Burberry's noose hoodie is part of a shameful fashion tradition

Burberry's noose hoodie was called out by a model on Instagram

A year ago Gucci put an offensive jumper on their Milan catwalk, although it took that long to actually cause offence.

The wool balaclava jumper was black with a cut-out mouth and red lips which, when pulled up over the wearer’s face, bore a disturbing resemblance to blackface. At the time, no one seemed to notice. I missed it too, and I missed it again when it went on sale last autumn, both of which now seem inexcusable – looking at it, it couldn’t be anything else. Yet it wasn’t until February this year that flags were raised – on Twitter, as is often the case these days – and even then only within the context of Black History Month. Gucci apologised, and took the jumpers off the shelves, even though they had already sat there for a good six months.

Of all the trends to dominate the past season, racist blunders like this seem to be one of fashion’s most prevalent. I can’t remember the last time I woke up to a day free of them. Just last week, Burberry had us screaming into our sleeves at the sight of a hoodie with strings tied in the shape of a noose, while in December, Prada was accused of racism for its Pradamalia creatures (more blackface).

As with Gucci, both events ended with the same sorry carousel whirring into action: outcry, response and some form of action, be it the removal of said item (Gucci) or creation of an “advisory council on diversity issues” (Prada). Asking why this keep happening feels a bit like bolting the horse, not least because of how efficiently this carousel works. Yet it needs to be asked, not least because it’s been happening for ever. In my career in fashion alone, I can remember Valentino put cornrows on the catwalk in 2015, when Marc Jacobs did the same with dreadlocks in 2016, and in the same year Dolce & Gabbana launched a pair of “slave sandals” in its spring/summer collection.

Diversity in fashion has been a hot topic for the past few years, and one that tends to focus on how its image is projected to the outside world. Translated, this means that the catwalks are generally more diverse than ever – not simply in terms of race but gender too – and that there are more black cover stars on magazines. The editor of British Vogue is black (Edward Enninful), as is the biggest menswear designer in the world (Virgil Abloh of Louis Vuitton).


Read more here

Burberry Check: This Classic Plaid is back in Fashion Again

Sistren in the Vivienne Westwood & Burberry campaign photographed by David Sims.

There are quite a few fashion predictions one can feel confident about making for this year: Veganism and sustainability will continue to be hot-button topics in the industry, everyone will want to wear anything from Valentino/Marine Serre/Paco Rabanne, influencers will continue to influence, hair clips are going to be the new statement earrings, Millennial Pink is here to stay and Burberry’s vintage check will be the most identifiable pattern.

I can feel it already. Riccardo Tisci’s first full runway collection will undoubtedly inspire a number of women to revisit the luxury brand’s offering. The first section of the spring 2018 catwalk, with its sophisticated neutral colour palette and flattering shapes, sealed that deal. However, it’s not the only part of this storied fashion house he has artfully approached since stepping in as chief creative officer last year.

The former creative director of Givenchy has established both a new logo inspired by founder Thomas Burberry and (time would only tell, right?) and reworked the most recognisable style signature of them all: the brand’s icon plaid.

Kate Moss in the Vivienne Westwood & Burberry campaign photographed by David Sims.

As seen last month on Kate Moss in a resplendent matching checked shirt-and-trousers co-ord from the brand’s hotly anticipated collaboration between Riccardo Tisci, Vivienne Westwood and Andreas Kronthaler, this was further confirmation of what I had started to sense.

No other fabric has experienced highs and lows quite like Burberry’s checks. With legacy and a certain appeals-to-all allure comes a great deal of affection, and I’m ready to dive head first into it again. It looks like the Instagram set are, too, with influencers from every age bracket breathing new life into the print.

A handful of young ones may not recall this plaid being big back in the ’90s (remember was a particularly iconic campaign that featured Moss in her checked wedding gown?), but many of the “new” ways girls are wearing the check lean toward that era’s streetwear aesthetic.

Read more here

How 'chavs' have changed the fashion world

Subcultures have always played an important role in the fashion world: big brands take and rework them according to their own style vision. But the phenomenon of the so-called ‘chavs’ had such an impact, both aesthetic and economic wise, especially on a historic and elite brand like Burberry, to represent truly a unique case. During the years the English fashion house has had its ups and downs, and after having been the most desired and copied brand of the 2000s, is now having to deal with the elimination of unsold goods worth 32 millions euros.

Who are the chavs
In every English neighborhood, there are those kids who speak in slang, smell like beer all the time and only wear designer tracksuits (adidas, Sergio Tacchini, Fila, whether they're real or knock-offs it doesn't really matter), white sneakers and caps. Well, those are chavs. The origin of the word ‘chav’ is still very discussed and controversial, but it seems to come from the Romani language and it would mean ‘child’. At the beginning, the term was used above all in Northern England, but in a very short period of time it spread all over the United Kingdom. ‘Chav’ is first used in 1998 and by 2002 it’s on all the newspapers.

Read more here

15 of the most talked about fashion moments of 2018

We know what you’re thinking. Can 2018 really be over already? The answer to that question, dear reader, is well… yes – and tbh, we’re not exactly sure what happened either. One thing we do know, though, is that it was a pretty massive year for fashion.

Between endless games of musical chairs, as the likes of Kim, Virgil, and Riccardo swapped and switched from house to house, there was a series of huge debuts, provocative moments of protest both on the runway and off, and more than a few viral moments that #broketheinternet (or at least came close to doing so).

We witnessed designers explore what the human race will look like 1000 years in the future, saw the dawn of a new age, as AI influencers and CGI models rose up and demanded to be noticed, and watched as the industry seemingly finally woke up to issues surrounding sustainability. 
With all that in mind, we’re here to remind you of some of the biggest moments of the last year. Who knows what 2019’s going to bring...

Read more here:

Burberry, H&M and Nike destroy unsold merchandise. An expert explains why

The British luxury brand Burberry brought in $3.6 billion in revenue last year — and destroyed $36.8 million worth of its own merchandise.

In July 2018, the brand admitted in its annual report that demolishing goods was just part of its strategy to preserve its reputation of exclusivity.

Shoppers did not react well to this news. People vowed to boycott Burberry over its wastefulness, while members of Parliament demanded the British government crack down on the practice. The outrage worked: Burberry announced two weeks ago it would no longer destroy its excess product, effective immediately.

Yet Burberry is hardly the only company to use this practice; it runs high to low, from Louis Vuitton to Nike. Brands destroy product as a way to maintain exclusivity through scarcity, but the precise details of who is doing it and why are not commonly publicized. Every now and then, though, bits of information will trickle out. Last year, for example, a Danish TV station revealed that the fast-fashion retailer H&M had burned 60 tons of new and unsold clothes since 2013.

In May 2018, Richemont, the owner of the jewelry and watch brands Cartier, Piaget, and Baume & Mercier, admitted that in an effort to keep its products out of the hands of unauthorized sellers, it had destroyed about $563 million worth of watches over the past two years. Whistleblowing sales associates and eagle-eyed shoppers have pointed out how this practice happens at Urban Outfitters, Walmart, Eddie Bauer, Michael Kors, Victoria’s Secret, and J.C. Penny.

The fashion industry is often cited as one of the world’s worst polluters — but destroying perfectly usable merchandise in an effort to maintain prestige is perhaps the dirtiest secret of them all. To find out why this practice is so widespread and what conservation-minded shoppers can do to fight back, I spoke with Timo Rissanen, an associate dean at Parsons School of Design and a professor of fashion design and sustainability at the school’s Tishman Environment and Design Center. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Read more here

Burberry to stop burning its unsold goods and bans real fur

Burberry has announced that it will put an end to burning its unsold goods and will also stop selling real fur, starting today, joining a group of luxury brands that have made the shift towards sustainability.

In an interview with Business of Fashion, Burberry CEO Marco Gobbetti shared more on the luxury house's new commitment to ethical fashion, after it was revealed earlier in July that Burberry destroyed $28 million worth of unsold goods in order to protect the brand.

Burberry explained that the choice to stop burning unsaleable merchandise is part of a five-year initiative the brand launched last year to adopt a more sustainable fashion approach and added that they've already started to "reuse, repair, donate or recycle unsaleable products and we will continue to expand these efforts."

The practice of burning unsold goods is commonplace in the fashion world, as many brands take this approach to prevent the goods from being sold at a discounted price. Cheaper prices also mean clothes will be easily available, which takes away from the exclusivity many designers build their brand around, but Burberry is eager to introduce a new kind of luxury.

Read more here

Burberry's admission it burns stock might just help the fashion industry

It was a small group of statistics buried in Burberry’s 200-page annual report that caused all the outrage. But while the numbers referenced with the line “finished goods physically destroyed during the year” were just business as usual for the fashion industry, to everybody else it was US$35.6 million (Dh130.7m) worth of luxury products going up in smoke. In revealing that it burns unsold clothes and cosmetics to prevent the brand from entering the “grey market” – where items are sold at knockdown prices from unofficial retailers – Burberry does offer a caveat.

The brand says that it disposes of items in an environmentally friendly manner, harnessing the energy from it during the process. It was an explanation that did little to douse the flames rising on social media, digital ire combining furiously with pithy hashtags (#Burnberry, anyone?).

How has Burberry done the fashion industry a favour?
But perhaps the British heritage brand has inadvertently done the fashion world something of a favour. Through its overt transparency, a multibillion-dollar industry that has long been riddled with bad practice and waste, could finally be required to account for its actions.

“The fact that Burberry destroys stock is not a surprising revelation for those with knowledge of the industry,” explains Sass Brown, dean of Dubai Institute of Design and Innovation. “This has been a long-time practice to ensure the exclusivity of product.”


View article here

It's not just Burberry burning clothes

Last week, a story hit the headlines about the fact that beloved British brand Burberry had destroyed over £28m of clothes and perfume last year. The outcry was immediate and widespread: that the clothing had not been donated to those in need was described as “indefensible” by users on Twitter, while some people said they’d be taking their Burberry clothing to the nearest charity shop. But if you work in fashion, the fact that luxury houses and high street brands alike routinely burn millions of pounds worth of stock (including samples and unsold products) is an open secret – albeit an incredibly bleak, very #HumansOfLateCapitalism one.

Why do brands burn? Well, there’s the fact that hefty markdowns can hurt a company’s image of being exclusive and always in-demand; a row of messy sale rails in a luxury boutique selling handbags that cost more than the average person makes in two months doesn’t exactly scream, ‘THIS IS A WORTHWHILE INVESTMENT’. If the market becomes oversaturated with cut-price products, it can negatively impact a label’s prestige – brands need their high prices to seem justifiable, and exclusivity is a key part of that. While many high-end companies operate their own outlets, they are perhaps less willing to palm off unsold stock to chains – after all, who is going to shell out for a cashmere coat if it might end up in TK Maxx in a few weeks?

Then there’s the argument that destroying clothing is protection against counterfeiting – if enough stock is sold cheaply enough to end up in the wrong hands to be copied, a brand’s intellectual property is at risk. Counterfeiting is a huge, and illegal, industry reportedly worth $450bn – where vulnerable people like undocumented immigrants are regularly exploited for low-cost labour, including in the UK. According to the UK’s Anti-Counterfeiting Group, intellectual property crime helps to fund other kinds of illegal behaviour, including the smuggling of drugs, guns and people.

Read more here

No one in fashion is surprised Burberry burn t£28m of stock last year

Last week, Burberry’s annual report revealed £28.6 million ($38 million) worth of stock was sent to be incinerated last year. The news has left investors and consumers outraged but comes as little surprise to those in the fashion industry.

The practice of destroying unsold stock, and even rolls of unused fabric, is commonplace for luxury labels. Becoming too widely available at a cheaper price through discount stores discourages full-price sales and sending products for recycling leaves them vulnerable to being stolen and sold on the black market. Jasmine Bina, CEO of brand strategy agency Concept Bureau explains, "Typically, luxury brands rally around exclusivity to protect their business interests - namely IP and preservation of brand equity." She stated she has heard rumors of stock burning but not specific cases until this week. Burberry does engage in a limited amount of cut-price selling through 54 outlet stores worldwide in comparison to their 449 directly operated full-price stores.

Another reason for the commonplace practice is a financial incentive for brands exporting goods to America. U.S. Customs and Border Protection states that “if imported merchandise is unused and exported or destroyed under Customs supervision, 99% of the duties, taxes or fees paid on the merchandise by reason of importation may be recovered as drawback.”

It is incredibly difficult to calculate how much deadstock currently goes to waste as while there are incentives to do it, there’s no legal obligation to report it. As such, most of it remains hearsay.

A source, who chose to remain anonymous, shared her experience working in a Burberry showroom in New York in October 2016. “My job, with many other people, was to toss every single piece in boxes from hundreds of racks so they can send it to burn the unsold collections. It was killing me inside because, as a vegan, seeing all that leather and fur went to waste and these animals had to die for nothing. I couldn’t stay there any longer, their business practices threw me off the roof.” In May this year, Burberry announced it was taking fur out of its catwalk shows and reviewing its use elsewhere in the business. “Even though we asked the management, they refused to give us detailed answers why on earth would they do this to their collection,” the source, who left the role within two weeks, continued. She has since worked with another high-profile, luxury label that she was horrified to discover shreds dead stock over recycling it but declined to name them for concern of being identified.

Read more here