Yvon Chouinard of Patagonia on Controlled Growth


#1

"American style of business is you're supposed to grow this business as fast as you possibly can. You don't have to make a profit just show lots of growth so that you can have an IPO, sell a bunch of stock to some suckers and then you know you retire to seize your world and play golf the rest of your life. Well I don't believe that is is right. I always felt that if the farmer has this responsibility, well so do I as an owner of a company." - Yvon Chouinard

dontbuy

In the presentation below Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia, brings up an important topic. In capitalism not growing is antithetical. Yet, some businesses can thrive at a smaller size and slower growth rate. Many intelligent fanatic led companies with a quality focus consciously control their growth rate.

It is difficult for the quality of any business to rise above the quality of its partners and customers.

Yvon Chouinard described his company’s near fatal collapse early in the 1990s. The company had been growing 40-50% per year. There were no cash reserves and their bank, and others, were about to go belly up. Patagonia had few options in getting a loan. Chouinard mentioned that his accountant even took them to the mafia to get a loan with an astronomical interest rate.

To get Patagonia to survive, Yvon had to lay off more than 20% of Patagonia’s work force and cut costs. He swore to never do it again, so the company had to change the way it was doing business.

Instead of the traditional American business philosophy of growing a business as quickly as possible, Patagonia would morph to a slower, calculated grower. The reason? High growth isn’t sustainable and quality is harder to maintain. Producing high quality products was the sole driver of Patagonia. Chouinard demonstrated the unsustainability of their growth when he gave an example in the company’s all hands meeting:

I started putting a one and a bunch of zeros on butcher paper all around the room. I said this is how big we're going to be if we continue growing at forty percent a year for the next 40 years. That would be a bazillion dollars. I mean it was so ridiculous you can't believe it.

Patagonia decided to be a natural grower. The impetus of growth wouldn’t be to get people to want their products through mass advertisements. Natural growth is to grow when the customer, who needs the product, demands them. Chouinard believed that their problem in the late 1980s and early 1990s was that Patagonia was selling to people who didn’t need their product. By selling to those individuals who don’t need your product or service growth is fleeting, and a company is at the mercy of the economy. Patagonia now only spends 1.5% of sales on marketing. They want loyal customers to spread Patagonia’s brand by word-of-mouth.

Chouinard’s analogy on business size and growth is perfect:

Imagine a little French restaurant. It spends 10 years in getting their first Michelin star. It takes another 10 years to get their second, and then 25 years they've been in business they finally get their third Michelin star. They're one of the ten best restaurants in the world, and then they say, "Okay, we made it so now let's put in 50 tables." Well there are no three-star French restaurants with 50 tables. It's impossible. The very best restaurants in Japan like in Kyoto it costs you four hundred, five hundred dollars to eat. There the size is dictated by the fact that the chef is the owner because you can't hire a chef. Only the owner has the passion to really have one of these great restaurants, and the size of the restaurant has to be so that the chef is cooking and is waiting on the customer at the same time. He has to see his customers right there, so they're tiny. They're very small.

Jiro Ono [Photo from Sundial Pictures]

I remember watching the documentary Jiro Dreams of Sushi. In it they highlight Jiro Ono, now 91 years old, who has run the sushi restaurant Sukiyabshi Jiro since its founding in 1965. The restaurant is now a three Michelin-starred restaurant, and Ono is considered the greatest sushi craftsman alive in the world today. Jiro has a fanatical focus on the process of making perfect sushi. Every ingredient is hand picked each day for quality and each process is performed by workers with decades of experience. Jiro has gone so deeply into the creation of a simple food that he has built an impenetrable reputation. There are only 10 seats at the tiny restaurant and a three month’s long waiting list. The cost for one 20 course meal is more than USD$400. Jiro would never think of growing his restaurant past his ten seats. He’s too focused on making the world’s best sushi.

Yvon Chouinard talked about “for what we want to do, we can’t have a large company.” Yvon said, “I could call Nordstrom tomorrow. I could probably get five million dollars or so out of them, but that would put us on a suicide course.” Ever since Patagonia has maintained slow 3-4% annual growth. They have built up an extremely high quality brand for outdoor clothing and gear. Patagonia’s been able to maintain their high prices.

I see the same theme happening with many other companies. See’s Candies has stuck to the United States west coast and very slowly have tested new markets. For See’s it is quality without compromise and growing at a higher rate would compromise that quality. Brand equity has allowed the company to increase prices every year since 1972. In-N-Out Burger has maintained dominance in the same markets as See’s, and they too are very slow to grow. Also, as described by Jim Sinegal here, Costco’s method of bringing in new customers to their warehouses is through word-of-mouth. The marketing budget for Costco is almost non-existent, and the growth rate of new stores is slow compared to other retailers.

Top quality asset managers also know when to close their funds to new investors and give back investor capital.

There is a time and place for growth. Extremely high growth, on the other hand, is not sustainable. The companies that can find a happy medium and grow at a pace that suits their values and priorities will do well. Those companies will be able to make wiser decisions that will benefit their long-term sustainability. The companies that grow just to grow have their eyes focused only a few years ahead and will eventually encounter some problems.

If you liked this article you will enjoy, Yvon Chouinard on Buying Less but Buying Better.


If you enjoyed this article, you should become an Intelligent Fanatics member. As a member, you get our current and future Intelligent Fanatics books and case studies for free, as well as the ability to participate here on our community. Join Us.


Yvon Chouinard on Buying Less but Buying Better
Mary Hull – One of the First Female Intelligent Fanatics
A Seamless Web of Deserved Trust
#2

This article reminded me a bit of Wegmans leadership principles and this article in particular:

The Anti-Walmart: The Secret Sauce of Wegmans Is People

…the owners refuse to open more than three stores a year because “we cannot continue to be the best if we try to go at a faster pace.” She said the family has no interest in taking the company public. “No, absolutely not,” Burris said. “It takes away your ability to focus on your people and your customers.”


#3

Greater Omaha Packing is another great example controlling growth to keep high brand value. This was a great article in Forbes:

Beef

Why Steakhouses Are Obsessed With Beef From This 97-Year-Old Family Business

Henry Davis's thoughtful approach and decision to carefully carve out a high-end, more profitable niche has helped him grow the business tenfold since he took over in 1987. It's been enough to turn Davis, who owns 100% of the company, into one of the country's richest butchers, worth an estimated $1 billion. He has big plans ahead, but nothing that will compromise his high-quality beef.

Greater Omaha is intentionally lean. The nation’s top four suppliers, JBS USA Holdings, Tyson, Cargill and National Beef Packing, account for about 75% of the U.S. market in terms of revenue; Greater Omaha, the next biggest, has 2%. It sells 700 million pounds of beef a year, a tiny slice of the 25 billion pounds processed in the U.S. annually.

Despite being one of the oldest beef packers in the country, Greater Omaha has opted not to grow too big. It operates just one plant and chooses not to sell to big chains like Costco, Wal-Mart and McDonald’s (JBS and Cargill are the fast food giant’s hamburger-meat suppliers). It also keeps daily production to 2,400 cattle. “We don’t want gigantic customers. The big chain stores? We don’t have enough beef. If they run a sale, it would be too large of a percentage of our product. I don’t want that,” Davis says.

This approach allows Davis’ cattle buyers to be extremely choosy. Its buyers select each steer — either Angus or Hereford breeds — individually from independent ranches that feed cattle by hand. “The truth is we buy the fact that hand-fed cattle are better than machine-fed cattle,” says Angelo Fili, Greater Omaha’s 61-year-old, tobacco-chewing executive vice president. “A company that does 30,000 cattle a day, they’re already going to get some cattle that are prime, and they’re gonna get some animals that are raw. We’re after the higher-end stuff.” To that point, nearly all its cattle come from Nebraska and Iowa. Nebraska, in particular, has become a preferred spot for cattle raising, thanks to its climate and excellent grassland, which sits atop the largest aquifer in the country. Greater Omaha claims that helps ranchers raise cattle superior to those from drought-prone states like Texas and California.

Greater Omaha also tailors cuts directly to a customer’s specifications, sending them pounds of just one cut, such as Porterhouse, or having a Muslim imam bless steer to meet halal standards. Its steaks are served at some of the nation’s top eateries, including Peter Luger, Minetta Tavern and Marea in New York City, French Laundry in Napa Valley, Ruth’s Chris Steak Houses and Wolfgang Puck restaurants. These prime cuts help fatten the company’s bottom line, giving it an operating margin estimated to be 6% (Davis won’t comment). That’s much higher than the industry average of 3% and better than that of JBS, Tyson and National Beef’s meat businesses (privately held Cargill also won’t confirm). “The big packers have to compete with us. We are agile,” Davis says.