Lululemon’s founder, Chip Wilson, had something to say about the D&I efforts at his previous company. *Pretends to be shocked*. Despite stepping down from the company 10 years ago, Wilson doesn’t agree with the efforts the active-wear company he founded in 1998 has made towards inclusivity in recent years.
To start, as a founder with no connections to the company, Wilson needs to…sit down. Given Wilson’s controversial, racist comments in the past, a comment like, “They need to think about what kind of customers they want coming into the store” is most certainly prejudiced and intended to keep Lululemon’s customer base as exclusive and isolating as possible.
Aniyah’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The company has made a number of internal and external efforts to bring Lululemon into the modern age of inclusivity, attempting to become a brand that supports all women’s active lifestyles — not just the upper-middle-class white women it was founded to cater to. They’ve broadened their marketing strategy gender and age-wise as the leggings are growing in popularity with teens and kids, who are choosing leggings as their favorite bottoms to wear overall. In 2021, the company made $4.2B in sales fueled by white teens and women aged 15-35, with another $1.5B from men (Source: Start.io). “IDEA” (Inclusivity, Diversity, Equity, and Action) was the company’s way of supporting and actioning it’s diversity mission. On paper, the mission seems great: full of ERGs, strategic hiring, global internships, and funded efforts for wider conversation and voice amplification. In actuality though, it has not diversified the consumer base in any significant way, nor made Black employees feel more comfortable. A Lululemon location was cited as feeling “off-brand” by visitors for having a predominantly Black staff, exhibiting just how strong the brand’s “white upper-middle-class mom” aesthetic is.
Lululemon’s brand identity is so largely attached to it’s consumer base, rather than an intentional product that truly fills a gap or a community that people want to be part of (not the same as seeing someone with the symbol and thinking “I can afford them too”). When thinking about community, think Nike’s Well Collective, Telfar’s “Not for you, for everyone”. Inclusive, elevated brands are the next big thing. It’s worth noting here that while brands should not be everything to everyone, they do need to understand that a demographic is not the end all be all of a target audience. Lifestyle and behavioral characteristics should be the main focus for a fitness brand. If a wealthy plus-size woman, a Hispanic professional cyclist, or a Black executive and runner, wear Lululemon while being active in ways that make them feel good, that feel-good lifestyle should be the connection the brand focuses on.
Aside from the DEI efforts being mostly a PR move, and the company trying it hardest to pretend it’s not, there’s a larger problem here. As I learn more about entrepreneurship and the engines that fuel it, I’m realizing that we give a lot of space to problematic founders. So many companies exist without purpose, bringing overpriced products to the forefront simply because the idea was funded and propelled by privilege rather than reason, need, or logic. Lululemon was founded from a place of privilege, and continues to operate as such. Lululemon exists for capitalism, because of capitalism. While revenue a lead decider in a company’s funding and growth, value is often underestimated. If we looked at the true value of Lululemon, the way it makes the masses feel, it does not even compare to the likes of Nike, Patagonia, or even Athleta.
As it stands, I don’t see how Lululemon could actively and authentically build its way to a more inclusive future, especially with employees citing a lack of career growth for non-white colleagues and it’s founder spewing bigoted comments to consistently combat any efforts they do make. It’s going to take a lot more than throwing money at a mission, or hiring a new HR rep. Lululemon’s mission, “Creating components for people to live longer, healthier, fun lives.” is being buried by discriminatory practices and claims. They truly need to pivot to a brand that focuses strongly on the active lifestyle and anyone who participates in it, representing Lululemon as a premier choice for fitness. The strategy here should feel authentic with Lululemon looking to support diverse voices in fitness that build its core mission.
Now, I won’t be going to Lululemon anytime soon (I never have - the visual merchandising is unappealing and the leggings are not worth the price in my opinion). As a runner, I’ve come to love other brands for their performance, style, and inclusivity:
What do you think Lululemon’s strategic future towards inclusivity looks like?
Aniyah’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.