visvim2001
Active Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2024
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 149
i kinda liked the idea of Burberry sub-brands for what it’s worth and although they won’t walk back their decision, it’s another thing that previous management got wrong. the disconnect between the runway and what’s actually in store is not just a Burberry phenomenon, it happens at Armani and Gucci too. It’s just more pronounced due to the type of product that Burberry puts out.
at the end of the day sales are data driven and the average consumer walks in to buy a scarf or a chequered blouson or maybe an EKD tee. if they want to, a trench, but it’s one of those items that you buy for life. for me it makes sense to have a ‘couture’ line which boasts the latest designs but usually ends up as a loss leader, a permanent line with luxe materials, and a mainstream line that has wide appeal and profitability. I think the idea of London as businesswear focused and Brit as the casual label made a lot of sense as long as there was no overlap and cannibalisation of say, premium trenchcoats. It works with Ralph Lauren. The purple label stuff has some really interesting textiles and good craftsmanship. My 2c.
at the end of the day sales are data driven and the average consumer walks in to buy a scarf or a chequered blouson or maybe an EKD tee. if they want to, a trench, but it’s one of those items that you buy for life. for me it makes sense to have a ‘couture’ line which boasts the latest designs but usually ends up as a loss leader, a permanent line with luxe materials, and a mainstream line that has wide appeal and profitability. I think the idea of London as businesswear focused and Brit as the casual label made a lot of sense as long as there was no overlap and cannibalisation of say, premium trenchcoats. It works with Ralph Lauren. The purple label stuff has some really interesting textiles and good craftsmanship. My 2c.
