Love Lost for Lululemon?

Ever wonder if that whole corporate transparency "thing" really applies to your brand? Well, let me give you a hot-off-the-press example of a brand that may lose some love from its core customers, women, by not walking the talk:

Lululemon, a very marketing savvy yoga/fitness-wear retailer that I, for one, have been going ga-ga over for a few years now (even though it is not inexpensive), has been caught in a contradiction. Their recent negative press is something that could happen to any brand, and that's why this news is worth mentioning. It has broader, "women notice everything" implications.

According to an article by Louise Story in The New York Times, Lululemon's "VitaSea" product line, with tags claiming the inclusion of some sort of seaweed in the fiber mix, may not have any seaweed-specific substances in it at all. The Times actually commissioned a test to confirm the claim and, as Story wrote, the results led to further digging:

"The tests raise obvious questions about Lululemon's marketing. Consumers generally pay more for high-tech sportswear, and companies like Lululemon are trying to capitalize on interest in organic materials."

When questioned for the New York Times piece, an executive from the Vancouver, B.C.-based brand commented something to the effect of -- they couldn't afford to test the claim of the line's manufacturer before putting it in stores. Hmmm.

One of the things a brand, any brand, has to be very careful of, in this era of consumer-expected corporate transparency, is just what happened to Lululemon in this case. Will the brand lose some of its luster or see an immediate decrease in sales with its fanatical customer base? Perhaps not.

But, here's the thing: it will be a negative notch along a female consumer's complex path toward her yoga-wear purchase decision to buy from Lululemon. Particularly for a product that 99% of its buyers would definitely be talking about with other women (yoga and pilates practitioners are notoriously free with recommendations about outfits) - that "notch" could prove to create a significant trust issue in the longer run.

Lululemon does have gorgeous product and many, many fans. So, will the "Ohms" keep the brand safe despite this negative energy?

Follow Andrea Learned on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AndreaLearned

Comments

[sandhi]

Never in a million years would I have believed that a clothing line could have seaweed that had healing properties in its fiber.
The thought is ludicrous! (Who comes up with this snake oil?)
So, that would not stop me from buying their products. I would just not have ever purchased a 'seaweed' tank in the first place.
The thing that would keep me from purchasing their products is the price.

[emerywood]

I was intrigued by the continuing rise of Lululemon's stock price several months ago so I checked out the store traffic of one of it's stores in Vancouver, B.C. and it was quite busy. I would say it was above average. Then, I checked another one of it's stores in California and it was pretty quiet most of the time. I couldn't make up my mind whether or not to put my hardearned money on the stock. Now, I think I really have to think twice.

[vbond]

"One of the things a brand, any brand, has to be very careful of, in this era of consumer-expected corporate transparency, is just what happened to Lululemon in this case. Will the brand lose some of its luster or see an immediate decrease in sales with its fanatical customer base? Perhaps not."

I was a senior executive responsible for product development, marketing and strategy at a natural nutritional supplements and personal care company for years.

Unless Lululemon immediately warrants the credibility of their product to their customers or removes the product from their line, I predict their sales will decline.

This would be true if the problem were confined to their customer base.

The press that they are getting only compounds and intensifies the problem.

Consumers for these kinds of products are not "fanatical" in spite of anomalies like the missing seaweed, they are fanatical because they trust that anomalies like this do not exist, or - if they are discovered - that they are dealt with immediately.

Events like this remind consumers how little they actually, personally know about the integrity of the products they buy, and remind them that their only practical reassurance is their trust in the company itself.

This applies to workout apparel and gear as much as it does to Chinese toys.

But it applies even more to a company that has a manifesto... a manifesto.

A central component of which is the statement that: "Friends are more important than money."

Friends don't mislead friends, or seem to dismiss their concerns about the relationship.

If they do, they cease to be friends... and the money (especially for a premium-priced product) does become more important.

However much love there may be for Lululemon... there is always a "Gogogrape" waiting in the wings... with true friendship.

[ShanghaiGuy]

Will Lululemon customers continue to pay extra for clothing made with seaweed, after independant tests show no traces of seaweed involved in its manufacture?

Seems a bit of a stretch to believe that Lululemon didn't bother to check if the key material was actually present in their products as specifically advertised.

So what is the customer paying extra for? A quick education in marketing, it seems.

I didn't understand the "broader 'women notice everything' implications". If I found out that a company was mis-representing its products, whether out of greed, incompetence or irresponsibility, I (a male) would most likely avoid purchasing anything from that company. Isn't that just gender-blind "caveat emptor"-style common sense?