As other brands took off astronomically throughout 2016 and 2017—Vetements, Balenciaga, Stone Island—Burberry didn’t. It remained largely the same, its collections more in line with the traditional Bottega Veneta than a trend-setting Balenciaga. But, 2018 presented Burberry with a unique opportunity; fashion and streetwear were coming together to be, essentially, one and the same. That allowed Burberry to embrace things that had previously tormented it as part of a meta-referential—and deeply ironic—reset.

First, the brand collaborated with Gosha Rubchinskiy on a chav-influenced collection that examined the influence and, frankly, checkered past of the Nova Check. For Rubchinskiy, the pattern was intricately tied to football fandom in his native Russia and the collaborative capsule was definitely chav-tastic, as the British tabloids were wont to say in the 2000s. For Burberry, it was liberation through self-deprecation.

Outside of the Rubchinskiy collection, the brand put the check pattern at the forefront with a rainbow-infused Nova Check—a tribute to the LGBTQ+ community—introduced tie-dye Nova Check, and broadly embraced the pattern that had almost been the brand’s demise. Elsewhere, the brand looked back on its history with more deft self-deprecation, structuring a sizeable portion of its mainline 2018 collections—the brand utilizes a once-a-year direct-to-market show strategy—around the concept of counterfeited and vintage Burberry (including the long-dead “Burberry’s” spelling) goods.

Some, who lived through Burberry’s attempt to dissociate itself from those who were wearing the Nova Check in the ’90s and ’00s, were unimpressed with the brand accepting its connotations in subculture two decades later. For Burberry, though, it was a poignant tongue in cheek reference to when fashion was appropriated by the streets, during at time when—ironically—the runway is appropriating the streetwear. To quote Gregk Foley, [writing for Sleek Mag](https://www.sleek-mag.com/article/checkered-history-of-burberry/, the chav history of the Nova Check was “the only thing in their arsenal that carried this weight, and its most significant contemporary meaning is one that [Burberry] themselves have struggled to accept.”

For a brand like Burberry, which had reaped the short-term financial rewards of street popularity in the aughts only to be shunned by its fashionable peers, 2018 felt like vindication. When every other brand—Fendi, Prada, Balenciaga, Louis Vuitton—was desperately trying to fashion itself as authentically street, Burberry had real cachet to fall back on. That cachet has boosted the brand’s profile, but it has not necessarily turned out to be profitable, with sales stagnating both at home and abroad for the first quarter of 2018.

The 2018 offering appears to be last we’ll see of classic Burberry, though. It was Christopher Bailey’s last for the brand, with Riccardo Tisci, formerly of Givenchy, set to assume creative directorship of the company under newly-appointed CEO Marco Gobbetti. The Italian duo have stated that they wish to position Burberry upstream from where it currently sits as an unsure upscale player.

Therein lies the element déclencheur for the more thorough rebrand, unveiled on August 2nd. Burberry commissioned Peter Saville—the design legend best known for creating artwork for Joy Division and New Order—to revamp the brand’s logo. In return, he gave them a new monogram, based on Thomas Burberry’s initials, it’s an über-contemporary embrace of logomania that represents a 180-degree shift from what Burberry has attempted in the years leading up to Bailey’s departure in 2018. This comes at a time when many other luxury brands, like the aforementioned foursome of Fendi, Prada, Balenciaga and Louis Vuitton, are set to put nostalgic, streetwise, logo-leaning collections in shop windows for the latter half of 2018. As pointed out by Business of Fashion, labels like Fendi, Gucci and Dior have each unlocked past monogram prints to appeal to a contemporary desire for high-impact branded items. Burberry’s vintage look would have fit in well—if not better—despite the 2018 collection’s underwhelming Q1 debut.

The rebrand was hastily commissioned, something which Burberry has seemingly taken pride in by showcasing emails between Tisci and Saville where the former says that timeline for the project was 4 weeks, rather than the 4 months that the graphic designer claimed was necessary to complete the project. While the success of the monogram will depend on how it’s used, the type-focused logo has been almost universally criticized, with some saying it could have been made on Microsoft Word, while others pointed out its lack of charisma and elegance.

It has been even more hastily implemented, with the new logo already live on Burberry’s website and social media channels. It’s questionable given that Bailey’s ’90s-infused pieces continue to live on the brand’s digital presence next the ultra-modern logo—but perhaps that’s just the reality of a “changing of the guard” among creative directors.

Perhaps it would have made more sense to wait until Tisci’s debut collection to change everything with one fell swoop and provide a clean break with the Burberry of yore. After all, that’s what Tisci and Gobbetti seem to be aiming for. The flat monogram and the even flatter wordmark are ready made for broad application; there’s no denying that the brand was looking for a logo that would make sense in more contemporary markets, [on a suite of garments beyond than the traditional trench. As Saville explained to dezeen, “Historically, Burberry's logotype was appropriate to the trench coat's utilitarian nature. Burberry needed an identity that is fluid and able to cross over into all the categories that are required of a big luxury clothing and accessories brand–something to transcend the company provenance without denying it.”

Without mincing words, the new Burberry seems one willing to sacrifice (or, reconfigure) its history for quick growth in emerging markets and sectors, where the brand’s history carries less weight than in, say, London. Ironic meta-referential collections nodding to the brand’s sometimes tumultuous past might not resonate outside of the U.K. and United States, but a crisp logo, ostentatious monogram and the star power of Riccardo Tisci certainly do. Tisci pulled off a similar feat at Givenchy, breaking with the house’s established tradition and modernizing the brand to much success—and fanfare. So, as a company, it’s likely a brilliant move, destined to steer it towards new profits and profitability, but for Burberry’s traditional brand, it’s a sad turn.

The crossroads that the brand finds itself at was perfectly illustrated on Thursday, the day that the rebrand was unveiled. The first piece of Burberry news that hit was that the brand’s half-and-half silk scarf shirt was now available for purchase, drawing on the brand’s archives from the ’80s and ’90s. It was ironic, but very du jour for 2018. Then, a few hours later, came news of the flat rebrand. The juxtaposition was that of a brand that, despite never reaping massive financial windfall, was in a place to reference its archives from decades ago, but opting to change course in search of quick and easy profits. Then, in the afternoon, another tidbit of Burberry news surfaced, with the release of a vintage check high-top sneaker. The garishness harkened back to when Burberry was referred to as chav-tastic in the tabloids, the last time that the brand sought quick profits by licensing out its Nova Check, only to find its history brand diluted.

It should serve as an omen to Gobbetti and Tisci. While Burberry’s run toward branding and logomania is certainly on the mark for today’s consumer, it’s reminiscent of the over-branding that killed Burberry in the late-'90s and 2000s. What seems like a sure-fire way to make a quick impact may end up backfiring in the long run.

Follow Marc on Twitter here.