Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to be shocked at Burberry? Is this usual?

94 replies

BobblyBits · 19/07/2018 13:16

I didn’t realise luxury companies did this? Isn’t this why they have outlet stores to dispose of goods at cheaper prices? I understand they captured the energy from burning the produce but what about the energy and resources that went into creating those resources? We’re depleting the Earth enough as it is!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44885983

OP posts:
Original poster
BobblyBits · 19/07/2018 13:16

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44885983

OP posts:
QuestionableMouse · 19/07/2018 13:18

They don't give a shit about anything but keeping the brand exclusive.

Hangingaroundtheportal · 19/07/2018 13:18

Yeah I remember my friend who works in fashion told me years ago that Chanel do this, I was so shocked!

But you know, it's all about protecting the brand dahling.......

VodkaRevelation · 19/07/2018 13:20

That’s a lot of stock to be burning. Whoever is in charge of fore casting product sales needs to be sacked.

Criminal waste. How can they justify it?

Original poster
BobblyBits · 19/07/2018 13:20

It wasn’t something I was aware of. Well I don’t own any Burberry or Chanel! In some ways I don’t know why I’m shocked. These companies don’t care for our Earth. It’s just money and profit.

OP posts:
Hangingaroundtheportal · 19/07/2018 13:24

The idea of Chanel stock ending up on a 'sale' rack somewhere is apparently so abhorrent that it's better to burn it. Hmm

Mia184 · 19/07/2018 13:25

The article states that Burberry wants to move the brand upmarket. How about doing this by moving production back to Europe? They'd also save energy because the products would not have to be shipped from countries in the Far East like India to reach the stores in Europe (assuming that their biggest market is still here and not yet in China).

Gardai · 19/07/2018 13:28

Read this too this morning, absolutely shit. Surely they could do something useful with it.
Sad on so many levels.

HariboIsMyCrack · 19/07/2018 13:29

This reply has been withdrawn

Message from MNHQ: This post has been withdrawn

brizzledrizzle · 19/07/2018 13:52

I'll never buy Burberry again. Oh...wait..slight problem with that - I never have. It's disgusting to waste products like that. They just don't get the point about pollution either if they think it's OK to burn it if the heat is used for energy.

Sarahjconnor · 19/07/2018 13:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

cafenoirbiscuit · 19/07/2018 13:54

They will destroy it rather than see it in undesirable hands, but will still sell masses of it to the likes of Daniella Westbrook
Bonkers. Just bonkers.

notanurse2017 · 19/07/2018 13:55

It's not just top brands. H and M do it - at the same time as encouraging customers to recycle Confused

Sarahjconnor · 19/07/2018 13:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MoreProsecco · 19/07/2018 13:56

It's obscene, isn't it?

Apileofballyhoo · 19/07/2018 13:57

I think it's immoral.

Peachydream · 19/07/2018 13:59

Apparently it has been going on for years, I came across this recently as Rolex have done something similar.

Richemont who own Cartier & Montblanc have been know to buy excess stock back, especially from places such as Hong Kong.

They do this to control the 'Greymarket' or unauthorized dealers, and keep demand high, which I can understand, but I'm not sure it is ethical.

Original poster
BobblyBits · 19/07/2018 14:05

highly unethical and wasteful. I understand the profit making economics maintaining brand exclusivity but there has to be another way to do this. I hope they get a lot of backlash.

I forgot about Daniela Westbrook I’ll have to google her now!

OP posts:
OliviaStabler · 19/07/2018 14:06

They were a brand loved by a certain section of society about 15 years ago. Burberry did not want to be associated with that section as they felt it tarnished their image. They burn products because selling them cheap from outlets will means that section gets hold of them again and they feel they can't have that for the sake of their image.

alphajuliet123 · 19/07/2018 14:08

Why don't they just give it to staff as a perk or give free accessories to loyal customers? Or reuse the fabrics to make scarves, or turn the perfume into room spray / candles etc. I do understand why they do it but surely there must be a better way.

worstmovieever · 19/07/2018 14:20

Why don't they just make less stock to start with. I mean it's not rocket science and if it all sells out before everyone can get one then it's exclusive.
It's like really expensive high end cars, they make a 100 and charge huge amounts for them and they then become hugely desirable.
I've only bought 2 pairs of high end shoes with bags to match but after this I'm not sure I could do it again if that's what even Chanel do! Kind of makes them seem a bit tainted now Sad
Oh and yes to bringing back production to Europe!

PopGoesTheWeaz · 19/07/2018 14:32

It;s not just the posh brands though. Ive reaed articles about Primark, H&M destroying their excess stock too. Or one rececntly about an outdoors clothing store in the US that cuts up its blankets when throwing them out to ensure no one can use them.

9amTrain · 19/07/2018 15:03

This is sick. It should be made illegal.

user1457017537 · 19/07/2018 15:10

It’s like the food waste by supermarkets, highly abhorrent. Disgusting on so many levels

jay55 · 19/07/2018 16:10

The image clearly isn’t working if they have to destroy that much stock.