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.
