but she did screw up on product creativity which is same problem Lulu faces, doesn't board see this?
Honestly? You're asking the right question, and it's the one the board has the weakest answer to. Here's a clear-eyed look at it:
The Overlap Is Real and Uncomfortable
Let's lay it out plainly side by side:
Nike's product problem under O'Neill's watch: She oversaw product and innovation at a time when the brand faced criticism for falling behind on new products and focusing too heavily on the same legacy lifestyle franchises — Dunks, Air Force Ones, and Air Jordans. While the franchises briefly led to a surge in sales, they ultimately became ubiquitous and viewed as uncool by consumers. CNBC
Lululemon's product problem right now: Analysts identified that "management now believes lounge and social — a combined 40% of the mix — are the key culprits, with product cycles that have run too long yielding fatigue among consumers, particularly high-value, long-term Lululemon customers." RETAILBOSS
The outgoing CEO himself admitted it: "We have become too predictable." Retail Dive
The pattern is almost identical — a brand leaning on its franchise heroes past the point of freshness, losing core loyal customers first because they're the most sensitive to staleness. Nike did it with Air Force 1s. Lululemon did it with Scuba and Softstreme. O'Neill presided over one version of this disease. She's now being asked to cure the same disease somewhere else.
The Board's Answer — and Why It's Only Partially Satisfying
The board's implicit case rests on a few things, some more convincing than others:
"She oversaw product late in Nike's slide, not during it" — there's something to this. O'Neill only assumed the President of Consumer, Product & Brand role in June 2023, relatively late. In that role, she actually reset the brand foundation, reduced product development timelines, and prioritized renewed momentum in global Football and Running. The deeper product creativity rot at Nike had set in years earlier under Donahoe's data-over-design philosophy. She inherited a broken machine, didn't necessarily build it. Stock Titan
"She's a systems executive, not a designer — and that's what Lulu needs" — Lululemon's creativity problem isn't actually about lacking designers. The company had already hired Global Creative Director Jonathan Cheung and assembled fresh design talent before O'Neill arrived. The plan was already in place to increase new styles to 35% of its overall assortment from 23%. What Lululemon arguably needs is someone who can build the organizational structure to get creative product out faster — and that's more O'Neill's wheelhouse. Retail DiveRETAILBOSS
"She's the operator, not the creative" — analysts pointed out that a CEO doesn't personally run product; they set strategy and hire the right people around them. The board is essentially betting that O'Neill can recruit and empower the right chief product officer and creative director — she doesn't need to be the designer herself. Yahoo Finance
Where the Board's Logic Gets Shaky
The problem is that this argument — "she'll hire the right creative people" — only works if she has a demonstrated instinct for what good product looks like and the courage to push back when it isn't there. And her track record on that is genuinely mixed.
Lululemon risks becoming what's established rather than what's next — Alo and Vuori now occupy the cultural space Lululemon once owned, with Alo setting the fashion tone and Vuori redefining technical quality through simplicity. That's a brand identity crisis that goes deeper than just hiring a good CPO. It requires a CEO who has strong aesthetic and cultural conviction — the kind Chip Wilson had, the kind Phil Knight had at Nike early on. Substack
O'Neill is, at her core, a consumer insights, marketplace, and operations executive. The board praised her "consumer orientation" and ability to "bring fresh thinking to established ideas." That's real. But consumer orientation — knowing what customers say they want — is different from creative leadership, which is knowing what customers didn't know they needed until you showed it to them. The latter is what built Lululemon, and it's what Alo is doing to them right now. WWD
The Honest Verdict
The board saw this risk. They either concluded:
- Product creativity is a hiring problem O'Neill can solve with the right CPO, not a CEO-level creative vision problem — a defensible but unproven bet.
- Lululemon's problems are more about execution, speed-to-market, and organizational structure than raw creativity — and for that, O'Neill is genuinely well suited.
- They couldn't find a better candidate who also had scale experience — and the alternative frontrunner, Jane Nielsen, was a finance executive whose turnaround credits were muddied by the strong CEOs she served under. Yahoo Finance
But you're right that this is the legitimate blind spot in the appointment. Lululemon's market cap has fallen from about $64 billion at end of 2023 to just $19 billion. That kind of destruction demands more than competent management — it demands someone who can re-inject cultural electricity into a brand. Whether O'Neill can do that, or whether she'll manage the business well while the creative edge continues to erode, is the central unanswered question the board didn't fully resolve. WWD