Sign In
Register
Help
Add Reply
QUOTE
Chavs and have-nots sent Burberry's share price soaring - but was it worth the cost?
Bogart and Hepburn's label of choice has been adopted by the masses. It should weather the storm
YOU might think that there’s no such thing as a bad paying customer but in the rarefied world of high fashion you would be very wrong indeed.
Last week the luxury goods label Burberry admitted that its popularity among “chavs” had contributed towards poor Christmas sales figures.
The brand’s signature check has become so associated with working-class Britons that the sort of upmarket customer Burberry prefers to associate with has begun to shun its products. Clearly, being an aspirational label only works until the wrong kind of people aspire to you.
Burberry was once synonymous with a much more understated elegance. Its distinctive gabardine macs were worn by Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca and Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s.
After a period in the doldrums the company was successfully reinvented in the late Nineties with a frisky advertising campaign starring Kate Moss and Stella Tennant and shot by Mario Testino.
But then along came the former EastEnders actress Danniella Westbrook, not a regular on any best-dressed list, wearing that check splashed across a hat, a miniskirt, a bag and her baby’s buggy — all at once.
In her wake followed thousands of boy racers and their tight-ponytailed consorts, driving Burberry’s share price through the roof, but repelling serious fashionistas.
Stacey Cartwright, the firm’s chief financial officer, has tried to play down the problem claiming that “chavs are yesterday’s news”. She will have to hope so because the options are limited for a company that wants to shake off unwanted customers. There are broadly four strategies available: increase your prices, abuse your customers, change your product or withdraw it altogether.
Boosting prices might seem the obvious solution but every luxury brand depends on the market’s traditional “pyramid” sales strategy, with accessories (classic chav territory) at the bottom and the clothes which appear in their catwalk shows at the top.
Every brand benefits from raking in easy profits from the sale of accessories while earning fashion cachet with their catwalk showpieces.
So to the second option. Gerald Ratner discovered the perils of abusing his customers when he described his affordable jewellery as “total crap” in 1991.
By the end of the following year one of the most successful entrepreneurs of the Thatcher era was out of a job and Ratners Group had closed nearly 200 stores as customers deserted in droves. Burberry might be better advised to welcome its new customers. When hip-hop stars took to wearing Tommy Hilfiger’s preppy look, the company in turn began to churn out baggy clothes with huge logos especially for them.
It worked well until the hip-hop constituency moved on. By eliminating the crucial factor of aspiration, the brand had made the mistake of letting its fantasy customers and its genuine customers become the same thing. Now Tommy Hilfiger clothes are conspicuously unbranded. Analysts suspect that removing the logo will not significantly harm sales.
“If a brand does not employ a visible mark of identity then it is forced to fall back on the integrity of its design,” said Lauren Henderson, a director of the global branding consultancy FutureBrand. In other words, good design becomes a logo in itself. As she points out, to fashion professionals Prada is easily identifiable for the quirky look it pushes and its deliberate lack of branding. Burberry has already tried the ultimate sanction. Last year it stopped producing its checked baseball cap which had become indelibly associated with football hooligans.
The plan backfired because chavs simply sought out counterfeit versions.
But it wasn’t long before the real thing appeared on eBay for twice its original price and was spotted frequently at London Fashion Week parties.
http://www.timesonli...1450746,00.html
Bogart and Hepburn's label of choice has been adopted by the masses. It should weather the storm
YOU might think that there’s no such thing as a bad paying customer but in the rarefied world of high fashion you would be very wrong indeed.
Last week the luxury goods label Burberry admitted that its popularity among “chavs” had contributed towards poor Christmas sales figures.
The brand’s signature check has become so associated with working-class Britons that the sort of upmarket customer Burberry prefers to associate with has begun to shun its products. Clearly, being an aspirational label only works until the wrong kind of people aspire to you.
Burberry was once synonymous with a much more understated elegance. Its distinctive gabardine macs were worn by Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca and Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s.
After a period in the doldrums the company was successfully reinvented in the late Nineties with a frisky advertising campaign starring Kate Moss and Stella Tennant and shot by Mario Testino.
But then along came the former EastEnders actress Danniella Westbrook, not a regular on any best-dressed list, wearing that check splashed across a hat, a miniskirt, a bag and her baby’s buggy — all at once.
In her wake followed thousands of boy racers and their tight-ponytailed consorts, driving Burberry’s share price through the roof, but repelling serious fashionistas.
Stacey Cartwright, the firm’s chief financial officer, has tried to play down the problem claiming that “chavs are yesterday’s news”. She will have to hope so because the options are limited for a company that wants to shake off unwanted customers. There are broadly four strategies available: increase your prices, abuse your customers, change your product or withdraw it altogether.
Boosting prices might seem the obvious solution but every luxury brand depends on the market’s traditional “pyramid” sales strategy, with accessories (classic chav territory) at the bottom and the clothes which appear in their catwalk shows at the top.
Every brand benefits from raking in easy profits from the sale of accessories while earning fashion cachet with their catwalk showpieces.
So to the second option. Gerald Ratner discovered the perils of abusing his customers when he described his affordable jewellery as “total crap” in 1991.
By the end of the following year one of the most successful entrepreneurs of the Thatcher era was out of a job and Ratners Group had closed nearly 200 stores as customers deserted in droves. Burberry might be better advised to welcome its new customers. When hip-hop stars took to wearing Tommy Hilfiger’s preppy look, the company in turn began to churn out baggy clothes with huge logos especially for them.
It worked well until the hip-hop constituency moved on. By eliminating the crucial factor of aspiration, the brand had made the mistake of letting its fantasy customers and its genuine customers become the same thing. Now Tommy Hilfiger clothes are conspicuously unbranded. Analysts suspect that removing the logo will not significantly harm sales.
“If a brand does not employ a visible mark of identity then it is forced to fall back on the integrity of its design,” said Lauren Henderson, a director of the global branding consultancy FutureBrand. In other words, good design becomes a logo in itself. As she points out, to fashion professionals Prada is easily identifiable for the quirky look it pushes and its deliberate lack of branding. Burberry has already tried the ultimate sanction. Last year it stopped producing its checked baseball cap which had become indelibly associated with football hooligans.
The plan backfired because chavs simply sought out counterfeit versions.
But it wasn’t long before the real thing appeared on eBay for twice its original price and was spotted frequently at London Fashion Week parties.
http://www.timesonli...1450746,00.html
For those who need reminding, here's a burberry cap.
I'm sure there's some irony in here somewhere...
MultiQuote
