.jpg)
This awards season was a significant one for fashion, marketing the first flurry of splashy red carpet moments since September’s big creative reset. From the Grammys to the Oscars, recently appointed creative directors flexed their design chops with straight-off-the-runway and custom looks for the recently minted brand ambassadors and rising stars with whom they’re keen to align as they establish their brands’ evolving aesthetics.
These red carpet appearances offered designers the chance to show the world — not just the fashion community and show attendees — their new direction and make a statement, luxury consultant Robert Burke told Vogue Business ahead of the Oscars. The most important audience here isn’t just those who tune into the ceremonies; Oscars viewership was down 9% to 17.9 million this year. The social media echo that ensues as film and fashion fans dissect talents’ looks, is more significant for brands, which are named, tagged and analyzed on socials, generating millions of dollars worth of engagement.
This season, the Golden Globes had the biggest reach (4 billion), followed by the Oscars (2.2 billion), and the Grammys (2.1 billion), according to WeArisma. The number of users reached, however, doesn’t necessarily correlate with the earned media value (EMV) generated for a brand by a red carpet. The top three events have flipped for 2026: the Grammys generated the highest EMV of $915.7 million, followed by the Oscars ($741.6 million), then the Globes ($636.2 million), per WeArisma. (EMV measures the impact generated by press, influencers, and celebrities, and requires the talent or brand to post or be tagged.)
Throughout the 2026 season, Chanel came out on top, according to Launchmetrics, which calculated top media impact value (MIV) across five of awards season’s biggest ceremonies: the Grammys, the Actor Awards, the Critics’ Choice Awards, the Golden Globes, and, of course, the Oscars. Chanel generated a total of $47.3 million in MIV throughout awards season, including $28.5 million at the Oscars alone for new creative director Matthieu Blazy’s looks on Teyana Taylor, Jessie Buckley, and Nicole Kidman. At the Golden Globes, Chanel generated $12 million in MIV, $7.1 million of which came from Selena Gomez’s custom gown. Rose Byrne, Ayo Edebiri, and Maya Rudolph also wore the brand. Chanel then generated $6.8 million in MIV at the Grammys, with $4.7 million driven by best new artist winner Olivia Dean. (Launchmetrics calculates MIV by assigning monetary value to engagement with social content, taking followers, comments, likes, and shares all into account.)
Dior and Louis Vuitton were the next highest rankers, both consistently generating top five MIV across awards shows. Chanel, Dior, and Louis Vuitton are the three brands that tend to dominate awards carpets, after all. Priyanka Chopra generated $5.9 million in MIV for Dior at the Golden Globes, while Harry Styles generated $2.9 million at the Grammys. (Overall, the top five women each generated higher MIV than their male counterparts, at each ceremony.) Louis Vuitton, meanwhile, generated top five MIVs at the Critics’ Choice and Actor Awards, thanks to brand ambassadors Chase Infiniti and Emma Stone.
What’s in a nom?
Nominated actors and artists tend to be the most photographed at awards shows, translating to more content of these talents across social media. Knowing this, big luxury players often make sure to wrangle deals with actors (or musicians) they anticipate having a big awards run before the season begins, especially as brand deals become more competitive in an increasingly crowded market. This collision of nominee star power and conglomerate-backed luxury prowess (and spend) means nominated talent — wearing the biggest brand names — often drives the highest MIV.
At the Oscars, Chanel won the night. Best supporting actress nominee Taylor topped the show ranking in a celestial, embellished Chanel gown, generating $9.6 million in MIV for the house. Best actress winner Buckley, also in Chanel, ranked second, generating $8.3 million in MIV. Kidman, who was not nominated, came in at third place, driving $7.8 million in MIV. As for the men, best actor nominee Timothée Chalamet drove the highest MIV, generating $3.8 million for Givenchy in an all-white suit. He was followed by non-nominee and Heated Rivalry star Hudson Williams, who drove $3.76 million for Balenciaga and $2.4 million for Bvlgari, placing him second and fifth in the Oscars ranking. Best actor winner Michael B. Jordan came in third, driving $3.3 million in MIV for Louis Vuitton.
At the Actor Awards, all five women who generated top MIV were nominees, while at the Critics’ Choice Awards, four out of the five actresses that generated top MIV for the night were nominated (Ariana Grande, Elle Fanning, Infiniti, and Taylor). The fifth, Mia Goth, wasn’t a nominee herself, but featured in twice-nominated film Frankenstein.
A nomination didn’t guarantee high media value, though. At the Golden Globes, of the five top-ranked men, Jacob Elordi was the only one nominated (in Bottega Veneta), coming in fifth behind Williams and Connor Storrie (for Giorgio Armani and Bvlgari, and Saint Laurent and Tiffany, respectively). At the Golden Globes, Chopra and Blackpink’s Lisa — neither of whom were nominated, but presented an award together — ranked second and third, respectively: Chopra for her Dior look ($5.9 million), and Lisa for her Jacquemus look ($5.3 million).
The Heated Rivalry boys’ strong presence this season illustrates the changing tides. Despite the show’s lack of nominations (it was ineligible for ceremonies like the Golden Globes and the Emmys due to being produced and financed in Canada), stars Williams and Storrie were active on the awards season circuit — and generated their fair share of value for brands in doing so. One or both of the actors ranked among the top MIV generators at the Oscars, the Golden Globes and the Actor Awards, making millions for brands including Saint Laurent and Tiffany (Storrie), and Armani, Bvlgari and Balenciaga (Williams). Rising star Owen Cooper — who won best supporting actor in a limited series for his role in Adolescence — also made his way into the top five for the ceremony, generating $477,000 for Bottega Veneta.
Mass viewership, mass talent — mass reach
Names like Grande, Gomez, Bad Bunny, Lisa and Hailey Bieber driving some of the season’s highest MIV is notable. Some were nominated, some weren’t, but all have mass reach. For awards shows like the Oscars and the Grammys, which appeal to a very wide audience — whether or not they’re watching the ceremony on television — these are the talents guaranteed to drive brand visibility.
Nominated or not, it’s via big, splashy names that independent brands not backed by a French conglomerate can carve out their place in the awards season conversation. This season, a subset of brands independent of these major houses made their way onto the leaderboard by way of big-name stars. Beyond Lisa’s Jacquemus look, at the Critics’ Choice Awards, Grande generated $4.5 million for Alberta Ferretti; at the Actor Awards, Jenna Ortega generated $3.1 million for Christian Cowan; and at the Grammys, Lady Gaga generated $3.4 million for Matières Fécales.
For brands seeking to make their mark on the carpet, while there’s value in the cultural clout (and cash) that comes with tapping up-and-comers like the Heated Rivalry duo, a safer bet is a tried-and-true star. These are the people with fan bases and stans at the ready — from Lisa’s Lilies to Lady Gaga’s Little Monsters — to disseminate imagery and chatter as soon as said talent hits the carpet (and for days after).
“Choosing talent is a growth decision,” says Alison Bringé, CMO of Launchmetrics. “Established names buy you scale fast as they compress time by turning awareness on almost instantly and open the door to entirely new audiences. Emerging voices do something more nuanced, like build cultural capital, signal taste, and embed you in the audiences that move culture forward. When you choose talent, you are buying into an outcome, because reach and relevance compound in very different ways.”
