Hailey Bieber joins Rihanna and Selena Gomez with billion-dollar beauty brand deal
The model, who is married to singer Justin Bieber, co-launched Rhode beauty in 2022, with skincare products, 'peptide lip treatments' and pocket blusher that have gone viral on social media.
In the 12 months to March 2024, Rhode – which is the model's middle name – generated sales nearing $200 million.
Now it has been announced that the 28-year-old is selling the company to e.l.f. Beauty in a deal worth up to $1 billion (£740 million). E.l.f – which stands for eyes, lips and face – will pay out $800 million in cash and stock, with a further $200 million payout depending on future sales growth.
The deal makes Ms Beiber, who will continue as founder and also act as a 'strategic adviser', the latest celebrity beauty success story. She is following a well-worn path.
Rihanna x Fenty Beauty
Topping the list of high-value celebrity cosmetics lines is Fenty Beauty by Rihanna, valued at $3 billion. Launched in 2017 with a range of foundation tones that the singer was unable to find anywhere else, it ships to more than 150 countries. Foundation remains its biggest seller with online searches for this alone reportedly exceeding 21,000 a month. Lip gloss comes in a close second, with 20,000 searches a month.
Priyanka Chopra Jonas x Anomaly
With her own glossy tresses, it is little surprise that Anomaly Haircare by Priyanka Chopra Jonas is second on the list of most valuable celebrity beauty brands. With sales of $542.7 million in 2023, the brand launched in America in 2021 and India in 2022 as an affordable line that is also vegan with a focus on natural ingredients. It is a big hit with customers and its hair and scalp oil is the most popular item.
Kylie Jenner x Kylie Cosmetics
Kylie Cosmetics by Kylie Jenner was started in 2015 with Kylie Lip Kits, before expanding to cosmetics, fragrances and even baby skincare. In 2020 Jenner, sold a stake to Coty for $600 million.
Ariana Grande x r.e.m. beauty
At number four, but some considerable way behind the top three, is r.e.m. beauty by Ariana Grande. Launched in 2021 with a focus on vegan and cruelty-free ingredients, it generated $88.7 million of sales in 2024. As with Fenty Beauty, foundation is its biggest draw, with 800 online searches per month, followed by lip oil, with 500 searches.
Selena Gomez x Rare Beauty
Selena Gomez started Rare Beauty in September 2020, offering lightweight products that are vegan and cruelty-free. Bestsellers include its Soft Pinch Liquid Blush in Joy and Find Comfort Body & Hair fragrance mist. With many of its products priced at under $30, the brand was recently valued at $2 billion.
Beauty products and business dominance
Cosmetics sales account for a sizeable chunk of these celebrities' net worth. Despite not releasing an album since 2016, Rihanna is worth an estimated $1.4 billion, thanks in part to Fenty Beauty. Chopra Jonas is thought to be worth in the region of $70 million, combined with her husband Nick Jonas. That fortune is likely to rise thanks to her haircare range's success in the US and Indian markets.
Jordan Bucknell, a marketing expert from Upbeat Agency, says these brands have surpassed the initial 'celebrity hype stage' because they produce quality products that have 'stood the test of time and have silenced critics'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Federal Reserve holds US interest rates despite Trump pressure
A divided Federal Reserve held US interest rates steady on Wednesday, even as President Donald Trump intensified his pressure campaign on the central bank to lower borrowing costs. The Fed's target range remained set at 4.25 to 4.50 per cent following the central bank's decision to extend its rate-cut pause for a fifth consecutive month. The UAE Central Bank, which follows Fed decisions because of the dollar peg, also maintained its base rate at 4.4 per cent following the US central bank's announcement. "Although swings in net exports continue to affect the data, recent indicators suggest that growth of economic activity moderated in the first half of the year," the Fed said in a statement. Fed governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman dissented, preferring to lower the target range by 25 basis points. It was the first time in more than two decades that two Fed governors dissented on a policy decision. Fed officials have adopted a 'wait-and-see' approach in policy decisions this year after cutting rates by 100 basis points in 2024. Mr Trump's trade, fiscal and immigration agendas have raised expectations among most economists that a trend in moderating inflation could change course, and that economic growth and the jobs market could weaken if the administration follows through with its policies. Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Trump seized on a better-than-expected GDP report to demand lower interest rates. '2Q GDP JUST OUT: 3%, WAY BETTER THAN EXPECTED! 'Too Late' MUST NOW LOWER THE RATE. No Inflation! Let people buy, and refinance, their homes!' he wrote on the Truth Social media platform. Trump pressure The President claims that reducing the federal funds rate to 1 per cent would save the US $1 trillion on interest costs to help service the national debt – a concept known as fiscal dominance. However, data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis showed the US spent $1.1 trillion in interest on its debt last year. So far, Mr Trump's unrelenting demands to lower rates have had no effect on Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell or his colleagues. And even Fed members who have called for rate cuts have suggested doing so at a far more moderate pace than what Mr Trump wants. Mr Trump's attacks have tested the independence of the Fed, which is a quasi-private institution that presidents typically do not interfere with. Tension between Mr Trump and Mr Powell spilt out in public last week when the two bickered over the Fed's renovation costs at its headquarters in Washington. Some observers believe that Mr Trump is using the project's cost overruns as a pretext to fire the Mr Powell, although the President said he does not believe firing Mr Powell is necessary. Mr Powell and his 11 colleagues on the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) entered this week divided on interest rates. Two members had publicly backed cutting rates now in the weeks leading up to the July meeting, while others expressed a desire to wait for greater clarity on tariffs' impact on the economy. A separate camp argued that rates should remain steady until there is clear weakening in the labour market. While Mr Trump has demanded rate cuts, his tariff agenda is likely to have had the opposite effect. Fed officials have repeatedly said they want greater clarity on the new tariffs' effects on the economy before moving to cut rates again. Mr Powell has also said the Fed would have cut rates by now were it not for the uncertainty caused by the tariffs. The effective US tariff rate today is 18.2 per cent, the highest since 1934, according to The Budget Lab at Yale. Economists argue businesses will eventually pass those costs on to consumers, and the Fed has suggested such prices could be seen this summer. Mr Powell has previously warned higher costs could come this summer. And he has exercised extreme caution towards cutting interest rates in the face of Mr Trump's tariffs after nearly returning inflation back to its 2 per cent goal following a post-pandemic price surge. The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index rose to as high as 7 per cent in June 2022 before moderating to its current 2.3 per cent rate – although still above the Fed's long-term goal. Fed divisions Debates within the Fed were expected to centre on which side of the central bank's dual mandate would require immediate attention. Unlike other central banks, the Fed is tasked with promoting price stability and maximum unemployment. Heading into this week's two-day meeting, though, policymakers were still more concerned about the inflationary impact of tariffs and whether businesses would handle or pass the costs associated with the new tariffs. Mr Waller has been among the minority of Fed officials in favour of cutting rates this month, arguing that they need to move soon before the labour market further weakens. Recent data showed that the labour market as being in a state of stasis with both hiring and quit rates near historic lows, even as the unemployment rate remains stable at 4.1 per cent. Separate data showed that tariffs are beginning to appear in some aspects of the economy. Inflation data released this month showed the prices of everyday products like toys and household appliances increased last month in a sign that costs are beginning to be passed on to consumers. A report from the Commerce Department earlier on Wednesday showed the US GDP also bounced back in the second quarter after businesses had stocked up on imports – which are subtracted from the measure of economic activity – in the first quarter. And while consumer spending rose from 0.5 per cent to 1.4 per cent, business and residential investment dipped. Final sales to private domestic purchasers, meanwhile, slowed from 1.9 per cent in the first quarter to 1.2 per cent in the second quarter. Fed officials were expected to receive more information this week including inflation and unemployment data from June on Thursday and Friday, respectively.
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
Google, Chrome and default settings: what's at stake for Alphabet's anti-trust remedy
An antitrust remedy decision that could bring an end to Google's search dominance is expected soon. During closing arguments in late May, US District Judge Amit Mehta indicated he would be likely to release his remedy order for Google by early August. According to court filings, Mr Mehta on Tuesday asked the search company to file a brief to clarify an issue related to device manufacturers who have agreed to use the company's Chrome browser by default. Mr Mehta gave Google until August 1 to file the brief, which likely means he is nearing a decision. Because of lengthy litigation, which began in 2020, followed by the remedy portion of the trial, which began this year, it's easy to forget that Mr Mehta had decided in late 2024 that Alphabet-owned Google unfairly used its search monopoly to hurt competition, and as a result, harm consumers. And in a separate antitrust case, Google was also found to have unfairly boxed out competition in search advertising by coupling its publisher advertising server and advertising exchange technologies. The search giant is appealing part of that decision. Throughout the remedy portion of the trial, which heard testimony from technology executives, economists and regulatory experts, the Justice Department made clear that it wants Mr Mehta to enact far-reaching penalties against Google that would be a warning to other companies, while also providing more choice for consumers. Federal prosecutors want Google to divest its Chrome browser from its portfolio, and it wants the tech giant to share coveted search data with competitors. Yet, Google and its bench heavy with lawyers have pushed for a far less stringent remedy that would allow it to retain control of its Chrome browser, while also giving device manufacturers, and ultimately users, more windows of opportunity to change their default search provider within browsers. 'Our proposal allows browsers to continue to offer Google Search to their users and earn revenue from that partnership … but it also provides them with additional flexibility,' Google said during closing arguments in May. The decision has browser companies like Mozilla, maker of the Firefox browser, walking a tightrope between wanting more market share amid Google's Chrome dominance, and also not upsetting existing revenue streams provided by contracts with Google. 'Essentially, the remedies may hand even more power to Big Tech, threatening long-term competition and the health of the open web,' read an email from a public relations firm hired by Mozilla. Google's influence is unrivalled and its deep pockets have allowed it to secure a presence on various devices through lucrative contracts with companies like Apple. Depending on the severity of the remedy, Apple could lose out on reoccurring payments from Google. Eddy Cue, one of Apple's senior executives, took the witness box during the remedy hearings in May, claiming that Google's power was beginning to erode, with users starting to pivot from search engines to AI chatbots. Sceptics of antitrust intervention might look at those comments and say that a harsh penalty on Google would be superfluous, and that the free market should be allowed to, eventually, dethrone the company. Others, however, might point to the wealth that's been stockpiled from Google's search dominance, and how that wealth has enabled the company to create an arsenal of AI technologies like Gemini and its research division DeepMind, and that the Alphabet-owned company would just find ways to abuse its power in the emerging sector. Mark MacCarthy, a senior fellow at the Institute for Technology Law and Policy at Georgetown University in Washington, who has studied antitrust policy for several decades, acknowledged in a previous interview with The National that Google's dominance presents a unique challenge for Mr Mehta. He said that with Google's recent antitrust defeat over its advertising business and the forthcoming decision related to browsers and search dominance, there could be a large amount of co-operation between the courts involved. But Prof MacCarthy said that the current regulatory agencies might not be up to the challenge of properly enforcing the remedy. 'My view is that this would be better done by a new digital regulatory agency,' he said. That said, given the sweeping layoffs in the federal government under President Donald Trump, there's little indication that the White House has any appetite for a new regulatory agency. All of the moving parts, combined with a dismantling of the federal workforce, invariably forces Mr Mehta to approach his decision with delicacy, and it will also likely work in Google's favour. Yet, even if the remedy is all bark and no bite, it could be enough of a distraction that a technology company like Google dreads amid a rapid rise in competitors.
The National
6 hours ago
- The National
Liam Neeson: 'Chemistry I have with Pamela Anderson is so rare for me'
If Liam Neeson learnt anything starring in his first major comedy, it's this: You can't force funny. "The only note I gave to myself each day was be serious," Neeson tells The National. "I told myself, try not to be funny – because there's nothing more embarrassing than seeing a film and someone is trying to be funny." There's another lesson, too – but it's one the Irish actor, 73, has had to relearn many times over the years. You can't force chemistry, either. Neeson has starred in more than 100 movies in his career – but he never had he connected with another actor quite the way he did with Pamela Anderson on the set of The Naked Gun. "I had lovely chemistry with Pamela, and I thought, 'don't touch this. This is just working.' Which was lovely. And it's rare – certainly for me it is,' Neeson says. Even in our conversation with Neeson and Anderson, who People reports have fallen in love in real life, their chemistry is clear. At times in the conversation, the two burst out into laughter, quoting to each other some of their favourite bits from the film, which opens on Thursday in Middle East cinemas. The Naked Gun, directed by Akiva Schaffer, is a legacy sequel to the 80s and 90s film trilogy starring the late Leslie Nielsen and helmed by the famed trio David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker (Airplane!). In it, Neeson plays the son of Nielsen's character Frank Drebin –and has followed in his footsteps as an idiosyncratic detective. Neither Neeson and Anderson are, at first glance, obvious choices for an absurdist comedy. But production went on, both discovered comedic muscles they didn't know they had – and rediscovered parts of themselves they'd long forgotten. In one long sequence, Anderson's character Beth jumps on stage with a jazz band to create a diversion for Frank. Anderson's character then launches into an extended improvisational jazz singing session – known as scat. To director Schaffer's surprise, that was a skill she already had – and it just so happened to be a already be key part of his script. Anderson says: "I used to be in a jazz band when I was in eighth grade, and I would do all the scat solos because nobody else would do it. Then, when I was doing an audition, I told Akiva, 'I do scat'. He said, 'You know what now?' I then did my eighth-grade scat for him, and he said, 'OK, I think you've got the job.'" Audiences have become used to modern comedies being heavy on improvisation and light on script. The Naked Gun, meanwhile, featured almost no improvisation – even in Anderson's improvisational jazz session. "That whole thing was scripted. I had to learn the whole thing," says Anderson. "And it was so much longer than it appears in the film. It starts a bit Fabulous Baker Boys, and then by the end I was just making Super Mario noises. Akiva was just sitting there giggling behind the camera." Paul Walter Hauser, who plays Drebin's partner, has acted in many comedies before –and was surprised to find that, for the first time, he wouldn't be improvising. "I've done dramas where I had to improvise more than this movie," Hauser says. "I'd been a fan of Akiva back from his days in the Lonely Island on Saturday Night Live, and seeing how silly they are on screen, I assumed he'd be silly in real life. But he was far more thoughtful and collegiate about the same thing. There was a severity to his approach, in a good way," Hauser continues. Schaffer got the strategy after watching nearly every spoof movie ever made, studying what worked and what didn't. In his mind, the only way that The Naked Gun would work is if he approached the film's story structure much like Neeson did in his performance – with utmost seriousness. "With those old movies, audiences leave saying, 'the story didn't matter, it's just a bunch of jokes, it's great!' And I think that's the magic trick that they're pulling off," Schaffer says. "In reality, the story has to be so clear, easy to follow and engaging that you can, as an audience member, throw it away and not pay attention to it. If the story moves too slowly or isn't interesting enough, the jokes stop working. When I watched old spoof movies that didn't work, it was because the story was less engaging. You have to make such a good story that the audience can ignore it," Schaffer continues. Neeson, meanwhile, didn't go back and watch a single one. "I had to trust the script – and trust my cast. I didn't let my ego get above any other actor. And they're all superb," Neeson says. "Pamela especially." The result has been nearly universally lauded, with the film earning rave reviews from critics across the world.
