interesting fact: Although lasers all look like they're all the same, the manufacturing tolerances are such that they're definitely not when it comes to the top level of competition, and the top sailors have to expend large amounts of effort to avoid duff boats and other equipment.
That's really interesting. How annoying. Is there some tribal knowledge about what manufacturers are solid and what are not?
That's really interesting. How annoying. Is there some tribal knowledge about what manufacturers are solid and what are not?
There is... but one of the problems with the sport of sailing is that there are so many variables and working out what's chance and what's a trend is incredibly difficult.
It's been well known for the last 10 years that the Australian manufacturer builds notionally "better" boats (stay stiff for longer, less likely to leak or crack etc), but there are still variances in key measurements which you need to look out for. The biggest ones are hull weight and mast rake (how upright the mast is in the boat fore and aft which has a critical effect on how the rig is tuned and the performance characteristics of the boat).
Boats come off the production line with fittings in slightly different places, different amounts of material in the layup, key parts of the hull not quite aligned the same etc.
There's significant variance between masts as well. The sections are extruded aluminium and over the lifetime of the extrusion die they go from having slightly thinner walls to slightly thicker ones. Mast manufacturers seem to end up with slightly different grades of aluminium as well. This affects the stiffness, a very important factor when it comes to how powerful the rig is with lighter sailors preferring thinner masts and heavier sailors thicker masts.
Competitive sailors will try and measure everything they ever use to keep track of what they think works for them, and then select carefully when they purchase something new.
All this goes against the ethos and values of the class, which is that there's no equipment advantage possible and it's all about the sailor. This is dealt with at the Olympics (and at World Championships for the Olympic categories) by having mandatory supplied equipment which hopefully has been selected so that it's all as identical as possible. For all the competitions you need to succeed at in order to get to the Olympics however, it's the wild west!
It's been well known for the last 10 years that the Australian manufacturer builds notionally "better" boats (stay stiff for longer, less likely to leak or crack etc), but there are still variances in key measurements which you need to look out for. The biggest ones are hull weight and mast rake (how upright the mast is in the boat fore and aft which has a critical effect on how the rig is tuned and the performance characteristics of the boat).
Boats come off the production line with fittings in slightly different places, different amounts of material in the layup, key parts of the hull not quite aligned the same etc.
There's significant variance between masts as well. The sections are extruded aluminium and over the lifetime of the extrusion die they go from having slightly thinner walls to slightly thicker ones. Mast manufacturers seem to end up with slightly different grades of aluminium as well. This affects the stiffness, a very important factor when it comes to how powerful the rig is with lighter sailors preferring thinner masts and heavier sailors thicker masts.
Competitive sailors will try and measure everything they ever use to keep track of what they think works for them, and then select carefully when they purchase something new.
All this goes against the ethos and values of the class, which is that there's no equipment advantage possible and it's all about the sailor. This is dealt with at the Olympics (and at World Championships for the Olympic categories) by having mandatory supplied equipment which hopefully has been selected so that it's all as identical as possible. For all the competitions you need to succeed at in order to get to the Olympics however, it's the wild west!
I haven't even heard about the dustup, and one of the reasons that I pick the Laser is that the world of Laser sailing is so large that the Olympics are a tiny, tiny fraction of it. There are very few Olympic classes for which that is the case.
Much of the attraction of the class is the lack of innovation. Innovation in racing sailboats tends to sacrifice other qualities like seakindliness, survivability, and versatility. Look at the Americas Cup boats for extreme examples. They're amazingly fast, but useless for anything but that one task. Having a boat that has persisted as a first choice for Olympic racing and taking your kids out for daysail means that it is happens to have been an incredibly good design, and allowing innovation in the class is more likely to end up with reducing that versatility, rather the way the American Kennel Club's focus on conformation has destroyed dog breeds.
Much of the attraction of the class is the lack of innovation. Innovation in racing sailboats tends to sacrifice other qualities like seakindliness, survivability, and versatility. Look at the Americas Cup boats for extreme examples. They're amazingly fast, but useless for anything but that one task. Having a boat that has persisted as a first choice for Olympic racing and taking your kids out for daysail means that it is happens to have been an incredibly good design, and allowing innovation in the class is more likely to end up with reducing that versatility, rather the way the American Kennel Club's focus on conformation has destroyed dog breeds.
The two hobbies you suggested get easier the more you spend. Surfing has a cap pretty quick in that if you spend more you aren't going to be suddenly amazing or get a huge leg up in the competition. You can catch some waves quicker with better gear, but experience is how you get good at it. It is only getting into the water and practicing that gets you better at surfing. Photography has many things that will allow you to take better pictures. Sailing gets expensive at the start and continues as you go. Surfing is a 1 to 4 items purchase sport that is relatively cheap to keep at since you don't need to upgrade.
> Surfers...don’t care about grabbing attention
I chuckled at this bit, because I grew up in a surf town and still live nearby. Every surfer I've every known has been an attention hog, and they will find a way let you know they surf within minutes of meeting you.
I chuckled at this bit, because I grew up in a surf town and still live nearby. Every surfer I've every known has been an attention hog, and they will find a way let you know they surf within minutes of meeting you.
What of the surfers you didn't meet?
Waves don't innovate. An app won't mitigate the risk of drowning. Neither will a new board. Serious surfing revolves around risk assessment and mitigation and a flow of opportunities. If you can look out the window and see the waves, there's not much point in an app. In the old days, the surf report was a recorded message over POTS. The local spot doesn't need an app. Serious surfing is local.
No one wants to pay for parking.
Surf apps suck, they're generally asking around $10 a month, and they do little more than provide prettified weather buoy data.
_Decent_ wetsuits are in the $300 - $500 range, new board $600 - $1000. I think it's pretty capitalist to let some kook buy it new and then snag it from them off craigslist for %30 - %50 of retail.
Surf apps suck, they're generally asking around $10 a month, and they do little more than provide prettified weather buoy data.
_Decent_ wetsuits are in the $300 - $500 range, new board $600 - $1000. I think it's pretty capitalist to let some kook buy it new and then snag it from them off craigslist for %30 - %50 of retail.
Free, privacy-preserving alternative to surf app:
https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=SGX&issuedby=S...
https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=SGX&issuedby=S...
This made me laugh, because everyone I know does exactly this for the boards off of craigslist.
Why is he even in the industry then? It sounds like he set up shop in a high rent area and I doubt he can compete on price with online retailers. It's a dubious choice from a business perspective. Hardcore surfers probably know as much as he does about the products he's selling, or know enough to find them online for cheaper, so what is the value add he offers? I'm sure he chose this line of work bc he wants to be around surfers and near the beach etc, but maybe he should have tried something more boring and profitable if lack of success is going to bother him.
He's in his late 30s, been surfing his whole life, it is his life. He still does well for himself very well for himself, but I think he just wishes the industry could grow and innovate, but instead sees it stagnate. Sure the vibe and love for surfing is there, but I think he is frustrated that there is no wealth in the industry to foster further growth and investment.
Laird Hamilton is trying to grow and innovate the surfing industry.
https://www.lairdhamilton.com/
https://www.lairdhamilton.com/
The climbing apparel industry is the same way. Patagonia, North Face, Black Diamond and Arcteryx all began as brands that catered specifically to the needs of climbers and alpinists, but now sell primarily to yuppies.
It used to be that if you were wearing Canada Goose, it was because you were on some kind of expedition to the Arctic. Then movie directors decided Canada Goose was the way to go to stay cozy while on an outdoor movie set. I think it was Sundance 2007 and all of the sudden all the cool kids had Canada Goose parkas.
Now middle class people wear Canada Goose parkas to signal to others their propensity for getting ripped off.
It used to be that if you were wearing Canada Goose, it was because you were on some kind of expedition to the Arctic. Then movie directors decided Canada Goose was the way to go to stay cozy while on an outdoor movie set. I think it was Sundance 2007 and all of the sudden all the cool kids had Canada Goose parkas.
Now middle class people wear Canada Goose parkas to signal to others their propensity for getting ripped off.
> Patagonia, North Face, Black Diamond and Arcteryx all began as brands that catered specifically to the needs of climbers and alpinists, but now sell primarily to yuppies.
They may sell a subset of their product to yuppies, but you can still outfit yourself for just about any outdoor pursuit with these companies and trust the gear they sell. TNF and BD tents are still high quality, TNF and BD and Patagonia jackets can be used on any trip. And Arcteryx is some of the highest quality cold weather clothing in the world. I would probably only prefer Western Mountaineering or Hilleberg to a combination of products from these 4 manufacturers. BD probably makes more money on selling headlamps to anglers and hunters than they do on yuppies buying climbing pants.
The brands are nowhere near the lowend lifestyle fashion grab-bags that Oakley, Hurley, Quiksilver or O'Neill are...
They may sell a subset of their product to yuppies, but you can still outfit yourself for just about any outdoor pursuit with these companies and trust the gear they sell. TNF and BD tents are still high quality, TNF and BD and Patagonia jackets can be used on any trip. And Arcteryx is some of the highest quality cold weather clothing in the world. I would probably only prefer Western Mountaineering or Hilleberg to a combination of products from these 4 manufacturers. BD probably makes more money on selling headlamps to anglers and hunters than they do on yuppies buying climbing pants.
The brands are nowhere near the lowend lifestyle fashion grab-bags that Oakley, Hurley, Quiksilver or O'Neill are...
> They may sell a subset of their product to yuppies
I think you have this backwards. They make their profit off the yuppies buying the latest product year after year. The hardcore users aren't buying new tents, jackets, snow pants, etc every year.
I think you have this backwards. They make their profit off the yuppies buying the latest product year after year. The hardcore users aren't buying new tents, jackets, snow pants, etc every year.
Hardcore users can actually burn through their gear pretty fast. A $600 gore-tex shell will last a long time so long as you aren't climbing mountains in it every weekend.
An arcteryx shell should last nearly your entire life with proper maintenance - if you’re doing an activity that would damage it you’re using the wrong gear.
Nothing you just wrote contradicts what you quoted. "They may sell a subset of their product" ... this doesn't say anything about the amount of revenue associated with "the subset". The idea is that they sell part of their line to yuppies (and whoever else wants to wear them while still within proximity to more than 5 other people) and sell a different part of their line to people who actually get out there. Yes, the revenue from the first case may greatly exceed the revenue from the second case, but that doesn't invalidate the point.
And those products have high margins, but they haven't sold out their core ideals and quality in order to cater to these markets because their core business is woefully inadequate, which is the point that original commenter made.
And those yuppies may convert to hardcore outdoor users, and bring their brand loyalty with them.
If anything these companies are a pretty good example of a kind of principled capitalism, in so much as their operations are coextensive with both lifestyle stuff the commenter derides and their initial principles and commitment to quality.
And on top of that, if one thinks these are outliers, two of these companies where started by the same guy, in different times.
And those yuppies may convert to hardcore outdoor users, and bring their brand loyalty with them.
If anything these companies are a pretty good example of a kind of principled capitalism, in so much as their operations are coextensive with both lifestyle stuff the commenter derides and their initial principles and commitment to quality.
And on top of that, if one thinks these are outliers, two of these companies where started by the same guy, in different times.
Petzl is interesting in its primarily an industry outfitter, but also serves some outdoors activities.
I agree. The core product lines from the major technical outdoor brands are still very high quality, and field tested up the ying yang. More conventional fashion brands try to imitate the technical outdoor brands and they fail miserably.
(Moved comment)
Heck I’d even say many tech companies are like this. Their core product works and is for all intents and purposes “done”, but they still keep growing. Dropbox is a good example IMO.
You beat me to it. Virtually every outdoor sports brand makes a big chunk of its revenue and an even bigger chunk of its margin selling "lifestyle merch" -- T-shirts, sunglasses, etc. I fail to see how this is offensive or inappropriate.
Similarly, it is intuitive that professional investors are going to want to try to buy companies like Hurley and Billabong amidst a societal trend of more people wanting to seem more surfer-like and buying T-shirts that convey the message "I'm into surf culture".
The anticapitalist tone of the linked article is especially ironic given that the popularity of surfing in the non-Hawai'ian world was driven entirely by the post-WWII economic expansion in the US mainland and AUS that gave teenage baby boomers spending money in the early 60's. Surfing has always been co-opted by capitalism; there are old dudes in the lineup at Dana Point who were bitching about the fakeness of the Beach Boys and Gidget when they were young men 50+ years ago.
None of this is new.
Similarly, it is intuitive that professional investors are going to want to try to buy companies like Hurley and Billabong amidst a societal trend of more people wanting to seem more surfer-like and buying T-shirts that convey the message "I'm into surf culture".
The anticapitalist tone of the linked article is especially ironic given that the popularity of surfing in the non-Hawai'ian world was driven entirely by the post-WWII economic expansion in the US mainland and AUS that gave teenage baby boomers spending money in the early 60's. Surfing has always been co-opted by capitalism; there are old dudes in the lineup at Dana Point who were bitching about the fakeness of the Beach Boys and Gidget when they were young men 50+ years ago.
None of this is new.
used to be that if you were wearing Canada Goose, it was because you were on some kind of expedition
Isn’t their slogan now “built for urban winters”? They aren’t even pretending to be genuine any more, and that only makes them more appealing to posers, who think that “urban” means something else
Isn’t their slogan now “built for urban winters”? They aren’t even pretending to be genuine any more, and that only makes them more appealing to posers, who think that “urban” means something else
Same for Helly Hansen that went from sailing/climbing gear to generic fashion.
Canada Goose was a consumer brand for many people in Seattle when I lived there 89-96.
> The Hurley debacle is getting most of the press these days
>...And, of course, we all know about Hurley by now
No I don’t. I even had to search myself and still don’t know. Just tell the reader, we don’t all follow surfer/skate news.
What happened to Hurley? They closing shop?
>...And, of course, we all know about Hurley by now
No I don’t. I even had to search myself and still don’t know. Just tell the reader, we don’t all follow surfer/skate news.
What happened to Hurley? They closing shop?
Originally owned by a “core” surfer, Bob Hurley, but was later sold to Nike. They still got a pass with some surfers because they made decent wetsuits and sponsored top surfers. Nike sold off the brand very recently and started cutting staff and sponsorships. The rumor is they’ll now start schilling their stuff in low budget retailers. Surfers have quickly jumped ship now that any semblance of being a “real” surf brand is gone.
Now? I've been seeing Hurley, Billabong, etc. clothes in downmarket retailers like Ross and TJ Maxx for at least a decade.
This is consistent with most lifestyle brands. Look at rock climbing. The people who spend their lives free climbing don't spend $300 on a hoodie and even if they did, there are diminishingly few of them to sustain a luxury company. Every autumn people in cities dress like they've just stepped off a horse or are on their way to a grouse shoot without the land, means, or skill to do either. Dressing like a rock star doesn't make you one, but that never stopped anyone from paying $200 for a pair of jeans.
It's not capitalism, it's something else. On the consumer side, it's "mimetic desire," which is a whole complex thing.
On the creative side, when you love something, how do you find a way to make enough money at it that you can do it as a way of life? Then once you do, how do you compete with well capitalized people whose interests aren't divided and who specialize in selling empty symbols to rubes? (answer: teaching, performance, and elite competition)
When you are actually good at something, you don't buy symbolic things to represent it because representing it is hollow and absurd. It's not a paradox of capitalism at all. When you are actually good at something you love, you are above the fray. Paradoxes and criticisms are the noisy artifacts of people reconciling symbols, and not meaningful to people who are engaged in the moment.
So, I'd say there is no surf industry, just an industry that sells surf symbols, and to surfers its failure is necessarily meaningless.
It's not capitalism, it's something else. On the consumer side, it's "mimetic desire," which is a whole complex thing.
On the creative side, when you love something, how do you find a way to make enough money at it that you can do it as a way of life? Then once you do, how do you compete with well capitalized people whose interests aren't divided and who specialize in selling empty symbols to rubes? (answer: teaching, performance, and elite competition)
When you are actually good at something, you don't buy symbolic things to represent it because representing it is hollow and absurd. It's not a paradox of capitalism at all. When you are actually good at something you love, you are above the fray. Paradoxes and criticisms are the noisy artifacts of people reconciling symbols, and not meaningful to people who are engaged in the moment.
So, I'd say there is no surf industry, just an industry that sells surf symbols, and to surfers its failure is necessarily meaningless.
> Every autumn people in cities dress like they've just stepped off a horse or are on their way to a grouse shoot without the land, means, or skill to do either.
The (now purely decorative) holes punched in wingtip (U.S.)/brogue (U.K.) shoes were originally there to let water drain out, as they were a sporting/outdoor shoe.
Basically they were the Crocs of their day.
The (now purely decorative) holes punched in wingtip (U.S.)/brogue (U.K.) shoes were originally there to let water drain out, as they were a sporting/outdoor shoe.
Basically they were the Crocs of their day.
> Dressing like a rock star doesn't make you one, but that never stopped anyone from paying $200 for a pair of jeans.
Ironic, given the original utterly utilitarian origin of jeans.
Ironic, given the original utterly utilitarian origin of jeans.
And civilian khaki's were probably to pose and steal valor from the military. Almost everything style wise is deep with symbolism that sometimes loses touch with any original meaning.
As Louis Rossmann would say:
Don't worry, Gov "King" Cuomo will require a surfing license very soon, that is unless he doesn't outlaw it like e-bikes first.
Don't worry, Gov "King" Cuomo will require a surfing license very soon, that is unless he doesn't outlaw it like e-bikes first.
Highly recommend the book "Let My People Go Surfing:The Education of a Reluctant Businessman, Including 10 More Years of Business Unusual" by Yvon Chouinard the founder of Patagonia and the precursor to Black Diamond (he spun BD out and sold it to his employees after losing a frivolous lawsuit).
The man is a legend in the climbing community, and wrote a whole book on balancing professional vs enthusiast gear while following his own moral compass.
It's a fascinating and worthwhile read for anyone who wants to find your own internal balance on being true to yourself and your values, while dealing with the realities of running a business. The discussions on what do we owe ourselves and others is a refreshing take on what it means to be successful.
The man is a legend in the climbing community, and wrote a whole book on balancing professional vs enthusiast gear while following his own moral compass.
It's a fascinating and worthwhile read for anyone who wants to find your own internal balance on being true to yourself and your values, while dealing with the realities of running a business. The discussions on what do we owe ourselves and others is a refreshing take on what it means to be successful.
Personally, I only buy clothes etc that I need. Skateboarding and surfing has had a major positive influence on my life so I tend to buy from brands that sponsor and support riders that I like. I don't buy lots anyway though.
Uhm, what, those brands actually made surfing clothes?
I honestly thought those brands made cool looking extremely casual clothes! Obviously, styles change and things go out of fashion.
Heck, I still own a pair of Volcom board shorts I accidentally bought 15 years ago because I thought they were a cool-looking bathing suit. I even wore them the one time I went surfing in Hawaii. I don't wear them often, because they don't have pockets, but when the occasion calls for them, (like spring skiing,) I love them.
I honestly thought those brands made cool looking extremely casual clothes! Obviously, styles change and things go out of fashion.
Heck, I still own a pair of Volcom board shorts I accidentally bought 15 years ago because I thought they were a cool-looking bathing suit. I even wore them the one time I went surfing in Hawaii. I don't wear them often, because they don't have pockets, but when the occasion calls for them, (like spring skiing,) I love them.
I don’t think of board shorts as surf clothes, they are fast drying swim trunks you can wear around town. Great for all water sports, I usually wear mine under my wetsuit.
Billabong also makes a line of khaki shorts (walk shorts I think they’re called) with the same material that are amazing for hot and humid tropical weather. Dry super quickly if they get wet, very light, and slightly stretchy.
Billabong also makes a line of khaki shorts (walk shorts I think they’re called) with the same material that are amazing for hot and humid tropical weather. Dry super quickly if they get wet, very light, and slightly stretchy.
Board shorts are too loose and long to wear comfortably under a properly fitted wetsuit. They get all bunched up.
You’re right, when I need it fitted nicely I will wear Speedos under the board shorts for that. 90% of the time I’m scuba diving and have tech shorts that go over the wetsuit, so bunching around the legs doesn’t matter much.
Not a contradiction. Voluntary exchange is central to Capitalism. Option to resist excessive marketing is within the framework. It's a cultural thing which some sub-cultures are better at then others.
I don't think it solves everything but it is why I like the concept of B-Corps. I think the growth at all costs concept is at odds often with other important factors but we can adjust. I think B-Corps are a good start at re-aligning our evolving needs and our existing systems.
Well I can just disagree. I'm surfer, 20 years surfing, and it's just as any other sport. The image of the free surfer, almost hippie, has 0 to do with the reality, if you are over 30s. Grow up!
This is just the end result of demanding quarterly growth out of everything.
Start with a brand that has "cool" factor, milk it for all its worth, obliterate the brand, and walk away with your CEO bonuses.
Start with a brand that has "cool" factor, milk it for all its worth, obliterate the brand, and walk away with your CEO bonuses.
> Believe it or not, there was once a day when Quik just made great boardshorts, O’Neill made great wetsuits, Oakley made the sunnies, etc. Soon, however, it seemed like all brands were in literally every category, unfortunately, not always doing that with much quality.
I wonder if this is a natural consequence of the drive for "growth"–whether that be in terms of more profit, more features, or anything else. You see it in the big tech companies, which have a tendency to expand into areas like social media, cloud, and self-driving cars, regardless of their original product line. Programming languages, where as a language ecosystem ages, it grows to acquire the features of every other language. Niche communities and countercultures online and off get diluted into meaninglessness once they catch on with too many people. Memes degrade. Information entropy increases monotonically.
I'm reminded of a poem by Gerard Manley Hopkins called "God's Grandeur".
I wonder if this is a natural consequence of the drive for "growth"–whether that be in terms of more profit, more features, or anything else. You see it in the big tech companies, which have a tendency to expand into areas like social media, cloud, and self-driving cars, regardless of their original product line. Programming languages, where as a language ecosystem ages, it grows to acquire the features of every other language. Niche communities and countercultures online and off get diluted into meaninglessness once they catch on with too many people. Memes degrade. Information entropy increases monotonically.
I'm reminded of a poem by Gerard Manley Hopkins called "God's Grandeur".
The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs —
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
For the record, O’Neill still makes great wetsuits.
The article conflates capitalism with consumer materialism.
No it doesn't. Surfing had it's boom and bust and now is a normal sport/hobby like skiing or everything else.
In the future one could also argue: tech industry contradicts basic capitalism: nowadays anybody has a smartphone, the phones cannot get any better, and everyone takes care of their smartphone because they don't want to pay alot money for a new one.
In the future one could also argue: tech industry contradicts basic capitalism: nowadays anybody has a smartphone, the phones cannot get any better, and everyone takes care of their smartphone because they don't want to pay alot money for a new one.
Yeah I'm decidedly confused about the author's conception of surfing. They seem to be under an impression that the sport/hobby has inherent philosophical values.
I think that's a common conception of many surfers. Surfing is somewhat entrenched in philosophy. Surfers have philosophical concepts of individualism, territory, ecology, morality, and existential concepts surrounding their place in nature and what is truly important in life to be happy.
Surfers can be considered to live their life like any spiritual individual. Their _god_ is the ocean, their pursuit is happiness in the moment recognizing risk and danger is a necessary component for a full life.
Surfers can be considered to live their life like any spiritual individual. Their _god_ is the ocean, their pursuit is happiness in the moment recognizing risk and danger is a necessary component for a full life.
I wonder how that came about, and how a culture like that could have come to persist into the 2020s?
My initial thought is to the limited range to actually peruse the sport, leading to a closer knit culture. It's coastal dependent and coast culture always has a distinct identity in my experience, more so than Mountain culture in my experience.
My initial thought is to the limited range to actually peruse the sport, leading to a closer knit culture. It's coastal dependent and coast culture always has a distinct identity in my experience, more so than Mountain culture in my experience.
It's more that the core that would consider themselves the core have some widely shared values. Lot's of "lifestyle"/"adventure" sports are similar. And these are the people that started the brands that ended up not living up to their values.
I guess I haven't entered to a sport/hobby that hadn't already past that stage of shared values.
I snowboard and when I see other snowboarders I don't assume we share values beyond maybe finding the boots more comfortable than those for skiing.
I snowboard and when I see other snowboarders I don't assume we share values beyond maybe finding the boots more comfortable than those for skiing.
Surfing is inherently limited in its scope by the number of surfable beaches. There's not room for unbounded expansion of the industry, unless you count surf-inspired lifestyle apparel.
No, its not. see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_surfing
That limitation may not hold true for much longer:
http://www.kswaveco.com/
http://www.kswaveco.com/
[deleted]
[deleted]
This article shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what capitalism is. Capitalism is not an entity that has its own free will and desires. Capitalism is a projection of what people want. If surfers want what they want, then that is capitalism for them.
There are many books that would dispute your second sentence.
I'll just note that what most people consider capitalism really consists of three components:
1) "free markets" in which what is sold and for how much is not (heavily) regulated 2) an entrepeneurial environment in which starting (and stopping) commercial enterprises is relatively easy and happens often 3) preferentially biasing the distribution of the rewards of commercial enterprises towards those who invest capital, rather than those who invest labor or IP.
There's no rule that says you couldn't have a system with just 1 or 2 of those 3. Either way, they interact to create a social system which does indeed tend to drive a society in certain directions, and inhibit its ability to move in others.
I'll just note that what most people consider capitalism really consists of three components:
1) "free markets" in which what is sold and for how much is not (heavily) regulated 2) an entrepeneurial environment in which starting (and stopping) commercial enterprises is relatively easy and happens often 3) preferentially biasing the distribution of the rewards of commercial enterprises towards those who invest capital, rather than those who invest labor or IP.
There's no rule that says you couldn't have a system with just 1 or 2 of those 3. Either way, they interact to create a social system which does indeed tend to drive a society in certain directions, and inhibit its ability to move in others.
It's true, but still the driving force is a common denominator of "what people want".
Not, the driving force is what people with disposable income are prepared to pay for. That's very different.
[a] industry paradox.[a], by its nature, contradicts basic capitalism.
Replace a with basically anything people do.
Replace a with basically anything people do.
[deleted]
Like, totally, bro. Capitalism is just how the man gets us down.
The bigger lesson: Humans don't desire consumerist society.
The bigger lesson: Humans don't desire consumerist society.
>The bigger lesson: Humans don't desire consumerist society.
How exactly is this the case? By all metrics, humans love consumerism and it, or rather capitalism, allow us to enjoy an exceedingly high quality of life.
How exactly is this the case? By all metrics, humans love consumerism and it, or rather capitalism, allow us to enjoy an exceedingly high quality of life.
I would say: Consumerism helped grow the economy from the end of the agrarian era/start of the industrial era to a poorly delimited point in our recent history when we transitioned from industry to services. After that point, consumerism has been as bad for our mental health as high fructose corn syrup has been for our waistlines.
Manufacturing and agriculture combine to less than a fifth of American GDP today; I say it would be better quality of life if Americans worked one day a week for the same material possessions, but the drive to consume ever more is the primary impediment to that. Similar arguments apply in the other G20 economies, but I’m not going to quantify them.
Of course, I’m not an economist, so perhaps I’m doing a gross disservice to the real value of the service sector…
Manufacturing and agriculture combine to less than a fifth of American GDP today; I say it would be better quality of life if Americans worked one day a week for the same material possessions, but the drive to consume ever more is the primary impediment to that. Similar arguments apply in the other G20 economies, but I’m not going to quantify them.
Of course, I’m not an economist, so perhaps I’m doing a gross disservice to the real value of the service sector…
Profit seeking corporations love consumerism, most humans are fine with a safe warm place to live and enough food to raise a family.
Convincing them to voluntarily transfer their wealth to someone else is the goal of consumerism, hence the ridiculous money spend on propaganda convincing people they need more things than they want.
Convincing them to voluntarily transfer their wealth to someone else is the goal of consumerism, hence the ridiculous money spend on propaganda convincing people they need more things than they want.
The revolutions of 1989 would tend to argue against that. Leaders in East Germany and the like thought that giving people subsidized food, housing (and alcohol) would be enough to make them content. Some of it was, yes, about not having democracy, but a lot of it was being upset that they didn't have the consumer goods they knew people in the West had access to.
Hmm. I live and work in the bit of Berlin that used to be DDR (aber ich bin Ausländer).
The museums around here insist the two big problems were the secret police and the fact that production wasn’t very well matched to demand. Even if you ignore the literal Stasi, I think you may be understating the impact of the shops running out of various foods from time to time.
The museums around here insist the two big problems were the secret police and the fact that production wasn’t very well matched to demand. Even if you ignore the literal Stasi, I think you may be understating the impact of the shops running out of various foods from time to time.
Totally agree. The number of people who naturally always want more is pretty low. Most people just want some level of security and comfort.
If humans weren't naturally susceptible to consumerism, that money wouldn't yield a ROI...
Humans are susceptible to seduction.
I don't think the point of consumerism is to separate humans from their wealth. You could do that easily and more effectively with many other organizational structures. Look at "communist" dictatorships, or feudalism, or isolated tribes that have no means of trade; their general population is very poor and shut out from what wealth the land generates or has the potential to generate.
The point of consumerism is to act as a motivator for the working class to keep working. Once you have that plentiful food and safe & warm hut, assuming that's all there is to aspire to, it would be very tempting to stay home from work on Fridays.
The point of consumerism is to act as a motivator for the working class to keep working. Once you have that plentiful food and safe & warm hut, assuming that's all there is to aspire to, it would be very tempting to stay home from work on Fridays.
But... if you resist the temptation of shiny bullshit, we're so productive now that you could stay home from work on Fridays and the gears that provide that food and hut would keep turning. Why do people have to be motivated then? it just so happens that the excess of that extra work goes into someone's pocket.
Most of the things that the big Surf brands make are not useful for the actual act of Surfing. Even boardshorts from the major boardshort companies, about half their range can't be worn surfing. They're made from non-stretch fabric and intended to be worn around on the street.
Google up a "surf shop" in a big coastal town, pick the biggest, most obvious one, and chances are you wouldn't be able to equip yourself to go surfing with the things you can buy there. It'll be wall to wall boardshorts and hoodies, with a hundred pairs of sunglasses along the wall and maybe half a dozen shiny new boards stood up in a corner for decorative purposes. Observe the looks the staff will give each other if you try to ring one of those up.
If you want to go surfing, you need to find the little hole-in-the wall shop off the beach a ways, which will be stuffed full of wetsuits and boards, to the point where you can hardly walk around without knocking half the store down. They'll also have a few hundred pairs of boardshorts there, but surprisingly these ones will all have stretchy fabric and crotches that don't tear apart if you sink to your knees.
The Big Surf Brands know that most of their business comes from selling sunglasses and flip flops to people who want to look like surfers. And they're doing fine.