PicoBlog

Stanley cups are trending on social media today because of a collaboration with Target that went live on December 31st that sold out immediately and caused pushing and shoving at least one store. Sneaker culture took notice because some of Stanley’s tumblers are now selling on StockX. Originally priced at $50, the Target tumbler is selling for $149 on average on resale platforms.

Since I mainly write about footwear, I couldn’t help but notice that among the people rushing Target’s shelves to scoop up a cup, they basically are all wearing Ugg Classic boots or Tasman mules, Nike Air Force 1 sneakers (washed) or Crocs Classic clogs. Suburban aspiration at its finest (and I promise I am saying this without an ounce of judgement!)

If you’re wondering how all of this began, the NY Times (gift link) did a great story in 2022 on how Stanley’s tumbler rose from being an item so dusty that the company had scaled back production to it becoming an item with a better sell through rate than most Nike sneakers these days.

An excerpt below:

[The tumbler’s] return to Stanley’s website in early 2020 is largely owed to three women: Ashlee LeSueur, 42, who lives in Carlsbad, Calif.; Taylor Cannon, 34, who lives in Purchase, NY; and Linley Hutchinson, 36, who lives in Alpine, Utah.

Ms. LeSueur and Ms. Cannon, who are sisters, and Ms. Hutchinson, their cousin, run The Buy Guide, an e-commerce blog and Instagram account, where the Quencher tumbler was among the first products they featured, in November 2017.

Lululemon’s problematic founder Chip Wilson who severed all ties with the company in 2013 (though he still holds eight percent of Lululemon shares, according to Forbes), is once again whining about the company, this time complaining the company needs to lay out clearer marketing messages. “I think the definition of a brand is that you’re not everything to everybody,” Wilson told Forbes ($$) “You’ve got to be clear that you don’t want certain customers coming in.” He also carped about the brand using “unhealthy” and sickly” people in ads and the “whole diversity and inclusion thing.”

In response, the company dipped into its Problematic Chip Statements folder, and cut and pasted the following: “Chip Wilson does not speak for Lululemon, and his comments do not reflect our company views or beliefs.”

Normally I wouldn’t care about what bored billionaires like Wilson have to say, but it should be noted that Lululemon, whose stock is sitting at all time highs, over the past several months has pulled back on plus-sized garments from its stores (which Wilson might have noted if he came out from behind his computer screen) and to a lesser degree on its site.

Lululemon announced in 2020 that it would “offer six of its core styles in sizes 0-20,” and by the end of 2021, the brand said "the majority" of women's clothing would available in more inclusive size ranges. Whether the brand ever reached that goal, that is no longer the case. According to one commenter on Reddit, product sized 14 and above is no longer available in stores.

Given some companies made a real effort to add inclusive sizing over the past fews years, it’ll be interesting to see which ones draw back on product and marketing support because they discovered it wasn’t profitable enough. In addition to stepping back from expanded sizing because it simply didn’t bear fruit fast enough, there’s also been plenty of chatter that the growing use of diet drugs like Ozempic may also change sizing demands.

JD Sports today provided on update on full-year guidance, noting revenue and comps are expected come in below expectations, hurt by milder weather from Sept.-Dec, and higher promotions versus last year. The stock is currently down 23% on the news.

The U.K.-based retailers wants to stay on Nike’s nice list, so it chose not to mention that the brand (see below) is leading the markdown hit parade, and creating ails accross all of retail. It’s been said before but it bears repeating that when Nike sneezes, all of sporting goods suffers from a cold.

Nike reported Q224 earnings a week and a half ago and while the quarter itself was okay with revenue of $12.9B versus expectation of $12.7B, the company shocked Wall Street when it announced it was lowering revenue guidance to approximately 1% versus prior predictions of mid-single-digit growth.

Back in September, the stock was sitting at a 2023 low of about $89, a number that slowly began to climb upward as Nike’s C-Suite made their rounds and talked up the company with investors. With the wind at its back thanks to several upgrades, the stock was sitting at about $122 just before it reported results on December 22nd.

Imagine the shock of stock holders when in addition to missing outlook, Nike also announced it was restructuring. “As we look ahead to a softer second-half revenue outlook, we remain focused on strong gross margin execution and disciplined cost management,” read the earnings release. “The company is identifying opportunities to deliver up to $2 billion in cumulative cost savings over the next three years.”

I often like to rib company executives when they can’t get their acts together because of their bloated egos, but I don’t feel that way with Nike because way too much is riding on its success! Not only does it employ a lot people globally (83,700), many of whom are freaking out about Nike’s cut backs, but a lot of retailers will also suffer if Nike isn’t performing well.

Given softer demand, it’s borderline a relief that Nike announced some of the reduction in revenue includes “lifecycle management of key product franchises.” While Nike stumbles around as it attempts to land a new shoe that sticks, it very much needs to return to a pull model and reduce the amount of product sloshing around in the market place before brand perception of its all-stars is driven into the ground and shit really starts to go left.

ncG1vNJzZmirnqSvpsDTnmWsrZKowaKvymeaqKVfpXy0wMCno56xXZjCsb%2BMoaCtZaOpvKS312ajrqSlmrqwug%3D%3D