#burberrycase

Burberry’s approach to fashion and branding is conservative - it appears to focus on the traditional and classic, with side product lines slowly evolving alongside. Firstly, Burberry’s brand consistency is also a reflection of its British lineage, back in the day when it clothed national heroes and celebrities, the Ernest Shackleton’s and Humphrey Bogarts. Burberry trademarked its signature plaid in 1920, and it was added as a lining to its trench coats, giving instant brand recognition but also emphasized understated opulence. Its focus on its history and heritage no doubt, appeals to its absolute segment of customers, the ones with the purchasing power to own unique pieces that emphasised their elitism, and who could afford to support the brand even in times of economic downturns - this is their steady consumer base, and they shun “masstige”.

Burberry through the years can be summarized as - Plaid and the Trench Coat.

However, because Burberry’s designs did not change much over time, and it relied so heavily on an iconic pattern or design, this have counterfeiters time to produce good imitations of its products - which its aspirational customers can now afford. Enter the Chavs - aspirational Burberry consumers who represent the changing face of England, but who are also associated with a less-than-glamorous part of Britain. If Chavs are now donning Burberry en masse, it demotes a once exclusive brand to “masstige”, and Burberry now risks alienating its absolute segment. Who wears a luxury brand matters - because that image becomes an iconic and enduring representation of the brand for the era. If the Beckhams wear Burberry, it is still glamor; if chavs wear Burberry, the brand mystique and inaccessibility that made it desirable is gone.

Burberry became the go-to brand of chavs - who loved the brand and its look - but ironically cheapened its brand image.

ChatGPT tells me that the brand that is least likely to be harmed by counterfeits is Hermes - because it is known for its craftsmanship and uniqueness, retains exclusivity and controlled distribution, has strong brand loyalty and customer trust, and adopts proactive legal measures against counterfeiters to protect its IP. Burberry has done all of that, but what the LLM fails to account for is that brand image is also about who the brand is associated with. This is why Celine enjoyed a revival after appointing Lisa from BlackPink as its ambassador - and why LVMH is courting the global popstar now; this is why Zendaya models for LV and Yang Yang for Valentino - these celebrities are the epitome of the customer they want to go for in each regional market. This is where Burberry has failed to evolve fast enough, and only reacted to later.

Who Wears the Brand, Makes the Brand.

So how can consumers help defend brands? Aspirational customers can start with brand advocacy, by helping to sell the brand, and even if they can’t afford it yet, by sharing that desirable ad of BlackPink’s Jennie wearing Chanel. When they eventually get to the earning level that allows them to purchase the brand (i.e. they become who the brand wants to wear them), they will likely choose only the real product, because years of loyal following has instilled a strong desire for the authentic product, which will also be part of their customer experience.

Where Burberry has reinvented itself after its "chav attack" is also a lesson in Branding. Christopher Bailey ditched the infamous check print much loved by the chavs, and appointed new faces of "English chic" like Eddie Redmayne and Cara Delevingne, to reintroduce the posh and elegant touch to their brand. It is also this understated posh and "class-less" new look that was embraced by the upper class, and also made the brand more difficult to imitate. Today, its plaid is referenced only on occasion, and it is usually done in tongue-in-cheek or rebellious fashion.