ApparelAthletic Footwear / SportswearTurnaroundDuring the first half of the 2020s, Adidas generated major commercial value and cultural attention from Yeezy, but the partnership also created highly concentrated reputational and partner risk. When the collaboration ended in 2022, Adidas simultaneously faced excess inventory, channel disruption, profit pressure, and a fundamental brand question: when its loudest collaboration engine disappeared, could the Three Stripes generate growth on their own?
Adidas After Yeezy: How the Three Stripes Became the Growth Engine Again
Yeezy was once one of Adidas' loudest growth stories.
It was more than a shoe franchise. It combined celebrity influence, scarcity, street culture, premium pricing, and enormous social-media attention.
At the height of the partnership, some consumers could think "Yeezy" before thinking about the fact that the product came from Adidas.
That created substantial commercial value, but it also created a dangerous strategic question: when an external collaborator becomes louder than the parent brand, how much of the growth does the company truly own?
In 2022, Adidas terminated the Yeezy partnership. That decision immediately transformed a brand problem into an inventory, profit, channel, and reputational problem.
Adidas still held a large amount of already-produced Yeezy inventory. Destroying all of it would create substantial financial losses and environmental concerns. Selling it created another problem: how could the company dispose of products from a terminated partnership without allowing its future to remain dependent on the same name?
Under Bjorn Gulden, Adidas did not frame the solution as finding another celebrity with the same level of cultural volume.
The path was closer to two stages.
Stage one was to deal with the past: gradually sell remaining Yeezy inventory and reduce the inventory and financial burden.
Stage two was to prove that Adidas itself could grow again: return product and marketing attention to the company's own football, running, training, Originals, and lifestyle franchises.
In 2024, remaining Yeezy products still generated approximately €650 million in sales. This meant the improvement in Adidas' results that year could not yet be separated completely from Yeezy.
The more important test arrived in 2025.
Yeezy revenue fell to zero.
Yet Adidas Group sales reached a record approximately €24.8 billion.
More importantly, Adidas brand sales grew 13% on a currency-neutral basis.
Those numbers answered the central question of the case.
Losing Yeezy did not eliminate Adidas' ability to grow.
But this should not be rewritten as:
The Yeezy problem completely disappeared.
Reputational damage does not automatically vanish when inventory reaches zero.
The collapse of the partnership also left a long-term governance question:
How much brand power should a global company allow one external collaborator to control?
For that reason, the outcome is better classified as a Turnaround than as a perfectly clean Success.
There is financial evidence that the core brand returned to growth.
But the lessons around partner dependency, governance, and reputational concentration remain.
As of September 12, 2026, Adidas had not exited North America.
It had not stopped selling footwear.
And it had not announced another single celebrity collaboration designed to recreate the entire Yeezy dependency.
The 2026 product narrative was more heavily centered on assets Adidas already owned:
Football.
The World Cup.
Running.
Originals.
Lifestyle franchises.
And Direct-to-Consumer.
The strategic change was not:
Find another Yeezy.
It was:
Prove that without Yeezy, Adidas is still Adidas.
ApparelAthleisure / Yoga ApparelTurnaroundLululemon's comparable sales and traffic weakened significantly in North America, especially in the Americas, while the company had historically relied on premium pricing, community-based stores, and continued store expansion to support growth. As competitors replicated similar fabrics, silhouettes, and athleisure positioning, simply opening more stores could no longer solve the product momentum and customer-choice problem in its largest market.
Lululemon Hits the Brakes: Why Weak Same-Store Sales Cannot Be Fixed by Opening More Stores
Lululemon grew from Vancouver into one of the strongest premium athleisure brands in North America by combining expensive yoga pants, technical fabrics, community-oriented stores, and an ambassador-driven brand model.
For years, the growth engine looked highly effective. Products were recognizable, customers were willing to pay premium prices, stores functioned as more than simple retail shelves, and new locations continued to open while existing stores also produced growth.
The pandemic strengthened this model even further. During 2020 and 2021, work-from-home behavior, exercise, and demand for comfortable clothing expanded rapidly. Yoga pants, leggings, and athleisure moved from workout settings into everyday life.
But the pandemic tailwind did not last forever.
As competitors introduced similar fabrics, silhouettes, and lifestyle positioning, consumers gained more alternatives. By 2025 and 2026, Lululemon's largest market was clearly losing momentum.
In fiscal 2025, Americas revenue declined 1% and Americas comparable sales declined 3%.
In the first quarter of 2026, Americas revenue declined 3% and comparable sales fell 5%.
By the second quarter, conditions worsened further.
Americas revenue declined 8%.
Americas comparable sales fell 12%.
At that point, the problem could no longer be explained simply by a need for more stores.
If existing stores are generating less demand, opening additional locations may only reproduce the same weakness across more leases and operating costs.
In September 2026, Lululemon cut full-year revenue guidance to approximately $10.35 billion to $10.50 billion, representing a decline of about 5% to 7%.
At the same time, the company reduced its planned net new store openings from approximately 40 to approximately 35 and significantly reduced its planned number of pop-up locations.
These actions matter because they show that management was no longer treating store-count growth itself as proof of business strength.
More importantly, attention shifted back toward product, marketing, and consumer relevance.
Heidi O'Neill became CEO on September 8, 2026. Her background included senior leadership across product, brand, women's business, digital, and global consumer functions at Nike.
Lululemon's board emphasized product innovation, cultural relevance, and long-term global growth as major priorities under the new leadership.
This does not mean Lululemon became a failed brand.
The brand remained strong.
The company still operated more than 800 company-operated stores.
International markets continued to offer long-term opportunities.
The real question was different:
When existing stores in the largest market begin losing momentum, should the company keep opening more doors, or should it first repair the reason customers walk through the doors that already exist?
By September 2026, Lululemon's signal was increasingly clear:
Fix product and demand first.
Then accelerate store growth.
Fashion运动鞋 / 运动服饰TurnaroundNike在2020年后过度强调Direct和数字渠道，主动削弱部分批发伙伴的产品供应与渠道覆盖。疫情期间数字增长一度掩盖了风险，但随着实体零售恢复、数字动能下降、产品与库存压力增加，Nike在多品牌零售货架上的覆盖和竞争力受到影响。
Nike渠道反转：为什么把货重新送回批发伙伴
2020年以后，Nike把Direct写成未来。
Consumer Direct Offense及后续Direct战略的逻辑很有吸引力：
让更多消费者直接进入Nike.com、Nike App和直营网店；
减少对部分批发零售商的依赖；
获得更多第一方消费者数据；
提高对价格、库存和品牌体验的控制；
同时保留更多零售环节的经济价值。
疫情期间，这套逻辑一度看起来得到现实证明。
实体门店关闭或客流受限，消费者快速转向线上购物，Nike数字业务得到明显推动。
于是Nike进一步缩减部分批发关系，并越来越相信强大的品牌可以把消费者直接拉进自己的数字生态。
但2022至2024年前后，问题逐渐暴露。
疫情时期的数字增长没有永久延续。
实体零售重新恢复。
数字获客变得更困难。
产品和库存出现压力。
与此同时，被Nike减少供货的零售货架并不会保持空白。
On、Hoka、New Balance、Adidas以及其他竞争品牌获得了更多展示和销售机会。
消费者也没有签署一份永远只在Nike.com买鞋的合同。
很多消费者仍然进入Dick's Sporting Goods、Foot Locker和其他多品牌零售商，然后在货架上比较。
因此，Nike面对的真正问题不是：
Direct有没有价值？
Direct当然有价值。
真正的问题是：
为了扩大Direct，Nike是否削弱了一个仍然对全球规模和市场份额非常重要的批发网络？
Elliott Hill重新领导Nike以后，公开战略开始发生变化。
公司不再把提高Direct占比本身当成最终目标。
新的重点包括重建零售伙伴关系、重新加强运动产品、执行Win Now，并通过Sport Offense重新强调跑步、篮球和其他核心运动。
2026财年的渠道数字把这种变化写进了财务结果。
NIKE Brand Wholesale收入约275亿美元，同比增长6%。
NIKE Direct收入约177亿美元，同比下降6%。
这不是一个简单的成功故事。
批发重新增长，说明Nike确实开始把更多业务送回合作渠道。
Direct继续下降，则说明Nike自己的渠道还没有同步恢复。
因此，2026财年更准确的定义是：
渠道方向已经纠正，但整体修复尚未完成。
截至2026年9月12日，不能说Nike已经重新赢回全部市场份额。
也不能说Nike放弃Direct。
更不能说公司退出中国、出售Converse或者放弃跑步和篮球。
真正发生的是：
Nike重新承认批发伙伴不是一个可以长期被饿死的旧渠道。
他们仍然是Nike全球市场密度的一部分。
