Meghan Markle - Duchess of Dior?

[MamoruHisaishi]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12206159/amp/Is-Meghan-mega-bucks-Duchess-Dior.html

I suppose the hope was there for a Dior link-up: the dresses/suits - and the bit in Spare saying his father wears Eau Savage when by all accounts he only wears some posh lavender stuff.

I expect there were “approaches” by H&M’s team and Dior probably took a meeting - and this translated into either over-enthusiasm or a mischievous leak.

So because they wear their clothes and mention their cologne they must've been hoping for an approach and leaked it hoping that would persuade them? That really doesn't sound plausible at all. It's literally just made up from nothing.

That really doesn't sound plausible at all. It's literally just made up from nothing.
Like the entirety of this thread @Iwantcakeeveryday !

The whole thing is weird. Did it distract from the Spotify criticism - yeah it did. If it wasn't leaked by her PR firm to muddy the waters then I'm surprised they didn't issue a statement immediately saying 'While MM love Dior, there are no such talks underway'. Instead, Dior had to deny it. Why leave it to them? That seems a massive gaff to me.

I can see PR types saying 'we need the focus off Spotify...we need to be talking about other deals in the offing so show you are in demand' and then leaking the Dior 'talks'. And then it snowballed.

Or he could do what William apparently did - gather evidence that showed proof of phone hacking, allow the lawyers to negotiate in private and reach a settlement. That enabled him to get some restitution without entering into a drawn-out public battle with the media that would inevitably invade his privacy all over again.

Surely the Dior thing came about because they had to come up with something quickly to get the Spotify / grifters story out of the news?

Leaking something as a distraction and then denying it / pretending it's made up is a standard move.

The spotify story has been overtaken and Meghan's name has been linked with Dior in a plausible way (even if a partnership didn't happen, which I don't believe was ever the goal).

what did that achieve though? nothing but money in his pocket. It doesn't;t actually hold those responsible accountable, it doesn't try and force Leveson 2, it doesn't help any of the ordinary victims of the press tactics, it doesn't stop them doing similar things to his children. MGN never offered Harry a settlement or an acknowledgement of what they did except one instance.

And now the Mail is wagging its finger and shaking its head at H&M, channeling its inner Robert Patrick in Terminator 2, saying 'Nah, you can't slip away from the Spotify story' and ramping up the 'faking podcast interviews' angle.

The Mail is a juggernaut, its online reach in the US enormous, and its sources in LA well-established. Many if not most of the worst stories and gossip about Meghan and Harry have originated in LA. And some of the silliest bragging about Meghan has orginated from her her own talent agency WME - 'the offers are flooding in' - and that's a red rag to a bull challenge for the MailOnline US.

H&M need help to navigate this. It's getting out of hand now.

Metaphors have been used in the above post ^^

@SoTedious that makes sense - leak the rumour, let it swirl then later deny it, in the meantime your name has been linked with a prestigious global brand (that is plausible as Dior did publicly announce they dressed Harry for the Coronation). In the public imagination you are then linked with Dior - of the calibre to do deals with a global fashion house.

Sort of fake it till you make it as well.

their spokesperson also denied it. it didn't;t distract form the Spotify guy at all, it was just another awful story to add to the persecution.

I know.

You stance is only logical if the Sussex;s had denied. They are very quick to do so on other things. They let this fly till Dior denied. I agree it was made up from nothing. But I’m firmly in the camp it was made up by them to put a stop to the very damaging grifter headlines.

It is naive to think the Mail made the who Dior story up - they said they had 'sources'. The story would be fact checked. H & M are litigious - I doubt they would completely make something like this up. There must have been people feeding them this - it is just who and why.

So let me get this straight, if famous people do not immediately deny every story, it must be true? is this true for the rest of the royals? Meghan has stuff written about her every day.

really? so nothing in the mail has been made up as long as they claim they have these mysterious sources? Lots of sources have said lots of things about all of the royals. Harry and Meghan certainly do not sure over every story. You couldn't possibly when publications print the volume of stories they do about her.

Thats what spokespeople are for. They issue denials straight away. Was Meghan not signed up by a Top Agency, with her agent being the ‘best in the business’ For Top money I’d expect a quick response ?

If you're planting a story in order to replace another more damaging story, it doesn't make any sense to deny it straight away, you need to let it sit for a bit.

Talking of Leveson 2 (which was going to look at dodgy relations between press & police) being abandoned, the Culture Secretary at the time who was instrumental in the decision to pull the plug was none other than Matt Hancock.

I don't think the jungle celebs remembered that, when they were all buddies round the camp fire.

@Iwantcakeeveryday I am not saying everything in the Mail is true. What I am saying is that the Mail itself would not have completely made this story up and then just pretended to have sources. That is not how journalism works these days.

If they said they had sources then the editor would want to know who the sources are, so would their legal team. Yes, the sources may be bending the truth but that is not the Mail's concern. Especially if the sources are coming from the camp of H&M.

Yes. The story was reported internationally - Sky, The Independent, The Toronto Star etc etc . It wasn't just some DM piece. They should have denied it straight away if it was nonsense. Instead it ran...and Dior were the first to squash it.

From the Toronto Star
This flurry of activity could be viewed as reactive damage control, a PR 101 attempt to distract from a bad news story with an avalanche of other material. That it happened during one of the busiest weeks in the royal calendar, with Kate, William and their adorable kids taking to the balcony for Trooping the Colour, also tipped the ratio of coverage back in the Sussexes’ favour.

None of us know the truth of the situation, but it's got to be at least possible that this was the work of her PR team.

This is the last person signed up as a Dior ambassador- 16 year old Haewon from a K-pop
group. It says a lot about where Dior sees it sales coming from.
I think that the Dior thing was created by her agency as a distraction from the "fucking grifter" news. Carrying a Lady Dior bag and wearing Dior is not enough to become an ambassador.

It's getting out of hand now

Right idea but maybe wrong tense AutumnCrow? I'd say it's been pretty well out of hand since they dashed off in a huff without any clear and well thought out plans for the future, but that the consequences have naturally taken a little while to gather

Admittedly it's not been helped by their almost total lack of judgment, but with Harry involved little of this is a surprise

H&M for H&M …

.. has a ring to it

not as posh as Dior though

Then if we take your approach, it was incredibly fortuitous that someone loves them enough, and is thick enough. To put this out there and stop the grifter headlines. Serendipity at its finest in fact. How lucky were they for a short period.

if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, then you need to go a bit further to convince me and many others it’s a kangaroo.

I think this sums it up.

“There's no such thing as bad publicity, as long as they spell your name right”. That famous quote is credited to American showman and circus owner P.T. Barnum (1810-1891).