December 18, 2014
Will cross-gender stores mean more for Lululemon or Nike?
Lululemon and Nike are two brands at drastically different points in their evolution — the former a company that exploded alongside the past decade’s women’s athleisure trend; the latter a stalwart company built on the legacy of male athletes: Michael Jordan, Bo Jackson and, lately, LeBron James. Differences aside, both are taking similar steps forward — and away from their perceived core customer bases — into against-type, gender-specific storefronts.
Lululemon recently opened a men’s-only store in the SoHo neighborhood of New York City. Nike opened two women’s-only locations over the past month, one in Newport Beach, CA, and one in Shanghai, China.
A Motley Fool article posited the two fitness-oriented retailers are borrowing from each other’s playbooks, and indeed it does appear the two are chasing each other’s tails.
Lululemon has led the "atheleisure’ craze that has urban women dwellers donning comfy yoga pants and other leggings for everyday wear. Its gender-based reputation is so strong that moves into men’s athletic attire have led to a spate of articles recently in men’s magazines, such as GQ and Outside, evaluating if shopping at Lululemon is compatible with masculinity.
Nike generally focuses on men’s athletics in their branding and advertising, although they have taken numerous shots at courting female fitness fans, as in the case of their early-2000s sub-brand called Nike Goddess.
On-point messaging for female customers may have become even more important now that it has heightened competition for women from Under Armour. Under Armor was named Ad Age’s Marketer of the Year with its "I Will What I Want" women’s marketing campaign striking a powerful and empowering chord with female fitness fans.
Leanne Fremar, SVP and creative director-women’s business at Under Armor, told Ad Age, "The insight behind ‘I Will What I Want’ was not ‘you go, girl … the goal was to celebrate woman who had the physical and mental strength to tune out the external pressures and turn inward and chart their own course.’"
If Nike is finding its footing with its female-oriented messaging, Lululemon seems to already know the kind of guy they’re going for. According to Outside magazine, the "ABC" in Lululemon’s ABC Pants stands for "Anti-Ball Crushin’."
- Lululemon’s first-ever men’s store coming to SoHo on Black Friday – New York Daily News
- Nike opens another women’s-only store; it’s in Shanghai, China – Oregon Live
- Lululemon Athleta Inc. and Nike Inc. Are Stealing From Each Other’s Playbook – Motley Fool
- Ad Age’s 2014 Marketer of the Year: Under Armour – Ad Age
- Under Armor – Misty Copeland – I Will What I Want – YouTube
- Is the Men’s Apparel from Lululemon Any Good? – Outside
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Which faces a bigger challenge: Lululemon with men or Nike with women? Will gender-specific stores be more critical to the future of Lululemon or Nike?
Poll
This one is easy: I think Lululemon faces more challenges. Nike has always had women’s clothing in its stores, even if it did tend to be a smaller section than men’s. So opening a women’s-only store isn’t that much of a stretch for them.
If Lululemon has offered men’s clothing in their stores up to this point, they have done it very quietly, in a small back corner and with no fanfare. And I think the company would have a huge perception challenge to overcome in attracting men to an existing Lululemon store. So it makes sense to open men’s-only stores. In their shoes, especially given GQ’s and Outside’s response, I might’ve even opened a new men-only BRAND.
The lesson here is simple, though: while it is true that what works to sell to women doesn’t tend to work for men, and vice versa, it is also true that pursuing stereotypes in trying to appeal to gender can be a minefield, one that so far, Under Armour has successfully navigated. But past success is no guarantee of future appeal. No one—Nike, Lululemon, or UA—can afford to rest on their laurels. Or their yoga pants.
I’m no expert in this area, but note that Victoria’s Secret was founded by a guy who was tired of getting the evil eye shopping for lingerie for his girlfriend in other stores—or so I’m told. Most department stores have distinct men’s and women’s sections, and no, I doubt that gender-specific stores make any more sense than the idea that Toys ‘R’ Us is only for juvenile shoppers. I think society is going a different way here. But—you pays your money, and you takes your chances!
Watch Millennials going about their business on a Saturday, and you’ll see a huge percentage of them in athletic wear. These stores represent lifestyle brands, not specific activities, and there’s only upside in expanding. That said, I think Lululemon’s name and price point represent challenges for the company.
When I think Nike or Under Armour, sans shoes, I think serious athlete for either gender. Lululemon, on the other hand, is more about fashion and until now, women’s fashion. Even the name sounds feminine to me.
Yep, Lululemon has the bigger challenge. The name, the reputation, the prices, all would be less appealing to men. Typically I would not endorse gender specific stores but in this case and for above reasons, Lululemon has some work to do.
And that’s my 2 cents!
Forward thinking of Lululemon to go gender-specific and open this 1600 square foot store devoted to men. I like the fact that the brand is expanding beyond yoga with apparel for CrossFit training and marathon runners. Also like the strategy of opening a women’s store across the street. The brand can cater to couples and singles alike and become a destination experience in the city.
A solution in search of a problem.
No question: Lululemon has a much greater challenge to reach men than Nike has reaching women. Shop any Nike store and that will be obvious. Nike is one of the top global brands for a reason and there’s no question they will be that way for women too, especially as they dial up their investments accordingly.
The market is large enough for two brands who have crossed from fitness to lifestyle. The only reasons they would fail would be poor consumer targeting and unappealing attire.
Gender specific stores are not critical to either brand. A better question would be regarding the profitability of gender specific stores.
The issues at hand are not analogous when you dig inside each brand’s DNA.
Brand extensions fail a substantial percent of the time. History teaches us Lululemon is making a strategic mistake.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
This one is easy: I think Lululemon faces more challenges. Nike has always had women’s clothing in its stores, even if it did tend to be a smaller section than men’s. So opening a women’s-only store isn’t that much of a stretch for them.
If Lululemon has offered men’s clothing in their stores up to this point, they have done it very quietly, in a small back corner and with no fanfare. And I think the company would have a huge perception challenge to overcome in attracting men to an existing Lululemon store. So it makes sense to open men’s-only stores. In their shoes, especially given GQ’s and Outside’s response, I might’ve even opened a new men-only BRAND.
The lesson here is simple, though: while it is true that what works to sell to women doesn’t tend to work for men, and vice versa, it is also true that pursuing stereotypes in trying to appeal to gender can be a minefield, one that so far, Under Armour has successfully navigated. But past success is no guarantee of future appeal. No one—Nike, Lululemon, or UA—can afford to rest on their laurels. Or their yoga pants.
I’m no expert in this area, but note that Victoria’s Secret was founded by a guy who was tired of getting the evil eye shopping for lingerie for his girlfriend in other stores—or so I’m told. Most department stores have distinct men’s and women’s sections, and no, I doubt that gender-specific stores make any more sense than the idea that Toys ‘R’ Us is only for juvenile shoppers. I think society is going a different way here. But—you pays your money, and you takes your chances!
Watch Millennials going about their business on a Saturday, and you’ll see a huge percentage of them in athletic wear. These stores represent lifestyle brands, not specific activities, and there’s only upside in expanding. That said, I think Lululemon’s name and price point represent challenges for the company.
When I think Nike or Under Armour, sans shoes, I think serious athlete for either gender. Lululemon, on the other hand, is more about fashion and until now, women’s fashion. Even the name sounds feminine to me.
Yep, Lululemon has the bigger challenge. The name, the reputation, the prices, all would be less appealing to men. Typically I would not endorse gender specific stores but in this case and for above reasons, Lululemon has some work to do.
And that’s my 2 cents!
Forward thinking of Lululemon to go gender-specific and open this 1600 square foot store devoted to men. I like the fact that the brand is expanding beyond yoga with apparel for CrossFit training and marathon runners. Also like the strategy of opening a women’s store across the street. The brand can cater to couples and singles alike and become a destination experience in the city.
A solution in search of a problem.
No question: Lululemon has a much greater challenge to reach men than Nike has reaching women. Shop any Nike store and that will be obvious. Nike is one of the top global brands for a reason and there’s no question they will be that way for women too, especially as they dial up their investments accordingly.
The market is large enough for two brands who have crossed from fitness to lifestyle. The only reasons they would fail would be poor consumer targeting and unappealing attire.
Gender specific stores are not critical to either brand. A better question would be regarding the profitability of gender specific stores.
The issues at hand are not analogous when you dig inside each brand’s DNA.
Brand extensions fail a substantial percent of the time. History teaches us Lululemon is making a strategic mistake.