Daniel Lee - Designer, Creative Director of Burberry

[gallianostan]

And that doesn't mean a designer shouldn't be making NOT creative clothes. Galliano and McQueen, for example, made "creative" clothes that stand the test of time and still look attractive on the wearer 20-30 years later.

i'm starting to think that designers like john and lee really were the exception and not the norm. we were lucky to witness their work and i don't think we'll see anything remotely close to that great again.

 

[avonlea002]

Galliano and Mcqueen were both extremely lucky to be born at the right place and time. The industry was different, world was different.
Designers today have it much harder.

 

[lookatme]

Galliano and Mcqueen were both extremely lucky to be born at the right place and time. The industry was different, world was different.
Designers today have it much harder.

I don't disagree. Although, I wouldn't necessarily say that as a way to discredit accomplishments or talent of these two.

It is true - designers today have it so much harder. And for a large number of reasons. Obviously, there's the overbearing and untrusting CEOs of these houses that throw designers out like it's a sport. But I also think the problem is deeper. Galliano and McQueen came from a time pre-internet, and being a creative at that time meant actually having to research and explore and you had to be passionate and motivated enough to do that research yourself. That kind of curiosity leads to an extremely rich and nuanced visual vocabulary - you discover so many interesting connections from this reference to that reference, you see patterns, you begin to understand the flow of time and taste. You have to read, you have to watch films, you got to museums, you dig around thrift shops, etc. You start to understand music, cinema, fashion history, world history, literature, architecture and interior design, etc. and you see how they're all related.

All of that clearly informed their work. That's a richness you cannot fake.

Creatives now get all their inspiration from Instagram. They have all the references but zero context. And you don't get the sense that any of them are hungry for inspiration. Very shallow, very sad. But the audience doesn't demand more, either, because all they know is Instagram, too.

 

[Lola701]

i'm starting to think that designers like john and lee really were the exception and not the norm. we were lucky to witness their work and i don't think we'll see anything remotely close to that great again.

It’s an interesting point…
But thinking about that, they were the norm, and it was a different norm. We are talking about a pre-social media, a kind of pre-fast fashion era, a pre-multibillion euros businesses and also a more codified era.

Creativity or inventivity were the elements that solidified a designer’s career. And a lot of careers happened because the most important value was creativity or at least talents. When you think about that, Christian Lacroix would have never existed in today’s world.
He had that very Christophe Decarnin kind of buzz in a very small period and suddenly his proposition in fashion became irrelevant in terms of context with the Gulf War but he managed to stay for nearly 2 decades after, despite being a commercial flop all along (even his Pucci years weren’t successful).

We also have to remember that Galliano and McQueen among others were part of a generation that struggled with the idea of commerce and Art while totally being aware of the impact of their clothes. McQueen became profitable after Lee died. Margiela became a real commercial success when he left. Nicolas Ghesquiere litterally battled to save his position at Balenciaga for like 2/3 seasons despite being the darling of the industry at the time.

It’s sometimes insane to think that McQueen despite all the biggest shows ever mostly sold skulls printed accessories.

It’s weird because that expression of full creativity that was a show, that gave us great moments from our favorite designers became overtime a bit irrelevant because suddenly I think it didn’t connect to people in a tangible way.

I think one of the success of Phoebe Philo and her alumni is the fact that it was an inventivity at the service of the wearer. There wasn’t that big gap between the show and the stores and therefore the real life. The problem with that approach is that it’s not immune to fast fashion.

Today’s version of creativity is not the unleashed one. It’s not about research. It’s about making a viral impact. And maybe too, fashion is in a less emotional phase. People don’t cry at shows because of beauty like they did with Alber, John, Tom and the whole bit. We are too cynical anyway. So intellectual thinking is more relevant.

 

[LadyJunon]

I don't disagree. Although, I wouldn't necessarily say that as a way to discredit accomplishments or talent of these two.

It is true - designers today have it so much harder. And for a large number of reasons. Obviously, there's the overbearing and untrusting CEOs of these houses that throw designers out like it's a sport. But I also think the problem is deeper. Galliano and McQueen came from a time pre-internet, and being a creative at that time meant actually having to research and explore and you had to be passionate and motivated enough to do that research yourself. That kind of curiosity leads to an extremely rich and nuanced visual vocabulary - you discover so many interesting connections from this reference to that reference, you see patterns, you begin to understand the flow of time and taste. You have to read, you have to watch films, you got to museums, you dig around thrift shops, etc. You start to understand music, cinema, fashion history, world history, literature, architecture and interior design, etc. and you see how they're all related.

All of that clearly informed their work. That's a richness you cannot fake.

Creatives now get all their inspiration from Instagram. They have all the references but zero context. And you don't get the sense that any of them are hungry for inspiration. Very shallow, very sad. But the audience doesn't demand more, either, because all they know is Instagram, too.

This is probably the main reason why so many brands feel so 2D. Especially the newer designers who exist almost exclusively in 2D spaces (no physical showroom, no stockists, no atelier) and they design and merchandise their ranges according. They don't design clothes to create a sartorial proposition to be worn, they design to create an image for their customers to replicate.

The sad thing is that when they do eventually move to physically spaces, their brand image completely falls apart with inconsistent fit, shoddy construction, paper-like fabrics. One time, I saw a winter coat without a lining selling for €1'200.. Not to mention that lots of these designers can't merchandise a functional collection to save their lives. There's a brand showing at Paris that only makes slinky jersey dresses.

On top of that, so many of these designers refuse to look beyond their immediate social circle. Designing high-end clothing for your subculture can only get you so far, not to mention the issues that will be faced when that narrow clientele starts working and having children. I feel like that's why my current favourites are mostly creative directors at smaller corporate houses like Vaccarello, Di Felice, Mulier and Dossena. The nature of their jobs forces them to confront inspirations and aesthetics that might not be their immediate tastes and they're much better designers for that.

PS: I know that Saint Laurent isn't small by any means, but on the scale of Gucci, Hermès, Chanel, Louis Vuitton and Dior, it's quite modest.

 

[susseinmcswanny]

Idgi

 

[Nimsay]

What is it supposed to be

 

[tourbillions]

Not sure about designers having it much harder these days. All the CEO's demands are quickly put to thrash once the designers actually prove they have a vision that is both commercial and artistic. Problem is almost none of the new generation has it, all their designs can be interchangeable. And the good ones prefer not to stress themselves in the big houses.

 

[gallianostan]

Not sure about designers having it much harder these days. All the CEO's demands are quickly put to thrash once the designers actually prove they have a vision that is both commercial and artistic. Problem is almost none of the new generation has it, all their designs can be interchangeable. And the good ones prefer not to stress themselves in the big houses.

this. any designer can reshape the fashion paradigm if they're truly good enough. it just so happens that this generation is the most talentless one yet. not a modicum of genuinely tasteful design talent or creative imagination in sight. it's just a sea of sh*t.

 

[Phuel]

^^^...In a nutshell...

Not sure about designers having it much harder these days. All the CEO's demands are quickly put to thrash once the designers actually prove they have a vision that is both commercial and artistic. Problem is almost none of the new generation has it, all their designs can be interchangeable. And the good ones prefer not to stress themselves in the big houses.

It’s absolutely much harder in that new designers and even existing brands need to be ruthlessly competitive in their branding, from media to socials— if they wish to remain relevant and profitable. The game has changed so much that creative talent and innovation of design is now on the bottom of the list— if at all, while gimmicks, clout/hype and the energy and resources spent on promoting a brand is the most important factors these days. The days of devotedly, obsessively artisanal and craftsmanship mastering their construction and design being respected seems to be a distant memory, a distant inspiration and aspiration to the new gen. (I was at some high-end mall last night, and the gaudiness of excessive bright lights and enormous billboard of the brands storefront— all with the most basic of merch donning their windowfronts, with miles and miles of stupid bags inside the stores, just resembles the tackiest of gentrified Vegas tourist trappings. Even the stupid Christmas tree that was sponsored by Dior had to have the damn logo on it. That’s what passes as high fashion/luxury/high-end these days, when it’s nothing more than the worst of the re-emergence 80s’ eurotrash consumerism. And all the shoppers there in their stupid Canada Goose parkas...)

Titans like Galliano and McQuuen came from an era where titans were the standard— the norm: We had it so well... Galliano remains, and McQueen was a masterclass creative visionary, unmatched in their cut/construction/design and presentations (but they also borrowed quite a tad from Gaultier— especially their showmanship…). Daniel is a corporate merchandiser that’s learned to incorporate disposable gimmicks into very commercial outlet logo/monogram basics. Again, he is a perfect affliction of this current plague of mediocrity on fashiondom. (And in a wider symbiotic evolution of the industry, the customers courted/targeted/pandered towards by these brands are superrich kidz that have earned their fortune through socials and Drag Race... so they’re not a demographic that would appreciate/understand the nuances/complexities/historical references of visionary talents as McQueen/Galliano. Rather, the disposable, cartoony gimmicks of Daniel/JW/Demna are much more accessible and attractive to them and their millions of devotees. And these people don’t care about merch lasting either— both design-wise and in quality.)

@lookatme is being too generous by calling Daniel's gimmicks “tricky". …Perhaps tricksy— but typically gimmicky; It's Dr Suess cartoon as high fashion for the attention-deficit but attention-wh*re raised on social media, where oversized childrenswear, primary colours, and cartoony accessories are noticed. If a gun were held to my head, then Demna did it better.

 

[Frederic01]

I have no sympathy whatsoever given their insane pricing strategy.


BOF

 

[Frederic01]

Thomas Mulier and Angelina Rascouet
Fri, January 12, 2024, 9:44 PM GMT+11·4 min read

Burberry Slumps After Profit Warning on Wilting Luxury Sales



(Bloomberg) -- Burberry Group Plc slumped after the UK trenchcoat maker slashed its profit forecast, a fresh sign that demand for luxury goods, particularly in the US, is waning.

The British retailer wiped nearly £100 million ($128 million) off its profit outlook in the starkest sign yet that after an unprecedented surge in luxury sales during the pandemic, the bubble has burst. The stock fell as much as 15% in London, the steepest intraday decline in more than a decade.
Burberry is one of the weaker luxury brands in the midst of a turnaround but Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Akeroyd said it was clear that demand for luxury goods was falling. Most every region the company, known for its tartan scarves, operates in was weaker, he said, including the key US and China territories, indicating 2024 could be a very tough year for the sector.
The downgrade comes after bigger rivals Richemont, LVMH and Kering SA have also reported weaker demand. Burberry’s warning triggered a selloff among those peers, wiping out as much as $7 billion from the sector.

Turnaround Effort

Burberry has been trying to revive its performance in the past few years, elevating its brand and prices points but this makes it especially sensitive to weak demand. Akeroyd’s efforts to jumpstart the brand have been stymied so far. The warning is bad news for the sector, though Burberry is a special case, as the company is struggling to create more buzz.
Read More: Spirits, Luxury Stocks Fall as Pricing Power Starts to Fade
In November, Burberry warned sales were barely growing and said its profit would probably come in at the lower end of its guided range. On Friday it showed that trading was even more difficult than expected, led by a 15% slump in revenue from the Americas.
Akeroyd has appointed designer Daniel Lee to reinvigorate the company’s popularity, but the efforts have yet to bear fruit. Consumers have had a muted reaction to Lee’s creations, UBS analyst Zuzanna Pusz wrote in a note in early October, adding there’s a lack of hype on social media for the brand.
The shares lost almost a third of their value last year.
Adjusted operating profit should be £410 million to £460 million in the year through March, Burberry said in the unscheduled trading update. Burberry previously forecast earnings of as much as £668 million.
In the past few quarters, shoppers worldwide have been balking at higher prices from luxury brands, signaling that inflation is also hitting well-heeled shoppers, especially so-called aspirational customers who tend to buy items at the lowest price levels. Akeroyd said on Friday the slowdown was now hitting a broader customer base.
In November, Richemont reported a surprise decline in earnings as revenue from luxury watches unexpectedly fell and high-end consumers reined in spending.

Weaker Outlook

Analysts at UBS Group AG said this month they expect a weak luxury-goods earnings season, advising investors to stick to more defensive stocks such as Hermes International SCA and avoid Burberry, as its turnaround is not yet proven.
The consultancy Bain estimates the industry will grow by as much as 4% this year in its most probable scenario, down from 8% in 2023, underlining the challenges facing high-end companies. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE, the industry leader, reports annual sales and earnings on Jan. 25.

Burberry’s wholesale revenue has been suffering as its price points are too high for some customers. The retailer is also very reliant on Chinese shoppers and it has taken time for mainland tourists to start returning to Europe since the pandemic. Akeroyd said the flow of Chinese tourists in European capitals remains below pre-pandemic levels.
In its home market of the UK, Burberry, like other luxury rivals, has been affected by the UK government’s decision to scrap VAT-free shopping for travellers, meaning some tourists are now buying their high-end goods in places like Paris and Milan rather than London.

BLOOMBERG

 

[Frederic01]

Burberry issues fresh profit warning on luxury slowdown​

Shares in UK fashion group fall following weak Christmas sales

British luxury fashion house Burberry has issued its second profit warning in three months following a weak Christmas trading period, sending shares in the group down as much as 14 per cent in early trading on Friday. In November, the company predicted that adjusted operating profit could be at the “lower end” of its forecast range of £552mn to £668mn.

On Friday, Burberry said it had “experienced a further deceleration in our key December trading period”, meaning annual profits would probably come in below previous guidance. It is now expecting adjusted operating profit for the financial year to March to be between £410mn and £460mn. Burberry is being hurt by a slump in luxury demand triggered by the deflation of a boom in high-end spending that peaked during the pandemic.

The fashion house reported that retail sales for the 13 weeks to the end of December were down 7 per cent to £706mn, compared with £756mn for the same period in 2022. Burberry shares dropped as much as 14 per cent at the market open before paring around half of those losses by mid-morning. Burberry is one of a group of companies hit by the slowdown in luxury spending, with the industry’s biggest players, including Richemont and LVMH, warning of falling sales or slowing growth in recent months.

Luca Solca, a luxury analyst at Bernstein, said that Burberry was also struggling with its attempts to “price up” with offerings such as its new handbag collection at a time when consumers have less of an “appetite to pay top dollars for full-price products”. “In a good market, transitioning a brand upwards is very difficult indeed. In a softening demand environment like the one we’re going through now after a few years of post pandemic boom, it’s close to impossible,” he added.

The end-of-year slowdown hit Burberry’s US retail sales particularly hard, sending store sales down 15 per cent in its third quarter compared with the same period the previous year, with store sales in Europe, the Middle East, India and Africa falling 5 per cent. In November chief executive Jonathan Akeroyd said the “challenging macro environment” was “coming across from all regions”, which was “something that is quite unique”.

Although the market has slowed across the board, Solca emphasised that Burberry had felt more of that downward pressure than some of its peers. “What consumers will do when they start to pause on their spend is that they will concentrate on the master brand at the moment. If your brand is not really at the top of its form, the risk is that it will fall off shopping lists and I think this is what is happening,” he said.

FINANCIAL TIMES

 

[tourbillions]

who tf thought that burberry could be in the same price point as hermes

 

[Lola701]

There’s quite a difference between a brand like Burberry which is having a slow down due to down sales and Vuitton, which is growing at a slower pace. Saint Laurent’s situation is even more different because they are restructuring their business…

Burberry’s biggest issue is the price point. I love Daniel Lee, I love the pieces. The RTW at Burberry is really good. But compared to competition, a luxury customer will always choose a brand with the biggest prestige. The suits dropped the ball on this.

I want to buy some pieces but there’s no place on earth where Burberry should be more expensive than Louis Vuitton! 4000€ pants? Come on! You got a coat at Louis Vuitton for the same price!

The clientele is there! Chanel stills has queues in front of their stores. Vuitton has queues! People are still craving for Saint Laurent! But the clientele is also informed. They know that the Burberry they see at their local mall cannot charge the same price as Vuitton or Hermes!
A Burberry bag above 1800€ is a bad joke!

 

[Fulton St Critique]

Not that anyone here said this, but I find it funny when a brand has a bad quarter or bad year, and the creative directors immediately get blammed. As if Burberry’s poor holiday sales or whatever was behind their sales slump is attributable to Daniel Lee in any way.

Sure, it could be the price point, but it could also be a numerous unnamed factors such as a poor wholesale business, the global slowdown in luxury, mis-management by the c-suite, delayed delivieries on goods, unexpected cost increases not related to the product (think labor), a poor merchandising strategy, poor store layouts/contracts, etc.

It‘s similar to the false narrative that was being spread that AM left Gucci because “Gucci wasn’t returning double-digit growth”. To a certain extent, sure, AM played a part in that, but when a brand reaches billions and billions in market value, blaming the creative director for not “delivering” on forecasted sales results is so strange.

Can we start pinning these “issues” on, mabye, the heads of accounting instead?

 

[yslforever]

Not that anyone here said this, but I find it funny when a brand has a bad quarter or bad year, and the creative directors immediately get blammed. As if Burberry’s poor holiday sales or whatever was behind their sales slump is attributable to Daniel Lee in any way.

Sure, it could be the price point, but it could also be a numerous unnamed factors such as a poor wholesale business, the global slowdown in luxury, mis-management by the c-suite, delayed delivieries on goods, unexpected cost increases not related to the product (think labor), a poor merchandising strategy, poor store layouts/contracts, etc.

It‘s similar to the false narrative that was being spread that AM left Gucci because “Gucci wasn’t returning double-digit growth”. To a certain extent, sure, AM played a part in that, but when a brand reaches billions and billions in market value, blaming the creative director for not “delivering” on forecasted sales results is so strange.

Can we start pinning these “issues” on, mabye, the heads of accounting instead?

In the case of Alessandro Michele, it was the CEO who blamed Michele first, probably to find a way to save his own head... he overlasted Michele by 10 months
I agree with what you said, there are major strategic errors, the price point being the first one imho...
Same thing could be said at Ferragamo.
Decent or good designs, might be appealing to some customers, but what's the point of killing the nascent desirability by doubling or tripling the prices... It alienates a large potential customers base and puts you in competition with much more established luxury house.

 

[RaisinBoy]

Ouch, just heard that the Burberry shares are tanking as noone is buying Daniel Lee stuff and the corporate suits are not happy at all. During Tisci, things were going up business wise, but Daniel Lee ruined the trend. Also heard everyone got fired from there or are leaving the company voluntarily. Guess we wait for the new designer now.

 

[gallianostan]

....can certain users pls stop trolling and spilling obviously fake tea?

 

[donyan]

Ouch, just heard that the Burberry shares are tanking as noone is buying Daniel Lee stuff and the corporate suits are not happy at all. During Tisci, things were going up business wise, but Daniel Lee ruined the trend. Also heard everyone got fired from there or are leaving the company voluntarily. Guess we wait for the new designer now.

May I ask where you heard this ? Not being shady, just curious