PR Disasters Part X

[AtIusvue]

For all Meg and Harry PR shenanigans

He’s going down the disheveled Rory McGrath lookalike route.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/actor-and-television-presenter-rory-mcgrath.html

So Meghan goes on a solo weekend trip to Chicago while Harry gets himself papped in LA by Backgrid "lunching with friends" at Nobu 1½ hours away from Montecito.

Not only does he manage to get 'papped', we also have a full 'article' about a banal lunch meeting in People magazine.

Seems like neither want to spend much time with the kids despite having been away so much recently

The weird way they talk about the children makes me also suspect that even when at home, they don't spend much quality time with them either. Other than working out which limb to feature in the next Instagram photo.

Blake Lively did, surprisingly, make the cut for entry into the Met Gala event. On her own. I wonder (because frankly I'm nosey) what that's all about? Did she have to donate a shit-tonne of $$$? Bail out Versace?

I am fairly sure the organisers knew she’d guarantee plenty of coverage as the settlement of her lawsuit against Justin Baldoni had just been announced. And because if she came she wasn’t going to attend in a nondescript outfit - she has a Met Ball history to live up to. And they were right on both counts!

I don’t understand this new communications directive…which seems to be, answer back to anything and everything, regardless how outlandish the claims.

If their finances are fine, then why bother with the touchy clapback, just makes it like there is something going on and they’re sensitive about it.

Sunshine Sachs must be getting paid by the word, because they seem to be answering to every bloody story. Why even respond to a story that you claim is unreliable because they haven't cited their sources? It makes no sense.

SS will be bleeding Meg and Harry dry with this comms approach. Oh the irony.

To me this reactive, amateur, non strategic, knee jerk, paranoid approach suggests SS are not on board and H&M are doing it all themselves.

No PR firm worth their salt would advise or implement like this - also the cost to H&M who don’t seem to have a revenue stream is disproportionate.

I think it’s the UK guy who is doing the clapbacks, probably word for word from H&M, it can’t be Sunshine Sachs, it’s too unprofessional.

Yes, I imagine they can at least rely on Blake Lively from a fashion/style point of view - which is the big deal for the Met Gala.

The same really can't be said for Meghan.

I read that the SS approach- is ‘bare knuckles’

They are also responding to outlets that most people don’t pay attention to. This financial analysis is from a celebrity gossip substack, it’s hardly the WSJ.

It’s honestly such a crazy approach! Their PR people must hate them to do this.

I love the claim that it can't be true because none of the people saying it would go on record coming from a " spokesman" - no names there either to go on record!

I thunk youband @Lunde missed thebpoint. I was alluding to his denial.that his missus called the RF racist. "She never said that. It was the British press that said that."

The clap back is all them. It's the usual word salad drivel. Ingriftus and all other ventures needs a forensic snoop. I'd say it's alarming to say the least

Beautiful British deadpan humour.

Ugliness in the inside shows on the outside

Rarely was a truer sentence written, @HoldMyWine, and unfortunately it applies to both of them - though as I said upthread at least Harry's expressions are authentic, whereas Meghan tries (unsuccessfully) to act whatever emotion's called for

And I didn't know about Invictus blocking queries about their finances on SM, @Thedom. Being a charity I'd have hoped they'd want to be open on this subject, but then I've hoped a lot of things about issues Harry's involved in and they've all led to disappointment

I was trying to google the significance of changing Archewell Foundation to Philanthropies. (Still not sure - if anyone could explain it to me as if I am a Bear of Very Little Brain 😊I'd be grateful.) Is it just a name change to describe a new direction , is there something about the foundation they want to distance themselves from or is it more technical and fundamental.

Anyway whilst I was googling I found this
https://blog.charitywatch.org/archewell-philanthropies-new-name-same-old-transparency-problems/

Where was the ‘financial analysis’ published - was it this guy from People Magazine? Or somewhere else?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EDVlZ-vQPxE

When Harry and Meghan first started using Sunshine Sachs back in 2020 there was a strong internet rumour, never actually denied, that according to their contract they must try and get 3-5 pro-Sussex articles in the media each day to give them visibility - no matter how banal. I've noticed a pattern of an increase in the number of PR puff pieces again now that SS has their PR contract again.

Oh and I looked on Google maps and it is more like 2½ hours each way (5 hour round trip) to drive from Monetecito to Nobu in LA ... unless eco warrior Harry took a plane/helicopter to have lunch!

Oh well - if they have lots of money they'll have no trouble paying their own security bill and don't need the taxpayer to pay it for them!

You do yourself an injustice, @BasiliskStare , but while I'm no expert either it's worth remembering that the original business contained "sections" such as Archewell Productions and Media, which in itself invited questions as to why they were no longer producing anything of substance

Perhaps by bringing in the Philanthropies tag they felt they could dodge awkwardness like that and instead just stick with the pretence of "showing up and doing good"?

Have they even mentioned "New Archewell" this year?

Who is so desperate that they have to get a lunch covered by the paps? 🤷‍♀️

We're not hearing anything about donations made while in Australia? At least they donated a few bongo drums in Colombia.

There were rumours last year about the old Archewell Foundation (the charity part) possibly being a target for an IRS investigation into whether they were meeting the requirements of a tax exempt charity.

The latest filing for Archewell Foundation for financial year 2024 showed
Income - $2.14 million with $2 million from an un-named single donor (so they raised very little)
Grants given approx $1million - Archewell mostly gave grants to other charities as collaborations rather than running their own projects
Expenses - $5.1 million - $1 million was to pay staff (mostly they were let go in december) but $2.9 million was classified as "other expenses" and nobody knows how this was spent

They had $8.5 million in capital left at close 2024 - at its height Archewell had $13 million in capital but this has been depleted as grants+expenses were not covered by donations - nobody knows what happened to the $8.5 million

It granted funds to other charities? Sounds like the way they would operate as:

1. charities have to cultivate relationships with H and M in order to get the funds which makes them feel important and gets them PR. It’s as if they personally are the wealthy benefactors when actually it’s money others have donated to them.
2. once the grant is made there is nothing for Hh and M to do other than bask in the glory of positive publicity. The other charity runs the project and takes any flak if it isn’t successful. The extent of the Sussex involvement is a few meetings to find out about the project and if the project goes really well they can drop by for a photo op. Their approach to philanthropy sounds like a charitable Dragon’s Den where they are donating / investing someone else’s money!

Wow. That's extreme amount of not donated and accounted for funds.

More discussion about Invictus’s accounts here, in work done by US veteran, Michelle Marra, whose work compliments that of Rachel the Pilot. What is the Canadian government covering up, and are big donors giving money directly to the patron rather than to the fund for the veterans? In discussion on The Vintage Read Show.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5oAWgUhFl0I&pp=0gcJCQMLAYcqIYzv&ra=m