Rihanna, Chloe Sevigny & more get paid major money to attend fashion shows

wenn21157902

The Telegraph has a fascinating story about what celebrities really earn to show up at fashion shows, or to tweet about certain products or to get freebies from major companies. Apparently, in the PR world, there’s something called “seeding” – a list of major celebs/fashionistas who can be paid to tweet about your product or who will agree to get pap’d wearing or carrying your product. I mean, I knew that all of this existed, I just didn’t know it had an actual name and that it was so widespread in America and the UK.

Next time you see a star perched on the front row at a fashion show, don’t assume they’re there purely out of love for the brand. Though some of course are, there are also a few who’ll be getting paid a pretty penny to attend. New reports today reveal the extent brands go to in order to attach a celebrity face to a label. According to The Sun, £60,000 will secure you Beyonce or Rihanna on the front row, while £40,000 will get you actress and fashion favourite Chloe Sevigny.

But the payback isn’t always monetary. In 2007, Lily Allen admitted that in return for attending a Yves Saint Laurent show in Paris she was taken to the flagship store and told to help herself, before emerging with £5,000 worth of dresses, handbags and accessories. Then last month she shamelessly admitted that she returned to the music industry following a two-an-a-half year ‘retirement’ because she “missed the free clothes and handbags and the good tables in posh restaurants.”

The freebies are another part of the PR-driven underbelly of the fashion industry. Get your handbag in the hands of, say, Kate Moss or Cara Delevingne and you’re guaranteed a sales and interest spike. Those are just two names that commonly appear on PR ‘seeding’ lists – a list of up to 100 desirable celebrities that will each be sent a product in the hope that they are photographed with it. Apparently, if even one person out of the 100 is snapped with the item then that is considered a successful PR move.

The tactic has now extended to social media, with stars either being paid thousands of pounds or getting considerable freebies to endorse brands via their Twitter or Instagram accounts. British model Poppy Delevingne, a prolific Instagrammer, is no stranger to a sly plug; following her May 16 wedding she tweeted a photo of herself and new husband James Cook clutching branded Champagne glasses with the message: “The perfect champagne for the perfect day @PerrierJouet #BeautifulBubbles”. Just a few months before she’d enjoyed a fun- and sun-soaked hen party at the Coachella music festival in California ‘sponsored’ entirely by clothing brand Superdry, which featured heavily on her Instagram page in return. Meanwhile, Glee actress Lea Michelle was paid a reported £12,000 to attend the same festival dressed head-to-toe in Lacoste.

[From The Telegraph]

The Lily Allen thing is probably the worst part, I think. I mean, I guess I should give her props for being honest about why she’s doing the whole “comeback” thing, but she just sounds so superficial and vapid. Still, this is just another example of how it pays to even have a modicum of fame – even C-listers can make a nice, tidy sum to tweet about products or show up at a fashion show. But £40,000 for Chloe Sevigny?! RLY? I can understand shelling out that kind of money for a Rihanna or a Kate Moss, but Chloe? It just seems random.

Of course the worst is still Kevin Jonas’ daughter’s birth having a corporate sponsorship.

wenn21324485

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

66 Responses to “Rihanna, Chloe Sevigny & more get paid major money to attend fashion shows”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Tanguerita says:

    Not only in USA and UK. I worked with and for some Russsian “celebrities” and this practice is just as widespread there. There are price lists for everything – how much for casually mentioning the name of the brand on twitter, in livejounal or on Instagram, publishing an picture of the product, etc etc.

  2. Lulu says:

    Chloé is NOT a random choice, during the naughties (or whatever you call it) she was THE it girl for fashion with an avantgardistic edge. Remember when she did a really cool collection for Opening Ceremony? I think fashionistas all over the world are really monitoring her choices

    • Lilalis says:

      As much as I like Chloé, her fashion choices all scream “Look at me, I’m edgy!”
      I haven’t seen her in a decent outfit in ages. Her fashionista days are long gone.

      • Lulu says:

        That might be true. She does look a bit awkward 🙂 But hey, I still think she has some kind of personal brand that somehow is attractive for the big fashion houses

      • Adrien says:

        She gained attention from fashion watchers b’c of her minimalist, no-fuss style. Plus she dated fashionable hipster, Jarvis Cocker which added to her cool fashion persona. Later, her quirky, laid-back style became well put together and a bit contrived like she’s living up to her fashion icon status. I still love Chloe and I-m always interested in what she’s wearing, hit or miss.

      • bettyrose says:

        I feel like Chloe is the ultimate example of a”safety net hipster.” She’s not untalented, but her edgy street cred is somewhat suspect. Grow up rich. check. Move to Manhattan knowing you’ll be saved by the parents if you fail. check. Act like you’re unique because you had the luxury of blowing off college. check. Tell other kids to do the same, but really only mean other rich kids like you. check.

    • Sumodo1 says:

      …and appear in 7 seasons of “Big Love” on HBO? Checkmate!

      • bettyrose says:

        Yeah, she’s a decent actress who lucked into a very well written role, but that’s been off the air for, what, five years now?

  3. MediaB says:

    While I think Lily Allen was being honest, you need to factor in the “British” sense of humour – dry and self-deprecating. She knows she sounds like a wanker.

    • Hannah says:

      True. But as I say further below, if you check out her instagram, you will get the impression that she is shallow and brand-obsessed.

      • MediaB says:

        I follow her on twitter and very much notice the brand-dropping, and also begging. Which I guess is now called “seeding” ;-). Honestly she just seems as insecure as all the rest but is more open about it by being blatant.

        Also, while risking being labelled a troll, I think American stArs are much better at faking sincerity and doing seeding “well” because it’s such a part of American “politeness” culture and advertising (Have a GREAT day etc – I say this as an Aussie who lived in the US for 4 years, and UK for two – it’s just different in America…).

      • TG says:

        Is Lily Allen really that famous? I only know her as that sloppy fat British girl with dark hair who smoked while pregnant. Never heard her sing anything. Anyway, Lily is just being honest about her greed unlike other celeb moms who like to give interviews about how after baby they thought about quitting the business but just couldn’t. I am thinking of Drew Barrymore at the moment but there are dozens upon dozens just like her. And no, I am not criticizing a mom for working, I work too, but for their dishonesty in why they are working. I mean Drew sells crap at Wal-Mart now. You want to tell me that isn’t about greed.

      • SpookySpooks says:

        She’s famous in Europe.

    • SpookySpooks says:

      I saw the interview, she said it as a joke.
      And even if she didn’t, props to her for being honest. They all do it, they just pretend they’re above it. I really like her.

      • MediaB says:

        Yep. Doesn’t surprise me. So many commens by uk stars are reported with a breathless straight face on US outlets like this, while completely missing the tone of the original comment.

    • lana86 says:

      yeah, it sounds like “Mindy Lachiri joke” to me)) Part joke, part true)

  4. belle says:

    jared leto’s twitter is all about seeding then

  5. AG-UK says:

    My fashion friend says first class tickets ($10K) clothes/ handbags ($15k) hotel stay etc… so they don’t sit there just because they like the clothes. That’s why producing these fashion shows cost so much..

    • Shannon1972 says:

      Yes – celebrity appearances (and all that entails) are built into the cost of producing a fashion show. No celebrities, no media coverage. It’s the price of doing business these days. Lea Michelle at Coachella for Lacoste is a great example. She paid for nothing at the festival, but got paid, got photographed and kept the clothes. Nice work if you can get it!

      Just as an aside, because this is my very favorite topic, the $15k in clothes/handbags is the *retail* value. The wholesale cost is usually a third that amount, and the cost of actually producing the goods can be half of the wholesale price or less. So it isn’t really as extravagant as it sounds. I used to work for a very famous designer who sold certain ridiculously popular shirts (regular label) for $60. The actual cost to make them? $8.00. Yes, eight. dollars. Welcome to fashion. 😉

  6. Hannah says:

    “The Lily Allen thing is probably the worst part, I think. I mean, I guess I should give her props for being honest about why she’s doing the whole “comeback” thing, but she just sounds so superficial and vapid.” Totally. That’s the impression I get from her Instagram as well.

    I guess it would be kinda stupid for all of these women (mostly, presumably there’s much less money in it for guys) to turn this kind of thing down because I can’t think of an easier way to make money. But it does all seem a bit wrong to me.

    How is any of this beneficial to luxury companies anyway? Surely the people rich enough to buy Chanel etc. are going to buy it irrespective of whether or not Chloe is sitting front row or Rihanna is tweeting about getting a bag from them? And young girls that are fans of these people can’t afford that stuff.

    • Lucretia says:

      Agreed. Why do people who can afford this stuff care if a C-lister is using them? It almost cheapens the product. And finding time during your wedding to tweet about the champagne? Incredibly tacky.

    • paola says:

      I think the fashion houses are trying to target a younger audience. That’s why they want people like Rihanna or Beyonce, their fans want to emulate them and buy what they wear to be more like them fashion wise.

    • AG-UK says:

      Exactly they ARE rich enough so pay for it. It’s sort of irritating, plus cannot stand Lily Allen. But the real money is made off handbags/perfume as some can scrap together the cost of a handbag but never could get it together for a $15k dress/ outfit. People queue for LV/ Chanel they have to rope it off here in London like a nightclub.

      • Sacred And Profane says:

        I’m glad you brought this up, AG-UK. In the book, “Affluenza”, Oliver James addresses this very point. High couture fashion houses now rely on those smaller items. Once upon a time, their clothes were so exclusive and so expensive that they were beyond the reach of the everyday working girl (and guy) who has a fashion passion. They hit on the idea of marketing the smaller items – perfumes, make up, bags, wallets, sunglasses, scarves etc. – to the less affluent. Now, we can all afford the smaller accessories, boasting the company logo, of course. According to James, it makes us feel part of that exclusive fan club of the big fashion houses, and as you say, they make serious money from these accessories that everyone can afford and access.

    • MediaB says:

      Re: luxury companies, it consolidates/confirms their brand to those who aspire to that wealthy (:cough: new money or young) lifestyle. These folks are paying attention to Rihanna/cara. That’s how they sell the $200-1000 accessories (a one-off special purchase x 100,000) and sell a hell of a lot of them at significant profit.

      It’s a double edged sword though – Burberry is still trying to recover after being coopted by UK “Chav” culture.

      • Bridget says:

        I agree, that almost killed Burberry. And I think there will be a pendulum shift the other way, because how exclusive can it be if there’sa list of 100 people? It feels like a scheme created by a social media PR company that took off because there are posts to fill on gossip sites every day. I wish I could see data on which celebrities get the most clicks vs which products actually see a spike in sales, because I’ve always thought that a great deal of traffic on gossip websites is fuelled by idle surfing to kill time vs a true passionate love for that celebrity and their style.

      • LAK says:

        Bridget: I don’t know about stats, but for a time in UK in the late 90s-mid 00s, Kate Moss’s clothes used to sell out whatever she was papped wearing. Designers would also take her clothes and react them the following season eg this vintage lemon yellow dress was on the catwalk of several designs the season after she was papped wearing it. Hers was vintage from the 50s. http://www.harpersbazaar.com/cm/harpersbazaar/images/Bk/hbz-kate-moss-yellow-dress-0511-de.jpg

        At one point London looked like one big copy Kate – alikes.

        Unfortunately she sold out, became more accessible and now doesn’t have an impact, but she still gets alot of free clothing.

      • Bridget says:

        @LAK I should clarify. I think we can all agree that there are certain celebrities who truly are style setters – Kate Moss unquestionably being one of them. I’m wondering more about others who are in demand for the “seeding” work but aren’t in demand for their acting work any more (say, numbers 20-100 on that list). A great example is Kate Bosworth – her only real role of note was many years ago, and yet she’s still in demand as a “mocktress”. Does her appearance actually make any money, or does it just generate a few extra hits on a website. Am I making any sense?

    • Badirene says:

      I think they count on celebs bringing attention to the brand and then leading those who can’t afford the high end items buying the items that are more affordable, like perfume and the make up ranges, this is where the fashion houses make money now.

      Creates a culture of luxury by association.

      • Hannah says:

        Stands to reason.

      • Ennie says:

        ITA , you are right

      • Gina says:

        You just outlined their business model. It’s all about the accessories. It’s their cash cow.
        I’ve heard that on average a bottle of department store perfume (eau de parfum specifically) costs around $4 to make. The fragrance is made in large batches so it costs them pennies per bottle. The rest of the cost (the $3) is the bottle. After that, it’s all profit for them.

    • Ennie says:

      It is all publicity, get the brand to be seen by the general public as cool. It is aspirational.
      Also, many of them sell makeup and perfume, which makes a big bulk of their sales.

    • Penny says:

      The way the big brands market their haute couture lines is completely different, and mostly it’s done on a one to one basis with their best customers. The same thing goes for the more expensive brands ready to wear lines, the customers usually have a relationship with sales staff at their favourite boutique, so again it’s more of a one to one thing. Staff call when something nice comes in, host private parties/viewings for regular customers etc.

      What they’re trying to sell when they use celebrities is things like handbags, sunglasses, make-up, perfume…these days there’s really something for everyone. Even a not too well off teenager can afford a lipstick or a key ring and they can save up for a fabric tote bag or a pair of sunglasses.

  7. paola says:

    Lily Allen mum of the year. I wonder what her husband thinks of her lifestyle now. She is not honest, she’s a vapid famewhore. She would sell her soul for a Chanel handbag.

    • Aussie girl says:

      I was thinking the same things she dissed the whole scene to embrace motherhood and she seemed to have for bored with that & ran back to her old coked out ways.

    • SpookySpooks says:

      Why does everybody hate her? Yes, she’s a big mouth, but at least she writes her music and her songs are really good. And where do you get the idea that she’s a bad mum?

      • Aussie girl says:

        I have a right to not like her as you have a right to Like her & I NEVER said she was a bad mother.

      • Clever hand says:

        I think Spookyspooks is honestly asking. I live in USA and we don’t get much news/goss about her (that I can recall) so I mostly know her for her music, which to me is ok.

      • K says:

        Her songs are boring and ridiculously autotuned. She’s extremely overrated.

    • paola says:

      Because she really is a vapid and shallow person. She left the spotlight to be a mother and give her 100% to her husband and kids and now she’s back because she missed the freebies and the clothes?! She’s papped at every event on this planet and no sight of husband or kids.
      If you’ll ever have a chance to listen to her you’ll see how annoying she is, up her own arse and very obnoxious. She ditched her family life to be once again a mediocre singer with a very grating voice. She always tries to be relevant through twitter feuds with fellow celebrities. she is such a hypocrite.

      • Mary says:

        I personally think she’s a good singer. People are allowed to change their minds about full time motherhood. I’m sure she can afford to be a “celebrity and a mother” . I do think she’s an attention seeker eg the game of thrones incest sister thing but I can think of worse.

      • SpookySpooks says:

        She said it as a joke. I like her songs, the lyrics aren’t your typical pop lyrics, and I love her voice.
        She is famewhore-y, that’s true.
        And just because she’s working doesn’t mean she isn’t a good mother.

  8. Loopy says:

    Also shocked at Chloe Sevigny, wow!

  9. lucy2 says:

    Must be nice to get a regular person’s yearly salary for spending a day or two at a fashion show.
    I guess it’s just a different method of advertising and endorsements, just a bit sneakier. For ordinary stuff I suppose it’s OK, but for very personal things like weddings and births, it seems very distasteful.

  10. Allie says:

    As someone who is crazy in debt because of student loans, this annoys me to no end.

  11. Dawn says:

    I am not too shocked by this. Most celebrities who casually mention products on either twitter or instagram or their blogs are getting paid each time they do. That is why I pay little heed to what a celebrity says because they are always making a pitch and it is doubtful they even use the products they are pitching. My friend’s opinions and experiences mean far more to me than any rich celeb.

  12. OriginalCrystal says:

    I thought this was pretty known.
    Why do you think Kim Kardashian was instagramming pics of designer outfits sent to North ? She may not have been paid for it but the fashion houses definitely use her to get to her fans.
    Do you know how many young girls are rocking Cartier Love Rings/Bracelets because of Kendall & Kylie? Broke light-skinned girls with curly hair on instagram can feel like celebs without having to fork out $20,000 on a couture dress. I gave my Juste un Clou to my little sister because I hated rocking the same accessories as 19 yr old girls on tumblr. Gross.

    Like someone said above though, it’s a double edged sword. You best believe that the Kardashians have made Hermès tacky as f-ck and look at what happened to Tommy Hilfiger when rappers started rocking his clothes in every music video… I see the same thing happening to Versace now that every rapper on BET is wearing a print shirt in their videos. Those things aren’t expensive so their fans can easily replicate them.

  13. Lindy says:

    I think the seeding is particularly visible when it’s a generally uncool brand that a celebrity would be unlikely to ever choose on her own. Example: Taylor Swift going out in a Talbot’s sweater a couple of months ago.

  14. Calcifer says:

    In Cannes this year it was worse than ever with models and actresses showing up to premieres dripping with jewels and being paid for it by jewellery companies. And that included Amber Heard who just last year claimed that she really wanted to be an ARTIST. It is all become so extremely commercial it doesn’t seem to be about the films, or ‘art’ , anymore at all.

    • don't kill me i'm french says:

      JLaw was paid $250,000 to wear Chopard jewels in 2013 Oscars(this year,it was rumored $500,000)

  15. eliza says:

    I find it odd to pay these people to attend and promote high fashion which the average person cannot afford.

    I am tired of well to do celebrities being given freebies when they have the money to pay for stuff themselves. No celebrity influences my style or purchasing.

  16. TheOneandOnlyOnly says:

    What I find interesting is that in two generations we’ve gone from a countercultural that at least attempted to not sell-out and be authentic, to just about everyone selling out, and there is almost no criticism. WHat is even more hypocritical is that many of these greedheads affect adversarial stances, and yet they are all in the pocket of essentially multi-national corporations. Give me Jimi Hendrix, George Harrison over these greedy marginally talented famehos anyday.
    That’s why so much of this music is bad – there’s no feeling behind it because the only motivation is money.
    In a sense Youtube has become the outlet and countercultural.
    Anyway, what ever happened to authenticity.
    Neil Young has come out with a new cd well reviewed in the Wall street journal so that offsets this offensive crap.

  17. Tiffany :) says:

    Stars will also get free top-of-the-line, not yet released luxury cars in exchange for being papped with them. The car companies even take care of the insurance!

  18. LAK says:

    Chloe Sevigny is revered by fashionista. She’s a notorious mocktress, better known for her fashion sense than anything she’s ever done on screen.

    Not saying that she hasn’t done any good work on screen or that we should group her in the same bracket of vapid talentless mocktresses like the two Jessicas, Kate Bosworth, but Chloe’s the premiere hipster fashionista of her generation.

    And no, I don’t get it even though I love fashion.

  19. Bridget says:

    This is an interesting continuation on the Hollywood Reporter’s “mocktress” article last year. People keep asking how Stacy Kiebler could have made so much money while she was with Clooney – it was the appearances, store openings, fashion strolls, pap walks.

    What I find most interesting is that its a list of 100 just for the US and UK! How thin do you think that list is in the lower 50, amd yet its still considered a success? I’ve often wondered if there’s a disconnect between who the PR people think is a ‘get’ vs who actually sells. For example, are that many people clamoring for what Kate Bosworth is wearing?

    • don't kill me i'm french says:

      iin fact some expensive brands pay the paps to photograph the celebrities with their clothes then thanks to fashion blogs and the sell of the pics,they are repaid and they have free publicity

  20. Bella Bella says:

    Chloe Sevigny is an Oscar nominee. Why do people always forget that?

  21. Dee says:

    I don’t exactly come from old money, but my paternal grand-mere came from a very wealthy family. Every time I visited her, even in her late 90s, she’s always either in a afternoon or evening gown. This is a woman that was raised in the high-society of the 1920’s. One things she always told me was that, like a really expensive restaurant putting prices on their menus, wearing clothing that loudly proclaimed their brand was as gauche as wearing a dress with dollar signs printed all over it. Wealth has to be worn subtly. Growing up almost none of her clothing had labels because all her evening gowns were custom made. I’m still kind of upset that she never held onto any of her old gowns because I would diet my ass off to fit into any one of them.

    I buy my clothes cheap but even in my super frugal state, I always try to buy things with no visible brand name. I don’t understand how anyone with the kind of money to buy these products places any weight on what d-list celebrity is also using the same products. I can understand people who take out loans or buy $50,000 purses on credit doing it for the sole reason of showing off but people who can actually afford to buy these things cash-in-hand do it because of the quality not because they want everybody on the street to marvel at their wealth.

    • Reece says:

      That is why i don’t things from say, Coach. I HATE the labels all over it!

      • lrm says:

        yea, I said to my family ‘why do people want to pay all of that money to basically give these luxury brands free advertising?’ I try to avoid any clothing with tags on the outside and hate that it’s become fashionable b/c now everyone’s doing it and it’s hard to find something that doesn’t have that ugly and tacky branding. Anyway, my 12 year old SON replied instantly ‘b/c it’s a nice bag, mom’. haha. True, he does know quality. But, t here are nice bags that don’t have the company name and logo smeared all over it….I just find it so tacky. If it’s small on the buckle or corner, I might wear or buy it if I really loved an item, for example. But that would be in spite of the tags or labels, not because of them!

        I just feel like these wealthy corporations keep getting the last laugh and people act like they are lucky or otherwise seen as superior b/c of the right brands. Teens are one thing, but dam adults are in this same mindset for their entire life. I feel duped and trolled by the capitalistic machines who are laughing all the way to the bank. And people keep buying into it:

        Allow them to sell you the privledge of advertising for them!

      • Amulla says:

        Coach bags are not even good quality. I bought one and the tags fell off of it. And no, it wasn’t one from one of their outlet stores. I bought it at a department store. They told me they couldn’t replace the tags, because that style was too old, and all they could do was offer me a $75 voucher to buy a new coach bag.

  22. Ms.Virago says:

    Kind of makes you think, especially when you see celebs that are not particularly fashion conscious sitting in the front row. For a long time, my personal fave was B. Cum (Benedict, of course) sitting in the front row of various fashion shows. (Maybe still does?) He dresses like a well-off hobo in his personal life, but there he was. I always just assumed he was chasing model strange–but he was earning, too. Smart guy!

    • don't kill me i'm french says:

      my fav celebrities are the ones who never go to the parties or after-parties or fashion shows or opening shops ;P

  23. MD says:

    Alessandra Ambrosio and Adriana Lima are always doing it.

  24. CK says:

    If I could, then I would. Maybe not for situations that I want to be intimate, i.e. private weddings/births, but for red carpets/pr trips to fashion shows, why not make a little cash on the side. Fame is fleeting, better get that money while you can.