Unicorn Thieves
March 30, 2015 10:43 AM   Subscribe

 
There is also a booming market for resold Lilly Pulitzer and JCrew, especially "rare" or sold out pieces.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 10:49 AM on March 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


what precautions does one have to take to set up an employee coalition (possibly cross-store?) to identify scarce, resellable items and ensure that only fellow employees get them?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:49 AM on March 30, 2015


Really, the last thing I would buy used (other than underwear/bras) is exercise gear. Perhaps other people don't sweat as heavily as I do while running...
posted by suelac at 10:54 AM on March 30, 2015 [6 favorites]


I'd bet that exercise gear is one of the most likely types of clothing to be re-sold unused.

And yeah, my wife has sold some clothing online on Facebook and the Lululemon stuff holds its value incredibly well.
posted by ODiV at 10:59 AM on March 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I don't even like my own running gear because I know how sweaty I get, so to hell with purchasing used exercise gear.
posted by Fizz at 10:59 AM on March 30, 2015


"Most of Marie’s shopping is done at Lululemon’s outlet store in Orlando; she especially cleans up during their Black Friday sale. Her buying strategy is calculated: Marie uses her phone to search each item’s average resale value on eBay while sitting in a dressing room before she makes her purchases. She’s been able to score pants for as little as $20, and then sell them online for $200."

😵
I think I just found my new job.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 11:01 AM on March 30, 2015


(Though maybe it wouldn't let me sleep at night...)
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 11:02 AM on March 30, 2015


It could also be a bubble though. So many people competing to buy stuff off the rack and then mark it up drives the price higher because everyone assumes it's valuable.

You're going to probably hit a point where the market is saturated and someone is holding the bag.
posted by Ferreous at 11:03 AM on March 30, 2015


Especially when you see all the excitement over rare prints and such that don't really have any more intrinsic value than normal variants.
posted by Ferreous at 11:05 AM on March 30, 2015


I was wondering where those basic xeroxed flyers around SoHo which are begging for your Lululemon were coming from. Thought it was a fetish or something.
posted by gusandrews at 11:06 AM on March 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


Yuck. I would not want to buy anyone's old lulu skirt.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:06 AM on March 30, 2015


My husband started a business basically inspired by this phenomenon in the children's apparel space.
posted by padraigin at 11:06 AM on March 30, 2015


I used to work at Janie and Jack, an upscale kids' clothing store, and they'd regularly fire employees who got into the (apparently quite lucrative) resale market. Apparently the clothing is popular on the pageant circuit (?!) and parents/grandparents were willing to pay LOTS OF MONEY for rare/discontinued items.
posted by mynameisluka at 11:07 AM on March 30, 2015


I've always loved the style of Lululemon clothing. Love love love. But I can never imagine myself wearing any of it while working out - somehow it's too pretty? Maybe I'm just not doing yoga-that's-beautiful-enough-to-warrant-it or something. I'm always sweating buckets as well, and throwing on anything that's loose and going to hold up after hundreds of washes.

Quite the conundrum.
posted by erratic meatsack at 11:09 AM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


"A lot of my clients ask if we would buy Stella McCartney workout wear or Athleta, and I just say no," seller Wasserman says. "Why would we take that type of risk when we know Lulu will always have this crazy resale value?"

For varying values of always.
posted by komara at 11:10 AM on March 30, 2015 [4 favorites]


and they'd regularly fire employees who got into the (apparently quite lucrative) resale market.

And that's why you need a cross-store coalition.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:10 AM on March 30, 2015 [3 favorites]


joseph conrad is fully awesome: I think I just found my new job.

A friend did this back in college, except with sneakers he bought at Ross. He also picked up jackets in the off-season and held on to them until cold weather rolled around and he could make a better profit. I've thought about this for a while, but never had the follow-through to see if it's still worthwhile.


komara: "A lot of my clients ask if we would buy Stella McCartney workout wear or Athleta, and I just say no," seller Wasserman says. "Why would we take that type of risk when we know Lulu will always have this crazy resale value?"

For varying values of always.


My mint beanie babies will be worth millions. I'm just waiting for the market to pick back up.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:12 AM on March 30, 2015 [16 favorites]


Luluemon is big with the high school and college neo-preppy crowd. They don't wear it for working out, they wear it for lounging.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 11:14 AM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


Given lululemon's lolbertarian leanings, you think they'd be all over people invisible handing the free market.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 11:24 AM on March 30, 2015 [16 favorites]


Planet Money had a fantastic show about the rare Nike shoe resale market: Episode 584: What The LeBron?. Detailed analysis of the hype creating trends, how the resellers work, and the economics for both Nike and the secondary market. Also lots of speculation on Nike's motives (albeit no comments from them). It sounds very similar to how this article describe's Lululemon's strategy, although I think Nike does a bit more explicit hype marketing.
posted by Nelson at 11:24 AM on March 30, 2015 [6 favorites]


My husband started a business basically inspired by this phenomenon in the children's apparel space.

And what does this business actually do? Impossible to tell from "inspired by". Does he buy up and resell "rare" children's clothing?

Is there anything that scarcity can't make people act like idiots over?
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:24 AM on March 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


Oh hey, I was just coming here to post the Planet Money piece too; it's pretty interesting. And yes, Nike didn't comment, but it seemed to me that they were if anything deliberately feeding a hot resale market by making short runs of expensive sneakers: creating scarcity, and cultivating a halo around the brand. Lulu's "we don't replenish once it's sold out" strategy seems similar.

"My goal is to make back 50 percent—that’s my magic number," she says. "If I pay $50 for an item, I’ll try to get $100."

*cough* that's a 100% return *cough*
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 11:31 AM on March 30, 2015 [8 favorites]


The first two comments on that article are LuluAddict and LuluMum, who are probably the two most authoritative Lululemon bloggers (I am embarrassed to know this but whatevs), and they both find the article to be exaggerated. There are a handful of highly-sought-after pieces that regularly go for more than their retail price, but it's relatively rare, and the things that reliably sell for upwards of $200 are generally things like heavy jackets in brand-new or like-new condition, not ratty grody sports bras.

I own a fair bit of Lululemon (they make good stuff, and I stick to the markdown rack) and when I'm done with it, it goes to Goodwill. Trying to sell anything on the secondhand market would be more hassle than it's worth.
posted by Metroid Baby at 11:50 AM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


I wonder who paid to pitch this article to reporters/bloggers. I wonder if just maybe it was Lululemon.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:56 AM on March 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


Wait, isn't Lululemon the brand that was in the news a while back because their yoga bottoms were spectacularly seethrough?

I can't bring myself to spend this kind of money on workout wear, particularly when the expense is driven by the communal perception of a "scarcity." Functional, reasonably priced, even *cute* workout clothing can be purchased just about everywhere. I promise you all that it is possible to wear a $12 pair of yoga pants for years without ever once having to worry about an over sharing of ass.
posted by little mouth at 12:08 PM on March 30, 2015 [4 favorites]


I think I don't own that gene that allows one to tell the difference between clothing brands. Seriously, aren't leggings just leggings? They're tubes of breathable cotton/polyester. Why would anyone pay more than like $10 for them? (Says the fat lady that works out in whatever Target has in my size.) What is the draw to purchase the $100 version?

I mean, I get why you pay more money for good shoes, or good 10 year outwear...but expensive workout gear has never made sense to me. That said; I despise shopping, I'm a terrible consumer, and I've totally aged out of the Male Gaze, so mayhaps this is one of those things that perhaps I'm not meant to understand.
posted by dejah420 at 12:09 PM on March 30, 2015 [3 favorites]


I guess it depends on what your hobbies are. Like if you're really into painting, do you go to Target to get your art supplies? Probably not, right? You go to an art store. Why would you buy a five thousand dollar bike when you can get one at Wal-Mart for two hundred? And so on.

I couldn't really tell you if LuluLemon is actually quality or the same cheap clothing that everyone else sells, but I've been assured by a few people that it's actually made better, so shrug.

My mint beanie babies will be worth millions. I'm just waiting for the market to pick back up.

You have to move with the times, man! Amiibos are the new hotness now!
posted by ODiV at 12:19 PM on March 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


dejah420, I can tell you that, as I noticed while walking along a bike/running path the other weekend, the quality of leggings varies significantly. I don't think some of my fellow walkers/joggers had given themselves a rear check because yeah, I could see more than they probably wanted.

(I was wearing cheap but not $10 leggings - they were more stretchy pants - I don't trust leggings to hold up to exercise)
posted by hydrobatidae at 12:21 PM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


And what does this business actually do? Impossible to tell from "inspired by". Does he buy up and resell "rare" children's clothing?


No, they just built an app that makes it easier for other people to do that.
posted by padraigin at 12:28 PM on March 30, 2015


There are a handful of highly-sought-after pieces that regularly go for more than their retail price, but it's relatively rare

The article says that the majority of the buyers of the gear are in middle america without direct access to a lululemon store. They essentially pay a big markup for dealing with resellers.
posted by GuyZero at 12:29 PM on March 30, 2015


See Also: Skate Brand Supreme
posted by billyfleetwood at 12:51 PM on March 30, 2015


I knew some people who worked for Lululemon when it was just a single store in Vancouver. I don't really have a strong opinion about the clothing, but Chip Wilson is a dangerous lunatic and massive bigot. He would personally lead yoga classes with his staff where he would shout his incoherent blend of Randian Objectivism and vague orientalist spiritual notions. He named his company Lululemon because he thought it would be funny to hear native speakers of east Asian languages try to pronounce it.

His success annoys me, but at least the Howard Roark of workout pants has now had control of his company ripped out from under him.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:01 PM on March 30, 2015 [18 favorites]


Like if you're really into painting, do you go to Target to get your art supplies?

Mark Rothko used to buy his paint at Woolworth's, which is why many of them have faded from red to brown.

Van Gogh also used cheap paints, and cheaper bulking agents, that have changed color over the decades.

I vaguely recall that a well-known artist of the 18th century (Constable?) used an unstable lead white paint that subsequently turned dark grey or black.
posted by Fnarf at 1:07 PM on March 30, 2015 [7 favorites]


Weird.
posted by ph00dz at 1:08 PM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


What is the draw to purchase the $100 version?

I got a pair of American Apparel leggings for I think $25-$30. They seemed pretty good after a wash or two and daily wear so I got another pair. Within a month they were both garbage, saggy as hell and uncomfortably chafe-y at the hips and knees. Meanwhile the stuff I got from lululemon 6 years ago is just now showing very slight signs of aging.

So yeah, there's a really big difference, unfortunately.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:11 PM on March 30, 2015 [5 favorites]


And since my chronic pain issues have only gotten worse over the years, I spend the majority of my clothed life in workout gear because at this point my physical comfort is my #1 priority, maybe even my sole priority. So I would rather spend $$$ on stuff that will both last and stand up to nonstandard usage (like laying on the gross industrial carpeting of my office's conference room during meetings because my spine is trying to kill me) as well as regular gym-based usage than spend $ on stuff that is both uncomfortable, poorly made, and/or has a comparatively brief lifespan.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:15 PM on March 30, 2015


billyfleetwood: See Also: Skate Brand Supreme

This isn't unique to the world of fashion flippers and sneaker flippers. There are LEGO flippers and general toy flippers, too. All you need is 1) a brand with enough recognition that there's general desire for and value in the products, 2) limited runs and 3) enough people willing to pay anything above store value that other people can reliably purchase items and resell them for a profit.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:27 PM on March 30, 2015


I got a pair of American Apparel leggings for I think $25-$30. They seemed pretty good after a wash or two and daily wear so I got another pair. Within a month they were both garbage, saggy as hell and uncomfortably chafe-y at the hips and knees. Meanwhile the stuff I got from lululemon 6 years ago is just now showing very slight signs of aging.

I have a pair of 7-year-old Lululemon running tights, and they continue to be my go-to pair after regular washings and hundreds if not thousands of miles of chub rub. And the material feels luxurious and soft, not stiff and plasticky like some workout wear can be. I will spend more on clothes that I know will be durable, comfortable, attractive, and easy-care, and Lululemon hits all four of those more frequently than most other brands I've tried.

That said, the best thing about Lululemon's rise in popularity is how many competitors have stepped up to the plate. There's a ton of stylish workout clothing available now, at all sorts of price points, and if you keep your eyes open you can find stuff that's on par with Lulu for much cheaper.
posted by Metroid Baby at 2:09 PM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


I got a pair of American Apparel leggings for I think $25-$30. They seemed pretty good after a wash or two and daily wear so I got another pair. Within a month they were both garbage, saggy as hell and uncomfortably chafe-y at the hips and knees. Meanwhile the stuff I got from lululemon 6 years ago is just now showing very slight signs of aging.

You can honestly just tell the difference between high-end brands like Lulu, Athleta, Stella McCartney, Title IX, etc from cheap Target, Old Navy, etc crap by feel and weight alone. Not to mention that most of the good stuff uses fabric with four-way stretch and actually pay attention to their crotch gusset instead of just slapping a generic liner in there and calling it a day.

That said, the best thing about Lululemon's rise in popularity is how many competitors have stepped up to the plate. There's a ton of stylish workout clothing available now, at all sorts of price points, and if you keep your eyes open you can find stuff that's on par with Lulu for much cheaper.

Athleta's chaturanga pants are better than anything Lulu has ever made or will ever make. Come at me, Luluistas!
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 2:25 PM on March 30, 2015 [3 favorites]


lululemon's lolbertarian leanings

Man, Richard Scarry really ran out of ideas toward the end, didn't he?
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:17 PM on March 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


Whoa, weird, interesting article.

My main understanding of lulumon comes from their racist founder.

Title 9 is a nice alternative.
posted by latkes at 3:25 PM on March 30, 2015


Re see-through leggings: sometimes it's a sodding design feature. I have a couple of pairs of Adidas running tights with mesh panels on the back of the arse and behind the knees (to help with cooling) - opaque most of the time but totally see-through in the wrong lighting. My husband gleefully told me he could see my bum halfway through a long run, months after I bought them; I'd probably have been better off not knowing to be honest.
posted by tinkletown at 5:09 PM on March 30, 2015


Wait, isn't Lululemon the brand that was in the news a while back because their yoga bottoms were spectacularly seethrough?

Seethrough yoga pants with the stank of exercise still on them?

Maybe these inflated prices are being paid by the Reddit creepshot market? I swear I read somewhere that they love a nice pair of yoga pants.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:19 AM on March 31, 2015 [1 favorite]


See Also: Skate Brand Supreme

I wish i was better at articulating why this pisses me off so much. The entire thing just feels so... manufactured. Like the scarcity is a common thing with this sort of stuff, but the people rushing to buy it up at least at first felt like complete plants "buying it all" so it would "sell out", actually just being the small staff of the place holding on it to to resell later or immediately throwing it up on ebay. Like it was all performative to hype the brand.

I was around for, and knew people involved in/artists who played the gigantic parties of bbycks/babycakes. The entire thing was basically good marketing and manipulation that then imploded in on itself. Their site doesn't even work anymore, the entire train ride lasted maybe... two years? That's generous too. It was a beanie baby style implosion.(although a friend of mine got a free ride to the UK to play parties out of it, and we met some cool people who got sent over here)

Pretty much i think it's a poor comparison to the lululemon thing in that lululemon is a real company. Supreme, and a lot of those other smaller brands feel like flash in the pan bubbles to me that will be nearly if not completely non existent in a couple years. Lululemon is basically the new nike.
posted by emptythought at 3:09 AM on March 31, 2015


Supreme has been around for 20 years though
posted by poffin boffin at 7:12 AM on March 31, 2015 [1 favorite]


It's sometimes shocking how easily manipulated rich idiots are.

"This 30 cents worth of 'designer' printed spandex is valued at 3000% markup because it will make your life meaningful."

"This $2 worth of ethernet cabling is valued at 3000% markup because it will magically improve the audio coherence coefficient in your 7.1 THX certified surround sound theater."
posted by j03 at 7:15 AM on March 31, 2015 [1 favorite]


Lululemon makes great long lasting clothes that look very good on a woman's body no matter what the shape. This is actually hard to find the US. I was given a new pair of Lululemon pants when I was pregnant 5 years ago - I wore it through the pregnancy, as my body went back, through another pregnancy and back and I am wearing this same amazing pair of pants now (at work where they look professional enough under a lab coat). I wear them all the time.

Although I would just buy their most recent style if I needed another pair, I understand and appreciate brand and style loyalty. And why someone would pay $100 for a pair of pants.
posted by mutt.cyberspace at 3:27 PM on March 31, 2015


« Older Trans 100 2015   |   IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments