Daniel Lee - Designer, Creative Director of Burberry

[90sfan]

Huess he’s leaving after the show… to Jil

 

[Xone]

I bought the first 3 issues so ever since I feel like I must have the complete collection.

i have those feelings sometimes...it is hard to me to stop have a collection...haha

 

[Mathewthew]

But I saw somewhere on TFS that Jim sander already signed with someone else…. And we will see

 

[LadyJunon]

But I saw somewhere on TFS that Jim sander already signed with someone else…. And we will see

Jim Sander, my favourite fashion brand.

 

[blueorchid]

JIM SANDER BY HEDI SLIMANE

 

[Xone]

Jim Sander, my favourite fashion brand.

Jimmy Sander would be better...lol

 

[FashioNarrating]

Well, !f he's not going to JiM Sander, I hope there is a possibility of him taking over Loewe. His designs (both at BV and Burberry) are much more convincing than what Proenza Schouler have been putting out for years, and if LVMH wants Loewe to go streamlined with some spunk and strong leather goods after Jonathan leaves, they better take someone who actually worked for Céline with Phoebe + made Bottega a major fashion player after Maier left. It'd also be their chance to compete with Chanel in yet another way now that they got Blazy.

 

[Thefrenchy]

Jil is Bellotti, already signed.

Daniel Lee would have been great at Loewe but those PS boys are on it...

He's going to end up at Moncler or something... There's nothing left...

 

[FashioNarrating]

Jil is Bellotti, already signed.

Daniel Lee would have been great at Loewe but those PS boys are on it...

He's going to end up at Moncler or something... There's nothing left...

Picking PS at this point is/would be (I'm still hoping someone else comes through) SUCH a weird move from LVMH, the boys haven't had a genuinely interesting collection or even just a hit item for years and the things they have been doing since they returned from Paris - which wasn't a big success for them either - have been so derivative of many designers occupying the post-Céline realm of fashion. Cate Holstein would lowkey make more sense nowadays.

 

[Thefrenchy]

^ To be honest I cannot explain this decision, and nor can my industry friends... We're going to enter an era of super random CD choices... That lady at Bottega, Proenza boys at Loewe, Bally guy at Jil, that other lady at CK...

 

[perhydrol]

It’s not THAT random to hire PS if we consider it in the context of LVMH’s expansion in the US. I still don’t think they’d be capable of sustaining the same level of excitement around the brand, and it doesn’t really make sense from a creative standpoint. However, that was also the logic behind giving Louis Vuitton to Marc Jacobs in the late ’90s. Still, I wish LVMH snatched Daniel.

 

[FashioNarrating]

It’s not THAT random to hire PS if we consider it in the context of LVMH’s expansion in the US. I still don’t think they’d be capable of sustaining the same level of excitement around the brand, and it doesn’t really make sense from a creative standpoint. However, that was also the logic behind giving Louis Vuitton to Marc Jacobs in the late ’90s. Still, I wish LVMH snatched Daniel.

LVMH's expansion plans are certainly a capital factor there, but even with that in mind, picking those two now is rather peculiar. Marc was still a relatively young talent when he started doing Vuitton, whose rtw didn't even exist up until then. Meanwhile Loewe is one of the top clothing brands at the moment, and they plan on giving the creative reigns to a duo that has smudged their own signature(s) during their second decade in the industry by doing washed-out versions of their old stuff or things other designers are doing. I'm not sure naming them CDs of LVMH's currently most relevant fashion brand will pay off, in America or elsewhere.. the same way Wang for Balenciaga or Gabriela Hearst for Chloé didn't pay off.

 

[Wombat]

That report is hilarious! Nothing about what they are doing now with this new CEO is "balancing heritage and innovation" (as they keep highlighting in the report). What they are doing is basically Michael-Kors-izing the brand to be very commercial and lack any authority whatsoever in the fashion landscape, erasing years of Lee's hard work and brand repositioning efforts.

So let me get this straight: Burberry now wants to push the outerwear AKA. the trench coat, and the check scarf every single season and move away from Daniel's vision. How exactly is that going to work? If anything it's just going to corner the brand and force them to rely too heavily on basically two categories.

It makes no sense.

Their strength is in Daniel Lee and that is the only reason why they are even relevant at this point. Take away a respected Artistic Director and Burberry is not any better than a Kate Spade or Tory Burch or Calvin Klein.

And for goodness sake, the pricing strategy is still a problem. They are selling jackets at the same price point of Gucci and Prada! Have these people completely lost their minds?

Daniel's work, although certainly appealing to fashion-forward folks, did not sell.

Burberry has never been a "fashion-forward" brand - it was always commercial, especially during Bailey's era where even the Prorsum line played it relatively safe with the house codes (e.g. trench coats and check patterns). It isn't a coincidence that Burberry was most successful during this period of being "commercial"... Akeroyd's delusion in pushing this "fashion-forward" vision clearly alienated the core customers that kept Burberry thriving.

Daniel's vision was not a fit for the commercial nature of Burberry. Yes, he was a strength for Bottega but that was a brand focused on bags and shoes at all times. It was a bag and shoe brand first, then ready-to-wear was secondary to that - that is why he did so well there. Daniel was the wrong fit for Burberry, because he was unable to retain their core customer whilst attempting to Burberry's brand authority into fashion-forward bags and shoes. To claim that he is the only reason that Burberry is still relevant is a large misstatement given the core customers (aka the only group that really matters) are slowly leaving the brand. The numbers back this up - and Schulman's appointment was to reverse the trend and make Burberry appealing to everyone, not just the fashion-forward crowd who tend to be the vocal minority (most of whom ironically would've never bought Burberry anyway).

His "expertise" in bags and shoes was wasted at Burberry - the Burberry customer was never going to buy a Rocking Horse bag when they could have bought a very similar bag from a desirable brand for slightly more money, due to Akeroyd's ridiculous pricing decisions... Akeroyd and Daniel focusing on leather goods and shoes was a huge mistake and it showed in the losses Burberry accumulated during this time - 20% drop in group revenue and a net LOSS for the first time in years, with sales dropping in South Asia Pacific by 38% (!!!).

The brand itself has always been "commercial" - Akeroyd's misinformed attempt at this brand repositioning was never going to work due to Burberry's wide-ranging appeal. It wasn't like Schulman took over a super niche and fashion-forward brand and made it commercial. He simply returned the brand to what it was.