This is a psychological phenomenon called reactance. Reactance suggests that when we perceive our freedom to engage in a certain behaviour is being threatened or restricted, we double down. This gives us the sense that we're asserting our freedom by doing the opposite of what we're told.

And what is marketing if not employing various psychological techniques to persuade people to do something?

In the run-up to Christmas, 2011, the brand ran a poster and PR campaign called "Don't Buy This Jacket." The campaign aimed to encourage people to consider the effects of consumerism on the environment. The point was that we should only buy things we actually need.

The print ad appeared in the Black Friday edition of the New York Times. Patagonia published a full-page ad full of reasons you shouldn't buy their jacket.

These included the fact that producing the jacket required 36 gallons of water (enough to fill the daily needs of 45 people). Production emitted 20 pounds of carbon dioxide and produced two-thirds of its weight of waste.

Patagonia's sales rose 30% post campaign. But the campaign did raise awareness of a pressing problem adjacent to Patagonia's mission statement:

"Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis."

If you look at the net effect, they succeeded in advancing their mission with this campaign. Patagonia's products last as long as three average products. This means those who bought the jacket would be, in turn, consuming less.

From its inception, founder Yvon Chouinard has sought to minimize the effect the brand has on the environment. This began with selling reusable climbing tools, which was unheard of in the 70's.

He then committed 1% of Patagonia's sales, or 10% of its profits - whatever was higher - to environmental initiatives. This is what they call "a self-imposed earth tax.' They've been doing this since 1986.

Patagonia also revised any operations that caused potential damage to the environment. Even though this costs them 300% more than if they didn't. They found eco-friendly business practices and even shared them with larger brands like Nike. This just shows their commitment to reducing environmental damage.

However, after the 2011 campaign, Patagonia's 2016 Black Friday campaign vowed to give all revenues generated to environmental protection groups. And sales SKYROCKETED, quadrupling the company's estimates at a whopping $10 million.

These campaigns work because Patagonia have always remained true to their mission statement. And amidst our current environmental crises in tandem with the never-ending demand that feeds the fast fashion industry like some kind of Zara fueled Jaba-The-Hut, the need for authentic sustainable brands like Patagonia has never been more pressing.

Yvon Chouinard once said, "I know it sounds crazy, but every time I've made a decision that's best for the planet, I've made money.'