EXCLUSIVE Meghan Markle is a 'fraud' who is 'milking' her fame from Prince Harry to 'sucker people' into buying her products, leading US brand experts claim

Daily Mail​

8 hours ago

Meghan Markle is a 'fraud' and As Ever is all about 'milking' her fame from marrying Prince Harry to 'sucker people into buying her stuff', two of North America's leading brand experts have claimed.
Canadian lawyer Phillip Millar and California marketing executive Camille Moore, stars of popular The Art of the Brand podcast, believe the launch and concept of her lifestyle business has been one of the worst they have ever seen.
'I love sh***ing on people who suck. Meghan Markle sucks as far as I'm concerned', Mr Millar has said.
'It [As Ever] is run by a confederacy of dunces working on this platform that is just getting maximising the value from her fame that came from Suits and being a part of the Royal Family and they're just milking that for everything they can'.
Millar and Moore, who have advised big businesses including Mercedes-Benz, L'Oreal, Olaplex, Dior, Van Cleef and Air Canada, say Meghan's business has been a 'royal disaster'.
Mr Millar believes that As Ever lacks authenticity because he claims that Meghan is 'pretending' to be a domestic goddess and most people don't believe it. But he added that the people who have rushed to buy her wine, jam, crepe mix and tea shows 'how gullible a lot of consumers are'.
Canadian lawyer Phillip Millar and California marketing executive Camille Moore, stars of popular The Art of the Brand podcast, believe the launch and concept of her lifestyle business has been one of the worst they have ever seen
He said: 'She's not substantial. I'm agitated by her so much because it is a deliberate misrepresentation of what she is because she thinks she can pretend to be that while actually being this and sucker people into buying her stuff and every step of the way she's failing because it's not legitimate. It's not intelligent. It's not well executed.
'There was nothing about her brand that was good from the start to a distinguishing eye. She was a fraud what I can see from the beginning who was just using opportunities to advance herself. Her brand wasn't one built on substance. It was based on using people.
'They're not executing anything well on any show on anything. But it shows how gullible a lot of consumers are'.
Mr Millar said that investors including Netflix appear to have failed to ask serious questions of Meghan before the launch.
'People who consider themselves smart because nobody ever questions them are running this business and telling her to use a playbook that works for products where scarcity matters. Confectionery scarcity doesn't matter.
He added: 'There's an egocentric approach to it that if you achieve some level of celebrity, you think you can build a brand, but that's the start of your brand. You can make short-term money from it, but it's not a long-term strategy'.
Phillip believes Meghan has failed to see what she really is - a 'disruptor' rather than a homemaker.
He said: 'Her brand should be I'm a disruptor. I go into TV. I make noise. I go into the Royal Family. I make noise. She should brand herself as a rebel, but she's not consistent with what she is.
'She should be a disruptor and sell products that are not that expensive and that represent disruption, but that audience is not spending a lot of money'.
Ms Moore said Meghan is responsible 'for really probably having the worst brand execution to date', adding: 'She's had zero ownership in this business. It's effectively like she's just like labeling her brand'.
She added: 'I feel like she's doing such a brutal or good job, depending on how you're looking at it, of getting this like free PR and then absolutely s***ing the bed'.
When she started posting links on the ShopMy e-commerce site, some thought that this was going to prove an irresistible source of serious income for the Duchess of Sussex.
It couldn't be easier, really – influencers link posts from their Instagram to the online shop, and then rake in a percentage of every item of clothing, make-up or homeware sold as a result.
Some of the top creators make up to $1million (£740,000) a year with a cut of between 10 and 30 per cent per item, depending on the retailer.
The 'creators' are ranked in a tiering visible only to other ShopMy entrepreneurs; the biggest earners are 'icons' and the lowliest ranking is 'enthusiast'.
After an initial flurry on the site, in which she directed shoppers to the sweaters she wore in her Netflix show With Love, Meghan, the denim dress she wore on a 'date night' with Prince Harry to watch Beyonce and her make-up and hair favourites, Meghan has fallen silent.
Indeed, she's not posted in over two months on ShopMy and it seems that her ranking has dropped from icon to enthusiast as a result.
While she continues to appear regularly on her own Instagram page and that of her brand, As Ever, she or her team are not linking through for 'easy money'.
A spokesman for the couple did not respond to requests for clarification but a source says that – however lucrative – this potential revenue stream is simply not important to her. 'Her current priorities are centred on As Ever and expanding her business ventures. ShopMy represents an exploration into social media that she enjoys.'
The source adds: 'The duchess has consistently approached ShopMy with a focus on authentically sharing products and designers she supports, particularly female founders she wants to uplift.'
The deal is then: Meghan doesn't need the money, because she's making plenty already.
As speculation grows over the couple attempting to renew links to the UK – with two key members of the Sussex team meeting the King's aide, Tobyn Andreae, earlier this month, as revealed exclusively by The Mail on Sunday – it's intriguing to examine what commercial successes the couple have had since moving their lives to California.
The bottom line, of course, has always been significant for both Harry and Meghan. As they seemingly make steps towards rebuilding bridges with the Royal Family, you have to ask: How would a rapprochement serve the Sussexes?
And, more than this, might they need to make up with the King for financial reasons. After all, he used to fund his son Harry's life ... right down to a wardrobe allowance for his wife.
People who know the Sussexes say the reopening of communications doesn't mean they're any less committed to life in Montecito.
I'm told: 'They're very happy living in and raising their family in California and, as it stands, have no plans to leave. The duke will of course continue, as he has done since he emigrated, to visit the UK in support of his charitable causes and patronages.'
Indeed, Montecito is the epicentre of how they are marketing themselves.
Meghan's As Ever brand was originally known as American Riviera Orchard, after the area in which they live.
Five months after Megxit in February 2020, the Sussexes bought their house in Montecito for $14.65million (£10,890,000).
And it's that purchase which seems to have fired the starting gun on the Sussexes' endeavours.
In their tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey the following year, which took place while Meghan was pregnant with daughter Lilibet, Prince Harry reflected on their money-making activities to date.
He said their deals with Netflix and Spotify had both been driven by financial necessity.
The prince said he was cut off by his family in the first quarter of 2020, shortly after he and Meghan announced they would step back as senior members of the royals.
He added that he still had the money left to him by his late mother, Princess Diana.
'Without that, we wouldn't have been able to do this,' he said, referring to the family's move to California.
If Harry and Meghan had really been getting $100million over five years from Netflix at a steady rate of $20million a year, then you could consider it taken care of. But a source with knowledge of the Netflix deal say it's never worked out like that
But even the reputed £10million left by Diana wouldn't be enough to buy his house and sustain their lifestyle for long.
The couple are widely reported to have taken out a mortgage, with repayments apparently standing at $480,000 a year.
On top of this, property tax will be a further $68,000 a year. Utilities are estimated at $24,000 a year, staffing costs $250,000 and security – always a priority for Prince Harry, who made two tours of duty in Afghanistan with the Army Air Corps – is said to cost up to $3million a year.
It all adds up to needing to clear around $4million a year after tax, which is quite a task.
Sources also indicate that the price Harry and Meghan pay to run their Archewell production company is significant, 'probably $3million a year, which as an overhead commitment is quite big by Hollywood standards', though some of those costs come out of charity funds.
If Harry and Meghan had really been getting $100million over five years from Netflix at a steady rate of $20million a year, then you could consider it taken care of.
But a source with knowledge of the Netflix deal say it's never worked out like that.
They said: 'From speaking to someone with knowledge of the deal, it looks like they've probably managed to maybe keep $10million-$15million or a touch more purely for themselves over the nearly five years so far – not bad business, but that kind of money doesn't last long with their lifestyle.
'Netflix paid for the production of [the tell-all hit documentary series] Harry & Meghan, which would have included a big fee for them.
'I'd guess [the money Netflix spent on it] works out at $20million all-in.
'Netflix haven't done too badly out of the relationship in as much as they've probably only gone out of pocket to the tune of around $40million or thereabouts, and they did at least get a huge hit documentary out of the investment, and a less successful show in With Love, Meghan.
'The whole arrangement was basically a trade-off for Netflix getting the Harry & Meghan documentary and they will regard it as a modest win.'