Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Meghan now flogging clothes for commission.

1000 replies

AtIusvue · 24/03/2025 16:22

Commissionable links- means when a potential customer clicks on the link, it's attributed to the affiliate, allowing the brand to record the source of the traffic. If someone buys a product using an affiliate link, the brand will pay the affiliate marketer commission on the sale

But she’s not an influencer?

This is really sad actually.

Meghan now flogging clothes for commission.
OP posts:
Thread gallery
31
IcedPurple · 25/03/2025 10:35

AtIusvue · 25/03/2025 10:24

All a numbers game isn’t it.

She needs as many eyeballs, clicks, purchases as possible.

Seems like a much riskier business than to work hard on the NF contract and actually produce.

Edited

But what can she actually produce for NF?

NF wanted royal gossip, or at least some sort of Sussex reality show. They got that with their 'documentary' and to a certain extent with this lifestyle show. But neither Meghan nor Harry has any talent or aptitude for producing content, so they were never going to be able to come up with serious programming, despite their grandiose claims to the contrary.

Affiliate merching requires no talent or hard work, but I can't see it being a major income stream.

Munnygirl · 25/03/2025 10:39

Weepixie · 25/03/2025 10:33

Nope, that’s not true. We saw it with our own eyes and heard it with our own ears during the Oprah interview for eg, plus the lies about the wedding taking place a few days before the wedding.

And there’s more but I can’t be bothered listing them.

True

FromTheOfficeOfJammyTodger · 25/03/2025 10:39

If she wanted to tap into the syrupy MN market, she'd use her website to link to a few dupes for their Christmas lists.

TheNinkyNonkyIsATardis · 25/03/2025 10:40

The problem with launching in at this highly obvious level is that she's sold both too much and not enough of her dirty laundry to get traction.

Take the polar opposites of the Kardashians - selling sex tapes, scripted reality of all sorts of conversations publicly. Huge following for their fakery - which is "aspirational" in its own way, in that lots of women do want to look that way. Kylie a billionaire for her cosmetics (which I'm sure is 99.9% managed by others). She hasn't sold enough of that, and frankly, doesn't have the humility/nous of the Kardashians to brazenly put themselves on display without caring what people think so long as the money keeps coming.

Then Gwyneth Paltrow - it's the sort of luxe lifestyle Meghan wants to merch, but Gwyneth earned her credo of years of being an LA hippie. Meghan didn't, and hasn't, so her attempt at claiming a spot doesn't feel earned.

glitterturd · 25/03/2025 10:42

This is the problem @IcedPurplethry are not HER products. They are other people's and the remuneration won't be that much in the overall scheme of the Sussex spending. Is it a cover to move on from the pancake mixes that are not available to buy yet? Let's do this and yes they will all forget . Already her show and products are history chalked up as another thing that didn't quite come to actual fruition.

glitterturd · 25/03/2025 10:45

Weepixie · 25/03/2025 10:26

Are they though? And isn’t your “they are both liars and fantasists” proof of the lens through which you view them

They are liars and fantasists, they’ve proved it time and time again, and out of fairness I do post positively about them when I feel I can.

you may have not seen it but it does happen.

And this is the image that many hold about them now - whiners, liars, embroiderers of the truth, no staying power, users, chop and changers . It's a hard one to shake off.

BemusedAmerican · 25/03/2025 10:46

Once again, she has lousy timing. Now that the USDA cut funds for food banks and small farmers, people in the US are worried about eating and cutting back on spending. Bad time to hawk luxury goods.

As I mentioned on another thread, her PR theme for spring seems to be "Shut up about anything negative that I've done or you will be accused of being unkind". That's come out very clearly in the past few days on MN.

Mistyglade · 25/03/2025 10:46

So what, why shouldn’t she capitalise on brand ambassadorship. It’s what they do, she’d be a fool not to. At least she isn’t living off the public purse.

IcedPurple · 25/03/2025 10:47

TheNinkyNonkyIsATardis · 25/03/2025 10:40

The problem with launching in at this highly obvious level is that she's sold both too much and not enough of her dirty laundry to get traction.

Take the polar opposites of the Kardashians - selling sex tapes, scripted reality of all sorts of conversations publicly. Huge following for their fakery - which is "aspirational" in its own way, in that lots of women do want to look that way. Kylie a billionaire for her cosmetics (which I'm sure is 99.9% managed by others). She hasn't sold enough of that, and frankly, doesn't have the humility/nous of the Kardashians to brazenly put themselves on display without caring what people think so long as the money keeps coming.

Then Gwyneth Paltrow - it's the sort of luxe lifestyle Meghan wants to merch, but Gwyneth earned her credo of years of being an LA hippie. Meghan didn't, and hasn't, so her attempt at claiming a spot doesn't feel earned.

Yes exactly.

The Kardashians put themselves out there and don't give a shit what anyone says so long as the money keeps rolling in. Until recently they had a very popular long running TV show as the 'anchor' for their brand, whereas Meghan's show is already old news. They also shot to fame quite some time ago. I'm not sure they'd be able to repeat that now, as attitudes have changed quite a bit, even if Meghan seems unaware.

Goop is snooty and elitist but she is honest about it, and as an Oscar winning actress from a wealthy Hollywood family, she has the credentials to back it up. If Meghan had spent the past 5 years building up to this image rather than whining about her in laws and doing faux royal tours, she might have pulled it off. But it just seems to have come out of nowhere and doesn't seem authentic even in a 'curated' kind of way.

TheHerboriste · 25/03/2025 11:00

Spot on, @IcedPurple

Meghan has nothing to offer but her spurious claim to royalty. And no one is interested.

crumpet · 25/03/2025 11:02

jeffgoldblum · 25/03/2025 09:44

A poster on the clothing thread has already posted the main text from the so called “sandrinham “ summit , it clearly outlines that they are not allowed to use their titles for monetary gain.
this was the agreement that they agreed to when they stepped down .
they have broken their word and gone against their agreement with the queen.

I haven’t seen that, and am happy to be corrected. All I have seen is that they had to drop the HRH title. Nothing about not being able to continue with the Sussex titles.

glitterturd · 25/03/2025 11:11

@IcedPurple regarding GP background. Again you are correct .its an advantage.

glitterturd · 25/03/2025 11:16

There are multiple markets out there . This is one of the " buy less stuff " awareness. It's surprising that Meghan hasn't connected with this line of thought but then people only buying once is not what she is after .

https://buymeonce.com/pages/about-us

About Us | BuyMeOnce

BuyMeOnce is sick of badly made products. You probably are too. Yet most consumer goods are built to break. It’s a waste of resources, money and time.

https://buymeonce.com/pages/about-us

jeffgoldblum · 25/03/2025 11:22

crumpet · 25/03/2025 11:02

I haven’t seen that, and am happy to be corrected. All I have seen is that they had to drop the HRH title. Nothing about not being able to continue with the Sussex titles.

No worries!
that is the main reason people are against it , if Meghan simply used her name ( which is enough we all know who she is and who she married) , I imagine most people me included would think this an excellent way for her to raise money.

BasiliskStare · 25/03/2025 11:43

jeffgoldblum · 25/03/2025 11:22

No worries!
that is the main reason people are against it , if Meghan simply used her name ( which is enough we all know who she is and who she married) , I imagine most people me included would think this an excellent way for her to raise money.

Count me in for that I posted similar above 👏.

Actually as far as celebrity goes wouldn't being globally recognised by just your first name like Madonna be more than enough. No matter , an idle thought. 😂

BoredZelda · 25/03/2025 11:50

AtIusvue · 25/03/2025 10:12

I think this is trying the Oprah approach. She has things that Oprah loves- Which is promoted through the NYpost.

So I’m guessing that the plan here is to follow this format….but with people magazine.

But they never work with the press do they?

They never said they wouldn’t work with the press.

jeffgoldblum · 25/03/2025 11:54

BasiliskStare · 25/03/2025 11:43

Count me in for that I posted similar above 👏.

Actually as far as celebrity goes wouldn't being globally recognised by just your first name like Madonna be more than enough. No matter , an idle thought. 😂

Good point @BasiliskStare! , would add a bit of exclusivity…. Meghan , nothing else needed 👍

Munnygirl · 25/03/2025 12:01

BoredZelda · 25/03/2025 11:50

They never said they wouldn’t work with the press.

Only the press that wouldn’t see them as anything less than perfect

BasiliskStare · 25/03/2025 12:01

@jeffgoldblum Meghan - come buy these clothes I like - note I get commission - Have at it ! I personally might not like the clothes , if I do I might go directly to the vendor's website, but I think it would be a better way of approaching it.

TheMeasure · 25/03/2025 12:02

@Tbrh "There's a difference between being interested and being derangely obsessed, which most of the Meghan haters are. Thread after thread literally going on about the same thing over and over again. It's insane."

So, "derangely (sic) obsessed," "haters" (only missing the z), and "insane."
You going for the full bingo card there?

BasiliskStare · 25/03/2025 12:06

@glitterturd Gwyneth said in an interview quite openly that Goop had stopped selling vibrators because they are a one off purchase 😁

newdiamondring · 25/03/2025 12:08

IcedPurple · 24/03/2025 17:02

Yes, there have been several entirely gratuitous photos of the children recently.

Just because we don't see their faces doesn't mean they aren't being put into the public eye. I do wonder what Harry thinks of this.

Harry doesn't think. That's the problem 😆

BasiliskStare · 25/03/2025 12:11

@IcedPurple - I think you're on the money there with M's commission . This is from Hannah Rogers in the Times "The commission on affiliate links is commanded by the power of the influencer using them. How much Meghan has negotiated will no doubt be a closely guarded secret but we can probably assume it is generous. On average, brands tend to offer a blanket 10 per cent. One social media expert tells me they think Meghan is likely to get more."

GoingStraightToHell · 25/03/2025 12:17

Ugh, I have the tan Polène bag that Meghan linked to. I absolutely love it - it’s amazing quality for the price and has held up beautifully despite a lot of careless use. But I hate when something I genuinely like gets tied to annoying influencers, and people assume you might have bought it just because of them. So frustrating!

BigWillyLittleTodger · 25/03/2025 12:23

RevolutionaryMode · 25/03/2025 08:11

the minutae of 9 years ago being picked over.

But it’s fine to bang on about Charles and Camilla’s affair 40 years ago when it suits the fans narrative as happens all the time on these threads.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.