There is no escaping it. Everywhere we look, celebrities are branching out to create and endorse new lines and products, adding titles such as designer, perfumer and even author to their ever-expanding resumes. Many have no qualms, and some no shame, in seducing a susceptible public. 

Designer Sir Paul Smith has no time for celebrity-endorsed collections. In an interview  in the Telegraph, Sir Paul draws attention to the increasing trend of celebrity high-street collaborations.

“O they (celebrities) have neither the training nor the design awareness necessary in the business, which means it must be purely about ego and money. I wouldn’t bring in a celebrity to work at Paul Smith in a million years. Actually, make that a trillion.”

Strong words, but it is hard to argue against the sentiment. So, what is the magnetism behind these celebrity products and ranges? Is it the design or is it the endorsement? I sense a chicken and egg debate coming on.

Undoubtedly, endorsed lines generate sales and that is what our world economy needs right now, but what about the young, undiscovered raw talent out there ñ and it is out there – bending over backwards to repay the loans and fees that financed genuine design degrees in the first place? 

Getting your name in a tabloid headline rather on a degree certificate would appear to be the quickest way onto the fashion ladder nowadays.

Take Lindsay Lohan;  though a name synonymous with many things, fashion is not one of them. Yet, the powers that be at the house of Emanuel Ungaro sought the artistic guidance of a 23-year-old actress with no fashion experience. Why? According to reports, Lindsay’s involvement was to infuse the struggling label with a more youthful sensibility. Needless to say, the collection was not well received by the fashion elite, echoing the sentiments of Sir Paul.

Celebrity ranges have yet to run their course. Who knows if they ever will. Maybe this is just the beginning.

Well, it’s that time of year again. Saturday and Sunday slots on the sofa are well and truly booked up until Christmas, which funnily enough seemed to come early this year for one particular judge. Dressed in a puffball of gold and missing a Christmas tree, was our very own angel of the north, Cheryl Cole in an outfit that literally took her hostage and refused to come quietly. A smothering disappointment to such a highly anticipated arrival. Shame on you, Cheryl, you’re better than this.

Unfortunately, the faux pas kept on coming. Our eyes were filled with disillusionment in the shape of ill-fitting jeans (Stacey), comedy suits for (Rikki) and Beastie Boy jewellery circa 1989 (Miss Frank). Now, we’re all well aware it’s not a fashion competition, but just because our ears have to suffer from time to time (‘cough’ Liquorice Allsorts, John and Edward) it doesn’t mean our eyes should have to also. And with stardom becoming more and more about the look and style of celebrity, then why not start early.  

According to the shows stylist, Faye Sawyer, fashion wouldn’t be as engaging if it were perfect every time. Erm, Faye Sawyer, Patricia Field! She was the award-winning stylist on Sex and the City. I think Pat and her awards may disagree with you there.

So, what should stylist and fashionistas learn from week one? Look into fashion in more detail, taking more care and time when constructing that show stopping outfit. Don’t just fabricate a Rihanna wannabe and with the beret wearing, burgundy-suited, hoodie-under a teacher’s-blazer, cheap Justin Timberlake ensembles, bin them, please. 

Credit where credit is due.

Although the majority of this weeks outfits were not worthy of being bargain basement stature, two pieces had potential. These were Jamie’s statement military jacket and the black bowler hat worn by Miss Frank’s Shar. However, Jamie, take note: the scarf hanging out of the back pocket on your jeans wants returning to the 90’s. Thanks.