Companies Flex Muscles in the Retail Apparel Sector
From March through November, California Lululemon branches have outperformed the national baseline in every month, however, the Nike situation is more mixed, with an almost even split.
SAN FRANCISCO—Foot traffic analytics platform, Placer.ai, recently revisited its 2019 Trends Analysis as Lululemon and Nike hopscotch from strength to strength. Lululemon Athletica released strong earnings earlier this month and reported third-quarter revenues that beat analyst estimates. And, once again, Lululemon is showing exceptional performance year-over-year.
Placer.ai data highlights show that every month of 2019 outperformed the same month in 2018 and the impressive growth was strengthened by key announcements from Lululemon to improve the efficiency of its retail footprint. The brand’s dominance continued into Black Friday where it drove visits 471.9% above the baseline for the period from January 1, 2018 through November 2019. This was dramatically higher than the 256% number that the brand posted for Black Friday 2018.
Nike, which is continuing its strong stride, is expected to have strong earnings as well. Placer.ai found that Nike’s 2019 produced only two months without year-over-year growth compared to the same month in 2018.
Nike had an exceptionally strong Black Friday with an 11% year-over-year growth on the same day in 2018. Comparing visits from November 1, 2019 through the first 11 days of December to the same period in 2018 showed an 8.7% growth. On the Saturday immediately following Black Friday, visits jumped 142.7% above the baseline, with the next Saturday producing visits that were 96.5% above.
“Comparing both brands to the national average paints an interesting picture,” Ethan Chernofsky, vice president of marketing at Placer.ai, tells GlobeSt.com. “While both see California performance trend along with the national average, Lululemon consistently sees better than average performance in California. From March through November, California branches have outperformed the national baseline in every month.”
However, the Nike situation is more mixed, with an almost even split, Chernofsky observes.
“From weather to the concentration of brand advocates to the locations’ respective expansion plans, all of which have targeted to the added time the Nike brand has had to spread nationally, there are a myriad of reasons why these differences exist,” he tells GlobeSt.com. “Yet, some may indicate critical differences between the brands. For example, a strengthening national average indicates a more spread out and diverse customer base signifying a more diversified brand. On the other hand, local strength also indicates a huge potential for expansion as the natural growth of a brand spreads.”
In short, Nike and Lululemon offline performance has been impressive by almost any measure, and analyzing the differences between California and national averages only serves to highlight the strengths these companies use to drive growth, Chernofsky summarizes.