Burberry S/S 2025 London

That's more reasonable than I thought and they could definitely do well with this pricing range today. It's more elevated than Coach and US luxury, while being more competitive than the likes of Gucci and LV. Learning that the core of the price hike actually happened during Tisci's tenure made me start to wonder whether Lee was the actual problem. I dug up their Annual Report Archive and it gave me this:
Year (April to March)Revenue (in GBP)CD (date of release of debut collection)CEO (date of appointement)
2002/03594mnChristopher BaileyRose Marie Bravo
2003/04676mn
2004/05715mn
2005/06743mn
2006/07850mnAngela Ahrendts
2007/08995mn
2008/091,20bn
2009/101,28bn
2010/111,28bn
2011/121,86bn
2012/132,00bn
2013/14:2,33bnChristopher Bailey
2014/152,52bn
2015/162,52bn
2016/17:2,77bnMarco Gobbetti
2017/18:2,73bn
2018/19:2,72bnRiccardo Tisci
2019/20:2,63bn
2020/21:2,34bn
2021/22:2,83bnJonathan Akeroyd
2022/23:3,09bn
2023/24:2,97bnDaniel Lee
TLDR:
- revenue rose consistently until 2013 (Ahrendts' departure)
- rose at a slower pace until 2017 (Gobbetti's arrival)
- started falling during Tisci-Gobbetti era until the pandemic
- rose again in post-pandemic to the point that Tisci's last two years were the brand's record highest

Spoiler LOL Very insightful.

Riccardo’s Burberry started on a promising flair, then unfortunately fizzled quickly and seemed… lost. But that’s also not all his fault since the handlers wanted everything, from outlet merch to high fashion, to be under one label, and all shown together on the runway. I remember looking for a new dufflecoat, and that Season only a very basic model was offered under the mainline, and only in black. The SA was doing her hardest to convince me how covetable it was with “black is so in this year!” LMFAO Has black ever not been "in"…??? Poor girl looked so defeated when I walked away.

More than the inflated mainline pricing for what is essentially very minimum effort in both materials and construction under Daniel, is the ridiculously inflated pricing for their basic, consumer fodder: the scarves and all things Nova Check. No fashion-devotee would touch those scarves; they’re for the casual fashion fan that covets status to display. And to price the most basic of basics so high, so out of reach of the casual fashion fans, was pure greed that deserved the failing desirability of the brand. This collection and even the last, is his handler controlling the creative direction to remind the customer of the brand’s better days: Christopher’s Prorsum. It’s an apology for what’s happening to this brand.
 
his insistence upon long pleated skirts with slits worn with cropped outerwear is exceptionally annoying.

edit: this looks like an Altuzarra collection by way of NG for Balenciaga

Burberry isn't a fashion house. Hire Erdem to do some cool trenches with floral linings and maybe some appliques and we should be good.
 
Never thought I'd say that one day (because contrary to many people here I don't have a vendetta against the guy :lol: and adored his BV) but I absolutely hate it. It's just soul-less. He's clearly ready to go.
 

Burberry needs saving – this ultra-British fashion collection could be the answer​

Balancing unashamed Britishness and American optimism, the label put on a star-studded show that aimed to lure shoppers back

TELEMMGLPICT000394244113_17265123607120_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqOUBXMQ_C7a_CtmhTaePQttu0FbekMDXcs6p...jpeg


The Burberry C-suite can’t be the most optimistic place to be right now. The fashion house, once considered the “ne plus ultra” in British luxury has been dogged lately by a series of downbeat news stories about its decline. In the past few weeks alone, it has fallen out of the FTSE 100 for the first time since 2009 with shares hitting a 15-year low. In November, the company is expected to report half-year losses.

It’s arguably one of the most dire situations facing any luxury fashion business in the world and is a daunting landing step for Joshua Schulman, who was recently appointed as Chief Executive Officer after Jonathan Akeroyd was axed earlier in the summer.

Schulman comes from midmarket leather goods label Coach, in itself a suggestion that the label known for its trench coats might be on the brink of a big strategy change – Burberry’s “Knight” bag is currently sold for around £1,890 pitting it against more desirable styles by the likes of Loewe and Saint Laurent. Coach’s, by contrast, are around £300.

And so in the most British of ways, Burberry’s chief creative officer, Bradford-born Daniel Lee marches on with his attempts to create hit pieces which will lure shoppers back. On Monday, he presented his Spring/Summer 2025 collection, at the National Theatre which had been transformed by Gary Hume, one of the YBAs, who re-imagined his “Bays” installation, first shown at the East Country Yard show at Docklands in 1990, by hanging giant turquoise tarpaulins with collage cut-outs around the space.

The collection was full of pieces designed to tick every British box, with references to the trench coats made from the gabardine fabric invented by Thomas Burberry in 1879, the weather, equestrian style, Savile Row and country pursuits. Lee is always careful not to go too literal with these nods to the culture he’s aiming to represent, perhaps that would be the easy path. Yet so many other labels are going full-throttle Britannia right now – Miu Miu, where sales have soared 93 per cent, released a Balmoral collection last week. Instead, as he described it backstage after the show, there was “a feeling of lightness and summertime” to dresses, shorts and jackets with all the gabardine practicality of a trench coat. “They’re things which don’t feel too precious, pieces you can wear day to night,” Lee explained.

Coats were naturally the hero items and the range was impressive, from lightweight, effortless versions of the trench to shorter, belted versions plus oversized, weatherbeaten-looking parkas – ideally for next summer’s Oasis concertgoers. Patsy Kensit, former wife of Liam Gallagher, was incidentally on the front row.

Lee has chosen to embrace the once-beleaguered Burberry check, too. It was boldly emblazoned on short trench coats for men and in a pale but no less forthright co-ord crop top and shorts set for women. There were subtle hints on offer as well like belts and bag trims. “I really like the check,” Lee emphasised. “We’ve endeavoured to move it into new colours and textures. The check in its original figuration is particularly loud so it’s nice to explore more muted colorations for people who don’t want to scream Burberry immediately,” he added.

There was a little more unashamed Britishness in the accessories, where a new saddle-style bag has been named the Cotswolds, presumably in the hope that every member of the monied elite in the area will snap one up. Burberry flooded its front row with Great Brits of all varieties, from model David Gandy to the young royal Lady Amelia Windsor, aristocratic socialite Emma Weymouth, the Marchioness of Bath, Poppy Delevingne, Olympians Keely Hodgkinson and Katarina Johnson-Thompson and TV presenter Miquita Oliver (sporting a check kilt and bag which echoed the notorious Daniella Westbrook picture which dogged Burberry for so long). Jerry Hall was there too, glamour personified in a bottle green trench with daughter Elizabeth Jagger in a checked mini.

Anna Wintour also sat on the front row, swapping the Kamala Harris scarf she’s been donning recently for a loud and proud Burberry check number, perhaps feeling it’s a cause just as much in need of her support as the Democrats. An activist from PETA stormed the catwalk in a dress reading “Animals Aren’t Fabric”, though, at this point, that’s probably the least of Burberry’s worries.

Rumours always abound in the fashion world about a change of creative director, particularly right now with so many big jobs vacant, but Lee placed himself at the centre of Burberry’s turnaround plans. “We’ve worked together for two months now,” he said of his flourishing partnership with Schulman. “I feel a sense of American optimism from him, I enjoy his drive and positivity.

“In its heyday, Burberry had the leadership of an American CEO and a British designer,”
he added, referring to the 2000s/ 2010s era when Yorkshireman Christopher Bailey and Angela Ahrendts led Burberry out of its chav doldrums to global design and business acclaim.

“We want the fashion show to feel like a proper vision,” Lee continued. “We need to find smart ways now to take the checks and the coats and evolve them into something that’s relevant in store.” Will this show be enough to power up the turnaround? Time will tell, but if any label is well-positioned to harness the current vogue for British style in all its glorious forms, it should be Burberry.
TELEGRAPH
 
For me, it’s clear just looking at the progression from collections to collections that his creativity, his vision is held back by the suits and the commercial imperatives.

I would rather have him doing a collection that is 100% him and fail on that than having a bunch of check prints probably dictated by the merchandising team under the guidance of the new CEO.

I loved Lee’s first collection. I bought a trench from it. I liked his second collection, I bought a pair of sandals and a blouse from it.
I did it because I love his work, not because I particularly care for Burberry.
When I see this collection, I see a lot of pieces that I would wear. But is it enough? I think the interpretations of the check are lackluster.
Literally, the best looks don’t have a check on them.

The irony is that this is probably his less British collection.

I’m not nostalgic of the Bailey era. I still remember the bore that were his last few seasons and that was his last show. There’s no need to over-romanticize something like that.

There’s no coming back IMO for Lee. The general consensus was that the price point was excessive for Burberry. We are 1.5 since his debut show, 2 years since he took over. The strategy is still the same while the collections are more and more diluted from the essence of his aesthetic.

They wants to speak to China so much? Maybe holding a show in Beijing or Shanghai would have been an option.

And judging by the last Coach show, I’m not sure that’s the direction the brand should follow either.
 
Aside of my personal fondness for Daniel Lee who I consider to be a good designer he is not a problem here, the problem is the Burberry as the organisation which is treating design as something secondary while munching big words like „heritage” etc in their small corporate mouths. If the entire structure consists of men being there for 30 years with absolutely no interesting appointments in crucial departments apart from hiring and firing CD and CEO every other week then there’s not much to add to it. For Burberry to be an important player is to find the right space on the luxury map and let designer do the rest not choke them with this idea of Britishness that has as much allure right now as the fugly green rugs hanging on the wall.
 
^^ Couldn't agree more Lola. Also, he had done such beautiful interpretations of the check in his pre-collections that seeing these ugly plain regular check elements made my stomach sink. They're really grabbing him by the collar and that's painful to watch. Side note but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE hire new Head of Shoes and Head of LG because they are heinous.
 
While it's obvious that Lee has checked out at this point, I'll admit that this is a very pleasant, calming collection to look at. There's almost a Margiela-like sensibility to it with the nods of utilitarian clothing and Japanese deconstruction.

A korean or japanese brand like DRESSEDUNDRESSED or 99&IS would have better execution and quality tan this. I was waiting for the show with great hopes, watching all the guests arrive and I only saw the first four looks, I couldn't stand it any longer.
 
For Burberry to be an important player is to find the right space on the luxury map and let designer do the rest not choke them with this idea of Britishness that has as much allure right now as the fugly green rugs hanging on the wall.
On the contrary - I think the lack of Britishness has been, in large part, THE problem facing Burberry since Bailey’s departure.

Aside from the explicitly British heritage, what does Burberry stand for? Very little. That’s not a dig, it’s just honest. Even at his worst (and trust me, the last few years were bad), Bailey’s Burberry was always unabashedly British.

Tisci totally muddied the waters at the house and was such a failure because his Burberry was so Italian and so Parisian. It was a bad fit. And now, Lee is trying to capture some Britishness again, but I still feel like the clothes are erring on Parisian. In fact, this particular collection almost feels a little Tisci-esque.

There are some decent pieces here, but once again, the footwear is atrocious. No one, least of all Burberry, needs a chunky fashion mule.

The presentation is wrong, too. It’s not light and playful enough - where’s the classic British wink?

Also - the casting is all wrong. Go ahead and crucify me, but the overbearing multi-culti, every-ethnicity-checked-off-the-list cast is doing the whole thing a disservice. Some classic English Rose beauties and rock royalty male models would do wonders here. Again, when all Burberry really has is its cultural cache, to blur that so much and to make it try and mean something to everyone, it ends up, clearly, meaning very little to anyone.

I think if the whole company worked at becoming more like the British answer to Ralph Lauren, it would be in a much better place.
 
bgc-judy.gif

tenor
 
I was actually quite suprised to find out how well Tisci did in his last two years, especially with how poorly received his tenure was. He actually managed to get Burberry to the £3bn milestone.

That aside, Lee and Tisci have very different skill-sets when it comes to the design of a collection. Lee is more trained in sportswear with a heavy focus on accessory design. Tisci, despite his strong hip-hop influences, has several couture collections under his belt. Obviously, it shows in their work. Tisci's Burberry was more precious and cutting-edge, while Lee's Burberry is more grounded and practical. Unfortunately for Lee, his work can't quite demand Tisci-level pricing.

I never cared for Bailey's SFW parody of Ford's Gucci, but his shows became a special type of torturous when each one became poorly filmed 20-minutes spectacles with tonedeaf live performances. Tisci's and Lee's shows were much more watchable.

Burberry is the only major British player in the industry, and they're trying to use that to add an artificial layer of desirability and importance to their products. The issue is that, outside of Kate Middleton and punk, "Britishness" is very abstract to market to international audiences. To add to that, London might not be the best environment for lofty luxury ambitions. McQueen, McCartney, Westwood all moved their press engines elsewhere. If Burberry really wants a larger audience, they should consider moving their shows to Paris or back to Milan.

As for Lee, he's probably past the point of no return. Even if a miracle happens and the next year brings in stellar results, between the negative press, lowering sales and corporate meddling, I wouldn't be suprised if he retires from fashion at the end of his contract. Burberry's next designer could embrace its roots in utilitarian clothing and a branch in chav culture, but it takes a certain taste level and sense of humour to elevate those codes to a credible high fashion sensibility.
 
the pants are great, actually; i'd wear a lot of them - good cuts & patterns. some shorts too. i am not a fan of the teeny-shrunken jackets & tops paired with, though. also the third dress is fun, as deconstructed classics go
 
Not sure if the set helps selling this. But it is perhaps on the right course for his Burberry. It is confusing and I don't know some pieces look cheap and some look very expensive. Maybe it has to do with styling and make up too. It really is half-baked. Nothing to write home about yet it is probably his best collection for Burberry. And what happen to the accessories? Like are the accessories designers in the room with us?

PS. That denim look on Edie Campbell is like a frumpy poor man's version flashback to Bailey's Prorsum worn by Agyness Dyn
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,470
Messages
15,186,190
Members
86,346
Latest member
zemi
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->