When leggings aren't just leggings... - Ideal Result
Skip links

When leggings aren’t just leggings…

Grace is pretty into yoga at the moment.

In between caring for our two crazy children, doing her own freelance work and looking after the whole family, she somehow manages to steal a few moments to get into the Warrior pose and do some planking.

She’s an impressive lady, and I’m super grateful for all she does, so when I saw her perusing the Fabletics website the other day, I thought I’d get her a couple of bits as a surprise.

If you’ve never come across Fabletics, it’s a company co-founded by actress Kate Hudson, specialising in “activewear” – leggings, sports tops and so on.

And it’s not cheap: we’re talking nearly £80 for a pair of leggings, which – when you consider that it’s ultimately just a bit of polyester and elastane – isn’t chump change.

But here’s the key: they’re not just leggings, they’re Kate Hudson’s leggings.

Kate Hudson’s endorsement means the product is automatically elevated beyond what you can buy in Sports Direct, and comes with a price tag to match.

There’s takeaway #1 – celebrity endorsements work, and while you’re probably not going to get Kate Hudson promoting your product, the reality is that there’ll probably be someone in your marketplace that you’ll be able to leverage to your advantage.

Takeaway #2 is less of a takeaway.  In fact, it’s probably not worthy of the word.

Once I’d decided to get Grace some Fabletics stuff, I headed to the website and discovered their introductory offer “2 for £24” offer on leggings.

I gratefully accepted their offer and got on with my day.

But here’s the thing: buying leggings for £12 is very different to buying them for £40+, which is what it’ll cost me to buy more, even if I am a “VIP” subscription customer.

They’ve attracted a customer with a low price, but the disconnect between the introductory price and the ongoing cost is a significant mismatch, and I can see a lot of customer churn as a result.

Is this strategy a mistake?  The theory says yes, but Fabletics’ $235 million annual turnover suggests otherwise.

What do you think?


Leave a comment

error: Content is protected !!