Chip Slip: Lululemon Wardrobe Malfunctions
This year has been one of many hot-topics for Canadian apparel company, Lululemon. It all started in March when it was forced to recall a large chunk of women’s yoga pants that were deemed “too sheer” to be worn. The company blamed the sheerness on production problems and style changes, which cost Lululemon an estimated $57-67 million. As you could imagine, this did not sit well with investors in stakeholders who, in turn, filed class action lawsuits against the company. This also caused uproar among Lululemon customers – both who purchased the pants or were merely disappointed in the decreasing quality of the Lululemon product itself.
At the time, the company was quoted as saying customers were buying the pants too small, and should perhaps try a larger size in order to guarantee the pants would be opaque when being worn.
The company responded again in October with what some called a “genius marketing move” by turning the sheer pants into a new product called the Second Chance Pant. The Second Chance Pant used the material from the sheer pants but added a mesh strip down the side and extra material to the bottom in order to make the pants more functional and totally opaque. Some consumers loved the pants and applauded Lululemon for the efforts to recycle the initially un-wearable product.
At the same time, the company received some negative feedback with regards to continued sheerness and pilling problems with the Second Chance Pant.
In early November, Lululemon co-founder and interim CEO Chip Wilson addressed the issues with the pants in a Bloomberg interview. When asked about the pilling and sheerness problems, Chip responded by saying, "some women's bodies just actually don't work for [the pants]”. “[The pants] don't work for certain-some women's bodies…It's really about the rubbing through the thighs, how much pressure is there,” said Wilson.
He also notes in the interview that the pants are a “technical” product and it’s difficult to gauge what problems might arise (i.e. sheerness or pilling) in the varying scenarios of how the pants are used, who is wearing them, and how they’re being expected to function.
Many reactions to his comments surfaced in the media in the days following the interview. Many were upset with Wilson and accused him of “fat shaming” women who’s thighs touched, or were too big to wear the pants.
A mere three days later, Chip issued an apology via YouTube. Once again, his apology was met with some despair and mixed reviews in the media.
Although he wasn’t exactly savvy in his Bloomberg interview, and perhaps somewhat artificial in his apology, there is indeed a technical aspect with the pants that lies at the foundation of the sheerness and pilling problems. Had Chip addressed the issues in a more sensitive fashion from the start (perhaps with a little media coaching), the fallout from the interview might not have been so intense.