Did Lauren Sánchez Bezos Win the Met Gala?

Subscribe to High Margin by Robert Williams: perspectives on creativity and business in the world of luxury.

Did Jeff and Lauren Sánchez Bezos win the Met Gala?

As the dust settles three days after the event, it’s clear that what most people will remember from this year’s fundraiser won’t be Jennie’s Chanel gown, but the fact that the ball was bankrolled by the billionaire Amazon and Blue Origin founder. And that his wife, former TV anchor Lauren Sánchez, wore Schiaparelli as she stood next to Anna Wintour greeting the glitterati of fashion and pop culture.

The fact that people were outraged about the situation only made it more powerful. If the Metropolitan Museum’s Costume Institute had been allowed to quietly accept the Bezoses’ donation (reportedly over $10 million) without sparking a debate, their participation would have been a footnote to the evening. This year’s Met Gala would have proceeded as another iteration of fashion’s most over-the-top red carpet.

Instead, their sponsorship — deeply polarising in an America on edge over widening inequality — dominated the narrative. The event was re-dubbed a “Bezos Bash” or “Tech Gala.” Snidely, to be sure. And yet on fashion’s biggest night, their name was the one on everyone’s lips.

I don’t mean to suggest that “all press is good press.” Backlash to the Bezoses’ participation highlighted serious issues with Amazon. In addition to longstanding critiques of Amazon’s labour practices and environmental impact, the firm is being lambasted for providing data hosting and AI surveillance tools used by US immigration police and the Israeli military’s operations in Gaza. Surely the couple would have preferred that the conversation stick to donations and dresses.

But to call it a bad night for the Bezozes because there were protests, and because people online insulted her tight-fitting look is to miss fundamental truths about how cultural power is created and wielded today.

I’ve mostly steered clear of the Sánchez Bezos discourse, which tends to reek of misogyny — no matter how objectionable her household’s business activities and environmental footprint may be. People who had never spoken out against Amazon before came out of the woodwork as soon as a visible woman entered the narrative. In fashion, critiques of Sánchez’ style are also rife with body policing, with many negative comments seeming to dance around the notion that fashion belongs on longer, flatter bodies.

But for the sake of a media-literacy reality check, let’s run through some of the ways the couple won the night.

1) Inevitability is power: In his influential 1989 text “The Sublime Object of Ideology,” cultural theorist Slavoj Žižek wrote about changing systems of power, and how the powerful are no longer required to mask their ill deeds to deceive the masses. Rather, the mask is transparent. Power derives from the fact that everyone knows what is going on, but this knowledge does not lead to change.

The fact that everyone could see how Sánchez Bezos was attempting to purchase acceptance in fashion and pop culture — perhaps as a means to redirect focus and launder the couple’s reputation — did nothing to prevent that happening. The intensity of the critique only underscores the fact that the couple are ultimately immune to it. While headlines like “Evil Jeff Bezos Accused of Ruining Met Gala” may not be favourable, they credit him with a central role authoring the meaning of the event. “They know what they are doing, and they are doing it anyway,” Žižek would say. The intersection of fashion, pop culture and philanthropy is a perfect forum for this sort of performance which reinforces the sense that resisting power is futile.

2) Twisting the narrative: The Bezoses used this press cycle to metabolise criticism and show they aren’t “all bad.” Even in the mouths of their most fervent critics, they are no longer simply vile billionaires, but rather vile billionaires who are co-hosting the Met Gala. A $34 million grant for sustainable fashion research was instantly called out as a ploy for favourable PR — but nonetheless widely reported.

3) She’s a “fashion girlie” now: Call her tacky as much as you want, but the medium is the message: She was the one standing there with Anna, clapping along to Whitney Houston. Her look — a snug Schiaparelli gown inspired by “Madame X” — may have been a bit on the nose, but it also suggested she is in on the joke: John Singer Sergeant’s 1884 portrait was derided for legitimising a socialite seen by contemporaries as vulgar. I would posit that showing she can wield fashion to tell a story and make a point is probably a bigger win than changing the minds of people whose tastes don’t align with her waist-skimming “Jessica Rabbit” styling.

A few other (unlikely) Met Gala winners:

• Garment workers: The “Ball Without Billionaires” protest organised by labour unions and activists made a splash. While one could argue that the Met Gala’s ability to proceed unperturbed in the face of protest only serves to reinforce its power (I just did), any additional awareness for the people who actually produce fashion is still a good thing. Shoutout to stylist Gabriella Karefa-Johnson, who helped organise the event.
• Robert Wun: Wun dressed eight celebrities for the gala, including Lisa, Beyoncé and Naomi Osaka. Insane visibility for a 12-year-old independent couture house.
• Ebay: The secondhand e-commerce platform made the most of its sponsorship by asking designers Bode and Francesco Risso to create upcycled looks from products on the site. It could have been cringe but wasn’t. Risso’s look for Paloma Elsasser was actually one of my favourites of the night.

Jury is out:

• Anna Wintour: On one hand, Wintour raised a record sum by facilitating the Met Gala’s deal with the Bezoses. She demonstrated her continued relevance and ability to adapt by connecting the industry with a new class of billionaire patrons. That said, it’s unclear she had a good night. Her status as American fashion’s ultimate gatekeeper has visibly eroded in the face of staggering tech money. A leader who adapts, or a survivor of legacy media’s shipwreck, grabbing onto the nearest piece of wood?
• Schiaparelli: The brand garnered massive visibility by dressing the evening’s main character ( albeit a villain in the eyes of many). At the same time, designer Daniel Roseberry often flirts with a taxidermied aesthetic; a gilded, velvety vision of wealth that can feel quite Trumpian. It isn’t clear that he’s doing this on purpose, nor that it’s coming across as desirable.

A missed opportunity:

• Gucci: I have to wonder if Gucci should have courted Sánchez Bezos to dress her for the event (or if they did, should they have tried harder?). A big part of the message of Demna’s debut show was forcing us to face head-on society’s fast-changing beauty standards and the proliferation of uncanny bodies and faces. Dressing Sánchez could have driven home the point to explosive effect, and answered her critics in a savvier way than the Madame X gambit. By reaffirming that Gucci is a brand that isn’t afraid to play with fire, they could have created massive anticipation ahead of their Cruise show in New York next week.

That’s all for tonight. But business readers should look out for Joan Kennedy’s story tomorrow on Coach-owner Tapestry’s rise, and how the premium handbag firm’s recent success underscores luxury’s recent struggles.