On Friday, May 2, Nau announced that "due to crisis in the capital markets" the company was unable to obtain enough funds to move forward. They did it with their typical charm, even nabbing the best headline, "Goodbye for Nau" for their press release. Through their 5% donation program, Nau donated $223,000 to non-profits in just under one year of business. That's an admirable achievement for a little company struggling to stay afloat.
I covered Nau twice before they launched, first for Ultra PDX in November 06' and later for Plenty Magazine, so this is the death of one of my pet companies. The offices were buzzing with energy back then, and the people could not have been nicer or more enthusiastic. They were heavy hitters too, coming from years of experience at places like Patagonia and Nike. So, what went wrong? At the risk of kicking Nau while it's down, I saw this coming.
Nau set out to be the Prada of the outdoor industry, and at first it seemed they would pull it off. With a target market of creative, outdoorsy types and a growing national interest in environmental lifestyles, Nau launched at just the right moment in early 07'. What they put out, however, was...frumpy. I say that shamefully, because when VP of Product Design Mark Galbraith walked me through the sample racks in late 06', I was drooling.
The bike-friendly skirts had me at hello, but also the presence of new textiles, several of which they engineered to be recyclable or compostable because the existing fabrics didn't cut the mustard. Their work spelled new standards for an industry which has a significant environmental impact.
According to the Organic Trade Association, conventional cotton uses 25% of the world's insecticides, and if you haven't checked the labels on your raincoats yet, look up some of the chemicals and treatments involved in making them. The clothes we wear to tromp around outside have a significant footprint of their own, and Galbraith and I talked about this at length, but that sentiment was never spelled out in their marketing campaigns. It seemed Nau would set a higher bar, and maybe they have, but unfortunately not for style.
Galbraith had explained how he wanted to follow high fashion for its timelessness. The outdoor industry, especially snowboard clothing, is trendy and seasonal, requiring frequent replacement. Away from the drawing board went neon colors, away went blue camo prints, and good riddance. But Nau came out with a line almost exclusively in forest green, mud brown and a dirty cream. And then they charged 3 times the average for it, consistently marking everything down by 40% after a few months on a beautiful-but-absurdly-large Flash website.
There was nothing visually special about the clothes at first glance, and they seemed not at all like the ones I had viewed when I visited the offices. Was it just the energy of the place that made everything look beautiful and new, or did they wimp out at the last minute and go with safer, basic designs? Creative, outdoorsy people want to look like creative, outdoorsy people. The fashionistas, the hipsters, the creative set with the funky glasses, wear edgy, unique clothing. The photos were always of pretty people in the outdoor world, but the prices belonged in urban boutiques. Their Portland store was even in the massive suburban Bridgeport Place mall, alongside stores like Pottery Barn and Anthropologie.
As outdoorsy as any of us may be, we walk mostly on urban streets. And what's the fun in a $250 sweater if no one is going to ask you about it, giving you the chance to talk about the organic fibers or recyclable clasps?
I'm sad to see this little company leave the block. Besides their non-profit donations, I hope the Nau legacy will be that consumers ask questions about the fabrics we wear including the production process and how it can be recycled in the end, as well as the heart of the company behind it all.
Most everything is 50% off online, so get your goods nau or never.