<\/p>\n
\n Leading a brand is more than having good taste or impeccable personal style, it requires actual skills like planning collections and managing a label\u2019s legacy. Celebrities may generate constant online chatter and clicks but that doesn\u2019t always translate into sales, Boyd-Griffith points out. At a time when tariffs<\/a> run high and everyone\u2019s feeling the squeeze, \u201cconsumers aren\u2019t rushing out to buy a product just because a celebrity is attached, unless it\u2019s with a more accessible high-street brand,” he adds. \u201cThese partnerships often feel like buzz noise.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n Boyd-Griffiths predicts that we\u2019ll soon see the pendulum swing back in favor of the technically trained. \u201cIn reality, the industry is moving in the opposite direction. We\u2019re seeing a renewed focus on \u2018designers\u2019 designers, those who\u2019ve had their heads down, cutting their teeth in-house at brands for decades,\u201d he says. This season alone, several such names made their debuts like Nicholas Aburn at Area<\/a>, Dario Vitale at Versace<\/a>, Miguel Castro Freitas at Mugler<\/a>, and more.\n <\/p>\n \n In an algorithm-driven world, celebrity appointments make sense on a superficial level that\u2019s yet to bring real dividends back to brands. What is clear is that the industry is in crisis mode: As white male creative directors play musical chairs<\/a> with high-end brands, tapping musicians to helm one of fashion\u2019s top seats feels like a different side of the same coin. Fame alone might not be enough to sustain a fashion brand, but perhaps it\u2019s a risk worth taking anyway.\n <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n