Opinion:Is ‘rebranding’ the actual change needed at Celine and Burberry?


Its official; Each time there is a designer/creative director change at the helm of major fashion house, a ‘rebranding’ soon follows. Changing the logo, the house’s headquarters and even the name (Slimane’s Saint Laurent’s the most recent example) are only some of the ways fashion houses communicate there’s a change happening and we must await for it.

What we don’t usually see it’s the real change in itself, a set of aesthetics that would interfere and reshape reality, otherwise a design process that would lead to some beautiful clothes that tell a story. Creativity has long seized to be the dominant value fashion houses’ would invest in as the new set of millennial/genz qualities are rising. And rebranding caters those needs more sufficiently.

Phoebe Philo’s Celine has proved beauty sells. Perhaps not adequately, perhaps not as expected. But her talent created a fashion cult, a distinctive style we could somehow relate to, posed questions we had to consider.

And here’s the deal, if you don’t challenge the vision and the aesthetics of consumers they’ll end up wanting what you tell them should want. Bold statements, instagrammable accessories, hyped ‘street wear’. High fashion brands cherish those desires with a the significant cost , to look all like in this race of conspicuous consumption and thus create an audience unable to think-just adjusting their personal choices to their social media feeds.


And that is why too much rebranding makes consumers stupid.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s