Lululemon disrupted giants like Nike by being fashionable and new. Now, as the third-largest sportswear company, it has become the incumbent. The CEO admits they 'relied too heavily on some of our core franchises,' failing to innovate and losing their edge to newer, more exciting brands.
Related Insights
Lululemon's founder argues the brand is in a "nosedive" because its finance-focused CEO lacks creative vision. This highlights a critical tension: trendy consumer brands thrive on a founder's unique DNA, which can be lost when replaced by purely data-driven management that prioritizes deals over dreams.
After a period of stagnation, Nike unveiled three futuristic products. While not immediately commercial, these "moonshots" serve to re-establish its innovation leadership, justify massive R&D spending, and create a brand halo that smaller competitors like On and Brooks cannot replicate.
While new competitors and shifting fashion trends are challenges, a core issue is Lululemon's strategy. They spend only 5% of revenue on marketing, relying on word-of-mouth. Competitors like On spend 10%, enabling high-profile celebrity deals and partnerships that Lululemon lacks, ceding cultural relevance.
A founder of an athletic underwear brand faces a classic strategic choice. One path is to focus narrowly to dominate a niche, like Spanx did. The other is to expand into adjacent products (like sports bras) to create a complete brand system. This highlights the core tension between operational focus and building a broader brand platform.
When competing against a resourceful incumbent, a startup's key advantage is speed. Bizzabo outmaneuvered its rival during the pandemic by launching a virtual solution in weeks, not months. This agility allows challenger brands to seize market shifts that larger players are too slow to address.
For premium retail brands, avoiding the temptation to discount is crucial. Lululemon's strategy to rarely offer sales, even when certain styles fall flat, demonstrates a focus on long-term brand preservation over short-term earnings boosts, a key positive indicator for investors.
Coca-Cola failed with ZICO not by changing its core quality, but by stripping away its ability to adapt. Large corporate systems, built for consistency at scale, enforce rigid processes that stifle the very nimbleness that made a challenger brand successful.
Vanguard's marketing became crucial when the company transitioned from a market disruptor to an incumbent being copied. The initial disruption created its own buzz, but as a market leader, Vanguard had to actively invest in marketing to differentiate its message.
As the market leader, OpenAI has become risk-averse to avoid media backlash. This has “damaged the product,” making it overly cautious and less useful. Meanwhile, challengers like Google have adopted a risk-taking posture, allowing them to innovate faster. This shows how a defensive mindset can cede ground to hungrier competitors.
Chip Wilson's critique of Lululemon provides a playbook for brand decline. It starts when a founder leaves, and a finance-focused board prioritizes quarterly projections. This leads merchants to double down on past winners, killing risk-taking and innovation. Top creative talent leaves, competitors seize the opportunity, and the brand slowly dies while harvesting short-term gains.
