摘要：以售价超过100美元的紧身裤闻名的露露乐蒙（Lululemon Athletica），长期以来一直深受投资者和时尚达人的青睐。过去十年，这家“运动休闲”公司报告的营业利润率达到15-25%，远高于竞争对手，部分原因在于其直接面向消费者的销售额占很大比例。其每平

用

The Economist ｜Business

经济学人｜商业

How Lululemon fell out of fashion

露露乐蒙为何不再时尚

Farewell to figure-hugging leggings; baggy is in

告别紧身打底裤；宽松款式正当时

以售价超过100美元的紧身裤闻名的露露乐蒙（Lululemon Athletica），长期以来一直深受投资者和时尚达人的青睐。过去十年，这家“运动休闲”公司报告的营业利润率达到15-25%，远高于竞争对手，部分原因在于其直接面向消费者的销售额占很大比例。其每平方英尺店铺的年销售额已达到约1500美元，也远超其他零售商。露露乐蒙的弹性裤和时尚运动衫将舒适与时尚相结合，迎合了新一代居家办公者的需求，他们希望在视频会议中看起来既精神又放松。

然而，时尚素以善变著称。分析师预计，在9月4日（即《经济学人》本期出版之后）公布第二季度业绩时，会有更多坏消息。这将加剧其在截至5月4日的三个月期间已显露的困境，当时露露乐蒙报告了其最重要市场美洲区的销售额下降。该公司已下调了全年盈利指引，其股价自1月以来下跌了45%（见图表1）。这位运动休闲之王究竟出了什么问题？

该品牌于千禧之交在温哥华创立后，露露乐蒙迅速成为体育零售界的酷炫新星，为行业巨头阿迪达斯和耐克提供了替代选择。如今，根据投行摩根士丹利的估算，按净销售额计算，它已成为价值4460亿美元的全球运动服装行业的第三大公司（见图表2）。而在2016年，它才刚刚跻身前十。

尽管增长迅速，露露乐蒙却未能让其现有客户对其最新产品产生兴趣。该品牌拓展至新领域，包括鞋履和常规休闲装，并开始生产带有醒目标志的服饰，以试图吸引喜欢此类设计的年轻人。但正如投行杰富瑞的兰迪·科尼克所言：“他们推出的产品，其核心客户看了会说‘谁会穿这个？’”

露露乐蒙也没有创造出能够吸引新客户群体的热度。其营销支出仅占收入的5%左右，更倾向于依靠口碑宣传。而其瑞士竞争对手昂跑（On）则将约10%的收入用于营销，签约了美国女演员赞达亚等名人代言人，并与罗意威等潮流品牌合作。这或许有助于解释为何根据位置分析公司Placer.ai的数据，露露乐蒙美国门店的客流量在2025年第二季度下降了超过8%。即便在其一度增长迅速的中国市场，销售额如今也在放缓。

时尚潮流也带来了不利影响。时尚达人们曾穿着露露乐蒙紧身裤去买咖啡、接送孩子或只是去跑步的日子已一去不复返。更热门的竞争对手，如Alo和Vuori，正在抢占市场。更糟糕的是，时尚编辑们已宣称紧身服饰过时，宽松款式正当道。不仅如此，去年对13个国家1万名客户的一项调查发现，48%的消费者穿牛仔服的频率比以往更高。

此外还有经济背景因素。露露乐蒙在25个国家经营，拥有超过750家门店。但其四分之三的收入来自美洲地区。今年三月，公司首席执行官卡尔文·麦克唐纳警告投资者，对通胀和经济的担忧正使得至关重要的美国消费者“更加谨慎”。

露露乐蒙还容易受到特朗普总统关税政策的影响。去年，其约40%的产品在越南制造，近30%的面料来自中国——这两个国家都受到了新关税的重创。特朗普决定取消“最低免税额度”（de minimis）豁免政策（该政策此前对价值低于800美元的包裹内的商品免征关税），这可能会推高价格并损害销售。富国银行的艾克·博鲁乔估计，露露乐蒙约一半的美国电商订单曾受益于该豁免政策。露露乐蒙拒绝就博鲁乔的说法置评。

因此，这位运动休闲之王已开始求助于打折促销。这对公司声誉而言绝非好兆头，但其战略师们已别无选择：2025年第一季度库存同比激增23%，而销售额仅增长7%。杰富瑞的分析师估计，其奥特莱斯门店中超过60%的打折商品现在是核心产品，如其著名的黑色紧身裤。

露露乐蒙最近还遇到了另一个问题。该品牌的运动服装很容易被仿制。今年早些时候，该公司起诉大型零售商好市多（Costco），因其销售其裤装及其他产品的低价仿制品。在未来的岁月里，公司高管们或许会怀旧地回望那段被视为值得被仿冒的品牌的日子。■

Lululemon Athletica, a brand famous for flogging leggings for over $100 apiece, has long been in vogue among investors as well as fashionistas. Over the past decade the “athleisure” firm has reported operating margins of 15-25%, well ahead of rivals, in part owing to the vast share of sales it makes directly to customers. Its salesper square foot of shop space have reached around $1,500 a year, also far outstripping other retailers. Lululemon’s stretchy trousers and chic sweatshirts have married comfort and fashion for a new breed of home workers who wanted to look sharp but relaxed on conference calls.

Fashion, however, is famously fickle. Analysts are expecting more bad news when second-quarter results are revealed on September 4th, after The Economistis published. This would add to the woes revealed for the three-month period to May 4th, when Lululemon reported declining sales in the Americas, its most important region. It has already cut earnings guidance for the full year and its shares have fallen by 45% since January (see chart 1). What is going wrong for the king of athleisure?

After the brand was established in Vancouverat the turn of the millennium, Lululemon quickly became the cool kid of sports retail, offering an alternative to Adidas and Nike, the industry’s behemoths. Today it is the third-biggest company in a global sportswear industry that is worth $446bn by net sales, according to estimates by Morgan Stanley, an investment bank (see chart 2). As recently as 2016, it barely made the top ten.

Despite this growth, Lululemon has not managed to interest existing customers in its latest products. The brand expanded into new areas, including shoes and regular casualwear, and has started making gear emblazoned with logos in an attempt to woo youngsters, who like that sort of thing. But as Randy Konik at Jefferies, an investment bank, says: “They are putting out products that their core customers look at and say ‘who’s going to wear this?’”

Nor is Lululemon creating the buzz that might attract new clientele. It spends only 5% or so of revenues on marketing, preferring word-of-mouth endorsements. On, a Swiss rival, devotes around 10%, signing up celebrity ambassadors, such as Zendaya, an American actress, and collaborating with trendylabels, such as Loewe. That may help explain why visits to Lululemon’s American shops dropped by over 8% in the second quarter of 2025, according to Placer.ai, a location-analytics firm. Even in China, where the firm had been growing fast, sales are now slowing.

Fashion trends have not helped. Gone are the days when fashionistas worth their Vogue subscription wore Lululemon leggings for the coffee run, school run or just to run. Hotter rivals, such as Alo and Vuori, are gaining ground. Worse still, fashion editors have pronounced that fitted clothes are out and baggy ones are in. Not only that but a survey of 10,000 customers in 13 countries last year found that 48% of consumers were wearing denim more often than before.

Then there is the economic backdrop. Lululemon operates in 25 countries and has more than 750 shops worldwide. But three-quarters of its revenues come from the Americas. In March Calvin McDonald, the company’s boss, warned investors that concerns about inflation and the economy were making all-important American shoppers “more cautious”.

Lululemon is also vulnerable to President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Last year some 40% of its products were made in Vietnam and almost 30% of its fabrics came from China, two countries that have been hit hard by new duties. Mr Trump’s decision to get rid of the “de minimis” waiver, which exempted from custom duties goods in parcels worth under $800, could raise prices and hurt sales. Ike Boruchow at Wells Fargo, another bank, reckons that about half of Lululemon’s Americane-commerce orders hadbenefited from the waiver. Lululemon declined to comment on Mr Boruchow’s suggestion.

The king of athleisure, therefore, has turned to discounting. That hardly bodes well for the reputation of the firm, but its strategists have been left with little choice: inventories jumped by 23% year on year in the first quarter of 2025, while sales rose by just 7%. Analysts at Jefferies reckon that more than 60% of cut-price items at its outlet stores are now core products, such as its famed black leggings.

Lululemon has encountered one more problem of late. The brand’s sportswear is easy to copy. Earlier this year the firm sued Costco, a big retailer, for selling cut-price versions of its trousers and other items. In years to come, the firm’s executives might look back wistfully at the days when it was seen as a brand worth copying. ■

来源：左右图史