Harry and Megan dubbed "fucking grifters" by Spotify exec and podcaster

[Qbish]

No great surprise there... Would love to hear his story about Zooming Prince Harry, I can only imagine his frustration with the whining ninny!

Leading Spotify figure lashes out at Prince Harry and Meghan Markle after end of podcast deal | The Independent

I didn't listen to any

You need to. I did

I suppose they’re the archetype of a podcast flop now.

Hmm.

Jeremy Zimmer Chief exec of United Talent Agency dipping his oar in now:

Turns out Meghan Markle was not a great audio talent, or necessarily any kind of talent

Seems they're all now crawling out of the crevices suited and very, very booted. It's not boding well.

Netflix and Spotify should be shouldering a lot of the blame for their Sussex deals not working out and there was clearly a corporate culture akin to banking where they chucked money at risky projects and hoped they made money.

I don’t know, they might have (reasonably) thought that if they were providing millions and millions of dollars to finance the Sussexes production company they weren’t also expected to spoonfeed them as well. Or what are they paying for?

More money than sense and too much nose candy. They should have known they were amateurs in this field and trained them up before parting with any money.

What baffles me most is why anyone expected so much from a woman who was essentially pregnant or on maternity leave for the entire duration of the contract?! In most companies you wouldn't dream of taking on a solo multi-million project while 7 months pregnant, or voluntarily saddle yourself with so much responsibility weeks after giving birth. And even if you did, the quality of output is probably far inferior compared to if you were 100% back at work. This isn't a dig at mothers, but an obvious observation. Most women choose to take it easy for the final part of their pregnancy and significant portion of maternity leave. The operative word is LEAVE, meaning mothers are not expected to work at all. Even at CEO level, you would simply wouldn't expect a post-partum mother to be powering through projects like they don't have a newborn and a toddler next to them. Yes, they definitely have nannies and staff but the vast majority of wealthy women who can afford them still go on maternity leave.

Meghan's only "qualification" for content creation was running a semi-successful blog in the mid 2010s. To be honest I doubt she'd be able to revive the Tig in any form nowadays because the social media landscape has changed so much, alongside massive competition. Blogs are basically dead anyway...nobody goes to a website to read content. She doesn't even have a social media presence so she can't hack it with Instagram (also dying), Tiktok or YouTube.

Mike Tindall started his podcast in late 2020. I wonder if H&M took inspiration from him? He used to do after dinner speaking and that dried up with Covid. I may be wrong but I thought I read that had been Harry's plan too.

Most women choose to take it easy for the final part of their pregnancy and significant portion of maternity leave. The operative word is LEAVE, meaning mothers are not expected to work at all. Even at CEO level, you would simply wouldn't expect a post-partum mother to be powering through projects like they don't have a newborn and a toddler next to them.

This may be the case in other countries, but is absolutely not the case in the US, where maternity leave is extremely limited and there are plenty of attitudes that, in the words of Ivanka Trump, if you have a senior role, maternity leave may be “hyper-abbreviated”. Meghan obviously was looking to challenge that culture in the US, but she absolutely would have run up against it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/fashion/for-executive-women-is-maternity-leave-necessary.html

His whole biography and character appear to be based on the injustice of his brother being more important, simply because he was born first. I wonder if he's considered how Lilibet will feel about 'Arch' everything.

I agree that Spotify and Netflix need to share the blame. They just jumped on the zeitgeist, tried to get a piece of what was hot at the time. They clearly didn't think it through. There was a lot of commentary at the time these deals were signed - what are they paying for? Neither has any track record in recording podcasts or producing shows. The real money is in their access to the Royal family but that was always going to be limited - the more they speak the less access they will have. You can only serve up the same story so many times.

I suppose they took a similar gamble with the Obamas. That worked out better but still not Shonda Rhimes.

It is difficult to see where they go from here. I am sorry but this Dickens story sounds tedious. Unless it is scripted, styled and shot as well as the likes of Bridgerton people will lose interest quickly.

Meghan has basically just been called , publicly, talentless, by a large agency executive. Which is really bad news for her, as he is someone with gravitas. Then we had Kelly osbourne, of all people, calling harry a whinging twat the other day and of course the grifters accusation. There are now also rumours that Netflix is deeply unhappy with them and wants out. The prequel to great expectations, has not been approved by Netflix. Can they really do a prequel to dickens justice? The only thing that has is the Invictus documentary,

on one hand I feel sorry for them, it’s all come crashing down and they are roundly scorned, but then I also remember they have spent the last 3 years giving “their unpleasant truths” on the royal family for millions and millions. So part of me thinks if they can give it, they need to be able to take it. If they had stopped at Oprah, it would have been different,..

but the docu series, all the many many harry interviews to promote his book, and he wasn’t very nice at all in them about his family, and he was trying to get as much cash as possible from the book, the subtle threats of another chapter, another book, the incorrect facts, the exaggerated truths, the one sided stories, the accusations, repeatedly, the stupid stories like high speed chases, it’s all just caused so much disdain and over saturation in the subject of his family.

so I’m not sure how I feel about it, on one side I feel sorry for them they are getting back basically what they dished out, but like the majority, I really didn’t like their behaviour, so my empathy is tempered.

The whole maternity leave angle is a red herring. They signed a contract. They are not employees. If you sign a contract you deliver in accordance with the terms- otherwise you are in breach and suffer the consequences. If you don't think that you will be able to deliver (for whatever reason) then don't sign - it is as simple as that. This is not an employer/employee situation.

A prequel to Great Expectations was done effectively in the excellent series "Dickensian".
I'm not sure what is planned here.
I suspect that they had hoped for a quasi royal life. Like in the UK, only pleasing themselves.

Yes it’s nothing to do with mat leave. It was 12 episodes in three years. Most serious folks do one a day or week. Mat leave was nothing to do with this.

Hold on one second here.

I just caught up with the thread. Where is a link that Harry and Meghan are in court for breach of their contract? Please someone link this?
Last I checked Spotify themselves talked about a mutual agreement to part ways.

Otherwise it just sounds like people are just sour because they took a huge paycheck for 13 episodes.

Speaking of sour grapes, wasn't Jeremy someone reportedly 'in serious pursuit' of Archewell and they took their business somewhere else - well one of his arch nemesis from the looks of it.

I wonder what his talent thinks about him badmouthing people. I gather a lot of celebrities will keep their distance from now on.

@MarcelProust I don't think anyone said they were in court for breach of contract. Just pointed out the difference between performing under a contract (as a contractor) and being an employee.

Plus you must know that you don't automatically end up in court for breach of contract. Breach of contract would typically also allow one party to terminate the contract early or to withhold payments (for failure to perform). Like what Spotify has done. You would only go to court if one party was seeking damages or specific performance. No one has suggested that here.

The likelihood in both cases of Spotify and Netflix is that they will negotiate a mutual exit to the contract because either one or both parties no longer wish to be a part of it (and can use potential breaches as leverage during the negotiation)

I can’t really feel sorry for them. Hardly role models for my teenagers.

Why are people so worried about how are they going to survive. They have plenty of money to live. However, not a Montecito lifestyle.

Spotify is done, they didn’t renew.

rumour has it Netflix will do the same, when they can and will comply with contractual obligations until that point, I suspect they can just keep refusing content, if it’s not up to par. So it’s on harry and Meghan to deliver.

from all accounts Meghan and harry are incredibly difficult to work with, completely inexperienced and rather surprised they actually need to work.

I do think much of the blame is in Netflix and Spotify, they threw too much money at them when they left, I’m sure harry and Meghan sold themselves hard and no one could have guessed how bad it would be, but as the agency exec said, just because you are famous, doesn’t mean you’re talented. A very true statement

The only thing that has is the Invictus documentary

The Invictus documentary is 100% going to flop because virtually nobody outside of the UK know or cares about it. Netflix senses this too and will axe them once it's out. Invictus was a great initiative for Harry in his role as prince but attempting to turn that into content for a global audience is hopeless optimism. There is zero media coverage on the Games and I'm very surprised the next one is in Dusseldorf because we spend a lot of time in Germany. Nobody here knows about it.

The concept of celebrating war veterans is very very controversial in central Europe, for obvious reasons. You never have public remembrance or any type of event for current veterans. Most European countries lean towards total pacifism and a military career is not glamourised. Invictus Games is a quintessentially British/Commonwealth/American concept and definitely does not appeal to a global audience. If there is no interest for the Games themselves, then watching a documentary about a sporting event is even more unlikely.

Breach of contract would typically also allow one party to terminate the contract early or to withhold payments (for failure to perform). Like what Spotify has done.

Spotify did not say this at all !

I agree it won’t be a massive hit, it’s also quite distasteful that harry has monetised the games, in this manner. But no it will be no stranger things.

The Invictus documentary is 100% going to flop because virtually nobody outside of the UK know or cares about it.

Invictus is literary international.

Was hosted at the Hauge/ Australia and other places.

I had thought on Spotify WSJ said that Spotify didn't pay out the full amount? Sounds to me like there were contractual clauses that allowed them to withhold payments if certain milestones/criteria were not reached.