Jim Prosser
1 min readJul 1, 2020

--

To proffer a possible explanation to the question you pose of selling in th midst of the sales boom: the deal was/is about medium- to long-term marketing and distribution efficiencies it'd be hard or at least very expensive for Mirror to achieve on their own. To close the gap with Peloton or at least grow their share of the pie, they need more awareness and more places where people can see and buy the device and get onboarded onto their subscription service. Peloton has a major headstart on brand awareness and much deeper pockets than Mirror with which to be able to finance a marketing surge. Peloton also has its showrooms (less of an advantage right now, obviously) as well as many more homes in which someone might encounter their hardware. Tying up with Lululemon gives them new marketing channels that are essentially free and more distribution points which would have been very costly to create, all the while creating a new customer relationship opportunity for Lulu, and creating more value for both in the long run. At least that's how I'd put together the thesis were I on the Mirror deal team...

--

--

Jim Prosser
Jim Prosser

Written by Jim Prosser

Pretty good cook, middling guitar player. Managing Director for Corporate & Advisory Services, Edelman. Alum of SoFi, Twitter, Google, Direct Relief.

No responses yet