Patagonia’s 3D Strategy: What Actually Works (and What Doesn’t)

Hello everyone and welcome back to Seamless. Uh, today I'm thrilled to be joined by Ian and Kiala from Patagonia, where together they're shaping one of the most considered and quietly ambitious digital product creation journeys in the industry, spanning everything from 3D, AI, fit, PLM, and the organizational reality of making it all work. This is a conversation I've, um, I've wanted for a very, very long time, so I'm looking forward to having a front row seat as we look under the hood. So thank Thank you both and welcome.

Thank you, great to be here.

Thank you.

Let's start a little bit with you guys and your stories. So for readers who may be new to you and your work, can you give us a nutshell summary of your professional journey to date, your current roles, and how you work together? Keala, should we start with you?

Sure, sounds good. Let's see, I've been in the apparel manufacturing area for, for many years. I started out actually in university in textile testing and running the laboratory there at university, and that's what exposed me to the industry. And in fact, that's where I first learned about Patagonia. That was when Patagonia did not have their own on-site testing lab and outsourced a lot of the textile testing. And so the university I attended was doing some of that testing, and I learned all about Patagonia and what it stands for, and I thought someday I want to be a part of that. And it's It's worked out great. You made it.

I made it.

Prior to Patagonia, I worked at a couple of smaller companies in the technical design space and product development space and learned a lot from those experiences, but just wasn't quite aligned with where the companies stood as far as morals and what they were after. And so started that goal to get to Patagonia, and I'm coming up on 20 years now at Patagonia. It's hard to believe I've grown up here in some ways. And I've had a variety of roles here from product development to advanced concepts and design, and now most recently leading our DPC effort. And the last 5 years I've gotten the opportunity to work with Ian closely here at Patagonia. Was able to bring him on 5 years ago, and we've built a small team together here doing incredible work. Wouldn't be where we are without Ian on board, so I'm extremely grateful to have him and love working together. I'll pass it over to Ian now.

Yeah, so Michael, thanks for asking this question because it makes me feel— realize how old I am when you said, oh, how long I've been in apparel and retail. So similar kind of tenure, really. I've been in apparel or the retail space for about 20 years. Took me a little while longer than Chiara to get to Patagonia, but I'll kind of come back to that. I started, Michael, as you are a well-known brand, Marks Spencer's, so that's where I started my life. We don't really have this role in America, but it's called a technologist, which is somewhat related to product development. So started off more in the traditional ways of making products. I always say to people, I kind of did the jobs people people didn't want to do. So Marks Spencer is well known for selling clothing and food. I did furniture, and then after furniture, I did footwear. Again, somewhat kind of a smaller department in Marks Spencer. And then I went to Next, another well-known UK brand, heading up product development there. And that's kind of after my tenure at Next, moved states. I met an American, married an American, moved stateside. and that's where for the last 8 years I've been in digital product creation and fortunately met Chiara, met Patagonia, had the opportunity to, through consultancy, really advise brands on where to start with digital product creation, 3D, its advantages, what tool to pick, all of the questions we'll get into today. And yeah, I've been at Patagonia for 5 years. Really wearing two hats. So one is digital product creation, which we're talking about today, and the other one somewhat related is managing the go-to-market calendar within product creation, which has its advantages as well when we're thinking about hybrid workflows with both digital and physical. And yeah, 5 years has kind of flown by. I can't quite believe it's been that, and yeah, still loving it. Amazing.

Yeah, I mean, crazy to think, Ian, when we first met, you were a consultant. Sultan. I can't believe that was more than 5 years ago. But yeah, I guess it was a long time ago in LA.

Wow.

Well, look, I'm really excited to talk to you both. And Chiara, a huge congrats on coming up to 20 years. That's amazing.

What a milestone.

Thank you. So of course, yes, Patagonia has been working on digital product creation now for many years, often a bit quite quietly. I think it's fair to say. I know we've tried to get you guys to speak at our events a number of times. Looking back, how do you describe the arc of that journey from early experimentation to where things stand today? And Kiala, let's kickstart with you.

Sure. It has been a journey. It's been about 8 years now since we first started looking at digital product creation at Patagonia. I was fortunate to learn about the technology and the possibilities through one of our partner factories who was in this space with other brands. And came back from that trip to, to the office here and started telling everyone I could about what's possible and how it directly relates to Patagonia's mission of doing less harm and working more sustainably. And so digital product creation, being able to reduce our environmental footprint, whether that's in the product creation side or marketing, sales, whatever that looks like, it seemed like a win-win for us. So I started socializing the concept at Patagonia and educating internal leaders about the technology and the potentials for leveraging it for our efficiencies and reduction in our carbon footprint. And over the, the last 8 years, we've made a ton of progress. We have— to your point, we've kind of been quiet in, in our journey here. We've just put our head down to do the work. We've approached it a bit differently than some brands do, where we consciously did the hard work up front to build our infrastructure, train our internal employees, onboard our partner factories, just in an effort to have a really strong foundation to build on sustainably and scale sustainably in our DPC work. So it's been, you know, bumpy along the way. We've learned a ton of things, but I have to say I'm really proud of where we are now, having scaled to the point we are and looking ahead to all the incredible work we still have to do. But I'm grateful we did start with the hard stuff because it has allowed us to really not have to backtrack down the road to do that foundational and infrastructure work.

Nice.

Ian, anything you'd like to add?

Yeah, I was just smiling there when you said we've been trying to get you to talk for a while and we kind of always smile at that one. I think, I don't want to say it was some version of imposter syndrome at all, but we always felt like we were always still learning, whether that be at a PI Apparel event, from other brands who are willing to kind of share their knowledge and kind of where they had successes and failures. And we always knew digital product creation was a marathon. It wasn't a sprint, and there's always more work to do. And so it wasn't that we were never willing to share and we're stoked that we're doing this interview today. It was more of a, we were just really critical of ourselves, I think. Like, we knew we'd made progress and we're really proud of that. And me and Kella are constantly high-fiving ourselves for the small but meaningful milestones as much as the bigger ones. But there's always work to do. And so I think 5 years in my own journey at Patagonia, 7 years in if you count consultancy, and obviously Kjell's been working on digital probably a bit longer than that, it felt right that we had something to share. And actually when we realized that we had a lot to share, so stoked that we're doing this interview.

I love it. Well, there's a lot to unpack from that. The first thing that I want to ask even is we actually saw since the pandemic that there were a fair few brands that paused or reset or even abandoned 3D entirely. What allowed Patagonia to keep moving forward even when progress felt slow or complex or hard to justify internally? Kiaala, should I start with you?

Sure, I'll start there and then Ian, please feel free to add. The truth is we did have to pause slightly. We had this beautiful roadmap and implementation plan in place. That's when Ian was working with me as a consultant. We literally had a training started, a plan to start on Monday, and our offices shut down on Friday for COVID. So we had to quickly scramble to figure out what we were going to proceed with, what we're going to pause with, and in the end, the business asked that we pause all of our DPC work for the time being. We had so many other critical areas of work that needed attention. I was asked to focus elsewhere in more of our, our factory and development side of things. And so we paused for about 9 months, and fortunately we're able to get back to it and get back to that building of our foundation, figuring out what our new roadmap looked like and what our new implementation plan looked like. And we took that all in-house with a very, very small DPC team. We leaned on a lot of our forward-thinking partners across our various product creation teams. Those cross-functional partners really helped us define our new workstreams and how we're going to use our 3D tools. We started building those DPC libraries, our VQS, our standard operating procedures, and started some pilots to test those initial workflows. So while we didn't, you know, stop the work entirely, we did have that moment of pause for a few months, and now we've we've been back in it for a few years, and I'm grateful that we've been able to scale our team slightly, but also more importantly engage our, our cross-functional partners across the business to help us move further, um, further together than we could have alone as a DPC team.

Amazing.

Yeah, thank you for sharing that. And Ian, anything you'd like to add?

No, I think, um, understandably, I think during COVID which By the way, for everyone, it's like 6 or 7 years since that happened. I still can't believe that was that while ago now. Still feels like yesterday. I think outside of that moment, I think part of your question was, you know, when progress felt slow, complex, or hard to justify. I actually think if we just zoom out a bit, digital product creation has never felt hard to justify when put through the lens of our mission statement. And so whilst maybe progress has been slower in some moments than others, I'd like to think that for Patagonia, it's always made sense to explore and then implement a new way of working that made sense for Patagonia. And so to give the brand credit, we've always believed that digital product creation was a thing that we had to understand and then try and enable within our own processes of how we make products.

Incredible. Yeah, I love that. I now just want to talk a little bit about, you mentioned a moment ago that, you know, you took your time to build the hard stuff and build it into the infrastructure that you need for So your remits span everything from 3D, AI, PLM, DAM, and lifecycle integration. I guess what I'd love to know is when did 3D stop being a visualization tool and start becoming the actual infrastructure of the company itself? And what had to change in terms of process standards and organizational alignment to bring that to life?

Yeah, I was thinking about This question, it's never been about the visual. I think we always talk, it's never, it's never been about the pretty picture. And I think we've been in a variety of different meetings where sometimes the visual looks amazing and we have so many amazing colleagues that are product experts cross-functionally. And initially that jacket looks great. And we had one example where a colleague could spot that the zipper width of a jacket was off by 1 millimeter. I couldn't believe it. So if that kind of gives you a good, like, example of how much expertise our colleagues have, it's incredible. And so it's never been about the visual, it's always been about how do we have the most accurate product on the screen to make the best possible decision, using digital product creation as a vehicle for that, for that moment. And so Whilst my role, I think, has matured into more of a visualization role and it's, it's less about— I guess we'll get into storytelling in a moment, but it's more around how do we start to lower barriers to entry to 3D, to democratize 3D as a moment to make decisions. As you know, Michael, 3D can be complex and sometimes really hard to get into and you need that piece of software to open a file. I'm kind of obsessing around how do I get 3D in people's hands to make the best possible decision they can. And move on with their day without having to be a digital native to do that. So it's always been about infrastructure. And I think for the last, for the last 5 years, it has been about infrastructure building. It's been about standards, it's been about integration. And it's only really now where we're really trying to focus on what type of visual do we want to show. And when I say visual, you can do a million things with 3D. And so you could have from a dynamic storytelling content. I think everyone's used to maybe going onto an e-com site and spinning a type of shoe for a type of brand. Or is it a photo-real moment? Is it on model? Is it kind of Casper the Ghost style? Is it holo-body? Is it someone's just pressing a video on it? And I think whilst we're asking a lot of questions around what type of visual do we want to create. It's what's our intention, like what, what, what story are we telling? Is it anchoring to our mission statement? Is it shouting about product performance? Is it shouting about product quality? And then you start to combine, is it for internal stakeholders, external stakeholders? And so it gets a bit complex there, but that's where we're kind of spending our day now. But it's been a long road built on a foundation of infrastructure.

Absolutely. Kiala, anything you'd like to add?

I think just the other piece to add is around process. We've really made an effort to look at our processes and efficiencies there and how digital tools could improve those efficiencies. And that's never easy. Process change is tough, and let alone when you're trying to implement tools on top of that. But we are fortunate to have that oversight of our go-to-market calendar. And so we can influence some of that process and deliverable work. Through a DPC lens. And while it's not always a quick change, at least we have been able to highlight some areas that may not be as efficient as they are in the current way of working, and that could be improved with, with correct tools and training. So I think that's the other piece that's been really eye-opening.

Absolutely. Yeah. I want to stay on that for a moment to talk about kind of that process or workflow from design intent all the way through to the consumer. Ian, I think you've spoken about connecting design intent from concept to that end user. In practice, where does that connection genuinely hold today and where does it still fracture, whether across design, development, fit, or go-to-market?

I'm happy to start in on that one. The truth is we haven't mastered that end-to-end work stream yet. We're We're always looking to get there. Yeah. I mean, that said, we really have great partners in our product creation teams, whether that's design or development or technical pattern engineers. And we have folks using 3D tools for earlier alignment, decision-making, working. We have developers working with Patrick factory partners to use the tools for digital prototypes or optimizing those physical protos for fit and function. A lot of times our pattern engineers will validate patterns 3D prior to finalizing anything for manufacturing. So we're definitely leveraging the tools in meaningful ways within product creation. A new area that we're really pushing into that's super exciting too is our merchandise partners. Influencing the use of digital product sales tools more and more so that we can leverage these beautiful assets in ways that we haven't in the past. And in the end, reducing our footprint, hopefully, on those, those physical samples. So lots of engagement season after season and making progress there, meeting people where they are. But for now, we've, we're still working on that true end-to-end and trying to connect that as best we can from product creation all the way to that customer-facing moment.

Yeah, absolutely. Ian, anything you'd like to add?

Just to say, I think if you viewed it in a silo, and not that digital product creation is ever a siloed moment or effort, but if you look at it in its silo of like, where does it hold and where does it break, it all holds and stands up in its own moments. I think I think we're going to probably get to it in this conversation is where we're now looking at is the handoff moments, whether it be a department level, product level storytelling moment. And I think we oversee, we're custodians of that product creation, go-to-market calendar from concept somewhat to handing off to some folks at the kind of customer end is that how do we make those handoff moments feel as frictionless or seamless as possible? That's where sometimes we get some breaks. And so the handoffs feel really manual or quite— there's a bottleneck in that process. And so I am never surprised anymore once certain teams, folks live through a 3D journey for a season or two, how quickly they can get acclimated to making decisions using 3D as that source of truth versus a sketch before or maybe an image. But then it's a how do we get it to you in a more seamless way tends to be the parts that break at the moment and the things we're trying to fix right now.

Makes sense. Ian, I'll stay with you because a moment ago you mentioned storytelling being a big part of your role. How do you balance 3D as a storytelling medium with its role as a trusted source of product truth? And what happens when these two goals come into tension?

Well, I just told you that 1mm story, so I don't know if I— they're always in tension here, and I think product accuracy has always been the North Star and will remain the North Star of Patagonia. I think where the storytelling remains a topic of conversation, I think about this, if we kind of start super close to the product, kind of 60-foot view, It's what's, what's the decisions that need to be made and the types of decisions that need to be made with 3D at that point. Let's discuss the format in which they make them. Then you start to get zoom out around, well, what pants go with that jacket? What's the assortment intent? We are constantly analyzing the number of styles we have in our line. Do they all have a purpose to be in our line? So that's where the kind of the merchandising moment becomes critical. And then it might be, well, how is this all going to show up? How are we showing up in our own stores and in the kind of our, in some account stores as well? And so the further you zoom out, I think you need different tools in that digital toolbox to tell a story. I think if I come back to that product visual, as soon as you start to merchandise, you put it into environments. I think there's a moment of a product can look like Patagonia, but then you start to put it in an environment And I've had definitely commentary around that looks like great 3D, but does it look like Patagonia 3D? And that's where you start to get into some interesting conversations around like brand guidelines, like what really makes it stand out and what's going to give it that emotion that when you look at some traditional formats of like photography and lifestyle imagery that you see on our website today, it's still got to feel Patagonia with all the intention behind it. And so I think that's where the tension is for me right now is It's not just doing great 3D, it's doing great 3D that feels like Patagonia. And I think there's a lot of different moments that that can show up. But if a product doesn't look right, it's a nonstarter. So I will come back to product has to be on point to begin with.

Yeah, absolutely. Kiala, anything you'd like to add?

No, I think Ian covered that one really well.

Mic drop. That was very good. I love that. I never even really thought about it like that, but it makes a lot of sense. I'd love to also ask, you know, 3D is sometimes framed as something that can help simplify complexity, but it can also introduce new friction as well, especially when you're talking about more versions, more expectations, more cognitive load. Where have you seen digital adoption genuinely make things harder in practice? And how do you, how do you recognize when a tool or a workflow is no longer a help?

I think this was me. I don't know how I got this question. I think I didn't give Chiara a Christmas card last year. I will happily give this question a go. I don't know who gave me this. That's Michael's Chiara voice. I'll give this one a go first. I think so. There's a couple of things I want to kind of divide this into. So firstly, I think with digital product creation and 3D, It's when we think about hybrid digital way of working and physical and combining both of those things. I think there's a misconception with DPC teams in general across our industry that we're like, 3D is the only road, turn off the tap of physical, you must go 3D. And it couldn't be farther from the truth, especially for me and Chiara. We say it's another tool in the toolbox. If it makes sense to use that tool, let's use it. Physical still has a lot of advantages to it. And so it's not necessarily a technology problem. It's more around, again, this integration, but more process integration around how do they coexist? Where does digital start? Where does physical take over? The way I like to describe it is it's two train tracks going in the same direction. You don't have to keep both trains going at the same time. You can hop from one to the two. But as long as by the time we get to the finish line, you have a digital representation with the physical, you're in a great spot there. So I think milestones need to evolve, not necessarily disappear, but evolve. So I think, again, I don't think digital is creating problems, but it's creating challenges and nuance on how we bring it to life. And then I think bandwidth is another one. So I think if I think, you know, PI Power, we talked about digital burnout was a real context or a theme running through PI Power once, you know, whether it's a PLM upgrade, it's DPC, it's teams getting like, you've got to figure out AI now and all of those things that come with that. And so I think there's definitely a challenge of bandwidth and you have to meet people where they're at. There's a lot with digital product creation where it takes a while for people to gain their own confidence and proficiency. And as much as brands would like that to be a one-season moment, it can take a couple of seasons, a couple of years for really people to grasp that. And I think that's fair. 'cause they all have 9-to-5s as their own jobs. And so I think that's where it's been a challenge, but maybe not a problem, but it's been more of a challenge that's needed time to resolve itself. Nice.

Yeah. Kiala, anything you'd like to add?

Well, I think it's not unique to Patagonia, but we're— the car is moving down the road and we're trying to change the tires on the car while we're going. We can't stop current bodies of work to implement new ways of working or new technologies. So to Ian's point, there's always going to be these parallel bodies of work, whether that's working physical, working digital, or going between the two. And I think that that has to be the most realistic way of working. I think over time we'll get to more digital workflows where it makes sense and where that is the best tool for that use case. But at Patagonia, we make such a wide variety of products, very, very technical pinnacle product all the way to logo product. And so You know, your tools are going to vary depending on your needs of that product and what you're trying to get to, whether you're testing a particular function of that product that has to be done physically. You have to have that in the field and you really have to put it through its paces. But if you want to really dial in your design ideation, that could be done digitally. So going between the tools where it makes sense, I think, is that that sweet spot. But there is friction. I love that word that you chose because there is friction here and there, and there should be. It's also a new way of working for so many. It feels uncomfortable, but we really encourage folks to try stuff. If it works, great. If you fail, great. Let's learn from it and move on. So I think it's always going to be this moment of friction and challenge, no matter how far we get in using digital tools.

Yeah, 100%. And Kjell, I'm going to stick with you and I'm particularly— yes, sorry, go ahead. Yes.

Sorry, just thinking, I was thinking around and if anyone's watching this and thinking DPC has solved everyone's problems, I just want to call out here that as we think about, let's say, creating problems, it's also not solved all of the problems. And I think that's a really clear one. And so there's a lot of things that the digital tools are still maturing. They're still getting better and better every day, but there are still certain tasks in apparel that it's better to go physical. And maybe that's swearing in the DPC world, but it's just not solved every problem. And I want to acknowledge that because I think just because you can do something digitally doesn't mean you should do. And if it takes longer, more painful, you can't make— the decision quality is poorer for that, then you shouldn't adopt it. And I think being candid about where it makes sense and where it doesn't is a very transparent conversation at Patagonia. Doesn't mean we're not exploring some of those things or looking at the tools when they're mature enough to adopt. But yeah, anyone watching this, please know that DPC has not solved world peace.

Yeah, absolutely. Very wise. And it's so, it's so true. And we are seeing actually now— well, not now, it's been like a couple of years, I guess. But when we first started talking about DPC at our events, people were talking about fully taking things and doing it in a digital way only. I think most of them have now figured out that that's just— yeah, exactly to your point, you have to balance the two together. At the end of the day, you're still making a physical garment, so, you know, or shoe or whatever it is that you're making. So there has to be a balance between the two. I want to talk a bit about sustainability, and I'm particularly excited about asking you guys this because obviously, you know, it's one of the things that Patagonia is known for. I feel like when 3D DPC first came out, there was such a strong sustainability narrative around it, and I feel like that's kind of dropped off for a lot of brands. I don't really hear it as much anymore. So I'd love to ask you, Chiara, you know, you position DPC as a way to reduce development impacts. Where has that been demonstrated to be true, and where has the sustainability narrative around digital tools been oversimplified or overstated?

Yeah, I love this question, Michael, because the reason we got into this work was because of that sustainability factor. And that was what drove us from the beginning and continues to drive us now. Everything we do at Patagonia is with the lens of, is it the best thing for the environment? And I don't say that lightly. Every single role in this business, that is our mindset. And so we go about our business every single day, every decision we make with is this the right thing for the environment? And so, of course, digital product creation has a lot of potential for this, the sustainability piece, and especially, I feel, in our product creation space, whether that's prototyping or digital size sets, ideating different designs, graphics, and logos, but of course into that sales space. So if you're reducing physical samples on the sales side and using digital where it makes sense, there's so much potential there. The technology was definitely sold to me as a quick win for sustainability and cost. And while that's true, it's a lot of work to get there. It's not a flip of a switch. You have to do the hard work to get your foundation in place, get folks comfortable in the tools, get your factory partners on board if that's the route you're going. That's the only way that we can use the tools to be as sustainable as possible. And so for Patagonia, That's played out in different ways, whether that's in our prototyping process where we can go digital first in some cases. Other times we need to go physical first to really test out functionality and fit first. So that varies depending on product and situation. We've had a lot of wins on our size sets. We test our— check out our grade in some styles if we have a new fit going. And so we could do that digitally in some cases and then go to physical. Or we just go digital and we get what we need from that digital. So that is a big win for us too. We're just— we're scaling more and more where we can, whether that's proving out our ease over body, making sure that the factory partner is interpreting our tech pack and design direction accurately. We can see that digitally first before going physical. Some other ways we've been leveraging the tools are through our graphic and prints work. So we can really look at things digitally, scale them across size ranges, placement, all of that before we get any kind of strike-off. That's been a really great area for us to lean into well. But as I said earlier, we make such a huge variety of product from Pinnacle climbing and snow products to to basic lifestyle gear. So the complexity, it really forces us to lean into digital where it makes sense and lean into physical where it makes sense. And may not be the most sustainable way to approach that if you're only looking at your physical proto outputs, but for us, that quality of product has to be priority. And so if we have to test something physically, we will. That said, we'll always leverage the digital early on to reduce those physical samples wherever possible. That was a long-winded answer, but we're approaching it in different ways, trying to get the sustainability factor out of our different work streams across our business.

Ian, anything you'd like to add?

I think Kjella summed that up perfectly. The only thing I would add to that is I think we Small but meaningful change in wording. I think less about reduce and more about optimize. So optimizing our samples, we're optimizing our development impact. The reason why I use optimize with intention there is because we are giving you something in return. We're not just taking away a sample. And I think as soon as you change that narrative of you are getting a digital moment and product to make a hopefully better decision than you did previously, with all the advantages that digital has, it just changes the context of conversation versus— we've all heard no sample, no sale moments. We are optimizing a lot of different moments with digital. And the other thing is, I think we've never done this, Kjell, so maybe we need to, but there's a Venn diagram, I think, with optimizing of a sample versus the confidence of the user to feel that they can make a decision in digital. And so as we think about sustainable narrative around digital tools. I think we're moving towards it, but it's not just digital product creation in its own right. I think there's a lot of different conversations that enable that, and then usually that enables a more sustainable way of working.

Yeah, absolutely. And I'd love to stay on this topic of confidence and trust and talk a little bit about digital fit. So Kiala, I'll, I'll I'll ask you this to start. So digital fit is often framed as a technical milestone, but in practice it does live or die by trust. Where do teams at Patagonia generally trust digital fit today? And where does that trust still need to be earned? You know, whether that's across fabric behavior, avatar fidelity, interpretation, or decision-making culture.

Mm-hmm. Love this question. We at Patagonia, we're still building the digital fit muscle. We are— I agree that trust in the accuracy of the digital garment and the avatar is critical. And part of that trust in that digital garment is how accurate the digital materials are functioning in that asset. And so we're continuing to tweak the quality of the components that go into our digital products so that that trust can be higher and higher. But we have taken the approach that I know many other brands have where we start out by going digital and physical in tandem. So it's an easier transition for folks to compare the two. We've seen more often than not that the digital is extremely accurate. And in fact, if we see the digital first and the physical comes a day later, there's all these questions of, is that right? Is that right? And then the physical comes and it's spot on 90% of the time, I would say. So that trust is building more and more. But we've also taken time to train our teams on how to evaluate fit digitally. And that's ongoing. I think, like I said, it's a new muscle, it's a new skillset. So as people understand what can digital do, but also what is it not capable of doing, I think both are so important. And some fit aspects can't be evaluated well digitally and others can. So it's really a, a balance. We do, we are always up against that reliance on a physical sample and physical humans that I think is very common in the industry, but that's shifting more and more. And we are, we're getting stronger at trusting that digital asset. What does that ease over body mean on an avatar versus a human and making the most out of that digital moment before we need to get the physical in to test function and fit on, on a human.

Absolutely. Ian, anything you'd like to add?

The only other thing I think is, is when we talk about digital fit, who's looking at that? So I think there's an obvious— whether it be a size and fit team or a technical design team, but there's a lot of other people that are trying to maybe not look at it in that kind of focused, more critical way, but just trying to get fit intent or representation from digital garments. And so I will happily leave Chiara to work with the technical designer. It's not my space or field at all, but I am definitely more in the conversations with whether it be line managers or, you know, more of our sales team around what is the fit intent of that garment and what is the best place for you to make that type of decision. What am I looking at? How should I be looking at it? And I think that's still a muscle that people are still trying to kind of train up a little bit around. How you look at it digitally is slightly different to physical, and you have to kind of meet people where they're at. You forget that people have spent since childhood looking at a photo to make a decision. Digital can feel different and feel awkward at times. To Kjell's point, it turns out sometimes it's way more accurate than what they're looking at in a photo. But it's still a hard thing to turn off from a habit point of view. But definitely getting there.

Amazing. I'm actually going to stay on this. I'm going to mix things up a bit. I want to stay on the human side of DPC. So Ian, let's stick with you. Digital transformation isn't just technical, of course. It asks people to unlearn a lot of, you know, about themselves, a lot of skills, a lot of the ways that they've known how to do things. How have you guys gone about supporting teams through the emotional and cultural side of that change? Not just from an operational standpoint?

I think if I had to start off with a one-liner, it's that digital doesn't replace craft. I think that's one part that we at Patagonia are proud and known for, for our craft and how we make products. I think maybe there was, I think initially when we first started out half a decade ago, that digital is somehow taking that away. And I think it's just, it's a different medium in which it shows up. So firstly, telling people that whilst you're maybe currently very hands-on with a sample prototype, whatever the moment is in which you're making your decision, we are transitioning to a digital way of working, but we're not taking away anything away from the expertise. And so firstly, that's, that's one maybe barrier to entry or where folks get a bit apprehensive. Talked about sometimes then confidence takes longer than a rollout would assume it does. So there's one moment there where there's an emotional cost and we're talking multiple seasons for people to gain the confidence, even when myself and Callum maybe have demonstrated the capability in a digital tool of like, look, it can do that. Or for example, in pilots, one of the, one of the aims was can 3D make all of the type of products that we make at Patagonia? That was a challenge, right? So from, do a lot of insulation garments, but then we do swimwear, board shorts, We make inflatable vests, we make bags, we make hats. Can it do all of those things? And so that's just one moment where we prove it out. But the confidence is on a, on a slightly slower scale. And I think then you have to meet people where they're at. And I think I always talk about tools architecture and barriers to entry. The barriers to entry part is, Michael, for example, maybe you don't feel like you're the best at technology and some folks don't feel as kind of digitally native as others to pick up new tools. That can be a barrier to entry. Entry that can have emotional cost to it. And I think we talk about organizational change as this grand thing. I think you can meet people where they're at, and there's very different reasons why folks might be either slower to adopt, resistance to change. Most of them, it's only one thing that they have, but they can be very different and nuanced. And as long as you meet people where they're at and to some degree mitigate some of that emotional cost of, I'm afraid of this because of X and Y, I think that's where if you focus on an individual level, you do get a broader organization— organizational changes as a result. And then I think you've got to be candid where in terms of the workflows, use them where they make sense. So I think again, there's an emotional cost and challenge to forcing kind of a square peg into a round hole. If you're forcing me down a digital route where I'm not sure about this. I'm lacking confidence in this. I don't think it's going to work for this product. Let's just try some workflows, whether they be low-hanging fruit and you know they're clearly going to work and then gain confidence from that. But I get, I get we've been very open book about use it where it makes sense, don't use it where it doesn't. And we actually found that organically people tend to use it more once they start, once they're in the tool itself. So I don't know if that's answered your question, Michael, around emotional cost of transformation. I think it's— there's a lot of different situations there where you have to meet people where they're at, and it's more about reducing as much emotional cost as possible.

Yeah, absolutely. Kjalla, anything you'd like to add?

Just important to note, we've always taken a people-first approach. So people, then looking at process, then technology. And I think that's so critical to do if you're trying to implement a new way of working or a new tool without meeting people where they are, as Ian said. Not going to be as successful. So we have folks in different ranges of technical proficiency, and so meeting them where they are in their body of work and showing the benefits to their workflow, that's been critical. And it's, it's easier in some areas than others, of course, and some folks are willing to learn and grow and be uncomfortable, and others it's a bit of a more difficult journey. So that's not unique to Patagonia, but we are trying to take that people-first approach.

Amazing. And Kiala, let me stay with you because, you know, this connects to this quite, quite well. You know, this idea of restraint and when you choose to use it and when you don't. What are you actively choosing not to digitize or automate right now? And how do you decide when restraint is more valuable than capability?

So Ian mentioned something earlier, craft. We are very conscious of craft that makes Patagonia product relevant, but also timeless, durable, sustainable. We have a lot of steps in our creative process, whether that's the product design, the textile design, color design, our graphics are all designed in-house. And we're always prioritizing the craft and the value of our incredibly talented teams. That's not to say we, we don't look at relevant technology. It's not being ignored, but it is a truly conscious effort to maintain that craft that is Patagonia while incorporating digital tools that add value. And that, that looks different depending on the workflow and the area of our product creation. For example, on our storytelling and marketing side of things, we will always tell authentic stories that connect to the wild places we're working to protect. And that can be through authentic photography or video. We have incredible athletes that represent our brand that we lean into as well. So Patagonia is very intentional and purpose-driven. And so authenticity and relationships are highly valued. And that goes from product creation all the way through to the storytelling and marketing. So we really want to hold on to that unique value of craft while leveraging tools where it makes sense. And sometimes technology is not the answer.

Absolutely.

Ian, anything you'd like to add on that?

No, that was perfect.

Lovely. Well, Ian, we will come back, back to you now. I'd love to talk about AI. Of course, we can't not talk about AI. As AI increasingly intersects with DPC, where do you see real opportunity and where do you think caution is still essential inside of a product-led organization?

So I think, where do I think it should show up? And I think where there's some tangible benefits today, I think it can remove some barriers that we talked about, whether it be integrations, handoffs, tools that don't necessarily play well with others. I think AI is a no-brainer there. I think we've all got examples in different brands where you export one file from one program and try and ingest it into another. Insert bug, issue, problem. And I think AI enabling just better integrations as a whole is— and I know software vendors are doing this right now, so I'm stoked to see AI show up in those moments to make just more of a frictionless experience with, with using and enabling 3D workflows. I think where it gets a bit more gray and a bit more complex and for me As long as AI is a human-centered, has a human-centered approach to it and intent, and ultimately a human is still in the driving seat and it's not replacing necessarily like judgment on a product, that's a good starting point for any AI conversation. So whatever it is, is someone still having total control in either the ideation, what it looks like, what it's doing? And I think we've all been in conversations where people are just rolling the dice on AI and you're like, well, I'm not sure. I'm actually not sure what the starting point is, let alone what the endpoint was. That is definitely not things that we're necessarily focusing on today. I would say there's a few things we're looking at is, is how does it reduce workflow friction, those handoff moments? How does it solve some interoperability moments with some of the things that we're trying to do and the places where we're trying to go with digital product creation? The more decision-making moments, I think is still an exploration phase of it. But I think that, I think the AI tools themselves are maturing to a point. I think we'll talk about hype phases with DPC later on. I think AI is still in its own hype phase, definitely right in the middle of that. And so I think it's only now I'm starting to see some grassroots of is this tool mature enough? Am I still in control? Do I have— can I be specific enough to what I need? So hopefully that answers the question.

Absolutely, it does. Chiara, anything you'd like to add?

No, I only— that you can cover it really well. Only that, like everything we do at Patagonia, we're looking at how is AI going to serve what our goals are and what problems are we trying to solve. So not jumping into something that's shiny and fun, just to try it out, but really, is it adding value? Is it authentic to Patagonia? And what does that mean for efficiencies and sustainability? So a different lens perhaps than others, but that is how the brand is approaching AI in general.

Yeah, and I think that is how brands should be approaching it. My worry with AI is that it's just going to become a tool to make even more, even quick, quick quicker. And you know, we all know we don't need any more to be made really. So yeah, that is a real big risk I think that this industry has if they go down that route, but fingers crossed isn't going to be the case. So just a couple more. Ian, you just mentioned it a second ago about the hype phase, the hype, yeah, the hype. As DPC continues to mature and the hype continues to fade, what should brands be doubling down on and where should they stop forcing digital solutions that don't genuinely serve the for the user.

Yeah. Can we declare— Michael, can we make it official? DPC must be past its hype phase. I mean, we're 5 years into it. I mean, I've known you for nearly probably 8 years. We must be past the hype phase with DPC, which is a good and bad thing. I think we're in the nitty-gritty of implementation now, which is not as exciting, maybe some might say. But I think for when we're thinking about maturity, We talked about it a lot as a theme here, but doubling down on accuracy of product and then the integration part. So I think if you start, really start being critical and continue to be critical of your product accuracy, continue to think about meaningful moments of integration, that's where true digital maturity comes from. We're a small but mighty DPC team at Patagonia, and sometimes people I would say to people, how do you like not need to see me to get to what you want? And that sometimes sounds like a negative, but I mean it in the best case possible. You know, how can you be—

I need to start doing that.

Yeah, 100%.

And Kjalla nods because she sees me every day. So she's like, how do I see less of you? That would be a great thing. So, but in a serious moment, if we can, if we want to achieve true scale here, And not just true scale within product creation, but if we think wider across a whole brand, that concept to customer, whoever the customer is, even in our own business, how do you not need to see— how can this be as self-serve as possible is a sign of maturity. And that's something we are continually asking ourselves around. How can people be— how can we enable people without us kind of being in the background is something that we're looking at. So product accuracy and then that integration. I think maturity for us is continuing to use our product, kind of our, sorry, our mission as a brand, as a filter for everything that we do. Kjeller just reminded me and continue reminding ourselves every day, not just in AI, but in everything that we do. Does it make sense? Should we be spending time here? I just referenced our small but mighty team. One of our, probably our most finite resources is time and bandwidth for our own team. So me and Kjell are continually talking about how long is this going to take and what's the value associated with it? And I don't mean financial, I mean mission statement. And if it isn't adding to that, there's a lot we leave on the table for all of the right reasons. I always joke it does mean Kjell is saying no to me a lot, but that the nos are with the best intentions. And so to finish, maturity is discipline. Not everything needs to be digital. Not everything needs to— we don't need to be exploring every tool under the sun. We've heard examples of other brands where they're like, we're trying this out and this out and this out. And quite frankly, that just sounds exhausting. It's doubling down on where we know it makes sense. Amazing. Thank you.

Kiala, anything you'd like to add on this?

Well, Ian jokes I say no a lot, but sometimes I say not yet. We want to get to that, but not yet. But yes, part of my job is saying no. Unfortunately, we do have bandwidth constraints and priorities to contend with. But the fact is we want to do it all and we just simply can't. So sometimes it's a no and sometimes it's a not yet.

Yeah, I get that.

And from one— I'm also in a very small, small team, so I get it. I get it. Oftentimes you want to do so many things at once, but to your point, there's only so many hours in the day and you can't burn your yourselves out because that's not going to help anyone. So that all makes a lot of sense. Well, look, I'll end with this. Kiala, let's start with you. What's next for your digital product creation workflow? And where do, you know, process integration, size and fit, AI most meaningfully shape that next chapter?

There's so much ahead for us. We still are doubling down on that, continuing to maintain our infrastructure and our standards. We know That's forever work. It's the behind-the-scenes work that's so critical but has to be in a good place in order to continue to scale. So that's not going away. But we're also always looking at operational excellence. And what does that mean with tools? What does that mean with the people? What does that mean with new ways of working? And so continually looking at ideating with it amongst those different levers to pull and approaching it people first, as I said previously, I think that's That is the, the avenue to success for the most part, meeting people where they are, but also challenging to think differently, work differently, fail, try again, be uncomfortable, all those good areas of growth. And then we're really moving more into that visualization or connecting our assets across the business and the area that Ian leads for us. And so when we have these beautiful assets that are accurate, What can we do with them and what kind of stories can we tell? What kind of visualization can we make a reality for our merchandising partners or our store merchandising partners or marketing, whatever that looks like for other parts of the business outside of product creation? And that is untapped. We have so much potential there. We have to take it in bite-sized pieces because of our team size and the skill set that's still growing across our partners as well. But there's a lot of momentum there, a lot of excitement, and I'm thrilled to see where that takes us while we maintain that craft of quality digital product.

Amazing.

Thank you so much. Ian, is there anything you'd like to add?

Just that I'm super excited around that kind of Connect body of work. I think seeing that come to life even in its current form and the opportunities that kind of kind of potential for us. I think there's a lot of— when we think about the traditional go-to-market cadence for brands today, it's very much, you know, sketch, prototype, photo across potentially 12, 18, 24 months depending on the brand. And I think what I'm really excited about for Patagonia is not condensing. So I know there are brands that try to kind of get closer to market and speed to market is a thing, but just think about our brand intention and how we can involve all parts of the business way earlier on, using 3D as a vehicle for that, that decision-making or storytelling, rather than having to wait for a waterfall of handoff of moment to get there. And some folks, some folks just based on the process are a year away from each other today. But how do we get them closer together in whatever form of storytelling? How does it feel Patagonian in the way we tell stories? That's really exciting because It just means by the time it shows up to them in reality, in physical form, they've already known about it. And they realize there are some intangible but very valuable benefits that come from that with the quality of decision-making, whether that be in product development, technical design, our sales team. And that's just going to ultimately result in better product and having a better impact to our mission statement. So I'm just excited to see that, and I have no doubt there's going to be some really compelling opportunities that come along the way coming from that. Some we'll know about and some probably we won't. So yeah, really excited. Amazing.

Well, thank you. What an amazing note to end on. Thank you both so, so much. One, for saying yes to this chat. I love to— I love that now I know more about all of the work that you've been doing over all of these years. And I look forward to seeing what you guys do next. And thank you for just being so candid and honest about the journey you've been on. I'm sure a lot of people are going to love reading and, and seeing this video. So thanks so much for your time.

Thanks, Michael. It was a lot of fun. Appreciate you having us.