Why does Burberry not hold it's value?
- Thread starter Designer Patroit
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
To simplifies things, it's generally based 1) brand history and 2) on how consumers view how valuable a brand is. The more valuable someone thinks a brand is, the more they're willing to pay for.
People value brands like Hermes and Chanel because they believe that they are the elite of the elite, the "best" when it comes to luxury, quality, display of wealth, etc. And because that's how people see and value Hermes and Chanel, they are willing to pay those prices and maybe a premium price from re-sellers because they believe it's just that much worth it.
There is also a solid long-standing history of Hermes and Chanel which includes the founders, craftsmanship, which famous people who worn/used their products and quality. (How the quality of Chanel is now may be questionable to some, but) They have solidified their places as kings in the luxury world from the history and reputation they have built over the years.
Burberry became well know from making the British trench coats in WWI. The founder, Thomas Burberry, focused out outdoor attire. It later expanded it's clothing line and was very popular in the 70s and 80s among celebrities. However, it died down in popularity in the 2000s and to some, may have started looking a bit aged and old-fashioned. Their bags do not hold their value probably because people will compare them to other luxury houses (like Hermes and Chanel) and determine them to not be as "worthy". The current creative director who started in 2018, Riccardo Tisci, is quite smart, and has revitalized the brand and the logo to market it towards a younger crowd, making clothes more casual and street style. (personally I think Burberry should have done this a long time ago). However, the clothes are manufactured in China which may turn off some people (who compare it to French or Italian fashion houses).
Now the brand is more "modern" you can say, but only time will tell on how valuable they'll be to the consumer's eye. Since their most popular items are their clothes, clothes in general tend to lose value over time quite quickly. And the consumer still does not see their bags as particularly valuable currently. But all of this is subject to change based on the consumer's perspective.
Their earnings, sales, and reports are visible to the public if you like to see how they're doing as a business.
https://www.burberryplc.com/en/investors/results-reports.html
(So we might need to move this question to another thread)
Adding to @lill_canele excellent answer, I would say:-
The designer working for the house also adds enormously to value both at the time and in resale. Back in the 00s the most desired bags were by Chloe under Phoebe philo and people would pay a lot for nearly new as well whereas now Chloe sans Philo doesn’t hold value very well.
Limited editions and collaborations are also desired for their rarity eg murakami print LV and this does drive up the desirability of the house in general.
Wider trends can also drive up demand for 1 bag over others and even lead to several similar looking bags coming out at the same time. I would say the ‘folksy’ trend has given the Loewe basket a massive push which has led to an increase in designer raffia bags but a lot of them will not have the resale value of the basket now as it’s the Loewe basket people are searching for.
Finally, I would say a massive additional point in value is brand recognition. people like to buy brands and models that hold value like Chanel classic flaps or birkins and also because they will be recognised as designer bags in five years. It will also be hard to tell when a Birkin was made at a casual glance. Whereas a brand like Burberry seems to change their logo and aesthetic every 5 years so that ages their products.
Add on, the logo change at Burberry I think would turn a lot of people off too- Dior does it as well and it does mean your old stuff doesn’t match and that’s annoying.
Last edited:
I have a hardly used Burberry bag complete with receipt to prove authenticity but no one has shown any interest at all! Just ended up keeping it.
You wrote this a while ago but you are spot on even to this day!
Because they do not employ "psychological tactics" like other brands. They are almost always readily available, and they don't use the scarcity technique too. Human beings, for the most part, need validation. If you ask to buy a popular bag and they tell you no..or that you will be on the waitlist, it touches your ego. So instead of disliking it, chances are, you will want to prove yourself you can have it and that you are worthy of it.
This is a superficial view - unless one’s Burberry is a limited edition, highly coveted piece, there’s a chance one will find that style on the outlet store shelves in a couple of years.
I’m surprised no-one has mentioned the ‘chav’ stereotype and how it’s affected Burberry’s business. I don’t think Burberry has ever moved past that association.
Like a lot of things, the level of success or failure of any given brand or product is a reflection of how well it's marketed. Perhaps Burberry's marketing department doesn't prioritize its bags, but it knows their trenches and plaid scarves fly off the racks. I have a solid black Burberry long cashmere cape, and it's gorgeous. Nobody would know it's Burberry since it's solid black. But I'll wear it for years.
Burberry was the to go brand for the classic trench decades ago. I had one in the 1980s, early 90s. Years later I recall that it became high runway fashion of sorts Prorsum (I remember the year it did fabulous metallic trench coats
I think it lost its way with diffusion lines and cheap bags and too much signature print. Haven’t paid much attention to it; just my layman opinion
I think it lost its way with diffusion lines and cheap bags and too much signature print. Haven’t paid much attention to it; just my layman opinion
Last edited:
I have a Burberry dress, bought 15 years ago. Tried to find anything later but it was either too flashy, or pricey and boring.
I believe this is a valid question, considering that Burberry is one of the oldest fashion brands globally. Many members have already brought up some excellent points. When you think of Burberry, the iconic trench coat with its famous pattern often comes to mind. On the other hand, when you think of LV, handbags are likely to be associated with the brand. This distinction probably stems from the marketing strategies employed and how people have embraced the brand over the past few decades. For example, Burberry is not widely recognized for its fragrances, whereas LV, Dior, and Chanel have gained prominence for their exceptional perfumes.
I used to like Burberry, before social media. Now it feels oversaturated and so many fakes, which turns me off a bit.
I read a book called Start With Why by Simon Sinek. Maybe some brands lose the WHY they are in business and just make clothes and bags. They do not sell the clientele on the WHY they sell the products they make. A brand has to sell the WHY to the customer otherwise they will just be another clothes and bag maker. People pay a very high price for Hermes because they have not forgotten the WHY they make the bags, clothing, etc. For example, why would anybody pay thousands for a bag at Hermes because it represents luxury, status, wealth. Maybe Burberry lost the WHY.