SINCERELY, LULU — Marc Hohmann

Metamodernism and Lululemon

‘Lisa Simpson Hypebae’ © 20th Century Fox

I want more

I’m on a field trip to Lululemon. We are flipping through a seemingly endless plethora of gray and black synthetic shorts, shirts and leggings. A swim in a dense ocean of understated product with very little product distinction to cling on to other than the beloved circular mark... and yet, we are at Lululemon and our experience here begs to decode more meaning. Make me curious, give me answers and I’m ready to be hooked. However, my curiosity quickly turns into a question: Next to a brilliant name, a large stock of arguably non-intrusive sportswear and predictable upbeat imagery embodied by ever smiling sales assistants – does this brand really have enough of a story and a vision for me to fall in love? Or as important, in the case of my daughter - who is infatuated with the brand right now - stay in love?

Soft girls are ready to shop

I am here because my middle school aged daughter can’t live without Lululemon this week. It’s not that she desperately wants $95 gray leggings or that she’s dragging me here because it’s “so instagrammable” (see Glossier for that). No, she wants to buy just ANYTHING no matter how small. And of course, there is the ever ongoing fad of the infamous shopping bag. The small synthetic shopping bag heavy on type with slogans that’s a perfect replacement for any other lunch bags. Its creds as a status symbol have been well chatted on and after 5 years going, they are still pretty much the only engaging and fun application in the store. That statement was just confirmed by three teen “soft girls” (!) who, after briefly contemplating on buying a scrunchy, asked the young woman at the cashier if they can get a bag or a give away wallet without buying anything.

Too cool for high school and beyond

What is painfully wrong with this picture? Just lusting after a 10 cent shopping bag or the potential of grooming armies of teen brand ambassadors for future deployment should be the ultimate opportunity for any brand. It suggests a dynamic vitality that many would die for. However, standing here in the store, things are so serious and contrived, I start feeling slightly depressed. Featuring bland stock images of people working out printed on foam core, way too much merchandise that is tightly crammed on racks and a small “social” lounge with two phone charging plugs that rather looks like an Ikea display or a waiting area in a doctor’s office. Do I have to ask for permission to sit down here? All this is way too reserved and introvert. A brand trying hard to be distant in a world where sportswear is on a second by second, evolution to new heights of genre bending, and where brand confidence is no longer built through discretion.

Engineering yoga?

Lulu is not a tech brand. It’s a lifestyle brand. True, this is by their own definition (“yoga at the core of everything we do”) a yoga story, but to argue that because of that, it needs to be reserved would be missing the point in understanding the role yoga plays in a modern customer’s life. If anything, today, this should be much more about “integration and balance” than “performance”. I would also argue that the above story is too vague to be actionable as it means way too much to people, and probably makes internal decision making on direction of messaging and campaigns mediocre and unfocused. As a result of this lack in focus, Lululemon’s product aesthetic drives the tone and the only choice left is to engage customers through a played-out Silicon Valley style Apple/Tesla coolness. Principally, the language of tech is far removed from elegance as elegance is always connected to emotion, confidence, and longing. Discretion as a measure to replace courage can never be elegant no matter how slick the product is.

Insincerely theirs

As I am checking Lululemon’s Instagram, it is pretty much a mixed bag and there is much good. On one side, we have some fantastic straight talk and empowerment messages (a really great campaign about boobs and femininity), some interesting data that informs on product quality and research, and polished high fashion teasers about the upcoming Lululemon x Roksanda collaboration. Unfortunately on the other side, we find overtly transactional posts promoting features and releases that only aim to push product. Overall, the social persona of the brand, the site and the in-store experience all suffer from the same dilemma: A very serious framework that when attempted to break away from, ends up in a somewhat forced or stilted gesture. In my opinion, the efforts to expand and disrupt the yoga category mixed with the expectations of increasingly hype-lusting customers and the simultaneous push of larger social messages (on Instagram), are all kept SEPARATE by Lulu’s singular overly tech-cool execution. This disconnect is leading to an inability to be clear and consistent, and to effectively build deeper customer love. Promise, potential and perception do not match here and it’s a huge missed opportunity. Worse, it communicates insincerity.

The metamodern solution

Right now, Lululemon is not clearly defined for everyone in the same way. At the core, the brand needs a clear and actionable story that drives all experiential impressions and that can serve as a tool to make the right decisions. This story needs to be informed by considering all channels simultaneously, and through a much less siloed mindset. Paradoxically, to be an exciting brand today means to apply a controlled and honest collision of ALL knowledge (eclecticism) as ONE, single core idea to create sincerity. In simple terms, have the courage to be eclectic and take yourself less serious and by doing so you will be seen as more sincere. This thinking brings me to a fantastic observation by Jimenez Lai in Log 46 / Summer 2019*. There, he extends the ongoing evolutionary frictions of modernism and postmodernism to what cultural theorist Robin Van Acker coined ‘metamodernism’ and offers up a solution that is based on ‘ironic sensibilities with a sincere message’.

Playing it through

Applying his thinking to our dilemma, it would suggest a solution that aims for building brand belief and desire through means of informed naiveté and pragmatic idealism. In philosophical terms, this would be a metamodern solution where the grand narration of Lululemon can stay modern (here: serious performance as a PRAGMATIC IDEALISM) but at the same time it rejects it whenever we have the opportunity to do so (here: with a wink of an eye questioning “how serious can ‘performance’ be in reality?” as INFORMED NAIVITE). That would make Lululemon’s manifesto sound something like this: “Make products together that answer, and question Yoga today and let’s have fun doing it”. Translating Jimenez Lai’s thoughts to branding, the actionable strategic principles of this story would be: a) pragmatic idealism; b) informed naiveté; c) internalizing pluralistic ways of questioning the world; d) while embracing sincere excitement (aka FUN)

Too sheer for downward dog

In summary, if Lululemon can take itself less serious to become more sincere, it will be able to give answers to a self-evoked curiosity. And by doing so, it will produce excitement and anticipation that will produce a deeper emotional bond. All that without sacrificing anything that is already on the table. It would amplify, combine and balance the qualities that exist separately right now and have them orbiting around one core story. Create infatuation and satisfy, and expand their followers through what we love in brands as much as in people: A sense of humor and sincerity.

With that I’m leaving this (meta) mindful space and start thinking about the next essay.