Miuccia Prada has said that “fak[ing] luxury is easy.”
“You put some details from the brand’s past, you put a little bit of gold, and that’s it.”
I’d argue that’s changed. Every luxury brand, now, until the end of time, will rely on ornamenting its history to sell its wares. But, we’re reaching a new peak of savvy consumerism and it’s no longer enough. Inventive, substantive storytelling matters more than ever. Heritage is not a compelling enough facade at a time of endless price hiking and similar manufacturing processes. Brand separates the perceived frauds from the winners.
Because the past alone no longer wins, Burberry has a new CEO.
The brand’s re-position last year, which relied completely on its heritage, has not worked.
In February of 2023, Creative Director Daniel Lee and now-gone CEO Akeroyd unveiled a new brand identity (and scant messaging) to support an effort to reach higher networth individuals. But despite the refreshing wordmark (a departure from the black-and-white blandness and boring type that has infected all major fashion labels), Burberry made a major mistake. The brand skipped the story.
Instead of presenting something inventive, the messaging fell very flat. The rebrand was attached to the lukewarm idea of….being British.
“Burberry flies the flag for Britishness and for the UK and for culture,” Lee told Vogue Runway. So, we have to use our platforms because we have a responsibility to communicate those things.”
It wasn’t a story. It’s like Chanel talking only about its Frenchness, or Brunello emphasizing its italiness. Heritage, history, and place are give-ins for messaging in this sector. So, what internally maybe felt like a major audacious move, did not create movement or motivation in the market. Despite delightful creative and a beautiful, ornate icon, sales didn’t follow. Revenue is down 22 percent. The not-distinct idea of “Britishness” was expected, an element of the brand but not a big, interesting idea that could chart the course for a new realm of clientele. You can’t win on a narrative about history even with indigo blue and a Latin-inscribed flag.
Compare the Burberry rebrand with the marketing for the up-and-coming eponymous label Jacquemus, which is set to open a store close to Burberry’s outpost on Spring St in New York later this year. In every campaign and at every touchpoint, from print to social, the brand inhabits the spirit of Play.
Often, Jacquemus’s attention-grabbing activations, like the large purses wheeling through cities, are credited as the key to the brand’s success. But, these moments, while mesmerizing, would not matter, at all, without the underlying story. A big product moving through an urban environment will make you look. It will make people “like” posts. But the story—the idea of Play, or the optimism, wonder, and earnest freedom of rural living that the brand represents, that’s what makes the attention matter. That’s story. That’s what makes us buy.
People who are spending at the top aren’t shopping out of mere aspiration. It’s not about simply owning an iconic slice of some company’s heritage. Shoppers want to participate in a story, in an idea they can believe in. So, what are you telling them beyond spec and craft?
Burberry had so much to say. So, why didn’t it?
It’s not too late. What happened to Louis Vuitton proves that a defined narrative can change everything, and quickly. Before the brand’s successful re-position LV didn’t have cachet. It was the furthest thing from a dream. It was stuck in the yuck of reality, associated with the operational.
“You think of Vuitton and you think of airports,” Anna Wintour once said of the brand in the New Yorker. “Vuitton’s image has been Palm Beach.”
So, what did Vuitton do? In 1990, the brand hired Yves Carcelle as Head of Strategy and Development. Carcelle introduced a singular story that worked with its already-established atmosphere. Deeply associated with travel, the brand positioned itself around Adventure and heralded the trunk as a Romantic icon. The idea-first strategy worked, and LV became less conjuring of Palm Beach and more conjuring of Paris. After establishing a new narrative atmosphere, LV then refurbished designs and inhabited more audacious creative. But, take note: they didn’t lead with image. They led with idea.
The thinking was so perfect, that it has continued to work, with some modification for thirty years. They’ve gone a level higher than “Adventure” and now stand behind “The Journey,” that is— the journey from birth to death (very French of them.) One of my favorite ad campaigns from the brand, called “Towards a dream” showcases the visual and storytelling depth of this position.
“Louis Vuitton embarks on a far-reaching journey, exploring dreamlike settings around the globe in an evocative ode to the inner child,” the brand said of the campaign.
If the story is authentic, cool, and deep enough, the position can be twisted and turned decade-to-decade, increasing its power and force (and earnings) year over year. Creative doesn’t need to be pulled from nowhere. It can be iterative, self-contained, and endlessly meaningful.
Certainly, Burberry has stacks of archives to sort through and loads of significant associations. Any number of ideas could have been plucked out, selected, and dug into. A quick click-click-click through the brand’s website reveals detail-rich lines of story. The foundation for what is singular and sustaining is obvious.
Powerfully, for instance, the brand made outwear comfortable, stylish, and beautiful way before gorp-core (yuck!!!) was a thing. Founded in 1856, Burberry first became known for its fabric gabardine, a weatherproof material that became the choice for polar explorers, aviators, and soldiers. Right there, already, more of a story than “Britishness” alone.
Or, the brand could have picked an idea to support the iconic checkered pattern, now infamous, which began lining its trenches in the 1920s. The brand calls this pattern “unmistakable Burberry” on its website, so why not an idea and story about this?
What’s happening, I think, is that people are afraid to say something. Everyone is relying on the facade of Creative to avoid taking a stand. This is happening elsewhere, too. Most commercial entities that operate at a high intersection between culture and commerce are playing it safe, with beautiful people posing beautifully. They’re skipping the story—what requires, guts, conviction, edge, or position. Everyone wants to be both timeless and innovative. Conventional and traditional. Sexy and reserved. Spirited and observant. Blah and blah. We’re living in a time of great sameness, accelerated by the performance-focused demands of marketing executives. It’s all tactics. Or, all head and not enough heart. Some people continue to have a perspective. That pays. I leave you with this quote from Miuccia Prada, shared nearly a decade ago:
“The world tends towards banality. A lot of my consideration is that, in a world that is getting bigger and bigger, the idea that people like less and less. That’s why the last shows were about animal prints, symbols—because that’s what people want. They want animal prints, pink bows. The list of what people like is more and more reductive. This is the problem of culture. I remember the polemic since the 60s, that museums are enlarging, enlarging culture, and people go to the Louvre eating ice cream, just looking at the Gioconda. Is it better?”
The crazy thing is Burberry already did establish that narrative in the 00s-2010s under Christopher Bailey, it was so successful they literally snatched their brand image out from the clutches of the chavs (yes, snobby but we all know it was not a desirable association for them)
They really made themselves one of the hottest brands of that era by making themselves The Most British Brand , and they did that by envisioning British = classic but cool, a little quirky and incredibly romantic and highly desirable - you wanted to have those qualities, and the clothes could bring you closer to them. (One look at their ad campaigns from 2004 onwards should give you an idea).
I had high hopes of Riccardo Tisci but he repeatedly chose to disappoint and also to throw away the romance of that idealised Britishness that made Burberry so appealing in the first place, and Daniel Lee and his associated rebrand isn't doing much better, there's obviously an idea there but it got lost in the gimmicky prints and nasty harsh 'Burberry blue'. Though the last collection was a bit of an improvement, I get what you mean about "you're British, so what?" - Bailey-era campaigns and marketing made being British look desirable, romantic and a little cool. Now it seems like the Lee-era marketers are afraid to suggest those things for fear of thinkpieces. Which is not an attractive quality!
"Creative doesn’t need to be pulled from nowhere. It can be iterative, self-contained, and result in the meaningful." !!!!!!