From an enterprise value standpoint, Lululemon is worth double that of apparel rival Under Armour Inc (NYSE:UA). While they do not possess astronomical brand value, or as high growth expectations as Lululemon, Under Armour does have higher sales in dollar terms and a much wider customer base.
While Lululemon’s consumers are mainly women (specifically professional, young and athletic), Under Armour has a deeper market that encompasses both sexes and multiple income levels. This diversity in customer base allows Under Armour more room for error in case of a branding misstep, such as a poor product launch or entry into an unsuccessful market. When held to standard of operational perfection, as Lululemon’s shares are priced, Under Armour looks cheap and the more reasonable pick of the two for an investor versus a trader.
“Our success depends on our ability to maintain the value and reputation of our brand.”
This is the first risk factor quoted from Lululemon’s latest 10-Q, and it tells the whole story for the company’s future prospects. Hot brands are hot until they’re not. Just ask John McCarvel, CEO of Crocs, Inc. (NASDAQ:CROX), about the importance of keeping a brand relevant. From 2006-2008, sales at the shoe company exploded, as the endearing plastic footwear appeared on beach-goers and weekend warriers all over the world. Crocs stock price followed higher, and peaked at an enterprise value over $4 billion in October 2008.
But the Great Recession forced consumers to trim expenditures and competition increased. Knockoff Crocs were available in every Dollar General and Wal-Mart in sight, and consumers were not willing to continue paying for the brand. The company was forced to discount in order to move inventory and brand perception was permanently damaged. While still relevant in certain niches, Crocs is not what it was during their glory days. The company’s value has shrunk to $1 billion today.