Lululemon has found itself having some serious
issues in terms of public relations these days, most recently divulging that
maybe certain women shouldn’t be wearing the brand’s yoga pants. During an appearance
on Bloomberg TV’s “Street Smart” the Lululemon co-founder and former CEO, Chip
Wilson said, “Frankly, some women’s bodies actually don’t work for it…It’s
really about the rubbing through the thighs, how much pressure is there over
period of time, and how much they use it.”
The interview
stemmed from a recall of thousands of pairs of yoga pants because they were too
see-through. The topic went viral, as evidenced in a Jimmy Kimmel Live short on
the possibility of a yoga pant shortage:
In an article in Ragan’s
PR Daily it is mentioned that one customer posted this to the company’s
Facebook page: “Really, your pants are not
made for all women? Well, [the] average size of an American woman is 12, so
good luck! I will never buy your product again.”
In response to the backlash
following his comments, Chip Wilson posted a video on the company's Facebook page that showed what was meant to be a heartfelt apology for his comments and how his comments affected both customers of the brand and people within his company.
Lululemon is very active on its
Facebook page, noticeably posting responses to every comment as far as I could
tell, regardless of how negative that comment might be. But, how does a brand
that is almost exclusively advertised to women recover from telling women that
they must be a certain size in order to wear its clothing line?
It is my opinion that in order to
combat this idea that Lululemon does not cater to certain women, the best possible course of action would be to
introduce a new style of pants and a campaign connected to that new launch that
would be specifically for women who are considered to be “plus-sized.” This
would introduce a certain level of cognitive dissonance that would show that
the company appreciates the business of all women, regardless of size, and hopefully steer people away from the idea that the brand caters to only petite women.
Here is a link to the article:
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI like the topic you picked. It doesn’t sound like Chip Wilson had any talking points during his follow up interview of the see-through pants. Or perhaps he did, but it was the wrong response. I can’t believe that after their stock dropped, this is one of the main talking points in his interview. How embarrassing for him and the company. However, it was best practice to issue a public apology. I just wonder if it was too late.
As you have noted, we can see how important it is for PR practitioners to play an active role in the leadership of a company. I am not sure if this is the case at Lululemon, but based on Wilson’s comments, it sounds like there is disconnect between what to say and what not to say to the public (for crying out loud). Although the CEO is rather new, this is still not an excuse. When you are the CEO of a company, you are supposed to be well-versed in all areas about the company. And you are certainly supposed to be in touch with your target audience.
I think the remedy response you have proposed is good, but I think it could be better if the company just focused on the fact that they sell pants to women of all shapes and sizes instead of just plus-sized women. According to the company’s website, they already sell 12x size pants, so I think the CEO’s comments are based on his own ignorance about his company’s brand. Granted there has been some feedback from customer’s that the pants run small.
Overall I can see how it would be incredibly challenging for the PR staff to deal with one fiasco, like the see-through pants, and then have to deal with the CEO’s ignorant comments about pant sizes. It will be wise of the company if they create future messaging around the all shapes and sizes idea. But it will be interesting to watch how they recover over time. It may be that these situations have diminished the brand forever.
Hi Jen,
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the Jimmy Kimmel segment and looking around on Lululemon's facebook, it still seems that many of the lulu fans are still upset over this controversy. Some of the comments that lulu has not responded to on their facebook are about their exclusion of plus-sized models and digs at Chip Wilson.
I think that it may be difficult for them to recover from this PR fiasco, and they seem to be choosing to let the outrage die down rather than directly approaching the problem. They do have very dedicated consumers, and may be relying on them to continue supporting the brand. However, I do like your suggestion of a new campaign promoting a new type of pant for plus sized models. This may be too direct of an approach, and I would suggest framing the campaign around different types of athletes that utilize their clothing. That way, they could still promote their support for different body types without obviously targeting plus-sized women.
I would have also suggested a public apology from the CEO, but now it may be too late. It looks like Lululemon is hoping that the public outrage will die down over time.
Thanks for commenting. I think that letting the outrage die down is a viable option, and obviously the one that might create less controversy seeing as how when the company executives talk bad things happen. If they were interested in doing a more drastic response, I thought maybe it would be a good idea to address the audience that might be the most hurt by Chip Wilson's comments. It isn't the only course of action, obviously, but one that might be necessary to lure back some of their customers in the future.
Delete