Consider the following two charts that illustrate the same data. (I deliberately took out the header text to make a point. The original chart came from the Wall Street Journal.)
To me, the line chart gets to the point more quickly: that Burberry stores are more numerous in those places shown on the left and fewer in those places shown on the right, relative to comparable luxury brands (Prada and Louis Vuitton).
The reason why the tiled bar chart is tougher to decipher is its inefficient use of space. Within each country group, the three places are plotted on two levels, one on the upper level, and two on the lower level. Then the two groups of countries are placed top and bottom. Readers have to first size up the individual group of three countries, then make a comparison between the two groups.
From a Trifecta checkup perspective, the bigger issue here is the data. The full story seems to be that those two country groups have different currency experiences... Japan and the continental European countries have weakening currencies, which tends to make their goods cheaper for Chinese consumers. This crucial part of the story is not anywhere on the chart.
In addition, the number of stores is not a telling statistic, because stores may have different areas, and certainly the revenues generated by these stores differ, potentially by country. A measure such as change in same-store sales in each country is more informative.
It is also not true that the distribution of stores is purely a matter of business strategy, as Burberry is a British brand, Prada is Italian and Louis Vuitton is French. They each have more stores in their home countries, which seems very logical.