^Yep, it is interesting that some think Burberry's problem was just the price rises done by Jonathan Akeroyd... it really wasn't.
If it was just the price rises that made Burberry flop, we'd have a very small bunch of well-off people walking around with Lee's Burberry designs.
Instead, 2 years after his appointment I have not seen one person firsthand, in the whole of Australia, wearing his designs. The only Burberry items worn on the streets here are still classic Burberry items (like the coat and scarf). Lee's Burberry was simply not desirable to the traditional Burberry customer - yes, the price rises did not help at all but when a product is desirable enough (e.g. the Birkin), consumers will pay to obtain it.
As much as other members love to paint it as though Lee's Burberry was creative and full of innovation/would've been perfect at a lower price point, I strongly disagree. If that was the case, the following would have occurred:
1) A very small number of well-off people would've loved and worn Lee's Burberry designs, finding it worth the money
2) The majority of fashion lovers would've talked more about it and it would've been "coveted", similar to Miu Miu's relatively recent rise in popularity in the younger consumers
3) Products in Burberry's mid-season sales would've sold quickly due to the desirability being there and the price now relatively affordable
Instead, Burberry has largely slipped off the radar, no one is talking about it unless they already loved the brand beforehand, and a large majority of Lee's Burberry is now on sale in SSENSE for over 50% off - and it is not selling at over 50% off either.
The majority of the products were simply not desirable enough to the target market.
We are talking about the luxury goods market, one of the few segments where consumers are the least price sensitive. Yes, Burberry did not have the brand image to support such price rises but that also suggests that Lee's Burberry was not that desirable to begin with, if no one was buying it.
