The Invisible Machine Behind Celebrity Stories

WEBVTT
00:00:04.607 --> 00:00:07.751
Hey there, welcome to this episode of the PR Breakdown.
00:00:07.751 --> 00:00:21.625
I'm your host, molly McPherson, and in this episode let's look at the invisible machine, not the PR machine, but how celebrity stories really get made.
00:00:21.625 --> 00:00:42.027
The inspiration for this episode no surprise came from two people involved in a topic that I've been talking about at length in the podcast and also online and in the press Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, with Ryan Reynolds also having a co-starring role in all of this.
00:00:42.027 --> 00:00:49.595
I was inspired by this idea of how framing works in the public realm.
00:00:49.595 --> 00:01:00.609
When people are consuming media, whether it's social media, legacy media, digital media, tabloid journalism, whatever it is these stories are being shaped and framed.
00:01:00.970 --> 00:01:26.245
When I was doing a lot of these media interviews about the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni story, I noticed that some journalists were just coming at it from, just give me the facts, but other journalists were approaching it from angles, no doubt, and they were supporting their angles by sources, and I tend to ask a lot of reporters when they're really digging deep, particularly if it's from a legacy media outlet.
00:01:26.245 --> 00:01:34.673
At this point I want to know where they're coming from, because if I'm commentating on something, I want to know how I'm going to land in the piece.
00:01:34.673 --> 00:01:38.430
And then when they give me this information, I want to know about the source.
00:01:38.430 --> 00:01:44.653
Now I'm not going to ask them who the source is in particular, but give me an idea of who they are.
00:01:44.653 --> 00:01:52.281
I don't need to know who they are, but I want to know who they are, you know, and I want to know does that person have an angle?
00:01:52.281 --> 00:01:54.724
How did that person get the information?
00:01:54.724 --> 00:02:01.243
Because sometimes that will kind of change how I approach the story.
00:02:01.243 --> 00:02:27.902
This idea of what happens behind the scenes for these stories to end up on social media or end up in the press, you know, can be quite interesting If there's any insight that I can give on the whole world of celebrity crisis, celebrity machinations, all of the elements at play are no different than real life Someone who's dated a Ryan Reynolds.
00:02:27.902 --> 00:02:30.533
You may not know someone who dated Ryan Reynolds.
00:02:30.533 --> 00:02:36.198
So we all know Alanis Morissette and we love Alanis Morissette, but you know someone who dated a Ryan Reynolds.
00:02:36.198 --> 00:02:37.040
Do you know what I'm saying?
00:02:37.040 --> 00:02:44.912
So let's look at the art of the anonymous source, but also three players in every celebrity story.
00:02:45.652 --> 00:02:54.734
Now, I mentioned that I had a reach out today by the press and this tabloid wanted to get my opinion about Meghan Markle.
00:02:54.734 --> 00:02:56.967
Now I was deep into the work today.
00:02:56.967 --> 00:02:59.294
I was deep into writing a crisis plan.
00:02:59.294 --> 00:03:07.229
I was watching videos, looking for strategies same thing that I'm talking about right now but in my world, with my client.
00:03:07.229 --> 00:03:12.355
I replied in a way that I've never replied before to the press.
00:03:12.520 --> 00:03:21.306
Yesterday I turned down a morning news national morning news on one of the networks and I thought, wow, look at you, molly McPherson, how far you can come.
00:03:21.306 --> 00:03:25.026
There is a time that I would drop everything to do that, but I can't.
00:03:25.026 --> 00:03:28.612
I have to serve at the behest of my clients, but anyway.
00:03:28.612 --> 00:03:33.527
So when I got the request and they said it was about Meghan Markle, I thought what's up with the Markle?
00:03:33.527 --> 00:03:34.610
What's going on there?
00:03:34.610 --> 00:03:38.448
Because isn't the Netflix series coming out in March?
00:03:38.448 --> 00:03:40.573
She delayed it because of the LA wildfires.
00:03:40.573 --> 00:03:48.625
Then, of course, I had to go to the Goog and we find out that she rebranded and released it, so released the website.
00:03:48.625 --> 00:03:51.512
We now have a new name and there was some framing there.
00:03:51.900 --> 00:03:54.555
Now, I'll be honest, I didn't plan this episode around Meghan Markle.
00:03:54.555 --> 00:04:02.181
She just kind of dropped into my lap in terms of timing, which such is in my business, but I happen to have read this article in Vanity Fair.
00:04:02.181 --> 00:04:04.925
If you haven't read it, I encourage you to read it.
00:04:04.925 --> 00:04:11.335
If you're interested in PR machinations, the celebrity machine at work, read that article.
00:04:11.335 --> 00:04:24.709
But it's also just a well-written article by contributing editor Anna Peel, and she used very few first-person sources in this article.
00:04:24.709 --> 00:04:36.634
Very few people were named in this article, mostly anonymous or deep background or pulled from other publications Harry's book Spare.
00:04:36.634 --> 00:04:40.990
She got the information wherever she could, but they were not interviewed for this cover story.
00:04:40.990 --> 00:04:56.101
So this cover story, february 2025 edition, american Hustle five years leaving the monarchy, meghan and Harry are trying their damnedest to just be normal moguls.
00:04:56.101 --> 00:04:58.204
Well said, well said.
00:04:58.204 --> 00:05:04.331
But in this article it fits in so nicely with the topic today.
00:05:05.233 --> 00:05:12.468
As I mentioned, I was inspired by this topic a while ago, which is very similar to the Meghan Markle framing narrative.
00:05:12.468 --> 00:05:26.863
I'll come back to that in a moment, working with the press on this Blake Lively I'm not even going to call it the Blake Lively-Jessabelle Dilling story, because it's really the Blake Lively-Ryan Reynolds story story, because it's really the Blake Lively Ryan Reynolds story.
00:05:26.863 --> 00:05:28.927
But there's so much framing going on with sources involved in a story.
00:05:28.927 --> 00:05:31.793
I want to explore the art of the anonymous source.
00:05:31.793 --> 00:05:48.944
In my previous podcast episode I discussed the Taylor Swift, blake Lively situation, how TMZ dropped a story Thursday afternoon news dump Not a Friday afternoon news dump, but close because it was Super Bowl weekend.
00:05:48.964 --> 00:05:49.706
So it kind of counts.
00:05:49.706 --> 00:05:56.749
They were dropping it at a time when the press wasn't really paying attention Doesn't mean that the press wouldn't see it.
00:05:56.749 --> 00:06:03.112
But over the weekend they're not working, newsrooms aren't fully staffed and it was Super Bowl weekend.
00:06:03.112 --> 00:06:07.843
It's no different than Joe Jonas announcing his divorce over Labor Day weekend.
00:06:07.843 --> 00:06:16.632
So Blake Lively announcing the civil complaint filing it on a Friday, the New York Times story drops on that Friday.
00:06:16.632 --> 00:06:18.134
Or is it Thursday, friday, saturday?
00:06:18.134 --> 00:06:36.261
I did my first post about it on Saturday, post about it on Saturday and that story with the New York Times was strategic to be timed with Blake Lively's civil complaint, which was also timed around the holidays it was days before Christmas.
00:06:36.261 --> 00:06:38.865
Strategic 100%.
00:06:39.307 --> 00:06:46.380
And in order to do those types of things or to at least get the press out or people talking about it is you need sources.
00:06:46.380 --> 00:06:48.466
You can't just drop something.
00:06:48.466 --> 00:06:55.766
If a story drops in the middle of a forest, is anyone really there to hear it or see it?
00:06:55.766 --> 00:06:57.129
Was it real?
00:06:57.129 --> 00:07:10.142
But in the Taylor Swift case, if you listen to the previous podcast, episode 299, I said because TMZ quoted a well-connected source close to Taylor Swift.
00:07:10.142 --> 00:07:11.464
You know that.
00:07:11.464 --> 00:07:29.452
That is someone who is a part of the players in every celebrity's story and I want to highlight I'm going to highlight three players and I'm going to tell you how that Taylor Swift story falls into it, but I'm also going to share how Meghan Markle and Harry fall into it as well.
00:07:29.452 --> 00:07:34.567
All right, so let's look at the three players in every celebrity story.
00:07:35.228 --> 00:07:39.343
The first group we're going to call them the gatekeepers.
00:07:39.343 --> 00:07:46.312
These are the publicists, the managers, the legal teams who control access.
00:07:46.312 --> 00:07:56.937
Those are the people who are deciding which journalist gets the story, which media outlet gets the exclusive.
00:07:56.937 --> 00:08:00.083
Who are we going to share this denial to?
00:08:00.083 --> 00:08:03.108
Who are we going to drop that?
00:08:03.108 --> 00:08:20.574
Our client is strategically distancing themselves from Blake Lively and we're going to do this in between the Grammy Awards, where their client was nominated for, I think, six Grammy nominations but six and that outcome shifted the narrative.
00:08:20.574 --> 00:08:30.564
You know how they were going to respond to it, but there's no doubt they planned to drop that story late in the week leading up to the Super Bowl, because the narrative was going to be about Taylor and Travis.
00:08:30.564 --> 00:08:37.807
We were going to be overwhelmed with that narrative, but the narrative shifted when the Kansas City Chiefs lost that game.
00:08:38.629 --> 00:08:41.072
But that is considered a gatekeeper.
00:08:41.072 --> 00:08:44.326
It is someone who is controlling information.
00:08:44.326 --> 00:08:51.013
They are opening the doors to the information by delivering it to the press or they are closing it.
00:08:51.013 --> 00:08:57.629
Think of them as like traffic controllers of celebrity information and a narrative.
00:08:57.629 --> 00:09:21.201
Now, sometimes what people don't realize, when they see a lot of these spontaneous drops, paparazzi shots or leaked stories, all of a sudden people are everybody's talking about something all of a sudden that usually is something that is orchestrated, sometimes carefully orchestrated, sometimes sloppily orchestrated.
00:09:21.662 --> 00:09:33.631
Gatekeepers can keep a story under control and there are many examples where gatekeepers have done that and there are examples where gatekeepers have lost control of the story.
00:09:33.631 --> 00:10:12.717
Story Examples of gatekeepers who've controlled the story Again Tree Payne, the publicist to Taylor Swift, 100% controlled the Blake Lively distancing story with precision, with precision down to the timing and squeezing it right in between two big publicity events for her client, because Tree Payne likely knew that Taylor Swift, her client, was going to get a lot of publicity and she also knew that the Blake Lively story was going to get very, very messy and it was going to get very, very legal and she did not want her client to be entangled in it.
00:10:12.717 --> 00:10:22.246
It wasn't just a reputation challenge, it was also a legal one, because you never know who gets served in these cases or what gets revealed.
00:10:22.246 --> 00:10:25.706
If you want more information about that, check out my previous episode.
00:10:25.706 --> 00:10:29.083
But that's an example of a gatekeeper that worked.
00:10:29.083 --> 00:10:49.457
Another example of a gatekeeper situation that worked still an adjacent to Taylor Swift was within sometime last year I think maybe it was in the summer when all of a sudden, big news drop Taylor Swift, travis Kelsey breakup crisis plan found on the desk of a staffer.
00:10:49.457 --> 00:10:54.183
It first gets dropped in Reddit and then it goes like wildfire.
00:10:54.183 --> 00:11:01.133
Now I jumped in and talked about how that crisis plan was real.
00:11:01.133 --> 00:11:11.878
However, I didn't say what the plan was about was real, but the crisis plan itself, because it was part of a strategic plan.
00:11:12.979 --> 00:11:19.767
I contend that it was a trial from Travis Kelsey's publicist.
00:11:19.767 --> 00:11:27.802
His publicists are very wired into the Hollywood messy fixer digital culture.
00:11:27.802 --> 00:11:38.365
Their client is primarily made up of celebrities, slash influencers, people who make news online.
00:11:38.365 --> 00:11:45.220
That, to me, had all of the markings of something that came from Travis Kelsey's team.
00:11:45.220 --> 00:11:52.342
I think it was a trial balloon to find out what would happen in case they broke up Now.
00:11:52.342 --> 00:11:54.392
Does it mean that they're going to break up?
00:11:54.392 --> 00:12:08.945
Not necessarily, but any good publicist wants to know what's going to happen Because when Travis and to break up not necessarily, but any good publicist wants to know what's going to happen, because when Travis and Taylor break up at some point, I just don't think they're right for each other Doesn't mean that it's not real.
00:12:08.945 --> 00:12:13.498
Also means there is a mutual beneficial relationship there as well.
00:12:13.498 --> 00:12:14.681
So there is PR involved.
00:12:14.681 --> 00:12:27.328
If they break out, it's going to be a very, very big deal and the threat of Swifties taking sides and absolutely destroying Travis Kelsey is real.
00:12:27.328 --> 00:12:29.880
And you don't just destroy Travis Kelsey.
00:12:29.880 --> 00:12:37.785
You could destroy the brand Kelsey, mama, kelsey, jason Kelsey, the Kelsey with the number one podcast, kylie Kelsey.
00:12:37.785 --> 00:12:41.618
The whole Kelsey machine is a whole different machine.
00:12:41.618 --> 00:12:45.076
A good publicist is going to want to know what's going to happen.
00:12:45.076 --> 00:12:50.145
So that's why I think that was gatekeeping at work.
00:12:50.546 --> 00:12:53.878
So gatekeeping is from people who are insiders.
00:12:53.878 --> 00:12:57.163
An example where it didn't work Lizzo.
00:12:57.163 --> 00:13:01.029
We're two years out of Lizzo's reputation spiral.
00:13:01.029 --> 00:13:02.618
She still has not recovered.
00:13:02.618 --> 00:13:04.863
Does she still have a career?
00:13:04.863 --> 00:13:06.668
Well, yeah, I mean, you still see her.
00:13:06.668 --> 00:13:08.480
She pops up on social media.
00:13:08.480 --> 00:13:12.775
She'll pop up here, pop up there, but she is not the brand she used to be.
00:13:12.775 --> 00:13:16.461
She was a powerhouse brand.
00:13:16.461 --> 00:13:19.288
People looked at her aspirationally.
00:13:19.288 --> 00:13:23.481
She was here but that crisis dropped her.
00:13:23.481 --> 00:13:24.566
Why?
00:13:24.566 --> 00:13:46.518
Because her gatekeeper did her dirty Her lawyer, marty Singer, longtime fixer, longtime gatekeeper for a lot of celebrities, bill Cosby, charlie Sheen you get the idea he's used to being the fixer.
00:13:46.538 --> 00:13:49.250
He can say to a media outlet okay, I'm going to have you drop this story because I'm going to give you this story.
00:13:49.250 --> 00:13:49.972
He knew how to broker that.
00:13:49.972 --> 00:14:05.061
But what I contended is that he does not understand a media market and reputation marketplace where the public has so much sway over a celebrity's reputation.
00:14:05.061 --> 00:14:10.269
I think he severely overplayed his hand and his client lost out.
00:14:10.269 --> 00:14:14.363
So the first player is the gatekeeper.
00:14:14.363 --> 00:14:19.253
The second player is going to be the messenger.
00:14:19.253 --> 00:14:24.265
Now the messengers are the ones who are active players in the game.
00:14:24.265 --> 00:14:28.860
Now journalists aren't just passive receivers of information.
00:14:28.860 --> 00:14:32.769
The good journalists build relationships over the years.
00:14:32.769 --> 00:14:36.639
The good publicists build relationships over the year.
00:14:36.639 --> 00:14:43.780
They trade smaller stories for bigger scoops while maintaining trust, chasing headlines.
00:14:43.780 --> 00:14:50.780
But true messengers really know how to kind of move and broker that For people who work in PR.
00:14:51.582 --> 00:14:57.509
When you represent a company or an organization, you're always pitching your beat reporters, the same reporters.
00:14:57.509 --> 00:14:59.256
You're always giving them story ideas.
00:14:59.256 --> 00:15:04.539
They may not pick up on those stories, but the more that you pitch them, the more you become trusted.
00:15:04.539 --> 00:15:09.174
And there's so many people in my industry who do not like to pitch stories.
00:15:09.174 --> 00:15:19.267
I remember when I was hiring a manager, when I was a director of comms, and I asked every single candidate give me the thing that you love to do the most in this job and what do you hate the most?
00:15:19.267 --> 00:15:20.740
And they all said media relations.
00:15:20.740 --> 00:15:22.802
They hated talking to the press.
00:15:22.802 --> 00:15:31.639
The person who I ended up hiring is a person who said that they love talking to the press and I said you, my friend, the outlier, you got this job Because it can be interesting.
00:15:31.639 --> 00:15:34.302
I mean, that's how you build trust and that's also your currency.
00:15:34.302 --> 00:15:39.817
How many journalists you know you want to have that trust?
00:15:39.817 --> 00:15:43.044
Because sometimes you're really going to need them and sometimes they really need you.
00:15:43.044 --> 00:15:46.859
So messengers are the ones who can drop.
00:15:46.859 --> 00:15:49.904
So if you want to think of messenger, think of currency.
00:15:49.904 --> 00:15:54.922
I'm going to give you this as currency, like trust currency.
00:15:54.922 --> 00:16:07.149
A great example, too, for Messengers People Magazine During the premiere weekend, for it Ends With Us and Deadpool and Wolverine, people Magazine.
00:16:07.149 --> 00:16:21.044
Oh my gosh, that was like direct messengers, going back and forth because everything out of Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, as they were trying to react to all this bad publicity, they kept going, going, going to People Magazine where everybody else started reporting on it.
00:16:21.044 --> 00:16:22.727
So that's a case of the messengers.
00:16:23.254 --> 00:16:32.663
Now the third one is going to be the inside circle, and this is where things get interesting, because every single celebrity has an ecosystem around them.
00:16:32.663 --> 00:16:37.982
They have assistants, they have hairdressers, they have workout trainers, they have people who deliver them juice.
00:16:37.982 --> 00:16:40.268
I mean, you've seen all the television programs.
00:16:40.268 --> 00:16:44.166
Some of you probably even know who a lot of the people are.
00:16:44.166 --> 00:16:48.562
I had a number of Swifties on my live last week and they know everyone.
00:16:48.562 --> 00:16:50.466
She went to high school with all her friends.
00:16:50.466 --> 00:16:51.589
You know her bodyguard.
00:16:52.315 --> 00:16:56.307
But the insider circle, their currency is proximity.
00:16:56.307 --> 00:17:02.975
That proximity is going to give you a lot of insight and a lot of intel.
00:17:02.975 --> 00:17:29.128
The inside circle is usually there to support the celebrity or the politician whomever I'm saying celebrity, but it really could be anyone in the public eye but they're there oftentimes to protect, not to leak, to be a trusted source and a trusted person to that person at the center of it, but sometimes they can also be a source.
00:17:29.128 --> 00:17:42.086
Now they can drop positive information about their celebrity and negative information about someone else, but they can also drop negative stuff about the people they work for as well.
00:17:42.086 --> 00:17:46.161
So sometimes you never know the people closest to you.
00:17:46.602 --> 00:17:50.977
When I think of an insider circle, I go back two years ago, two summers ago.
00:17:50.977 --> 00:17:56.842
Labor Day weekend, another Friday afternoon news dump Joe Jonas, when he was divorcing Sophie Turner.
00:17:56.842 --> 00:18:06.060
His insider circle was working overtime and I know this firsthand from working with people who are getting drops from the Jonas family.
00:18:06.060 --> 00:18:07.688
That's the inside circle.
00:18:07.688 --> 00:18:21.818
They were trying to push the narrative that it was a Sophie Turner problem and not a Joe Jonas problem and if you paid attention to content news history you know that did not work well at all for Joe Jonas.
00:18:22.299 --> 00:18:32.499
That was a time where I really started to look deeper at blind gossip and how it is used as a strategic PR.
00:18:32.499 --> 00:18:40.586
And so many times blind gossip comes from gatekeepers and so many times lying gossip comes from gatekeepers, messengers and the inside circle.
00:18:40.586 --> 00:18:44.590
When you think about information, also think about the economics of information.
00:18:44.590 --> 00:18:54.080
Think at a time before social media, when publications were always vying for photographs.
00:18:54.080 --> 00:19:02.138
I listened to the story of Lisa Marie Presley's book that came out a posthumous book read by recordings from her and her daughter, riley Keough.
00:19:02.138 --> 00:19:20.528
So good, but she was discussing the craziness, the frenzy around photo rights for her daughter, riley and how the paparazzi were going crazy trying to get photographs.
00:19:20.528 --> 00:19:43.801
If you were around during the time of Princess Diana and I'm coming back to Harry and Meghan back at that time the paparazzi swarming around Princess Diana but also her inside circle dropping stories Prince Charles' inside circle dropping stories that currency is proximity, but sometimes currency is currency and it's money.
00:19:44.763 --> 00:19:54.412
So news outlets, media sources higher up the journalistic ethic chain they don't want to pay for news.
00:19:54.412 --> 00:19:55.453
They don't.
00:19:55.453 --> 00:19:59.866
They'll say they don't want to pay for news, but they can find money.
00:19:59.866 --> 00:20:21.116
The money could come in a location shoot, it could come for some other expense, but you still might get compensated for information, and information usually comes in the form of leaked intel and gossip and photos or timing, telling people when someone's going to show up, whatever.
00:20:21.116 --> 00:20:33.308
If you watch the Crown, for instance, you can see how the economics of information works and how invisible behind the scenes machine of celebrity works as well.
00:20:33.755 --> 00:20:41.162
Now, I mentioned in the beginning that I received a call about Meghan Markle.
00:20:41.162 --> 00:20:59.914
So the article that was in Vanity Fair how it ties into this episode is it is filled with no surprise sources, sources.
00:20:59.914 --> 00:21:08.762
This entire article written by contributing editor Anna Peel, illustration by Kim Thompson does not have very many firsthand sources and the only firsthand sources that they have are people who are somewhat distant.
00:21:08.762 --> 00:21:13.516
They were only working in the production arm when they were working with Spotify.
00:21:13.516 --> 00:21:19.058
It's people who weren't in their inner circle, who are, like, tightly bound by NDAs.
00:21:19.058 --> 00:21:21.361
Some people spoke anonymously.
00:21:21.361 --> 00:21:23.761
Some people spoke on background, deep background.
00:21:23.761 --> 00:21:25.823
A number of people had NDAs.
00:21:26.503 --> 00:21:30.326
But this story is interesting because so much of it.
00:21:30.326 --> 00:21:38.490
What makes it juicy is not when she quotes something from Spare, the 2023 memoir about Harry.
00:21:38.490 --> 00:21:45.022
It's when she speaks to people who work with them.
00:21:45.022 --> 00:21:53.684
For example, one of the people who spoke with Vanity Fair for this story said they signed a non-disclosure agreement to be employed by Harry and Meghan.
00:21:53.684 --> 00:22:03.397
A person who worked closely with the couple and loves them says I have no idea what Harry's interests are beyond polo.
00:22:03.397 --> 00:22:06.644
No clue what his inner life is like.
00:22:06.644 --> 00:22:10.898
That's really interesting, like that's a really interesting source.
00:22:11.038 --> 00:22:27.368
It adds color to the story because they're getting to what people want the most, which is also one of the reasons why Harry and Meghan are struggling so hard to really get grounded in who they are.
00:22:27.368 --> 00:22:41.913
They're always on such shaky ground because they spent too much time leveraging the victimization of their situation while demanding privacy.
00:22:41.913 --> 00:22:45.315
And the problem with that well one.
00:22:45.315 --> 00:22:53.161
They're counter to each other story, there's no doubt.
00:22:53.161 --> 00:22:55.863
But what people want is behind the scenes.
00:22:55.863 --> 00:22:58.726
They want to know what's going on.
00:22:58.726 --> 00:23:02.515
They want to know how things work, how things move.
00:23:02.515 --> 00:23:10.644
They want to know power players and why people are power players, why they're supported by some false facades Like give us the inside scoop.
00:23:10.644 --> 00:23:19.920
That's what people want, but Meghan and Harry are stuck in this place where they really can't expose everything that happened in the royal family.
00:23:19.920 --> 00:23:22.913
So how do you expose how things happen?
00:23:22.913 --> 00:23:24.531
Well, you have sources.
00:23:24.531 --> 00:23:26.853
So the royal family is doing the same thing.
00:23:27.726 --> 00:23:30.555
There's so much negative commentary out there about Harry and Meghan.
00:23:30.555 --> 00:23:40.386
So much of it comes from gatekeepers and messengers and inside circle people, and you could say the same thing about Harry and Meghan.
00:23:40.386 --> 00:23:45.468
Now, before I dive into this and the Meghan reveal today, I have to do a disclaimer.
00:23:45.468 --> 00:23:52.269
When I replied to the reporter, I said something that I meant and I've never replied to a reporter like this, ever.
00:23:52.269 --> 00:24:06.797
But I appreciated the reach out, but I declined to do the story because I said I had no interest in offering commentary about Meghan Markle, because I don't even though I'm doing it right now, but I'm talking about her dropping her brand.
00:24:07.338 --> 00:24:09.747
I'll say I don't have a bias against either one of them.
00:24:09.747 --> 00:24:11.130
I am right down the middle with them.
00:24:11.130 --> 00:24:24.846
On the one hand, I think Harry did have a very, very different type of lifestyle, growing up very sheltered in the royal family, but also probably not the easiest way to grow up Absolute trauma with his mother.
00:24:24.846 --> 00:24:42.417
I believe 100% that Meghan Markle experienced racism from the royal family being over in the UK, that she had a lot of struggles there and there's probably a lot of inside things happening in the royal family that that really um created challenges, uh, for her to fully embrace that role.
00:24:42.417 --> 00:24:59.307
On the other hand, I also think megan and harry have made their transition from the royal family just to mogul status as so complicated and so difficult because they're thinking more emotionally rather than strategically.
00:24:59.307 --> 00:25:10.134
They jump the gun constantly and their timing it's not just bad strategy, it's bad timing and a lot of it is in their control.
00:25:10.134 --> 00:25:11.397
A lot of it's not in their control.
00:25:11.397 --> 00:25:13.494
Remember, they did all this during the pandemic.
00:25:13.494 --> 00:25:14.721
That's when they went to Canada.
00:25:14.721 --> 00:25:16.267
I cannot imagine how miserable they were.
00:25:16.667 --> 00:25:19.555
You're not going to hear me complain that, meghan Markle.
00:25:19.555 --> 00:25:23.112
I think she's a narcissistic jerk and I'm not going to be one of those haters.
00:25:23.112 --> 00:25:29.794
I just think they both really have just a horrible sense of timing because they haven't figured it out yet.
00:25:29.794 --> 00:25:39.140
But they do have so many champions I mean, they do have so many people who are rooting for them, and I for one am going to watch Megan's show on Netflix and follow her new website.
00:25:39.140 --> 00:25:41.492
So her new website was dropped today.
00:25:41.492 --> 00:25:44.694
I only knew this because of the media requests and I didn't even know.
00:25:44.694 --> 00:25:45.849
They didn't tell me what it was about.
00:25:46.365 --> 00:25:51.617
Megan drops the rebrand as ever.
00:25:51.617 --> 00:26:00.616
Personally, that name ew Because all I think of when I hear as ever is as if.
00:26:00.616 --> 00:26:04.775
As ever isn't like a complete sentence.
00:26:04.775 --> 00:26:09.126
It's an idea, it's an opinion about something, but we don't know what something is.
00:26:09.126 --> 00:26:17.076
But she's using it in the form of as ever, as it's always been.
00:26:17.076 --> 00:26:19.858
So the website is active right now.
00:26:19.858 --> 00:26:23.029
You can't go to asevercom.
00:26:23.029 --> 00:26:25.960
It goes to asevercom slash password.
00:26:25.960 --> 00:26:27.263
They may not have the domain?
00:26:27.263 --> 00:26:29.811
I don't know, but all you can do right now is sign up for it.
00:26:30.192 --> 00:26:31.256
I also think it's interesting.
00:26:31.256 --> 00:26:34.130
This is where Harry and Meghan.
00:26:34.130 --> 00:26:40.890
It's just frustrating from a reputation point of view because they want privacy, they're shielding the kids, they don't want to put their kids out there.
00:26:40.890 --> 00:27:02.051
But then Lilibet is on her homepage that she's rebranding Granted, she's far away and we're not seeing the face want to push this brand as one that she's rushing out the door because everything they do has been a rush job.
00:27:02.051 --> 00:27:05.040
But she had no choice because she could not get the trademark.
00:27:05.040 --> 00:27:11.095
I don't think we'll ever hear accountability from Meghan Markle for why she switched the brand.
00:27:11.095 --> 00:27:16.554
It's interesting how she's framing this and I'm going to read it and I think you'll be able to pick it up.
00:27:16.554 --> 00:27:18.878
Now we have People Magazine.
00:27:18.878 --> 00:27:21.332
Nothing is firsthand.
00:27:21.332 --> 00:27:29.519
Do I think that Harry and Meghan's team sent a messenger or a gatekeeper to People Magazine with this story?
00:27:29.519 --> 00:27:46.474
I would say most certainly so, because the headline here, Princess Little Bit makes her debut on as Ever website, a new photo with mom Meghan Markle, and then we have her Instagram where she's announcing the rebrand embedded in the story.
00:27:46.655 --> 00:27:51.926
Then we get into the more stickier part of the story, which is well, the rebrand.
00:27:51.926 --> 00:27:54.749
Why do you have the rebrand?
00:27:54.749 --> 00:28:00.413
Even people who are not trademark experts know that she struggled with this.
00:28:00.413 --> 00:28:05.838
She jumped the gun and put out the brand without having the full rights to do that.
00:28:05.838 --> 00:28:20.410
Here is how she framed it from her video American Riviera that sounds like such a great name.
00:28:20.410 --> 00:28:25.627
It's my neighborhood, it's a nickname for Santa Barbara, which was the problem, but it limited me to things that were just manufactured and grown in this area.
00:28:25.627 --> 00:28:30.885
She said in this Instagram video that's framing, you can do whatever you want.
00:28:30.885 --> 00:28:41.515
No one ever thought, really even though that was the brand it was American Riviera Orchard, really, even though that was the brand it was American Riviera Orchard that she was only going to talk about things out of Santa Barbara or Montecito.
00:28:41.515 --> 00:28:41.976
No, not at all.
00:28:41.976 --> 00:28:43.019
Everybody knows.
00:28:43.744 --> 00:28:59.674
But she's framing it in a way where you're led to believe that she was sitting there thinking you know, I want to expand, I maybe should do a quick rebrand Even though her television program was supposed to come out and was delayed due to the LA wildfires.
00:28:59.674 --> 00:29:02.204
So what I think she did, she took the opportunity.
00:29:02.204 --> 00:29:16.347
I think that LA wildfires were an incredibly convenient excuse for her to delay coming out because that gave her side, her team, time to rebrand, because they could not get that trademark to go through.
00:29:16.347 --> 00:29:19.108
So then she says I'll continue on quote.
00:29:19.108 --> 00:29:26.592
Then Netflix came on, not just as my partner in the show, but as my partner in my business, which was huge, I should say.
00:29:26.592 --> 00:29:31.532
So I thought about it and I've been waiting for a moment to share a name that I okay.
00:29:31.532 --> 00:29:35.448
So here's like deep, deep framing here that I had secured in 2022.
00:29:35.448 --> 00:29:36.933
She's putting a timestamp on it.
00:29:36.933 --> 00:29:41.674
Remember, whenever timing is involved in any type of messaging or crisis, it's strategic.
00:29:41.674 --> 00:29:43.405
And this is the moment.
00:29:43.405 --> 00:29:53.180
I do not believe for a moment that since 2022, the name was going to be as ever.
00:29:53.180 --> 00:30:11.988
Now could that have been a part of a batch of names that she had up on the wall and they secured all of them, sure, sure, but they were going after the Duchess, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex brand and they couldn't even do that brand because it interfered with the royal family protocol.
00:30:11.988 --> 00:30:15.214
This is a moment and it's called as ever.
00:30:15.996 --> 00:30:17.199
Now she can talk about what it means.
00:30:17.199 --> 00:30:28.577
As Ever essentially means as it's always been, and if you've followed me since 2014 with the Tig, you know I've always loved cooking and crafting and gardening.
00:30:28.577 --> 00:30:31.613
True, this is what I do, which I buy.
00:30:31.613 --> 00:30:33.289
It's a part of her whole thing.
00:30:33.289 --> 00:30:34.334
I followed the Tig.
00:30:34.334 --> 00:30:36.208
She's very good at being an influencer.
00:30:36.208 --> 00:30:50.005
She shared and I haven't been able to share it with you in the same way for the past few years understandable, but now I can.
00:30:50.025 --> 00:30:58.400
So, as things are starting to trickle out there by your gatekeepers and messengers and inside circle I wanted you to hear it from me first, so that was from Instagram, but you're going to hear it from her team beyond that.
00:30:58.400 --> 00:31:11.392
So there's going to be a lot of drops and it's going to be interesting to see how they do press, because in this Vanity Fair piece, for example, I mean, this was not an article that they want, because it is not a flattering article about them as well.
00:31:11.392 --> 00:31:18.298
As a matter of fact, before I go, I have to read one quote in here that I loved Love, love, love, love, love.
00:31:18.298 --> 00:31:19.165
Because.
00:31:19.165 --> 00:31:39.278
So this whole story is just filled with little tidbits of drops by, you know, insiders, messengers, gatekeepers but one piece discusses the narrative about Meghan Markle being challenging when she was with the royal family, with her staff, how she yelled and screamed at the staff.
00:31:39.278 --> 00:31:41.506
So you remember all the stories out there about that.
00:31:41.506 --> 00:31:43.191
And one thing that I always wondered.
00:31:43.191 --> 00:31:53.257
It didn't really jibe with me because she's never given someone who screams big energy, screaming energy, chaotic energy.
00:31:53.257 --> 00:31:54.546
Every time you see her she's this.
00:31:54.546 --> 00:32:02.117
That mood may shift but she's always been kind of like a calm type B person, at least the persona, but you don't get this kind of idea of screaming.
00:32:03.045 --> 00:32:08.560
But they quoted a person who worked in media projects.
00:32:08.560 --> 00:32:15.428
This is someone somewhat adjacent, so in the Spotify kind of gimlet media archetype realm, when they were trying to get their podcasts off the ground.
00:32:15.428 --> 00:32:23.500
They said this person who worked in media projects read stories in the tabloids about Meghan bullying palace aides and couldn't imagine such behavior actually happened.
00:32:23.500 --> 00:32:24.846
Kind of in the same camp.
00:32:24.846 --> 00:32:27.173
Maybe they didn't like her, but I wasn't buying the bullying piece.
00:32:27.173 --> 00:32:34.297
After working with her, though, this person realized quote oh, any given Tuesday this happened.
00:32:34.297 --> 00:32:48.756
End quote While the beggars believed that Meghan actually shouted at a palace aide, as has been reported, a person who interacted with her professionally says quote you can be yelled at even if somebody doesn't raise their voice.
00:32:49.464 --> 00:32:57.277
It's funny that people don't differentiate between the energy of being yelled at and literally someone screaming at you and quote.
00:32:57.277 --> 00:33:06.864
I love that because that is so true, which makes the story of Meghan Markle bullying palace aides believable.
00:33:06.864 --> 00:33:16.355
Incredible because it wasn't yelling and screaming, but it was this kind of standoffish as they call it mean girls type vibe.
00:33:16.355 --> 00:33:26.732
Also example two sources say a colleague with ties to archetypes that's their podcast took a leave of absence after working on three episodes, then left Gimlet altogether.
00:33:26.732 --> 00:33:32.347
Now that's two anonymous sources talking about a colleague who isn't even in this story.
00:33:33.609 --> 00:33:49.432
The writer, anna Peel, did a good job weaving together a story, but stories like this, when you are a Meghan Markle or a Prince Harry, you can challenge its credibility, and that's why you always hear from people in the center of a crisis.
00:33:49.432 --> 00:33:56.407
They'll say, oh, it's just a bunch of anonymous sources or a bunch of people online complaining or a bunch of people on the internet complaining about it.
00:33:56.407 --> 00:34:16.206
But when it comes to the system and how it works, oftentimes, like I said, there's something to it, and even when I was in New York City a couple weeks ago maybe a month ago doing the interview with ABC News, I ended up spending the day there because I had calls so they let me have an office.
00:34:16.206 --> 00:34:29.601
When I was there, we were talking about well, actually we were talking about Barack Obama, michelle Obama and the stories there, and we were talking about page six stories and different gossip sources.
00:34:29.601 --> 00:35:03.853
When page six says something, I was like double take, I thought I couldn't believe it.
00:35:04.114 --> 00:35:11.385
I saw Bethany Frankel comment that it was genius of Ryan and Blake to show up at SNL.
00:35:11.385 --> 00:35:13.606
No, I don't think it was genius at all.
00:35:13.606 --> 00:35:13.807
It showed.
00:35:13.807 --> 00:35:15.108
No, I don't think it was genius at all.
00:35:15.108 --> 00:35:25.173
It showed, as I posted on my TikTok, ryan's quippy, sarcastic humor doesn't work anymore, because I've been positing that out there, like is this humor still going to work?
00:35:25.173 --> 00:35:27.554
And I've said I don't think it will Because people see through it.
00:35:27.594 --> 00:35:33.898
I was a little surprised that Tina Fey and Amy Poehler decided to introduce them.
00:35:33.898 --> 00:35:37.559
I would not have wanted to do that if I were either one of them.
00:35:37.559 --> 00:35:48.927
I don't know why, just personally I went oh really, really Like if I were with SNL, I would not have done it.
00:35:48.927 --> 00:35:50.293
I would not have done it because what is at the center of the story?
00:35:50.293 --> 00:35:51.197
It's supposed to be about sexual harassment.
00:35:51.197 --> 00:35:56.193
I would not want to be a part of a conversation or a bit where you're making fun of sexual harassment.
00:35:56.193 --> 00:35:57.157
That's just me.
00:35:57.157 --> 00:35:58.505
That's just me.
00:35:58.666 --> 00:36:02.235
Ryan Reynolds has a lot of power because he has a lot of money.
00:36:02.235 --> 00:36:17.175
He has a lot of state in different businesses and different ventures and he's a celebrity and he's A-list and he's a part of a power couple, but his stock dropped significantly.
00:36:17.175 --> 00:36:24.632
He may still have a lot of money, but he does not have the same level of fame that he had before.
00:36:24.632 --> 00:36:26.695
He's more notorious now.
00:36:26.695 --> 00:36:31.608
People definitely know who he is, but people don't view him in the same way.
00:36:31.608 --> 00:36:34.432
He lost a lot of reputational currency.
00:36:34.432 --> 00:36:36.014
He lost a lot of reputational currency.
00:36:36.775 --> 00:36:46.306
I'm fascinated by the power moves that they make, and there's celebrities out there who make great art.
00:36:46.306 --> 00:36:48.409
I might like them as a fan, either their music, their art, whatever it is.
00:36:48.409 --> 00:36:50.152
But all these machinations, ooh.
00:36:50.152 --> 00:37:12.590
I'm there for the learning and if you learn something this week, I encourage you to share this podcast with anyone who loves to dish on the stuff, like we do, whether you are a celebrity connoisseur or you're someone who loves to work in PR, reputation management, or you're just curious about it because I find it fascinating.
00:37:12.590 --> 00:37:15.179
So why shouldn't you, why shouldn't we all?
00:37:15.199 --> 00:37:18.288
I want to encourage you to subscribe to the podcast.
00:37:18.288 --> 00:37:23.465
Also subscribe to my YouTube, where you will be able to see this video if you're only listening to it.
00:37:23.465 --> 00:37:26.851
I have weekly lives on there as well.
00:37:26.851 --> 00:37:30.860
Also, I encourage you to join my sub stack.
00:37:30.860 --> 00:37:33.570
It's prbreakdownmedia.
00:37:33.570 --> 00:37:39.284
That will bring you directly to my sub stack where I write about the stories.
00:37:39.284 --> 00:37:57.362
I'm also going to create other bits of content that are there for the learning about PR and reputation management, but certainly addition about all the things that we see happening online and in the news, because I love nothing better than a good headline.
00:37:57.362 --> 00:37:58.644
All right, everyone.
00:37:58.644 --> 00:38:02.273
Thanks so much for listening and watching.
00:38:02.273 --> 00:38:03.536
That's all for this week.
00:38:03.536 --> 00:38:04.418
Bye for now.