A Tale of Two Fragrances, or Burberry’s Continued Asininity and Jo Malone’s Quiet Success

British brands Burberry and Jo Malone have each come out with a new fragrance campaign in the last week —Burberry’s for a new product, Mr. Burberry fragrance for men; and Jo Malone’s for a new concept: combining two existing scents into a personalized fragrance. Burberry should have aced the campaign, a short film directed by Academy Award winner and overall cool-coded Steve McQueen, but came up short; while Jo Malone, a label that rarely advertises, perfectly executed a simple visual campaign that capitalizes on the trend of personalization —ironically, a trend on which Burberry was on the forefront about two years ago, with their monogrammed ponchos and My Burberry fragrances.

Mr. Burberry is Burberry’s first fragrance aimed exclusively at men — their other fragrances, like London, Brit, and The Beat all have a men’s and women’s component. This is a a smart move considering the growing interest and media coverage of men’s fashion, especially among younger audiences. It’s interesting when a brand choose a prefix as a fragrance name since it indicates that wearers of this fragrance, more than any of the other fragrances by the label, epitomizes the brand values. Remember the Sofia Coppola-directed videos for Miss Dior? Now those were the days.

This new video ad expands on the new, grittier direction Burberry is trying to take in order to woo the snapchatting, Silmane-devoted crowd. This marketing strategy is ludicrous, as I’ve explained in an earlier post, but Christopher Bailey is sticking to his guns. Steve McQueen directs the video, which is a brilliant choice, because he’s both an ultra-cool and critically acclaimed Londoner; someone like Tom Hooper would have been iffy. As a result, the video, which depicts a couple in a Piccadilly Square hotel room (quelle touristy!), looks like Shame without the pleasant physical appearance of Michael Fassbender — long shots that go on to the point of awkwardness, and a slightly unappealing, realistic portrayal of everyday events. It’s supposed to be glamorous, and some people will find it so — online publications have hailed it as “steamy” — but it’s not Burberry’s signature strain of sophisticated and subtle British glamour.

And then there’s the sex. Burberry has historically been superb at implying intimacy and eroticism without actually portraying it — think of the smolderingly mysterious Hugh Dancy and Kate Moss ad for Burberry London, the 2005 Kate Moss ads with handsome strangers in the background, and the playful chemistry between Cara Delevigne and Eddie Redmayne in the 2012 campaign. The Mr. Burberry video situates sex front and center, and portrays it without a hint of mystery. It’s rendered awkward and unappealing because of McQueen’s directing style and the film’s overall gritty-lite aesthetic (NB: the male model has a chest tattoo and a pinky ring). It’s an off-brand misstep that unfortunately defines the video, and if Bailey’s not careful, will start to define the brand identity. Maybe they should change the name from Mr. Burberry to Mr. Grimy Quasi Burberry Offshoot Sister Line for Youths who Like Jayden Smith.

What Bailey should have done is take advantage of a great impending pop-cultural moment and on-brand stars and hired Kenneth Branagh to direct Richard Madden and Lily James in a short film for the fragrance. Freakishly attractive Madden and James will star together this summer in Branagh’s Romeo and Juliet in London. What could be more British, cool, and weighty-yet-accessible than this duo, Branagh, and Shakespeare?

Jo Malone, on the other hand, implements the classic tropes of the bad boy and the ménage-à-trois to explain their new fragrance personalization concept. Titled “Curious?,” the ads feature a perfectly polished Jo Malone girl flanked by her usual type, a handsome, tux-clad man on one side, and a shirtless, heavily-tattooed guy on the other. Cheeky, flirty, and visually engaging — I like that we don’t see the models’ eyes— the ad encourages customers to embrace both the classic and the edgy parts of their tastes to create a scent unique and meaningful to them. This ad is still on-brand for Jo Malone, but gives the label a younger feel, while still maintaining their sense of feminine, English reserve, Sex here is intimated, which actually gives the ad more narrative latitude — the viewer has to do the guesswork, which forces them to be more visually and intellectually engaged in the ad, especially compared to Mr. Burberry’s awkward voyeurism.

The lessons here? Sex sells, but it sells better when it isn’t completely laid out to the viewers; both Burberry and Jo Malone are trying to reach new audiences, but while Burberry is veering dangerously off-track with their new aesthetic implementations, Jo Malone is fleshing theirs out with bolder advertisements. A label must strike a happy medium between what its core identity and what will appeal to a targeted audience when trying something new —like Jo Malone does here —while guarding against pandering to that audience.

The other lesson is to hire Kenneth Branagh for anything and everything, but you already knew that.

Kate Moss and Hugh Dancy for Burberry Brit, 2005

Kate Moss for Burberry, 2005

Cara and Eddie for Burberry, 2012

Lily James and Richard Madden in Kenneth Branaugh’s Romeo and Juliet. Come on! This is an ad campaign already!

Spin Class: Dior and J-Law in the Post-Raf Era

I never thought this day would come. The day when I say that Jennifer Lawrence not only looks great in Dior’s new Mario Sorrenti-shot ads, but also actually looks like a fitting representative of the world’s premiere luxury fashion brand. Has hell frozen over? Apparently not — Dior’s marketing team has just finally realized they should play to JLaw’s (relative — let’s not get gushy) strengths, instead of putting her into an archetypal mold that doesn’t fit. Let’s first recap the long and tragic history that is Dior: the JLaw Years.

Jennifer Lawrence became the face of Dior in 2012, when Raf Simons took over the label. This was a terrible choice for both parties. It was a bad move for Dior because Lawrence is unsophisticated and too relatable, with her “down to earth” lifestyle choices and penchant for crude humor and childish antics — this is the woman who engages in walrus pantomimes with chopsticks and wears jackets with “perv” emblazoned on the back. Dior, as one of the most elegant and storied fashion labels, needs a spokeswoman who embodies their sophisticated values — I loved what they did last spring with Rihanna, who, while not Grace Kelly, still fits the bill because of her impeccable fashion instincts and comfortability in her own skin, and adds an appealing edge to a label that can quickly get too feminine. The Dior partnership was a terrible choice for Lawrence (aside from the 7-figure payday) because it’s locked her in to Dior for all red carpet appearances until 2017, which doesn’t suit her in the least — she hasn’t looked good since the 2011 Oscars where she wore the blood orange Calvin Klein.The contract has robbed her of the chance to form any kind of sartorial identity and confuses her cultural coding — she’s photographed cracking open beers with bottled water caps and wearing double denim one minute, and looking awful in a frilly cupcake mess on the red carpet the next. It’s a complete mismatch for both parties.

Unless you can spin it, which is what Dior has done for this season’s ad campaign, to great effect. These ads are about laid-back glamour, which is much more Lawrence’s speed. She looks chic and refined, (in a borderline Olsen way — I can’t believe I’m saying this) and finally looks comfortable as the face of the brand, bringing a warmth to the photos. This campaign capitalizes on her approachability while still situating her as aspirational, (the placement behind the bags and couch visually helps with this) instead of trying to cast her as a Hitchcockian ice queen like Raf did during his tenure, a role that didn’t fit her and made her look wan and deeply uncomfortable. But in these new ads, Dior and Lawrence have hit a sweet spot where both of their brand codings are in synch — easygoing-ness meets Parisian chic — which makes this campaign not only work, but succeed exceptionally well.

A mismatch, especially a contractual and expensive one like this, doesn’t have to be the end of the world if both the brand and the representative can be strategic and thoughtful about where their Venn diagrams overlap. I hope Dior can keep this momentum until they can get a more natural fit for their brand, (2018, please come quickly). But in the meantime, dare I say…I look forward to see how they meet this challenge? I never thought I would be capable of uttering those words, and yet here we are. That’s the power of good marketing, I suppose.

The new S/S ’16 ad. The Row-chic.

So Olsen!

This shot I’m not as wild about — they should stick to softer angles when trying to draw out her laid-back nature.

An unfortunate Raf-era ad. She looks she’s terrified and breaking a fever.

Another Raf-era ad. A study in awkwardness and premature aging.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is your face of Dior.

Lawrence, a 25 year old woman, finds humor in this display.

And this one.

Report Card: S/S ’16 Ad Campaigns

The new ads are in, and the results are not great my friends. Brands and spokespeople were mismatched, art direction was lackluster, and ads had a somber quality to them, perhaps stemming from the recent upheaval in the industry and the hit that the luxury markets have taken in China. Let’s discuss.

Ruby Rose for Ralph Lauren Denim Supply

Oh. Oh dear. This keeps eliciting laughs from me. I know Ralph Lauren is under new management and in desperate need to project a younger, cooler image (may I remind you that Ralph Lauren is a major sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre). It’s like they watched The Grapes of Wrath on a TV with poorly-operating antennae, put on a blindfold, and threw a dart at a young celebrity that codes for cool and edgy. This is a tragic mismatch, and the result is schadenfreudeish. The corresponding video is even worse, bringing this depression-era Madewell shopping spree to life — the only redeeming quality of the digital component is the presence of a hedgehog.

Who would be a better face of Ralph Lauren (providing there’s better art direction)? It’s tough to say, seeing how this big brand has become amorphous and bloated by offshoot lines in the past ten years. I would go for an all-American face, like none other than Lauren Bush Lauren. She’s close to the brand, yes, but she’s an accomplished social entrepreneur with ties to two American dynasties — and Ralph Lauren is all about living the American dream. And if Tom Ford can star in his own campaigns, LBL can advertise for her in-laws.

Grade: D

Claudia Schiffer, Cindy Crawford, and Naomi Campbell for Balmain

This is great. It’s all the glamour and drama associated with Balmain, but without the off-putting high-maintenance flashiness. The black and white is subdued, and a nice departure from the garish colors that we’ve seen from Balmain recently, but there’s so much movement that it’s still electric — Cindy’s face and body is exquisite here.

Choosing the original Supers to font this campaign was a great move, because it capitalizes on 90’s nostalgia, and restores some sophistication to the brand after last season’s Jenner sisters ad. It’s also nice in conversation with the Balmain x H&M campaign, which featured the “Supers” of today, Gigi, Kendall, and Jourdan, whose looks mirror those of Claudia, Cindy, and Naomi.

Grade: A-

Assorted Teens for Burberry

Burberry is catering to a younger crowd with this campaign, with its choice of up-and-coming young models like Ruth and May Bell and Dylan Brosnan, its debut of Snapchat (why?), and the grittier aesthetic portrayed here with a Juergen-y high-exposure flash. This makes sense, given that Burberry’s sales were down the last quarter, and Christopher Bailey has been under pressure to prove himself as CEO. Digital innovation under his guidance got the brand to where it is today, so it’s natural that he would double down on this strategy when he’s feeling the heat.

I’m not sure this is the right tack, however. It’s incredibly alienating to more sophisticated buyers and cheapens the brand’s heritage history by making it seem young and ephemeral. Although it’s important to stay relevant to a younger demographic, teenagers aren’t the group with the purchasing power Burberry needs. They need to keep their messaging consistent with what they did in their holiday campaign, and sell aspirational, inclusive, glamorous, British sophistication, which is what they do best.

Grade: C-

Zoë Kravitz and Anna Ewers for Balenciaga

Finally! Someone took my advice and put Zoë Kravitz, intriguing chameleon of cool pedigree, in an ad campaign. I love the sleepy, romantic panned out shot of the two women, but the close-up shots are empty, uninteresting, and tell me nothing about the brand.

This is not a great way for Alexander Wang to end his short legacy at Balenciaga — this looks hastily done and doesn’t come across as a thoughtful farewell. If he were going to cop out, he ought to have shot Kravitz holding the Le Dix bag and called it a day. (Does anyone know if the label will continue to make these post-Wang? If not, I’ll need to acquire a loan immediately.)

Grade: C-

Ruby Rose for Ralph Lauren Denim Supply

Just when you thought this high school production of Of Mice and Men couldn’t get any worse, Hailey Baldwin shows up.

Claudia, Cindy, and Naomi for Balmain

Ruth and May Bell for Burberry. Offputting.

Dylan Brosnan for Burberry. So Teen Vogue!

Misha Hart for Burberry. I loathe this.

Zoë Kravitz and Anna Ewers for Balenciaga

Starman, the Ad-man

Tommy Hilfiger, 2004

Fashion publications have made much of David Bowie’s contribution to fashion and his inimitable personal style in the days since his death, and rightly so. But I’d like to talk about his unique role in fashion advertising.

Throughout the course of his decades-long career, he appeared in a handful of ads for companies ranging from Pepsi to Louis Vuitton, unlike any of his iconic contemporaries in music, who never fronted major consumer campaigns (the one exception being Keith Richards’ 2008 Louis Vuitton campaign). Why was Bowie coveted for campaigns more than any of the other rock stars?

It’s because of the duality of what he codes for in the culture. He’s simultaneously perceived as a cool, weirdo genius, and then as a complete cypher, making it easy for advertising to project whatever they want onto him while benefiting from his cool cultural cache. Additionally he, more than any other rock stars or any other cultural icons, exudes an almost otherworldly self-possession and comfort in his own skin, which is what every consumer company is trying to sell. He’s so untouchable, so icy, so alien, so intellectually weighty, and, despite his rolodex of zany characters, he always plays himself in ads, which makes them some of the most effective campaigns I’ve ever seen. Exhibit A:

Louis Vuitton, “L’Invitation Au Voyage,” 2013

In this short film and corresponding print campaign, Arizona Muse arrives (via hot air balloon) to a mysterious Venetian masquerade party straight out of Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette. Bowie plays “I’d Rather Be High” on the harpsichord as revelers revel and Muse orients herself among the partygoers, uncertainly at first, then, after sitting on the bench with Bowie, excitedly. She opens her eyes to realize it was a dream — but then finds a note on the harpsichord, apparently an invitation. The film ends with Muse sailing solo through a Venetian canal into the sunrise. The world the film creates is sumptuous without being decadent, and Bowie is mysterious, sophisticated, and intriguing: everything the brand hopes to convey.

The print ad could be a subdued moment from the film, where Bowie is no longer at the center of the action, but in a corner, facing three masked women, which we see in a mirror behind him in a Folies-Berger trick. Both parties seem to be attracted and repulsed by one another, creating an interesting tension with the dangerous but ultimately romantic and innocuous narrative presented in the film.

Bowie is perfect in these ads, and Louis Vuitton expertly plays on his coding duality, employing the rock star coding more heavily in the film, and the cypher coding more heavily in the print ad. In the film, he is extremely commanding as the center of the party and the apparent ringleader of partygoers, while being electrically compelling in his silent communication with Muse. The print ad is mysterious and muted, and conveys his alienation from us, and ours from him, which is echoed by the sharp key in which the music in the film is played. It’s an extremely intriguing set of media that play well off of each other in creating a narrative, and in smartly framing Bowie’s intensely attractive yet frightening physicality and mood.

Exhibit B: Tommy Hilfiger, 2004

In this black-and-white print campaign, Bowie and wife Iman are photographed glamorously doing everyday things, both at home and out and about. These are beautifully shot, but what’s striking is how much genuine fun they seem to be having — I don’t think I’ve seen such easy chemistry and palpable joy in any other photoshoot, advertising or editorial, ever. This campaign relies on pure rock-star coding, and includes shots with a guitar and a photo in the car that looks like a paparazzi snap, to great effect. It’s glamorous, sexy, fun, and kinetic, and impossible to take your eyes off of, and truly one of the best campaigns I’ve ever seen. This was Hilfiger at his peak — in touch with what is classic and cool, and thoughtful about the kinds of images and aspirations to which his audience responds. He needs to get back to a Bowie-Iman level with his brand, and present content like this with real cultural icons, and stop trying to shill Gigi Hadid in a rastafarian colored woven bikini top.

Starman is the ultimate ad-man, since he stands for both an iconic rock & roll star and a complete chameleonic enigma. Louis Vuitton and Tommy Hilfiger were so smart to spot this and play up one or both of these qualities in their advertising. I wish we could have had one more — Thierry Mugler’s Alien would have been too easy, and a Jurgen Teller Céline ad would have been wonderful. I’m also glad that Bowie didn’t take himself too seriously to not want to appear in ads — that speaks volumes about his cool, down-to-earth nature, even if he did fall to earth from somewhere else.

Louis Vuitton “L’Inviation Au Voyage” print campaign

Still from Louis Vuitton’s “L’Inviation Au Voyage” short film

Tommy Hilfiger, 2004

Report Card: Holiday Ad Campaigns

Tis the season for holiday ad campaigns! Stars! Mistletoe! Enthusiasm! Here’s the how they stack up.

Katy Perry for H&M

Oh. well. Okay.

I cannot fathom with any part of my intellectual consciousness why H&M chose Katy Perry to front this campaign. She irrelevant at the moment, without any new material, and has basically been off the media grid for months. Adele would have been a smarter choice, and would have caused an absolute sensation if she have appeared in the ads in spite of her media-shyness. Sadly, we are instead saddled with Perry posing with candy, yet again. I like the bold black, red, and white color scheme, but that’s the only thing this series has going for it.

Grade: D

Leandra Medine for Fossil

This is a brilliant choice by Fossil. By choosing someone famous for being in fashion to front the campaign, Fossil is sending a signal that they know what’s relevant in fashion culture, which will cause fashion-forward people to look twice at what they thought was a nonbrand found only in outlet malls. Leandra is someone known for her personal style, which associates individuality and personalization with Fossil, and not just tragic leather goods and watches.She’s shrewd, sardonic,and authentic, and you can guarantee she wouldn’t do this campaign if she didn’t believe in it, adding another layer of credibility. Wear fossil, become a chic, witty, fashion businesswoman? I’ll take it.

Grade: A

Fred Armisen & Carrie Brownstein for Old Navy

Old Navy, in a move of unutterable genius, tapped Portlandia duo Fred Armison and Carrie Brownstein for a holiday short videos. I thought Old Navy was ready to be stuck with a fork when its CEO left to helm Ralph Lauren, but they have, with this casting choice, reinvigorated their relevancy with awareness of the cool, informed, media culture and a sense of humor. Will this help Old Navy compete with fast fashion? Well there’s the problem — Old Navy’s content isn’t good or fashionable enough to really do damage to fast-fashion chains, who clearly don’t rely on advertising to sell their clothes (see evidence above). It will, however, get Old Navy back in consumers’ consciousness. What they really need is a cult item that will get people back in stores, like their early 2000s flag tees or mid 2000s madras craze, and then integrate cool capsule collections and a fast fashion business model, at least in part, to keep them there. But at the moment, this is a great step in the right direction.

Grade: A+

Kate Spade Aces the Holiday Campaign

Kate Spade has created another winning advertising campaign with their holiday series, starring Karlie Kloss and Derek Blasberg. A handful of others feature in the seriees, ranging from the cool, young family who own the online store Aloha Picnic, to singer Alice Smith and her very cute toddler, to serious and black-clad literary agent Anne Borchardt.

The campaign of is made up of two photo series: a whimsical up-close portrait session with shades of Wes Anderson, and a fun, spontaneous-looking session in the back of a limo, featuring Kloss in each frame.

The ads are pitch-perfectly on brand, do a lot of work while seeming effortless. Firstly, the campaign subtly challenges the idea that Kate Spade is exclusively for young white women, by including both men and women, people of color, and includes a diverse range of ages, a brand goal that was laid out in the Miss Adventure series. Secondly, the sophisticated photography quality executed by Emma Summerton makes Kate Spade look cool, less fussy, try-hard, and girly, while still maintaining its signature sense of fun.

Kloss and Blasberg are the real stars of the campaign, though, and what a brilliant pick– the two are best friends in real life, and their chemistry and giggly rapport is evident. Using Blasberg, in particular, was an inspired move, and I can’t fathom why he hasn’t been used in advertising before now. At 33, Blasberg has written and edited for nearly every major fashion publication in existence, consulted for labels from H&M to Chanel, published two books and is currently doing a stint at Gagosian Galley. Handsome, witty, and seemingly close friends with everyone who’s anyone, Blasberg is something like the Andy Warhol or Oscar Wilde of today’s fashion set. He’s a stellar choice for the ads because the audience wants to be friends with him, have a career like his, and can’t help but having a bit of a crush on him.

I love the idea of men fronting womenswear campaigns if the brands are in perfect alignment, like Blasberg’s is with Kate Spade’s. Brad Pitt for Chanel No. 5 was a miss, but the highest profile man-for-womenswear ad to date. Men can be an even more powerful visual rhetoric for a womenswear brand than women can – the kind of man you want to be with can intensely reinforce the kind of brand you want to wear. Eddie Redmayne for Burberry will appeal to some women (me) much more than a random oiled-up Versace guy, and vice versa. I hope to see more of this. Tom Hiddleston for Belstaff! Harry Styles for Gucci! Bill Murray for Kate Spade! The possibilities are endless.

Karlie and the Matsuura family

Derek and Monster

I like this image of tipsy Karlie.

Alice Smith and her daughter, Lulu Greenwood

Sasha Frolova

Non Matsuura

Eating My Hat: DressBarn’s Chic Rebranding

Prior the last two months or so, I would have probably gambled my life on DressBarn remaining the most tragic mall staple of all time, incapable of pulling itself out of the mire of frump or breaking the curse of a name that connotes manure and/or unbecoming girth.

But I would have perished, because it has done both, and spectacularly well, in what may be the best executed re-brand in recent memory.

The new strategy was two pronged: to present the brand as real “fashion,” and to acknowledge, with humor, its less-than-chic name and frame it as an asset, not a liability. In their fall ad campaign shot by Patrick Demarchelier (!), Hilary Rhoda wears cocktail dresses designed by the likes of Carmen Marc Valvo and interacts with different farm animals. The accompanying slogans are cheeky acknowledgements that the name is atrocious, like “Don’t Let the Name Fool You” and “Still Hung Up on the Name?,” with some refreshing self-awareness.

The ads are visually arresting, especially the shot in which Rhoda gracefully cozies up to an enormous bull. And the clothes aren’t bad either – her dresses look chic, flattering, and wearable. Rhoda was the perfect model to front this campaign. She’s young and stylish, but has an air of maturity that‘s more in line with the target consumer, and perhaps more importantly, isn’t overexposed (looking at you, Estée Lauder and Topshop). Asking Carmen Marc Valvo to design a capsule collection was another smart move. The target demographic will recognize the name and read it as a stylish but not intimidating choice. Someone like Christian Siriano would be a good choice for next season.

The stroke of rebranding genius is due to a change in marketing management helmed by Lori Wagner, who has previously worked for J. Crew, Nike, Talbots, and more. Apparently, she and her team had considered changing the company’s name, but I think their decision to keep and re-situate it in the minds of consumers was the better choice. People love a heritage story, especially coupled with an underdog element. Other mall staples should take note, especially the floundering Gap, and the identity-less New York & Co. and The Limited.

Will cutting-edge fashion lovers start shopping at DressBarn? No. But a lot of women will. And the ad got me, formerly a vociferous detractor, to visit the company website, which is a big step in itself. I look forward to seeing what Wagner does next, even if I won’t be among the consumers.

3c75d377fafb70346fa109e0aadc96c10db63bfc

Label Consolidation and British Stars on Trampolines: This Week In Burberry News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=961k-cHjMLk

Last week, Burberry announced their decision to roll up all of their lines – Brit, London, and Prorsum – into one label. Henceforth, everything will be known as simply “Burberry.”

This decision follows similar moves other luxury labels have recently made to get rid of their “junior” lines: D&G and Marc by Marc Jacobs have both became defunct in the last year. Burberry’s consolidation is much more akin to Victoria Beckham’s swallowing up the lower-priced Victoria, Victoria Beckham (although London couldn’t exactly be seen as a junior line, pricewise).

Does this make sense from a business perspective? I suppose. To the untrained shopper, the different labels might be confusing. But I think Christopher Bailey ought to have cut out London, and kept Brit and Prorsum as bookending collections – but perhaps this is my own sentimentality talking.

When I was first discovering fashion, Burberry was the brand I deeply identified with, soul-loved. I obsessed over it; the black and white ads covered my walls (and still do in my childhood bedroom); I finally felt like a world understood me and my interests and tastes and aesthetics. I would look at the Brit line on Nordstrom.com and think that one day I might be able to afford a piece. I contented myself with the fragrances (this was a pre-Burberry Cosmetics era – imagine!) and then one day, at sixteen, I garnered the nerve to go into a Burberry store with my mother. There was a black eyelet cotton Brit dress on sale. We bought it. It was an important psychological shift for me – I finally owned a piece of the world I wanted to live in. I was me. And I would go on to make wonderful memories whist wearing that dress, and it’s something I will keep forever. Brit’s differentiation from the other Burberry price points made that possible.

Besides my maudlin affection for the Brit line, Bailey should keep it because it’s so distinctive from the runway collections. Brit is made up of classic pieces, like sweaters and polos, starting at about $300, and usually incorporate the house’s logoistic check pattern. It’s a starter line that’s clearly identifiable as Burberry for those who don’t have the budget to afford the higher-priced London line, or a penchant for a pastel trench coat from the Prorsum collection. Without the identifying nomenclature, I feel like Burberry’s enormous inventory will be difficult to navigate, and perhaps turn away new-to-fashion buyers, who only see thousand-pound dresses and leave, unaware that they can afford something less pricey.

And as for Prorsum – Latin for ‘forward’ – that designated the high-fashion runway collections, well that’s a shame to lose. It’s a word that evokes the Burberry knight, and Burberry’s unique ability to move forward stylistically while still remaining a heritage brand. Not to mention its erudition factor – it also brings to mind a romantic vision of Oxford and Cambridge. Something like this, which, coincidentally, is the aforementioned wall décor:

I’m sure Bailey has good reason for the roll up – I trust him and his vision for the brand, even though I wish he wouldn’t make this particular move. So who’s next to streamline their label? Kors won’t – yet. There’s too much of a price gap between Michael, Michael Kors and the Michael Kors Collection, and besides, he should want to keep the two separate to placate both the label-toting suburbanites loonies with brand ownership, and the starlets he dresses on the red carpet with a non-embarrassing connotation. Armani won’t yet either. There will always be a Eurotrash market for Armani Exchange on one hand, and a market for sophisticated actors to wear his suits on the red carpet on the other. How are these label stratifications even part of the same brand? They are so antithetical – not at all like Burberry’s or even Marc Jacobs’ lower-priced lines, which simply reflect(ed) the larger brand at a lower price point. I suppose a powerful name can code for a lot of different things to different audiences – but I’m not sure that’s a compliment to Mr. Kors or Mr. Armani.

Burberry also debuted its holiday video advert last week. No luxury label does holiday marketing quite like Burberry, and the label delivered once again, with a star-studded tribute to Billy Elliot, with appearances by Romeo Beckham, Elton John, Julie Walters, Rosie Huntington-Whitely, George Ezra, Naomi Campbell, Michelle Dockery, and James Cordon, just to name a few. That’s what’s so special about Burberry – all of these faces perfectly fit the label. It doesn’t matter if you’re male or female, black or white, 13 (Beckham) or 68 (Sir Elton), Burberry is for everyone. They consistently strike a unique pitch of inclusiveness, while still maintaining luxury, aspirational status. Perhaps that’s the heritage factor, but I’d chalk it up to a special British alchemy.

Veni Vidi Vesti

Intellectualizing Fashion, Brand, Art, and Celebrity

Ads