In Rest Day/Theory

November 17, 2013

PDF Article

No yoga pants can contain Emily Beers’ legs. And she’s fine with that.

Recently, Lululemon Athletica founder Chip Wilson was reprimanded by mainstream media, Facebook users, angry Tweeters—you name it—for comments made during a Nov. 8 interview on Bloomberg TV.

In March, Lululemon recalled yoga pants due to “a level of sheerness in some of our women’s black Luon bottoms that falls short of our very high standards,” according to a release. In the Bloomberg interview, Wilson admitted the company had made an error in the pants, but his comments suggested other reasons for the issues with the product.

When Bloomberg host Trish Regan asked him about the problems with the popular pants, Wilson essentially said large-legged females cause the issues.

“The thing is that women will wear seatbelts that don’t work, or they’ll wear a purse that doesn’t work, or, quite frankly, some women’s bodies just actually don’t work for it,” he said.

Since making his statements, Wilson has received a ton of criticism, but what kind of politically correct, scared-to-offend world do we live in where people actually get their pants in a knot over this?

Let’s review what happened here: Chip Wilson pointed out a truth. I know this because I’m one of the big-legged customers of whom Wilson spoke.

Free Download

Comment

9 Comments on “The Truth Behind Lulu’s Lemons? ”

1

wrote …

The truth hurts! With all crazy shit going on in the world today you would think people would laugh and move on. I guess I'm wrong..

2

wrote …

This truly is a 1st world problem. Well said.

3

wrote …

Well written! Great article!

4

wrote …

New Media Order:
1-pretend to be offended
2-generate controversy where none previously existed
3-measure number of eyeballs watching said controversy
4-charge advertisers appropriately

"If you think your getting something for free, you're the product being sold."

5

wrote …

The pants are $98 a pair, they should be able to support the friction. Why does only one product line have the problem. Its weak product development, bad marketing, and an idiot response by a senior team member who actually maybe totally wrong. We will all witness what it does to his bottom line - so as business does it pay to pop off? or let the PR and marketing teams handle the issues?

6

wrote …

Took the words right out of my mouth!

7

Dustin Kreidler wrote …

With the exception of lifting shoes, I try not to wear over-priced bullshit selling for easily 10-20x the actual construction costs. That said, I kinda think the author misses the point of the original "non-troversy:" The problem isn't the pants wearing out from thighs scraping, and certainly not from barbell wear and tear (tell my shins about that one!) It was about women bending over and having their pants suddenly turn invisible, turning every man in the vicinity (and hey, probably some ladies, too!) into Insta-Superman, complete with surprise X-Ray vision. G-string, ahoy!

I guess the point I'm making is that blaming *that* issue on women with larger legs (or junk in the trunk) is exactly the same as A&F's media nightmare of "we don't like uggos here." Make pants that don't become see-through at the drop of a dime, even if the lady in them DOES squat like a BOSS.

8

wrote …

Since there is no such thing as bad publicity, I don't think their bottom line will suffer as a result of these comments. It may even make some of their loyal customers more inclined to wear Lululemon. People want to associate themselves with fitness, whether they are fit or not. This guy may be smarter than we're giving him credit for.

9

wrote …

THANK YOU EMILY! First world problem indeed. sheesh.

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)