Traditional media takes a polite view of Virginie Viard’s departing Chanel. Social media is a lot less reserved—happiness has been evident

Headlines of traditional media’s online editions

This is not to have a go at Virginie Viard. We are not venting. She is leaving and we have voiced our views. But there is still a very discernible divide between what traditional media is willing to say and what social media has absolutely no qualms in voicing. A possible disruption following the departure of a creative head of a luxury business is not a celebratory occasion. Yet, it is hard, sometimes, not to succumb to the bottled jubilation that—with an exit of certain individuals not deemed to have brought greatness to a brand—is quickly uncorked. Ms Viard has been a divisive figure during her tenure at Chanel. TikTokers, YouTubers, X-ers, Instagrammers have generally not viewed her output favorably, while traditional media prefer, even when they are aware of her shortcomings, to stay clear of harsh, even truth-based, criticisms.

The New York Times headlined their report with a tame “Chanel designer steps down”, calling it “yet another seismic shift”. They amiably described Ms Viard as someone who “seemed more like a caretaker designer for the storied house than a change agent”. As in some kind of maintenance? Reuters was of the opinion that she “favoured relaxed silhouettes with an Eighties flare and took a low-key approach compared to her predecessor.” Low-key—retrained euphemism? Reflecting more of the general sentiment was Britain’s The Guardian: “Viard has overseen a financially successful period for Chanel,” it wrote, “the reception within fashion for her collections has been more muted.” She is leaving. That is all that needs to be reported.

She is leaving. That is all that needs to be reported

Legacy titles were not less salutary. Vogue, whose global editorial director Anna Wintour is a known and an unabashed Chanel fan, enthused that Ms Viard “was able to renew the codes of the house while respecting the creative heritage of Chanel”. In a separate editorial, they ran two features following the announcement: ‘The best of Virginie Viard’s Chanel—As It Appeared in the Pages of Vogue’ and ‘Virginie Viard’s Best Chanel Looks in Street Style’. The increasingly placid Harper’s Bazaar was almost celebratory: “During her tenure as artistic director, Viard worked to continue Lagerfeld’s design legacy while also infusing her youth-minded approach, introducing designs that spoke to a new generation of Chanel customers with a discerning eye and a penchant for playful yet pragmatic clothes. Elle gave what Chanel probably would approve: “Viard brought a youthful, sometimes ’80s-influenced flair to the house”. Flair?

One print journalist, who told us “absolutely not to reveal” his identity, said that “the understanding is that we describe, not prescribe.” Magazines (online editions too), in particular, are careful not to put Chanel in unfavourable light as they are dependent on the brand’s advertising dollars. Or, for some media folks, continued invitations to lavish Chanel events, whether on home turf or in Paris, or wherever the brand shows or conducts their product launches. Even old time journos no longer associated with any title, such as Suzy Menkes (now an influencer and a podcaster), remain utterly in favour of the brand to remain on the maison’s good side. A marketing consultant said, “some of them really want to continue to enjoy the free canapes and champagne. Critical of brands won’t land you in any show or post-show cocktails.” Among members of the media, disapprovals are best kept under their well-kitted selves.

Some social media reactions, including YouTubers Luke Meagher (left) and Hanan Besovic (right)

The news media’s relative indifference and social media’s unapologetic bashing show the clear divide between careful and fair on one side and don’t-care and don’t-have-to-be-fair on the other. (We continue to draw the line between the realms, even if “media” is used interchangeably between the two.) Although many social media stars go by the grand production of content creation, they are not, as we know it, the same content put together by an editorial team. Journalists (and commentators who allow their work through the editing process) are more mindful of filters. Many social media celebrants rely on amplification. The wilder, the bolder, or the angrier the voice, the more effective the loud-halo effect. When we read the divergent views, oftentimes, it is hard to discern which is better. In fashion, moderation is not often enough truism. Our friend, the journalist, said: “A fashion reviewer cannot be like a film reviewer.”

The unexpected announcement of Ms Viard’s departure was met with instant glee on social media. People were excited; they were truly jubilant. When Vanessa Friedman shared the simple line, “Virginie Viard is leaving Chanel”, on X, almost all the comments were celebratory. One commentator wrote: “I will never experience joy like this again.” Many showed GIFs of intense merriment. Always unabashed YouTuber Luke Meagher of @hautlemode said in a short when reacting to the news: “I am not a hater; I am the hater.” Reacting, a follower wrote, “This is my Super Bowl.” Hanan Besovic, the guy behind @ideservecouture, expressed with exaggerated sarcasm: “And I am so, so, so sad. So sad. So so so sad. I think she did an amazing job. YES!!!” In an interview that is now widely read, Chanel CEO Leena Nair told WWD, “Social media is one form of feedback and we look at it and we learn from it and we always have the humility and curiosity to continuously learn and improve.” Could that be true?