Daniel Lee - Designer, Creative Director of Burberry

[Kanzai]

You know how I’ve always hated the « intellectuals » term. Beyond the fact that I don’t consider Daniel and all the Phoebe school that way, I’m actually curious…How are called the other ones… »The dumbs »? And if so, who are the designers considered « dumbs »?

I like Phoebe Philo and don't hate that school at all, just...Daniel Lee .

 

[Lola701]

Marc Jacobs, I can't remember from when/where/ which interview but he said he likes to dumb things down. And Olivier Rizzo describes the Prada brand as 'purposely dumb' in a really really old interview

Hmm…So Olivier Rizzo used the dumb word to flip it in a way in which people would understand that Prada is so intelligent that it’s purposely dumb = intellectual?

I believe in cerebral fashion and or versus instinctive fashion. Because every fashion is informed by what’s going on in the world and it’s all a matter of POV (And the POV is what’s constitute a person and can be described as the taste), for me it’s difficult to say « oh! It’s intellectual ».

For me Gianni Versace and Giorgio Armani are similar as designers in essence. Their fashion was very instinctive. CDG is cerebral because the intention can go beyond dressing a world. Some walk a line in between. I think with Prada, it’s the contrasts and also the fact that she made collections about things she hated.

Yves and Karl are very different as designers. Yves was instinctive and Karl was more cerebral. Both made collections inspired by artists. Yves took paintings and made them
Into clothes and when Karl did a collection inspired by Magritte, he made cage hats….

I feel like people used the world intellectual in fashion to associate it to people they fantasize wearing those clothes. I have been around quite a few architect, I’ve seen them in Chanel or even Balmain. Women do loved Celine but I’ve never seen them wearing Prada like that….And that’s when they even care that much about their clothes.

 

[tourbillions]

worst thing ive seen from burberry. it seems the suits finally put matters on their hand. designing included.

 

[Blondie Jonze]

Wasn’t the “traditional” burberry getting a little tired? Just a bit? Not to say this latest is fantastic but just a thought.

 

[rowjellies]

Burberry Preparing to Cut Hundreds of Jobs, Telegraph Reports​

The British fashion house has reportedly begun a 45-day consultation process following a sharp decline in its stock market value.

07 July 2024
British fashion house Burberry Group Plc is expected to shed hundreds of jobs, mostly in the UK, following a sharp drop in its stock market value, the Telegraph reported.
Employees were informed during a Zoom meeting in late June, with those affected told they were facing redundancy or having to reapply for their roles, the newspaper reported, without saying where it got the information.
Burberry has reportedly begun a 45-day consultation, signaling that hundreds of positions could be cut.
It’s understood that union officials are coordinating redundancy settlements with a select group of employees. Employees fear as many as 400 jobs could be at risk. Burberry declined to comment to the Telegraph.


Burberry employed an average of 9,169 full-time equivalent workers during the 2023-24 fiscal year, according to its most recent annual report.
The reported cuts would follow 500 positions slashed in 2020, when the iconic trench-coat maker sought to save £55 million ($70.5m) amid pressures from the pandemic.
By Jack Wittels

 

[lookatme]

Honestly, good.

I wish more companies would do the same.

Everything is always more complicated than one explanation, but if any of you have experience working at a fashion corporation or any corporation for that matter, you’ll know what I’m saying when these businesses are so bloated with meaningless jobs that come with a hefty salary. People send a few emails a day and get paid 6-figures.

There is simply no need for that kind of operation, and in fact, it only makes matters worse. Everything gets tied up in red tape and meetings and approvals and people exerting their ego in an attempt to prove to everyone why their position is not only justified, but necessary. People also wonder why prices have to increase constantly - how else is a company supposed to come up with the funds to keep hundreds of people very well salaried year in and year out.

When you look back at the 90’s and very early 00’s…brands, even big ones, like Gucci, would be built of a shockingly small team. It’d be, for example, Tom, Carine, a few great designers on the team, the sample room and a few people in PR, advertising, production and finance. That might be it. You might be looking at 50-75 employees total for a big name global brand.

I think it’d be of great benefit for the industry to scale back.

 

[GivenchyHomme]

I think Claire Wright Keller could do amazing things for this brand. The new products are so severe, they need a touch of femininity. Hopefully when Daniel Lee leaves the brand they will hire someone serious that isn’t all fluff.

 

[tourbillions]

whos buying burberry these days... tiscis might not have always worked but they were still somehow selling specially in the asian market. Now i literally see no one wearing or buying burberry.

 

[Lola701]

I think Claire Wright Keller could do amazing things for this brand. The new products are so severe, they need a touch of femininity. Hopefully when Daniel Lee leaves the brand they will hire someone serious that isn’t all fluff.

With those prices, even with Hedi at the helm, they wouldn’t survive.
Akeroyd should be fired but I guess he will try to save his job, get rid of Lee before leaving.

 

[rowjellies]

In ads they've been really pushing the "Rocking Horse" line with the 'b'-hardware.

I actually love the large tote although the price is ambitious.

 

[LadyJunon]

Honestly, good.

I wish more companies would do the same.

Everything is always more complicated than one explanation, but if any of you have experience working at a fashion corporation or any corporation for that matter, you’ll know what I’m saying when these businesses are so bloated with meaningless jobs that come with a hefty salary. People send a few emails a day and get paid 6-figures.

There is simply no need for that kind of operation, and in fact, it only makes matters worse. Everything gets tied up in red tape and meetings and approvals and people exerting their ego in an attempt to prove to everyone why their position is not only justified, but necessary. People also wonder why prices have to increase constantly - how else is a company supposed to come up with the funds to keep hundreds of people very well salaried year in and year out.

When you look back at the 90’s and very early 00’s…brands, even big ones, like Gucci, would be built of a shockingly small team. It’d be, for example, Tom, Carine, a few great designers on the team, the sample room and a few people in PR, advertising, production and finance. That might be it. You might be looking at 50-75 employees total for a big name global brand.

I think it’d be of great benefit for the industry to scale back.

It's obviously done as an exercise of displaying corporate power (probably influenced by the fast fashion and tech companies that they're so desperate to overtake), where they have the most weirdly niche jobs like "senior manager of Manhattan boutiques", "image director of liquid foundation" and "head designer of men's jockstraps". Lots of these brands could probably reduce their head count to 100 to 150 (maybe 250 for a brand like LV, Hermes or Chanel) with minimal impact on productivity or brand revenue. Burberry probably doesn't need more 75 on the team (excluding store employees).

 

[donyan]

head designer of men's jockstraps"

Where should I send my CV?

 

[LadyJunon]

Where should I send my CV?

Maybe to Ludovic de Saint-Sernin after Pinault acquires the brand and throws it into expansion overdrive.

 

[youthinasia]

Maybe to Ludovic de Saint-Sernin after Pinault acquires the brand and throws it into expansion overdrive.

I'm calling the United Nations if this ever happens

 

[avonlea002]

I don't understand why they are so adamant about lowering the prices

 

[FelipeV]

Circle of pray to end this sugar-baby-designers era.

I decree
I decree
I decree

🪬

 

[Frederic01]

Since then Burberry has struggled to define its identity and the retailer had already warned of a challenging year ahead, with Burberry's current chief executive Jonathan Akeroyd citing slowing luxury demand for the brand's sales slump. Current creative director Daniel Lee has attempted to steer a new contemporary direction for Burberry but a number of controversial campaigns have fallen flat and a failure to fully align with the Chinese market has seen Asian sales slow.

Say what? How has Burberry struggled to “define its identity”? And which of their campaigns have been “controversial”? Did I miss something?

Literally the reason why Burberry is struggling is the price point. They priced themselves out of the market with that first collection and everybody kind of took note.

The desirability and the vision is there. The corporate team is hell bent on turning Burberry into a Celine or Dior, but only through doubling the prices, and not by limiting distribution or other strategies. It’s bizarre.

Again, if their prices were half of what they were, the brand would be well onto making 5 billion.

Choices were made at a crucial point and now they are suffering the consequences.

Jonathan Ackroyd and co need to go. And ASAP.

The right CEO and CFO could really take Daniel’s vision and aesthetic for Burberry to the next level.

 

[blueorchid]

And which of their campaigns have been “controversial”? Did I miss something?

I can't even remember the last Burberry campaign that I remember, forget about controversial.

 

[Frederic01]

Does anyone have access to this? Thank You in Advance!

Does Burberry Have the Wrong Strategy?​

The British trench coat maker’s latest revamp has faltered. Some point to executional errors, but Burberry may need to rethink its strategy and become a ‘British Coach,’ writes Luca Solca.


Burberry has continued to underperform its peers, because it has yet to convince the market that its strategy to move upmarket will bear fruit. (Getty Images)

BOF

 

[tatouejeremie]

Does Burberry Have the Wrong Strategy?

The British trench coat maker’s latest revamp has faltered. Some point to executional errors, but Burberry may need to rethink its strategy and become a ‘British Coach,’ writes Luca Solca.

Burberry has continued to underperform its peers, because it has yet to convince the market that its strategy to move upmarket will bear fruit. (Getty Images)

Luca Solca
09 July 2024
BoF PROFESSIONAL

Burberry’s latest revamp has faltered. Sales dropped 12 percent in the first three months of 2024. The British trench coat maker isn’t the only luxury player that’s struggling in a cooling luxury market, of course. Gucci’s sales fell 20 percent in the first quarter. But Burberry’s poor performance has ratcheted up the pressure on those piloting its long-awaited turnaround to deliver results.

CEO Jonathan Akeroyd and designer Daniel Lee may have made some executional errors along the way. But does Burberry have the right strategy to start with? What if the brand was to reconsider its approach, possibly under new ownership? Let’s consider two scenarios: sticking with “brand elevation,” the company’s current strategy, or shifting gears to become a “British Coach.”

A ‘British Coach’ strategy would double down on outlets, reduce costs, and increase exposure to off-price channels, leading to higher profits but lower multiples. A “brand elevation” strategy would follow the more traditional luxury playbook: slimming down off-price, spending on creativity and communication, continuing to upgrade distribution. A private equity buyer could undertake the grisly but arguably necessary measures to stabilise the Burberry brand away from the prying eyes of the public markets (e.g. cut outlet sales, build desirability before price hikes), and then sell for a luxury multiple when the brand has been uplifted. But our analysis suggests the returns from the “brand elevation” strategy are likely to be considerably lower than those from a “British Coach” approach.

Burberry has continued to underperform its peers, because it has yet to convince the market that its strategy to move upmarket will bear fruit. Burberry was a premium brand in the early 90s, but CEOs Rose Marie Bravo from 1997, Angela Ahrendts from 2005, Christopher Bailey from 2014, Marco Gobbetti from 2017, and Jonathan Akeroyd from 2022 have all tried to push its positioning higher. Significant investments were committed — including flagship stores across the world — and many sacrifices were endured: giving up profits from lucrative licences in Spain and in Japan, doing without sales to lower quality department stores in the US, and removing promotions from full-price stores.

A successful move upmarket would deliver strong business performance, but such a shift is easier said than done. The theoretical appeal of successfully playing in the high-end comes from higher gross margin coupled with higher retail space productivity, which would go hand in hand with increasing return on invested capital and shareholder return. There is obviously no prize for failing at this game, as Burberry’s recent profit, return on invested capital and shareholder return trajectories illustrate. Elevation would also be hard for private equity owners to execute: finding your Domenico De Sole and Tom Ford, à la Investcorp’s 1990s Gucci, is not straightforward.

Brand elevation at Burberry has always been tough, given its brand DNA and position in the off-price channel. The label is primarily known for its trench coats; its price points have, for years, been in the middle of the market; and, not so long ago, Burberry was hijacked by so-called “chavs” and at serious risk of brand trivialisation. To this day, Burberry continues to aggressively discount and sell significant product volumes via factory outlets. Convincing consumers that they need to spend more for its products would only be possible if Burberry became very hot. Despite a creative revamp, this is currently not the case and would likely occur only gradually, if at all.

The fact is, Burberry’s current efforts at brand elevation are not working. You cannot increase prices with one hand and continue to generate as much as £1 billion per year via outlets with the other. The move upmarket in leather goods — with the new collection previously priced 58 percent above legacy leather goods products — seems overly ambitious. The move to a more sophisticated aesthetics — knowing that aspirational consumers love the check pattern first and foremost — is not getting traction in the market. Indeed, the company has recently cut prices in some of Lee’s signature leather goods ranges and reduced the price gap with the legacy collection to around 48 percent.

The result is that Burberry is currently exposed to discounts and promotions like rarely before, as field research and recent company guidance and performance show. The stock market is braced for things to get worse before they get better — and media reports suggest the CEO and creative director may be replaced. Embracing discounts with an accessible luxury strategy would provide a lower multiple but likely higher profit and return on invested capital. It would also be a major volte-face for management.
There has been talk of Burberry being a takeover target for 25 years, but never a move. For European luxury groups, elevating Burberry is too expensive and would take too long. For private equity, valuation multiples have long been too high, but it’s harder to dismiss the possibility today, given where Burberry’s market cap has gone. But rather than sticking with a strategy that’s not working, could becoming a “British Coach” be the cure Burberry is looking for?