Georgetown's newest billionaire resident

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dude should have sold to nike and taken his money. UA can't compete long term with addidas and nike

Apparently he knows what he doing. How about you?

Yes, I own a ton of the stock but he shoudl have sold. they have lost a huge market share to lululemon, they missed th boat in women;s fashion. Their total sales were just over 1 billion last year, addidas = 19 billion, nike 34 billion.
lululemon 2.9 billion

I have not seen UA's women's gear at the gym lately, but the last time I saw their women's clothes at the Sports Authority it was so "phys ed instructorish." A basic tee design with short sleeves and V-neck, in that satiny material they are so famous for. That sheeny material is not flattering and unsexy, even my daughter (who looks good in everything) does not look particularly good in it. Women who go to the gym regularly want to feel good about themselves and to look "hot." I personally like cottony materials that hug my body, and cute looks like layered tanks, or a racer-back bra under a billowy top which opens on the sides to reveal just-enough skin.

so you're not really a serious athlete and thus not who they are targeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dude should have sold to nike and taken his money. UA can't compete long term with addidas and nike

Apparently he knows what he doing. How about you?

Yes, I own a ton of the stock but he shoudl have sold. they have lost a huge market share to lululemon, they missed th boat in women;s fashion. Their total sales were just over 1 billion last year, addidas = 19 billion, nike 34 billion.
lululemon 2.9 billion

I have not seen UA's women's gear at the gym lately, but the last time I saw their women's clothes at the Sports Authority it was so "phys ed instructorish." A basic tee design with short sleeves and V-neck, in that satiny material they are so famous for. That sheeny material is not flattering and unsexy, even my daughter (who looks good in everything) does not look particularly good in it. Women who go to the gym regularly want to feel good about themselves and to look "hot." I personally like cottony materials that hug my body, and cute looks like layered tanks, or a racer-back bra under a billowy top which opens on the sides to reveal just-enough skin.

so you're not really a serious athlete and thus not who they are targeting.

I run 18 miles a week. I weight train or take fitness classes another 5 hours a week, and I swim about two hours a week. In short, you could not get much more intense at 43 years of age and as a mother of four children. I just do not like to look like a phys ed teacher in a satin-y, sleeved, V-neck t-shirt while exercising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dude should have sold to nike and taken his money. UA can't compete long term with addidas and nike

For real athletes the underarmour is the preferred product. It holds up longer. Lifting, t's, compression shorts. Should be more than ok unless UA changes the material etc. Others don't even last 1 season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dude should have sold to nike and taken his money. UA can't compete long term with addidas and nike

Apparently he knows what he doing. How about you?

Yes, I own a ton of the stock but he shoudl have sold. they have lost a huge market share to lululemon, they missed th boat in women;s fashion. Their total sales were just over 1 billion last year, addidas = 19 billion, nike 34 billion.
lululemon 2.9 billion

I have not seen UA's women's gear at the gym lately, but the last time I saw their women's clothes at the Sports Authority it was so "phys ed instructorish." A basic tee design with short sleeves and V-neck, in that satiny material they are so famous for. That sheeny material is not flattering and unsexy, even my daughter (who looks good in everything) does not look particularly good in it. Women who go to the gym regularly want to feel good about themselves and to look "hot." I personally like cottony materials that hug my body, and cute looks like layered tanks, or a racer-back bra under a billowy top which opens on the sides to reveal just-enough skin.

so you're not really a serious athlete and thus not who they are targeting.

I run 18 miles a week. I weight train or take fitness classes another 5 hours a week, and I swim about two hours a week. In short, you could not get much more intense at 43 years of age and as a mother of four children. I just do not like to look like a phys ed teacher in a satin-y, sleeved, V-neck t-shirt while exercising.

That sheeny material has a purpose and is real flattering on athletes and dancers. Underarmour sports bra and get mens tank to hide the stomach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dude should have sold to nike and taken his money. UA can't compete long term with addidas and nike

Apparently he knows what he doing. How about you?

Yes, I own a ton of the stock but he shoudl have sold. they have lost a huge market share to lululemon, they missed th boat in women;s fashion. Their total sales were just over 1 billion last year, addidas = 19 billion, nike 34 billion.
lululemon 2.9 billion

I have not seen UA's women's gear at the gym lately, but the last time I saw their women's clothes at the Sports Authority it was so "phys ed instructorish." A basic tee design with short sleeves and V-neck, in that satiny material they are so famous for. That sheeny material is not flattering and unsexy, even my daughter (who looks good in everything) does not look particularly good in it. Women who go to the gym regularly want to feel good about themselves and to look "hot." I personally like cottony materials that hug my body, and cute looks like layered tanks, or a racer-back bra under a billowy top which opens on the sides to reveal just-enough skin.

so you're not really a serious athlete and thus not who they are targeting.

I run 18 miles a week. I weight train or take fitness classes another 5 hours a week, and I swim about two hours a week. In short, you could not get much more intense at 43 years of age and as a mother of four children. I just do not like to look like a phys ed teacher in a satin-y, sleeved, V-neck t-shirt while exercising.

Sweat-wicking materials and compression shorts are for serious exercise. "Cotton-y" materials aren't sweat-wicking and layered tanks can be cumbersome.

UA is for RGIII and people who identify with the need for utilitarian workout gear, not for a suburban mom who likes "cute" looks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dude should have sold to nike and taken his money. UA can't compete long term with addidas and nike

Apparently he knows what he doing. How about you?

Yes, I own a ton of the stock but he shoudl have sold. they have lost a huge market share to lululemon, they missed th boat in women;s fashion. Their total sales were just over 1 billion last year, addidas = 19 billion, nike 34 billion.
lululemon 2.9 billion

I have not seen UA's women's gear at the gym lately, but the last time I saw their women's clothes at the Sports Authority it was so "phys ed instructorish." A basic tee design with short sleeves and V-neck, in that satiny material they are so famous for. That sheeny material is not flattering and unsexy, even my daughter (who looks good in everything) does not look particularly good in it. Women who go to the gym regularly want to feel good about themselves and to look "hot." I personally like cottony materials that hug my body, and cute looks like layered tanks, or a racer-back bra under a billowy top which opens on the sides to reveal just-enough skin.

so you're not really a serious athlete and thus not who they are targeting.

I run 18 miles a week. I weight train or take fitness classes another 5 hours a week, and I swim about two hours a week. In short, you could not get much more intense at 43 years of age and as a mother of four children. I just do not like to look like a phys ed teacher in a satin-y, sleeved, V-neck t-shirt while exercising.

Sweat-wicking materials and compression shorts are for serious exercise. "Cotton-y" materials aren't sweat-wicking and layered tanks can be cumbersome.

UA is for RGIII and people who identify with the need for utilitarian workout gear, not for a suburban mom who likes "cute" looks

UA of course has to serve their core market of professional athletes. PPs are likely suggesting that if UA wants to expand outside their core market -- and it sounds like they are after the affluent recreational athlete market -- then UA needs to vary their materials and looks. Suburban and urban moms alike deserve serious workout gear that looks stylish, and they probably don't want to look like RGIII.