This is a very interesting take and although I disagree with some of the points, especially the last paragraph, it’s good to be able to address the subject in hand rather than unpleasant personal comments and wholly incorrect assumptions.
To take the last first, I can only speak for myself, but I have only been critical of C & W’s PR strategies in the past. Despite their immense privilege they seemed like well intentioned people in a difficult situation but this video seems like a strange departure from the norm and portrays them as not as “down to earth” as I previously believed them to be. I’m not sure this is altogether a good thing.
It was said that the late Queen banned further broadcasting of the documentary in which Prince Philip BBQ’d sausages because she realised that portraying such an idealised version of the family held inherent dangers.
And so it came to pass in her annus horribilis by which time three out of her four dc were divorced or divorcing and the family suddenly didn’t look so ideal any more. She had the nouse to realise that a RF has the same issues as anyone else but just in more sumptuous surroundings, and under more public scrutiny.
Let’s just say, I am not sure that C and W’s PR professionals have entirely understood these past lessons.
And most important of all, I am not sure they thought enough about how this film would come across to ordinary cancer patients suffering in the NHS system.
I totally agree that the press who not only hold far too much sway in this country, squander the influence they have, are insatiable and it is at least a piece of film which “feeds the beast” and in which C and W are in control of the narrative to the extent that they ever can be in their position.
The insightful article by Marina Hyde linked below addresses the same point. The tabloid press abhor a vacuum because it cuts in to their profits. And I think it was naive of KP officials to expect the tabloids and broadcast media to be satisfied with the original “Catherine will be off for three months until Easter” statement. Of course that simple explanation should be enough, and for most sensible members of the general public, it certainly was, but in the avaricious hungry climate whipped up by the gutter press, it very sadly wasn’t.
How much C & W pander to this insatiable demand is a very difficult question to answer.
As a pp said, I think they would have avoided the worst of the speculation had more frequent updates been supplied. Catherine has a right to privacy and of course has young dc who need more protecting, but everyone can see that KC’s strategy worked better. Maybe a compromise could have been found that protected C’s privacy while at the same time being slightly more transparent or at least was updated more regularly?
Very respectfully, I think that is one reason why this video doesn’t work so well because there is so much dissonance between the intimacy of the scenes within it and the lack of transparency in the information supplied?
Incidentally, the point that Marina Hyde fails to make is that the late Queen could have avoided coming to London quite so soon after Diana’s death and could have protected W & H at Balmoral for longer, had the BP PR strategy been better, and more transparent, with an earlier update. Instead there was the same vacuum. You would think the Palace and KP PR staff would learn from past experiences like this?
Finally, yes, I suppose it’s a sort of snapshot for the history books but I think the video will feature in more university courses on image control rather than how institutions update their social media messaging!
As you say, there will be a number of royal supporters to whom this video appeals. And I am sure it does fit better in the context of Instagram rather than in print media. I am not sure that it will draw in younger supporters who are a bit too knowing about how these shoots are put together, but perhaps the forty-five and above age range?