I realize BPL is mostly about gear, but here's part of the stagnation problem for me:

"Maybe this evolution of ultralight philosophy is exactly where we've been headed all along:

Pack less, buy less, and love what you do buy."

Shouldn't the rally cry of ultralight backpacking be about backpacking and not gear? I mean, the 5.2 oz versus 4.6 oz statement is right, that's all irrelevant, but really so is the innovation or lack thereof if the travel itself isn't the focus.

Sure, my kit has improved so much in the last ten years, but it's all a moot point if I'm really putting myself out there, actually backpacking. Gear and the obsession over improving one's kit in one way or another is enjoyable, but it should all be a vehicle to actually getting out there and getting others out there. The make/model/price/weight of equipment is secondary to where it takes you.

Exactly. Measure your inventory of days off each year and divide it into the number of hiking days. The number could be called something like BP Life Efficiency. Anything above 50% is good. Instead of paring this number down we would want to increase it. More is better.

Edited by ngatel on 01/10/2012 09:57:33 MST.

Ryan Jordan's "Cottage Stagnation and Recent Gems" article makes me chuckle. It should have been called:
"Narcissistic, Elitist, Spoiled Brat With Delusions Of Grandeur Trying To Remain Relevant and Edgy So People Renew Their Subscriptions And I Don't Have To Get A Real Job."

I also find it hilarious that Mr. Jordan (or Dr, or PHD, or Witch Doctor, etc) named the Backcountry Boiler as one of his 2011 Backpacking Light Staff Picks...not because it's not deserving of it (it IS), but because, not too long ago, he was recommending we all buy the rip-off clone, the M Kettle. Ryan had NO IDEA that Devin had been working on the Boiler for over a year on HIS (Ryan's) own site! The BPL community had to tell him. Talk about "out of touch" and "stagnation". For years Ryan has been neglecting the quality of the articles here on BPL. I mean, really...how many freakin' UL down sweater articles can we read in one year without wanting to poke our eyes out with a SUL titanium spork (cut in half, of course!)? How about a new site name while were at it? Packrafting-Light? Tenkara-Light? That's some reasons i did not renew my subscription this year, along with lots of others, i'm sure. Seems to me like BPL just "Jumped The Shark" with this latest article of his.

Instead of attacking the cottage community, Mr. Jordan should have been thanking them for their contributions and encouraging them to keep up the good work! How many of us would still be using a 6 pound tent if not for Henry Shires? Or lugging it all around in an 8 lb. Osprey pack if there was no Glen Van Peski to create Gossamer Gear for us? I know that i would personally still be freezing my butt off in my hammock if Jacks-R-Better had not been created. It seems to me that the only "stagnation" going on around here is Backpacking Light itself. Thank God for the Forums!

At this point, Ryan is coming across as the William Shatner of the backpacking community. Some may criticize this as harsh, but no more so than Ryan's article was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lul-Y8vSr0I

M

Edited by bigfoot2 on 01/11/2012 16:46:56 MST.

I got to thinking again and something made me google 'innovation is dead'. It looks to be a current theme circulating the vast halls of the internet. Whad da ya know!?

http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/12/max-levchin-and-peter-thiel-innovation-in-the-world-today-is-between-dire-straits-and-dead/

http://coconutheadsets.com/2011/10/30/innovation-is-dead-it-was-killed-by-innovation/

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2008/12/innovation_is_d.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLNPHkySj58

http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2011/10/05/steve-jobs-is-dead-whither-innovation-at-apple/

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmwsid_peter-thiel-on-the-effect-of-stagnation-on-silicone-valley_lifestyle

&

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xnmtf8_how-to-deal-with-a-hangover-at-work_lifestyle#rel-page-12

Edited by wildlife on 01/14/2012 02:21:27 MST.

I wonder if Ryan would have worded his editorial differently if he knew it would elicit this type of response.

I will discuss his criticisms from another point of view, of someone who also used to be in the sporting goods business.

My family owned an independent sporting goods store for quite a long time - we sold snow ski / snowboard equipment, backpacking / camping equipment, fishing equipment and shoes and clothing. I can't speak for today's business climate, but I can speak for the times more than decade ago - the margins in sporting goods were fairly small on most hard goods (equipment). The simple fact is that the equipment is costlier to begin with, stores must carry a wide assortment to meet the needs of its customers and at the end of the season, the remaining gear generally was discounted significnatlyto get it to move off the shelves. Thus, the actual margins enjoyed by a sporting goods store, when averaged over all the hard goods, is less than one might think. I am sure there are others who work at stores who can speak to this fact.

Clothing, on the other hand, has a broader appeal because you can wear a technical jacket around town. Most people shop for fashion as much as functionality. Nothing wrong with that. Yes, I have read often here and on other boards people decry the gradual migration many stores have made from a "gear heads" paradise to more of a mass consumer clothier. (I am looking at you, REI.) But frankly, it would be very, very difficult to sell enough hard gear to justify the capital investment and risk. REI understands this and broadened its appeal to beyond the hardened outdoorsman (and woman) by selling an image of the "active" adult (and family). This is reflected in its clothings lines and much of the gear. But hey, it does make it possible to carry things that would only appeal to backpacking enthusiasts.

Backpacking gear at my family's store wasn't a huge part of our income - less than 10 percent. Why? Well, how many backpacks/sleeping bags/tents does a person need? (Ok, the backpackinglight.com crowd excluded). I am talking the average hiker. Like many posters in this thread have pointed out, backpacking is a fairly simple sport that doesn't require a lot of stuff. And the gear generally lasts a long time if you take even decent care of it.

For these reasons I imagine few, if any, of the cottage manufactures are getting rich producing backpacking gear even during the best of times. I can only speak for myself, but in recent years I've spent less on gear because I've re-prioritized spending habits to conform with the harsh economic realities. (And I have a good career). I imagine many of you have modified your spending habits as well. As a result, it is fair to assume many gear manufactures have chosen to curb product development accordingly. It makes little sense to invest a ton into R&D if you have little hope of recouping your initial investment.

It would be great to build a double-walled tent out some new high tech material that weighs only 12 ounces. But if the cost of the materials would effectively double the price of the tent over the 16 ounce version, how many of you would be willing that steep cost to drop four ounces? There is really a sweet spot in terms of pricing for most gear, so manufactures must build gear with this in mind. Unless you have a prestige brand (think Leica), few people are going to pay a premium that much above "market norms".

Which goes to the heart of innovation. We are seeing innovation now. Maybe not as much as during the boom times, but it is there. Among greatest incentives for innovation is the potential for profit. The people who make the gear we love can only continue to innovate if they have the capital to do so. By purchasing gear from the cottage manufacturer, you are investing in future products and innovation.

Yes, people and companies can grow complacent. And that complacency will be rewarded in the marketplace only as long as someone else doesn't come along and invent a better (and lighter) mousetrap. Right now, any perceived lack of innovation may be a result of companies just trying to hold on and weather this economic downtown.

Dirk

Edited by dirk9827 on 01/14/2012 05:13:46 MST.

Dan,
I work about as far away from a cottage industry as you can be, a Fortune 500 company. I can tell you that there is an incredible amount of discussion around stagnation in our industry which is laundry products. I would challenge you to come up with a single major technical AND financial winner over the last ten years? And I'm sure that this discussion goes well beyond our categories.

Also as you well know innovation can take many forms. There are innovations in manufacturing that could allow the same product to be produced for less. There could be innovation in customer service that comes up with new ways of ensuring that consumers are satisfied. From what I read on your business I would consider the way you send test packs out for fitting to be very innovative and likely increases consumer satisfaction. Finally, should a small business in this economy be focused on product innovation? Maybe, but being innovative in other areas could be the difference between success and failure.

Edited by gg-man on 01/14/2012 10:01:26 MST.

is the biggest overused mumbo jumbo word by those who want to be seen to be "innovative"

to simple put IMO ... all it means is doing things in a better, possibly new way ... with very tangible results

the market will decide how "innovative" you are ...

has there been products put out last year that have improved the outdoor experience in a better new way with very tangible results ???

You know, I was trying to make the point that even Ryan's editorial was not from an original place, but taken from the net. Perhaps the editorial would appear less caustic if people knew it's theme is not even original. Maybe Ryan was trying so hard to be 'Novel' that he missed the part where he was insulting people. It's one thing for a critic to address the stagnation in Silicone valley (whatever that means really), but it gets a little more personal going after the backpacking cottage industry.

At some point the innovation game becomes a sickness and is there for its own sake and not people. People just become obstacles in the way of innovation after awhile, and that is what people feel coming through Ryan's editorial maybe. That's what I feel anyway. There's plenty of innovation - what there is not enough of is time to appreciate all of it.

Maybe the next great innovation will be for mankind to advance without another world war, but this entire attitude that innovation rules, just calls out for economic war. Ryan's attitude just pits cottage companies against one another, rather than creating an atmosphere of mutual respect.

Edited by wildlife on 01/14/2012 15:24:49 MST.

Dan, re your: "There's plenty of innovation - what there is not enough of is time to appreciate all of it."

Or enough money, either.

And re your: "Ryan's attitude just pits cottage companies against one another, rather than creating an atmosphere of mutual respect."

Tough love works, too, perhaps? At least sometimes? And criticism doesn't necessarily exclude respect.

On your comment that Ryan's commentary "pits cottage companies against one another": Probably because I'm not a cottage company, that thought or possibility hadn't even remotely crossed my mind until I read it in your post.

It's always seemed to me that most cottage companies were mostly focused on producing mostly unique products that mostly couldn't be found elsewhere.

["Most" and "mostly" sure are great grease words! Learned that from Ryan and Chris' pre-review of the Porter pack, and comments thereto!]

Caution! More opinion ahead:

Special value (or features or qualities) of products from cottage companies might be partly (or, in truth, exclusively) due the fact that "nowhere else" can "it" be found (whatever "it" is being sought by the consumer) -- and the success of "it" depends upon whether "it" works real good for me (or for him, or for her), whether or not "it" works for anyone else.

Also, a pack is not just a pack. Some packs are "McHale" packs, while some others are "ULA" packs, or "Gossamer Gear" or "MLD" -- all packs, but all different as refelecting each cottage company's style and path to an "ideal" pack. Same for tents, tarps, bivies, and more.

Haven't read Ryan's commentary in a long time (seems a long time, anyway, with all the comments to read in this thread), but he did at least accomplish one thing for sure: A long, long thread!

Seriously, or more seriously, isn't this just about opinions in the end? Some good, some bad, but opinions even so? I really don't believe Ryan has set out to start a war with any or all cottage companies.

Opinions expressed so far have been interesting to read (in one way or another) and sometimes even enlightening.

That's good. Right? Hope so, since everyone's got 'em.

Edited by JRScruggs on 01/14/2012 12:00:50 MST.

Glen from Gossamer Gear posted - he didn't seem offended. Who else was offended from the cottage manufacturer side?

Edited by FamilyGuy on 01/14/2012 15:23:17 MST.

You really expect a scientific conclusion from your poll David? Apparently you expect everyone to have the same opinion or even expect everyone to express their opinion. It's not going to happen.

Edited by wildlife on 01/14/2012 15:29:50 MST.

Dan, you mentioned that the cottage manufacturers were 'pitted against' each other. Who? I would like you to support your claim.

Ryan made a few comments that were his own opinion. You make it sound like these opinions will drive people's buying habits. They shouldn't. We can all think for ourselves here.

“At some point the innovation game becomes a sickness and is there for its own sake and not people. People just become obstacles in the way of innovation after awhile, and that is what people feel coming through Ryan's editorial maybe. That's what I feel anyway. There's plenty of innovation - what there is not enough of is time to appreciate all of it.”

This innovation thread has been pounding my brain ever since I got back from vacation, and the few posts I made don’t convey all my thoughts. Perhaps I can’t wrap my head around it. I know the cottage industry is innovative, will continue to be so, and I also know that innovation is driven by consumer demand for what is needed or desired by the marketplace. The other disturbing thought is that last year’s or the previous year’s new innovative product are no longer any good or not up to speed with innovation; that we constantly need something that is brighter, shinier, lighter, more efficient, etc. It is like the spoiled child who tires of his new toy and demands something new.

So what is innovation anyway? Is it a flash in the pan product that fades away in a short period of time? Or is it something that lasts in the marketplace a long time, is imitated and refined by those who follow? To me an innovative product it the one that stands the test of time. And products which stand the test of time provide usefulness and value to those who purchase them. As pointed out earlier by another member, the innovation often includes service and product support… the personal touch that the cottage manufacturers excel at. Heck you can communicate directly with such innovators like McHale, Shires, Moak, Bell, Velsco, Marshall and host of others easily by phone or email. Try that with Patagonia, MSR, et al!

Over the past couple of months I have been directed by the “Boss” to clean and consolidate the storage areas of our garage. And a lot of this storage is camping and hiking gear. Gear that is spread all over our house and storage areas is now moving to a designated area. Some of this gear is “vintage” and is still used occasionally; some I forgot about and will rotate back into use, other stuff is good but will go to charity where it can be used more frequently. One of the reasons it is taking so long is my perchance to tinker, rebuild, and restore old things. Along with this restoration, organization, and purging has been a lot of thought and memories in regard to innovation, technology, and good old “it works” thinking. So I thought I would share some of my thoughts.

Key to equipment is fabrics and materials. Without them, the cottage industry cannot build excellent products for us to use because for the most part, our cottage industry excels in design and construction, not scientific research. Where would we be without wool, nylon, Spectra, down, aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, brass, needles, thread, sewing machines, fuel, etc.?

I recently gave away the first down sleeping bag I bought (in 1971). It worked well for over twenty years but was heavy by today’s standards. Down has been used for how long as insulation? A long time. We owe a lot to that first person who used it to insulate. Along with new shell materials, higher fill, and design modifications, how much can we improve on it? And how can we praise a single manufacturer as having the most innovative bag or quilt. They are all variations on a theme. WM, Nunatak, Marshall, Katabalic, and a cast of many all make great products. All are a variation on a theme. The variations work well for different people and are innovative of themselves. In my mind none have taken the world by storm, but each has unique properties that bring value to their customers. I happen to have three favorite brands, three different systems for different needs. But I don’t see any earth shattering innovation in this area, and I am not mentally demanding that someone makes a better one. What I have works well, is light enough and spending additional money to test the newest and greatest is not logical to me.

Part of my reorganization has focused on stoves. I have a few and have spent many evenings the past couple of months cleaning and rebuilding some of them. Most I use occasionally and some newer ones I use most of the time. But all of them are truly innovative in some manner. Are all of them light enough for my needs, and should I be searching for stove nirvana every single year? For the most part the answer is yes to the first and a definite “no” to the last. I just finished rebuilding my two Svea 123 stoves (they are the non-self cleaning models). Rebuilding is really a misnomer; there is nothing to go wrong other than replacing the fuel cap gasket. The design is more than a 100 years old, doesn’t break, is aesthetically pleasing and easy to use once you learn how. After I polished them, they look like works of art and perform like new. And fuel for them is readily available. The next two stoves in my inventory are canisters; an Optimus 731 and a Gaz Globe Trotter. Very light for their time, worked well, and now obsolete because the fuel canisters are no longer available. But they will remain in my inventory because of the fondness I have for them and the memories of many good trips. Both, in my opinion, were innovative products of their time. One of the most famous stoves of all time, is my 1980s MSR Whisperlite. A true workhorse and wonderful snow melter. For me it is finicky and takes too much maintenance compared to the Svea, but it has served me well for over two decades and it does work better in serious snow conditions than the Svea. And now for a variation on a theme, my Gaz TriStar remote canister. I Don’t know who made the first remote canister, but this one solved the problem of wind in the desert along with the convenience of a canister. Not the lightest stove, but it works well. I have a Snow Peak GS-100 and it is light, but in my mind not innovative unless you consider weight and efficiency (without wind)… the innovation came long before this stove, but it made improvements. Last is the stove I use most… the Trail Designs Caldera Cone GVP. This stove is a variation of several themes and integrates pot, drinking cup, stove stand, windscreen, multiple fuels, compactness, and light weight. Can’t simmer with it, not great for cold temperatures, but it does what I need for three seasons of the year. This is truly an innovative product and I see no need to continuous searching for a better stove. What’s the point? I can save the time needed to research new stoves (time is a limited commodity – each of us will run out of it at some point), and I can save my money. Cooking with wood is going backwards in my opinion, and I just leave all the wood I see on the ground where it belongs. So, a few years ago the Caldera Cone was the most innovative product to many people, and it is no longer innovative? It is one of those products that will more than likely pass the test of time along with the Svea and the Whisperlite.

I can’t think of a single person who shaped backpacking more than Dick Kelty. Like the current crop of cottage manufacturers, he was an outdoorsman. He brought curved aluminum frames, nylon bags, and waist straps to market. It is arguable who did each of these first, but Kelty integrated them best. Heavy by today’s standards, generations of backpackers explored the wilderness with Keltys and the other external frames of the companies that followed. My first Kelty is over 40 years old, and was my main pack for 35 years. It passes the age test for innovation. And it still is in good condition. Today the external frame design has been supplanted by internal frames, of which Kelty built one of the first. I think Lowe actually invented it. I have owned several. The innovator here today is McHale, who integrates durability, functionality, longevity, suspension, comfort, and aesthetics into a single pleasing package. I expect it will last as long as my Kelty, but unfortunately I will not be around that long. All the others internals I have in inventory will be donated to good causes and will not remain in my garage. McHale packs pass the longevity test.

What about frameless packs? They have been around for decades, and the cycle repeats itself. They come out, people start putting small frames in them, they morph into internal frame packs, don’t last, and the cycle repeats itself. Have you noticed that MLD, Gossamer Gear, Six Moons, zPacks, and others are now following the cycle? This is not a lack of innovation, but companies that listen to what their customers want.

Clothing fabrics come and go. Polypropylene, polyesters, hybrids, GoreTex, eVent, other membranes, and everyone is waiting breathlessly for the next miracle fabric. Wool has been around for centuries and we still find that it is one of the best materials around. Shells that need to protect it come and go yearly and we still are searching for WB nirvana. My 1980s Sierra Designs wind jacket and pants breathe about as well as the current crop, have pockets, weight a little more and have been in use for over 20 years. I have owned a plethora of rain shells, and I constantly go back to the simple poncho. Breathes, holds up, and is inexpensive. There is a lot of innovation from the cottage manufacturers in this realm with multi-use configurations. Again variations on a theme.

I have owned very few tents until the past three of four years, as I drank the Tent Kool-Aid in search for nirvana. An innovative Tee Pee from Six Moons (Wild Oasis) replaced my 1980s Chouinard Tee Pee, which are all variations of a theme used by nomadic tribes for centuries. And the innovations continue with variations of this design, partial pyramids, and other structural shapes. This segment has integrated new fabrics and materials every single year. Again innovative variations of a theme. Let’s not forget the simple tarp and poncho/tarp either, the cottage manufactures tweak this design every year. The design is simple, needs little structural components and is multi-functional. Structure adds weight so there is only so far you can take it, and with the sub 6 oz offerings, how innovative must we be or can we be?

Boots and shoes. Not much from the cottage industry because the number of sizes requires a robust inventory, unless you built custom footwear. You can get a pair of customer Limmers, but the wait list is several years. But Vibram “reeks of” innovation when it comes to boots. Not UL, but influential and they past the age test. So we buy nylon shoes that fail in a few hundred miles and we fill up our landfills with the discarded carcasses. Not a good environmental model and I am probably the guiltiest of all, wearing out one or two pairs every year. And this critical piece of gear has huge impact on our wilderness experience (e.g., “a pound on the foot is worth five on the back”). This is the only segment of gear I would like to see a truly innovative product. Light, repairable, and lasts decades like my old heavy leather boots.

I think the article confuses “stagnation and innovation” with consumerism. Or maybe it is marketing new products with an eye to creating demand, all Madison Avenue? Or is BPL at risk without new products to review every year? Why not go back and give us an update on the gear reviewed in previous years; is it still good, does it fair better than expected? Why are Ryan’s innovative pieces of gear of the past no longer so? Why does he think we need new innovations every single year? Who will support it? – probably only the minority of backpackers who subscribe to the lightweight philosophy and already own last year’s innovation. Why would stewards of the environment encourage this incessant consumption and behavior? What drives us to even think we need more innovation to do something as simple as walking and sleeping in the wilderness? Why are we so willing to fill our dumps with discarded gear? There is much talk of LNT on BPL, and applying it to everyday life, so how does the demand for innovative gear every single year to replace last year’s innovation align to this philosophy of living?

Oh, and I have participated in the heroin-drip addiction too. So this decade will see me come back full circle and use my old gear, configure it to work well as to function and weight, and hike even more than I did in the past. Backpacking gear is just a means to an end, not the end unto itself.

So to those cottage companies I have purchased quality gear from in the past, I say thank you. You have done a stellar job. There are too many of you to list, but cumulatively you have helped enhance my walking, kept me dry and safe, lightened my load, and allowed me to continue this lifelong avocation at a level I did not think could possibly continue into my 60s and probably beyond. Good job ladies and gentlemen!!

"Glen from Gossamer Gear posted - he didn't seem offended. Who else was offended from the cottage manufacturer side?"

Well if I were one of the manufacturers and I knew I made great products with innovative design, construction, stellar customer service, etc. I would be Pissed.

Also, lets turn the tables here... there have been remarks from Ryan and others about how objective they are, and how they will not buckle under to the expectations/pressure of gear makers when it comes to product reviews.

Lets flip that. Say I make a great UL widget, don't have much marketing money and rely on word of mouth and testimonials to grow my business. I know that my product is great and a fair editorial staff will review it based on it merits alone. Now if I come to BPL and challenge the owner and the reviewers, do I risk the chance of my product being ignored or even unfairly criticized? Not necessarily out of revenge, but just plain old human nature. Food for thought.

The problem with McHale is that he expresses his opinion and doesn't seem to care what others think, which I understand. I have the same problem... when I go into important corporate meetings whether internal or external, I am often told beforehand that if someone asks my opinion, I don't have one :)

Interesting thoughts Nick. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. Here's one thougth that stood out to me from your comments and thinking back to the article.

What I read from reading the article is that if you have a set of basically decent lightweight gear there is nothing so awesome and revolutionary right now that you should feel compelled to go out and buy it. If you have a decent pack, sleeping bag, and shelter than changing these things is not going to enhance your enjoyment of the backcountry all that much.

That may or may not have been Ryan's idea but its the idea that jumped out to me from the article.

Edited by Cameron on 01/14/2012 16:34:41 MST.

Nick, I'm going to take it that you mean many of the pack makers here might feel beholden to the site and can't feel free to criticize. Let's just go with that so we can steer away from my packs. From the day this site started I told Ryan I was not interested in BPL reviewing my product. It's a basic policy of mine toward the review industry. I have always been at odds with the review industry and what is going on here is a good example of why. It always seems to lose it's way at some point and then does not seem to realize it. Somebody has to speak out at times. I have not singled the site out. Magazines were especially bad in the days before the internet and letters to the editor did not provide quite enough voice.

By the way, Nick, I do care what other people think - maybe not everyone though.

:>)

Edited by wildlife on 01/14/2012 16:58:06 MST.

Dan,

Yes the cottage industry in general, not only pack makers. And I know your feelings about reviewers. You have been in business a lot longer than most of the others and continue based on your reputation, at least from what I see.

Maybe I didn't word the last sentence correctly. If you feel strongly about something, you seem to "tell it like it is" from your vantage point, if you feel it is relevant and important. And obviously you must care about what your customers think, can't stay in business if you don't :) So, take what I said as a compliment, that was the intention.

Understood - thanks Nick. :>)

Interesting thoughts Nick. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. Here's one thougth that stood out to me from your comments and thinking back to the article.

What I read from reading the article is that if you have a set of basically decent lightweight gear there is nothing so awesome and revolutionary right now that you should feel compelled to go out and buy it. If you have a decent pack, sleeping bag, and shelter than changing these things is not going to enhance your enjoyment of the backcountry all that much.

That may or may not have been Ryan's idea but its the idea that jumped out to me from the article

-----------------

Wow, that was a long post... didn't realize. I guess it is my response to stagnation and a lack of innovation. That is a condemnation, and I don't think it is applicable to the cottage industry or fair. As he said, there is little one can do to improve some products. But to me innovation should last a long time. If someone built a great product last year, if it lasts, it is still a great product this year. Why should they try to re-invent it every year? Great companies try to maintain product life cycle for as long as they can and gain market share, that is how you make money.

Also as you well know innovation can take many forms. There are innovations in manufacturing that could allow the same product to be produced for less. There could be innovation in customer service that comes up with new ways of ensuring that consumers are satisfied. From what I read on your business I would consider the way you send test packs out for fitting to be very innovative and likely increases consumer satisfaction. Finally, should a small business in this economy be focused on product innovation? Maybe, but being innovative in other areas could be the difference between success and failure.

At some point the innovation game becomes a sickness and is there for its own sake and not people.

I can't help but get the feeling that there is something intrinsically flawed with a way of seeing where "things" dominate how we talk to one another and form the subject of our relationships. We've set up our entire culture based on coming up with, marketing, selling, buying, and hopefully using, "things". When the outflow doesn't meet expectations, then we come down to squabbling over the scraps, as if they are the meat of what we should be basing our relationships on. In this thread alone there has been talk about the necessity to go simpler, indeed it seems to be the very essence of why so many of us have gone UL, and yet, we still keep going on and on about "things", unable to let go of them.

To truly get to that essential salt of paring away all redundancy and non-necessities, shouldn't we be looking to our attitudes, beyond the gear? Once we get the pack to the smallest common denominator, what remains is what is in our heads and hearts. Having your head crammed full of thoughts about gear is, too, a "luxury item" that gets in the way both of enjoying and fully engaging in being out there, and probably affects certain levels of safety in that you don't allow yourself to be as alert and conscious to your surroundings as you should be, especially when you are constantly using new gear that you have yet to get used to.

So much of what is happening in the world today, including the enormous economic downturn we are all facing, tells us that there is something wrong with the world, that even the natural world has been damaged and we cannot do anything about it. But the truth is, beyond our own perceptions of the culture of our own making, the world is still what it was before we came along, albeit not as healthy as it once was. If we would pare back our reliance on this money economy, on "things", that pervades every aspect of our lives... a state of being that did not exist before this kind of economy became the basis of our everyday survival... wouldn't that spare us more from the peaks and valleys of such a capricious beast as the market economy? I've always thought it was slightly insane that only we humans were going though these self-imposed freak-out sessions caused by things like economic turn-down and rise or loss of personal possessions, while right outside our windows, even during wars, trees continue to grow, birds continue to go about their usual daily lives, rivers flow, clouds sail by, mountains wait. And here we all are going bananas over slight innovations in gear! What does it take for us to get back to living lives as connected to each other and the living world around us?

Perhaps the next true "innovation" is fundamentally changing our way of seeing things and living within that new way of seeing our lives and possessions. Certainly that must the most basic motivation behind the huge worldwide reaction in the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street movements and such? I went through an enormous earthquake last year and then spent time volunteering in the tsunami zone, seeing, meeting, and talking with survivors who had literally lost everything, including every family having lost at least one member. I saw the complete annihilation of all the "things" that people had valued and worked so hard for. When picking through the ruins of their homes, nearly all of what I found and what the survivors chose to keep were things like photographs and diaries, little else. Whole families in the evacuation centers waited out the aftershocks with nothing but their blankets and a spare set of underwear, toiletry goods, perhaps their cell phones. What mattered was each other and their safety, the chance to continue being together. All that other stuff, miles and miles of it strewn over the landscape like so much debris, came to nothing.

Isn't it the same with our gear closets? And isn't nurturing our relationships here within this community more precious than any backpack or tent or rain jacket? Look, here we are together, sharing a love of the outdoors. Here, in this place, now, we've all found one another and interact daily. We get passionate about what we love here, not because of the gear, but because all of us have gathered here. Let's acknowledge the joy and preciousness of that, instead of finding faults and reasons to attack one another. Because if we lose hold of what brought us together and what keeps us together, this, too, can easily be swept away. A community needs work and a healthy respect for one another.



Devastation of Minami-Sanriku in Tohoku, Japan. You can see more at my blog. Seeing this and meeting the people changed my life and how I saw things.