PR disasters thread 27

[BigWillyLittleTodger]

A shiny new thread to continue the chat on the Sussexes summer shenanigans!

This is why Meghan will always be seen as a hypocrite, standing in a car park talking about the dangers of children accessing social media but then go on to produce and heavily promote a film which puts pressure on little girls to sell cookies in empty car parks themselves or their parents could suffer financial hardship, yet she promoted it as a wholesome harmless American tradition, there is always massive disconnect and hypocrisy with both Harry and Meghan and this is why they will never succeed.

Another purchased award for H. Travlyst shortlisted for some BS award.

Sorry to contradict you but this is totally incorrect.

Charles had numerous glamorous girlfriends.

Whilst he was shy as a very young man he soon realised his pulling power.

There were no shortage of contenders however the RF, and very specifically his grandmother the queen mother and his uncle Dickie Mountbatten (who both held great influence over him) were adamant that he must marry a virgin from a family they deemed “suitable”.

Both were products of a very different era and unlike times of their own youth finding a virgin in the late 70s / 80s would mean a very limited pool and a much younger bride.

Enter Diana.

A total mismatch in personality, in interests (though like many girls she initially pretended to share his passions to gain his approval), in life experience and in intellect.

But she was a virgin, from a family which on the face of it was highly suitable (though deeply fractured and histrionic had anybody cared to look) and apparently keen to marry into the RF.

Charles felt the weight of the crown, of history and thought it would be alright, he could come to love her and they would get along.

She thought it would be a fairy tale much like her beloved Mills &Boon romances.

Both were very wrong.

the girls get nothing but may get camps or trips. taking cookies is not voluntary, that’s why parents risk mortgage payments for these cookies
Is it exploitation or entrepreneurship.

What do you mean “taking cookies is not voluntary”?
Does it mean your child gets kicked out of their group if they don’t join in? There’s no way I would be letting my child get involved with something like that even if the upfront costs were minimal. I hate forced charity stuff, sponsoring parachute experiences etc. It’s all exploitation in one way or another imo.

Whenever I hear anything about Girl Scouts selling cookies I always think of the episode of ‘Everyone Loves Raymond’ about selling cookies (IYKYK).
I heard Kev O Sullivan & Kinsey Schofield talking about the film yesterday - Kinsey made a great point in that when M is involved nothing is aligned. Why not release this film during cooking selling season? Equally, WLM should have been released at the same time as ‘As ever’ was launched.
Then when Meghan is sprinkling her dead flowers on food, making pancakes out of her packet mix then a QR code pops up on screen so people can buy (TikTok style)- but no, they were months out of kilter.
It’s almost as if Netflix had totally lost interest in them - WLM was the last role of the dice to see, without anything supporting her (like a side by side selling) if she had any pulling power left.
Since viewing figures were poor and the series was universally slated then they had their answer.

Doesn’t executive producer just mean you put some money in? Every film I’ve seen in recent years has dozens of them.

I agree with the factual parts of your post but Tbf nobody knows what any of them thought, possibly not even Charles himself. Charles had said something about getting married at 30 and so from then on everybody was counting the days. He was under tremendous pressure, public as well as, presumably, private.

I think (this is just me speculating) he always considered his marriage a constitutional obligation and fully intended to find his romantic fulfilment elsewhere.

From everything I can see H&M put no money into CQ - they were listed as Executive Producers in return for publicity and endorsement. I may not be right but I can't find anything which says differently. Of course they might have been expected to get NF to take it on under their first look agreement .

Is there reputation not damaged in US? I assumed it was but perhaps not

I remember reading about a Girl Scout selling cookies outside a weed shop, she made a fortune 😄😄

This would be consistent with MM inserting PH into everything she does - she knows she’s nothing without him and his title - she’s still nothing with it - but she needs his royal adjacency.

I wonder if she will sell / supply the UPF cookie dough from As Ever. That would be amusing.

Also opposite to Midas Touch is The Ratner Effect - from The Ratner Royals - someone has to write the book of their shocking commercial decline and brand implosion and call it ‘Squandered’ - it really is spectacular and unique how they have blown up their own good fortune with their own words and actions. Not sure we have seen the likes of it before?

Ok, so their contribution was in kind rather than hard cash. But still no creative input. Peripheral at best.

The Ratner Touch?

But they would have factored / contracted in ‘returns’ on their contributions (time, name) - so again another financial misstep.

I was going to say the same.

Releasing it in cinemas makes no sense for any other reason. These kinds of documentaries struggle to attract an audience on streaming, so there's no way people are going to pay actual money to see it at the cinema. It was done in the hope of featuring in awards season. Though from what I hear, it's not that great so chances of it bagging awards seem slim. Though with niche categories, who knows?

Reminds me of being on holiday in Jamaica and asking my driver to stop so I could by the organic cookies and muffins a blokecwas selling outside his house. My driver had to explained n the big poster of the green plant didn’t mean organic.

Tom Bowers should write it and definitely call it "Squandered - the Ratner Touch & the Royals"

Do films that flop really attract awards, though?

Probably not, but I can't believe that anyone seriously thought 'Cookie Queens' was going to attract a big box office. People only really go to the cinema to see blockbusters like 'The Odyssey' or 'Spiderman' these days. Otherwise it's 'wait until it comes out on streaming'. I've never heard of documentaries attracting big cinema audiences since Michael Moore and his work, and that was decades ago.

So if there can't have been any realistic expectation of commercial success for 'Cookie Queens', there must have been another reason for putting it in cinemas. Featuring in awards season is the only one that comes to mind, but I'm ope to other ideas!

I mean, that is enterprising!

It’s kind of a pity he spoiled it for you, think what a lovely tea party you could have had!

I see where you are going, but if I was Gerald Ratner I would be cross if my name was used to describe Ham.
He had been phenomenally successful, it was just one bad interview, which he didn't let define him. He had business success after ratners.

So the Hams can't even manage a Ratner.

Nice threatres show all kinds of film. An Oscar nomination is an Oscar nomination no matter what category. I’m sure Meghan wants one, and will run a determined campaign for the rest of the year to get one. She has nothing else, perhaps steal some ideas to sell her huge jam stockpile

What happened to the film where Meghan had a cameo ? Can’t remember the name . Apparently it prompted a flood of offers …..

I think I recall it being reported that the cameo ended up on the cutting room floor.