We kid. Sort of. Here's an ad Patagonia ran in the NY Times encouraging people not to get sucked in by the faux events that are Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Faux events that have become bizarre, if not outright dangerous, spectacles of mass consumption. Thing is Patagonia, when you don't have much money, a 52-inch flat screen t.v. for $200 is a pretty good deal. Everyone can't afford nice Patagonia down sweaters for $300, because lets be honest, anyone that can afford Patagucci can also afford to stay home, buy organics, shop at Whole Foods, and drive a Subaru. At the end of the day, Patagucci customers all got their energy sucking 52 inch plasmas, but they could afford to pay $1,500.

We get the message, though, despite the hypocrisy and self righteousness of it all. Make stuff that lasts, can be recycled, got it. Good message. But honestly at the end of the day apparel has to be one of the most offensive of consumer products; fashion driven, disposable, high transportation costs, extractive, sweat shop labor. Oh, but the list is endless. It's not like you sell titanium caribiners. But ok, better than nothing, we suppose. So, thumbs up, well sideways, from GoBlog. Keep up the self-righteousness. Lord knows we love a soap box here at GoBlog. Via Cleanest Line.

Great article in NY Times on barefoot running. Mostly because it shows Nike acting like an evil corporation, long before it became the pervasive, over-saturated brand numbing, "evil" corporation that it is. But we digress. The article itself is really an overview of the current state of barefoot running but it manages to throw in this little anecdote about Nike.

Bob Anderson knows at least one thing changed, because he watched it happen. As a high-school senior in 1966, he started Distance Running News, a twice-yearly magazine whose growth was so great that Anderson dropped out of college four years later to publish it full time as Runner’s World. Around then, another fledgling operation called Blue Ribbon Sports was pioneering cushioned running shoes; it became Nike. Together, the magazine and its biggest advertiser rode the running boom — until Anderson decided to see whether the shoes really worked.

“Some consumer advocate needed to test this stuff,” Anderson told me. He hired Peter Cavanagh, of the Penn State University biomechanics lab, to stress-test new products mechanically. “We tore the shoes apart,” Anderson says. He then graded shoes on a scale from zero to five stars and listed them from worst to first.

When a few of Nike’s shoes didn’t fare so well in the 1981 reviews, the company pulled its $1 million advertising contract with Runner’s World. Nike already had started its own magazine, Running, which would publish shoe reviews and commission star writers like Ken Kesey and Hunter S. Thompson.

“Nike would never advertise with me again,” Anderson says. “That hurt us bad.” In 1985, Anderson sold Runner’s World to Rodale, which, he says, promptly abolished his grading system. Today, every shoe in Runner’s World is effectively “recommended” for one kind of runner or another. David Willey, the magazine’s current editor, says that it only tests shoes that “are worth our while.” After Nike closed its magazine, it took its advertising back to Runner’s World. (Megan Saalfeld, a Nike spokeswoman, says she was unable to find someone to comment about this episode.)

Anyhoot, read the article, it's a great primer on the current thinking regarding barefoot running, at least from its proponents. Some of the more interesting quotes.

"Back at the lab, Lieberman found that barefoot runners land with almost zero initial impact shock. Heel-strikers, by comparison, collide with the ground with a force equal to as much as three times their body weight. “Most people today think barefoot running is dangerous and hurts, but actually you can run barefoot on the world’s hardest surfaces without the slightest discomfort and pain.”

"Two years ago, in my book, “Born to Run,” I suggested we don’t need smarter shoes; we need smarter feet. I’d gone into Mexico’s Copper Canyon to learn from the Tarahumara Indians, who tackle 100-mile races well into their geriatric years. I was a broken-down, middle-aged, ex-runner when I arrived. Nine months later, I was transformed. After getting rid of my cushioned shoes and adopting the Tarahumaras’ whisper-soft stride, I was able to join them for a 50-mile race through the canyons. I haven’t lost a day of running to injury since"

It's usually the fashion industry stealing remorselessly from the outdoor industry when it comes to fashion trends, but in the case of the puffy jacket skirt, the roles are reversed. We're predict puffy jacket skirts being worn by all the cool kids on the slopes next year. Want to get a jump on the trend? Grab an XXL North Face puffy, a skinny belt, and bam, you're a trendsetter. Throw in the bowler hat and you'll be remembered forever in the annals of outdoor fashion. Remember you read it here first. Via NY Times.

Waterproof gear that is made using Gore-Tex. But some rivals are charging that the high prices result from unlawful efforts to stifle competition, not the material's inherent superiority.

Now, W.L. Gore & Associates Inc., which makes the waterproof, breathable membrane widely used in outdoor sports gear, is facing mounting antitrust investigations in the U.S. and Europe into allegations it abused its market clout to hobble rivals.

The European Commission is poised to begin preliminary inquiries into complaints by other waterproof-material makers and big outdoor-clothing brands by sending out questionnaires to Gore and other parties, people familiar with the matter said.

In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission is further along. It issued subpoenas to the company in March as part of a formal antitrust probe. The existence of the subpoenas was reported earlier this month.

Last week, Columbia Sportswear Co. of Portland, Ore., disclosed that it had filed a formal antitrust complaint against Gore before European Commission antitrust authorities. Columbia last year bought OutDry, a rival technology used mainly in boots and gloves that its inventors say is superior to the four-decades-old Gore-Tex.

"We believe that Gore has long engaged in a systematic campaign of exclusionary conduct to insulate its dominant position against challenges from more innovative, better quality and lower cost rivals," Peter Bragdon, Columbia's general counsel, said.

Gore denies the allegations, saying it has succeeded in the market because it offers the best, most innovative products.

"We have confidence in the integrity of our business practices," said a spokesman, adding that the company hadn't been notified of any inquiry by European authorities.

An EC spokeswoman said: "We have indeed received a complaint, which we are looking into."

The FTC declined to comment on a current investigation.

Despite initial interest from many of the largest makers of boots and gloves, OutDry's Italian inventors say, it has been unable to gain any traction in the marketplace because Gore demands exclusivity from outdoor clothing and sportswear brands.

Via WSJ [The Goat].