Everyone makes everything

I’ve joked a couple times that every outdoor brand eventually grows until they do a Grateful Dead collab. In the same way, it sometimes feels like it’s the fate of every brand to grow until they’re attempting to compete in every vertical of the outdoors. Just a few years ago, I would have felt confident in narrowing most outdoor brands to a reasonably specific category. A climbing brand. A mountaineering brand. An outdoor apparel brand. A sandal brand.

But now, The North Face, once known primarily for outdoor apparel, has invested heavily in shoes, backpacks, and trail running. Arc’teryx, once synonymous with technical mountain apparel, is also making shoes. Chaco has grown into every form of footwear. Yeti is expanding from cups and coolers to backpacks with the acquisition of Mystery Ranch. Even Rab, with its mountaineering roots, has grown into running and cycling. Your favorite small outdoor brand from eight years ago? They’ve probably massively expanded their product line and look just like every other medium-sized outdoor brand. Everyone is making Melanzana knock offs (yes, I've been to Leadville). Brands that once felt somewhat distinct now blur together.

Grow, grow, grow

The truth is that the growth of the outdoor market has led to an industry that feels more homogeneous than ever. What used to be a brand and retail landscape defined by specialization and unique brand identity now feels like a collection of (extremely) overlapping Venn diagrams.

This isn’t just about product creep; it’s also about strategy and ambition. Say you build a successful brand on the back of a tight product line, narrow market, and unique vision. Inevitably someone is likely to recognize that “hey, people love our brand for how well we do A, can we capitalize on that loyalty and also do B, C, D and E?”. The outdoor industry is a business, and brands want (or have) to grow. When you’re a publicly traded company, investors demand growth. Growth via increased market share on existing product lines is not nearly as exciting as opportunistic growth due to entering new markets and verticals.

Differentiation in the outdoor industry has often been about a combination of innovation, aesthetics, locality, and storytelling. However, innovation has largely reached a plateau, locality becomes less important as brands grow, and budgets for films and brand storytelling are drying up in comparison to previous years. Sustainability messaging remains important to consumers, but those budgets are shrinking as well (unless regulatory-mandated), and a range of esoteric sustainability goals, regulations, and initiatives can be confusing for consumers.

In an effort to stand apart, I think the use of influential athletes and creators remains a key tool in a brand marketing arsenal. Influence is simultaneously both more important and less important than ever before. While we can blame the algorithms, changes in consumption patterns are revealing how brittle social media audiences can be. There’s a fine line between someone with a large audience that’s running ads via sponsored content and someone who occupies a significant level of true influence in the outdoor zeitgeist. I’m skeptical at how effective the ‘sponsored post of the week’ by your run of the mill content creator still is, especially given wildly decreased visibility and engagement rates due to algorithm changes.

Standing apart

When everyone makes everything, collaborations—once a way to inject novelty—now feel more like obligatory marketing tactics. The best kind of collaborations marry shared values, mutual inspiration, and mutual benefit. Patagonia’s work with small, eco-friendly artists or brands like Huckberry partnering with Danner Boots make sense. As a non-Dead-Head, Grateful Dead collabs remain baffling to me but they seem to absolutely print money. Sometimes, larger brands attempt to piggyback on the cultural influence of smaller brands in an attempt to inject themselves with a fresh aesthetic or ethos. These collaborations can be double-edged swords. A big partnership can boost visibility for a smaller brand and develop additional scarcity via limited drops, but also risks alienating fans over time by diluting their uniqueness and “cult” following. Meanwhile, for larger brands, the “cool partnerships” they’re chasing can either reinforce positive consumer associations, or feel like jarring, temporary, fixes to a deeper issue of lost identity and relevance. Slapping a [brand] logo on it and adding an earth tone colorway does not necessarily a successful collab make.

Small + Small (often big consumer overlap, these usually make intuitive sense): Soleil + Ciele, ROA + Tilak, Taylor Stitch + Tracksmith, Danner + Huckberry, Rumpl + artists, SATISFY + Norda

Big + "different" (often luxury): TNF + Gucci, TNF + SKIMS, HOKA + Montcler, Vibram + Balenciaga, On + Loewe, Airstream + Porche, Mountain Hardwear + Stüssy

Big + Small: Levis + SATISFY, HOKA + SATISFY, Asics + Bandit, New Balance + District Vision, On + Beams, Columbia + MadHappy, Columbia + Kith, Reebok + Story mfg, Merrell + Belstaff, Mammut + Hiking Patrol, Vans + White Mountaineering, Adidas + And Wander

Ok, we can talk about SKIMS

Some collaborations feature more tangential brands with large audiences in relationships focused on maximizing consumer growth. Take The North Face’s recent partnership with SKIMS, for example. Started by Kim Kardashian, the brand champions everyday shapewear, and has a positive message around body types and color options. The TNF + SKIMS line isn’t pushing any product boundaries, it’s largely a set of TNF styles in nude colorways that have become associated with Kardashian and SKIMS. The product is made by TNF, not SKIMS.

However, the brands have somewhat dissonant sustainability messages. The North Face has leaned heavily into sustainability messaging in recent years, while SKIMS, with a heavy reliance on synthetic fabrics and fast-fashion aesthetics, embodies an approach that feels at odds with that mission. The Fashion Accountability Report ranked Skims dead last out of 52 of the biggest fashion companies, scoring zero out of a possible 150 points. Notably, the brand was panned by climate experts after Kardashian positioned a new bra with a built-in nipple as a “climate campaign”, saying “So no matter how hot it is, you’ll always look cold”. Katya Moorman, of No Kill Magazine told Vogue Business: “There is something utterly maddening about probably the most influential woman in the US using the climate crisis as a sort of punchline to her new bra that is created from a material inextricably linked to said crisis.” Their delivery bags, emblazoned with “I am not plastic”...are made from low-density polyethylene (plastic). And perhaps fittingly, the SKIMS ‘environmental and social partnerships’ page returns a 404 error.

Although the partnership might feel odd to core outdoor consumers, I think this collab will ultimately be successful from a business perspective and accomplish what they set out to do – reach the buyer base of SKIMS (a $4B company) and create additional fashion and athleisure associations in the the mind of engaged, high-spend consumers that are becoming increasingly in demand. The line will be a staple at Cloud Nine in Aspen, and as citywear this season. Is it good for the “brand”? I’m not sure – but it’ll be good for their bottom line (update, the entire line sold out immediately).

The outdoor industry’s identity crisis coincides with economic pressures that are likely to drive contraction in the coming years. Tariff uncertainty, shifting spending habits, and the “leveling off” of the pandemic-fueled outdoor recreation boom all point to challenging waters ahead for the industry. In response, I think we’ll see brands tightening their belts, paring down both product lines and personnel, and putting efforts into markets like athleisure.

Athleisure and fashion-forward styles are no longer just a trend; it’s a survival tactic for the “outdoor” industry–and collaborations with companies like SKIMS, whatever the root reasoning, also support that conjecture. Despite the $1.2T in output, the "core" outdoor industry is simply not enough on its own to support a brand of TNF’s size by itself. A foothold in luxury/fashion and the casual/athleisure markets is simply a smart brand strategy right now. Some of the most successful or most talked about brands in the "outdoors" owe their success in no small part to actually trancending that "core" outdoor market. See: Hoka, On, Arc'teryx.

As big brands converge on similar markets and aesthetics, the smaller brands with strong identities are positioned to thrive. I recently stopped by the new Peak Performance ​in London (they also have one in Montreal, and recently moved into the US market). With a blend of technical performance and intentional focus on contemporary style that appeals to a fashion-conscious demographic, I could see them performing well in North America. For others, standing out means embracing the “cult brand” model—leaning into their niche, creating scarcity, and cultivating loyalty. The success of cottage brands might lie in their ability to stay small and unique, avoiding too much growth, even as bigger brands try to co-opt their image.

The industry growth has been good for consumers, as we have more options than ever, but fewer choices that feel truly distinct. The challenge for brands of all sizes will be staying true to their roots while navigating an increasingly competitive, fashion-driven, and sustainability-conscious market.

‍