Reading Time: 6 minutes

Some brands are associated almost forever with some stars. From Audrey Hepburn with Givenchy towards Gwyneth Paltrow and Prada. Some associations are for ever elegantly timeless. Unfortunately others should be avoid! And in this case, we should talk about Chanel and some pop singers. Frankly, some of them should be forbidden as it hurts so much the image of the brand. Check it out.

Rihanna, Sex sells.


Rihanna is definitely the one who started this Chanel mania. Not only she shows, as above, that she is a good customer of Chanel, but she adds several accessories from the Brand into her video clips. She is the young daughter of the Bling-Bling generation. It started with artists like Puff Daddy or Kanye West. The goal was to “possess” luxury. The more expensive, the more with Diamonds and the bigger the logos… the better. Rihanna is a second generation of Bling-Bling. She dreamed of the celebrity status of her “older brothers” and basically makes a superficial consumption of luxury. She would completely justify Alain Bourdieu’s conspicuous sign of wealth theory. She does not wear Chanel because of her lifestyle, she wears Chanel because she can afford it. Probably many people around the world do the same, the problem with Rihanna, is that you can see her on TV . Here below an image taken from one of her recent video clips. She is wearing a Chanel accessory to complete her look of…. well, I let you complete the sentence.

Rihanna-Chanel-belt Rihanna-chanel-ear-rings

In the below image, we can say that there is no need to explain the shocking attitude and the Chanel logo… This different images places Chanel into the level of a overrated consumption style that is so cheap. Not so sure if the loyal Chanel customer would recognize themselves into it.


Miley Cyrus, from Disney to bitchy-land.


Many people criticize Miley Cyrus for erasing her image of Disney fairy to become more a Queen of provocation. In this article and at Luxuryactivist, we do not really care about this point as it is all about entertainment. But what we should highlight is the amazing usage of Chanel by her. It is almost a full sponsor as in almost her appearances and performances she wears something from the French luxury brand. Here above we can see a picture made at the Chanel store, basically, answering to Rihanna’s picture. It is like “I can also buy Chanel”. She probably has an inferiority complex towards Rihanna, because she is basically doing everything Rihanna does.


In every show she performs, she presents herself with a different Chanel accessory. And we cannot say it is all about good taste! Not really. Most of her shows are the reflexion of a “bling-bling-cheap” generation based on consumption and being a celebrity. Here below you can see Miley Cyrus wearing a white Chanel accessory and the second picture is even worse: She is smoking drugs and showing her Chanel bag. I do not know what true Chanel customers would say. By using Chanel, she is proving that she is a real successful celebrity with a lot of money.

Miley-Cyrus-Chanel-accessory miley-cyrus-smoking-Chanel-bg

Here in the below image, we can see another Miley Cyrus look. The Chanel bag would never be chosen by her if you could not see the big double C. It makes Chanel so cheap that you could think it is a fake one.



Lady Gaga, it is all about everything and its contrary.


Lady Gaga became a true phenomenon. She was elected as the most influential person in the world by Time magazine last year. We got used to her extravagance and frankly there is a lot of intelligence behind all her moves. She is well surrounded and plays her career as a true global brand. Everything is calculated and build to the success of her image. That’s fine, but look the outrage of her outfit here above. The Chanel logo is played as a carnival disguise. Again, a lot of Bad taste.

The Chanel logo became an Icon of provocation

Several companies and even stars uses the Chanel logo as an icon of provocation and contrast. Of course when the Brand itself makes surfboards of other snowboards with the big double C, it is more a “clin d’oeil”. But here, it is all about bad taste. By using the ultimate luxury brand in a provocative way, they have a kind of paradox that makes the exercise interesting. Interesting for who?


Here above. Do you recognize who it is? Get some help here: it is Justin Bieber. Now, we reach the level of middle-age darkness or just trying to make something not really defined. Fortunately this kind of images does not stay but it would definitely put me far away from the brand. Does the brand even knows about all these usages of its logo? Is Chanel ok with all of these? Hard to believe that the white Camelia brand would support all these initiatives. We can even find websites proposing very eccentric T-shirts with strange usage of the Chanel Logo. Not sure how far this is legal. As it is the case of this website: They have an entire section of products merchandised with the Chanel logo on it. Some of them have a very “specific” usage of the Chanel logo.



Can the Chanel brand allow this? Probably I am getting old, but surely that there is a problem here. Of course, Chanel cannot forbid people to buy products from them. Or it is completely forbidden to select who can enters your shop or not. All these stars can do whatever they want in their private lives. The problem here is that the Brand Chanel is used almost exclusively in these celebrities public lives. Miley Cyrus uses more Chanel accessories on stage than in her private life. The same for Rihanna, etc… So there is a commercial benefit based on a profitable activity that should represent a problem for Chanel. It is almost product placement strategies.

If someone from Chanel wishes to bring some light into this darkness, (s)he is more than welcome to let a comment here below. We know that there is a collaboration ongoing with Rihanna. Last june it was announced by Chanel, Anyway, what we can see is that money can buy many things but it does not buy “good taste”.



Info sourced at,,, All content is copyrighted with no reproduction rights available.