Comedian Jerry Sadowitz back doing voiceover work at Edinburgh Fringe
The National
Comedian Jerry Sadowitz is back doing voiceover work at Edinburgh Fringe
The controversial comedian has been signed to record the scene-setter for a performance by Mark Borkowski, a celebrity publicist whose previous clients have included Noel Edmonds, Graham Norton and Joan Rivers.
Borkowski’s show, False Teeth in a Pork Pie: How to Unleash Your Inner Crazy, is described as an “adventure” through his publicity career.
He is one of the many critics of the Pleasance Theatre’s decision to axe Sadowitz’s show following complaints about some of the content at his first show.
The theatre accused the comedian of “racism, sexism, homophobia and misogyny” following a performance in which he showed his penis to an audience member.
In a statement, Sadowitz has said the Pleasance had misunderstood his act whilst various celebrities, including Piers Morgan, criticised the decision to drop him.
Borkowski said Sadowitz has always had an outrageous voice and that the decision to drop him was “ridiculous”.
He continued: “I felt for Jerry after this week so offered him a ‘tight five’ as my warm-up act.
“Sadly, he felt that my material was too dark for him to associate with but he did kindly agree to record the voiceover introduction.”
The American-Scots comedian could potentially face further cancellation before a national tour as the Whitehall Theatre in Dundee said it would contact the Pleasance for “more information” before making its decision on a scheduled performance.
Aberdeen’s Tivoli theatre confirmed Sadowitz would play there in October.
The Fringe’s biggest venue, Assembly, was critical of the decision to end Sadowitz’s Edinburgh run early.
Its co-founder Luke Johnson said the Pleasance “can get stuffed telling other venues to ban artists just because they lost their bottle”.
Why PR boss Mark Borkowski is taking a one-man show to the Edinburgh Fringe
The Drum
As one of the industry’s best-known PRs, Mark Borkowski has earned a reputation for telling a good tale. But his powers of persuasion will be tested to the limit by his next task: pulling off a one-man-show at the Edinburgh Fringe. Why put yourself through it? The publicist-turned-stand-up tells all…
The Edinburgh Festival Fringe at the height of its powers is a fantastical breeding ground for maverick creativity.
Convincing an audience that yours is the best of three-thousand options when they might cheerfully pick ‘none of the above’ takes a master of the craft.
And some of these masters have inspired my return to the Edinburgh stage with a new one-man show, a kind of Ted Talk on acid, where a series of unhinged anecdotes reveal the fundamental lessons of my life and career: ‘False Teeth in a Pork Pie: How to unleash your inner crazy’.
In once again traversing the labyrinthine corridors of the world’s biggest arts festival I’ve noticed that it is following a pattern that might be familiar to those of us fighting the good fight of agency life.
The Fringe built its reputation on the back of mavericks, whose quest for publicity inspired underwater performances, chainsaw jugglers, theatre on the back of a motorbike, vacuum cleaner operas, ghost hunts and a variety of near-fatal injuries (singed body hair, nails stuck into various body orifices, limbs crushed by cars).
Throughout this era, similarly-minded renegades were creating technicolor chaos in advertising. Tony Kaye features heavily in my show, and the peak of Edinburgh Fringe anarchy coincides fairly neatly with him creating a classic of psychedelic avant-garde cinema to punt car tyres.
Both in Edinburgh and in agency land, this was an era when experimentation was part of the orthodoxy and failure part of the creative process. You went to the Fringe with big ambitions and if the show didn’t work, you took lessons from it into your future work. It was the same for my agency then: clients bought into us, rather than a specific project, and together refined the creative by taking ambitious risks until we found the right formula.
But in both worlds times changed; the Edinburgh Fringe was becoming bigger, increasingly expensive and increasingly risky. And in agency land, clients were attempting to commodify creativity into a rigid process that guaranteed the results they wanted first time.
Nonetheless, Edinburgh remains a learning experience in terms of seeing what energizes a crowd. The fundamental spirit of the festival is the same though promotional methods have changed. For my show, I have tried to distill that spirit into a powerful ether. By way of promotion, what can I say? My show is littered with tall tales and outrageous incidents: the truth about Hollywood Divas and fading Carry On stars; why Donald Trump won the election; a Love Island home truth; tales from the circus; stories from a less politically correct age; F1 James Hunt’s parrot and what Spike Milligan thought about Swindon. It’s a heady mixture but so is the Fringe. The concoction is made to elicit creativity in receptive spirits.
When I went with Tony Kaye, listening to him talk about creativity and how Polish playwrights were the fulcrum of visual theatre in the 1980s, the link became clear to me. The Fringe festival brought out the very disruptive, energising and sometimes manic states of creative flow that drove Tony’s visual sensibility.
This kind of staging ground for ideas will interest anyone who wants to think outside the box to drive culture. The Fringe continues to provide the perfect venue for adventurous thinking, pioneering scriptwriting and striking visual juxtapositions. It’s not just about discovering the next ‘big star’, even more so it’s about seeing how people are using culture to create conversations in an environment free of prejudice and drunk on its own experimental ethos.
Empowered by what he found in Edinburgh, Tony Kaye would come to find Hollywood actually less suited to the expression of his genius than the ad world which nourished his talent. When he presented the edit of his first feature, American History X, he refused to be wrested from the tiller, causing a clash with his studio that threw his career as a director into jeopardy.
Tony’s attempts to regain control of the project are in themselves legendary stunts, including spending $100,000 of his own money calling out the Hollywood elite via full-page adverts in Variety, and turning up to a negotiation with his studio flanked by a rabbi, a Catholic priest and a Buddhist monk.
Tony was still an unfiltered eccentric when I worked with him to try and salvage his career in Tinseltown. We did actually make some progress, but his spirit would not even be partially tamed and we ended up irreconcilably outraging a Hollywood legend via the medium of fancy dress (the full anecdote in all its offensive glory is in my show…)
Here’s the rub: in a rapidly professionalizing and corporatising world, Tony’s style of absolutist surrender to the maverick within will always cause issues. But at the same time – and once again this is equally true in Edinburgh and agency land –process-worship, and the obsession with playing the game only within the rules, structures and orthodoxies of the day, will kill progress.
My agency would be nothing without the Fringe and its anarchic spirit. From its inception, every year brought a show that pushed the boundaries of theatrical representation. Richard Demarco, whose theatre programming at the Fringe gave international debuts to now world-renowned performers, made the Fringe a workshop of ideas that would make the festival a hub of international exchange. It remains an invaluable resource for taking the pulse of culture and finding out what really works in our increasingly risk-averse era.
In an age where success is quantified by micro-analysing data, there’s room for each of us to unlock our inner Tony Kaye. It’s a mad method, but it’s one that nurtures great creative breakthroughs. That’s what my show hopes to do: argue for the value of casting aside pre-programmed conclusions and instead embracing serendipity. And the Fringe is the perfect place for meandering, following uncharted creative paths and even bumping into old friends.
If you want to know what moves people from their seats, just listen in to audience reactions at the pub after a show at the Fringe. The material you come away with will be infinitely more valuable than anything you get from a brainstorm in an air-conditioned meeting room in Soho, but it just might prove useful in one.
Mark Borkowski’s ‘False Teeth in a Pork Pie: How to unleash your inner crazy’ runs at the Edinburgh Fringe from 17-20 August, 12:00 at Assembly George Square Studio Two
Mark Borkowski says we should turn off tech and follow the example of his maverick acts
The Express
These days many of us are slaves to tech. We wake up, we check the news, we are recommended another article based on the one we’ve just read. We scroll social media, running a gauntlet of adverts specially selected for us. We react with Pavlovian regularity to message, email and diary notifications throughout the day, and whenever we experience something “real”, our digital selves boast about it later on.
Our entire lives have been commodified by big tech, scavenging our data and cobbling it together to create a Frankenstein image of us at which content, adverts, and even dangerous lies can be targeted in a way that maximises our engagement, strengthens our addiction, and keep us locked in a comfortable bubble where our views remain unchallenged and our horizons never expand.
As a result, so much of our existence nowadays is pre-programmed, predicted and driven by algorithms. And the bubble-world of lockdown we have inhabited for much of the past two years has only entrenched us deeper into this doom-scroll labyrinth.
But as the world re-opens and live experiences return, a couple of sanctuaries that might protect us from this ad-tech dystopia have also re-emerged.
One of the most powerful of these, when at its best, is the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. The world’s biggest arts festival is a whirlwind of colour and creativity, but it’s also the dark, challenging, experimental underworld of live entertainment; one where many worldviews are catered for and where the great impresarios create almost as much outrage as shock.
It’s not perfect; despite accusations that it’s a socialist commune, the Edinburgh Fringe is actually capitalism manifest; a brutal marketplace of 3,000 shows vying desperately for an audience that doesn’t need them and owes them nothing.
And much like many other markets, it isn’t a level playing field; the deck is stacked to favour the biggest marketing budgets, the most prominent venues, the strongest web of industry connections, and the Fringe Society – the closest thing we might have to the “invisible hand” – is doing little to even the odds.
But in such unforgiving conditions mavericks thrive. Those who are brave, creative and foolhardy enough to stray from the beaten track of convention can stumble across game-changing innovation.
At its best – and this might just be one of those years – the Fringe is teeming with these characters.
In my 40 years as a publicist, I’ve become something of a magnet for mavericks; inventive, spontaneous, eccentric, with a slightly dangerous edge, they enhance our existence.
There was Archaos, the punk circus whose performers narrowly avoided arrest for sawing a car in half and driving half of it down the Royal Mile; Marcel Steiner who, among a plethora of stunts, erected the world’s smallest theatre on the back of a motorbike; Jim Rose, who taught me to hammer a nail up my nose and burn off most of my body hair without injury.
There was the world’s first underwater concert, a vacuum cleaner ‘ballet’, a ‘homo sapiens’ zoo exhibit and a highly unsuccessful cowpat flinging competition. Each of these improvisational experimentalists wrote themselves into Edinburgh Fringe legend by shunning the conventional and embracing their inner maverick.
I’m heading back to the Fringe this year to tell the best of these stories in a one-man TED Talk on Acid called False Teeth in a Pork Pie: How to unleash your inner crazy. The show, starting next Wednesday deals with my fantastical journey from a meat and pastry factory in Southwest England to a career in publicity that transported me to the trailblazing underworld of fringe arts, and on to the West End, Hollywood and into the world of brands and boardrooms.
Throughout this time, I’ve remained obsessed with the maverick, and if I were, to sum up what makes these characters so special it is that, unlike the rest of us in this tech-addled world, they are not pre-programmed.
This takes us back to my opening argument; a life dictated by algorithms and notifications is devoid of unpredictability and spontaneity. The maverick is someone who embraces these as a fundamental philosophy for life; in our sterilised digital world they are acoustic, unfiltered.
Of course, a completely unfiltered approach to life can land you in trouble. A vintage example is Tony Kaye.
Also an Edinburgh Fringe veteran, the renegade film director became a legend in ad land for his avant-garde masterpieces. He turned an advert for Dunlop tyres into a psychedelic, post-apocalyptic Western epic, Tested for the Unexpected, that ranks as one of the great 83-seconds in film history.
He was lured to Hollywood to make the film American History X but fell out spectacularly with the studio when a tussle for creative control of the project turned into an all-out brawl.
His maverick spirit was in full force throughout; he spent $100,000 of his own money calling out the Hollywood elite via full-page adverts in Variety, and then turned up to a negotiation flanked by a rabbi, a Catholic priest and a Buddhist monk.
Tony was eventually offered a way back into Hollywood by none other than Marlon Brando.
They were going to embrace the nascent 21st century by making a series of DVD acting masterclasses, taught by Marlon, directed by Tony.
But they needed support, and Brando summoned Kaye to a gathering of Hollywood’s best and brightest and told everyone to come in character as someone other than themselves.
Suffice to say it went on to be one of the most notorious and offensive fancy dress parties in the history of the world and that particular project ended up sleeping with the fishes.
But it makes a great story (full version in my show) and it illustrates the kind of thinking that can wrest us from the grip of the algorithm, the philosophy that bursts into life every August in Edinburgh.
It’s astonishing to witness the lengths people will go to in their attempts to make their show stick out and it creates some truly unique spectacles. The media will tell you a lot about comedians you see on television and famous actors doing vanity projects, but underneath that shiny veneer, there’s a whole society of mavericks who have launched themselves out of their pre-programmed existence and created something truly special, something we can all experience if we tear ourselves away from our screens.
To book tickets for Mark Borkowski’s show from August 17 to 20 click here.
Airline restarts flights to Russia from Abu Dhabi in ‘risky move’ – ‘Could be a disaster!’
Daily Express
As the war in Ukraine drags into its sixth month, Russia is still largely isolated from the Western world politically, culturally and in terms of corporate boycotts. Many international brands are boycotting the country and airlines are still imposing flight bans as well as ongoing sanctions from the EU, UK and USA.
However, Wizz Air Abu Dhabi have announced their route to Moscow will restart with tickets on sale for flights from October 3.
Founded in December 2019, the subsidiary is 49 percent owned by Wizz Air with the majority 51 percent owned by state-owned ADQ.
Wizz Air has another subsidiary Wizz Air UK, originally established to mitigate the impact of Brexit.
Etihad, Emirates and FlyDubai are among the Middle Eastern airlines operating to Russia from the UAE.
Wizz Air Abu Dhabi launched its Moscow route in December 2021 before suspending it when Russia invaded Ukraine.
A spokesperson for Wizz Air Abu Dhabi said that the route was being restarted due to passenger demand.
They said: “Wizz Air Abu Dhabi is a national UAE carrier that operates in line with the UAE’s national regulations and policies.
“The airline is resuming its operation to Moscow to meet travel demand for passengers wishing to fly to and from Russia from the UAE capital.
“All UAE national airlines are currently operating direct flights to Russia.
“Wizz Air Hungary and Wizz Air UK are not currently operating flights to Russia.
“Flights to Russia from the UK and EU are currently banned.”
However, it is unclear if passengers will understand the nuanced difference.
Mark Borkowski, a crisis PR consultant, told CNN that although most corporate boycotts were “virtue signalling” the move by the airline could be a “disaster” and a “own goal”.
He said: “We now begin to see a number of brands beginning to check their resolve, and as events drag on the virtue-signalling will give way to commercial intent.
“I expect this decision will be viewed with great interest.
“It could be a disaster — however the bigger issue is fatigue.
“Certain commercial interests will prevail.
“Nevertheless it’s a risky move that could turn into a profound PR own goal.”
Lionesses now worth millions in sponsorship, say PR experts
The Guardian
The Lionesses are poised to increase their sponsorship value tenfold after their win on Sunday, PR experts have predicted, with individual players likely to secure lucrative brand deals and endorsements worth millions of pounds.
But there were calls on Monday to ensure that the inevitable spike in interest, and funding, also cascades down to grassroots level, including making sure that women’s teams don’t continue to be lumped with unsociable pitch hours or remote places with poor access to public transport.
A record-breaking 17 million viewers watched England’s 2-1 victory over Germany, making it the most-watched women’s football game in UK television history and the most-watched TV event of the year. Another 87,192 fans saw them live at Wembley stadium.
James Herring, an expert in consumer brands and PR, and co-founder of the agency Taylor Herring, said those figures matter. “If you’re a big brand and you’re thinking of investing millions in sports sponsorship, you need to know there will be a return to your investment from bums in seats and eyes on matches and this tournament has done that … They’ve smashed it. It’s been brilliant,” he said.
The squad will reportedly receive a bonus of £55,000 each, totalling £1.3m, for winning the tournament under a deal with the Football Association (FA). This is in addition to a reported £2,000 a match in appearance fees.
Brands have already flocked to the squad, with right-back Lucy Bronze striking deals with Pepsi and Visa, for example, but this is expected to be only the start. “I think the sponsorship values for the Lionesses will increase tenfold from what they can expect to be banking from commercial values,” Herring said.
He estimates that the team’s sponsorship value will have now gone into the hundreds of millions of pounds, while individual players could expect to net deals worth millions.
“The people who have stood out in this tournament will be the first pool of contact for brands; from goal scorers, gamechangers in those key matches, and those who have something about them in their own personality.”
Mark Borkowski, a PR consultant and author, agreed that in terms of their authenticity, leading players in the team are worth millions. “The team are very powerful and make no mistake we will be celebrating this as long as we celebrated the 1966 World Cup win,” he said.
David Alexander, founder and managing director of the sports PR agency Calacus, said many brands have been slow to support on the whole and will be eager to catch up.
“English women’s football has been on a positive trajectory for the past few years, particularly with new sponsorship and broadcasting deals investing significantly in the game,” he said. “Hopefully that will have an impact on endorsements and player contracts that see professional players getting closer to the incomes the men have enjoyed for decades.”
For Yvonne Harrison, chief executive of Women in Football, it’s crucial that grassroots teams which sustain women’s football also benefit financially. “We’re not going to get the depth in terms of championship players and super league players without having a growing base at the bottom,” she said.
Louise McGing, a spokesperson for AFC Leyton, who in 2021 was a finalist for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Unsung Hero award, agrees. “Brands need to create their own market by investing in the next generation of elite football players at grassroots level,” she said.
“This means not being obsessed with ROI [return on investment] and ticket and spectator numbers but thinking of the long game and bigger picture around what this can mean for football, the legacy and their own brand.”
Sophia Axelsson, AFC Wimbledon Women’s general manager, added that sustainability of these sponsorship and partnerships across the board is vital to ensuring the sport is as accessible as possible.
She said: “To be able to grow women’s football in England, that money can’t stay in the top. There will be a continued lack of diversity and inclusion if the money just stays with those top teams.”
The largest financial hurdle is finding affordable places to play and train, Axelsson added. This issue is particularly acute in large cities and urban areas where longstanding men’s team have priority, McGing added, with women’s teams often offered hard-to-reach pitches or time slots at unsociable hours.
Harrison is hopeful that change at the top will be felt at the bottom. She said: “The women’s football community seems to be quite unique in that it wants everyone to benefit and everyone to grow. It doesn’t seem like an elitist sports that is for the few.”
As for individual players with skyrocketing profiles, the women’s game has an opportunity to avoid the pitfalls seen in the men’s game, said Doug Reed, general manager at Player4Player, an organisation founded by ex-internationals and Premier League players to mentor and empower footballers.
“We see it in the men’s game. So many players have great careers and earn great money, but then, because of bad advice, they finish their careers and they don’t have much to show for it,” he said.
Reed hopes to see the strong community spirit within women’s football maintained and scaled up, so players are supported throughout their careers and are not treated as disposable once the spotlight moves on
Love Island’s Ekin-Su and Gemma will be the ‘real winners’ of the reality show as they are set to ‘make MILLIONS’ when they leave the villa
Daily Mail
They have shot to prominence after spending the summer in the Love Island villa.
And Ekin-Su Cülcüloglu and Gemma Owen’s stars are only set to soar according to an expert, estimating that they will both receive £1 million paydays after the show.
The two Islanders will be the ‘real winners’ of the show, with an insider predicting that they will profit from fashion endorsements and club appearances.
A source predicted that brands will be lining up to work with them thanks to Ekin’s ‘captivating’ personality and Gemma’s famous surname and ‘wise’ head
An insider told the Mirror: ‘Ekin-Su and Gemma have been the stand-out stars in terms of marketability. Ekin-Su is not only beautiful, but she also has a captivating personality.
‘Gemma has such a wise head on her shoulders. With the Owen name, she already has a big profile which brands want to tap into. And her own swimwear brand, OG Beachwear, will be sure to get a big boost.’
A source reported that Ekin-Su has already sparked a ‘bidding war’ despite not actually having left the villa yet.
An industry insider told the Daily Star: ‘Ekin-Su is hot property. Plenty of lucrative offers are already on the table.
‘Quite a few make-up companies and clothing brands want to work with her and they’re prepared to pay big money. And then there are some TV offers as well. A bidding war has already started.’
‘Ekin-Su’s earning potential is massive. She’ll rack up £1m pretty quickly.’
The show has produced a string of millionaires, including Molly-Mae Hague who inked a £500,000 deal with PrettyLittleThing after the show.
She went on to launch several collections with the fast fashion brand as well as launching her own venture Filter and writing a memoir at the tender age of 23.
Dani Dyer, 25, has worked collaboratively with In The Style.
Series two stars Olivia, 28, and Alex Bowen, 31, are thought to have made around £4 million in sponsorship deals since their time on the show.
Millie Court is also looking at hitting £1million after working with ASOS, Puma and Eyelure after the winning the show with her now ex-boyfriend Liam Reardon.
Mark Borkowski, PR and branding specialist, said: ‘It’s not been a vintage year for Love Island with all the controversy surrounding the show, but it still has the ability to generate a life-changing amount of money for the finalists.
‘With the cost-of-living crisis, it will just mean they have to work even harder to achieve the figures of previous contestants – but there is still lots of money to be made.’
Rebekah Vardy can turn libel trial loss into a win, say PR experts
The Guardian
The “Wagatha Christie” trial saw the profiles of Rebekah Vardy and Coleen Rooney rocket, with both able to capitalise going forward – although in very different ways and for markedly different reasons, reputation experts have claimed.
Vardy’s spectacular own goal in suing Rooney may have seen her openly mocked, her reputation trashed and facing a potential £3m legal bill – but she will never be in more demand and could bounce back against the odds, they said.
Reality TV shows will be knocking at her door, said Jonathan Hartley, a media consultant specialising in crisis management. “I’m a Celebrity … Get me out of here! would absolutely bite their hands off for her, just for the fact her profile has never been higher. There will be lots of offers, more than she has ever had before. The controversy has just made her more interesting,” he said.
Rooney, meanwhile, who is making a documentary about the case, can expect offers from many brands keen to associate with the “vilified girl next door” persona she has acquired.
“We live on pantomime. Reality TV and social media daily give us pantomime characters. So, here we have the ‘wicked witch’ and the ‘good fairy’. I think pantomime king Michael Harrison will be on the phone today,” said PR expert Mark Borkowski.
Hartley said the verdict may seem a disaster for a “devastated” Vardy, but “nearly always people can come back from having had their reputation really badly trashed”.
He added: “Coleen had won before the verdict in terms of PR. Everybody seemed to be on her side. The fact most people thought Rebekah Vardy was in the dock showed how badly it had gone for her. The snippets that came out in the trial were more damaging for Rebekah rather than Coleen.
“But the British public is brilliant at forgiving. She [Vardy] has to create a long-term strategy. She has to do some mea culpa. She has to show some understanding of where it went wrong and why people were upset.”
A sympathetic TV interview could be a start. “Piers Morgan would want her” but whether the gladiatorial arena was the best vehicle for Vardy at this stage was debatable, he added. Charity work was another option. But she should not rush into anything.
Rooney, on the other hand, would be able to take advantage of the many offers bound to come her way. “If I was Coleen, I would absolutely use the profile and the good will she has got and take advantage of all the offers,” said Hartley.
“In a strange way Coleen, PR-wise, is better off moving away from this story. Not because she has done anything wrong. But because she’s got the high moral ground and she doesn’t want to be seen to be exploiting that, and kicking Rebekah while she is down.”
The Wag-type brands are, however, likely to steer clear of Vardy for a while. “The type of deals with the type of retailers that might go to a Wag are going to evaporate,” said Borkowski.
“It’s massive for Coleen, and she’s got the people around her to market it. She remains the vilified girl next door. She came across as very strong, walking into court with that big boot on, [Wayne] behind her holding her handbag.
“She’s back in play now. I think people will look at her and think: ‘She’s someone we want.’ And she will be in demand, but for totally different reasons to Vardy.”
“It’s a disaster for Vardy,” he added. “She could go with the antics. I always remember Christine and Neil Hamilton would turn up at every chatshow with a brown paper bag, and they seemed to recover because they played into the comedy of the situation,” he said of the former MP’s downfall following the “cash for questions” scandal.
“She [Vardy] can disappear without trace, or do private charitable things quietly in the background, a kind of John Profumo of the footballers’ wives world. She will be in demand, though. You name it – tabloid TV, reality TV. But, from the way she launched this action, I don’t think it will be a comfortable place for her to be in.
Liz Truss v Rishi Sunak: Who’s winning the social media war?
BBC News
They are two very different characters, with two very different campaigning styles.
“Everything about Sunak’s approach is slick,” says PR expert Mark Borkowski.
“It is overly professional in some points. I am not sure whether that is a good or a bad thing. There seems to be a lot of strategy and thinking behind it.”
The Truss campaign on the other hand “feels a little bit more homespun”, he adds.
Sunak’s social media strategy is masterminded by Cass Horowitz, son of best-selling novelist Anthony Horowitz. As a special adviser to Sunak when he was chancellor, Horowitz used fancy graphics and clever tag lines to sell “Brand Rishi” to a younger, politically unengaged audience on Instagram.
The glossy “origin story” video Sunak used to launch his leadership campaign on Twitter – in which he talked about how his mother came to the UK in the early 1960s “armed with hope for a better life” – has been viewed more than 8 million times.
So slick was this film that it raised suspicions that it had been in the works for some time – a suspicion shared by Mark Borkowski, who notes: “You don’t create this sort of campaign overnight”.
Team Sunak insist the video was put together in 24 hours, after Boris Johnson announced he was standing down.
Liz Truss’s social team, run by Reuben Solomon, former head of digital at the Conservative Party, and a protege of Boris Johnson’s favourite election strategist Sir Lynton Crosby, have played it safer so far.
The foreign secretary’s launch film is an attempt to project her as an international stateswoman. There is little about her own back story, and no spontaneous “behind the scenes” footage. There is much talk about “delivery”.
One similarity between the two candidates – and indeed all of the Tory MPs who threw their hats into the leadership ring – is their desire to be on first name terms with the electorate.
This is not a smart move, according to Anthony Ridge-Newman, associate professor of media and communication at Liverpool Hope University.
“Boris Johnson is one of the few politicians to ever be referred to commonly by his first name. The online campaign slogans, both Liz for Leader; and Ready for Rishi, are an attempt to emulate Boris’s first name appeal.
“Had either of the Tory leadership candidates come to me for my expert advice, I would have suggested foregrounding their last names, Sunak and Truss.
“It would help their campaigns appear more prime ministerial, which, if I know anything about the Conservative Party, is something they look for in their candidates.”
Rishi Sunak’s use of video has been more adventurous, with candid, supposedly off-the-cuff footage of him reacting to key moments. There was even an unexpected venture into comedy, with a parody of 1930s cinema newsreel, in a video trumpeting his Brexiteer credentials.
But neither candidate is a natural in front of the camera or the smartphone, in Ridge-Newman’s opinion, lacking the fluency of Boris Johnson or David Cameron.
“Sunak’s digital content is largely presenting him to be a regular guy,” which may be an attempt to neutralise recent media portrayals of him as a member of the wealthy “elite”. he says.
“Truss on the other hand is presenting herself in a more statuesque manner. The digital content comes across quite posed and generic, and plays on her role, time and successes as foreign secretary.
“While Truss does not come across as a digital native, her social media campaign seems as though it is most strategically steered towards the Conservative Party membership, who are the ones who will be voting to decide Britain’s next prime minister.”
One problem for Team Truss is that memes making fun of their candidate have been shared far more than anything produced by the campaign.
“She seems to be the one suffering from a lot of parody,” says Mark Borkowski.
So far, Google searches for “Liz Truss” have far outranked those for “Rishi Sunak”, but they are often accompanied by the word “cheese”.
This is a reference to a 2015 conference speech. in which he she says, in an impassioned voice: “We import two-thirds of our cheese. That. Is. A. Disgrace.”
Mr Sunak has also attracted derision on social media, with Labour supporters and others sharing a clip of him as a teenager talking about how he has no working class friends.
But ultimately this is not a campaign that will be won and lost on social media.
As the BBC’s Media Editor Amol Rajan has pointed out, the Tory membership are “a narrow section of the population that is much more attuned to newsprint than most Britons”.
And Liz Truss appears to have one of the UK’s biggest-selling papers The Daily Mail in her corner, which could prove decisive for her.
“In this old-fashioned newspaper election, the tenor of newsprint coverage over the next week could have a significant impact on who becomes prime minister – especially if the Times, Sun and Telegraph decide that, like the Mail, they know who they want, and give hell to whosoever they decide they don’t want,” says Amol Rajan.
Ranked: Tory leadership candidates’ branding efforts from best to worst
The Independent
Five Conservative Party leadership hopefuls are jostling to make into the final two in the race to be the next prime minister, having made their appeal to MPs for support.
Rishi Sunak launched his campaign with a video about his upbringing, Penny Mordaunt raised eyebrows with some bombastic flag-waving, and Liz Truss played it safe by setting out her stall as the “trust” candidate.
Mark Borkowski, one of Britain’s top PR experts, said some of the remaining contenders had launched impressively “slick” campaigns – but still had a long way to go in connecting with the country the way Boris Johnson once did.
The communications professional ranked the candidates’ branding efforts, giving The Independent his verdict on how their presentational style might fare with party members and the wider public.
1. Rishi Sunak
Borkowski said he was impressed by the video which launched Sunak’s campaign, focusing on his grandmother’s Indian roots and his family’s move to Britain in the sixties. “It was very slick, very well-made, very effective in communicating in his personal story to the public,” he said.
“Ready for Rishi is a decent slogan, the presentation is fresh, and his team will be very well-prepared to push out more on social media,” the expert said. “People like chancellors who give them money. He will be reminding people how he got them through the Covid crisis.”
He added: “Sunak is one of the best communicators since Tony Blair in terms of obfuscating difficult questions. But I just wonder how quickly will forget and forgive Boris Johnson and begin to miss him.”
2. Penny Mordaunt
Borkowski said Mordaunt has “a significant PR team behind her”, adding: “Like Rishi’s team, they’ve obviously turned to people outside of politics for help on presentation.”
He added: “The PM4PM phrase might seem a bit gauche – but it fits with how she understands the media, social media, and how to use digestible soundbites.”
Despite being mocked for her patriotic launch clip, the PR expert said it could be effective. “Ships in Portsmouth, military images, the flag – playing to the heritage stereotypes tunes people into the idea she can bring back the Thatcher era,” Borkowski said.
3. Liz Truss
Borkowski said: “Liz Truss is another one who is trying to channel Margaret Thatcher, in her case the idea of a strong, dependable leader.”
“It is a little bit safe, a little bit simple. She has had a record of never missing a photo opportunity and chance to promote herself. So I’m a bit surprised she has got a bit lost. I don’t think her campaign has gone down as well as her team would have expected.”
4. Tom Tugendhat
Borkowski praised the moderate outsider’s performance during the first week of the race. But he suggested the branding might be “a tad overly-contrived” for someone who should be playing the “authenticity and humility card”.
“It is a very American presentation,” he said. “It is slick. The phrase ‘Clean start’ certainly gets across the fact he wants us to move on from Boris Johnson. He’s fresh, and the branding reflects that. But it’s trying too hard, and in marketing terms, people tend to see through that.”
5. Kemi Badenoch
Borkowski also praised the anti-woke outsider’s efforts to drum up support on the right, but said the presentation – including the slogan Kemi for Prime Minister – “has not been particularly slick”.
He added: “You can see there’s not a big professional PR team there helping her. I think she has projected herself well. She’s clearly been appealing to MPs in the party, to get more MPs behind her, but it’s hard to see how she would project herself to the country on the basis of the campaign.”
He added that Suella Braverman, knocked out of the race on Thursday after launching her Suella 4 Leader campaign at the weekend, struggled to appeal beyond the party’s right-wing Brexiteers.
“Like Badenoch, Braverman proved to be a very authentic commentator, even if she didn’t have PR professionals behind her,” said Borkowski. “She didn’t try to be something she’s not. But she wasn’t able to appeal to the wider public.”
Ranked: Tory leadership candidates’ branding efforts from best to worst | The Independent
How Bradley Cooper and Huma Abedin are the new George and Amal Clooney
Page Six
As the handsome, blue-eyed hero of movies like “The Hangover” and “American Sniper,” Bradley Cooper could likely have his pick of starlets, models and influencers to romance.
So it’s no wonder there was intrigue in Hollywood when Page Six first revealed that he is quietly dating Huma Abedin: Hillary Clinton’s forever faithful chief of staff and the long-suffering former wife of disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner.
On the face of it, they might seem like an odd couple. The outgoing LA-based actor is now in the midst of directing and filming the high-minded Leonard Bernstein biopic “Maestro,” while enigmatic New Yorker Abedin has, for 25 years, been the keeper of secrets, optics and logistics for Clinton and trafficked in the policy-wonk world of Washington, DC.
But insiders and experts say that, while it is still in the early days, the relationship boosts both of their profiles — and that Cooper, 47, and Abedin, 45, could become the next George and Amal Clooney-style power couple: a meeting of Hollywood and politics.
In September 2014, Hollywood heartthrob George married British barrister Amal in a high-profile wedding in Venice, Italy. That pairing seemed unlikely at first — George, after all, had previously been linked to a string of little-known actresses and TV presenters (Elisabetta Canalis, Krista Allen, Lisa Snowdon) as well as a professional wrestler (Stacy Keibler). If the man had a type, it was hardly “lawyer specializing in international human rights.”
“There is no question that having Amal in my life changed everything for me,” George, now 61, said in 2020. “It was the first time that everything that she did and everything about her was infinitely more important than anything about me.”
Now, of course, it all makes sense.
Their pairing led to the Amal Clooney Effect, which flipped stereotypical relationship dynamics and introduced the idea of a trophy husband for an accomplished, intellectual woman.
Amal, 44, has taught at Columbia Law School and represented such clients as Nobel Peace Prize winner Nadia Murad. She has addressed the UN on matters including genocide against the Yazidi people, sexual violence as a weapon of war and, in April, urging punishment for war crimes being committed by Russia against Ukraine.
George’s fame has brought a new level of attention to Amal’s work without making her seem frivolous, while she’s lent him a sense of gravitas that’s hard to come by in Hollywood. Especially for a man who, while trying to bolster a serious directing career with films such as “Good Night, and Good Luck,” is still mocked for the nipples on his 1997 Batman outfit.
Since marrying Amal —who shares 5-year-old twins Alexander and Ella with George — the actor has focused more on his humanitarian work. Together, they founded the Clooney Foundation for Justice in 2016, which led to calls for him to enter the political arena. (He has publicly declined, in his smooth George Clooney way.)
He charmingly knows how to play her reputation to his favor, too. In 2018, the Oscar winner took the podium at Variety’s Power of Women luncheon by introducing himself as “Hi, I’m George, and I’m Amal Clooney’s husband.”
Now, global branding and public relations expert Mark Borkowski told The Post of Abedin and Cooper: “It has all the potential of having one of the most interesting power relationships we’ve seen since Amal and Clooney.”
For one thing, it could be a chance for Abedin to finally shake her reputation as Anthony Weiner’s beleaguered ex-wife and Clinton’s lackey.
“She has all this back history: Hillary, the husband and the laptop,” Borkowski said, referring to how, just before the 2016 presidential election, an investigation of Weiner’s computer led to a reopened FBI investigation into Clinton’s use of private emails when she was secretary of state.
“Like a moth to a flame she is drawn to fame and celebrity, and dating a hot celebrity is a good way to show she is still relevant,” one political insider added. “It makes her current. Her book [2021 memoir ‘Both/And‘] got good reviews, and now she’s moving on from this terrible marriage.”
As for Cooper, “It does give Bradley a platform to be seen more seriously —and to take on more cerebral matters rather than the usual showbiz piffle.”
Nine-time Academy Award nominee Cooper has vented his frustration at not being taken seriously. Speaking on Jason Bateman, Will Arnett, and Sean Hayes’ “SmartLess” podcast in June, he said he was still treated like an impostor among the Hollywood elite, admitting he has wondered: “What the f–k is this town?
In 2018, he told the New York Times how he was infuriated when filmmakers would try to cast him in the same roles. “Because you’re like, ‘I have these big dreams, and I feel these things.’ Is that all wrong? Like, shame on anybody that’s going to tell you who you are. That angers me. It’s like, someone’s going to tell you who you are, what you’re capable of … They just truly believe that each person gets one dimension.”
An influential Hollywood source said that Cooper put his “heart and soul” into directing and starring in 2018’s “A Star Is Born” with Lady Gaga — only to have it ripped to shreds. “Bradley was devastated not to win the Oscar for that movie. He put everything he had into it.”
The Hollywood source added: “While whoever anyone is dating does not guarantee Oscars or a movie hit, it can change the perspective on someone as an artist in Hollywood.
“Huma has a vast network of very wealthy and powerful contacts and world leaders. She can make important introductions for Bradley which could be a valuable source of financing for the independent movies he wants to make.”
Borkowski, meanwhile, noted that “Having a devout Muslim partner would project him in a different light, in terms of her global impact.”
Cooper has also long been a Democratic supporter, having donated to Clinton’s campaign in 2008, been an outspoken advocate of Obamacare and appearing at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
But political insiders say his relationship with Abedin may well boost his stature in Democratic and wider political circles. Cooper, a self-confessed “fan of politics,” was asked in 2012 if he would ever run for office. “I don’t know, I actually think it is a very noble profession,” he said. When pressed for a more direct answer, he said, “Yeah,” adding the job comes with “tons of respect.” (Unless, of course, your name is Weiner.)
One top Democratic insider said, “Huma is a very smart woman who has a lot of powerful contacts across the world. This relationship will open up doors for Bradley Cooper that were previously shut.
“The idea of him running seems a long shot at the moment, but you could see him start to appear on panels or advisory committees.”
And besides, the political insider added, “Let me tell you something — nobody is more entitled to go out and have some fun than Huma Abedin.”
How Bradley Cooper and Huma Abedin are the new George and Amal Clooney (pagesix.com)
Billion dollar Boris? Nigel Farage says PM will earn MILLIONS in US because of his close friendship with Trump – and can use Carrie to woo the Bidens
Daily Mail
Boris Johnson will make so much money from US TV networks, books and big businesses when he leaves Downing Street he ‘might not even bother with the UK’, experts told MailOnline today.
His tenure in No 10 will soon be over and the outgoing Prime Minister is tipped to make £100million – especially if he stays married to Carrie.
Mrs Johnson’s passion for net zero has rubbed off on her husband and softened his image, as well as helping him ‘bond’ with Joe Biden and his First Lady Jill – a new link that will supercharge his potential earnings.
Nigel Farage told MailOnline that the outgoing PM will look to conquer America and rake in huge sums from its TV channels and speech circuit. A move to the US could even happen.
The Brexiteer said: ‘I was on Fox News, Fox Business and MSNBC last night and told them: “You can expect to see a lot of Boris, very very soon”. He was born in New York and got on well with both the last US Presidents.
‘Trump liked him and with the help of Carrie he has bonded with Biden on net zero. They have seemed very pally at the G7, and not being tied just to Trump will open him up to the JP Morgans of this world. The money on offer for him in the US is so huge he might not even bother with the UK’.
PR guru and brand expert Mark Borkowski, who believes Boris could make £100million in the next five years if he stays with Carrie, said today that leaving No 10 now would help maximise his earnings.
He said: ‘Boris Johnson should leave Downing Street now’ to ‘unshackle the bonds and grab the cash’. ‘There will be TV appearances, lecture tours, especially in the US. He has an obvious link with Trump and Americans will understand how he has tried to grip on to the rump of power like Trump did’, adding: ‘Remember he has a large family to support’.
Mr Johnson says he will leave Downing Street by the Autumn – opening up endless opportunities to make ‘cash by the barrowful’ like his predecessors and he could soon rival Tony Blair as Britain’s richest living former PM.
And the odds of him appearing on a reality show such as Strictly or I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here have also been slashed to as little as 12/1 if he chooses to quit as a MP.
Mr Borkowski said: ‘Boris is going to make loads and loads of money – tens of millions of pounds or more. Imagine how many people will want to read the memoirs about Brexit, Partygate and his final days in No 10.
‘He and Carrie are not Posh and Becks but she is no fool – together they are a force to be reckoned with – and I expect him to milk every ounce out of it’, adding: ‘Remember he has a large family to support’.
Tony Blair is estimated to be worth up to £100million – with a family property portfolio worth around £35million.
If and when Mr Johnson writes his memoirs he can expect to be paid at least £4.5million in advance, based on what David Cameron earned from his in 2018, and would likely earn £100,000 per speech – the rate believed to be charged by Theresa May for some engagements.
Before marrying Carrie Symonds, the Tory leader was forced to split his £6.5million fortune including cash and assets such as their family home when his second wife Marina divorced him after 25 years.
Boris is said to have raged to aides about his now wife ‘buying gold wallpaper’, saying he couldn’t afford the No 10 flat renovations that cost ‘tens and tens of thousands’.
And when he entered No 10 he had to give up his £275,000-a-year for a weekly Daily Telegraph column and concentrate on work rather than writing history books. He will likely have the time to start this work again, probably at a much-higher rate.
David Cameron is believed to be worth around £37.8million, contributed in part to by the wealth of his wife Samantha, a successful businesswoman who is the eldest daughter of a Baronet.
Since resigning as Prime Minister in 2016, David Cameron has earned £1.6m in private work including consultancy and speaking engagements. He denied claims by the BBC that he made £7million from Greensill Capital before the finance company collapsed.
Gordon Brown, who after years of trying became PM in a short-lived reign, is said to be worth around £10million. While he was in Parliament he was earning up to £1.3million-a-year for speeches, but the former chancellor didn’t keep a penny and donated it to charities supported by him and his wife Sarah.
Mr Johnson’s predecessor Theresa May, 65, has reportedly earned more than £2.1 million on the lucrative speaking circuit in the three years since leaving Downing Street.
Theresa May was paid £109,000 for a five-hour speaking engagement, it was revealed last month.
According to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, the former Prime Minister received the sum in May for a speaking engagement with the Danish Bar and Law Society in Copenhagen.
Other earnings declared on the register include an advance payment of approximately £160,370 from JP Morgan Chase in April 2020 for two speaking engagements which were cancelled.
Both were rescheduled and took place on 18 March 2021 and 16 November 2021.
She also received around £46,800 for a virtual speaking event from Cuyahoga Community College Foundation in Cleveland, Ohio. It lasted four hours, according to the register.
ANDY BOMBSHELL Prince Andrew’s sex attack accuser Virginia Giuffre is working with Monica Lewinsky’s PR & ‘may do Oprah interview’
The Sun
PRINCE Andrew’s accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre is working with Monica Lewinsky’s PR to craft her image after her $14million settlement with the Duke.
Ms Giuffre, 38, is being represented by New York-based Dini von Mueffling, The Sun can reveal.
PR experts said she could now follow the example of the former White House intern who had an affair with Bill Clinton and has rehabilitated her image.
Giuffre could even do an interview with Oprah Winfrey like Prince Harry and Meghan Markle – a potential nightmare for Andrew.
After settling her case with the Duke, Giuffre was said to have been subject to a gagging order until The Queen’s Jubilee took place in June 2022.
Giuffre has the right to make a statement at the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell on June 28.
In a victim impact statement submitted ahead of the sentencing, Giuffre said the former socialite deserved to spend the rest of her life “trapped in a cage.”
It comes after Maxwell was convicted of recruiting and trafficking underage girls – including Giuffre – to the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
She faces up to 50 years in jail and this week her lawyers blamed her abusive father for making her “vulnerable” to Epstein’s manipulation.
Giuffre looks set to become a spokeswoman for victims of sexual assault, according to the website for her charity SOAR, or Speak Out, Act, Reclaim.
It says: “Through media appearances, speaking engagements, and public education campaigns, SOAR raises awareness and ensures that the voices of survivors are featured in the fight to end sex trafficking.”
The PR team has masterminded the change in Lewinsky’s image with speeches, TV appearances, and favorable articles.
Lewinsky penned an essay for Vanity Fair magazine about her treatment in the late 1990s and said in a TED talk she was “patient zero” for online bullying.
She was also the subject of an article in Vogue magazine which was titled: “We all owe Monica Lewinsky an apology.”
Lewinsky was a producer on a TV series about her life called Impeachment: American Crime Story starring Beanie Feldstein as Lewinsky and Clive Owen as Bill Clinton.
Last week she weighed in on the Amber Heard v Johnny Depp trial, saying it “stoked the flames of misogyny and the celebrity circus.”
She also blasted the conservative majority on the Supreme Court which overturned the Roe v Wade ruling on abortion.
Should Giuffre, who currently lives in Australia with her family, embark on the same route, it could mean years of discomfort for Andrew.
She could hit the speaking circuit and write a book after already penning a manuscript called the “Billionaire Boys Club” which features the disgraced royal.
CHAT SHOW DEBUT
Amber Melville-Brown, a reputation and media lawyer with Withersworldwide, said that “it is not impossible that Ms Giuffre will find herself on the chat-show sofa.”
She said Oprah’s couch has “played host to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle as they sat down very publicly to spill some private royal family beans in cozy tête-à-tête with the chat show queens and their millions of viewers.
“Ironic if the next indentation in the sofa is made by Ms Giuffre, who is standing up for herself and others as the settlement statement says, has made such a lasting indentation in the reputation of Harry’s uncle Andrew.”
UK-based PR expert Mark Borkowski said: “My advice would be to make sure she has a purpose and to help people.
“I’m not sure what the world would feel about somebody who has generated so much money going into the public arena and continuing to fight her battle.
“It’s more about others who have been through a similar struggle.
“If she goes on a further money-making exercise would we have the same sympathy for her?”
US PR expert Howard Bragman, founder of LaBrea Media said: “There are a lot worse models to follow than Monica Lewinsky who has been elegant and classy in the way she has handled herself.”
The Sun has reached out to Dini von Mueffling for comment.
Why Prince Andrew may be out of public sight — for now
CBC News
It was described as a “family decision.”
But there is a sense that it may have been more like an edict or decree, with some in the Royal Family — particularly Princes Charles and William — doing whatever they could to ensure someone else — Prince Andrew — stayed well out of public view.
Andrew, who settled a civil sexual abuse lawsuit recently and had repeatedly denied the allegations at the heart of it, was at private events associated with the Order of the Garter, a high-profile annual royal occasion. But there was no sign of him in the public procession associated with the ceremony the other day.
While it’s hard to know exactly what calculations played out behind palace walls, it’s widely reported that Charles and William were behind the decision to keep Andrew out of sight on Garter Day — a move that came after an order of service for the event was printed, indicating he would be in the procession.
“It’s very clear that the direct line of the Royal Family is not interested in scandals involving junior members of the Royal Family overshadowing their own work and public role,” Toronto-based royal author and historian Carolyn Harris said in an interview.
This all comes in a period of transition for the House of Windsor, with signs pointing to a slimmed-down monarchy in the future, focused particularly on those in the direct line of succession.
At the same time, there are hints that the 62-year-old Andrew, who now sits at No. 9 in the line, may want to resume some kind of public role after having lost his military affiliations and royal patronages amid the sex abuse lawsuit.
“Prince Andrew’s disappearance from public life shows that the Royal Family is taking this seriously,” said Harris.
“However, there has been some evidence that Prince Andrew is eager to retain at least some of his military commissions, for instance. So it’s clearly been a struggle to ensure that he stays completely out of the public eye.”
Andrew’s reputation sank like a stone, particularly after his disastrous 2019 interview with the BBC over his friendship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. There’s little sense it has recovered.
“He just doesn’t get it,” British PR expert Mark Borkowski said in an interview.
“He clearly thinks that he has so much more to give and … he’s not recognizing that the public opinion has banished him.”
Charles and William see that, said Borkowski, “and what the Royal Family has clearly telegraphed through all these recent celebrations … is that it’s going to be a very different Royal Family under Charles. [And it will be an] even more slimmed-down version of the Royal Family that will be presided over by King William.”
In a sense, Andrew is “embedding an image of an old Royal Family,” said Borkowski. And in some ways, he said, people “respect more what Charles and William are trying to do to modernize the Royal Family,” even as Andrew is like an “albatross around the neck.”
Still, there is the question of just what Andrew’s future might hold for him.
“It remains to be seen if Prince Andrew will be completely ignored or if the Royal Family will simply find a way to keep him occupied out of the public eye,” said Harris, noting for example the possibility of having him manage royal estates, such as Balmoral or Sandringham.
All this comes as there are signals that two other junior members of the Royal Family, who also courted controversy, will retire from public life.
Reports suggest Queen Elizabeth’s first cousin, Prince Michael of Kent, and his wife, Princess Michael of Kent, will officially step back next month, as he turns 80 on July 4.
Prince Michael’s ties to Russia came under scrutiny after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February. He gave up his role as patron of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce, along with returning an Order of Friendship award he received from the Kremlin in 2009.
“Prince Michael’s connections to Russia have attracted particular controversy in recent months,” said Harris. “And we’ve seen that the main line of succession simply doesn’t want the press focused on scandals related to junior members of the Royal Family and to keep the focus on the direct line of succession.”
Prince William readily acknowledges he “may seem like one of the most unlikely advocates” for those who are homeless.
But the second in line for the throne says he’s “always believed in using my platform to help tell those stories and to bring attention and action to those who are struggling.”
“I plan to do that now I’m turning 40 even more than I have in the past,” he wrote recently in The Big Issue, a magazine in support of those who are homeless, long-term unemployed or trying to avoid going into debt.
William, whose 40th birthday was on Tuesday, went incognito in central London earlier this month, selling copies of the magazine. Writing in its most recent issue, he said he “wanted to experience the other side.”
In doing so, he was sending some of the clearest indications yet about how he sees his role and the future of the monarchy.
“We see William highlighting causes that are important to him and also emphasizing that members of the Royal Family can make a difference without necessarily being at a high-profile event with numerous photographers,” Harris said.
Borkowski said that William is “defining a real sense of who he might be and sending signals about who that person is going to be, which is a lot more open, less governed by the … old ways.”
Along with signals about William himself, there’s been a lot of focus recently on William’s role within the Royal Family.
“There’s a very strong emphasis on the Duke of Cambridge’s support for his father, the Prince of Wales,” said Harris, noting they both attended the state opening of the British Parliament and were on the parade ground for Trooping the Colour during events to mark Queen Elizabeth’s Platinum Jubilee earlier this month.
More and more, says Harris, we’re seeing events with multiple generations of the Royal Family that “emphasizes continuity at a time when there has been conflict with junior members of the Royal Family.”
“There’s a very strong emphasis on the main line of succession all working together,” she said, along with a higher profile for William’s family.
The first joint portrait of William and his wife, Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, was unveiled Thursday. Their children, who have made relatively few public appearances, were front and centre during several Jubilee events and appearances on the balcony of Buckingham Palace.
“We’re also seeing William’s role as the father of the next generation of the Royal Family very much in the public eye,” said Harris.
With the increased prominence of his family, the political and the personal are coming closer together for William.
“That Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis were very prominent at the Platinum Jubilee … symbolizes four generations of the Royal Family, but it also led to a lot of scrutiny of the children and their demeanour at these events,” said Harris.
Was Prince Louis, 4, tired because he was up past his bedtime? Is Prince George, 8, naturally shy and would this have been a lot for him to be in the public eye?
“We see both the royal children being there as part of the continuity of the Royal Family, but we also see the public connecting with William and Catherine as parents, and debating and discussing their children in that context,” said Harris.
Why Prince Andrew may be out of public sight — for now | CBC News
Prince Charles risks alienating younger generations over accepting cash from Qatari politician
The i
Prince Charles risks “alienating” people who are already sceptical about the relevance of the Royal Family following allegations he accepted a suitcase containing a million euros in cash from a former Qatari prime minister, an expert has said.
It emerged over the weekend that Prince Charles had accepted three charity cash donations amounting to €3m from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani between 2011 and 2015.
Mark Borkowski, a leading PR consultant, said revelations about bags of money being passed between a former Qatari prime minister and the future king brought into question the Royal Family’s ability to modernise and to appeal to younger generations who prioritise “values and authenticity”.
There is no suggestion of illegality involving the donations, first reported in The Sunday Times, from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim, the former prime minister of Qatar between 2007 and 2013.
Sources close to Prince Charles insist that all the correct processes were followed, with the money given to the Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund (PWCF).
In a statement, it said: “Charitable donations received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim were passed immediately to one of the Prince’s charities who carried out the appropriate governance and have assured us that all the correct processes were followed.”
According to the newspaper report, a holdall of €1m was exchanged during a meeting at Clarence House in 2015.
Sir Ian Cheshire, chairman of PWCF, which aims to transform lives and build sustainable communities, told the Sunday Times that “there was no failure of governance”.
He said giving cash had been the donor’s choice and that auditors signed off on the donation.
i has also contacted the PWFC for comment.
Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland Secretary, said Charles’ handling of the cash was not a Government issue but he was confident the donations would have gone through “proper due process”.
He told the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme: “I’m confident having had some dealings with charities, The Prince’s Trust, The Prince’s Foundation, around the palace in the past myself, that these will have gone through proper due process.”
Despite there being no suggestion of wrongdoing, Mr Borkowski said the incident was a problem for the Royal Family, which stands “at a really delicate point in its future”.
Mr Borkowski added it was “a generation that really wants to focus on values and authenticity”.
“It’s not the boomers that you’ve got to convince about the future Royal Family, it’s another generation who do not see its relevance.”
Mr Borkowski added: “It’s a very, very significantly negative story after all the celebrations with Jubilee and what the Royal Family stands for. What does this mean?
“It will be interesting to see how the palace deals with it… because it can’t be ignored.”
The Sunday Times report comes as the Prince’s Foundation is under investigation by the Metropolitan Police over an alleged cash-for-honours scandal.
Clarence House previously said Prince Charles had “no knowledge” of the alleged cash-for-honours.
Why ‘best TV show ever’ The Wire is still a game changer after 20 years
The Express
They were two struggling, unknown British actors trying their luck in America, both auditioning for parts on the same new, low-budget TV crime series – and both struggling to convince the producers that they could convincingly play a murderous Baltimore gangster and a troubled police detective.
Fast forward 20 years and that gangster, Idris Elba, and cop, Dominic West, are two of the most bankable stars in the business and the show that cast them, The Wire, has attained the status of legend, regularly cited as the best TV show ever made.
Its reputation has steadily grown since it was first broadcast 20 years ago this month.
Just six months ago it beat off competition from the likes of Mad Men, Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones to top a BBC poll of critics to the title of “best TV show of the 21st century”.
And it’s gaining a fresh wave of attention because creator David Simon has returned to the same subject matter for his new show.
Described as almost a Wire spin-off, We Own This City has just launched on Sky Atlantic.
In The Wire’s early days, filming the first series on a shoestring, this kind of success looked wildly improbable – but for the two British stars the immediate problem was simply staying in character.
West recalled: “I didn’t realise he [Elba] was English initially, because he was talking the whole time in American. I was chatting to him, and eventually he said, ‘Look, you’ve got to stop talking in that English accent because you’re ****ing me up’. “
Elba added: “There was only one scene where we actually worked together, and as soon as he [West] walks in, he was talking in his English accent, and I started talking in my English accent, and I said, ‘mate, we’re never going to be able to pull this off’.
“It was really hard working with an English actor when you’re both playing Americans.”
Yet they went on to become key characters that made the whole show work – finding great personal success along the way.
But as well as launching these two stellar careers and steadily growing a huge international fan base among viewers and critics alike, The Wire’s wider legacy was changing how we watch TV.
Media consultant Mark Borkowski believes it practically invented the trend for binge-watching. “It arrived in the UK complete with five seasons to get stuck into,” he recalls.
“There was no marketing as such, but it had these very strong word-of-mouth recommendations. It would draw you in and you’d be hooked, staying up into the early hours of the morning watching episode after episode.
“Suddenly you weren’t dependent on the whims of schedulers. It was a real gamechanger in how people watched TV.”
It gives some indication of The Wire’s scope that its cast featured an Old Etonian like West alongside former gangsters, including a real-life murderer. Felicia Pearson, who played killer drug enforcer Snoop, served time for second-degree homicide before becoming an actor.
West’s Jimmy McNulty was as close as it came to a central character, yet even he isn’t in every episode. As characters came and went, some said the true star of the show was the city of Baltimore itself.
Named after police wiretap technology, the show broke new ground in other ways – being, for instance, the first major show to have a predominantly black cast as well as compelling gay characters like Omar Little, who made a high risk living robbing drug dealers.
Simon describes the show as a “Greek tragedy for the new millennium” and it certainly featured plenty of tragedy.
Teen drug dealers, cops bent and straight, gangsters, corrupt politicians, lying journalists, struggling teachers and dockers, all strained to live their messy lives in the grim city of Baltimore where life is hard and cheap and tough breaks come with the territory.
Success came slowly: the show initially had such low ratings – only one million viewers watched the first series – that HBO very nearly cancelled it. But gradually its vast canvas drew a vast audience.
Data from website Fandom suggests its ongoing popularity continues to be driven by word-of-mouth: fans of The Wire spend more time reading about and discussing it than many top-trending new shows – and viewers flocked to finally try or rewatch it during the pandemic lockdown.
Paul Kane, who runs Instagram page The Wire Fans for enthusiasts, explains: “The Wire isn’t the easiest show to get into. It doesn’t hold your hand. But even after a third, fourth or fifth watch, many fans still find details missed on previous viewings, making for a rich viewing experience.”
TV reviewer Hugo Rifkind says its depth and complexity is perhaps what most explains its enduring popularity. He said: “The thing about The Wire was that it really could hold its own with any other bit of storytelling of the modern age.
“I don’t just mean that it was good telly. I mean that it was up there with Nobel Prizewinning literature.
“It did this, though, without making any compromises as a TV show at all.”
Rifkind admits it required concentration to follow the plot, hence creator David Simon’s quote “**** the casual viewer”, but says it also had “as much guns and sex and melodrama as you could hope for”.
TV writer turned film producer Ali Catterall says Simon’s latest show has a big reputation to live up to because its predecessor changed TV.
“When The Wire first dropped, it was an immediate milestone for telly drama – though it took a while to catch on. That something so sprawling and complex but also, well, arresting, could find a devoted, loyal audience seems completely normal these days (particularly when you don’t have to wait a week for it any more).
“Long-running shows like Breaking Bad would grab enormous audience shares in The Wire’s wake.
“Now, of course, in the age of box-set binges and streaming, this kind of ambitious long-form TV drama is commonplace.”
Simon has a glowing reputation on the back of The Wire but has never quite repeated its success.
This rail strike is also a battle for public opinion – and No 10 is fighting dirty
The Guardian
Kate Bush’s atop the charts, inflation is soaring, we face a cost-of-living crisis and a major impending rail strike. No wonder the internet and the papers are absorbed by a casual similarity to the economic crises of the 1970s.
And that matters. When it comes to this week’s rail strikes, that comparison is a gift for a government PR machine that thrives on negativity and rarely needs a second invitation to sling (often slanderous) insults at its opposition.
It pushes at an open door. Negativity and criticism are intellectually easier to digest and decidedly more media-friendly than equivocation, so the simple, traditional Conservative anti-union messaging of ‘greedy’, ‘entitled’, ‘self-serving’ and ‘shutting the country down’ would already have a high chance of success even if fed to a national media that was less gleefully supportive and compliant than most of the current lot. With so much of the media as it is, the No 10 PR machine has everything in its favour.
Pursuing the line that the strikes are “taking us back to the heart of the 70s” is a potent weapon against the unions, and the opposition, as the woes of the 1970s took place under a Labour government. In drawing this parallel, the government connects the strikes to hard times past and reminds the public of previous failures on Labour’s watch … while distracting from their own plethora of crises and scandals. It’s their kind of win-win.
This makes an already challenging situation harder for the unions as they seek to maintain their action and battle for the public support they’ll need to sustain it. They call for solidarity in a battle against a neglectful and ideologically zealous government, and in the face of a historic cost-of-living crisis. They voice justification for the strikes as necessary to ensure fair treatment and the safe and smooth operation of the railways.
Both arguments could gain some traction in what is obviously a febrile situation. One poll on Tuesday, conducted by YouGov, suggested more people (45%) oppose the rail strikes than support them (37%).
But in another, released last night by Savanta ComRes, 58% of the 2,300 people questioned said the strikes are justified, with 34% deeming them unjustified and 66% saying the government has done too little to prevent them. This suggests there is still much to play for, as one might hope when the union’s main obstacle is a stricken, badly run government with a derided leader and an awful record.
But from a PR professional point of view, the obvious challenge for the union campaign is still its choice of communication channels and optics for these messages. Mick Lynch, the general secretary, is ubiquitous, as one would expect, and obviously determined to support his members. He is practised and combative, as we saw in his series of tart exchanges with Sky’s Kay Burley yesterday that became a hit on social media. He is very much the face of their campaign. But via these important media appearances, he sometimes evokes the cliched union leader from another age.
His supporters, and many neutrals have been lauding him. But much of the public he needs to persuade sees a scratchy figure. The government peddles its “dragging us back to the 70s” dogma, knowing it to be simplistic – probably downright untrue – but too often the union risks providing sounds and images to bolster that characterisation. If the battle is to be fought in the court of reasonable public opinion, the union has to think harder about how this looks to the undecided.
It should look to the present and the future. It will always be difficult for a rail union – or any other union – to get a fair hearing on the government’s home turf – ie most of the national print and broadcast media – but there is an opportunity on new media channels like TikTok that are strongholds for anti-government sentiment, particularly among the young. Yet so far, social media discussion of the strikes mostly seems to involve short rehashed clips of (generally pro-government or anti-union) traditional news coverage. No ‘explainers’ by cool young, progressive Gen Z influencers; just Piers Morgan and Kay Burley (again) lambasting or tussling with union reps.
It may be a rigged game; still, it’s winnable. But by failing to deviate from the old methods, and to think about the tone, union leaders are making the PR battle much harder than it needs to be.
Others currently weighing up strike and other dispute options should take note. It would be an unfortunate achievement indeed to squander a valid case through lack of strategy, and to allow Johnson and his coterie to parade as true guardians of the public good.
‘No way back for Heard in Hollywood’: Amber Heard faces career ruin AND bankruptcy as she struggles to pay Johnny Depp $8m after losing bloody six-week court battle that has left her ‘too icky for a studio’
Daily Mail
Amber Heard is facing career and financial ruin after losing a blockbuster defamation case to ex-husband Johnny Depp – which left her with an $8.35 million damages bill.
Experts have suggested that there is ‘no way back for Heard in Hollywood’ adding that the dramatic six-week court battle has left the actress, 36, ‘too icky for a studio’, raising questions about her future earnings.
The actress said throughout the trial that her profile has been badly damaged by the case, revealing how Depp suing her kept her from fulfilling a pledge to donate $7million to the American Civil Liberties Union. Entertainment industry expert Kathryn Arnold also testified that Heard lost out on possible earnings of up to $50 million.
Heard faces a slew of problems in light of her trial defeat. In terms of her career, Hollywood bosses are unlikely to consider her for roles going forward. Financially, the actress and witnesses alluded to her money troubles, while the huge outpouring of support for Depp may lead to brands and companies avoiding her.
Heard may also now struggle to honour various financial commitments, including to groups like the ACLU and the financial burden may curtail an activism career that has seen her support women’s rights organisation.
The damages bill may also force her to sell off assets, including a $570,000 rural hideaway in Yucca Valley and a Range Rover she kept in the divorce from Depp.
The main question, however, will be how Heard will cover the huge damages bill, which she has 30 years to pay. Attorney Sandra Spurgeon of Spurgeon Law Group in Lexington, Kentucky, suggested one possibility could be Depp waiving the bill or negotiating a lower amount.
She told CBS MoneyWatch: ‘He’s [Depp] in the driver’s seat right now. For an individual who doesn’t have the ability to pay the judgment and no ability to post the bond, then there is a real issue if the winning party intends to execute the judgment.’
However, if he does force her to pay the full bill, another scenario could see Heard appeal the damages. Though an appeal with a new judge might work in her favour, she will still have to present the full amount while the appeal is considered – something that could force her to file for bankruptcy.
A third option, according to CBS News legal contributor Jessica Levinson, is that her future earnings could be garnished – meaning a portion of her salary from future films or TV shows could go to Depp until the debt is covered.
Ms Levinson said: ‘That’s not an unusual situation where somebody says, ‘I don’t have – I can’t fulfill this,’ and so I certainly think because she has earning potential part of her wages could be garnished as a result.’
However, the court could decided that the prospect of future work is bleak for Heard, after Hollywood experts said that the actress is unlikely to be considered by studio bosses in light of the defamation fight.
Some have suggested that she may even pivot to a career in advocacy for victims of domestic abuse – though it is difficult to see how this could help fund her legal issues.
Heard previously said she had to ‘fight’ to retain her role as Mera in the sequel to the 2018 superhero film Aquaman, and that she has been cast in only one other film in the last two years. The role of Mera has netted her around $3 million.
British PR expert Mark Borkowski said: ‘There is no way back for Heard in Hollywood. If you’re sitting there making a movie or thinking about casting it, are you going to hire her?
‘Look at the huge outcry about Aquaman 2 [where a petition to have her kicked off the film hit four million signatures last night]. The trial pollutes any marketing or PR to launch a film.’
Former entertainment lawyer Matthew Belloni, who writes about the business of Hollywood for the newsletter Puck, said: ‘Both of them will work again, but I think it will be a while before a major studio will consider them `safe´ enough to bet on.
‘The personal baggage that was revealed in this trial was just too icky for a studio to want to deal with.’
Reputation management consultant Alexandra Villa of In House PR told the Mirror: ‘Amber’s career appears to be in crisis right now. What has happened will frighten the big Hollywood studios. Smaller productions too will be wary about investing money into Amber for any project.
‘In my opinion, at this moment, producers will have to consider carefully whether they will hire her as the momentum of public opinion has shifted against her.
‘People forget Hollywood studios are businesses. They hire stars on whether they will bring in profits or not. She has a mountain to climb. Much of her testimony has holes in it and she may need to address those issues.’
Heard is also facing a petition to remove her from Aquaman in light of her battle with Depp.
The petition is closing in on its 4.5 million signature target, currently standing on 4.48 million.
Meanwhile, Spotted Media chief executive Janet Comenos said film producers are keenly monitoring data to see what the public think about Depp and Heard.
Comenos said: ‘It has come up in several conversations of ours with producers; they are curious to understand if there’s a discrepancy between the actions taken by the studios and the public’s opinion.
‘I think the results show pretty clearly that Johnny Depp is extremely hireable and that it would be a risk to a production company to hire Amber Heard because of the precipitous drop in appeal that she has had since the beginning of the trial.’
Eric Rose, a crisis management and communications expert in Los Angeles, called the trial, which lasted six weeks with a one week break, a ‘classic murder-suicide,’ in terms of damage to both careers.
‘From a reputation-management perspective, there can be no winners,’ he said. ‘They´ve bloodied each other up. It becomes more difficult now for studios to hire either actor because you´re potentially alienating a large segment of your audience who may not like the fact that you have retained either Johnny or Amber for a specific project because feelings are so strong now.’
Heard comes from a conservative Christian family from Texas of modest wealth and dropped out of school to pursue her acting career.
Her net worth is also unclear, with Fox Business reporting it as $8 million, while others have reported it closer to $3 million.
Heard’s finances were called into question following her divorce from Depp after it was revealed that she made several demands to support her lifestyle.
Among them, she asked for the ‘exclusive use and possession’ of the black Range Rover she drove, with Depp continuing to make payments towards the vehicle.
She also wanted to carry on living rent free in three Los Angeles penthouses she and her friends were staying in, all owned by Depp, and asked for her estranged husband to cover $125,000 of her legal and accounting fees.
Eyebrows were also raised during the trial when it was revealed she had moved into a $570,000 rural hideaway in Yucca Valley – far away from the glitz and glam of Los Angeles.
Heard grew up in Austin, Texas with modest finances, together with sister Whitney.
Her parents David Heard and Paige Parsons were conservative Catholics – though Heard became an atheist after her best friend died in a car accident when she was 16.
At 17, she dropped out of school to pursue a modelling career in New York, before switching to acting in Los Angeles.
It’s unclear if the actress is single or in a relationship, though she has been supported throughout the trial by ‘special friend’ Eve Barlow, the daughter of a Scottish GP.
Ms Barlow has tweeted support for Heard during the trial, tweeting ‘leave Amber Heard alone’ day before the judgment was delivered.
In April 2021, Heard also surprisingly announced the birth of her daughter Oonagh Paige Heard via surrogate.
Heard faces career ruin AND bankruptcy after Johnny Depp battle | Daily Mail Online
Dior is selling a bottle of Johnny Depp’s fragrance every few seconds
Screenshot
No matter what verdict is announced regarding the Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard defamation trial, it’s undeniable that the Pirates of the Caribbean star’s film career was impacted by both the allegations from and the ongoing court battle with his ex-wife. That being said, when it comes to the world of luxury fragrance, it seems Depp he still as popular as ever, if not more, since it’s been revealed that Dior apparently sold a bottle of Sauvage—the perfume the actor is the face of—every three seconds in 2021.
The claim was first shared by Twitter user John Pompliano who found the information in a January 2022 article from Marie Claire where the publication reported the mind-blowing statistic. This even makes Sauvage the best-selling perfume in both the male and female categories.
Unlike Marie Claire, Pompliano took the research one step further by calculating just how much money Depp’s infamous fragrance was making Dior, “Despite most labels dropping Johnny Depp, @Dior decided to stick with him. Why?” he wrote in the same tweet.
“They sell a bottle of his fragrance ‘Sauvage’ every 3 seconds. At $160 a bottle, that’s over $4.5 million a day in sales,” Pompliano concluded.
We’re talking big money here, which explains why Dior has been ‘standing by’ Depp the whole time—not because it ‘was the only brand that believed him’ as so many fans like to speculate on TikTok, but simply because the actor, even when ostracized, was still making it a heck lot of money.
It also suggests that being dumped by Disney and Warner Bros. didn’t lead Depp to complete bankruptcy. After losing a libel case against The Sun in 2020 after the tabloid called him a “wife beater” in a published article, he was fired from the highly anticipated movie, Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore.
At the time, there were several calls for Dior to follow suit. Despite Depp having been the face of Sauvage fragrance since its launch in 2015, and as reported by The Guardian, a spokesperson for the Advertising Standards Authority said, “We have received a total of 11 complaints about this ad with the complainants believing that Johnny Depp shouldn’t be in the ad due to details concerning his recent court case.”
PR agent Mark Borkowski also argued at the time that Depp should be dropped. Speaking to The Guardian, he said: “I think it would be sensible for Dior to sever links with Depp. Anything can be stopped by pressing a button if they really wanted to. A brand like Dior is not just looking at this territory. The attitude [towards Depp] in the UK will be very different to the one in eastern Europe, for example.”
“Brands hope for short-term memory loss and long-term amnesia,” the British expert continued. “These fashion companies live in their own bubble, it’s like The Devil Wears Prada. They live in a world where they are used to facing controversy.”
Now we know exactly why Dior stuck by the man…
Platinum Jubilee: BBC heals rift with Palace after high-level talks ahead of all-star party TV coverage
The i
The BBC has held high-level talks with the Royal Family to heal a fractured relationship ahead of the Platinum Jubilee.
But the broadcaster has been encouraged to ask “tough questions” about the future of the monarchy as it prepares to screen extensive coverage of the celebrations.
Top-level talks between the broadcaster and the Palace have helped smooth relations which hit a low last year after the extent of the Martin Bashir Diana Panorama scandal was exposed and the airing of a controversial documentary about William and Harry’s relationship with the media.
There was talk of the Palace boycotting the BBC over the Jubilee celebrations following the Amol Rajan series The Princes and the Press which is said to have annoyed the Queen by repeating claims about briefing wars between royal households.
However after awarding coverage of a carol concert hosted by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to ITV, seen as a snub to its rival, relations are back on an even keel after the BBC shared plans with the Palace to make the Jubilee a central highlight of its own centenary year.
The BBC promises that its Platinum Party at the Palace on June 4, featuring stars including Queen, Sir Rod Stewart and Diana Ross, will be a spectacular “once-in-a-lifetime experience”, with Her Majesty granting special permission to site a stage in front of Buckingham Palace’s gates.
Home recordings filmed by the Queen, her parents and the Duke of Edinburgh are among a treasure trove of private family footage released by the Royal Household for a BBC documentary Elizabeth: The Unseen Queen, which airs on May 29.
Yet the BBC has been warned not to give uncritical coverage of an event, certain to feature extensively on its news output across an extended bank holiday weekend running from June 2 to 5.
Executives have learnt from the viewer response to its coverage of the Duke of Edinburgh’s death, which some found excessive.
“The BBC is under huge pressure to get this right. There has to be a certain amount of forelock-tugging. But this isn’t the 1977 Silver Jubilee. There will have to be tough questions asked about the future of the monarchy too,” Mark Borkowski, the leading PR consultant told i.
“There will be a lot of empathy for the Queen. The baby boom generation feel very protective of her and feel this is her last hurrah,” Mr Borkowski added.
“By its nature the Platinum Jubilee celebrates what has gone but also has to examine what will be the shape of the Commonwealth after the Queen. The BBC has to reflect that too.”
The Palace is confident there will be no repeat of the negative coverage directed towards the 2002 Diamond Jubilee when rain turned a Royal river flotilla into a sorry washout – “Why were the Queen and Prince Philip left to shiver in the rain for FOUR hours?,” newspapers demanded.
This time, the BBC must make an editorial judgement over how much coverage should be given to the presence of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, set to divert attention when they arrive in the UK with their children Archie, three, and Lilibet, who turns one over the Platinum Jubilee weekend.
Palace aides are desperate to prevent the Harry and Meghan show “destabilising” the weekend, especially if they decide to go on “ad hoc” walkabouts, generating huge crowds, outside of the official events.
An irritant for the Sussexes will be the arrival of Meghan’s estranged father Thomas, who is flying to Britain to be a Jubilee guest on the late-night GB News show presented by Dan Wootton.
ITV delivered its star-studded contribution early, with a Platinum Jubilee Celebration last week, attended by The Queen, staged as part of the Royal Windsor Horse Show.
The event, which paired Tom Cruise and Alan Titchmarsh as presenters, was a “carriage crash which showed why the BBC is the natural broadcaster for these productions,” said Mr Borkowski.
The show was watched by a peak of 5.2m people, drawing a higher share of viewing than average across all age demographics, yet with the bulk of viewers (54 per cent) aged 65-plus, much higher than the norm for that Sunday slot.
The Jubilee may capture post-pandemic public mood that is looking for anything to celebrate. “People want to be outside enjoying street parties,” Mr Borkowksi suggested.
In a further move to mark the occasion, the BBC is offering local communities a special one-off TV Licence dispensation so they can use a big screen to show the events.
“The Rajan film didn’t seem to go down that well,” Mr Borkowski suggested.
“This is a chance for the BBC to sprinkle a bit of magic on the monarchy and help its own chances of keeping the licence fee. It should be win for both parties – as long as it doesn’t rain.”
A BBC spokesman said: “The BBC will be covering the celebrations in London and the beacons and parties across the UK and around the world.”
“We will be reporting on and analysing the reaction to the Platinum Jubilee and across BBC News on TV, radio and online we will be asking the audience how they are marking and spending the weekend. BBC News will also be providing coverage of other important news stories throughout the weekend.”
How can Netflix turn viewers back on?
PRWeek
It started out as a movie-streaming pioneer, but Netflix is experiencing a sharp decline in account holders for the first time in its history. Its share price has also plunged from $373 per share at the start of April to $193 yesterday.
It is blaming everything from the war in Ukraine to people sharing passwords for its 200,000 subscriber dip in the first quarter of 2022, but more alarmingly it sheepishly predicts a loss of two million more users by July, despite gaining over four times that amount in the final quarter of last year.
Though multiple factors are at play, to what extent is this costly predicament Netflix’s own doing? And can savvy PR and comms strategies prevent a further fall?
Threats
On how the streaming giant found itself in this position, Wez Merchant, PR collaborator with fellow streamer Rakuten, founder and CEO of film PR agency Strike Media, says Netflix has been caught in an unfortunate crisis, in which it “hasn’t really put many feet wrong”.
He says economic pressures on households, driven by the rise in “inflation, energy bills and food prices” is putting non-essential spending under scrutiny – and that means relative non-essentials like streaming subscriptions are under threat.
That threat will only intensify in the coming months, says PR specialist Mark Borkowski, as the world prepares for a post-Covid summer of bathing in sunshine after years of being stuck on the sofa. Through no fault of its own, Netflix now has to work harder than ever to keep audiences keen.
One thing the brand can try to control is its public image, which has not been helped by a recent slew of negative headlines.
“They always appear to be taking something from subscribers,” says Dan Neale, managing director of Alfred, a PR agency that has worked with Warner Bros. “Be it favourite shows being cancelled, the risk that you can’t share your login with friends and family, or price increases.”
Neale points out that password sharing was never strictly permitted in the first place, though previous statements from Netflix demonstrate that it wasn’t exactly condemned either.
The streaming giant has also found itself at the forefront of culture wars in the wake of criticism towards jokes made in recent Dave Chappelle and Jimmy Carr comedy specials. Such issues have never seen the platform face as much controversy than at present.
Choice
The poor media narrative surrounding Netflix is not helped by the lessening reliance consumers have on it in an age of overwhelming choice. Though Netflix revolutionised the world of TV and film, it is no longer the only streaming alternative to TV or DVD.
Borkowski says being spoiled for choice makes for “fickle” audiences, while Jason Gallucci, global head of innovation at Media Zoo, says typical streaming subscribers simply are not platform loyal, and will have a “number of streaming sites and will follow quality shows on any or all of them.”
Merchant and Neale agree that despite having a smaller selection of content, some relative newcomers have a stronger audience appeal by targeting more specific groups, conveying much higher quality content even if this may not be entirely the case.
This is certainly true of Disney+, which boasts the entire Marvel and Star Wars catalogues, including regular additions to these franchises. Such high-calibre exclusives generate invaluable earned media.
Similarly, Prime Video’s inclusion in Amazon’s all-encompassing Prime subscription, alongside free next-day delivery, Amazon Music, and Prime Reading, emphasises its value proposition.
Amazon’s streaming platform’s movie library, which recently added the entire James Bond collection, gives it enough of an edge, but when paired with Amazon’s other offerings it gives it an “unfair advantage”, says Borkowski.
Offering the option to ‘rent’ virtually any film not within the Prime catalogue for £5 or less is yet another selling point, providing more versatility and brand new content than Netflix.
To combat this, Netflix “should concentrate on highlighting what is new (or classic) in each genre and hitting the right audience with that information,” says Merchant.
Stuff no-one wants to watch
Netflix does have some wildly successful shows, like Breaking Bad and Stranger Things. With a new season of the latter on the horizon, and the latest instalments of Breaking Bad spinoff Better Call Saul generating buzz for their popularity (and cameos from Walter White and Jesse Pinkman), investment in these shows and storylines will help keep many existing subscribers loyal.
Though as Gallucci points out, there is a “lot of ‘stuff’ on Netflix that frankly, no one wants to watch”.
The recent decline in fan-favourite concept ‘Netflix Originals’ could be seen as perplexing given the quantity of exclusive content being produced, but it could be the case that Netflix is spreading itself too thin, while new programming is simultaneously missing its chance in the limelight. As Brands2Life’s consumer managing director Laura Sibley says: “You can’t promote every show.”
Not helping Netflix’s cause is the platform’s recent decision to disable screenshots, thereby limiting the potential for social media shares. “What was an attempt to protect IP ended up being an own goal for consumer engagement,” says Fever PR’s Jacob Gilles.
“It used to be an industry joke that online users creating memes and content out of screenshots was giving Netflix more publicity than its actual comms team – it turns out there might have been some truth in that.”
Netflix vs TV
An obvious selling point of Netflix over traditional broadcasters has always been its lack of advertisements, but even this is under threat, with the proposition of a cheaper ‘ad-supported’ subscription tier, despite CEO Reed Hastings announcing in 2015 that there was “no advertising coming on to Netflix. Period.”
Netflix changing its stance on this, and password sharing, alters its brand image considerably, although Borkowski believes it is necessary, saying: “They have to be tougher with their audience.”
Why? Borkowski says it’s all down to the figures.
“Success is always governed by the consistency of numbers,” he says. Having made the mistake of getting “carried away by its success story”, Netflix’s sudden halt in growth means it now finds itself unprepared and struggling to “defend the decline in numbers”.
Potentially the most difficult element of decline to defend is Netflix’s share prices plummeting 35 per cent in a single day last week, and 49 per cent during April, a drop that appears to reflect a lack of faith among investors in the business’s existing recovery strategy.
Some may say this is unsurprising given the size of the task at hand.
“If you’re sitting in America now running this, you’re looking at different territories, different media, different arguments and of course the social media upheaval in terms of how many people are using it to be a naysayer about the channel,” says Borkowski.
“Also they have a huge amount of detractors, from other channels, other streamers – it’s a very intense fight. They’re having to deal with subliminal attacks coming their way, and also well-aimed competitors trying to pull the rug from under their feet.”
Recovery
Neale rightly points out that what Netflix is facing is fundamentally “bigger than a comms challenge”. That said, onlookers suggest there are undoubtedly things that Netflix can do to turn viewers back on.
Taylor Herring, MSL and Multitude Media all declined to comment, on account of their work with Netflix.
But Sibley says that Netflix’s comms teams need to build a brand that people can “respect and align with” and “tell the other side of Netflix – more storytelling about the quality programming that they invest in globally”.
Borkowski agrees that bigger gestures could be made, not least within the creative community. “When are they going to give back? It has to be about training, how they bring skill sets into it, and what they’re doing with the fabric of the industry they work within.”
In terms of re-engaging consumers, Sibley believes Netflix needs to remind users of its convenience in everyday life, beyond our usual television-watching habits.
“Travel is going to be pretty important now the world is opening up, and Netflix is the ultimate companion on their journey ahead. On the morning commute, after the kids have gone to bed, when the children need entertainment.
“Netflix doesn’t just provide TV shows. It provides distraction from day-to-day life and entertains the family.” She acknowledges some subscribers “may quibble on the pricing, but for all the value it actually brings to everyday life” it represents value.
“It’ll all come down to the quality of their programming, and the fact that their competition is cash-strapped as well,” says Borkowski. “Particularly with commercial channels in this country seeing a huge drop in advertising.
“I wouldn’t be writing any Netflix obituaries anytime soon.”