February 18, 2025 • 38 mins
The Invisible Machine Behind Celebrity Stories
Overview
In this episode, Molly explores how celebrity stories are crafted and shaped behind the scenes, examining the key players and mechanisms that drive celebrity narratives in media.
Case Studies Discussed
- Meghan Markle's Brand Relaunch
- Taylor Swift/Blake Lively Situation
- Ryan Reynolds & Blake Lively
Additional Resources Mentioned
- Vanity Fair article "American Hustle" (February 2025 edition)
- Previous episode (#299) on Taylor Swift distancing from Blake Lively
- PR Breakdown Substack: prbreakdown.media
Want More Behind the Breakdown?
Follow The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson on Substack for early access to podcast episodes, exclusive member chats, weekly lives, and monthly workshops that go deeper than the mic. It's the insider’s hub for communicators who want strategy with spine—and a little side-eye where it counts.
Follow Molly → @MollyMcPherson
Subscribe to PR Breakdown on Substack → prbreakdown.media
Need a Keynote Speaker? Drawing from real-world PR battles, Molly delivers the same engaging stories and hard-won crisis insights from the podcast to your live audience. Click here to book Molly for your next meeting.
Follow & Connect with Molly:
- https://www.youtube.com/mollymcpherson
- https://www.tiktok.com/@mollybmcpherson
- https://www.instagram.com/molly.mcpherson/
- https://www.linkedin.com/in/mollymcpherson/
© 2025 The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Molly McPherson (00:04):
Hey there, welcome to this episode of the
PR Breakdown.
I'm your host, molly McPherson,and in this episode let's look
at the invisible machine, notthe PR machine, but how
celebrity stories really getmade.
The inspiration for thisepisode no surprise came from
(00:26):
two people involved in a topicthat I've been talking about at
length in the podcast and alsoonline and in the press Blake
Lively and Justin Baldoni, withRyan Reynolds also having a
co-starring role in all of this.
I was inspired by this idea ofhow framing works in the public
(00:49):
realm.
When people are consuming media, whether it's social media,
legacy media, digital media,tabloid journalism, whatever it
is these stories are beingshaped and framed.
When I was doing a lot of thesemedia interviews about the Blake
Lively Justin Baldoni story, Inoticed that some journalists
were just coming at it from,just give me the facts, but
(01:11):
other journalists wereapproaching it from angles, no
doubt, and they were supportingtheir angles by sources, and I
tend to ask a lot of reporterswhen they're really digging deep
, particularly if it's from alegacy media outlet.
At this point I want to knowwhere they're coming from,
because if I'm commentating onsomething, I want to know how
(01:32):
I'm going to land in the piece.
And then when they give me thisinformation, I want to know
about the source.
Now I'm not going to ask themwho the source is in particular,
but give me an idea of who theyare.
I don't need to know who theyare, but I want to know who they
are, you know, and I want toknow does that person have an
angle?
How did that person get theinformation?
(01:54):
Because sometimes that willkind of change how I approach
the story.
This idea of what happensbehind the scenes for these
stories to end up on socialmedia or end up in the press,
you know, can be quiteinteresting If there's any
insight that I can give on thewhole world of celebrity crisis,
(02:17):
celebrity machinations, all ofthe elements at play are no
different than real life Someonewho's dated a Ryan Reynolds.
You may not know someone whodated Ryan Reynolds.
So we all know AlanisMorissette and we love Alanis
Morissette, but you know someonewho dated a Ryan Reynolds.
Do you know what I'm saying?
So let's look at the art of theanonymous source, but also
(02:42):
three players in every celebritystory.
Now, I mentioned that I had areach out today by the press and
this tabloid wanted to get myopinion about Meghan Markle.
Now I was deep into the worktoday.
I was deep into writing acrisis plan.
I was watching videos, lookingfor strategies same thing that
(03:03):
I'm talking about right now butin my world, with my client.
I replied in a way that I'venever replied before to the
press.
Yesterday I turned down amorning news national morning
news on one of the networks andI thought, wow, look at you,
molly McPherson, how far you cancome.
There is a time that I woulddrop everything to do that, but
(03:24):
I can't.
I have to serve at the behestof my clients, but anyway.
So when I got the request andthey said it was about Meghan
Markle, I thought what's up withthe Markle?
What's going on there?
Because isn't the Netflixseries coming out in March?
She delayed it because of theLA wildfires.
Then, of course, I had to go tothe Goog and we find out that
she rebranded and released it,so released the website.
(03:48):
We now have a new name andthere was some framing there.
Now, I'll be honest, I didn'tplan this episode around Meghan
Markle.
She just kind of dropped intomy lap in terms of timing, which
such is in my business, but Ihappen to have read this article
in Vanity Fair.
If you haven't read it, Iencourage you to read it.
If you're interested in PRmachinations, the celebrity
(04:09):
machine at work, read thatarticle.
But it's also just awell-written article by
contributing editor Anna Peel,and she used very few
first-person sources in thisarticle.
Very few people were named inthis article, mostly anonymous
(04:29):
or deep background or pulledfrom other publications Harry's
book Spare.
She got the informationwherever she could, but they
were not interviewed for thiscover story.
So this cover story, february2025 edition, american Hustle
five years leaving the monarchy,meghan and Harry are trying
(04:51):
their damnedest to just benormal moguls.
Well said, well said.
But in this article it fits inso nicely with the topic today.
As I mentioned, I was inspiredby this topic a while ago, which
is very similar to the MeghanMarkle framing narrative.
(05:12):
I'll come back to that in amoment, working with the press
on this Blake Lively I'm noteven 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.
But there's so much framinggoing on with sources involved
in a story.
I want to explore the art ofthe anonymous source.
In my previous podcast episodeI discussed the Taylor Swift,
(05:37):
blake Lively situation, how TMZdropped a story Thursday
afternoon news dump Not a Fridayafternoon news dump, but close
because it was Super Bowlweekend.
So it kind of counts.
They were dropping it at a timewhen the press wasn't really
paying attention Doesn't meanthat the press wouldn't see it.
But over the weekend they'renot working, newsrooms aren't
(06:00):
fully staffed and it was SuperBowl weekend.
It's no different than JoeJonas announcing his divorce
over Labor Day weekend.
So Blake Lively announcing thecivil complaint filing it on a
Friday, the New York Times storydrops on that Friday.
Or is it Thursday, friday,saturday?
I did my first post about it onSaturday, post about it on
(06:28):
Saturday and that story with theNew York Times was strategic to
be timed with Blake Lively'scivil complaint, which was also
timed around the holidays it wasdays before Christmas.
Strategic 100%.
And in order to do those typesof things or to at least get the
press out or people talkingabout it is you need sources.
You can't just drop something.
If a story drops in the middleof a forest, is anyone really
(06:53):
there to hear it or see it?
Was it real?
But in the Taylor Swift case,if you listen to the previous
podcast, episode 299, I saidbecause TMZ quoted a
well-connected source close toTaylor Swift.
You know that.
That is someone who is a partof the players in every
(07:17):
celebrity's story and I want tohighlight I'm going to highlight
three players and I'm going totell you how that Taylor Swift
story falls into it, but I'malso going to share how Meghan
Markle and Harry fall into it aswell.
All right, so let's look at thethree players in every
celebrity story.
The first group we're going tocall them the gatekeepers.
(07:39):
These are the publicists, themanagers, the legal teams who
control access.
Those are the people who aredeciding which journalist gets
the story, which media outletgets the exclusive.
Who are we going to share thisdenial to?
(08:00):
Who are we going to drop that?
Our client is strategicallydistancing themselves from Blake
Lively and we're going to dothis in between the Grammy
Awards, where their client wasnominated for, I think, six
Grammy nominations but six andthat outcome shifted the
(08:20):
narrative.
You know how they were going torespond to it, but there's no
doubt they planned to drop thatstory late in the week leading
up to the Super Bowl, becausethe narrative was going to be
about Taylor and Travis.
We were going to be overwhelmedwith that narrative, but the
narrative shifted when theKansas City Chiefs lost that
game.
But that is considered agatekeeper.
(08:41):
It is someone who iscontrolling information.
They are opening the doors tothe information by delivering it
to the press or they areclosing it.
Think of them as like trafficcontrollers of celebrity
information and a narrative.
Now, sometimes what peopledon't realize, when they see a
(09:01):
lot of these spontaneous drops,paparazzi shots or leaked
stories, all of a sudden peopleare everybody's talking about
something all of a sudden thatusually is something that is
orchestrated, sometimescarefully orchestrated,
sometimes sloppily orchestrated.
(09:21):
Gatekeepers can keep a storyunder control and there are many
examples where gatekeepers havedone that and there are
examples where gatekeepers havelost control of the story.
Story Examples of gatekeeperswho've controlled the story
Again Tree Payne, the publicistto Taylor Swift, 100% controlled
(09:43):
the Blake Lively distancingstory with precision, with
precision down to the timing andsqueezing it right in between
two big publicity events for herclient, because Tree Payne
likely knew that Taylor Swift,her client, was going to get a
lot of publicity and she alsoknew that the Blake Lively story
(10:05):
was going to get very, verymessy and it was going to get
very, very legal and she did notwant her client to be entangled
in it.
It wasn't just a reputationchallenge, it was also a legal
one, because you never know whogets served in these cases or
what gets revealed.
If you want more informationabout that, check out my
previous episode.
(10:25):
But that's an example of agatekeeper that worked.
Another example of a gatekeepersituation that worked still an
adjacent to Taylor Swift waswithin sometime last year I
think maybe it was in the summerwhen all of a sudden, big news
drop Taylor Swift, travis Kelseybreakup crisis plan found on
(10:48):
the desk of a staffer.
It first gets dropped in Redditand then it goes like wildfire.
Now I jumped in and talkedabout how that crisis plan was
real.
However, I didn't say what theplan was about was real, but the
crisis plan itself, because itwas part of a strategic plan.
(11:12):
I contend that it was a trialfrom Travis Kelsey's publicist.
His publicists are very wiredinto the Hollywood messy fixer
digital culture.
Their client is primarily madeup of celebrities, slash
(11:35):
influencers, people who makenews online.
That, to me, had all of themarkings of something that came
from Travis Kelsey's team.
I think it was a trial balloonto find out what would happen in
case they broke up Now.
Does it mean that they're goingto break up?
Not necessarily, but any goodpublicist wants to know what's
(11:56):
going to happen Because whenTravis and to break up not
necessarily, but any goodpublicist wants to know what's
going to happen, because whenTravis and Taylor break up at
some point, I just don't thinkthey're right for each other
Doesn't mean that it's not real.
Also means there is a mutualbeneficial relationship there as
well.
So there is PR involved.
If they break out, it's goingto be a very, very big deal and
(12:20):
the threat of Swifties takingsides and absolutely destroying
Travis Kelsey is real.
And you don't just destroyTravis Kelsey.
You could destroy the brandKelsey, mama, kelsey, jason
Kelsey, the Kelsey with thenumber one podcast, kylie Kelsey
.
The whole Kelsey machine is awhole different machine.
(12:41):
A good publicist is going towant to know what's going to
happen.
So that's why I think that wasgatekeeping at work.
So gatekeeping is from peoplewho are insiders.
An example where it didn't workLizzo.
We're two years out of Lizzo'sreputation spiral.
She still has not recovered.
(13:02):
Does she still have a career?
Well, yeah, I mean, you stillsee her.
She pops up on social media.
She'll pop up here, pop upthere, but she is not the brand
she used to be.
She was a powerhouse brand.
People looked at heraspirationally.
She was here but that crisisdropped her.
(13:23):
Why?
Because her gatekeeper did herdirty Her lawyer, marty Singer,
longtime fixer, longtimegatekeeper for a lot of
celebrities, bill Cosby, charlieSheen you get the idea he's
(13:46):
used to being the fixer.
He can say to a media outletokay, I'm going to have you drop
this story because I'm going togive you this story.
He knew how to broker that.
But what I contended is that hedoes not understand a media
market and reputationmarketplace where the public has
so much sway over a celebrity'sreputation.
I think he severely overplayedhis hand and his client lost out
(14:10):
.
So the first player is thegatekeeper.
The second player is going tobe the messenger.
Now the messengers are the oneswho are active players in the
game.
Now journalists aren't justpassive receivers of information
.
The good journalists buildrelationships over the years.
(14:32):
The good publicists buildrelationships over the year.
They trade smaller stories forbigger scoops while maintaining
trust, chasing headlines.
But true messengers really knowhow to kind of move and broker
that For people who work in PR.
When you represent a company oran organization, you're always
(14:55):
pitching your beat reporters,the same reporters.
You're always giving them storyideas.
They may not pick up on thosestories, but the more that you
pitch them, the more you becometrusted.
And there's so many people inmy industry who do not like to
pitch stories.
I remember when I was hiring amanager, when I was a director
of comms, and I asked everysingle candidate give me the
(15:15):
thing that you love to do themost in this job and what do you
hate the most?
And they all said mediarelations.
They hated talking to the press.
The person who I ended uphiring is a person who said that
they love talking to the pressand I said you, my friend, the
outlier, you got this jobBecause it can be interesting.
I mean, that's how you buildtrust and that's also your
currency.
How many journalists you knowyou want to have that trust?
(15:39):
Because sometimes you're reallygoing to need them and
sometimes they really need you.
So messengers are the ones whocan drop.
So if you want to think ofmessenger, think of currency.
I'm going to give you this ascurrency, like trust currency.
A great example, too, forMessengers People Magazine
During the premiere weekend, forit Ends With Us and Deadpool
(16:05):
and Wolverine, people Magazine.
Oh my gosh, that was likedirect messengers, going back
and forth because everything outof Blake Lively and Ryan
Reynolds, as they were trying toreact to all this bad publicity
, they kept going, going, goingto People Magazine where
everybody else started reportingon it.
So that's a case of themessengers.
Now the third one is going to bethe inside circle, and this is
(16:27):
where things get interesting,because every single celebrity
has an ecosystem around them.
They have assistants, they havehairdressers, they have workout
trainers, they have people whodeliver them juice.
I mean, you've seen all thetelevision programs.
Some of you probably even knowwho a lot of the people are.
I had a number of Swifties onmy live last week and they know
(16:48):
everyone.
She went to high school withall her friends.
You know her bodyguard.
But the insider circle, theircurrency is proximity.
That proximity is going to giveyou a lot of insight and a lot
of intel.
The inside circle is usuallythere to support the celebrity
(17:09):
or the politician whomever I'msaying celebrity, but it really
could be anyone in the publiceye but they're there oftentimes
to protect, not to leak, to bea trusted source and a trusted
person to that person at thecenter of it, but sometimes they
can also be a source.
Now they can drop positiveinformation about their
(17:35):
celebrity and negativeinformation about someone else,
but they can also drop negativestuff about the people they work
for as well.
So sometimes you never know thepeople closest to you.
When I think of an insidercircle, I go back two years ago,
two summers ago.
Labor Day weekend, anotherFriday afternoon news dump Joe
Jonas, when he was divorcingSophie Turner.
(17:56):
His insider circle was workingovertime and I know this
firsthand from working withpeople who are getting drops
from the Jonas family.
That's the inside circle.
They were trying to push thenarrative that it was a Sophie
Turner problem and not a JoeJonas problem and if you paid
attention to content newshistory you know that did not
(18:19):
work well at all for Joe Jonas.
That was a time where I reallystarted to look deeper at blind
gossip and how it is used as astrategic PR.
And so many times blind gossipcomes from gatekeepers and so
many times lying gossip comesfrom gatekeepers, messengers and
the inside circle.
(18:40):
When you think aboutinformation, also think about
the economics of information.
Think at a time before socialmedia, when publications were
always vying for photographs.
I listened to the story of LisaMarie Presley's book that came
out a posthumous book read byrecordings from her and her
(19:00):
daughter, riley Keough.
So good, but she was discussingthe craziness, the frenzy
around photo rights for herdaughter, riley and how the
paparazzi were going crazytrying to get photographs.
If you were around during thetime of Princess Diana and I'm
(19:24):
coming back to Harry and Meghanback at that time the paparazzi
swarming around Princess Dianabut also her inside circle
dropping stories Prince Charles'inside circle dropping stories
that currency is proximity, butsometimes currency is currency
and it's money.
(19:44):
So news outlets, media sourceshigher up the journalistic ethic
chain they don't want to payfor news.
They don't.
They'll say they don't want topay for news, but they can find
money.
The money could come in alocation shoot, it could come
for some other expense, but youstill might get compensated for
(20:09):
information, and informationusually comes in the form of
leaked intel and gossip andphotos or timing, telling people
when someone's going to show up, whatever.
If you watch the Crown, forinstance, you can see how the
economics of information worksand how invisible behind the
(20:30):
scenes machine of celebrityworks as well.
Now, I mentioned in thebeginning that I received a call
about Meghan Markle.
So the article that was inVanity Fair how it ties into
this episode is it is filledwith no surprise sources,
(20:59):
sources.
This entire article written bycontributing editor Anna Peel,
illustration by Kim Thompsondoes not have very many
firsthand sources and the onlyfirsthand sources that they have
are people who are somewhatdistant.
They were only working in theproduction arm when they were
working with Spotify.
It's people who weren't intheir inner circle, who are,
like, tightly bound by NDAs.
Some people spoke anonymously.
(21:21):
Some people spoke on background, deep background.
A number of people had NDAs.
But this story is interestingbecause so much of it.
What makes it juicy is not whenshe quotes something from Spare
, the 2023 memoir about Harry.
It's when she speaks to peoplewho work with them.
(21:45):
For example, one of the peoplewho spoke with Vanity Fair for
this story said they signed anon-disclosure agreement to be
employed by Harry and Meghan.
A person who worked closelywith the couple and loves them
says I have no idea what Harry'sinterests are beyond polo.
No clue what his inner life islike.
(22:06):
That's really interesting, likethat's a really interesting
source.
It adds color to the storybecause they're getting to what
people want the most, which isalso one of the reasons why
Harry and Meghan are strugglingso hard to really get grounded
in who they are.
(22:27):
They're always on such shakyground because they spent too
much time leveraging thevictimization of their situation
while demanding privacy.
And the problem with that wellone.
They're counter to each otherstory, there's no doubt.
(22:53):
But what people want is behindthe scenes.
They want to know what's goingon.
They want to know how thingswork, how things move.
They want to know power playersand why people are power
players, why they're supportedby some false facades Like give
us the inside scoop.
That's what people want, butMeghan and Harry are stuck in
(23:14):
this place where they reallycan't expose everything that
happened in the royal family.
So how do you expose how thingshappen?
Well, you have sources.
So the royal family is doingthe same thing.
There's so much negativecommentary out there about Harry
and Meghan.
So much of it comes fromgatekeepers and messengers and
(23:36):
inside circle people, and youcould say the same thing about
Harry and Meghan.
Now, before I dive into thisand the Meghan reveal today, I
have to do a disclaimer.
When I replied to the reporter,I said something that I meant
and I've never replied to areporter like this, ever.
But I appreciated the reach out, but I declined to do the story
because I said I had nointerest in offering commentary
(24:00):
about Meghan Markle, because Idon't even though I'm doing it
right now, but I'm talking abouther dropping her brand.
I'll say I don't have a biasagainst either one of them.
I am right down the middle withthem.
On the one hand, I think Harrydid have a very, very different
type of lifestyle, growing upvery sheltered in the royal
(24:20):
family, but also probably notthe easiest way to grow up
Absolute trauma with his mother.
I believe 100% that MeghanMarkle experienced racism from
the royal family being over inthe UK, that she had a lot of
struggles there and there'sprobably a lot of inside things
happening in the royal familythat that really um created
challenges, uh, for her to fullyembrace that role.
(24:42):
On the other hand, I also thinkmegan and harry have made their
transition from the royalfamily just to mogul status as
so complicated and so difficultbecause they're thinking more
emotionally rather thanstrategically.
They jump the gun constantlyand their timing it's not just
(25:04):
bad strategy, it's bad timingand a lot of it is in their
control.
A lot of it's not in theircontrol.
Remember, they did all thisduring the pandemic.
That's when they went to Canada.
I cannot imagine how miserablethey were.
You're not going to hear mecomplain that, meghan Markle.
I think she's a narcissisticjerk and I'm not going to be one
of those haters.
I just think they both reallyhave just a horrible sense of
(25:27):
timing because they haven'tfigured it out yet.
But they do have so manychampions I mean, they do have
so many people who are rootingfor them, and I for one am going
to watch Megan's show onNetflix and follow her new
website.
So her new website was droppedtoday.
I only knew this because of themedia requests and I didn't
even know.
They didn't tell me what it wasabout.
Megan drops the rebrand as ever.
(25:51):
Personally, that name ewBecause all I think of when I
hear as ever is as if.
As ever isn't like a completesentence.
It's an idea, it's an opinionabout something, but we don't
know what something is.
But she's using it in the formof as ever, as it's always been.
(26:17):
So the website is active rightnow.
You can't go to asevercom.
It goes to asevercom slashpassword.
They may not have the domain?
I don't know, but all you cando right now is sign up for it.
I also think it's interesting.
This is where Harry and Meghan.
It's just frustrating from areputation point of view because
(26:37):
they want privacy, they'reshielding the kids, they don't
want to put their kids out there.
But then Lilibet is on herhomepage that she's rebranding
Granted, she's far away andwe're not seeing the face want
(26:59):
to push this brand as one thatshe's rushing out the door
because everything they do hasbeen a rush job.
But she had no choice becauseshe could not get the trademark.
I don't think we'll ever hearaccountability from Meghan
Markle for why she switched thebrand.
It's interesting how she'sframing this and I'm going to
read it and I think you'll beable to pick it up.
Now we have People Magazine.
Nothing is firsthand.
(27:21):
Do I think that Harry andMeghan's team sent a messenger
or a gatekeeper to PeopleMagazine with this story?
I would say most certainly so,because the headline here,
Princess Little Bit makes herdebut on as Ever website, a new
photo with mom Meghan Markle,and then we have her Instagram
(27:42):
where she's announcing therebrand embedded in the story.
Then we get into the morestickier part of the story,
which is well, the rebrand.
Why do you have the rebrand?
Even people who are nottrademark experts know that she
struggled with this.
She jumped the gun and put outthe brand without having the
(28:04):
full rights to do that.
Here is how she framed it fromher video American Riviera that
sounds like such a great name.
It's my neighborhood, it's anickname for Santa Barbara,
which was the problem, but itlimited me to things that were
just manufactured and grown inthis area.
(28:25):
She said in this Instagramvideo that's framing, you can do
whatever you want.
No one ever thought, reallyeven though that was the brand
it was American Riviera Orchard,really, even though that was
the brand it was AmericanRiviera Orchard that she was
only going to talk about thingsout of Santa Barbara or
Montecito.
No, not at all.
Everybody knows.
But she's framing it in a waywhere you're led to believe that
(28:47):
she was sitting there thinkingyou know, I want to expand, I
maybe should do a quick rebrandEven though her television
program was supposed to come outand was delayed due to the LA
wildfires.
So what I think she did, shetook the opportunity.
I think that LA wildfires werean incredibly convenient excuse
for her to delay coming outbecause that gave her side, her
(29:12):
team, time to rebrand, becausethey could not get that
trademark to go through.
So then she says I'll continueon quote.
Then Netflix came on, not justas my partner in the show, but
as my partner in my business,which was huge, I should say.
So I thought about it and I'vebeen waiting for a moment to
share a name that I okay.
So here's like deep, deepframing here that I had secured
(29:34):
in 2022.
She's putting a timestamp on it.
Remember, whenever timing isinvolved in any type of
messaging or crisis, it'sstrategic.
And this is the moment.
I do not believe for a momentthat since 2022, the name was
going to be as ever.
Now could that have been a partof a batch of names that she
(29:58):
had up on the wall and theysecured all of them, sure, sure,
but they were going after theDuchess, the Duke and Duchess of
Sussex brand and they couldn'teven do that brand because it
interfered with the royal familyprotocol.
This is a moment and it'scalled as ever.
Now she can talk about what itmeans.
As Ever essentially means asit's always been, and if you've
(30:22):
followed me since 2014 with theTig, you know I've always loved
cooking and crafting andgardening.
True, this is what I do, whichI buy.
It's a part of her whole thing.
I followed the Tig.
She's very good at being aninfluencer.
She shared and I haven't beenable to share it with you in the
same way for the past few yearsunderstandable, but now I can.
(30:50):
So, as things are starting totrickle out there by your
gatekeepers and messengers andinside circle I wanted you to
hear it from me first, so thatwas from Instagram, but you're
going to hear it from her teambeyond that.
So there's going to be a lot ofdrops and it's going to be
interesting to see how they dopress, because in this Vanity
Fair piece, for example, I mean,this was not an article that
they want, because it is not aflattering article about them as
(31:11):
well.
As a matter of fact, before Igo, I have to read one quote in
here that I loved Love, love,love, love, love.
Because.
So this whole story is justfilled with little tidbits of
drops by, you know, insiders,messengers, gatekeepers but one
piece discusses the narrativeabout Meghan Markle being
(31:34):
challenging when she was withthe royal family, with her staff
, how she yelled and screamed atthe staff.
So you remember all the storiesout there about that.
And one thing that I alwayswondered.
It didn't really jibe with mebecause she's never given
someone who screams big energy,screaming energy, chaotic energy
.
Every time you see her she'sthis.
(31:54):
That mood may shift but she'salways been kind of like a calm
type B person, at least thepersona, but you don't get this
kind of idea of screaming.
But they quoted a person whoworked in media projects.
This is someone somewhatadjacent, so in the Spotify kind
of gimlet media archetype realm, when they were trying to get
their podcasts off the ground.
(32:15):
They said this person whoworked in media projects read
stories in the tabloids aboutMeghan bullying palace aides and
couldn't imagine such behavioractually happened.
Kind of in the same camp.
Maybe they didn't like her, butI wasn't buying the bullying
piece.
After working with her, though,this person realized quote oh,
any given Tuesday this happened.
End quote While the beggarsbelieved that Meghan actually
(32:37):
shouted at a palace aide, as hasbeen reported, a person who
interacted with herprofessionally says quote you
can be yelled at even ifsomebody doesn't raise their
voice.
It's funny that people don'tdifferentiate between the energy
of being yelled at andliterally someone screaming at
you and quote.
I love that because that is sotrue, which makes the story of
(33:03):
Meghan Markle bullying palaceaides believable.
Incredible because it wasn'tyelling and screaming, but it
was this kind of standoffish asthey call it mean girls type
vibe.
Also example two sources say acolleague with ties to
archetypes that's their podcasttook a leave of absence after
(33:23):
working on three episodes, thenleft Gimlet altogether.
Now that's two anonymoussources talking about a
colleague who isn't even in thisstory.
The writer, anna Peel, did agood job weaving together a
story, but stories like this,when you are a Meghan Markle or
a Prince Harry, you canchallenge its credibility, and
(33:45):
that's why you always hear frompeople in the center of a crisis
.
They'll say, oh, it's just abunch of anonymous sources or a
bunch of people onlinecomplaining or a bunch of people
on the internet complainingabout it.
But when it comes to the systemand how it works, oftentimes,
like I said, there's somethingto it, and even when I was in
(34:06):
New York City a couple weeks agomaybe a month ago doing the
interview with ABC News, I endedup spending the day there
because I had calls so they letme have an office.
When I was there, we weretalking about well, actually we
were talking about Barack Obama,michelle Obama and the stories
there, and we were talking aboutpage six stories and different
(34:28):
gossip sources.
When page six says something, Iwas like double take, I thought
(35:00):
I couldn't believe it.
I saw Bethany Frankel commentthat it was genius of Ryan and
Blake to show up at SNL.
No, I don't think it was geniusat all.
It showed.
No, I don't think it was geniusat all.
It showed, as I posted on myTikTok, ryan's quippy, sarcastic
humor doesn't work anymore,because I've been positing that
(35:23):
out there, like is this humorstill going to work?
And I've said I don't think itwill Because people see through
it.
I was a little surprised thatTina Fey and Amy Poehler decided
to introduce them.
I would not have wanted to dothat if I were either one of
them.
I don't know why, justpersonally I went oh really,
really Like if I were with SNL,I would not have done it.
(35:48):
I would not have done itbecause what is at the center of
the story?
It's supposed to be aboutsexual harassment.
I would not want to be a partof a conversation or a bit where
you're making fun of sexualharassment.
That's just me.
That's just me.
Ryan Reynolds has a lot of powerbecause he has a lot of money.
He has a lot of state indifferent businesses and
different ventures and he's acelebrity and he's A-list and
(36:09):
he's a part of a power couple,but his stock dropped
significantly.
He may still have a lot ofmoney, but he does not have the
same level of fame that he hadbefore.
He's more notorious now.
People definitely know who heis, but people don't view him in
(36:31):
the same way.
He lost a lot of reputationalcurrency.
He lost a lot of reputationalcurrency.
I'm fascinated by the powermoves that they make, and
there's celebrities out therewho make great art.
I might like them as a fan,either their music, their art,
whatever it is.
But all these machinations, ooh.
I'm there for the learning andif you learn something this week
(36:57):
, I encourage you to share thispodcast with anyone who loves to
dish on the stuff, like we do,whether you are a celebrity
connoisseur or you're someonewho loves to work in PR,
reputation management, or you'rejust curious about it because I
find it fascinating.
So why shouldn't you, whyshouldn't we all?
I want to encourage you tosubscribe to the podcast.
(37:18):
Also subscribe to my YouTube,where you will be able to see
this video if you're onlylistening to it.
I have weekly lives on there aswell.
Also, I encourage you to joinmy sub stack.
It's prbreakdownmedia.
That will bring you directly tomy sub stack where I write
(37:38):
about the stories.
I'm also going to create otherbits of content that are there
for the learning about PR andreputation management, but
certainly addition about all thethings that we see happening
online and in the news, becauseI love nothing better than a
good headline.
All right, everyone.
(37:58):
Thanks so much for listeningand watching.
That's all for this week.
Bye for now.
Hey there, welcome to this episode of the
PR Breakdown.
I'm your host, molly McPherson,and in this episode let's look
at the invisible machine, notthe PR machine, but how
celebrity stories really getmade.
The inspiration for thisepisode no surprise came from
(00:26):
two people involved in a topicthat I've been talking about at
length in the podcast and alsoonline and in the press Blake
Lively and Justin Baldoni, withRyan Reynolds also having a
co-starring role in all of this.
I was inspired by this idea ofhow framing works in the public
(00:49):
realm.
When people are consuming media, whether it's social media,
legacy media, digital media,tabloid journalism, whatever it
is these stories are beingshaped and framed.
When I was doing a lot of thesemedia interviews about the Blake
Lively Justin Baldoni story, Inoticed that some journalists
were just coming at it from,just give me the facts, but
(01:11):
other journalists wereapproaching it from angles, no
doubt, and they were supportingtheir angles by sources, and I
tend to ask a lot of reporterswhen they're really digging deep
, particularly if it's from alegacy media outlet.
At this point I want to knowwhere they're coming from,
because if I'm commentating onsomething, I want to know how
(01:32):
I'm going to land in the piece.
And then when they give me thisinformation, I want to know
about the source.
Now I'm not going to ask themwho the source is in particular,
but give me an idea of who theyare.
I don't need to know who theyare, but I want to know who they
are, you know, and I want toknow does that person have an
angle?
How did that person get theinformation?
(01:54):
Because sometimes that willkind of change how I approach
the story.
This idea of what happensbehind the scenes for these
stories to end up on socialmedia or end up in the press,
you know, can be quiteinteresting If there's any
insight that I can give on thewhole world of celebrity crisis,
(02:17):
celebrity machinations, all ofthe elements at play are no
different than real life Someonewho's dated a Ryan Reynolds.
You may not know someone whodated Ryan Reynolds.
So we all know AlanisMorissette and we love Alanis
Morissette, but you know someonewho dated a Ryan Reynolds.
Do you know what I'm saying?
So let's look at the art of theanonymous source, but also
(02:42):
three players in every celebritystory.
Now, I mentioned that I had areach out today by the press and
this tabloid wanted to get myopinion about Meghan Markle.
Now I was deep into the worktoday.
I was deep into writing acrisis plan.
I was watching videos, lookingfor strategies same thing that
(03:03):
I'm talking about right now butin my world, with my client.
I replied in a way that I'venever replied before to the
press.
Yesterday I turned down amorning news national morning
news on one of the networks andI thought, wow, look at you,
molly McPherson, how far you cancome.
There is a time that I woulddrop everything to do that, but
(03:24):
I can't.
I have to serve at the behestof my clients, but anyway.
So when I got the request andthey said it was about Meghan
Markle, I thought what's up withthe Markle?
What's going on there?
Because isn't the Netflixseries coming out in March?
She delayed it because of theLA wildfires.
Then, of course, I had to go tothe Goog and we find out that
she rebranded and released it,so released the website.
(03:48):
We now have a new name andthere was some framing there.
Now, I'll be honest, I didn'tplan this episode around Meghan
Markle.
She just kind of dropped intomy lap in terms of timing, which
such is in my business, but Ihappen to have read this article
in Vanity Fair.
If you haven't read it, Iencourage you to read it.
If you're interested in PRmachinations, the celebrity
(04:09):
machine at work, read thatarticle.
But it's also just awell-written article by
contributing editor Anna Peel,and she used very few
first-person sources in thisarticle.
Very few people were named inthis article, mostly anonymous
(04:29):
or deep background or pulledfrom other publications Harry's
book Spare.
She got the informationwherever she could, but they
were not interviewed for thiscover story.
So this cover story, february2025 edition, american Hustle
five years leaving the monarchy,meghan and Harry are trying
(04:51):
their damnedest to just benormal moguls.
Well said, well said.
But in this article it fits inso nicely with the topic today.
As I mentioned, I was inspiredby this topic a while ago, which
is very similar to the MeghanMarkle framing narrative.
(05:12):
I'll come back to that in amoment, working with the press
on this Blake Lively I'm noteven 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.
But there's so much framinggoing on with sources involved
in a story.
I want to explore the art ofthe anonymous source.
In my previous podcast episodeI discussed the Taylor Swift,
(05:37):
blake Lively situation, how TMZdropped a story Thursday
afternoon news dump Not a Fridayafternoon news dump, but close
because it was Super Bowlweekend.
So it kind of counts.
They were dropping it at a timewhen the press wasn't really
paying attention Doesn't meanthat the press wouldn't see it.
But over the weekend they'renot working, newsrooms aren't
(06:00):
fully staffed and it was SuperBowl weekend.
It's no different than JoeJonas announcing his divorce
over Labor Day weekend.
So Blake Lively announcing thecivil complaint filing it on a
Friday, the New York Times storydrops on that Friday.
Or is it Thursday, friday,saturday?
I did my first post about it onSaturday, post about it on
(06:28):
Saturday and that story with theNew York Times was strategic to
be timed with Blake Lively'scivil complaint, which was also
timed around the holidays it wasdays before Christmas.
Strategic 100%.
And in order to do those typesof things or to at least get the
press out or people talkingabout it is you need sources.
You can't just drop something.
If a story drops in the middleof a forest, is anyone really
(06:53):
there to hear it or see it?
Was it real?
But in the Taylor Swift case,if you listen to the previous
podcast, episode 299, I saidbecause TMZ quoted a
well-connected source close toTaylor Swift.
You know that.
That is someone who is a partof the players in every
(07:17):
celebrity's story and I want tohighlight I'm going to highlight
three players and I'm going totell you how that Taylor Swift
story falls into it, but I'malso going to share how Meghan
Markle and Harry fall into it aswell.
All right, so let's look at thethree players in every
celebrity story.
The first group we're going tocall them the gatekeepers.
(07:39):
These are the publicists, themanagers, the legal teams who
control access.
Those are the people who aredeciding which journalist gets
the story, which media outletgets the exclusive.
Who are we going to share thisdenial to?
(08:00):
Who are we going to drop that?
Our client is strategicallydistancing themselves from Blake
Lively and we're going to dothis in between the Grammy
Awards, where their client wasnominated for, I think, six
Grammy nominations but six andthat outcome shifted the
(08:20):
narrative.
You know how they were going torespond to it, but there's no
doubt they planned to drop thatstory late in the week leading
up to the Super Bowl, becausethe narrative was going to be
about Taylor and Travis.
We were going to be overwhelmedwith that narrative, but the
narrative shifted when theKansas City Chiefs lost that
game.
But that is considered agatekeeper.
(08:41):
It is someone who iscontrolling information.
They are opening the doors tothe information by delivering it
to the press or they areclosing it.
Think of them as like trafficcontrollers of celebrity
information and a narrative.
Now, sometimes what peopledon't realize, when they see a
(09:01):
lot of these spontaneous drops,paparazzi shots or leaked
stories, all of a sudden peopleare everybody's talking about
something all of a sudden thatusually is something that is
orchestrated, sometimescarefully orchestrated,
sometimes sloppily orchestrated.
(09:21):
Gatekeepers can keep a storyunder control and there are many
examples where gatekeepers havedone that and there are
examples where gatekeepers havelost control of the story.
Story Examples of gatekeeperswho've controlled the story
Again Tree Payne, the publicistto Taylor Swift, 100% controlled
(09:43):
the Blake Lively distancingstory with precision, with
precision down to the timing andsqueezing it right in between
two big publicity events for herclient, because Tree Payne
likely knew that Taylor Swift,her client, was going to get a
lot of publicity and she alsoknew that the Blake Lively story
(10:05):
was going to get very, verymessy and it was going to get
very, very legal and she did notwant her client to be entangled
in it.
It wasn't just a reputationchallenge, it was also a legal
one, because you never know whogets served in these cases or
what gets revealed.
If you want more informationabout that, check out my
previous episode.
(10:25):
But that's an example of agatekeeper that worked.
Another example of a gatekeepersituation that worked still an
adjacent to Taylor Swift waswithin sometime last year I
think maybe it was in the summerwhen all of a sudden, big news
drop Taylor Swift, travis Kelseybreakup crisis plan found on
(10:48):
the desk of a staffer.
It first gets dropped in Redditand then it goes like wildfire.
Now I jumped in and talkedabout how that crisis plan was
real.
However, I didn't say what theplan was about was real, but the
crisis plan itself, because itwas part of a strategic plan.
(11:12):
I contend that it was a trialfrom Travis Kelsey's publicist.
His publicists are very wiredinto the Hollywood messy fixer
digital culture.
Their client is primarily madeup of celebrities, slash
(11:35):
influencers, people who makenews online.
That, to me, had all of themarkings of something that came
from Travis Kelsey's team.
I think it was a trial balloonto find out what would happen in
case they broke up Now.
Does it mean that they're goingto break up?
Not necessarily, but any goodpublicist wants to know what's
(11:56):
going to happen Because whenTravis and to break up not
necessarily, but any goodpublicist wants to know what's
going to happen, because whenTravis and Taylor break up at
some point, I just don't thinkthey're right for each other
Doesn't mean that it's not real.
Also means there is a mutualbeneficial relationship there as
well.
So there is PR involved.
If they break out, it's goingto be a very, very big deal and
(12:20):
the threat of Swifties takingsides and absolutely destroying
Travis Kelsey is real.
And you don't just destroyTravis Kelsey.
You could destroy the brandKelsey, mama, kelsey, jason
Kelsey, the Kelsey with thenumber one podcast, kylie Kelsey
.
The whole Kelsey machine is awhole different machine.
(12:41):
A good publicist is going towant to know what's going to
happen.
So that's why I think that wasgatekeeping at work.
So gatekeeping is from peoplewho are insiders.
An example where it didn't workLizzo.
We're two years out of Lizzo'sreputation spiral.
She still has not recovered.
(13:02):
Does she still have a career?
Well, yeah, I mean, you stillsee her.
She pops up on social media.
She'll pop up here, pop upthere, but she is not the brand
she used to be.
She was a powerhouse brand.
People looked at heraspirationally.
She was here but that crisisdropped her.
(13:23):
Why?
Because her gatekeeper did herdirty Her lawyer, marty Singer,
longtime fixer, longtimegatekeeper for a lot of
celebrities, bill Cosby, charlieSheen you get the idea he's
(13:46):
used to being the fixer.
He can say to a media outletokay, I'm going to have you drop
this story because I'm going togive you this story.
He knew how to broker that.
But what I contended is that hedoes not understand a media
market and reputationmarketplace where the public has
so much sway over a celebrity'sreputation.
I think he severely overplayedhis hand and his client lost out
(14:10):
.
So the first player is thegatekeeper.
The second player is going tobe the messenger.
Now the messengers are the oneswho are active players in the
game.
Now journalists aren't justpassive receivers of information
.
The good journalists buildrelationships over the years.
(14:32):
The good publicists buildrelationships over the year.
They trade smaller stories forbigger scoops while maintaining
trust, chasing headlines.
But true messengers really knowhow to kind of move and broker
that For people who work in PR.
When you represent a company oran organization, you're always
(14:55):
pitching your beat reporters,the same reporters.
You're always giving them storyideas.
They may not pick up on thosestories, but the more that you
pitch them, the more you becometrusted.
And there's so many people inmy industry who do not like to
pitch stories.
I remember when I was hiring amanager, when I was a director
of comms, and I asked everysingle candidate give me the
(15:15):
thing that you love to do themost in this job and what do you
hate the most?
And they all said mediarelations.
They hated talking to the press.
The person who I ended uphiring is a person who said that
they love talking to the pressand I said you, my friend, the
outlier, you got this jobBecause it can be interesting.
I mean, that's how you buildtrust and that's also your
currency.
How many journalists you knowyou want to have that trust?
(15:39):
Because sometimes you're reallygoing to need them and
sometimes they really need you.
So messengers are the ones whocan drop.
So if you want to think ofmessenger, think of currency.
I'm going to give you this ascurrency, like trust currency.
A great example, too, forMessengers People Magazine
During the premiere weekend, forit Ends With Us and Deadpool
(16:05):
and Wolverine, people Magazine.
Oh my gosh, that was likedirect messengers, going back
and forth because everything outof Blake Lively and Ryan
Reynolds, as they were trying toreact to all this bad publicity
, they kept going, going, goingto People Magazine where
everybody else started reportingon it.
So that's a case of themessengers.
Now the third one is going to bethe inside circle, and this is
(16:27):
where things get interesting,because every single celebrity
has an ecosystem around them.
They have assistants, they havehairdressers, they have workout
trainers, they have people whodeliver them juice.
I mean, you've seen all thetelevision programs.
Some of you probably even knowwho a lot of the people are.
I had a number of Swifties onmy live last week and they know
(16:48):
everyone.
She went to high school withall her friends.
You know her bodyguard.
But the insider circle, theircurrency is proximity.
That proximity is going to giveyou a lot of insight and a lot
of intel.
The inside circle is usuallythere to support the celebrity
(17:09):
or the politician whomever I'msaying celebrity, but it really
could be anyone in the publiceye but they're there oftentimes
to protect, not to leak, to bea trusted source and a trusted
person to that person at thecenter of it, but sometimes they
can also be a source.
Now they can drop positiveinformation about their
(17:35):
celebrity and negativeinformation about someone else,
but they can also drop negativestuff about the people they work
for as well.
So sometimes you never know thepeople closest to you.
When I think of an insidercircle, I go back two years ago,
two summers ago.
Labor Day weekend, anotherFriday afternoon news dump Joe
Jonas, when he was divorcingSophie Turner.
(17:56):
His insider circle was workingovertime and I know this
firsthand from working withpeople who are getting drops
from the Jonas family.
That's the inside circle.
They were trying to push thenarrative that it was a Sophie
Turner problem and not a JoeJonas problem and if you paid
attention to content newshistory you know that did not
(18:19):
work well at all for Joe Jonas.
That was a time where I reallystarted to look deeper at blind
gossip and how it is used as astrategic PR.
And so many times blind gossipcomes from gatekeepers and so
many times lying gossip comesfrom gatekeepers, messengers and
the inside circle.
(18:40):
When you think aboutinformation, also think about
the economics of information.
Think at a time before socialmedia, when publications were
always vying for photographs.
I listened to the story of LisaMarie Presley's book that came
out a posthumous book read byrecordings from her and her
(19:00):
daughter, riley Keough.
So good, but she was discussingthe craziness, the frenzy
around photo rights for herdaughter, riley and how the
paparazzi were going crazytrying to get photographs.
If you were around during thetime of Princess Diana and I'm
(19:24):
coming back to Harry and Meghanback at that time the paparazzi
swarming around Princess Dianabut also her inside circle
dropping stories Prince Charles'inside circle dropping stories
that currency is proximity, butsometimes currency is currency
and it's money.
(19:44):
So news outlets, media sourceshigher up the journalistic ethic
chain they don't want to payfor news.
They don't.
They'll say they don't want topay for news, but they can find
money.
The money could come in alocation shoot, it could come
for some other expense, but youstill might get compensated for
(20:09):
information, and informationusually comes in the form of
leaked intel and gossip andphotos or timing, telling people
when someone's going to show up, whatever.
If you watch the Crown, forinstance, you can see how the
economics of information worksand how invisible behind the
(20:30):
scenes machine of celebrityworks as well.
Now, I mentioned in thebeginning that I received a call
about Meghan Markle.
So the article that was inVanity Fair how it ties into
this episode is it is filledwith no surprise sources,
(20:59):
sources.
This entire article written bycontributing editor Anna Peel,
illustration by Kim Thompsondoes not have very many
firsthand sources and the onlyfirsthand sources that they have
are people who are somewhatdistant.
They were only working in theproduction arm when they were
working with Spotify.
It's people who weren't intheir inner circle, who are,
like, tightly bound by NDAs.
Some people spoke anonymously.
(21:21):
Some people spoke on background, deep background.
A number of people had NDAs.
But this story is interestingbecause so much of it.
What makes it juicy is not whenshe quotes something from Spare
, the 2023 memoir about Harry.
It's when she speaks to peoplewho work with them.
(21:45):
For example, one of the peoplewho spoke with Vanity Fair for
this story said they signed anon-disclosure agreement to be
employed by Harry and Meghan.
A person who worked closelywith the couple and loves them
says I have no idea what Harry'sinterests are beyond polo.
No clue what his inner life islike.
(22:06):
That's really interesting, likethat's a really interesting
source.
It adds color to the storybecause they're getting to what
people want the most, which isalso one of the reasons why
Harry and Meghan are strugglingso hard to really get grounded
in who they are.
(22:27):
They're always on such shakyground because they spent too
much time leveraging thevictimization of their situation
while demanding privacy.
And the problem with that wellone.
They're counter to each otherstory, there's no doubt.
(22:53):
But what people want is behindthe scenes.
They want to know what's goingon.
They want to know how thingswork, how things move.
They want to know power playersand why people are power
players, why they're supportedby some false facades Like give
us the inside scoop.
That's what people want, butMeghan and Harry are stuck in
(23:14):
this place where they reallycan't expose everything that
happened in the royal family.
So how do you expose how thingshappen?
Well, you have sources.
So the royal family is doingthe same thing.
There's so much negativecommentary out there about Harry
and Meghan.
So much of it comes fromgatekeepers and messengers and
(23:36):
inside circle people, and youcould say the same thing about
Harry and Meghan.
Now, before I dive into thisand the Meghan reveal today, I
have to do a disclaimer.
When I replied to the reporter,I said something that I meant
and I've never replied to areporter like this, ever.
But I appreciated the reach out, but I declined to do the story
because I said I had nointerest in offering commentary
(24:00):
about Meghan Markle, because Idon't even though I'm doing it
right now, but I'm talking abouther dropping her brand.
I'll say I don't have a biasagainst either one of them.
I am right down the middle withthem.
On the one hand, I think Harrydid have a very, very different
type of lifestyle, growing upvery sheltered in the royal
(24:20):
family, but also probably notthe easiest way to grow up
Absolute trauma with his mother.
I believe 100% that MeghanMarkle experienced racism from
the royal family being over inthe UK, that she had a lot of
struggles there and there'sprobably a lot of inside things
happening in the royal familythat that really um created
challenges, uh, for her to fullyembrace that role.
(24:42):
On the other hand, I also thinkmegan and harry have made their
transition from the royalfamily just to mogul status as
so complicated and so difficultbecause they're thinking more
emotionally rather thanstrategically.
They jump the gun constantlyand their timing it's not just
(25:04):
bad strategy, it's bad timingand a lot of it is in their
control.
A lot of it's not in theircontrol.
Remember, they did all thisduring the pandemic.
That's when they went to Canada.
I cannot imagine how miserablethey were.
You're not going to hear mecomplain that, meghan Markle.
I think she's a narcissisticjerk and I'm not going to be one
of those haters.
I just think they both reallyhave just a horrible sense of
(25:27):
timing because they haven'tfigured it out yet.
But they do have so manychampions I mean, they do have
so many people who are rootingfor them, and I for one am going
to watch Megan's show onNetflix and follow her new
website.
So her new website was droppedtoday.
I only knew this because of themedia requests and I didn't
even know.
They didn't tell me what it wasabout.
Megan drops the rebrand as ever.
(25:51):
Personally, that name ewBecause all I think of when I
hear as ever is as if.
As ever isn't like a completesentence.
It's an idea, it's an opinionabout something, but we don't
know what something is.
But she's using it in the formof as ever, as it's always been.
(26:17):
So the website is active rightnow.
You can't go to asevercom.
It goes to asevercom slashpassword.
They may not have the domain?
I don't know, but all you cando right now is sign up for it.
I also think it's interesting.
This is where Harry and Meghan.
It's just frustrating from areputation point of view because
(26:37):
they want privacy, they'reshielding the kids, they don't
want to put their kids out there.
But then Lilibet is on herhomepage that she's rebranding
Granted, she's far away andwe're not seeing the face want
(26:59):
to push this brand as one thatshe's rushing out the door
because everything they do hasbeen a rush job.
But she had no choice becauseshe could not get the trademark.
I don't think we'll ever hearaccountability from Meghan
Markle for why she switched thebrand.
It's interesting how she'sframing this and I'm going to
read it and I think you'll beable to pick it up.
Now we have People Magazine.
Nothing is firsthand.
(27:21):
Do I think that Harry andMeghan's team sent a messenger
or a gatekeeper to PeopleMagazine with this story?
I would say most certainly so,because the headline here,
Princess Little Bit makes herdebut on as Ever website, a new
photo with mom Meghan Markle,and then we have her Instagram
(27:42):
where she's announcing therebrand embedded in the story.
Then we get into the morestickier part of the story,
which is well, the rebrand.
Why do you have the rebrand?
Even people who are nottrademark experts know that she
struggled with this.
She jumped the gun and put outthe brand without having the
(28:04):
full rights to do that.
Here is how she framed it fromher video American Riviera that
sounds like such a great name.
It's my neighborhood, it's anickname for Santa Barbara,
which was the problem, but itlimited me to things that were
just manufactured and grown inthis area.
(28:25):
She said in this Instagramvideo that's framing, you can do
whatever you want.
No one ever thought, reallyeven though that was the brand
it was American Riviera Orchard,really, even though that was
the brand it was AmericanRiviera Orchard that she was
only going to talk about thingsout of Santa Barbara or
Montecito.
No, not at all.
Everybody knows.
But she's framing it in a waywhere you're led to believe that
(28:47):
she was sitting there thinkingyou know, I want to expand, I
maybe should do a quick rebrandEven though her television
program was supposed to come outand was delayed due to the LA
wildfires.
So what I think she did, shetook the opportunity.
I think that LA wildfires werean incredibly convenient excuse
for her to delay coming outbecause that gave her side, her
(29:12):
team, time to rebrand, becausethey could not get that
trademark to go through.
So then she says I'll continueon quote.
Then Netflix came on, not justas my partner in the show, but
as my partner in my business,which was huge, I should say.
So I thought about it and I'vebeen waiting for a moment to
share a name that I okay.
So here's like deep, deepframing here that I had secured
(29:34):
in 2022.
She's putting a timestamp on it.
Remember, whenever timing isinvolved in any type of
messaging or crisis, it'sstrategic.
And this is the moment.
I do not believe for a momentthat since 2022, the name was
going to be as ever.
Now could that have been a partof a batch of names that she
(29:58):
had up on the wall and theysecured all of them, sure, sure,
but they were going after theDuchess, the Duke and Duchess of
Sussex brand and they couldn'teven do that brand because it
interfered with the royal familyprotocol.
This is a moment and it'scalled as ever.
Now she can talk about what itmeans.
As Ever essentially means asit's always been, and if you've
(30:22):
followed me since 2014 with theTig, you know I've always loved
cooking and crafting andgardening.
True, this is what I do, whichI buy.
It's a part of her whole thing.
I followed the Tig.
She's very good at being aninfluencer.
She shared and I haven't beenable to share it with you in the
same way for the past few yearsunderstandable, but now I can.
(30:50):
So, as things are starting totrickle out there by your
gatekeepers and messengers andinside circle I wanted you to
hear it from me first, so thatwas from Instagram, but you're
going to hear it from her teambeyond that.
So there's going to be a lot ofdrops and it's going to be
interesting to see how they dopress, because in this Vanity
Fair piece, for example, I mean,this was not an article that
they want, because it is not aflattering article about them as
(31:11):
well.
As a matter of fact, before Igo, I have to read one quote in
here that I loved Love, love,love, love, love.
Because.
So this whole story is justfilled with little tidbits of
drops by, you know, insiders,messengers, gatekeepers but one
piece discusses the narrativeabout Meghan Markle being
(31:34):
challenging when she was withthe royal family, with her staff
, how she yelled and screamed atthe staff.
So you remember all the storiesout there about that.
And one thing that I alwayswondered.
It didn't really jibe with mebecause she's never given
someone who screams big energy,screaming energy, chaotic energy
.
Every time you see her she'sthis.
(31:54):
That mood may shift but she'salways been kind of like a calm
type B person, at least thepersona, but you don't get this
kind of idea of screaming.
But they quoted a person whoworked in media projects.
This is someone somewhatadjacent, so in the Spotify kind
of gimlet media archetype realm, when they were trying to get
their podcasts off the ground.
(32:15):
They said this person whoworked in media projects read
stories in the tabloids aboutMeghan bullying palace aides and
couldn't imagine such behavioractually happened.
Kind of in the same camp.
Maybe they didn't like her, butI wasn't buying the bullying
piece.
After working with her, though,this person realized quote oh,
any given Tuesday this happened.
End quote While the beggarsbelieved that Meghan actually
(32:37):
shouted at a palace aide, as hasbeen reported, a person who
interacted with herprofessionally says quote you
can be yelled at even ifsomebody doesn't raise their
voice.
It's funny that people don'tdifferentiate between the energy
of being yelled at andliterally someone screaming at
you and quote.
I love that because that is sotrue, which makes the story of
(33:03):
Meghan Markle bullying palaceaides believable.
Incredible because it wasn'tyelling and screaming, but it
was this kind of standoffish asthey call it mean girls type
vibe.
Also example two sources say acolleague with ties to
archetypes that's their podcasttook a leave of absence after
(33:23):
working on three episodes, thenleft Gimlet altogether.
Now that's two anonymoussources talking about a
colleague who isn't even in thisstory.
The writer, anna Peel, did agood job weaving together a
story, but stories like this,when you are a Meghan Markle or
a Prince Harry, you canchallenge its credibility, and
(33:45):
that's why you always hear frompeople in the center of a crisis
.
They'll say, oh, it's just abunch of anonymous sources or a
bunch of people onlinecomplaining or a bunch of people
on the internet complainingabout it.
But when it comes to the systemand how it works, oftentimes,
like I said, there's somethingto it, and even when I was in
(34:06):
New York City a couple weeks agomaybe a month ago doing the
interview with ABC News, I endedup spending the day there
because I had calls so they letme have an office.
When I was there, we weretalking about well, actually we
were talking about Barack Obama,michelle Obama and the stories
there, and we were talking aboutpage six stories and different
(34:28):
gossip sources.
When page six says something, Iwas like double take, I thought
(35:00):
I couldn't believe it.
I saw Bethany Frankel commentthat it was genius of Ryan and
Blake to show up at SNL.
No, I don't think it was geniusat all.
It showed.
No, I don't think it was geniusat all.
It showed, as I posted on myTikTok, ryan's quippy, sarcastic
humor doesn't work anymore,because I've been positing that
(35:23):
out there, like is this humorstill going to work?
And I've said I don't think itwill Because people see through
it.
I was a little surprised thatTina Fey and Amy Poehler decided
to introduce them.
I would not have wanted to dothat if I were either one of
them.
I don't know why, justpersonally I went oh really,
really Like if I were with SNL,I would not have done it.
(35:48):
I would not have done itbecause what is at the center of
the story?
It's supposed to be aboutsexual harassment.
I would not want to be a partof a conversation or a bit where
you're making fun of sexualharassment.
That's just me.
That's just me.
Ryan Reynolds has a lot of powerbecause he has a lot of money.
He has a lot of state indifferent businesses and
different ventures and he's acelebrity and he's A-list and
(36:09):
he's a part of a power couple,but his stock dropped
significantly.
He may still have a lot ofmoney, but he does not have the
same level of fame that he hadbefore.
He's more notorious now.
People definitely know who heis, but people don't view him in
(36:31):
the same way.
He lost a lot of reputationalcurrency.
He lost a lot of reputationalcurrency.
I'm fascinated by the powermoves that they make, and
there's celebrities out therewho make great art.
I might like them as a fan,either their music, their art,
whatever it is.
But all these machinations, ooh.
I'm there for the learning andif you learn something this week
(36:57):
, I encourage you to share thispodcast with anyone who loves to
dish on the stuff, like we do,whether you are a celebrity
connoisseur or you're someonewho loves to work in PR,
reputation management, or you'rejust curious about it because I
find it fascinating.
So why shouldn't you, whyshouldn't we all?
I want to encourage you tosubscribe to the podcast.
(37:18):
Also subscribe to my YouTube,where you will be able to see
this video if you're onlylistening to it.
I have weekly lives on there aswell.
Also, I encourage you to joinmy sub stack.
It's prbreakdownmedia.
That will bring you directly tomy sub stack where I write
(37:38):
about the stories.
I'm also going to create otherbits of content that are there
for the learning about PR andreputation management, but
certainly addition about all thethings that we see happening
online and in the news, becauseI love nothing better than a
good headline.
All right, everyone.
(37:58):
Thanks so much for listeningand watching.
That's all for this week.
Bye for now.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.