Daniel Lee - Designer, Creative Director of Burberry

Burberry can be a more British Hermes
at this point they should be reaching to be british jacquemus. if they still dont sell then i dunno what else they can do.

It is very important to respect the old clients while trying to gain new clients business wise. If you alienate your old clients then sales will go back to 0. it will be very difficult if youre trying to go from 900m to 1b for example. Then you will be getting your new 100m in the expense of losing your 900m. Besides outside TFS or any fashion insta, most consumers dont care about whos designing or are they even aware that there was a change in CD.
 
at this point they should be reaching to be british jacquemus. if they still dont sell then i dunno what else they can do.

It is very important to respect the old clients while trying to gain new clients business wise. If you alienate your old clients then sales will go back to 0. it will be very difficult if youre trying to go from 900m to 1b for example. Then you will be getting your new 100m in the expense of losing your 900m. Besides outside TFS or any fashion insta, most consumers dont care about whos designing or are they even aware that there was a change in CD.
The hermes idea was about the creative direction not price point , like celebrating british made and having a easy fun optimistic for everyone is welcome approach to lifestyle design house with a history but also modern ...i think that's why Bailey version worked for the most years i agree with what Lola also mentioned that people expected some sort of seriousness at Burberry .....Bailey, Riccardo all had it in the mix the upper classy part side of Burberry.........aspirational idea of the ideal british lifestyle or at least playing with it and what it would mean now in 2024.

instead its raver quirky odd above odd ness mixed with this now old idea of normality via Celine PH era to tone down design having models in raw spaces nature or urban scenarios etc

the recent IG uploads are also loud as much as cleaned up they might be its just a mess the strategy and design, i think he has nothing to say, but only knows how to apply design tricks at this point , if i look back at BV is was actually just product design put in a sexy modern sleek lifestyle package visuals.

regarding old clients again for me when a brands makes a 180 or 360 in redirection and it works nobody cares about old clients or not, you just attract people that want to buy into your products ......look at gucci transition from frida to alessandro, even LV marc to nicolas the growth was just enormous regardless of how mayor or gradual the redirection was.

looking forward to next show to see if it's more of the same or a new direction is taken in the styling and design
 
Did he had loyal fans tho.
I bought his BV, I love his work for Burberry and bought 3 pieces. I actually like his Burberry more than his BV because it has an interesting sense of reality and also a more subtle color palette.
At BV, he had amazing knitwear though.

But I don’t think he is staying.
Burberry right now is not the best environment for a creative tbh. I’m sure he will leave after his contract ends. They keeps losing money and don’t want to change the strategy.
And to me, no efforts are even made to have the brand around.

Look at Kering throwing Ancora man every chance we get. No coverage for Lee. No profile on magazines, nothing.

When the new CEO took the job, did he mentioned Lee?

I love Lee’s work but I’m not spending those prices on Burberry. I did and I was pissed off when all the pieces from the first season went on sales lol.

But I also think that Lee is very confident as a designer. Burberry is still trying to figure out what type of brand they are trying to be.
And maybe those two don’t match.

There’s a sense of quirkiness in his work and it seems like people expect Burberry to be more serious…
Look at Kering throwing Ancora man every chance we get. No coverage for Lee. No profile on magazines, nothing.

When the new CEO took the job, did he mentioned Lee?


From what i know from his circle he is not a easy guy and self sabotage with his actions and behavior and as much as he is secure about his past success he is also very insecure with what is happening at Burberry made a big dent in his ego, this then is accelerating his lesser positive cycle of his after work activities.

What i understand is he is combative, this can be a good thing when your fighting for something good or making success but when your failing and keep pushing back you get corporate side just dealing with you has a temporary disturbance till your replaced.

I think it's maybe better he is less on camera or doing interviews at this point and just figure his sh*t out.
 
Higher prices are part of their downturn but their MUCH bigger problem is that people are absolutely not interested in what Daniel has been offering - which has been dreadful. People I know do not even know their prices went up because nothing catches their eye enough to go to their site/stores. It’s been a barrage of duds that I just cannot understand how they don’t see it from just the design stages.

The blame is not solely on Daniel’s uninspired offering, Burberry’s problem started long before him. To many people Burberry has LONG been seen as tacky, outlet, and abundant (save for the trenches) and they shook that for a while under Bailey (tailoring and great outerwear will always do wonders for a brand and its season-less perception which is why Hedi implemented at all his brands), but when they started rapidly expanded towards the end of his time that perception started creeping back and then Tisci offered nothing convincing. Tisci’s TB and heavy use of the plaid actually stoked the tacky flames again. I’ll never forget when I got a pair of his sneakers (purchased at over 90% off and no branding) and non-fashion friends were shocked I would be wearing them because they thought of Burberry as an outlet brand and not something a fashionable person would wear. It was like someone showed up clad in Margiela and Jil Sander carrying a Michael Kors bag.

All that to say, Burberry has to be consistently fighting for a spot at the big table and Daniel is designing as if their seat is secure. If they leaned on great tailoring and suits (looser fashion fit AND structured sharp fits), great leather jackets, the trench with fashion upgrades, solid shoes (them not having an answer for the penny loafer trend is inexcusable) they would be better standing than the immature dribble Daniel has been giving.
 
I don't buy the good reception of Lee's first collections for Burberry, in my memory it was very drab and muddy, and got very mixed reviews. I think the people who praised him for BV did not want to contradict themselves after his Burberry shows, like an ego sunk cost fallacy.
The strategy and pricepoint isn't the only issue Burberry is facing, most of Lee's offering is unappealing, RTW of course and literally all the accessories, borderline Sean McGirr territory.
 
I get your point but I think the rich just buy whatever brand is trendy at the moment. It’s a very 2019/2022 approach that might be coming to an end soon, but I do think they get whatever they see on Instagram and on friends.

Everybody is obsessed with Miu Miu now and 7 months ago they couldn’t even care about it. The product didn’t change a lot. It just got trendier. Clients were saying that the matelassé was boring and overdone and now they are buying it :lol:

With BV the same happened. It just got trendy and it was a hit. And their accessories are not timeless (the sandals are so passé now or the rubber boots…).

Lori Piana as well…

I feel there’s less individualism than ever in the way people buy. You just need to get trendy.

I hate this way tho, because these heavy circles just burn the brands.
Agree completely, but how do you feel about brands like The Row and Khaite fitting into this? Even though they are logo-less and extremely expensive, they still feel "trendy" to me in a lot of ways -- but maybe more with a certain subset of rich people. Just curious!
 
I don't buy the good reception of Lee's first collections for Burberry, in my memory it was very drab and muddy, and got very mixed reviews. I think the people who praised him for BV did not want to contradict themselves after his Burberry shows, like an ego sunk cost fallacy.
The strategy and pricepoint isn't the only issue Burberry is facing, most of Lee's offering is unappealing, RTW of course and literally all the accessories, borderline Sean McGirr territory.
Unlike his tenure at BV where those accesories were being inspired/copied by a lot of mass market brands at that time, I don't remember working with any brand who want to copy his burberry. I have to say that even Maria Grazia's bar jacket has more appeal than his burberry as there are actually a few brands want the silhouette which they adapt it as a vest in the past few years.
 
A big part of his design failure (or merchandising failure) is also an over reliance on building signifiers (play on checks, various knight motifs) imo. However, signifiers only works when it stands for something meaningful, otherwise they are just empty signifiers without allures.

His approach worked at BV, because their signifiers (intricciato, “V” and the bv signature stitches) do stand for luxury, craftsmanship, and heritage. Burberry does have the heritage for trench coats, but little substance to back up any other product categories. At the same time, the Burberry checks signifies poor tastes and newly rich more than anything else. The Burberry knight have not been associated with chavs, but it does not stand for anything substantial.

He needs to focus more on world building, style, and understanding their core customers in his design approach.
 
I think that the best solution for Burberry would be to become the British answer to Old-Prada/Marni/Celine. British culture is internationally revered for its reality-based oddity, so a slightly odd, but practical Burberry could work very well with the established codes and heritage.

They should treat their gadardine fabric like an accessible version of Prada's nylon. Create a permanent line of trench coats offered in multiple colours, cuts and fabrications. Use the check as a lining fabric. Make gabardine bags that pull design elements from trench coats, straps, buttons and all. Once we have the trenches, the seasonal runway collections can take a more experimental approach to the codes. Think along the lines of blue leather trenchs, tweed checks, thigh-high Wellingtons.

Of course, the worldbuilding will need to be on point. To appeal to a general luxury customer, they will need to find a way to pull the brand back to some sort of longstanding luxury and chic. The current new-money chav-adjacent aesthetic with the campaigns and imagery probably does quite a bit of damage to Burberry's general brand perception.
 
They should treat their gadardine fabric like an accessible version of Prada's nylon. Create a permanent line of trench coats offered in multiple colours, cuts and fabrications. Use the check as a lining fabric. Make gabardine bags that pull design elements from trench coats, straps, buttons and all. Once we have the trenches, the seasonal runway collections can take a more experimental approach to the codes.

They already do that, no? The stores of full of gabardine trench coats in multiple colours, and they have those trench bags too that Daniel introduced in the first season.

The permanent line of trench coats has existed since Bailey's time - "The Kensington", "The Westminster" etc etc. They are also new permanent editions now such as "The Castleford" that Daniel added in the last year or so.

@Lola701 is right, what Burberry needs to do now given their pricing strategy is take a Celine approach in terms of distribution and make it extremely exclusive. They can't have both - high prices and outlets. It doesn't work.
 
They already do that, no? The stores of full of gabardine trench coats in multiple colours, and they have those trench bags too that Daniel introduced in the first season.

The permanent line of trench coats has existed since Bailey's time - "The Kensington", "The Westminster" etc etc. They are also new permanent editions now such as "The Castleford" that Daniel added in the last year or so.
The issue is that lots of people are complaining that they're isn't enough focus on them.
@Lola701 is right, what Burberry needs to do now given their pricing strategy is take a Celine approach in terms of distribution and make it extremely exclusive. They can't have both - high prices and outlets. It doesn't work.
I'm surprised luxury outlets haven't been on a steep decline in this era of "brand purification", especially with all the claims of CEOs wanting to have clean up distribution networks.
 
The issue is that lots of people are complaining that they're isn't enough focus on them.

I'm surprised luxury outlets haven't been on a steep decline in this era of "brand purification", especially with all the claims of CEOs wanting to have clean up distribution networks.
The big issue for Burberry is that outlets account for 30% of their sales and 60% of their net profits (in comparison other big brands have outlets at around 10% of net profits). If they were private then maybe they could take this massive hit and ride out the transition for a few years, but as they are public shareholders would scatter with that much profit being taken off the table.
 
They already do that, no? The stores of full of gabardine trench coats in multiple colours, and they have those trench bags too that Daniel introduced in the first season.

The permanent line of trench coats has existed since Bailey's time - "The Kensington", "The Westminster" etc etc. They are also new permanent editions now such as "The Castleford" that Daniel added in the last year or so.

@Lola701 is right, what Burberry needs to do now given their pricing strategy is take a Celine approach in terms of distribution and make it extremely exclusive. They can't have both - high prices and outlets. It doesn't work.
Or they could change strategy and stop pretending to be a luxury brand, which they never was (with the exception of the Burberry Prorsum line, the first decade of Bailey). Because nothing at Burberry feels luxurious to me.
It's a good quality brand, maybe premium, perhaps contemporary, they should be able to get a place like a British Lacoste or Hugo Boss. It's not shameful.
 
The issue is that lots of people are complaining that they're isn't enough focus on them.

Really? There is too much focus on it IMO, the main landing page of Burberry is just classics and trench coats, and their stores are filled with racks and shelves of the classic items.

To find Daniel’s runway items is almost impossible both online and in store. There’s not even a separate page dedicated to it like other brands do? So strange!
 
The issue is that lots of people are complaining that they're isn't enough focus on them.
Those people are going to Burberry stores? If it was just about that, Lee’s clothes would fly off the shelves as he has re-introduced it. In reality, Lee’s stuff is much more commercial than what Riccardo did. Riccardo’s clothes had ambitious cuts and details.
There’s a more RTW approach to Lee’s stuff. And a lot of things aren’t produced it seems or very very small units
I'm surprised luxury outlets haven't been on a steep decline in this era of "brand purification", especially with all the claims of CEOs wanting to have clean up distribution networks.
Luxury outlets are fine if they only sells unsold seasonal stuff. There’s a Celine outlet outside of Paris, there was a Givenchy outlet outside of Paris at the peak of Riccardo’s era.

When you have a permanent line of products that are never discounted, a good line up of products anyway, the brand is not suffering from the existence of outlets.

The worst brands in terms of outlets have always been: Prada, Gucci and Burberry.
As @VogueDisciple93 said, Burberry’s outlets are a huge part of their network of stores and their outlets looks like flagship stores with an awful amount of check classic looking products. Literally, if anyone wants a peacoat or a classic trench, I think the would consider the outlet over the flagship.
Prada and Gucci are literally producing stuff for outlets, with ugly logos everywhere, outdated designs and sometimes questionable finishings.

The funny thing about Burberry is that they have items in all the important markets.

I’m so confused by the brand because under Bailey, they sold the idea of Luxury quite well through the campaigns and the shows but the real moneymaker line was the BRIT line, available in every department store in the world. So, why try so hard to be luxury when being premium while selling luxury worked for them!?
 
Agree completely, but how do you feel about brands like The Row and Khaite fitting into this? Even though they are logo-less and extremely expensive, they still feel "trendy" to me in a lot of ways -- but maybe more with a certain subset of rich people. Just curious!
Yeah, I think its the same tbh. Maybe the clothes will last a little bit more, but they are still trendy brands that will probably have a hard time in the next 10 years.

I feel these days its all about making a hit. Every era has has their “hit brands” and it’s normal: we had Altuzarra and Alexander Wang last decade, Decarnin’s Balmain... But I feel now everything gets devored by the system very fast, much more than in the past. You get a hit, people go like crazy for it and then the brand gets burned and nobody wants them anymore. It’s 10 times faster now.

Thats why Chanel was great under Karl, because it was desirable but it was never burnt and maintained the desirabiltiy, and you never had the impression of a burnt brand.

I am not even complaining because that is fashion after all, but I do feel it is a little bit exhausting.
 
Agree completely, but how do you feel about brands like The Row and Khaite fitting into this? Even though they are logo-less and extremely expensive, they still feel "trendy" to me in a lot of ways -- but maybe more with a certain subset of rich people. Just curious!
Yeah, I think its the same tbh. Maybe the clothes will last a little bit more, but they are still trendy brands that will probably have a hard time in the next 10 years.

I feel these days its all about making a hit. Every era has has their “hit brands” and it’s normal: we had Altuzarra and Alexander Wang last decade, Decarnin’s Balmain... But I feel now everything gets devored by the system very fast, much more than in the past. You get a hit, people go like crazy for it and then the brand gets burned and nobody wants them anymore. It’s 10 times faster now.

Thats why Chanel was great under Karl, because it was desirable but it was never burnt and maintained the desirabiltiy, and you never had the impression of a burnt brand.

I am not even complaining because that is fashion after all, but I do feel it is a little bit exhausting.
Lots of the popular designers today pull a lot of their design aesthetic from Philo's Celine (Peter Do, Matthieu Blazy, Daniel Lee, The Olsens, Cate Holstein). Of course, this genre has long become the current standard of "good taste sportswear" and is now quite deep into its maturation phase. Gen-Z seem to prefer something more sensual and hyperfeminine. I think Khaite will probably be fine next decade, mainly because it has evolved to becomed more of a vampy, glamourous Ralph Lauren, than another copy of Philo's Celine.
 
Lots of the popular designers today pull a lot of their design aesthetic from Philo's Celine (Peter Do, Matthieu Blazy, Daniel Lee, The Olsens, Cate Holstein). Of course, this genre has long become the current standard of "good taste sportswear" and is now quite deep into its maturation phase. Gen-Z seem to prefer something more sensual and hyperfeminine. I think Khaite will probably be fine next decade, mainly because it has evolved to becomed more of a vampy, glamourous Ralph Lauren, than another copy of Philo's Celine.
Funny enough, I had a look at the reviews of Khaite's FW24 show and I found this one on NYTimes. The gist of the article is that she lacks originality with claims of her being too similar to the aesthetics of European brands.
Is This the Future of New York Fashion?
Khaite has awards, fans and momentum — but there’s something missing.

By Vanessa Friedman
Feb. 11, 2024


By almost any measure, Khaite, the women’s wear label founded in 2016 by Catherine Holstein, is one of the great recent success stories of American fashion — if not the great success story.

The brand has been in existence for less than a decade, but Ms. Holstein has already been twice named designer of the year by the Council of Fashion Designers of America, in 2022 and 2023. She has a dream of a Zen brutalist store in SoHo, not far from Prada and Balenciaga. Last year she took on investment from Stripes, the private equity firm that also backs the film production company A24 and On Running, with the aim of opening further shops.

And judging by her show on Saturday, held in an enormous black box at Chelsea Piers, with a mirrored river of a black runway lit only by the sort of follow spot Tom Ford made famous during his Gucci and YSL years, she has ambition to spare.

What she doesn’t seem to have is originality.

In moving from the “cool girl” fashion for which she was originally known to more capital-F Fashion, she seems to have gotten lost in the thicket of other people’s ideas, borrowing a bit from here, a bit from there. It’s as if she feels that to compete with big brands, she has to go through the same motions as those brands. As a result, she is trapped in a buffer zone between the plush angst of the recently popular quiet luxury movement and the dominatrix leathers most associated with Saint Laurent (especially when paired with black shades and red lips).

Or so it seemed from the current collection, with those leathers, in the form of long coats, tightly belted at the waist, with battering-ram shoulders. Also, jackets with more big, curving shoulders but cropped like boleros and paired with boxy leather skirts. Also, organza tops and skirts molded around the torso and legs like squirts of whipped cream or boa constrictors, ghost-girl white nightie dresses and some tango evening scarf print silks, tucked into cigarette pants and cinched with a cummerbund. The silhouette was major on the top, awkward on the bottom.

In her show notes, Ms Holstein wrote that with this collection she had been thinking about “heritage” and “memory,” but the memories that most leaped to mind were of a time when New York fashion was often dismissed as derivative of its European counterparts.

Nostalgia is in, but is that really a time to which anyone wants to return?

There’s a school of thought that says yes, that is exactly what shoppers want: style that creates what is often referred to as “direction,” without the extremity that generally goes along with any change-making idea. That there is enough going on in women’s lives that they don’t want to work too hard to understand their clothes, and that there is value in translation. Besides, every designer copies from other designers. (I can name at least five who have done their version of the Chanel tweed jacket.)

But if Ms. Holstein is really going to be a leader of American fashion, she needs to develop a signature. She needs a point of view about women in the world and where they are going that is singular and recognizable.

There’s no reason to think that can’t happen. Ms. Holstein clearly has taste. She has a platform. She has a solid business. She has the money. And she seems to be trying to get there. Those tricky skirt-and-jacket combinations may be a sign of a collection in transition, an effort to move out of someone else’s comfort zone. The question is whether she can stake out her own.
NYTimes
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
211,855
Messages
15,166,206
Members
85,744
Latest member
Onceler
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->