PDA

View Full Version : Arc'teryx Leaf Consumer "tactical" bandwagoners



Xrugger2012
30 November 2012, 12:46
I consider myself to be a fairly knowledgeable consumer. I have watched trends come and go, and who hops on the bandwagon with a new line of product to fill the niche', and to try and get a piece of the action. That is awesome the awesomeness of the free market, and capitalism.. However, from watching these trends, I have noticed one thing... they come and they go... But when it comes to outdoor gear, prices generally are expensive.. depending on the company. Arc'Teryx makes great gear, don't get me wrong... and gear that has a designated purpose, typically is a little more pricey... But to charge 500$ for a backpack that was designed by Arc'Teryx, and manufactured by Propper, for the Marine Corps, and then also made by arcTeryx almost in the same manner is absurd. The ILBE can be baought online, for 130-150 $. Same design, same build quality... The tshirts sold, 170$ for a pack of three... and to be quite honest, everything in the Arc'Teryx Leaf Collection is at a 300% markup... Great gear, don't get me wrong, but for the prices they are charging, should be made out of gold and Platinum thread, and should piss for ya in the darkest of nights.... Any thoughts? :P

FortTom
30 November 2012, 14:22
I'm also an avid backpacker. The prices for their backpacking/hiking/climbing gear is almost laughably expensive, and although outstanding in quality, the same quality gear can be had for 1/2 or less. Outside of tactical gear, recreational user's of Arc'teryx gear are usually people who like to flaunt the fact that they can spend $100 on $5.00 worth of gear.

FT

csmith
30 November 2012, 17:10
Exclusivity has its price.

P39
30 November 2012, 17:28
I'm also an avid backpacker. The prices for their backpacking/hiking/climbing gear is almost laughably expensive, and although outstanding in quality, the same quality gear can be had for 1/2 or less. Outside of tactical gear, recreational user's of Arc'teryx gear are usually people who like to flaunt the fact that they can spend $100 on $5.00 worth of gear.

FT

I think you're right on target with this statement. +1000

FortTom
30 November 2012, 17:51
Exclusivity has its price.
So does insanity.:P
FT

Tango six
1 December 2012, 15:15
I have had many jacket that have not held as well as my alpha jacket. Though it's not a leaf product in in civillian black lol. My wife was just happy I stopped wearing hunting jackets out of the house.

Xrugger2012
3 December 2012, 05:17
Thanks for reading the post. Does anyone have any companies that make good gear that do not have the exorbitant markups? One that I have found was AR500 for plate and plate carriers....

thatdamngoat
3 December 2012, 11:29
Personally I have an addiciton to a brand that is just as expensive as Arc'teryx (Triple Aught Design), and I don't mind paying the extra money for the gear at all. For the most part I find that their products, and this includes Arc'teryx, are much better made, and hold up longer than many of the lower priced companies such as 5.11 or knock off brands like LA Police Gear. Also, I don't mind paying more when I know exactly how they will fit me after being washed and abused a bit, and to know that they will hold up to that abuse. Your argument is kind of like saying "Why pay more money for a Cadilac when you can go and buy Kia for less." And let's not forget that you're also paying for labor. A Canadian factory worker get's paid a fair wage for their work. I'd wager that the workers that sew a Condor jacket don't, and they pass those savings on to you.

FortTom
3 December 2012, 12:33
Your argument is kind of like saying "Why pay more money for a Cadilac when you can go and buy Kia for less." Nope...not at all. So as to not take the thread off of AR related items, I won't do it. But when it comes to backpacking/climbing/mountaineering gear, I could list at least 20 companies that make comparable gear, and they're mostly American companies, that manufacture here. I'm comparing a Porsche to a Porsche, not a Caddilac to a KIA. And if I can buy a Porsche for 100K, and you wish to pay 500K for the same Porsche from a different dealer, because the Tag's on the car are different, then be my guest..[:D]

FT

Xrugger2012
3 December 2012, 12:59
Actually, It comes down to the fact that I have bought and used gear from a number of different outdoor companies, from backpacking, to kayaking, to general base layers to backpacks. I agree you get what you pay for... I can see paying 70$ to 80 for 3 good baselayer shirts from REI, or Patagonia etc.. but 170 is just outlandish and over priced when you can buy them elsewhere.. essentially this came to light when I was looking into a replacement backpack. I looked at the 500$ Leaf, then did some research, and the LEAF Pack is the same design, designed by arc'teryx as the Marine corps ILBE Marpat pack.... for 140 dollars shipped, complete, with all attachments.... 140$ -> 500.... big difference.... and both will wear equally the same on body and over time.... just saying... bandwagoning by Arc'teryx, actually makes me want to find companies that make the same article for function, that lasts equally and performs equally or better. for most hiking camping outdoors lifestyles, other products can fille the role vs. paying the 300% markup..

thatdamngoat
3 December 2012, 15:43
I agree. Most people won't need everything that the LEAF line is offering. But to think that the REI and Patagonia offerings are the same as the LEAF offerings is slightly disingenuous. Will REI's "performance crews" wick sweat away for $30? Sure. But the $99 crew from the LEAF line is made of merino wool which not only wicks sweat, but since it is an organic fabric it is naturally "no melt" and it also can be worn longer due to merino’s natural ability to stop odor (which is why they have been making cycling jersey’s out of merino forever). Do you need no melt for $60 more? Perhaps not. But if someone decides to buy one because they do need that capability, certainly they can't be decried as just another "band wagon" purchaser. As for the pack, it was designed by Arc’teryx, but it was built by Proper. Not that it won’t serve you well, because I’m sure it will, but when I was an 0311 I tried to replace everything I could that was issued by the Marines with my own gear because I did not like the quality of the Marine Corps issued pieces. If I could have gotten away with buying my own $500 pack from someone I knew was quality, I certainly would have.

Cameron
4 December 2012, 11:24
"It doesn't cost too much, the truth is, you can't afford it!" ~ J.E.Shoaff

The reality is that I have five Arc'teryx jackets, six pants, multiple mid layers, and a couple of their packs. I find them to be priced reasonably, but typically wait to purchase their products on sale. Quality is not really important in clothes worn to the coffee shop or the shooting range, but outdoor/hunting/tactical gear needs to perform in extreme conditions. I would always pay a products worth to get a product that will actually perform. I have been extreme conditions and had numerous products fail due to poor quality, but I have never had an Arc'teryx product fail yet.

I have watched guys with jackets from company X that are "just as good as Arc'teryx, without the hype" leak, rip and generally fail.

You reminded me I should have bought that Drac jacket from Mission Ready Equipment, when they were on sale last week... damn.

Cameron

GearScout
4 December 2012, 22:59
To understand the cost of a premium garment it's important to understand that the actual garment does not equal the cost of the materials plus the labor to produce it.

Commodity garment manufacturers simply begin with established fit pattern, or perhaps they cut up a competitors garment to reverse engineer its panel patterns. It costs them very little. Another option is to simply go to a sew shop and work with the sewers to tweak a house pattern, making a garment that looks different but not really performing any anatomic or material driven design.

Premium brands invest in design talent, development and testing programs as well as process and material management programs. These are all expensive endeavors that result in garments that are truly designed for their purpose using custom made patterns, materials specifically selected for their performance qualities by the design team, processes to monitor the quality of raw materials and make sure the Gore-Tex Pro Shell material you're paying for isn't actually "Gortex" from NichinWa Industries.

You're paying to employ an in-house design team that came up with the designs that are likely reverse engineered by some of the commodities manufacturers that you favor.

You're paying for innovations in design and materials that contribute to your safety and/or enjoyment.

You're paying for the designers to actually pattern a garment for its intended use. (Why do some hoods droop down into your face and others don't?)

You're paying for people that can source the right materials or even work with vendors to develop materials that don't exist for a given purpose.

You're paying for the development of manufacturing processes to support novel designs. Tooling is not cheap.

You're paying for the designers to fly to the factories and spend a few weeks walking sewers through the seasons new stitching patterns.

You're paying for small lot manufacturing so the company can assure quality and make incremental improvements.

You're paying someone to fly to the factories (usually in Asia) to meet with their manufacturing partners and do QA.

You're paying for QA by an exacting company that would rather toss a garment with 1mm of stitch runout rather than risk a garment failure in the field.

You're paying to provide sample garments to sponsored athletes for developmental testing.

You're paying for premium materials such as Gore fabrics, threads, etc...

You're paying for premium garment findings (zippers, sipper pulls, Cord-locs, bungee, etc.)

You're paying for sales reps that go to shops and explain product features to sales staff so they can help you select the best garment for your use.

The list goes on.

Bargain brands do not go to these lengths in their product development or production. That is how they keep their costs and prices low. They do not innovate.

Premium garment and hardgoods manufacturers are keenly aware of their pricing. Margins might seem exsessive, but look at the market they serve. This space is at the mercy of seasonal demand and style fads. Shitty winter? Nothing sells. Purple is the hot color? Not next year... You're paying a retailer to take an inventory risk in buying a bunch of garments that may or may not sell. All of these things are part of the price you pay each time you pick up a jacket from a premium brand.

Pay what you can afford for your clothes, but don't think for a moment that the performance garment brands you can't afford are over priced. They are expensive. But, rarely over priced.

UWone77
5 December 2012, 11:33
"It doesn't cost too much, the truth is, you can't afford it!" ~ J.E.Shoaff

The reality is that I have five Arc'teryx jackets, six pants, multiple mid layers, and a couple of their packs. I find them to be priced reasonably, but typically wait to purchase their products on sale. Quality is not really important in clothes worn to the coffee shop or the shooting range, but outdoor/hunting/tactical gear needs to perform in extreme conditions. I would always pay a products worth to get a product that will actually perform. I have been extreme conditions and had numerous products fail due to poor quality, but I have never had an Arc'teryx product fail yet.

I have watched guys with jackets from company X that are "just as good as Arc'teryx, without the hype" leak, rip and generally fail.

You reminded me I should have bought that Drac jacket from Mission Ready Equipment, when they were on sale last week... damn.

Cameron

Great Post Cameron. Hope to see you post some good pics here as well as the other boards I see you on.

Cameron
5 December 2012, 16:16
Great Post Cameron. Hope to see you post some good pics here as well as the other boards I see you on.

Thanks, you made me look for an Arc'teryx photo...

rob_s
17 December 2012, 04:13
Yes, more expensive gear is often better constructed than that which is less expensive. No, the vast majority of the people buying it are not ever going make use of 1/100 of the improved durability.

The other end of the spectrum is to buy clothing and gear that fits your needs and budget and view it as disposable. I've been buying Wrangler cargo pants for <$20/ea and have yet to destroy any, but if/when I do I'll simply throw them away. The fact that I can buy 10 pairs for what some people pay for one pair of ninja pants means I can afford to throw away 9 pair, and up until that 9 pair fail I have 10 pair to cycle through in different colors and/or sizes as needed.

In terms of jackets and the like, there are a lot of workwear companies that make clothes that are just as strong as the ninja companies but won't have the same ninja look. I have noticed that companies like Carhartt are becoming trendy again in the wider consumer market, which is also good in that you blend in with normal people. Being "grey" for me is more about not looking like a gun guy to other gun guys than it is about not having some gangbanger spot my Salomans and knowing I'm a ninja.

At the end of the day it's the individual ninja that has to decide if he requires $500 tabi boots or if a pair of $40 Chucks will work just as well. and since each ninja is buying his own shit with his own money, if he wants to burn that cash on a XXL TAD jacket where a gym membership would probably be better, it's his cash and his man-tits, he can do what he wants with them.

Eric
17 December 2012, 20:42
To understand the cost of a premium garment it's important to understand that the actual garment does not equal the cost of the materials plus the labor to produce it.

Commodity garment manufacturers simply begin with established fit pattern, or perhaps they cut up a competitors garment to reverse engineer its panel patterns. It costs them very little. Another option is to simply go to a sew shop and work with the sewers to tweak a house pattern, making a garment that looks different but not really performing any anatomic or material driven design.

Premium brands invest in design talent, development and testing programs as well as process and material management programs. These are all expensive endeavors that result in garments that are truly designed for their purpose using custom made patterns, materials specifically selected for their performance qualities by the design team, processes to monitor the quality of raw materials and make sure the Gore-Tex Pro Shell material you're paying for isn't actually "Gortex" from NichinWa Industries.

You're paying to employ an in-house design team that came up with the designs that are likely reverse engineered by some of the commodities manufacturers that you favor.

You're paying for innovations in design and materials that contribute to your safety and/or enjoyment.

You're paying for the designers to actually pattern a garment for its intended use. (Why do some hoods droop down into your face and others don't?)

You're paying for people that can source the right materials or even work with vendors to develop materials that don't exist for a given purpose.

You're paying for the development of manufacturing processes to support novel designs. Tooling is not cheap.

You're paying for the designers to fly to the factories and spend a few weeks walking sewers through the seasons new stitching patterns.

You're paying for small lot manufacturing so the company can assure quality and make incremental improvements.

You're paying someone to fly to the factories (usually in Asia) to meet with their manufacturing partners and do QA.

You're paying for QA by an exacting company that would rather toss a garment with 1mm of stitch runout rather than risk a garment failure in the field.

You're paying to provide sample garments to sponsored athletes for developmental testing.

You're paying for premium materials such as Gore fabrics, threads, etc...

You're paying for premium garment findings (zippers, sipper pulls, Cord-locs, bungee, etc.)

You're paying for sales reps that go to shops and explain product features to sales staff so they can help you select the best garment for your use.

The list goes on.

Bargain brands do not go to these lengths in their product development or production. That is how they keep their costs and prices low. They do not innovate.

Premium garment and hardgoods manufacturers are keenly aware of their pricing. Margins might seem exsessive, but look at the market they serve. This space is at the mercy of seasonal demand and style fads. Shitty winter? Nothing sells. Purple is the hot color? Not next year... You're paying a retailer to take an inventory risk in buying a bunch of garments that may or may not sell. All of these things are part of the price you pay each time you pick up a jacket from a premium brand.

Pay what you can afford for your clothes, but don't think for a moment that the performance garment brands you can't afford are over priced. They are expensive. But, rarely over priced.
I get all that. However, it comes down to purchasing what you feel will perform as you need it to, for the given task. Most folks won't get $800 value out of a parka, a few will. Manufacturers like Arc'teryx don't have the sales volume of the chain outfits, so profit is tied more to a higher individual purchase price.

rob_s
18 December 2012, 01:47
I agree Eric, Cost does not always equal value.

Imagine how much it would cost for me to fly to the middle east and come back with a mason jar full of Syrian desert sand. Do you think I can sell that jar on the open market here for a price anywhere near approaching my cost to obtain it?

Stickman
19 December 2012, 15:09
People may need to read this twice to start to understand what Rob is saying. If you think you are getting LEAF quality gear at half the price or better, I've just got to laugh.





To understand the cost of a premium garment it's important to understand that the actual garment does not equal the cost of the materials plus the labor to produce it.

Commodity garment manufacturers simply begin with established fit pattern, or perhaps they cut up a competitors garment to reverse engineer its panel patterns. It costs them very little. Another option is to simply go to a sew shop and work with the sewers to tweak a house pattern, making a garment that looks different but not really performing any anatomic or material driven design.

Premium brands invest in design talent, development and testing programs as well as process and material management programs. These are all expensive endeavors that result in garments that are truly designed for their purpose using custom made patterns, materials specifically selected for their performance qualities by the design team, processes to monitor the quality of raw materials and make sure the Gore-Tex Pro Shell material you're paying for isn't actually "Gortex" from NichinWa Industries.

You're paying to employ an in-house design team that came up with the designs that are likely reverse engineered by some of the commodities manufacturers that you favor.

You're paying for innovations in design and materials that contribute to your safety and/or enjoyment.

You're paying for the designers to actually pattern a garment for its intended use. (Why do some hoods droop down into your face and others don't?)

You're paying for people that can source the right materials or even work with vendors to develop materials that don't exist for a given purpose.

You're paying for the development of manufacturing processes to support novel designs. Tooling is not cheap.

You're paying for the designers to fly to the factories and spend a few weeks walking sewers through the seasons new stitching patterns.

You're paying for small lot manufacturing so the company can assure quality and make incremental improvements.

You're paying someone to fly to the factories (usually in Asia) to meet with their manufacturing partners and do QA.

You're paying for QA by an exacting company that would rather toss a garment with 1mm of stitch runout rather than risk a garment failure in the field.

You're paying to provide sample garments to sponsored athletes for developmental testing.

You're paying for premium materials such as Gore fabrics, threads, etc...

You're paying for premium garment findings (zippers, sipper pulls, Cord-locs, bungee, etc.)

You're paying for sales reps that go to shops and explain product features to sales staff so they can help you select the best garment for your use.

The list goes on.

Bargain brands do not go to these lengths in their product development or production. That is how they keep their costs and prices low. They do not innovate.

Premium garment and hardgoods manufacturers are keenly aware of their pricing. Margins might seem exsessive, but look at the market they serve. This space is at the mercy of seasonal demand and style fads. Shitty winter? Nothing sells. Purple is the hot color? Not next year... You're paying a retailer to take an inventory risk in buying a bunch of garments that may or may not sell. All of these things are part of the price you pay each time you pick up a jacket from a premium brand.

Pay what you can afford for your clothes, but don't think for a moment that the performance garment brands you can't afford are over priced. They are expensive. But, rarely over priced.

Cameron
26 December 2012, 20:41
The fact that I can buy 10 pairs for what some people pay for one pair of ninja pants means I can afford to throw away 9 pair, and up until that 9 pair fail I have 10 pair to cycle through in different colors and/or sizes as needed.

So if I can afford to buy 10 pair of Arc'teryx Ninja pants, then I win, again!

rob_s
27 December 2012, 04:33
So if I can afford to buy 10 pair of Arc'teryx Ninja pants, then I win, again!

No, it means you're a fool.

If the alleged reason for buying ninja-wear is the fact that it lasts longer, then buying 10 of them to have extras would invalidate that argument.

But your post borders on exposing the real reason many people actually buy this stuff which is "hey! Look at me! I can afford to buy expensive ninja-wear!" Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's your money to spend as you see fit. If there's some hole you're trying to fill by buying expensive items, and this is filling that hole, rock on.

Cameron
28 December 2012, 18:00
Rob, come on, you can do better than ad hominem attacks. I understand this is a tough economy for a lot of people and, while I have some understanding of your specific problems, and have experienced your general lack of tact and myopic nature, calling someone a fool because they can afford good quality gear makes you look envious and petty to those not familiar with you.

However, I think you may have missed the point of quality gear. It is not simply about just pants that last longer. The reality is that technical gear the like of which Arc'teryx makes don't just last longer they actually provide better utility. While your $20 Wranglers work great at the range and your coffee shop, there are reasons people are willing to invest in quality gear that increase performance, efficiency and are also durable. Companies like Arc'teryx make gear that, breathe better, wick moisture, are abrasion resistant, have better cut and patterning for freedom of movement. Now I give you the fact that for posturing at the range your Wranglers with serve you well, but some of us like to hike, backpack, hunt, snow shoe etc. sometimes even in the cold, or heat and at elevations above sea level. Having quality gear when 16 miles from the nearest road and above 12,000 feet, carrying a quarter of an elk in your pack is sometimes worth more than the $80+/- I paid for a pair of good pants.

Should we take your approach that we can buy 5 Hi-Points for the price of a Glock?

Durability is a requirement of quality clothing, but I am usually more concerned with the performance of the equipment, will it keep me dry, warm/cool, protect me from the elements. If you were to come shooting will us this weekend outside of Fairplay Colorado, where the high temps will be around 24 and the elevation is above 12,000 ft, you might find that your Wranglers may not have been the best investment.

Rob try seeing things from a perspective different from your own, it is a big world out there and sometimes your one size fits all attitude, well it just doesn't fit, and you wouldn't want to appear foolish, would you?

Cameron

mlosi762
28 December 2012, 19:24
Touché Cameron, touché... I'm not one who typically wants to get involved with a disagreement online, but I agree with you 100%.

The quality of gear is paramount (yes, price does matter for the consumer), but along with quality comes a price. As an infantry veteran, I dealt with plenty of "mil-spec" issued, shit quality kit... In fact, most of the TA-50 I was issued was sub-standard. True story: I had the crotch of a pair of ACU pants bust open on me in the middle of a firefight in Ramadi, IQ. Literally, my "C&B" were dangling in the breeze, while I was trading bullets with insurgents... No bueno.

While my ACU's were junk, my rack and other accessories were higher-end brand names, and never failed me once. With the exception of a few required issue items, most of my issued gear (rack, pouches, etc.) stayed state-side, and the stuff that went down range was purchased with my own dollars.

I'm a firm believer that quality matters, and that unfortunately for many of us, cost matters. But, as with weapon components, you get what you pay for.

For the "weekend warrior," "tactical yellow visor" or average 3-Gun competitor, some of these items don't make a difference. But for an individual who's daily business is to put themselves in harm's way, yeah, it matters.

So, if a $20 pair of Wanglers works on the range, as it should, fine. But do I want that same pair of Wanglers in the mountains of Afghanistan? Probably not.

What I want is the best possible gear that my wallet can afford, down to my socks... Some of the so-called overpriced, bandwagon, cool-guy, ninja gear, may or may not be the best, but Arc'Teryx stuff works! Yes it's ridiculously priced, but I don't know of anyone to date that has worn that gear out unless they tried to.

My opinion on all of it is: If you've never been on a two way firing range, don't knock it. If the ones that have been there are buying it, then it's probably a good purchase. So what if the fan boys buy it, it's their money, not yours.

Cameron
7 January 2013, 10:12
Pants
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8493/8358814646_fc3b782c0d_z.jpg

Jackets
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8334/8357753549_7532bca6d4_z.jpg

Mid Layers
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8360/8358815016_e91a9f40a4_z.jpg

In my experience, they are a lot better than Wranglers.... [:D]

mlosi762
7 January 2013, 18:14
I'm jealous...

csmith
7 January 2013, 19:06
I'm jealous...

Nah, just offer him 4 PMags for all of it. I'm sure he'll bite. [:D]

Cameron
7 January 2013, 20:26
Nah, just offer him 4 PMags for all of it. I'm sure he'll bite. [:D]

Awesome that would mean I would have 504 AR mags!!!

mlosi762
8 January 2013, 16:28
Hell, I'd be willing to trade 4 PMags for just one of those jackets...

Cameron
13 January 2013, 17:38
There are times and places when Wranglers just don't cut it... [:D]
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8225/8379008642_3327a8d6b9_c.jpg

Stickman
13 January 2013, 23:05
No, it means you're a fool.

If the alleged reason for buying ninja-wear is the fact that it lasts longer, then buying 10 of them to have extras would invalidate that argument.

But your post borders on exposing the real reason many people actually buy this stuff which is "hey! Look at me! I can afford to buy expensive ninja-wear!" Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's your money to spend as you see fit. If there's some hole you're trying to fill by buying expensive items, and this is filling that hole, rock on.


Rob- You are close to finding yourself removed from yet another firearm board.

eodinert
26 February 2013, 01:08
I know someone who bought a $1200 Arcteryx rain suit. It does not have $1150 worth of utility over my rain suit. It does not have $1,000 worth of utility over GI goretex. I've had a number of cars that cost less than his rain suit. When people spend government money on this stuff, to me it is nothing less than fraud, waste and abuse. If you want to spend your money on it, and adopt the condescending attitude that seems to go with it, don't let me stop you. The cost/benefit ration on some gear is whacked.

Stickman
26 February 2013, 16:46
You can buy a rubber rain suit and claim it does the same thing if you want.... and for some people it will.

Cameron
26 February 2013, 19:21
I think that a lot of this stems from people really not knowing, or experiencing the difference. I recall my first Arc'Teryx mid layer I recieved as a gift, I had to change the size and simply couldn't believe it was $150, I couldn't understand where the "value" was. It wasn't until I wore it on a day when temps dropped into the single digits that I was amazed by how well it worked, now I have three of them and wear them all the time. I suppose it is true that, "you've got to know, to understand".

I picked up another Arc Hardshell jacket and a pair of softshell pants on the weekend, not the LEAF line, but absolutely fantastic deals with the end of winter season sales going on.

Cameron

UWone77
26 February 2013, 22:31
I've just purchased a few commercial Arc'teryx jackets and a pair of LEAF pants. These are my first purchases of Arc'teryx gear. I just have to say you have to try them first before you can make a blanket statement about their value.

People simply don't know what they don't know. These aren't your partners crappy range 5.11s.

CV1073
15 May 2013, 12:33
I don't own anything from Arcteryx but I buy other premium brand (TAD among them): quality, R&D, place of origin all of those contribute to the street price, so does the lenght of the distribution chain and, for the LEAF line of products also the fact that the price is set that high to discourage(sp) civilian potential customer purchasing it.
NOT MY WORDS: on another forum, Arcteryx honcho himself ask the the civillian (defined windows licker.. many of you, at that point have understood of which forum I am refering to) NOT to buy the LEAF line of products because, in a moment of high military demand, every purchase made by civilian may delay an order made by a military operator (of any level) or a militry unit. He also added that the "negotiated prices" with the .gov, .mil or .le organization is completelly different.
At first, as a sales manager, I was absolutelly offended by those words.. but after a bit I understood: it was not a "dislike" for my hard earned money, it was a "I cannot grow too big, so I must give a better service to those that serve before the other" probably later this will change when there will be a reduction in the demand of those that goes into harms way.
Anyway, those are just my two cents, hope nobody get offended by those words and by my poor English

Ciao

CV

gatordev
15 May 2013, 17:47
First up, I have nothing against Arc'teryx stuff and it looks fantastic if you have the right piece of gear for the job. That said, I don't own any pieces (yet).



I don't own anything from Arcteryx but I buy other premium brand (TAD among them): quality, R&D, place of origin all of those contribute to the street price, so does the lenght of the distribution chain and, for the LEAF line of products also the fact that the price is set that high to discourage(sp) civilian potential customer purchasing it.
NOT MY WORDS: on another forum, Arcteryx honcho himself ask the the civillian (defined windows licker.. many of you, at that point have understood of which forum I am refering to) NOT to buy the LEAF line of products because, in a moment of high military demand, every purchase made by civilian may delay an order made by a military operator (of any level) or a militry unit. He also added that the "negotiated prices" with the .gov, .mil or .le organization is completelly different.
At first, as a sales manager, I was absolutelly offended by those words.. but after a bit I understood: it was not a "dislike" for my hard earned money, it was a "I cannot grow too big, so I must give a better service to those that serve before the other" probably later this will change when there will be a reduction in the demand of those that goes into harms way.
Anyway, those are just my two cents, hope nobody get offended by those words and by my poor English

Ciao

CV

That sounds like a load of crap to me. If you don't want to sell to civilians, then don't. Place your stuff on .gov Mall (or whatever it's called), through ADS, etc. But don't sell your stuff through REI and then complain that civilians shouldn't be buying it.

thatdamngoat
16 May 2013, 06:25
I believe he's talking about the LEAF line exclusively and not the comercial line. I have never seen LEAF on REI.

gatordev
16 May 2013, 16:19
I believe he's talking about the LEAF line exclusively and not the comercial line. I have never seen LEAF on REI.

Fair enough. But I guess that still begs the question: why make it available through a civilian distributor/dealer/vendor if you don't want people to buy it? Or at least limit the supply to those civilian vendors during the "time of high demand." I've seen other vendors who have NSNs do that.

No doubt it's more complicated than I'm making it out to be, it still seems like an odd "request."

skullworks
17 May 2013, 11:58
As I recall the LEAF products could not be sold to anyone who wasn't active duty LE or military. Any dealer who violated those restrictions would be axed as an Arc'teryx dealer.

The Swedish dealer broke that rule as soon as the first shipment arrived, but apparently Arc'teryx didn't give a shit when it came down to brass tax. I guess that attitude has expanded to the North American market as well.

I only own some Arc'teryx headgear but I have friends who are great fans of their products and use them exclusively (not LEAF though).

Tapatapatapatalk

BobinLaConner
18 May 2013, 11:04
I have some arc'teryx gear and it sure seems like well put together gear. Personally, my choice to buy was not because it was trendy or elitist, but because it worked extremely well to fill a need and I have a high amount of confidence in it not failing, (I love stuff that works well and lasts). I don't always think about it, but for most larger purchases I tend to buy things based on a scale of cost vs performance vs the need and associated risks... if you can visualize the chart with cost on the vertical axis and performance on the horizontal axis, for the most part there is a gradual increase in cost for gains in performance, until the last section where cost turns and accelerates upward through the roof for the last cutting edge bit of performance. And even within that last spike at the right end of the chart, there is a "sweet spot" just before the last 2% of "cutting edge" performance gain and 20-40% of cost. There is probably a very short list of items anyone needs in that last 2% absolute cutting edge, but I could see purchasing a jacket here because the cost really isn't that bad relative to the benefit.

I buy most things trying to stay out of that last (expensive) part of the performance curve i.e. Jeans, work shirts, batteries...Costco, my watch...Cheap G-Shock, my computer...4 year old laptop, but for some things, I do choose to buy in that expensive "sweet spot" part of the curve. Things that if they fail have a large impact to my comfort or safety, like my car tires, good shoes, jackets, or our coffee maker LOL. Some of these might be select items where it is simply "life enhancing" to have something well designed and the peak of the industry (there is a certain feeling of appreciation when handling a Sage Fly Rod or Daniel Defense AR). And there is a certain feeling when you are in the woods in a downpour and your coat or boots are keeping you warm and dry.

But it all comes down to what is important to you. Unless a person is pretty wealthy, you just can't afford buying everything to be the highest quality. I suppose a lot of people buy things to look cool to their peers because they know it is hard to come by and expensive, but I would think most on this site are buying simply because of the quality. Could I find something as good as Arc'teryx for less money, maybe. Do I want to depend on "maybe" to keep me dry on my next hike in a storm...probably not. If someone wants to buy the Leaf Arc'teryx for whatever reason, more power to them...I'm pretty sure they would probably laugh at my choice of coffee maker.

Just remember, everything you own is trying to fall apart and decompose and you are the one trying to keep everything in working order for when you need it. The trick is knowing when it is important to pay for quality and when it is not, (and also when a lesser quality product is enough to fill the bill). For what it is worth, I always look at the LEAF gear, but I have not found a true need to buy it yet.

One good quote my dad used to say when I would buy something frivolous like my Palm Pilot was, "that sounds like a perfect solution to a nonexistent problem".... Unfortunately once in a while he also said to a young me "G-Damit...if you had another brain, it would be lonesome"

ottobc
24 October 2013, 12:12
Arc'teryx has definitely made the case that they are producing superior pieces, and I will concede that. The trick that is going on here in consumer markets is luxury, I am paying more for something that is marginally better than its' competition. Lets take my Atom LT for example, the features that separate the atom LT from the other jackets I was considering made the extra cost worthwhile(in some cases the jacket cost the same as the competition). I have been using dead bird equipment for 5+ years alongside other brands that I have really come to like(not saying that in a hipster way) and have watched them grow wildly popular, some things I will very likely go to Arc'teryx for, and others I won't.

While I have seen the brand grow astronomically in popularity(like 40% increase in revenue last year), they have made good and bad decisions, as any business would. Good news is that they haven't started shopping around with factories in order to lower costs(ahem TNF), they haven't overbranded (TNF again),they haven't created too many gucci items(patagonia).
In my experience in the outdoor retail world you have a progression of buyers:

Experimental-These are the people that are willing to try out your brand. In relation to dead bird, they started with climbing harnesses and climbing equipment, to which I say kudos to any company who has the balls to make equipment that people will put their lives in using experimental processes and materials.

Founding-This step is when you form the base of your buyers, the ones that outside of a massive implosion(ahem merrell or nearly anything wolverine intl touches), they will buy from you as long as you are putting out a good product regardless of natural booms, busts, or popularity issues. This is when Arc'teryx was developing the pieces that we know Arc'teryx by today, shells, packs, synthetic midlayers.

Booms- This is where arcteryx is now, this is when the annoying customers come out, the "Arcteryx or nothing" customer, it is important for the industry to disregard this customer as much as possible and not to start producing things oriented for them, unless you are just interested in making a shit ton of money(TNF again). The company has just gotten crazy popular over the last 6 years and has given the company the ability to go into new markets and heavier into some investments, reinvesting in their line of gloves, expanding their running and base layer lineup, LEAF has been around for a while with the Bravo pack, knee pads, and all. Now the massive expansion of their LEAF clothing line and bringing more pieces onto the LEAF side and vice versa is just a testament to their recent success.

Busts- Yet to happen to Arc'teryx, will be interesting to see how they handle it. Hopefully they fair better than someone like Merrell, who seems to be in a forever flat stall.