Celeb co-signs are not a form of payment.

Not so long ago, before social media blew up (and then died again?), and in the first days of the modern clothing brand owner and celebrity relationship, the landscape was very different. Free product in exchange for exposure was sort of an unspoken rule, something understood by everyone involved. The transaction was Person A gives Person B the clothes, in turn Person B wears them, Audience C-Z sees Person B wearing them, flocking to the designer’s page and buying the clothes. Sure, at the time you could convince up-and-coming independent designers that this was indeed the right move when it came to marketing, and it made sense. But that was 2020 to 2023.

In 2026, going into 2027, independent designers have regained (for lack of a better term) their sense of what a co-sign is truly worth. Instead of chasing a one-and-done deal, their eyes are set on a long-lasting relationship, one where true appreciation for the designer’s work and time shows up as support: actually buying the items, and even highlighting the designer’s work beyond the usual reposting tactics. On top of that, designers these days are also asking themselves: is the celeb’s audience actually my target audience? Because if not, what is the reason for me to give them the clothes to wear if it’s not going to translate into any sales? Assuming one is actually trying to make a business out of it. Because your supplier doesn’t care that X wore your clothes if it doesn’t mean business for them as well. Suddenly, a celeb with millions of followers is no longer the guaranteed win it once looked like.

Still, a co-sign can be worth a lot. History is filled with designers who blew up because celebs wore their clothes, friends or not. We’ve seen many designers support each other as well, which often results in another collab between both brands, a move that makes complete sense once you realize the audience is looking up to both designers. The co-sign is given and not traded for publicity. Now of course you probably know what prompted this article, and that shallow argument online about whether French Montana is right or not is the typical internet conversation to have. But that’s questioning one player in the game instead of looking at the system as a whole. What led us to believe this is the norm? And who empowered the power trip celebs might have at moments like ComplexCon, or any other (brand here)Con out there in the world? That’s the right question to ask here.

On top of that, a proper trade can only truly be inspected when both sides can measure what they received. The clothes have a cost on them and their value fluctuates, but you can still put a number on what they’re worth. A celeb that says they’re giving a co-sign in return? How do you measure that? Earned media value? Up-and-coming designers don’t work on those terms and they don’t believe in that either, unless they are starstruck by the opportunity to have someone famous wearing their stuff. And if this is the case, this article is clearly not talking about it. In an era where everything is clip-ready and primed to travel across the internet at high speed, it’s time for artists’ management to do their due diligence and stop thinking their artists are ruling the world. It’s not the case anymore, especially in today’s financial landscape.