Wow, are you sure? I heard one of the execs/founders speak a conference exactly one year ago and it was… impressive… lots of pizazz. I was under the impression that they were very well capitalized, so they must have burned through a lot of cash. If Nau is indeed gone, this will be one of the first big casualties in the green style space, maybe an important sign of the times…. thanks Rob.

Oh, come on, Rob, make some shit up! Or play some relaxing music… or something. I expanded on my comment above here: http://indiebreakfastclub.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/nau-is-dead-what-does-this-mean-for-the-green-style-market/

On my way home from Boulder this afternoon I stopped into the Nau store. I was delighted to see a sign indicating that stuff was 50% off – until they told me why.

The people of Colorado would be best represented by a flag made of Polar Fleece. Considering all of the Patagonia and North Face around here, Nau’s stuff had the high-performance outdoorsy look so popular here, but with a more stylish, urban bent. I loved the stuff.

With the green movement parading full steam ahead to the point where you really don’t know whether a company is actually green or greenwashing you, Nau seemed true to those ideals. However, business is more than just a mission statement. I think it faulted by believing that the high price points could counter the limited distribution. It couldn’t. I sensed this the first and only time I stepped into the Portland store. I liked the designs which were urban and stylish; was frustrated by the color palette (too limited), but was turned off by the price and the order it here, have it sent home philosophy. Apparel seems to me to be tangible to the consumer; something you want to try on and take home with you, even if you save 10%.

I hope the concept get reborn. Again, with the growing sustainability movement, why couldn’t it work within a retail environment other than Nau-specific stores.

Nau.com is (was?) an awful, unusable web site. When I ordered a dress last year I thought “Surely in the name that all that is good about the internet this is just a placeholder web site that will be replaced by something that works.”

I guess not.

Unfortunately, it takes more than great rhetoric and lotsa blog love. It takes QUALITY merchandise. The items I purchased from Nau were misshapen and unwearable after one hand wash. The sweater pilled after one wear. It was a high-priced fiasco. I wanted them to do well, but sheesh. I understand from an employee they saw a great many returns and I think this was ultimately the problem and reason capital was difficult to raise.

You can win over the blogosphere, but at the end of the day you have a product that is appealing AND affordable. I consider myself environmentally conscious and bought into the sustainability message, and the “new business” concept Nau presented. However, when I went to the Nau store my experience was similar to yours. I was there for +45 minutes and was the only customer (this was on a weekend). I couldn’t believe it considering the favorable buzz it got on the net.

As a consumer, I quickly realized that despite the cool product, I couldn’t afford anything! It was apparent that the target consumer was very specific – environmentally conscious, but with money! Add limited distribution and low volume production to this equation plus a dependency on investors to fund retail store expansion, I’m not surprised it failed considering the way the economy is right now.

The message of the company was very positive and I think we’re fortunate that other companies will learn from Nau. Perhaps the concept will succeed down the road.

I don’t mean to be insensitive, and don’t get me wrong, there was great potential here, innovative thought, and skilled employees.

I certainly wish everyone the best, I’d even be willing to collaborate with the talented ones.

However, without a clear vision, the knowledge of the target customer, and a start-up culture that was drowning in hype, self-righteousness and aggrandizement, you have yourself a recipe for disaster.

In this case, my knowledge of nau, is extensive…my research of it extends as far back as their announced inception.

Bottom line: it’s perplexing that the company ignored what I consider to be the first rule of business…KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER. Again, as “experts,” someone should have figured out long ago who the customers were (the target market) and then the differentiators (i.e., price, quality, cache, aesthetic).

Among things, the company should have operated in catalog only form until the model was proven…especially to test the waters of delayed gratification for the consumer.

It’s worth recognizing that the whole thing was built upon layers of experimentation. They were attempting to be on the “cutting-edge” with their design, the website, the textiles, the webfront (brick and mortar), and so on. It’s too much, all at once.

I consider myself a part of Nau’s target market (who I think they were well aware of) and Iove everything I’ve purchased from them for many reasons.

Nau designed things with consideration. Their clothing was the perfect compromise between an urban-chic aesthetic and quality functional outerwear. Their seems weren’t placed to be different, they were placed in context of how a messenger or hiking backpack would rest on your shoulders. Their cuts accentuated movement zones in the elbows and knees as well as adding stretchable material to those areas for comfortable movement. After commuting by bike through one of Chicago’s roughest winters in recent years, I can attest to their ability to perform on par with the competition(and at similar price points), while also being more office friendly than a Patagonia polar fleece or soft shell.

I’ve been continually amazed by the calls of their outrageous prices as well…compared to what? Definitely not compared to competitors like Patagonia and North Face. And when looking at the business model and manufacturing practices that bring Nau’s clothing to life, their prices reflect the “true cost” of what you are buying. The cultural, environmental, and health costs incurred when you by a $10 t-shirt are hidden from the price you pay as a consumer.

As a loyal customer and someone who is adamant about their quality and purpose, I think Nau came just a few years too soon. As a part of their market, I (sadly) know few others my age who care enough about Nau’s social and environmental ideals to shell out the “extra” money for the clothing, but I think that will continue to change in the next few years.

With all the green washing going on out there, it’s sad to see one of the authentic companies close their doors. They were an inspiration and they will be missed.

Nau was competitive at full retail vs. Patagonia and TNF. Problem: The people who pay full retail for TNF and Patagonia didn’t have Nau on their radar, they are several years behind the trendsetters. Nau needed to focus on the trendsetters and Nau’s stores in places like Bellevue Square were poorly located for reaching their correct market and contradicted the brand itself. Each time I visited the Bellevue store it was dead empty even on a Saturday evening between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

And then there was the product. I really wanted to like it, but 2 of the 3 items I purchased just didn’t work. The hoodie was oddly cut, oddly detailed and oddly colored. Well made, just odd choices. The same with the fleece pants. Fabric was too thin, cut was odd, but they were nicely made. The wool shirt was well cut, well made, but at $20 there’s noway they could make a profit for their investors.