Daniel Lee - Designer, Creative Director of Burberry

WWD 17 May 2024​

Is Burberry a Victim of Its Own Strategy?​

big-promo
TODAY'S MUST READ After a decade of turnaround attempts, the British trench coat maker’s efforts to thrive as a top luxury player continue to falter.
The brand needs more accessible prices and marketing — and quick.
Full Article:
Is Burberry a Victim of Its Own Strategy?
After a decade of turnaround attempts, the British trenchcoat maker’s efforts to thrive as a top luxury player continue to falter. The brand needs more accessible prices and marketing — and quick.

By ROBERT WILLIAMS
May 17, 2024

BoF PROFESSIONAL

This week, Burberry reported sales down 12 percent in its most recent quarter, while full-year revenues of £2.97 billion ($3.77 billion) were flat at constant exchange rates.

Shares in the company have fallen 57 percent over the past year and are now trading at their lowest level since 2016, ratcheting up pressure on Burberry chief executive Jonathan Akeroyd and creative director Daniel Lee to deliver a long-awaited turnaround.

Burberry’s woes are, in part, the product of a more difficult luxury market: inflation and slowing economic growth have taken their toll, particularly among the Chinese customers who used to power the brand’s business both domestically and in European shopping hubs.

But the company's wounds are also self-inflicted: after building massive name recognition and a $3.8 billion per-year business in the 2000s and early 2010 — with a strategy rooted in an easy-to-digest interpretation of its British identity and a price positioning that straddled the line between top luxury houses and premium labels like Polo Ralph Lauren — Burberry has been bogged down in a decade of stagnation as its strategy to push upmarket falters.

To be sure, the downfall of US department stores and the rising cost of manufacturing high-quality products made the brand elevation strategy feel like a necessity. The brand bet that its bags and shoes goods could surely be lifted in line with the luxury clout of its flagship trenchcoats. Meanwhile, the prospect of one day being acquired by a big luxury group like LVMH or Kering offered more enthusiastically to the top end of the market.

Efforts to elevate the Burberry brand began in the mid-2010s under Christopher Bailey (then serving as both CEO and creative director) and intensified under former CEO Marco Gobbetti and designer Riccardo Tisci from 2018 to 2022. Now on its third CEO and third designer ( and third logo) in a decade, Burberry is persisting in the Sisyphean task of convincing the world to buy $2,700 Italian-made handbags from a British outerwear brand.

That’s not to mention tough sells like $1,000 khaki chinos or $1,450 cardigans. These prices are roughly in line with wardrobe staples from European luxury houses like Celine and Loewe. But while those brands have bag businesses big enough to justify a more niche, top-end approach to ready-to-wear, Burberry is an apparel brand: selling clothing at prices clients are willing to pay is the core of its business.

The long-standing disconnect between Burberry’s strategy and its identity as a purveyor of premium outerwear is taking a toll.

“The combination of weak social media and Google search trends, as well as muted feedback from the trade on Burberry’s new collection, give no reason to believe that its momentum is accelerating,” UBS analyst Zuzanna Pusz said Tuesday in a note to clients.

There are some signs of progress. Akeroyd, a seasoned merchant from McQueen and Versace, is working to fill stores with a revamped menu of carry-over items across categories, backing up the brand’s runway vision with more accessible propositions. A new store concept is lighter and more engaging, mixing vivid colors, textures and product categories in places where the previous leadership had over-indexed on monochrome, visually static displays of the brand’s increasingly expensive handbags.

Then there’s the creative execution: Lee has managed to gradually turn up the brand’s cool factor while updating the brand’s messaging on the key topic of Britishness. Where former creative director Riccardo Tisci had focused on exploring codes and archetypes of British dress, Lee has tackled Britain and Britishness as a cultural hotbed and attitude. Shygirl and Skepta have starred in campaigns, while his “London Portraits” series shows how a diverse cast of stylish Britains can inhabit the Burberry wardrobe in modern ways.

But too many of the brand’s communication efforts under Lee have advanced a niche vision that has little to do with how typical customers see (or want to see) Burberry or Britain. And fashion fans likely to connect with Lee’s vision have other places they can splurge on $1,300 strappy sandals.

Niche fashion can provide a welcome halo effect for corporate fashion giants when the rest of the business is firing on all cylinders, but stronger counter balances are needed to keep a global business on track. Louis Vuitton, for example, has signed on for another 5 years of womenswear director Nicolas Ghesquière’s time-travelling, ür-sophisticated fashion collages.

But Ghesquière’s collections are just one plotline in the brand’s broader story. In addition to onboarding pop star and producer Pharrell Williams as menswear creative director, Vuitton recently hired Blake Harrop, a Wieden+Kennedy executive who has orchestrated campaigns for mass market giants like Nike and McDonalds, in the role of executive vice president for image and communications .

By over-indexing on top-end, niche fashion, Burberry is leaving money on the table: its singular position as Britain’s only megabrand requires a broader approach. The brand needs more accessible prices and more accessible marketing — and quick.
Source: BoF
 
Just bring back Burberry Brit. The economy isn’t strong enough to rely on a single tier of products at such high prices anymore. At this point a lot of brands should consider bringing back their diffusion lines. He could still do high fashion with Porusm as a marketing tool and have Brit to carry the weight just like the Pre-2015 days. It would take a lot of stress off everyone’s back.
I agree. They need to split the brand into tiers. They could avoid having a Ralph Lauren situation by keeping the brand to two lines: Burberry London (trench coats, bags, classic items) and Burberry Prorsum (runway collections, limited edition items). The two lines should be handled by separate teams for design and merchandising with the creative director heading the Prorsum line and the advertising campaigns with minimal influence on London's products. Think of how Ghesquiere works at Louis Vuitton.
Before they collapsed everything under Tisci, there were three lines: Prorsum, London, and Brit. I always thought they should have folded Brit into London and kept that separate from the runway stuff.
The lines were actually folded back in 2015, when Burberry went through the first steps of their repositioning, which included that weird "see now, buy now" thing that they did for 3 seasons before Bailey left.
 
I actually don’t think that bringing back BRIT is necessarily a good idea.
You don’t want people to feel like they are buying a Burberry-lite. That structure of company is not very modern.

What they needs to do is harmonize the prices. Some strong showpieces can cost above 2K with limited distribution but the majority of the items should be in that 300/1600£ price range.

The problem with BRIT was that some pieces were close to Prorsum in terms of prices. The London line had the alligator coats and all but it was really a niche offering.

Akeroyd wants to make Burberry more luxurious than the two previous brands he worked for.
 
if burberry wants to be taken more seriously then they must produce haute couture. Thats the only way they can gain the credibility to charge what they ask.
 
But too many of the brand’s communication efforts under Lee have advanced a niche vision that has little to do with how typical customers see (or want to see) Burberry or Britain. And fashion fans likely to connect with Lee’s vision have other places they can splurge on $1,300 strappy sandals.

I don't think Lee's communications strategy is the problem. Whoever wrote this piece is delusional. Daniel Lee's Burberry campaigns have been photographed at the Isle of Skye, on the streets of London, etc. with people like Vanessa Redgrave, Edie Campbell, Skepta, Rachel Weisz, etc. It's as quintessentially British as you can get. And calling "a niche vision"? Really? Edie Campbell in a trench coat in Kensington Gardens is now a "niche vision"? SMH.

The problem is literally the price point. If it was half of what it is currently, Burberry would be well on their way to 5 billion or more. Their price points are double what Gucci was when Alessandro Michele turned it into a success, and that was in a strong economic climate. Most of the things that turned it into a 10 billion dollar brand was the $500-$1000 bracket.

Celine and Loewe are strong on the leather goods fronts. You cannot compare. Both Jonathan and Hedi have hired the right accessories designers that will produce hit after hit.

The bags (and shoes) at Burberry are extremely weak and very avant-garde. I can't see any classic and timeless offering in terms of their bags at all. They need an equivalent of a Lady Dior, Puzzle Bag, 2.55, etc. to be able to succeed and command those prices in RTW. At the moment they have a lot of small, unstructured bags, which probably aren't hitting. There are no convincing Tote Bags or Top-Handle bags for example. And the equivalent of the Bottega Pouch (that was a big part of his success at BV) is the Rose Clutch, which is so ugly and fussy looking. It should not take this long to come up with a hit bag. In that way he should take a note from Maria Grazia. She had hits within the first two seasons of her arrival at Dior.

Don't get me started on the shoes LOL. They should have brought Nina Christen over from BV but instead they lost her out to The Row...
 
I think the problem is also that no one at Burberry currently believes in Burberry themselves.

They’ve wasted so much effort chasing streetwear trends, thinking that’s where the money is, but it just ends up simply diluting the brand image/authenticity without attracting new customers.

At its core, Burberry represents a certain British aspirational poshness. It can engage with trends and “fashion”, but should never lose that core identity.

Celine is a great example of engaging with the streets without losing its bourgeois core/image.
 
I think the problem is also that no one at Burberry currently believes in Burberry themselves.

They’ve wasted so much effort chasing streetwear trends, thinking that’s where the money is, but it just ends up simply diluting the brand image/authenticity without attracting new customers.

At its core, Burberry represents a certain British aspirational poshness. It can engage with trends and “fashion”, but should never lose that core identity.

Celine is a great example of engaging with the streets without losing its bourgeois core/image.
Onpoint 100% the snob should have been in the clothes and design style and vibe not in the price points

Also right after Riccardo´s overdesign moment, there should have been a more clear brake from overt experimentation and gradually introduce quirk design playfulness etc.

It went from non established design junk to another pie of overdesign ideas and jarring prints and colors grabbing for relevancy contradicting with the current moment needs for focus, as the reality of people willing to spend are going for something they can believe in to hold longer some value then screaming first season Burberry by Lee.
 
if burberry wants to be taken more seriously then they must produce haute couture. Thats the only way they can gain the credibility to charge what they ask.
Haute Couture? Why? For who? Where? But again…Why?

Burberry is not Kate Spade. This is for what is worth, a respected brand with a great heritage. They have a legitimacy in the luxury spaces through their trench coats.
Back in the day, before luxury became the term to describe fashion, Burberry was also part of the uniform of the wealthy. Wearing a Burberry trench was/is a social mark.

They have a fashion legitimacy in HF spaces thanks to the work of Christopher Bailey. And it’s because of his work that they were able to attract talents like Riccardo Tisci or Daniel Lee.

Burberry is the perfect aspirational brand. It original price point and brand image makes it perfect for a wide range of customer, even wider than Ralph Lauren, because it has more of a fashion cachet!

So no Haute Couture. They are already loosing money, they don’t need an activity that will totally drain their finances. The operating cost of Haute Couture aren’t a joke.
 
I remember when Burberry Prorsum was launched by a designer called Roberto Menichetti, who I think was from Jil Sander. It was great - interesting, easy to wear and very modern.

I recall it was stocked next to all the 90s/00s minimalists In the trendy multi label stores, but I don't think they ever sold it in the Burberry stores.

I don't know if it worked commercially - probably not, since it didn't last long. But I bought some things, among them a perfect white shirt in a boxy cut, with a tiny Eton style collar. I haven't bought any other Burberry ever since. (Wasn't tempted by Bailey or Tisci, but I like Daniel Lee's work - alas, unjustifiably expensive.)
 
I remember when Burberry Prorsum was launched by a designer called Roberto Menichetti, who I think was from Jil Sander. It was great - interesting, easy to wear and very modern.

I recall it was stocked next to all the 90s/00s minimalists In the trendy multi label stores, but I don't think they ever sold it in the Burberry stores.

I don't know if it worked commercially - probably not, since it didn't last long. But I bought some things, among them a perfect white shirt in a boxy cut, with a tiny Eton style collar. I haven't bought any other Burberry ever since. (Wasn't tempted by Bailey or Tisci, but I like Daniel Lee's work - alas, unjustifiably expensive.)
But I think Prorsum was launched in order to restore Burberry’s image right? I think they had some issues with being associated with hooligans or things like that. It was also at that time that they became associated with Testino.
In terms of context, this was post Tom Ford for Gucci and the success of Prada and Fendi so everybody wanted a piece of the pie.

Was it supposed to be a huge commercial success in the first place? I see it as what Lemaire did for Lacoste. He restored the image of the brand. None of what he presented was sold. They actually started to really see the potential of selling the runway collection with Louise Trotter and now they are going for it with the new CD.

When they approached Christopher Bailey, from Gucci at the time, it’s where they really went for it! They heavily invested in it because they had the opportunity to have a success « a la Gucci ».

Where is Roberto btw? He went to Celine where he flopped before being replaced by Ivana Omazic and then disappeared…
 
I saw the costs of producing some clothes at work - this company is a joke. People aren't that fool. It's different with shoes, because some I saw were much more expensive than others.
 

Can this fashion house take advantage of its 'Britishness' to rise to the top?

Just about every chief executive who has run Burberry Group Plc has characterised the maker of the pricey trench coats with checked linings as the best of British luxury.

But that tag is doing little at the moment to lure potential buyers of high-end fashion. Or even investors, for that matter.

Years of efforts to place the UK fashion house’s products on the same racks as those of top-tier labels like Louis Vuitton, Hermes and other European fashion houses have fallen short, with the latest evidence of that coming this week when Burberry reported a plunge in sales – capping a disappointing end to a fiscal year hit by weak demand in China and the US.

While a flight to quality is sheltering some haute couture brands, Burberry – like Gucci-owner Kering SA – is getting hammered as Chinese buyers turn cautious.

The company’s stock has more than halved in the past year, wiping at least £5.5bil (approximately RM32.8bil) off its market capitalisation. And all indications are that the worst is not over – the brand has said wholesale revenue is set to fall further this year.

About 74% of the analysts who follow the stock rate it "neutral”, reflecting deep skepticism over its ability to rebound anytime soon.

Burberry, which held an analyst call this week, said it had no further comment.

"The Burberry brand doesn’t have, at the moment, the ability to resonate,” said Luca Solca, a senior analyst at Bernstein Autonomous LLP.

"It either needs to change or it needs to work.”

The challenge for chief executive officer Jonathan Akeroyd and creative designer Daniel Lee is to show that the partly completed transition they inherited in 2022 to elevate the brand is still on track and will eventually bolster sales and profits.

Akeroyd has blamed the company’s current woes on the rough economic context, especially in China, which accounts for more than a quarter of sales.

"(It’s) a clear challenge we have in terms of traffic, traffic into the malls and definitely a bit of a softening in general, which is clearly impacted by the China economy,” Akeroyd told analysts.

Trouble is, other labels at similar price points with high exposure to China – such as Prada SpA – are weathering the storm.

The Italian fashion house’s net revenue beat expectations to rise 17% last year, while retail sales for its subsidiary Miu Miu jumped 82% in the fourth quarter.

"At what point do we say, this is Burberry specific,” asked Sophie Lund-Yates, an equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown.

If now’s the time to ask that, what is Burberry getting wrong?

Famed for its distinctive checks, the brand began in the 1800s, designing functional rain wear – to be worn in the Arctic and in the trenches, rather than on runways.

From there, it became a wardrobe staple of the British upper class. And by the mid-1990s, its popularity grew so much that one in five coats exported from the UK was a Burberry product, according to the company.

With the emergence of a burgeoning middle class, especially in countries like China, Burberry joined a lot of luxury brands that started what academics like to call a "democratisation” process, targetting larger sales volumes even at the risk of cheapening the brand.

Burberry went so far in this effort that its "distinctiveness signal started getting diluted”, said Paurav Shukla, a professor of marketing at the Southampton Business School.

"For almost two decades it has gone into this direction of democratisation and now it wants to become exclusive, and that’s not going to happen overnight,” he said.

A changing cast of chief executives and key designers – each with their own vision – hasn’t helped.

Christopher Bailey, whose appointment as joint CEO and creative designer in 2014 spooked investors because he was a fashion star with no business credentials, left the role within four years.

He was replaced by former Celine boss Marco Gobbetti, who left after about five years.

Gobbetti’s appointment was initially seen as a win for Burberry since the Italian was well regarded for his roles at Celine, Givenchy, Moschino and Bottega Veneta. His plan to elevate Burberry to the ranks of super luxury was also welcomed by investors, and he hired fellow countryman Riccardo Tisci as designer.

Gobbetti’s moves to stop selling to wholesalers and retailers in the non-luxury sector, particularly mass market US outlets, and step up production of luxury leather handbags was seen as the right decision for the brand.

But Tisci failed to really ignite demand, with critics arguing that while the streetwear aesthetic he brought to the brand attracted younger shoppers, he didn’t make the most of its British heritage and reputation for classic tailoring.

Gobbetti left halfway through his revamp plan to run Salvatore Ferragamo.

Burberry’s inability to leverage its heritage prompted Nick Train, one of its largest shareholders, to say in 2023 that the company was one of his biggest disappointments.

"Burberry is not and never will be an LVMH or a Hermes, but it does have a genuine global luxury brand, particularly its iconic outerwear franchise,” he said at the time.

Now, with British duo Akeroyd and Lee at the top, Burberry is once again trying to take advantage of its "Britishness”.

Akeroyd, whose career has spanned Harrods, Alexander McQueen and Versace, has set a target of hitting more than £5bil (RM29.8bil) of sales for a brand that has hovered between £2.5bil (RM14.9bil) and £3bil (RM17.9bil) mark for the last decade.

Lee, who’s 19 months into his creative director role, has revived Burberry’s logo of an equestrian knight while featuring talent like British model Naomi Campbell and musician Skepta.

So far, it hasn’t been enough to revive the brand’s fortunes.

"It is always a struggle to elevate a brand and it requires unique cultural relevance and consistency over time,” said Nader Tavassoli, a professor of marketing at the London Business School.

"Luxury is about desirability and it will take time to establish a consistent note.”

As Burberry fights to climb up the scale of "desirability”, the holy grail sought by all luxury brands, its ranking on the Lyst index that tracks labels and products according to searches and references on social media has averaged at 12th since 2018 – far behind European names like Gucci, Prada and Versace.

A part of the lack of traction has been pricing. In its quest for affluent shoppers, Burberry’s latest collections carry hefty price tags, which is driving some buyers away.

A 45-year-old Spanish shopper visiting the company’s Regent Street store in London on Friday said that while he came specifically for a trench coat, he didn’t immediately buy one because the price was higher than he’d hoped.

Lee’s debut Autumn 2023 collection saw bags priced at about £2,500 (RM14,900) and a wool duck beanie costing almost £3,000 (RM17,900).

While customers might be willing to shell out such amounts for items from Hermes or LVMH, they still don’t place Burberry in that league.

The brand remains exposed to what the industry calls an aspirational shopper, one who’s new to luxury. Such buyers tend to be more economically sensitive than people with ultra high net worths.


Aspirational shoppers also trounced the fortunes of Kering, which said last month that it expects a hit to profit due to weak sales at Gucci.

Meanwhile, Akeroyd has said he wants to double sales of leather goods and womenswear while driving demand for higher-margin accessories, such as handbags, belts and scarves.

He’s banking on Lee to replicate his successes at Bottega Veneta, where the designer launched the "it” Pouch and Cassette bags, and where his Lido square-toed mules became a hit.

Akeroyd also wants to diversify a business that’s too reliant on some categories and geographies.

Burberry’s sales from Chinese shoppers, which pre-pandemic accounted for about 40% of sales, are still struggling – falling by 19% in the last quarter.

Akeroyd’s revamp also hasn’t been helped by a downturn in demand in the US or changes to tax-free shopping in the UK that has pushed tourists to spend their money in Paris, Milan and elsewhere in Europe.

So is Burberry the stock to bet on if the macroeconomic backdrop starts to ameliorate? Not everyone is convinced it is.

"There are more compelling names in the sector,” said Lund-Yates. "Are we looking at Burberry as a massive turnaround story? I think that horse may have bolted.”
BLOOMBERG
 
I don't particularly care for Daniel Lee and his design ethos all that much, but I certainly feel sorry guy here. He's doing his best and is in fact injecting a much needed unfussy 'Britishness' that Tisci couldn't muster while also understanding the main targets for clientele but is just constantly set back by these suited fools who decide the pricing.

Burberry is a heritage house, but it isn't a luxury brand in the way Akeroyd and co think it is. It also can't be too 'fashion', which they surely would have learnt from Tisci. A fair few mistakes, but it makes things crystal clear as to how Burberry should operate yet they're floundering it so hard.

I get they're trying to distant themselves from the more low brow associations Burberry and the Burberry check has, but that's also a very quintessential British thing too. That extreme high-low brow is kind of fun and they need to embrace it in a way that is self aware and not further alienating.
 
on the campaign side, New Burberry and Lee have been very consistent with Britishness, with models and ambassadors from all backgrounds but all associated with cool 24 Britannia, from Karen Elson to cool and well-loved footballers like Saka and Son.
It has been very consistent… and Tyrone helps a lot.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->