My Body Took Me Here – Unlikely Hikers – Merrell Blog picture via UH
When I originally began writing about Merrell footwear, I discovered a host of information about the brand. One of those things was that Merrell had released a number of sneakers created on a last designed specifically for women. The company had been designing shoes for women years before I learned about the company in 2019. Why is this important? The claim Lululemon is making that they are the first to truly design with women in mind, simply isn’t true. Merrell continues to build footwear for women. They recently sponsored a group of hikers. The Unlikely Hikers is a diverse group of people with different body shapes, from diverse cultural backgrounds. Merrell, unlike Lulu at this time, makes their sneakers for women in a variety of widths. The claim of truly designing for women by Lulu is offset by the reality that Merrell has done this, is doing this and is also building shoes in a variety of widths. This is important to remember.
Lululemon is launching their “first” sneaker with a bold claim of being the first to design specifically for women. The intent here is not to diminish the work done by Lulu, but this is neither their first sneaker, nor the first sneaker designed for women. Lulu worked with APL on a sneaker launch before. As I stated above and as I’ll share below, many brands have designed sneakers on lasts made for women. The use of footscan technology is a constant among many brands. Reading the Lulu site and learning about Lulu’s first sneaker is a masterclass in marketing. The company nails the introduction and will undoubtedly hit their target audience, but in making a bold claim of being truly first, the brand places itself squarely in the center of a discussion on “market-washing”. In eco-friendly circles there is ‘greenwashing’. In legal circles there is ‘whitewashing’. Market-washing, by my definition, is the process of delivering a product under the guise that it hasn’t been done before.
The Blissfeel sneaker from Lulu looks the part, but runners realize that touting a sneaker for performance, even with tons of hours of testing, opens the model up for critical analysis from YouTubers, novice runners and women who are truly looking and buying multiple pairs of sneakers throughout the year to find just the right fit. When a company builds their marketing around women who are fit and already runners, there is an inherent issue with the concept which speaks to how brands have to utilize diversity as a strength, unless that brand understands that it is the brand of one demographic only and they are forgoing other segments to cater to that one consumer. Lulu’s first video lacks diversity in body shapes. This limits the reach of the sneaker. While the video is informative, it is also potentially offputting for the runner who is just starting, or the runner who is overweight… but Lulu is consistent in their marketing. If you browse the site, the only place where body diversity leads is on the Diversity page of the site. I’ll avoid straying to that topic and keep the focus on Lulu and their new sneaker. Here is the video:
In Lulu’s introduction video we see women who are strong and athletic. It fits the image Lulu wants to convey, but unlike Merrell who has been making sneakers for women for years, they understand the uniqueness of the human body. All women are important and it’s critical to highlight how your footwear works for a variety of bodies. Lulu is correctly focusing on a narrow demo initially and then they are going to gradually increase footwear for other segments, but I wonder if it’s wise to enter with such a narrow focus?
In the picture to the left, Merrell is being inclusive in the presentation of their hiking shoes. They are making the claim “fitness is for everyone”. It’s admirable pitch for the company that has made women’s footwear for years.
I could remain focused on Merrell, but it’s important when analyzing market-washing, there have to be more examples. A few years ago, legendary designer Jeff Henderson took on the task of working with a startup maternity company. He was tasked with pulling research from his diverse team of men and women at his design company And Them-Good Things, to develop a sneaker that caters to one of the most complex demographic of women, soon-to-be moms. During a pregnancy women can experience an increase in sneaker size. Creating a shoe for the maternity woman requires the development of a sneaker that flexes and can grow with the foot without causing discomfort. The Ollie Gray OG sneaker arrived last year.
Ollie Gray set out to build a shoe from the ground up for women that would work before, during and after the maternity phase. If Ollie Gray launched their first sneaker last year, designed on a last researched by the person who created one of Nike’s best-selling running shoes, a person who designed for Yeezy, Lululemon’s claim of being the first to truly design for women becomes a form of market-washing. Once again, my goal isn’t to diminish the work Lululemon has done. It’s to offer a discussion point and perspective that may not have been considered. If your claim of researching for women is all you have to offer at a time when there are 100 brands on the market, many of them focused on making better, more sustainable shoes designed with women in mind, walking in an arena with a claim adidas made last year when updating their flagship runner made with Parley recycled plastic, is kind of problematic. Especially when your sneaker doesn’t even mention sustainability. See adidas’ spot below: