How Virginie Viard Ruined Chanel: A Fashion Catastrophe

I’ve been a fan of Gabrielle Chanel since I was a little girl and have been a fan of Karl Lagerfeld’s work for years, and watching what has happened under Virginie Viard has been nothing short of heartbreaking. Chanel, once the epitome of creativity and innovation, has lost its magic. Since taking over after Karl Lagerfeld’s passing in 2019, Viard has stripped the brand of its soul, turning it into an overpriced, uninspired shell of its former self.

Reading No Regrets, a book that delves into Karl Lagerfeld’s life, I realized just how integral he was to Chanel’s essence. Lagerfeld wasn’t merely a designer; he was a walking embodiment of the brand. His obsession with the old French and Parisian culture—a passion that aligned deeply with Chanel’s own heritage—shaped everything he did. The book highlights how Lagerfeld was captivated by the Parisian aristocracy, the timeless elegance of French women, and the city’s rich history. His collections often referenced this past, blending historical influences with a modern, rebellious twist. Lagerfeld didn’t just design clothes; he created a narrative that was both forward-thinking and rooted in Chanel’s legacy, ensuring that the brand felt timeless yet ever-evolving.

Lagerfeld’s relationship with women also speaks volumes about his vision for Chanel. No Regrets reveals how deeply he admired strong, independent women and how he sought to empower them through his designs. His clothes were never about catering to trends, but about elevating women, making them feel confident, powerful, and in control. He was meticulous in creating pieces that celebrated both femininity and strength, blending elegance with an edge. In contrast, Virginie Viard’s tenure has felt more like an afterthought—a designer filling a position, rather than someone who fully understands or embodies the soul of the brand.

Instead of continuing the legacy of audacity and innovation that Lagerfeld championed, Viard has played it safe. Chanel now seems to follow trends rather than set them, losing the boldness that once made it the leader in luxury fashion. What once felt like an aspirational, visionary brand has become a mere echo of its former self—predictable, uninspired, and lacking the strong cultural vision that Lagerfeld so deeply imbued into the house. So, what went wrong? Here’s my take.

The Legacy of Karl Lagerfeld: The Rock and Roll Visionary

Before diving into Viard’s failures, it’s crucial to acknowledge Karl Lagerfeld’s genius. He wasn’t just a designer—he was Chanel. With his larger-than-life personality, signature look, and razor-sharp wit, he embodied the brand itself. His designs were bold, dramatic, and unforgettable, yet always rooted in Chanel’s heritage.

Lagerfeld understood that Chanel had to evolve to stay relevant, and he did this masterfully. He injected rock and roll energy into the brand while maintaining its elegance. He made Chanel feel powerful, untouchable, and aspirational. Under him, Chanel wasn’t just fashion—it was a cultural force. His runway shows were spectacles, his collections set trends, and his vision made people fall in love with Chanel over and over again.

But Lagerfeld’s ability to push Chanel forward came from the foundation built by Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel herself. She was a revolutionary—one of the few women in fashion history who truly changed how women dress. She liberated women from restrictive clothing, championed trousers, popularized the little black dress, and redefined elegance with an effortless, androgynous twist. Lagerfeld understood her rebellious spirit and translated it for a modern audience. He kept Chanel’s fearless innovation alive, something Viard failed to do.

Honestly, it feels like there is no Chanel without Karl, but in truth, there is no Chanel without both Karl and Gabrielle. They were visionaries who shaped not just a brand, but fashion itself. Without that boldness, Chanel is just another luxury label with a big name and no soul.

What’s behind The Death of Chanel’s Vision?

1. Virginie Viard Had No Creative Direction

In my opinion, Karl Lagerfeld was a genius who knew how to blend Chanel’s heritage with modernity. He kept the brand fresh, exciting, and relevant. But Viard? She played it painfully safe. Every collection felt like a slightly different version of the last, with no real sense of evolution. Chanel became predictable, uninspired, and most importantly—boring. For a brand that once defined luxury, this is a disaster.

2. The Collections Were Lazy, Unflattering, and Cheap-Looking

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve looked at a Chanel collection under Viard and thought, this looks like Zara but with a Chanel price tag. The fabrics looked flimsy, the silhouettes were awkward, and there was none of the attention to detail that makes luxury fashion worth the investment. Chanel used to be about craftsmanship and timeless elegance—Viard’s designs lacked both.

3. The Runway Shows Became a Snoozefest

Runway shows are supposed to be events. Under Lagerfeld, Chanel shows were legendary—think an indoor beach, a space station, a full-on supermarket. They were spectacles that made people feel something. Viard’s shows, on the other hand, feel stiff, awkward, and lifeless. Instead of leaving people in awe, they leave them unimpressed. Chanel used to be the pinnacle of luxury fashion. Now, it’s just another show on the schedule.

4. She Disrespected the House’s DNA

Chanel is supposed to be timeless but modern, elegant but bold. Viard’s take on Chanel feels like she’s just rehashing old ideas without adding anything fresh. Instead of pushing the brand forward, she’s diluted its identity. What we’re left with is something that feels like a Chanel costume rather than true Chanel design. And that’s just not good enough.

Meanwhile, Chanel’s biggest historical competitor, Schiaparelli, has seen a resurgence by embracing its founder’s essence while modernizing it. Elsa Schiaparelli was a fearless innovator, just like Coco Chanel. She was bold, artistic, and avant-garde. Under Daniel Roseberry, Schiaparelli has recaptured its magic by keeping that unapologetic creativity alive, something Chanel has utterly failed to do. Chanel should be leading the conversation, not falling behind.

5. Chanel Became a Status Symbol for the Wrong Reasons

Luxury brands should be aspirational, but that means more than just slapping a high price on something. People should want Chanel because it represents excellence and artistry—not just because it’s expensive. Under Viard, Chanel has lost that prestige. People aren’t buying Chanel because it’s exciting or innovative. They’re buying it just to flex. And that’s a problem.

6. Strong Vision and Personality Are Essential for Any Brand

I truly believe that for any brand to succeed, it needs a strong vision and a strong personality. Lagerfeld had both. He understood that a brand like Chanel needs an identity that stands out and evolves with time. Viard, however, seems to lack that boldness. Instead of making Chanel feel powerful and aspirational, she’s made it feel stagnant. That’s why Chanel is losing its cultural impact—it lacks a leader with vision.

FAQs

Q: Was Virginie Viard’s Chanel really that bad?

A: Yes. While some may argue that she made Chanel more wearable, I think she stripped it of its glamour, excitement, and creative depth, leaving it lifeless and uninspired.

Q: How did Chanel’s sales perform under Viard?

A: Despite Chanel raising prices to maintain exclusivity, its cultural influence and desirability dropped significantly. It’s one thing to sell, it’s another to be coveted. Chanel is no longer the must-have it once was.

Q: Who should replace Virginie Viard at Chanel?

A: Chanel needs someone with bold vision and modern creativity, like Pierpaolo Piccioli, Daniel Roseberry, or anyone who understands both heritage and reinvention. Someone who can make people fall in love with Chanel again.

Conclusion: Chanel Needs to Fix This—Fast

I think Virginie Viard’s time at Chanel has been a complete failure. Instead of elevating the brand, she’s made it feel safe, boring, and uninspired. Chanel is supposed to be powerful, elegant, and trend-setting—not another forgettable fashion house.

If Chanel wants to reclaim its legendary status, it must bring in a creative director who has vision, personality, and boldness. Someone like Karl, who didn’t just design for the brand but became the brand.

Fashion needs risk-takers, not placeholders. Schiaparelli has shown how a heritage brand can stay true to its roots while still being innovative. Chanel needs to do the same—before it’s too late.

The real question is:

Will they fix this before it’s too late?