- Steinbock: The Euro Zone Endgame Begins
- Option Bulls Take Another Shot on Idenix
- Top 20 European Stocks for Crisis Time: Strategist
- Curt Schilling’s Videogame Company Goes Bust
- Time for Flash Sales to Adapt or Die
- What Flash Sites Are Suggesting About Consumers
- Hewlett-Packard Faces a ‘Dogfight’ for Talent: Analyst
- Laouchez: Leadership in Financial Services — Missing in Action?
- DuckDuckGo Cooks Google’s Goose: Analyst
- Silicon Valley Isn't Snubbing Morgan Stanley So Far
- What Happened to Stocks? Most Unloved in 50 Years
- What Would Greek Exit Mean for the US Economy?
- Big European Funds Confirm Dumping Euro Assets
- Why Are Greek and Italian Politicians So Bad?
- Facebook Market Makers Lost at Least $100 Million
- Time for Flash Sales to Adapt or Die
- Biggest Comic-Book Movie Franchises
- Greece on the Brink Amid Euro Zone Crisis
MOST SHARED
- HMO Stocks May Struggle Over Health Claim Costs
- Facebook Fallout: Silicon Valley Won’t Snub Morgan Stanley
- Stocks to Watch: CHK, PAY, FB, MS & More
- What Would Greek Exit Mean for the US Economy?
- What Every Investor Needs to Know About Greece
- Euro Steadies, Dollar Holds Firm
- China Counter-Challenges US Over Subsidies at WTO
- Bank of Greece Poised to Reveal Crucial Data
- Euro Zone Needs Banking Union: ECB Official
- Are Investors Running Out of Safe Havens to Put Money?
ABOUT THIS BLOG
|
This blog will look at the winners and losers in the retail space. Who has the right strategy to capture consumer dollars? It also will look for trends in consumer spending and how that will impact the economy.
Lululemon: Will They Turn 'Bad' Marketing Story Into Lemonade?
Text Size 
CNBC Reporter
 |
] on the Upper West side of Manhattan. I find this somewhat ironic given that Lululemon has done for athleticwear what Starbucks seems to have done for coffee. No, it didn't just inflate prices and make it yuppie-wear, Lulu glamorized it. The company is making athleticwear approachable and fun-- an experience more than a reminder of unpleasant trips to the gym. I wish I could claim that the Lululemon Starbucks comparison was my original work, but to be honest, the first comparison of the two was made by a Canadian shopper who was browsing the racks at the store itself.
I spent the morning reporting on the stock reaction to news reports that the company falsely advertises materials used in its products. Specifically, the New York Times ran a story that Lululemon's Vitasea line, which claims to contain a seaweed compound called 'Seacell,' actually tested negative for any such fibers. Why does that matter and why would the stock sell off so steeply in reaction?
Marketing matters. Image matters. As one analyst told me, Lulu has pushed a 'holier than thou' and healthier than thou image. Selling that image of healthfulness (seaweed fiber clothing that moisturizes your skin while you're working out?!) has helped Lulu justify selling its relatively pricey T-shirts for $50 and its sportsbras for $44. Today's NY Times story is a short sellers' dream and a p.r. nightmare.
Given the stock reaction, it is hard to argue that the story "doesn't matter." The dropoff today is a reversal of fortune for a company whose stock has been up 25% since its July initial public offering. CNBC's Jim Cramer was a big "fan" of the stock (he's changed), comparing Lulu's success to that of sportswear company Under Armour and hot shoewear stock Crocs [CROX
Loading...
()
] .
Anyhow, my initial reaction to the story was of course, marketing is false. After all, it is marketing. That's 90% public relations. Haven't we all bought eye cream/eye makeup/perfume/clothing hoping that its secret ingredient would make us look like Cindy Crawford in the morning? That said, this allegation is more serious than if the seaweed product simply didn’t moisturize your skin. Instead, the product doesn’t contain what the label says it does. That's a step beyond false advertising. That's misrepresenting a product, the brand and a company risks losing brand equity since consumers won't 'trust' the retailer as much.
In the long run this scandal has the potential to just become a short term headline risk for the stock and not actually impact sales (that's my take at least.) That is, if the company gets out in front of the story and apologizes to customers. They should also do their own testing and make it public if the manufacturer duped Lulu as much as the public now believes the company duped consumers.
This isn't the same caliber of offense as Nike [NKE
Loading...
()
] hiring manufacturers who employ children. However, the scandal is a step beyond false advertising. It is definitely the first 'chink in the armor' of company who up until now has been a success story.
That said, I went into the store to look around and found the sales people very friendly, the product solid (though pricey--you're supposed to SWEAT in it, right?) and the layout aesthetically pleasing. Customers said they bought the product because of the fit and the fashion. Not because they thought the seaweed as moisturizing their skin.
That said, the image did take a bit of a beating today. And we still haven't heard back from p.r. or investor relations. Looks like Lululemon is hoping that this story will just go away.
Questions? Comments?
- The government wants help for its investigation into the mortgage backed security fiasco of 2008.
- Where do the happiest and most optimistic of Asian millionaires live? Click through to find out.
- These athletes are notable for brief moments in the sun and leaving their fame on the field.
- China has been ramping up investments around the world. Here’s a list of the top ten countries.
- Is there a Machiavellian scheme to create a United States of Europe? Patrick Allen looks into it.
- Now you can eat your way across America all year long, from one sizzling bacon festival to another.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes
