1. A Market Research Study by: Suzan Genc, Jasmine Smith,
Megan Schick, Steve Scheffler, Tyler Forberg
2. Introduction
Founded in 1998
- “A”-thletically hip
November 2000
- Kitsilano, Vancouver, BC
Design/Yoga studio - community hub
“Lululemon is a company where dreams come to fruition”
3. Background
●March 2013
- Quality-control recall
●2009-2013
- CEO Remarks
- Lululemon pronunciation
- The pill to blame for divorce
- Women’s bodies to blame for recall
4. Background
Controversial CEO -
Chip Wilson
- “Frankly, some women’s bodies
just don’t actually work for the
yoga pants”
Source: Business Insider
- Doesn’t even make sizes >12
- Alpha Dog
7. Purpose
To explore the attitudes of current and
prospective Lululemon consumers in the
Chicago market in response to the recent
negative publicity
Additional information will be obtained on:
How consumers view Lululemon in relation to
competitors
Importance of relevant attributes to consumers
8. Focus Group Method
Primary Data Collection Method
Focus group lasted around 2 hours
Created discussion guide around marketing
problem
Asked by 2 moderators and probed for
additional questions if necessary
9. Focus Group Sample
3 focus group participants
All participants wear athletic wear and have
heard of Lululemon
One was a current Lululemon customer
The focus group was conducted at the DePaul
library in April 2015
10. Quantitative Survey Method
Most surveys were conducted in person or on
the phone
We received both qualitative and quantitative
data from our findings
11. Quantitative Survey Sample
Surveyed 113 people
102 current Lulu customers
(have shopped there at least
once in the past year)
11 non-customers
Half interviewer-administered
surveys
Half self-administered surveys
12. Focus Group Findings
All of focus group participants agree that
Lululemon is a brand for trendy moms
• “She’s cool so she’s probably driving a
jeep, you know those cool sleek ones”
• “She’s a cardio active mom”
• “She likes to drink tea, lots of tea”
13. Focus Group Findings
Majority of focus group participants shop sales
and price is a deciding factor in purchases
“If I stumble upon a good deal I will buy them”
18. Quantitative Findings
Most Lululemon customers
don’t spend any more than
$150 per visit
Since visits are infrequent,
this doesn’t make for high
revenue
22. Quantitative Findings
Lululemon is most preferred and
the 2nd most common favorite
brand among our sample
Bad publicity did not have a very
strong negative impact on
current Lulu customers
23. Quantitative Findings
81% of customers
usually buy
leggings or yoga
pants at Lululemon
Do these customers
know about the
bad publicity?
24. Quantitative Findings
Most respondents hadn’t heard
anything about Lulu in the media
Of those who did:
● 54% of respondents
heard about Lulu’s
see-through legging
problem
● 25% of respondents
heard about the CEO
body shaming women
● Only 4% have heard
that Lulu is growing in
popularity
26. Summary of Findings
Lululemon customers perceive Lulu as having
desirable products
comfortable, good fit, and well-made relative to top
competitors
After the bad publicity, Lulu customers still
prefer Lulu as one of their top athletic wear
brands
27. Summary of Findings
Lululemon customers do not spend very much
in relation to how frequently they make
purchases → Lulu counts on sales from new
customers
Potential customers perceive Lulu to be
overpriced, preppy, and prissy
Over 80% of people who heard about Lulu in
the media heard something negative
28. Summary of Findings
If Lululemon wants new customers, it should
look into:
Lowering the price
Offering sales
Changing perceptions of who wears Lululemon
29. Implications
We recommend further research on:
Number of new Lulu customers before, during, and
after the bad publicity
Why non-customers have never tried Lulu
Percentage of non-customers who were exposed to
Lulu’s bad publicity and how they view the brand
The effects of a lower price and offering sales on
current customers and potential customers
