No. of Recommendations: 0
Don't take this personally, however...
I think the worst thing they could do to the brand is attract a bunch of overweight old people to the stores.
Not taken personally as I can and do wear some LULU. Really liked their skorts but chose to buy elsewhere given how insanely short they are, even on these relatively short legs. But I also researched it from the POV of maxing out a customer base and extending the profitability of their investment in developing fabrics. The brand targets the teeny bopper demographic, teens to maybe 30 years old, and typically the demographic with a lower spending power. "Old people" have money and can afford $150 jogging pants. The problems the company had with the see through leggings was met with a CEO who said that some people just shouldn't wear LULU, rather than admit to and address the quality problem. The models they use in advertising, which frankly I only found after buying product during my investigating the brand, are size zeros, and unrelatable. I had no idea that this company made anything other than yoga pants. How is that smart?
As I said, if there is a concern of alienating current customer base, then you simply develop a companion store of LULULife, for those over 30 and not wanting their clothes painted on, or wanting these great fabrics for life events beyond preening for the stud they are trying to attract. Way too narrow a customer target and not maximizing their investment in fabric development. Why alienate your customer when you can simply grow with them as they mature?
IP,
not seeing growth potential here, and finding Athleta doing a better job of serving all categories with grace
