Going accessible is one thing, quickly dropping their luxury standing is another
Beset with incessant news of poor performance, Burberry has been looking to remake itself. Success, however, has been elusive. Their latest hire, in the hope that human capital will make a massive difference, is a new chief executive, Joshua Schulman, previously from Coach. He and Daniel Lee—an American chief executive and a British creative—bring to mind the pairing of one-time Apple VP Angela Ahrendts and Christopher Bailey in the brand's heydays of the early 2000s. That partnership was considered a dream team, producing hit collections after hit collections until there were not, which coincided with the years after Mr Bailey replaced his former boss when she quit in 2013 to return to Apple. The new pairing at one of London's oldest brands could have been made in the hope that it would reprise the success of the Ahrendts-Bailey team.
At the time when Burberry was in the news in a good way, as well as enthusiastically promoted by influencers, the brand was seen as having captured the insouciant cool associated with a section of the English population for whom such eloquence of personal style is innate. And the strengthening of the brand from an aesthetic standpoint was what marketers would describe as organic. Although Mr Lee has only four runway collections under his belt for Burberry, they have not been progressively impressive. His designs seen on the selling floor barely escapes the ho-hum, which led to the belief that Burberry was more concerned with producing scores of merchandise than scoring a legacy of strong fashion. Now with the new chief executive, the fear is that Burberry would adopt an American approach to merchandising and become the UK's Coach. A frightening thought. It didn't help that Mr Lee just showed one of the most lacklustre seasons of the brand's modern history.
The meandering runway at the lobby of London's National Theatre was created by the use of tarpaulins with cutouts—in a strange green—placed, as if to set up a field hospital. But this was not the work of military engineers; it was the creation of British artist Gary Hume that was requested by Mr Lee, who wanted something that recalled Mr Hume's 1990s installation, Bays. The purposely unglamorous set design could be desired to better contrast the practical clothes shown—wearability without a winning way. This was especially obvious in the menswear, in which the outers could have come from Massimo Dutti. Do guys need more truckers, for example, even if they sported a logo atop the left breast pocket? The women's pieces straddled fussy trench-dresses and flashy date-night dresses, stodgy knickerbockers and floor-length skirts, without saying which wardrobe needed them. As harsh as this sounds, some of the pieces looked destined for Burberry stores in outlet villages.
What does the collection really say about Burberry's hitherto lack of direction, a problem that could be traced back to Riccardo Tisci's mixed-result tenure? We have been waiting for Mr Lee to convey something far much more decisive and vivid, in a voice that is marked by a clarity of conviction. Some people say he isn't blessed with a team that he had in Italy when he was leading Bottega Veneta, during which he was much lauded and admired. But directional certainty should not be held back by those you were hired to lead. Sometimes, one sensed that he was hampered by compunction rather than energised by a clear vision of what Burberry could—or must—be. Now that there appeared to be a downward re-positioning of what has been considered Britain's most storied house, it is a pity that past glories cannot be convincingly restored. And sustained.
No comments:
Post a Comment