Kim Jones - Designer

[Nimsay]

Chris Bailey was the CEO too. Ultimately his failing as CEO of Burberry is why he left - he was only CEO and CD for like 5 or 6 seasnos.

 

[nationalsalt]

Chris Bailey was the CEO too. Ultimately his failing as CEO of Burberry is why he left - he was only CEO and CD for like 5 or 6 seasnos.

You're right, I should have been clearer that I was specifically meaning when Ahrendts was CEO and he was just Creative Director 😄

 

[visvim2001]

Right, because LV is famously known for dressing and being adored by the aristocracy.

what I meant of course was that chavs adopting the check is a uniquely a British phenomenon, but that both brands were tasteless.

 

[Lola701]

Chris Bailey was the CEO too. Ultimately his failing as CEO of Burberry is why he left - he was only CEO and CD for like 5 or 6 seasnos.

And him being named CEO was already a desperate decision…
But when you know that there’s nobody from the industry in their board and things like that, it makes sense.
They had great talents that did everything but when the formula wasn’t working, they were lost.

 

[TomBlanksFullFatMiuMiu]

How will he balance all of it I do not know. If true, LVMH not concerned this might turn into a copy paste of Galliano burn out?

Lamo he won't
Call him a genius or super super insanely lazy, he would show the same thing 5 times in different colour ways...

 

[visvim2001]

The formula wasn’t working. That’s why they made the change. The last few seasons of Bailey were rough…
Burberry has been struggling for a longtime. That’s why merging all the lines under Burberry made sense (Because the money came from BRIT while the image was coming from Prorsum).
The fashion proposition just became stale at some point.

Could you explain this in greater detail? I’m interested in how brands set their marketing direction.

Intuitively it makes sense. Very few people buy runway items; Prorsum was a marketing exercise. I think this goes for nearly all big luxury brands. Brit and London carried wardrobe staples (casualwear and business attire respectively) and were priced more ‘accessibly’. To me, that’s a winning formula.

I don’t get the whole ‘brand dilution’ argument. If that were true, LV and Gucci could simply stop making socks, tees and trackies so that 1) plebs couldn’t afford anything and 2) counterfeiters wouldn’t have a field day. The reasoning is that at the end of the day everyone realises that a Burberry London trenchcoat is going to cost more than a Gucci tee even if it’s a sub-brand. Or am I horribly wrong?