Not sure how I missed this one. Ms. Kries' condemnation of Chip Wilson and by extension LULU management and corporate culture is every bit as thoughtful, articulate and compelling as Natalia Petrzela's anti-LULU blog post was.
From Kries' Nov 21, 2013 resignation letter:
"...I am challenged to come up with the words to aptly describe my feelings of betrayal and exploitation when I consider the size and scope of my endorsement for the company over the course of the past seven years.
I generously gave my name and reputation to Lululemon, offered my image countless times for large-scale promotions and chose Lululemon as the line to grace not only each one of my DVD covers, but the bodies of every one of my dancers and co-workers who appeared in my programs.
Shame on you, Mr. Wilson. And shame on anyone who tolerates this kind of behavior and this glaring lack of integrity..."
The only thing that's scam around here is you ... you've been saying $45 target for the last 2 years ... dummies like you just don't get it I guess.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Natalia Mehlman Petrzela's anti-Lulu blog "Why This Llululemon Scandal is Different" posted at Huffington Post a week ago (Nov 20) has now earned over 10,000 likes & 1800 shares on Facebook compared to just over 500 likes for company founder Chip Wilson's teary apology which was posted on LULU's own Facebook page on Nov 8.
I just threw my girlfriend out for the stink. Now I am regretting it because it may just have been the LULU pants that stink, not the girlfriend itself.
Updated social media numbers for anyone interested in tracking the viral trajectory of Petrzela's "Lulu critical" blog (remember, she is only one hand-picked brand ambassador in the universe of LULU influencers):
Facebook "likes" = 9,581 (I should point out that this is greater than 1% of the total Likes on LULU's own Facebook page, which presumably has been up for several years and certainly much longer than the roughly 5 days Petrzela's blog has been up)
Facebook "shares" = 1,561
Tweets = 175
Pins = 13
Emails = 59
Comments = 83
My guess is this blog has hit its own saturation point and has probably run its course for the most part. Still in all, the numbers are pretty telling. After all, Chip's own video apology that has been featured on LULU's main facebook page since November 8 has garnered only 521 Likes, versus the 9,581 Like's that Petrzela's stinging critique earned in 1/3 the time and without such prominent placement!
Let me guess. You think plus sized women just started buying Lululemon yoga pants this year!? LOL The problem here is that the political correctness controversy is obscuring the serious quality control issues which were really at the heart of the Bloomberg interview. Sure Chip Wilson insulted plus sized customers with his offhand remarks. Some people are offended by this; others defend Chip's right to offend and to sell to whomever he chooses. Fine. But what many here and in the media seem to be missing is that (putting aside the p.c. issues and the resulting public relations catastrophe) Chip's commentary was offered as an alternative theory to what could otherwise be explained only by admitting to a decline in quality of the pants. If one tries to think through this critically for a moment, only a handful of possible scenarios suggest themselves - take your pick:
1) The quality of Lulu yoga pants hasn't declined over the years - the problem is that plus sized women just started buying these pants in 2013;
2) The quality hasn't declined over the years, plus sized women have always bought Lululemon pants, but they only just started wearing them incorrectly in 2013!;
3) The quality has declined, and now the same plus sized women who used to enjoy the pants should stop buying them based on Chip's "he's only being honest" advice;
4) The quality has declined, and rather than own up to it, Chip deflected the criticism by throwing out a red herring in the form of this bogus argument that blamed plus sized women for issues that have nothing to do with them and everything to with deterioration of quality in Lulu apparel; and
5) The quality hasn't declined, plus sized women have always bought and worn the yoga pants but they only decided to start complaining about them in 2013 (this might also explain why Chip never saw the need to blame his plus sized customers in prior years because he wasn't aware of the myriad problems their bodies were causing Lulu's pants!)
Besides Chip Wilson's comment on Bloomberg interview was very accurate except he should have said it using the right words not to offend any one. If a person who wears size 10 buys size 6 pants, ofcourse it is going to rip no matter how good the quality of the pants.