NAU R.I.P.
Charlie Burr
Portland-based outdoor clothing company NAU made great jackets, pants and shorts. But their legacy will be something more: they operated like a company who truly gave a damn. In doing so, they pioneered a better way of engaging customers to give back.
On Friday afternoon, NAU announced they were winding down operations immediately. Citing tightening credit and faced with escalating costs, the company released this statement on their home page.
It was a sad day not only for admirers of the company, but those who want to see our region develop a more sustainable economy. But as tempting a storyline as it is, NAU's failure as a business entity should not be over-hyped as evidence of much more than simply the difficulties of growing a young company in this economy. Traditional new business alike are facing the same challenging capital market.
Just as Howard Dean's failure to secure the 2004 Democratic nomination did not point to the futility of internet organizing as a political force, NAU's closing shouldn't be used to draw similar conclusions about the viability of socially responsible business. We should learn from NAU's experience, but also pay attention to what NAU got right.
NAU's customer-driven giving model helped introduce consumers to the critical work of non-profits like 1000 Friends, Mercy Corps, Oregon Action, Oregon Food Bank and many others. How NAU gave back was as important as where they directed resources. By offering customers a menu of contribution options, NAU rejected the traditional top-down structure of corporate giving. NAU consumers drove the process, and as a result, they formed a deeper connection with both the non-profits and NAU itself.
NAU placed progressive values at the core of their business. They wore their commitment to sustainability on their sleeve, but they never lost sight of the importance of creating great products. And they were a partner in one of the most important land use fights in a generation: Measure 49. Just that alone makes their work worthwhile in my book.
We wish their hard-working team of employees much luck and future success.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:38 p.m.
May 4, '08
That's really too bad, I had just learned about NAU at the Candidates Gone Wild event. Sounds like they were a company with some good ideas.
3:05 p.m.
May 4, '08
Oh, I should have probably mentioned they're getting rid of all inventory at 50 percent off. Click through the links above to get to their site.
5:12 p.m.
May 4, '08
Great social committment, but I submit that NAU might just be going out of business because $65 for a T-shirt is a little steep? It's not the organic cotton; here's one for 12 bucks.
I love sustainability, but you have to be able to afford it.
7:04 p.m.
May 4, '08
A number of my friends worked at Nau and are now looking for new jobs. It's a tough thing to go through.
I'm really sorry Nau failed - they were trying to do something great.
7:21 p.m.
May 4, '08
So TJ, what you're saying is that the Price of Progress can actually be a lot cheaper? ;)
7:47 p.m.
May 4, '08
Well, I'm saying your business model has to support your sustainability model. I don't necessarily want to buy a cheap sweatshop cotton T from Indonesia, and I realize that the more natural processes for making things cost more. Come look in my fridge and you'll see a whole host of items that I could just as easily get at Winco for half the price, but which we buy because they are healthier and better for the planet and our local economy to buy here.
But there's a limit to that, and the products you sell also have to be inelastic enough to make the purchase sensible. I need toilet paper no matter what; I might as well make a good choice on that. But I don't need a t-shirt so badly that I'm going to drop a couple hours' pay on it. Rather than buy sustainably, I just don't buy at all.
I really DO admire and support their mission, and they appeared to be simply stellar members of our community. If I can find myself feeling empathetic towards people who worked at the loan shops Jeff Merkley celebrated the closure of, obviously having people cast out of jobs that were of enormous benefit to Oregon is that much worse. But it's a competitive economy, and while maybe there were some other reasons that I don't know about that caused NAU to fail, I have to think price pointing might have been one of the bigger ones.
9:21 p.m.
May 4, '08
I feel for anyone unemployed in this economy, but my wife's comments were like Joe's: clothes were not very interesting and prices were absurd ($165 for jeans, $65 for t-shirts).
A sustainability model is not very sustainable if only the richest an afford it.
May 4, '08
Joe and Mrs Paul, I don't think it was the expensive price point per se. Lucky Jeans are $100-$130 and there's nothing remotely unusual about them (except the detailng in the fly).
Nau's products weren't just sustainable, they were really well made, functional and cutting edge fashionable. And those things cost money, even in China and Thailand.
It may be that the customer who wants fashion and is willing and able to pay the price point, just wasn't into the sustainability mission....or perhaps there weren't enough of them just yet. Maybe the customers who did care about the mission, couldn't rationalize the price or didn't seek out their (mostly mall) locations.
In any event, like Charlie, I am saddened by their closure, but am somewhat hopeful that other companies will find a way to make the sustainable, functional and desirable sportswear thing work. I'd hate to think that the only way to be profitable in the apparel business is to continue earth-destroying practices and low wage labor. I hope our local big hitters (Nike, Columbia, Adidas, etc.) are smart enough and magnanimous enough to hire (and rehire) some of the Nau folks. The need for sustainably manufactured products isn't going to go away and Oregon could still benefit from the Nau folks expertise.
May 5, '08
exretailer...they weren't that well made, sorry.
My $95 snap front tee shirt has some terrible stitching that looks like it will be short lived and the fabric it self went from black to dusted gray in a matter of 5 washings.
My $200+ softshell jacket, admittedly water resistant not water proof, not only lets in water but leaks at the seams.
I loved Nau, everything they stood for, everyone they worked with, everyone I knew who worked for them, and I especially loved their Grey Matters writings.
I am sorry to see them and their business model go, but I won't miss their clothes.
May 5, '08
Anon- Softshells are not waterproof. That is why they are breathable and good for 90% of weather, but not downpours. They are only water resistant. Perhaps you wanted a hardshell. Nau's products were great and expensive, but not more so then their competitors. A similar jacket or shirt costs the same or a little more from Patagonia or Arcteryx. Their quality was great.
I would love to see a sustainable business that also provided more affordable clothing. Nau was the same price as Patagonia, and I would love to see a company sell clothing to a larger segment of the population at a much cheaper price.
May 5, '08
Stop the gripping and let NAU Rest In Peace. There will other companies who learn from NAU. Thanks for breaking waves.
12:53 p.m.
May 5, '08
"I don't think it was the expensive price point per se. Lucky Jeans are $100-$130 "
Ah, but regular old Levis are $40+ these days, so you're talking about a doubling of the price. The Nau t-shirts were approximately a quintupling of the price.
May 5, '08
"I love sustainability, but you have to be able to afford it."
So, we continue our unsustainable economy because we can afford it?
From the Cree, a society that has a much more sustainable history than the dominant western approach most of us live in:
"Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we can’t eat money."
But we can take comfort in the knowledge that we could afford it - right up to the last Twinkie.
May 5, '08
I want a down shirt really bad. How can I get my hands on one?
May 6, '08
"NAU's customer-driven giving model helped introduce consumers to the critical work of non-profits like 1000 Friends, Mercy Corps, Oregon Action, Oregon Food Bank and many others. How NAU gave back was as important as where they directed resources. By offering customers a menu of contribution options, NAU rejected the traditional top-down structure of corporate giving. NAU consumers drove the process, and as a result, they formed a deeper connection with both the non-profits and NAU itself."
So, what's the difference between this and Wal-Mart (http://walmartstores.com/CommunityGiving/) or Starbucks (http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/community.asp)?
NAU was a bad idea and a bad business model with so "eco" greenery scattered about to try to make it look better. You can't have corporate social responsibility if you're no longer a corporation...
May 6, '08
nau failed because they ran the company horribly. it is not social consciousness to charge $50 for a tee shirt in the name of eco anything. it was gimick. it was doomed to failure from the beginning.