by Madeline Berg • Aug 4, 2021 • Forbes

When Robyn Fenty, known to the world as Rihanna, launched Fenty Beauty in 2017, she sought to create a cosmetics company that made “women everywhere (feel) included.” A perhaps unintended consequence: The beauty line has helped her enter one of the world’s most exclusive ranks: Billionaire.

Rihanna is now worth $1.7 billion, Forbes estimates—making her the wealthiest female musician in the world and second only to Oprah Winfrey as the richest female entertainer. But it’s not her music that’s made her so wealthy. The bulk of her fortune (an estimated $1.4 billion) comes from the value of Fenty Beauty, of which Forbes can now confirm she owns 50%. Much of the rest lies in her stake in her lingerie company, Savage x Fenty, worth an estimated $270 million, and her earnings from her career as a chart-topping musician and actress.

While Barbados-born Rihanna isn’t the only celebrity to capitalize on her social media presence —she has 101 million followers on Instagram and 102.5 million on Twitter—to build a beauty brand, she is the most successful beauty entrepreneur to do so. Fenty Beauty, which is a 50-50 joint venture with French luxury goods conglomerate LVMH (run by Bernard Arnault, the world’s second richest person), launched in 2017 with the goal of inclusivity. Its products come in a diverse range of colors—foundation is offered in 50 shades, including harder-to-find darker shades for women of color—and are modeled in its advertising by an equally diverse group of people.

Available online and at Sephora stores, which are also owned by LVMH, the products were an instant success. By 2018, its first full calendar year, the line was bringing in more than $550 million in annual revenues, according to LVMH, beating out other celebrity-founded brands like Kylie Jenner’s Kylie Cosmetics, Kim Kardashian West’s KKW Beauty and Jessica Alba’s Honest Company.

“A lot of women felt there were no lines out there that catered to their skin tone. It was light, medium, medium dark, dark,” says Shannon Coyne, cofounder of consumer products consultancy Bluestock Advisors. “We all know that’s not reality. She was one of the first brands that came out and said ‘I want to speak to all of those different people.’”

I can't believe it took centuries to produce makeup for every skin tone. Whoever finally did that deserves to be a billionaire.

However, the byline should read "in other words, she is never recording or performing again."

Cinny said:

I can't believe it took centuries to produce makeup for every skin tone. Whoever finally did that deserves to be a billionaire.

However, the byline should read "in other words, she is never recording or performing again."

Then something good comes out of this after all. Otherwise, it's pretty sickening. Do women have nothing better to do than to buy cosmetics, because it's sold by a "celebrity" (and I use that term loosely)?

Billionaires shouldn't exist, especially if being a billionaire keeps one from releasing new music

[Edited 8/5/21 4:15am]

PatrickS77 said:

Cinny said:

I can't believe it took centuries to produce makeup for every skin tone. Whoever finally did that deserves to be a billionaire.

However, the byline should read "in other words, she is never recording or performing again."

Then something good comes out of this after all. Otherwise, it's pretty sickening. Do women have nothing better to do than to buy cosmetics, because it's sold by a "celebrity" (and I use that term loosely)?

She captured the entire market by manufacturing every skin tone instead the one piece of the pie cosmetics has been fighting over for centuries.

PatrickS77 said:

because it's sold by a "celebrity"

I'm pretty sure that's the reason companies pay famous people to advertise stuff, like this

Cinny said:

"in other words, she is never recording or performing again."

About a month ago I read she's recording an album.

MickyDolenz said:

Cinny said:

"in other words, she is never recording or performing again."

About a month ago I read she's recording an album.

I'm sure I'll be able to relate to her experience now

MickyDolenz said:

PatrickS77 said:

because it's sold by a "celebrity"

I'm pretty sure that's the reason companies pay famous people to advertise stuff, like this

I don't care if companies pay famous people, I just wonder why people are so stupid to buy shit because of famous people

Cinny said:

PatrickS77 said:

Then something good comes out of this after all. Otherwise, it's pretty sickening. Do women have nothing better to do than to buy cosmetics, because it's sold by a "celebrity" (and I use that term loosely)?

She captured the entire market by manufacturing every skin tone instead the one piece of the pie cosmetics has been fighting over for centuries.

She can't be the first one to come up with that concept.

PatrickS77 said:

Cinny said:

She captured the entire market by manufacturing every skin tone instead the one piece of the pie cosmetics has been fighting over for centuries.

She can't be the first one to come up with that concept.

Yes! That's why she's winning.

PatrickS77 said:

I just wonder why people are so stupid to buy shit because of famous people

Because many fans of whatever support it like Star Trek Conventions & Comic Cons or Funko Pop dolls. Nothing stupid about that. This site exists because Prince is famous. The entertainment business (music, movies, TV, video games, sports, etc) makes billions of dollars every year. Michael Jordan became so rich because of Nike selling Air Jordan sneakers. Even people who are not basketball fans wear them. The first Space Jam movie came about because of Jordan's commercials. Same with country singer Jimmy Dean's breakfast sausage or Dollywood amusement park. It's the same idea of putting Elvis Presley or The Beatles in a movie, their fans will go to see it. Video games like Journey Escape & Moonwalker exists because the acts in question are really famous. People go to Disneyland because they're fans of Walt Disney. Do you think somebody would by a casket of some random person on the street? No, but they might buy this:

MickyDolenz said:

PatrickS77 said:

I just wonder why people are so stupid to buy shit because of famous people

Because many fans of whatever support it like Star Trek Conventions & Comic Cons or Funko Pop dolls. Nothing stupid about that. This site exists because Prince is famous. The entertainment business (music, movies, TV, video games, sports, etc) makes billions of dollars every year. Michael Jordan became so rich because of Nike selling Air Jordan sneakers. Even people who are not basketball fans wear them. The first Space Jam movie came about because of Jordan's commercials. Same with country singer Jimmy Dean's breakfast sausage or Dollywood amusement park. It's the same idea of putting Elvis Presley or The Beatles in a movie, their fans will go to see it. Video games like Journey Escape & Moonwalker exists because the acts in question are really famous. People go to Disneyland because they're fans of Walt Disney. Do you think somebody would by a casket of some random person on the street? No, but they might buy this:

None of the things you say makes it any less stupid. Some do not even apply. But whatever.

MickyDolenz said:

alphastreet said:

Agree with most of this

It's like when people pay extra for an autographed record or book. Some spend thousands of dollars for an outfit a singer wore or something else they owned. I remember a while back somebody paid over $84,000 for Paul McCartney's birth cirtificate at an auction. In the 1980s or 1990s, there was this guy who would go into famous people yards, dig up some dirt, put it in a jar and sell it. There's the well known Hollywood celebrity homes tours and TV shows like Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous & Cribs. Also instrument companies hire famous musicians as a spokesperson or have them design an instrument such as George Benson & Eddie Van Halen. There's a Lucille guitar (B. B. King) that you can buy too.

MickyDolenz said:

RJOrion said:

MickyDolenz said:

PatrickS77 said:

That further proves my point that all of these fucking people are stupid.

Odd comment coming from someone who has a picture of Michael Jackson, who spent a lot of money on stuff belonging to famous people. Like a million dollars on a Oscar for Gone With The Wind. That's the entire reason the music & movie industry make people "stars". So they can sell stuff to a lot of people for companies to make money off of. There's merchandising like Beatle wigs or Michael Jackson dolls or Run-DMC Lego sets. It doesn't even have to be a real person. It can be Superman, Mickey Mouse, Super Mario Brothers, Transformers, Bugs Bunny, James Bond, etc. Avengers: Endgame made over 2 billion dollars worldwide. Tourists pay money to see things like the Grand Canyon, the pyramids in Egypt, Stonehenge, or Leaning Tower of Pisa. Thousands of Muslims & other people all over the world fly to Mecca for Hajj. They pay money to go into museums to see old stuff. People today continue to perform Shakespeare plays because he is famous, same for classical guys like Mozart.

MickyDolenz said:

PatrickS77 said:

which has nothing to do with my original point.

Sure it does. You said that women bought the makeup because it was sold by Rihanna, who is a "celebrity" (your quotes). So it is the same thing as a KISS Kasket or a Pepsi paying The Jacksons to make commercials.

.

[Edited 8/7/21 14:39pm]

coldcoffeeandcocacola said:

i dont think shes even very good muscially!

pretty yes lovely figure absolutely but do i like her voice and music? nope not really.

never seen her cosmetics but many people i know love her underwear line and they aren't teeny boppers so perhaps its well earned cash? Just wonder how much input she had in order to have earnt a BILLION dollars?

Not being of colour myself I had no idea until recently there wasn't make up available in every line to cater for darker skins which is really just so strange as anywhere you go you see people of all skin tones. She found a gap in the market there and an important one at that, bet the other well established make up lines are kicking themselves, what a strange state of affairs for this to have only been addressed now.

MickyDolenz said:

PatrickS77 said:

which has nothing to do with my original point.

Sure it does. You said that women bought the makeup because it was sold by Rihanna, who is a "celebrity" (your quotes). So it is the same thing as a KISS Kasket or a Pepsi paying The Jacksons to make commercials.

So? Who cares if it is the same thing? It's fucking stupid, either way. And I don't recall the KISS Kaskets being a huge success. The line has been discontinued. I also doubt that many people just bought Pepsi because a Jackson was on it. Really, the way you keep defending this shit, makes me think you're one of them.

coldcoffeeandcocacola said:

coldcoffeeandcocacola said:

Not being of colour myself I had no idea until recently there wasn't make up available in every line to cater for darker skins which is really just so strange as anywhere you go you see people of all skin tones. She found a gap in the market there and an important one at that, bet the other well established make up lines are kicking themselves, what a strange state of affairs for this to have only been addressed now.

And that's hard to believe too. Did they try and it didn't sell?? Why wouldn't anyone try before?

PatrickS77 said:

Really, the way you keep defending this shit, makes me think you're one of them.

If I had a problem with it I wouldn't have made the thread in the first place. I don't make negative threads like some people here such as "so and so music sucks" or "don't buy CDs because they are bad for the environment". There's nothing wrong with Rihanna being a success or because people buy her makeup because her name is on it. Guess what, many people buy clothes on a name of a designer or company (Tommy Hilfiger, Polo, Nike). They buy cars based on a name too (Ford, Rolls Royce, Toyota, etc). A "star/celebrity" is a brand just like Toyota is. People have always bought stuff based on brands and pay accordingly. Like people are gonna pay way more to buy clothes at a Neiman Marcus store than at a Walmart. That's the way its always been. I don't understand people who are so concerned about what somebody else spends their money on anyway. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's not your job to police what somebody buys and say it's stupid. It isn't your money. As a matter of fact I do have some collectable stuff. So what? Like Bobby Brown said in My Prerogative "I made this money, you didn't".

PatrickS77 said:

Why wouldn't anyone try before?

Because companies in general primarily market to white people. Look at the mainstream media in the US, it's majority white focused. There's a reason magazines like Ebony, Essence, & Jet came out. Same for Soul Train and BET or those 1970s Blaxploitation movies. The non-white audience was being ignored by mainstream media. Black & Latino artists had to "crossover" to mainstream (aka white) Top 40 pop radio stations. David Bowie even asked MTV why they didn't show videos by black artists or they broadcast them in the middle of the night and not in regular rotation. Yet MTV would show videos by Hall & Oates, ABC, Culture Club, The Police who were basically making black infunced music. Black actors have said that TV & movie studios mostly had people who didn't know how to style black people hair or do their makeup.