Thursday, October 13, 2011
My Favorite Comment on the Lululemon Corporate Facebook Wall
[Irate Insert Your Name Here Customer] At this point, wouldn't it be more efficient for Lulu to just sell directly to the eBay scalpers and cut out these extra steps to a process that does an extremely good job of ensuring that the "real customers" don't get what they order?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Ha ha! That was me! <3!
well put!!!
@ anon - 9:12 am - very cutting - I loved it!
Love it because it's 100% true!! :)
lol...that is good but as an ebay seller, it's the bidders/buyers that determine the value of an item. nobody is holding a gun to their heads and demanding they bid/buy an item for over retail price. don't get me wrong, there are several sellers that start bidding well over the retail price of an item. i'm cheap--i don't want to give eBay anymore money than i need to. i've posted quite a few used GWs and other "hard to find" items for WELL below they're retail (so i don't have to pay the excessive eBay sellers fees). all of those items were bid up to the full retail and sometimes double the retail value. that was ALL the bidders'/buyers' decisions as to what they are willing to pay for something (perceived value) versus what a price tag dictates (manufacturer's perceived value). i understand your frustration, but there is a market to be had and some choose to abuse it (high start price), other's try to go with the flow and make a little extra spending money (wait and see what the bidders/buyers will spend)...
I also posted just now on the page. I don't agree.... there are 29 listings for Gratitude Wraps... not that many. And, even if there were 200 gratitude wraps... that is a drop in the bucket. Also, Lululemon is hot hot hot. Everyone is angeling and buying multiples for friends, etc... So, I personally think that you can't have your cake and eat it too. There are many angels that have bought tons. The same people complaining about ebayers would also complain if their best friend was told they couldn't buy one for you. If you look at the ebay situation closely, there are a handful of ebay sellers that are abusing the system on a regular basis. Lululemon could easily but a department together to handle those sellers. Just my thoughts.
@ Susan (TJI): great observations...however, a LLL department to do what with? LLL clothes are not copyrighted, they are not exclusive property of an agency. it's not like music CDs or movie DVDs or software, which are copyrighted 99.9% of the time.
we're talking about yoga clothes, folks--let's put it in perspective. don't get me started about their "educators". if we took the LLL symbol off and made a generic size/fabric label and placed these items in, say, Target or Walmart, would you honestly spend over $50 for a tank top? how about the GW which, honestly, looks like a potato sack with arms? take out the LLL "mystique" and hype, and we're talking yoga/athletic clothes.
the same hype surrounds other clothing/ brands--nike comes to mind immediately. especially with their runup of air jordan sneakers back in the day. nike was happy to sell their product at ridiculous prices. sure, knockoffs popped up (still do), sellers were doubling the price...i don't remember nike stepping in, though. they got what they wanted. why should they care what happens to their products thereafter? i'm sure their are copious college psychology classes that examine consumer spending habits and brand/label mystiques...
I agree with the above comment, especially with the the decrease in quality I've seen and read about lately. If you took the logo off and some of the same product was sold at Target, you can bet I'd never buy another pair of yoga pants that pill after 5 wears. I don't doubt the GW is comfortable, but it's boring and looks like a shapeless sack on EVERYONE. As for ebay, it isn't the sellers fault that people will pay double retail.
@Anon, you're absolutely right that it's the bidders who determine the value, and if buyers wouldn't pay 2x the (already high) retail price for these items, then the eBayers would go away/move onto something more profitable, and some measure of the scarcity would subside.
I mean, honestly, who ever thought there would be "ticket scalping" for yoga clothes?
But just because buyers will pay those exorbitant prices on eBay doesn't justify the practice, (particularly in circumstances where the "scalpers" are using unfair advantages, though not necessarily here, whether a robodialer/auto-refresh program for concert tickets or the funds to buy a ridiculous number of items, to gain more than their share of a scarce item and then resell it for profit). And as a matter of customer relations, it truly is up to the producer to curb these situations.
Look at the efforts that athletes and artists have taken to reduce ticket scalping, even though the same argument could be made -- if you don't pay those prices, then the scalpers will go away. Even grocery stores will place a limit on the number of limited stock/sale items a person can buy at one time. And the understanding is that if a customer wants more, then he or she can make a return trip and get back in line and re-invest the same risk/commitment again that everyone else invested.
I truly do not understand the "angels" argument in this instance, though. If you don't have a Lulu store near you and you can't buy an in-store-only item, then that's a situation where the "angel" argument applies, and everyone has an equal chance to those items. (In other words, if you're in the store at 10 a.m., a technical glitch isn't going to take the GW out of your hand).
But this is an online item available with free shipping to all US customers. Why would you need an "angel" to purchase it for you? If you want a second one for a "gift," then you can "get back in line" and grab a second one, again re-investing the same time and effort that the other people are investing to try to get their one item for themselves.
I just don't see the argument against restricting high-demand/limited-stock online purchases to one at a time.
Finally, maybe it's just me, but I think 29 of a limited availability item that hasn't been in stores for a year or so is a lot to be on eBay at once.
I completely agree with anon 12:51. It's the same reason I haven't been able to see many of my favorite artists live- scalpers. Different product, same system, both an abuse. I like Lulu for the quality and detailing- which may not be as high as it was in the past- but is still much higher than the merch at Target.
UGLY POTATO SACK AND WOULD NEVER PAY $118 FOR IT. I CAN FIND THIS "SACK" at OLD NAVY OR GAP FOR $50 OR LESS. EBAY SELLERS ARE NOT THE BLAME AND STOP USING THEM AS SCAPEGOAT FOR LULULEMON CORPORATE INEFFICIENCY TO NOT ONLY PRODUCE MORE BUT ALSO TO BRING THESE SACKS TO US STORES. It makes no sense as to why they make them so scarce. Hence Ebay sellers have a field day.
it's simple economics people...Lulu may be causing the scarcity of supply, but the consumers are creating the demand!
So, who is really at fault for the ridiculous prices on ebay??
Nonsense. Restricting purchase quantity is a legitimate business practice designed to protect the brand. The tactic has proven highly effective for any number of brands / retailers. Unfortunately, at this stage in its corporate lifecycle Lulu lacks the sophistication of the many members of its peer group (brands and retailers in general, not just those offering athletic Wes) who have successfully implemented the strategy. Take Prada and Saks Fifth Avenue, for example. When purchasing a Prada handbag on Saks.com, you are permitted to order no more than 3 of the same item. Thus prevents individuals from essentially stepping in between the retailer and the customer by purchasing items with the intent to flip them for profit on eBay or through some other channel. Clearly this is bad for the brand and Lulu just hasn't figured out what to do about this yet. It would be well-advised to consider imposing limits on purchase quantity. Only other "option" (if you can call it that is to sell wholesale to the leeches currently buying up inventory so it may be purchased by legitimate customers. Ebayers would be out of business in a flash - due to either a dramatic decrease in demand in the secondary market or to restrictions placed on resellers by Lulu (pricing/msrp, for example), or, most likely, some combination of the two.
OMG -- so sick of the gratitude wrap and all the ensuing nonsense --its just a jacket, people --
so, do the ebay scalpers have magic powers that allow them to avoid the extra steps that the rest of us have to go through? I hate the evilbayers...I think they are greedy and selfish, but the fact remains they were caught up in the mess yesterday too! A bunch of crazed fans jumping all over a wrap like it's our last meal...that's right, all this drama is over a WRAP....makes us all look pretty pathetic when you consider what is going on in other parts of the world...people are dying of cancer, children are dying of hunger and we are whining because we couldn't get a WRAP!
@anon-3:19 am- I totally agree with you. Also, I think the eBay resell and ridiculous markup is unfortunate and greedy, but money makes people crazy. Everything is about money. I personally love the GW. It's comfy, cozy, covers my butt in leggings. It's made so well and really is my favorite item. So I understand the hype and I tried to get one yesterday. I do think that Lulu could've easily put a cap on how many orders 1 person could place, but clearly they didnt want to. I heard that they were going through each and every order and canceling orders if you had multiples.
some of these orders were accidental, computers were freeezing and people were reordering thinking it did not go through. Some people ended up with multiple orders that they did not want...
Personally I didn't want to purchase a GW, but am interested in this post because it addresses the larger issue of scalping. Granted it isn't anywhere near a serious issue, but it does show a weakness in Lulu's company policies- because they do nothing to prevent it (i.e. limiting multiples), which is an annoyance to fans- Why should we be forced to compete with someone who has a auto-refresh program and is running a business of of reselling this stuff? Sounds like a "hate the game, not the player" type excuse coming from the Ebay scalpers- gross!!! They're still contributing to it. Just wish Lulu would step in and do something to show some gratitude towards their true fans.
The comment makes no sense. It is a clothing store, and they sell clothing online and in their stores. They aren't offering special private secret sales to ebayers. What's all the complaining about? It is friggin clothing.
I'm curios to know the article or post reference when Lululemon distinguishes between real and fake customers.
Post a Comment