TV bosses queue in hope to land Oti Mabuse after she quit Strictly Come Dancing
The Mirror
Oti Mabuse is said to have been inundated with offers, led by ITV and Channel 4. The pro dancer announced her departure from Strictly Come Dancing after seven years this week
She is said to have been inundated with offers, led by ITV and Channel 4.
“Oti is taking her time deciding on the right jobs,” said a source close to the star. A TV industry insider told us: “The BBC know they’ve lost a huge asset but can’t compete with commercial channels that will let her take on other deals.”
Pro dancer Oti, 31, announced her departure from the BBC’s prime time Saturday night show after seven years this week.
She said: “It has been an incredible time. Lifting the Glitterball twice and having the best journey with all my celebrities. I will always remember Strictly, and the BBC brought me to the UK. I can’t put into words how difficult this decision has been, but I have decided not to return for the next series.”
The eight-time South African Latin American Champion is the only Strictly pro to win two consecutive series – in 2019 with actor Kelvin Fletcher and 2020 with comic Bill Bailey.
TV sources believe she could be as popular as Holly Willoughby, who is estimated to earn £730,000 a year hosting This Morning for ITV.
In the past year ITV have involved Oti in The Masked Dancer, Dancing on Ice and Romeo & Duet.
She’s also been mentored by Channel 4’s Packed Lunch star Steph McGovern while presenting for them in autumn.
TV and celebrity expert Mark Borkowski reckons Oti could make more than £1million over the next year or two in TV gigs and deals.
He added: “We’ve seen people come and go but every channel wants a piece of Oti’s magic.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/tv-bosses-queue-hope-land-26337951
‘So many soundbites’: PR experts on Prince Andrew’s disastrous denials
The Guardian
The Duke of York’s legal battle with his accuser Virginia Giuffre, which he settled out of court this week, was characterised by a years-long series of damaging and unnecessary PR blunders, experts have said.
His disastrous Newsnight interview, his ducking and diving to frustrate the serving of legal papers, and claims from “friends” that the infamous photograph of him with his arm around Giuffre’s waist was faked, all served to inflict further public opprobrium on the Queen’s second son, it was claimed.
The aggressive way Andrew fought the case, casting aspersions on Giuffre’s character, also attracted harsh censure from victims’ groups in the era of #MeToo, leading to a “volte face” when, in a joint statement issued this week, he said he had “never intended to malign” her.
Twelve years after he was photographed with the sex offender financier Jeffrey Epstein in New York’s Central Park, Andrew has been stripped of his patronages and titles. And though he has made no admission of liability and has repeatedly denied Guiffre’s allegations he had sex with her on three occasions when she was 17 and had been trafficked by Epstein, he has agreed to pay her an undisclosed sum, reportedly as high as £12m.
“The Emily Maitlis Newsnight interview was like being in a comedy clown car with a lit cigarette driving into a fireworks factory,” said the PR agent Mark Borkowski. “I don’t believe anyone in the profession that I know would have advised him to do the Maitlis interview.
“But he thought he could roll with it. He thought he had the charisma. And he thought that he had his own story. It’s an archetypal psychopathic reaction to the fact you are not accepting [the situation].”
Andrew’s claims in the 2019 interview – that he was at a Pizza Express in Woking and that he had a condition that prevented him from sweating – were absolute gifts to social media, spawning hundreds of memes.
His denial that he had thrown a birthday party for Epstein’s then girlfriend, and now also a convicted sex offender, Ghislaine Maxwell, insisting it was just a “straightforward shooting weekend”, showed how wide the chasm was between him and the public he was attempting to persuade.
“He gave so many soundbites,” said Borkowski. Andrew should have looked to his mother for PR advice. The Queen’s statement that “recollections may vary” in response to claims made by Harry and Meghan in their Oprah interview was a masterclass “in what it said by saying so little”, said Borkowski. “And that is the art of dealing with a crisis.”
Missing from Andrew’s Newsnight interview, and immediately seized on by commentators, was any acknowledgment of Epstein’s victims. It took the joint statement, made earlier this week, for him redress this by accepting that Giuffre had suffered “as an established victim of abuse”.
Missing, too, was any expression of regret over his decades-long friendship with Epstein, who at the time the two were photographed had served 13 months for soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution. Again, it took this week’s statement for Andrew to promise to “demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein by supporting the fight against the evils of sex trafficking”.
He did apologise in the interview, not for his relationship with Epstein but for its impact on the royal family. “We try to uphold the highest standards and practice,” he said, “and I let the side down, simple as that.” If he was guilty of anything, added the duke, it was of being “too honourable” in choosing to visit Epstein to break off their friendship in person.
PR experts would hope in such crisis interviews their client would answer questions and address the facts put to them in a way that persuades viewers to interpret those facts in the way you want. A declaration that it’s “just not true” is not enough. “You have to be very certain about how the audience will look at your reactions to a negative comment. And I think another blunder he made was underestimating, not just the media, but … the actual public and … the power of social media,” said Borkowski.
Given the out-of-court settlement agreed in principle, which has spared Andrew the ordeal of cross-examination on his private life before a jury, Maitlis said this week her interview “may be the only testimony” we will ever get directly from the duke. She is far from alone in now finding it difficult to marry his three words to her – “it didn’t happen” – with his decision to pay millions to a woman he has said he had no recollection of meeting.
There are questions, too, over the aggressive tactics used by Andrew, especially in the #MeToo era.
His apparent attempt to frustrate the serving of Giuffre’s legal papers did not play well. “It was unedifying, it looked ridiculous. But, more than a PR disaster, he was annoying the court,” Nick Goldstone, a lawyer at the disputes resolution firm Ince, said.
Andrew’s defence document was “ludicrous in parts”, saying he was unable to answer questions such whether he had been habitually photographed at social events with Maxwell for lack of sufficient information, Goldstone added.
Suggestions from “friends” of Andrew that the photograph of him with his arm around Giuffre’s waist was faked were “high risk”, especially as he did not have the original photograph. His claim of an inability to sweat, and the Pizza Express alibi, were ridiculed. Photographs were published allegedly showing him sweating on other occasions. His security team should have records of any Pizza Express visit – “so, produce those at the time you make the allegation”, Goldstone said.
Andrew’s US legal team “could only play with the cards they were dealt” and on the instructions they received from their client, he said. And, by the time they took on the case, options for the prince were diminishing.
The attacks on Giuffre’s character, accusing her of seeking a “payday” from Andrew, and attempts to introduce in to evidence a US tabloid story describing her as a “money-hungry sex kitten” who recruited young women for Epstein, have also been criticised.
“He took an enormous decision to actually be aggressive. It’s different now, particularly when you are so behind the eight ball you’re snookered. And you come out fighting in the wrong way. His team did all the wrong things really really well,” said Borkowski. It backfired, and Andrew then had to say he did not intend to “malign” Giuffre. “A volte face,” said Goldstone.
But perhaps the biggest blunder was not settling earlier, and only agreeing to after his attempts to have the case struck out failed, Goldstone said. Pinning hopes on Giuffre’s 2009 $500,000 secret settlement with Epstein was “going to be the trump card”. “But in my view, that didn’t have a hope of getting him out of this case.”
Borkowski said: “The bottom line is, if you are representing somebody, or in particular if you are running a crisis campaign, you can give as much good advice as a PR person, but it’s whether the client, whether the person at the centre of the whirlwind, actually accepts it. And I think through all of this, this has been heavily laden with hubris.
“I think I would have gone for the route of settlement, the route of arbitration. That was needed all the way down the line. There needed to be more jaw jaw, less war war.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/19/pr-experts-prince-andrew-disastrous-denials
Unlikely Charles knew of alleged ‘cash for honours’ claims, says biographer
The Guardian
Prince Charles’s biographer, Jonathan Dimbleby, has claimed it is “extraordinarily unlikely” the prince knew of the alleged “cash for honours” scandal, saying the idea he could have been aware “frankly beggars belief”.
Dimbleby defended the heir to the throne as the Metropolitan police launched an investigation into claims the Prince’s Foundation offered to support a Saudi billionaire donor’s application for citizenship and upgrade his CBE to a knighthood.
The broadcaster and friend of the prince, who wrote Charles’s authorised biography, criticised claims it was “inconceivable” Charles would not have known of the honours offer. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “That is a very colourful thing to have said. ‘Inconceivable’ suggests that there is no possibility other than that he knew. I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that he knew. I think if he had known, he would immediately have taken action about it.”
Clarence House has said the prince had “no knowledge” of the alleged scandal and was “happy to help if asked” with the police investigation, but had not been. His former close aide Michael Fawcett, who has since resigned as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation, allegedly wrote a letter to the Saudi businessman Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, making the offer apparently in return for a generous donation.
Dimbleby said Charles believed in the honours system, understood it, and had conducted many thousands of investitures. “If there has been some scam, some breaking of the law, you honestly think he would have been party to that? It beggars belief,” he said.
He dismissed as insignificant reports in the Daily Mail that the investiture for the Saudi businessman had taken place in Buckingham Palace’s blue drawing room, which the paper said is usually reserved for world leaders, and accused it of “finding fire where there is not even any smoke”.
Praising Charles’s charity work, Dimbleby said the royal was president, not a trustee or chief executive of the charity. And, though once close to Fawcett, it “does not mean that Michael Fawcett would have said to him: ‘I just want you to know that I’m thinking of offering an honour on behalf of the Foundation to a Saudi businessman.’ I mean, come off it”.
He criticised parts of the media’s ability to “turn a non-bombshell into a bombshell” and compared claims Charles must have known to the smearing of the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, “for allegedly not investigating Jimmy Savile”.
The former home office minister Norman Baker, who along with the campaign group Republic reported the allegations to the Metropolitan police as a possible breach of the Honours Act, believed Clarence House would be thrilled with Dimbleby’s interview.
“Arise Sir Jonathan,” Baker said. He added: “When the going gets tough, Jonathan Dimbleby is rolled out to defend the prince.
“The idea that Dimbleby skates over, is the ‘I know nothing’, kind of Manuel [from Fawlty Towers] response to everything. Fact is, we know Charles and Fawcett are Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Charles has said he’s the one man he cannot do without. So the idea that Fawcett would be doing stuff without Charles knowing, it is inconceivable,” Baker said.
Mark Borkowski , an author and PR expert, said it appeared to him that Dimbleby’s interview could demonstrate that Charles, his aides and friends “are up for a fight now”.
“They are wheeling out the big guns. Because that was a peerless interview, defending Charles and attacking the Daily Mail. It shows that they are not going to take this lying down. They are not going to go back to ‘never complain, never explain’.”
Beatrice and Eugenie to keep Jubilee roles as public won’t punish them for Prince Andrew scandal, say experts
The i
Prince Andrew’s daughters are unlikely to be banished from Platinum Jubilee celebrations this summer because they have managed to successfully distance themselves from their father, according to royal experts.
The Duke of York’s decision to come to an out-of-court settlement with Virginia Giuffre in her civil sex claim against him is believed to have been motivated by efforts to protect the Queen’s Jubilee festivities, marking her 70 years on the throne.
PR agent Mark Borkowski said: “Clearly, the first priority of this act of settlement is to give the Jubilee a clean pair of heels away from him. This is to save further embarrassment to his mother, the Queen… the stench of an unresolved legal case was too dangerous.
“This is probably the last big state occasion linked to some anniversary… it’s the one thing this country does well, these events.”
While the monarch’s second son, who previously stepped back from public duties, will be absent from the celebrations, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie may well play a part.
Professor Pauline Maclaren, co-author of Royal Fever: The British Monarchy in Consumer Culture, said: “I don’t think Prince Andrew’s scandal will affect the two princesses and I would expect that they will still have roles to play in the jubilee celebrations.
Professor MacLaren, of Royal Holloway, University of London, added: “Both have managed to achieve quite separate identities, independent from their father’s, and I don’t think the public would expect them to be punished as well.”
Buckingham Palace has said the Queen and members of the Royal Family will watch the traditional RAF flypast from the palace’s balcony on Thursday 2 June. The monarch will also be accompanied at the Derby at Epsom Downs on Saturday 4 June.
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie appear to have gone to great efforts to distance themselves from the controversies surrounding their father.
Prince Andrew was missing from official photos of Princess Beatrice’s low-key wedding to Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi in July 2020, although he did walk her down the aisle. However the couple did share a photo featuring the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.
And in a demonstration of independence within the Royal Family, Princess Eugenie was seen with her cousin Prince Harry at the Super Bowl in the US.
What’s next for Prince Andrew? Exile from public life and a tainted image, royal-watchers say.
Washington Post
I work with celebrities, so take it from me – fame has never been so dangerous
The Guardian
Fame is a sweet poison you drink of first in eager gulps. Then you come to loathe it.” Richard Burton’s aphorism, and the context of his turbulent stardom, is still a near perfect summary of the nature of fame; but as our polarised society and media-industrial complex continue to engorge and mutate, new strains of this toxin hit the market almost daily.
Two years on, the collective guilt felt by many of us over the death of Caroline Flack, which has never truly subsided, was again brought to the fore by her mother’s forceful accusation yesterday that the police treated Caroline differently – more harshly – simply because she was famous.
Whether or not this was the case, it is my view that fame has never been so dangerous, never been more toxic. The commodification of fame has existed for a century. Fame is a value that allows you to sell a product, and for decades stars have been treated merely as the human embodiment of this value. And like any commodity, once their fame, their value, begins to wane they cease to become useful.
There’s an old Hollywood legend about a Danish actor called Gwili Andre, who found success in the silent era but her voice didn’t work for the age of sound. This caused her to fade into obscurity during the advent of the “talkie”. She died in a mysterious fire in 1959, and ever stories have circulated that the cause of the fire was a kind of funeral pyre Andre had built out of her old press cuttings.
What makes Andre’s story, pyre or not, even more tragic is that her fame was in part manufactured by lavish publicity campaigns. Organic fame is hard enough to manage, but prefabricated fame is cheap, flimsy and rarely lasts long, to the detriment of those who experience it.
These truths are as old as the concept of fame itself, but in the 2020s the dangers are potent and multifaceted. First, there’s the way fame comes to be. The reality TV production line in the 2000s might have ground to a halt but it created a world in which people are famous for fame’s sake rather than as a result of any particular talent.
Experiencing fame without talent is to exist on the constant precipice of anonymity. In desperation to claw themselves away from this cliff edge and into the deceitful comfort of the limelight, celebrities will willingly sacrifice their principles and even their dignity. Some effectively donate their personal lives to the tabloid and celebrity media, some stoop to humiliating depths by agreeing to be part of whatever tawdry novelty sideshow will continue their exposure, and some will spout whatever hateful opinion or item of fake news a loyal sect of the internet will laud them for.
Legacy media and online evangelists will always praise the glittering riches of celebrity, but the fame superhighway is littered with the bleached bones of many who have walked that path: Jade Goody, Charlie Sheen, Corey Feldman, Mackenzie Phillips, Katie Price, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Macaulay Culkin, Anna Nicole Smith – all have met their unfortunate fate on the boulevard of broken dreams.
Social media has compounded this issue by giving wannabe celebrities the power to create fame without the need of a broker. It’s far from democratic but nor is social-media fame any more meritocratic. Sure, there’s a skill to painstakingly stage-managing every detail of your appearance and curating every public moment of your life, but people’s desperation to do so in pursuit of fame has created a lower caste of celebrities in the form of the influencer market. Since influencers’ value to brands depends directly on their popularity (and, increasingly, vice versa) this only increases the fervour of their pursuit of fame, and the likelihood that they will be dropped at a moment’s notice, the moment the likes and shares dip below market value.
Which brings me to another reason why fame is more toxic than ever; the speed and brutality with which it can turn negative, or even come to an end.
Scandal and the downfall of celebrity have always carried with them tremendous news value and been sought jealously by certain segments of the media and society. The infamous MGM publicity machine-cum-protection racket run by Howard Strickling, the notorious head of publicity from the 1920s to the 1960s, ensured, at great cost to the talent, that Hollywood’s finest were protected from such scandals.
But even the dastardly Strickling would have his work cut out in an era where access to means of recording and communicating celebrity scandals is practically universal, and motivation to do so has scarcely been higher – politicised and tribalised by the culture wars, and industrialised by the spate of celebrity downfalls referred to as “cancel culture”.
Every celebrity now exists under a microscope with a target on their back and a bounty on their head. And every member of the public is armed with ways to bring them in – hot or cold – and collect the bounty.
This situation is still particularly bad for women, constantly held to higher standards and vilified for things that men brush off even in today’s cynical shark tank of public opinion.
What makes the experience of toxic fame more shocking for its victims is that they are, for a short time, often insulated from its danger by a bubble of managers, agents, brand partners and, yes, publicists, razor-teeth hiding behind sycophantic smiles and cooing platitudes designed to foster whatever infantile god complex will get the next deal across the line.
If, as Burton seemed to suggest, fame is a noxious but highly addictive drug, then we live in a society where it’s cheap to get high, but the quality of the drug is variable, the supply is controlled by a cartel of enablers who can cut your supply at a moment’s notice, and there’s no such thing as rehab. Fame has never been more dangerous.
Royals ‘played very smart PR card’ with dramatic Prince Andrew move
The Express
The Duke of York is facing a civil sexual assault trial in the US in the autumn which threatens to overshadow the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, with each development potentially producing negative headlines. He denies the allegations.
Last month, Andrew lost his honorary military titles, royal patronages and agreed to stop using his HRH style in an apparent bid to distance the monarchy from him.
PR expert Mark Borkowski said the royals “played a very smart PR card by severing him off from them”.
Mr Borkowski told Express.co.uk: “If they didn’t do that then it would be a totally different ballgame.
“But what he intends to pursue privately and the noise he’s creating is not reflected back to the Royal Family as he’s no longer part of the brand.
“Obviously he is the Queen’s son but she has done, or his brother has done, an amazing job in separating in the best way possible, saying he can no longer enjoy his military titles and his titles.
“That is the equivalent of being banished beyond the castle walls to find your own way.
“And hence that’s why he’s pursuing this so aggressively now to make some way for him to come back.
“But he’s a bust brand, he’s over.”
The Queen stripped Andrew of his royal patronages and honorary military roles in a dramatic fallout from his civil sex case in January.
The decision represents Andrew’s complete removal from official royal life.
The move came after a judge threw out the Duke’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit and ruled it can go to trial in a huge blow to the royal.
Virginia Giuffre is suing the Queen’s second son in the US for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.
She claims she was trafficked by Andrew’s friend Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with him when she was 17 and a minor under US law.
The Duke has strenuously denied all the allegations.
In the latest development, Andrew has demanded a trial by jury in the civil sex assault case.
Legal experts had predicted the royal would seek a settlement.
But he has taken the sensational decision to face his accuser in court and become the first member of the modern Royal Family to submit to being cross examined over serious allegations.
Irate fans who spent thousands to see Adele in Las Vegas demand star pays for flights and hotels after finding out MID-AIR that she has axed her entire residency just 24 HOURS before first gig – as PR experts warn this is a ‘disaster’ for the star
Daily Mail
Adele fans today demanded the singer covers the cost of their Las Vegas flights and hotels after her ‘astounding’ decision to axe all her shows at the 11th hour when many were flying in or had already arrived in the entertainment capital of the world.
MailOnline has been inundated with emails from people who had already jetted into Sin City from across the US, Canada, Mexico, the UK and Europe to see the star, who is making a record-breaking $685,000 (£500,000) per gig before merchandising.
Adele announced the decision in a tearful Instagram video, apologising and telling fans: ‘I’m so upset and I’m really embarrassed. We’ve been absolutely destroyed by delivery delays and Covid. Half my crew and team are [ill] with Covid and still are, and it’s been impossible to finish the show’.
Fans paying between $85 and $12,000 for a ticket – or up to $30,000 on the black market – had already travelled to Las Vegas for the opening gig tonight. If they get tickets for replacement shows, now likely to be after Easter, most will be unable to go without more extraordinary expense and more time off work.
PR guru Mark Borkowski told MailOnline the last minute cancellation was a ‘disaster’ for the singer, saying: ‘It’s not great for Adele and I think she knows it’, adding: ‘Her response seemed very authentic. I guess it’s down to whether the fans believe her word’.
Mr Borkowski says that Adele’s PR team will have to do something to appease the upset fans. He said: ‘I’m sure they will be considering a plan’.
He said: ‘In truth for any high-profile artist in any field particularly music cancelling a gig per ticket short notice is a disaster.
‘Artist agents know PR is all about understanding the importance of the fan. Frankly many of them wouldn’t be there without them.
‘Cancelling a gig is a last resort. It’s not great for Adele and I think she knows it. One can see this by watching her painful statement on social media. Adele is a communicator and understands her audience so her response seemed very authentic.
‘I guess it’s down to whether the fans believe her words. I’m sure there are number of fans making this journey and it is a very special and expensive moment for them. It will be interesting to see if any gestures are made to those in desperate need’.
Ticketmaster are urging people to ‘hang on to their tickets’ for new dates predicted to be between April and June – but says they will give refunds if people apply online. But many are already in Vegas having travelled thousands of miles to be there for the opening night, demanding the singer covers the thousands of dollars they have already laid out on flights and hotel rooms they have no hope of getting refunds for.
Many are questioning her reasons for cancelling, saying they don’t believe her claims that Covid and ‘delivery delays’ would require her to cancel all 24 nights and postpone them for months. Several fans said they were worried for her wellbeing, noticing a bruise-like mark on her left wrist in the video.
Fans already in Vegas are demanding she performs anyway, saying they don’t care about a glitzy stage and lighting and would be happy to see her ‘perform on a park bench’. Some say they will turn up at Caesars Palace at 8pm tonight anyway, in the hope she might be there, although she is understood to be at home in LA.
Gillian Rowland-Kain, 32, was already on her flight to Las Vegas from New York with her twin sister when she found out about the cancellation via social media. The attorney from Brooklyn said: ‘I was furious that Adele waited so last minute to make this call. I recognise it’s not a call any artist wants to make but she would’ve known yesterday that the show wouldn’t be ready by tomorrow. Her lack of notice is astounding. I’m angry and frustrated’.
Thomas Wright flew from South Carolina for the opening night with a friend for the opening night. He told MailOnline that they spent $445 on each ticket, $1,600 on flights and hotel as well as $100 on Covid tests. They also spent $400 each on new outfits.
He said: ‘I know I will not be able to get off of work to come back, I know I wouldn’t be able to afford to come back. This trip has been a collection of Christmas and birthday gifts plus saving for myself’.
A British fan called David posted a photo from outside Caesars Palace just after the shows were axed. He tweeted: ‘Christmas gift gone pear shaped as my wife and daughter are on the way to meet me in Vegas and unfortunately Adele has had to cancel’.
Adele was due to perform her biggest hits and most of her new album 30, which she says reflects her ‘inner turmoil’ at the end of her marriage to Simon Konecki, leaving her to ‘sob relentlessly’ as she made the record. She has since found love with sports agent Rich Paul, who she has hinted she would like to marry.
Like Britain and Europe, the US has also suffered an explosion of Omicron cases over the past month. But cases are now starting to slow down nationwide, where quarantine was recently cut to five days. If the Omicron outbreak continues to shrink in America, it will mirror trends seen in South Africa – the first nation to fall victim to the extremely-transmissible variant – and the UK, where experts have accepted it is in retreat.
Most coming to the opening shows face losing thousands of dollars on flights and accommodation after the British singer cancelled all 24 shows at the 11th hour claiming half her team has Covid and they ‘ran out of time’. Most airlines and Vegas hotels demand 48 hours notice for cancellations, if they allow it at all.
Another fan, Gabriel, flew into Vegas from Quebec, Canada, and found out when they arrived in Nevada. He told MailOnline: ‘We lost a large sum of money on plane tickets and hotels to come see her for nothing, pretty unacceptable that a multi-million dollar production team could pull the rug on the people who flew and risked getting Covid to see her because her ‘show’ wasn’t ready. She is known for her voice not for her performances, for all I care I would’ve just enjoyed her sitting on a bench singing. Absolutely unacceptable, they have not mentioned anything about compensation for the travel expenses we had’.
Weekends With Adele’ was due to run through April in Las Vegas, with all available tickets sold out. In an Instagram post late on Thursday, a visibly upset Adele said in her strong London accent: ‘I’m so sorry, but my show ain’t ready’, saying they ‘ran out of time’.
She went on: ‘We’ve tried absolutely everything we can to put it together in time and for it to be good enough for you, but we’ve been absolutely destroyed by delivery delays and COVID. Half my crew and team are [ill] with Covid and still are, and it’s been impossible to finish the show.
‘I’m gutted — I’m sorry it’s so last minute, we’ve been awake for over 30 hours trying to figure it out and we’ve run out of time,’ she continued, as her voice started to break. ‘I’m so upset and I’m really embarrassed and so sorry to everyone that traveled to get [to the show]. I’m really, really sorry.’
Adele did not say when the shows would be rescheduled, but there is speculation it could be from April, meaning anyone keeping their tickets will have to rebook all flights and accommodation. But there will be many who will no longer be able to go.
Fans wished her and her team well but questioned why Adele and her team had only come to that conclusion on the eve of her first show.
One woman accused Adele of ‘crocodile tears’, pointing out that obtaining refunds for travel and hotels was always complicated, while another posted a picture of a furious emoji, tweeting: ‘Not Adele rescheduling after already buying plane tickets, show tickets & getting a hotel room’.
One fan wrote: ‘What is wrong with the industry when Adele cancels her upcoming shows in Las Vegas – the day before opening? I’m sure she is devastated but fans already there from many places in the world will be extremely upset. I hope the Adele team comes up with something to appease fans’.
Another person with a ticket said: ‘Super bummed that Adele has postponed all of her shows in Las Vegas. I’ve already spent $1200 between airfare, hotel, and the concert tickets. Not to mention vacation time from work’.
The price tag for the Weekends With Adele at Caesars Palace’s Colosseum starts at £700 and ranges to £9,000 plus for the best seats in the house.
Adele, already worth an estimated $220million, was due to have access to Caesars $50,000-a-night private suite throughout her residency, which comes with a butler, executive assistant, chauffeur and security. A source said: ‘She is expected to make over £500,000 per gig thanks to ticket sales alone, even before the merchandising. Caesars has rolled out the red carpet to ensure she’s treated like the superstar she is’.
It is not clear why a 14-day COVID outbreak would postpone a multimillion-dollar show for months.
In November, she told Rolling Stone that she would not go on tour because she was worried about the logistics during the pandemic.
‘It’s too unpredictable, with all the rules and stuff,’ she said. ‘I don’t want anyone coming to my show scared. And I don’t want to get COVID, either.’
Fans of the 33-year-old singer had shelled out up to $30,000 for resale tickets for the eagerly-anticipated show – her first live concert in five years.
In a video posted to Twitter, Adele sobbed as she said that COVID-19 cases among members of her crew had made it impossible to bring the show to life in time.
Adding to her woes were delivery delays that made it ‘impossible to finish the show.’
She added that she had been awake for ‘over 30 hours’ trying to solve logistical issues but had simply ‘run out of time’ to be ready on Friday.
Many were sympathetic, but plenty were frustrated.
‘This breaks my heart, for you and for me,’ tweeted Amy Campbell, a medical professional in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
‘I know how hard it is to put on a show, especially with a pandemic. But it’s also hard to save enough money, to get time off work from a hospital, that is short staffed, book a flight and hotel, fly in two days early and find out 30 hrs before the show, when we are already here, that the reason we came for is not going to happen.
‘The people with first weekend show tickets may not be able to afford the time or money to reschedule something like this.’
A British man noted: ‘Unbelievable. What a disgrace. I thought the yanks had their house in order. Rona or no rona, the show must go on.’
‘So disappointed!’ said another woman.
‘My husband got me tickets for Christmas and we were looking forward to it so bad! I guess we’ll have to wait until Avril Lavigne announces a tour since we’re also huge fans of her.’
The Can I Get It singer pledged to reschedule the canceled shows – but gave no indication of when that could be.
She added: ‘We’re going to reschedule all of the dates, we’re on it right now, and I’m gonna finish my show and get it to where it’s supposed to be. So I’m so sorry it isn’t possible. We’ve been up against so much and it just ain’t ready. I’m really sorry.’
The team had implemented intense COVID protocols.
The production required ticket-holders to show proof of COVID vaccination, and also display a negative-COVID test within 48 hours of the show.
A rapid-test station was being set up Thursday afternoon at the former Rao’s Restaurant space, and another across the Strip at the Flamingo, to handle the influx of those needed on-site testing.
A choir of 60 singers, all hired in Las Vegas, had passed auditions on January 5 to participate in a ‘Skyfall’ opening number, according to The Las Vegas Review-Journal. The original call was for 100 singers, but only 60 could show up.
Hospitalizations in Clark County, Nevada – which encompasses Las Vegas – are approaching the record for the pandemic, with 1,872 people hospitalized statewide as of January 18.
The record was set December 13, 2020, with 2,025 patients.
The test positivity rate is 37 percent, compared to a seven-day average of 18.95 percent in New York City, which has passed the Omicron peak.
Her dramatic decision came as other performers felled by COVID, such as Hugh Jackman, swiftly rescheduled their performances and were back on stage in New York within weeks. He resumed Broadway performances on January 6, having tested positive for COVID on December 28.
The Strokes cancelled their New Year’s Eve show in Madison Square Garden, but have already rescheduled it for April 6.
Also at Madison Square Garden, Billy Joel announced on January 11 he was pushing his January 14 performance to August 24th.
Celine Dion, who previously had an incredibly lucrative Las Vegas residency, announced on January 15 she was cancelling the remaining 16 dates of her North American tour due to ‘severe and persistent muscle spasms which are preventing her from performing’.
Other groups have been creative in compensating for the COVID challenges.
When Dead & Company’s guitarist John Mayer and drummer Bill Kreutzmann tested positive, they were replaced by other musicians – although of course with a soloist that was unlikely to appease everyone.
One fan accused Adele of ‘crocodile tears’, pointing out that the singer had canceled her shows before.
Another said: ‘Same tears when she cancelled our Wembley tickets, still waiting for the rescheduled concert for her uk fans.
‘Got refund took a while (trains, hotel didn’t tho).
‘the point is when u cry each time and send email saying sorry and when I get better I will do a concert for all that missed the show that she supposed to do. But she doesn’t it’s a bit crocodile tears4me.’
Another complained: ‘When it’s your bday and your bday present was Adele tickets to her opening night and she cancels not even 24 hours before.’
Gillian Rowland-Kain, 32, was already on her flight to Las Vegas from New York for Friday’s opening night show when she found out about the cancellation via social media.
‘I was furious that Adele waited so last minute to make this call,’ she told the BBC.
‘I recognize it’s not a call any artist wants to make but she would’ve known yesterday that the show wouldn’t be ready by tomorrow.
‘Her lack of notice is astounding. I’m angry and frustrated.’
Rowland-Kain, who is from Brooklyn and traveling to Vegas with her twin sister, added that the last-minute cancellation felt ‘like a slap in the face’.
Josh Chavis, from Kansas City, says his wife Heather paid nearly $1,800 for her hotel and flights to Vegas for a show this weekend.
He said even Adele announcing it a few days sooner ‘would have made all the difference’ in terms of refunds.
‘We recognize that things are hard for everyone, but this is a huge misstep on the part of both the performer and those responsible for putting the show together.’…
Andrew’s civil sex case ‘could lead to constitutional crisis for monarchy’
Evening Standard
The Duke of York’s sexual assault trial, given the go-ahead by a US judge, threatens to set off a “constitutional crisis” which will engulf the royal family, a legal expert said.
Andrew now faces the prospect of his accuser Virginia Giuffre giving a detailed account in court of the allegation she was trafficked to have sex with the Queen’s second son when she was 17 and a minor under US law.
Judge Lewis A Kaplan dismissed a motion by the duke’s lawyers to have the civil case thrown out after they argued Ms Giuffre had waived her right to pursue the duke by signing a confidential settlement with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The judgment will be a huge blow for Andrew, and media lawyer Mark Stephens said it will prompt meetings of senior royals as they attempt to deal with the looming reputational damage to the monarchy during the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee year.
Mr Stephens told the BBC: “Judge Lewis Kaplan has thrown a reasoned judicial decision like a bomb into the middle and the heart of the royal family and threatens to provoke constitutional crisis as a consequence.”
He said the duke has “no good options”, adding: “Essentially, I think he’s either going to have to engage in the trial process or he’s going to have to settle and that may well be his least worst option.”
Sigrid McCawley, managing partner at law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, said the decision was a significant moment for her client Ms Giuffre.
She said: “Today’s decision by Judge Kaplan denying Prince Andrew’s effort to dismiss Virginia Giuffre’s case against him is another important step in Virginia‘s heroic and determined pursuit of justice as a survivor of sex trafficking.”
Andrew’s accuser is suing him for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.
She is seeking unspecified damages, but there is speculation the sum could be in the millions of dollars.
The duke has vehemently denied the allegations and his legal team has argued from the lawsuit’s first hearing that the case is “baseless”.
Mr Stephens added: “Prince Andrew has nowhere to go. He’s effectively a dead man walking as far as the royal family is concerned.
“But the one thing he can do is to accept the responsibility, accept the blame, accept that he has to fall on his sword for the sake of the wider royal family.”
Andrew has three main options – ignoring the lawsuit, which is his right, engaging with the American legal system to defend himself against the allegations or attempting to reach an out-of-court settlement with Ms Giuffre.
If he ignores the civil proceedings a default judgement will be made in favour of Ms Giuffre.
His accuser may not want to agree a settlement but rather have her day in court but if a settlement is reached it may be viewed unfavourably by the public.
Watching in the wings is the criminal arm of the American justice system and if the duke gives evidence any new details are likely to be noted, like his BBC Newsnight interview which attempted to draw a line under events but provided Ms Giuffre’s legal team with much information.
David Boies, lawyer for Ms Giuffre, was asked on Sky News what his client wanted: “I think she wants to achieve justice and I think justice has a variety of aspects to it.”
He went on to highlight the infamous picture showing Andrew with his arm around Ms Giuffre: “First, I think it is a judicial determination of who is telling the truth. I think it is whether the photograph is, as we have asserted, a real photograph or whether it is somehow a fabricated photograph as some of Prince Andrew’s people have suggested.
“I think it is a recognition on the part of Prince Andrew of his conduct and I think it is compensation to Virginia for what happened.”
Public relations and crisis consultant Mark Borkowski criticised the handling of the duke’s lawsuit: “In PR terms this is the equivalent of driving a comedy clown car with a lit cigarette into a fireworks factory.”
He suggested the duke’s desire to return to frontline royal status, by trying to end the civil case against him, was damaging the royal family.
Mr Borkowski said: “The bottom line is he will want to go back, so it will be him pushing and pushing and pushing to try and get back into public life and that wounds the royal family who are trying to move on.”
Mr Borkowski said the only option for the duke was to step back from public life completely and reconsider his role or to defend himself against the civil action in court.
A Buckingham Palace spokesman asked about the development said: “We would not comment on what is an ongoing legal matter.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/virginia-giuffre-prince-crime-bbc-sky-news-b976384.html
The Art Of The Cancellation Comeback
Grazia
Earlier this month, Chrissy Teigen posted a series of photos of herself on Instagram wearing a Halloween costume nobody would describe as low-key: a flamboyant Carmen Miranda-inspired ensemble comprising a skirt with bananas dangling from it, and a basket of fruit perched perilously on her head. In one picture, she posed with an apparently homemade meatloaf, informing her 35.8 million followers that her cookbook ‘is 5 dollars cheaper on Amazon today!!!’
Looking at them, you’d never guess that as recently as five months ago, the model, entrepreneur and social media maestro had been cancelled. Back in May, her career appeared to lie in tatters after it emerged she’d used her Twitter account to troll TV personalities in the past, including encouraging one to kill herself. She was over. Dunzo. Or was she?
To recap, being cancelled is essentially a cultural boycott; a decision by fans that an individual has done something so heinous, they’re no longer worthy of attention. In recent years, it’s felt like virtually everybody, from Taylor Swift to JK Rowling, has been subject to this phenomenon, to a lesser or greater degree.
For some stars, like Teigen, the damage can seem irreparable; our fundamental perception of them has changed. Yet her comeback, while not complete, is in motion – and so far, it seems pretty successful. While clearly some people remain cancelled – Harvey Weinstein, now in jail, for one – short of outright criminality, most people have the ability to come back, believes PR expert Mark Borkowski.
Teigen’s recovery has been a masterclass in cancellation rehabilitation. The first step she took was apologising profusely, saying, ‘Not a single day, not a single moment has passed where I haven’t felt the crushing weight of regret for things I’ve said in the past.’ She was also careful to take time away from social media to reflect on her actions, and even now she’s back, she still refers to them in comments such as, ‘Cancel club is a fascinating thing and I have learned a whollllle lot.’
For Sara McCorquodale, founder of influencer intelligence platform CORQ, saying sorry, and in the right way, is crucial. ‘There has to be a very sincere apology, so their audience can entertain the idea that they’re only human and made a mistake,’ she says. ‘It’s also helpful to be transparent about what they’re doing to right whatever lead to their cancellation, so it’s not just a case of leaving social media for a few days and coming back expecting everything to be the same.’
The right apology can nip a backlash in the bud, as was the case when this year’s documentary Framing Britney Spears highlighted the role Justin Timberlake had played in demonising his former girlfriend. ‘I am deeply sorry for the times in my life where my actions contributed to the problem, where I spoke out of turn, or did not speak up for what was right,’ he wrote on Instagram, naming Spears and also Janet Jackson, who suffered a backlash after her nipple was exposed during her 2004 Superbowl performance with him.
By contrast, Kendall Jenner’s lack of public apology in the six months after her appearance in that 2017 Pepsi advert – in which she resolved a protest by handing a police officer a can of the soft drink – allowed the scandal to spiral and linked her to it permanently.
Influencers are particularly prone to being cancelled, because what they’re selling often isn’t a talent or body of work, but their own lives – and if their audience discovers they aren’t who they portrayed themselves as, woe betide them. Jeffree Star, one of YouTube’s most subscribed beauty influencers, was at the centre of a storm last year after allegations of racism and predatory behaviour were made against him (which he denied), but has managed to carry on after making several apology videos. Sometimes, says Mark, rehabilitation is a case of ‘weathering the storm, because tomorrow there’ll be another story for everyone to pick over.’
Clemmie Hooper, the midwife-turned-mumfluencer, may be attempting a stealthier comeback after being cancelled in 2019 when it emerged that she’d been trolling other influencers under a fake name on the toxic gossip site TattleLife. Recently, she has been increasingly appearing on her husband’s @Father_Of_Daughters account (including a recent anniversary photo taken of the couple in the bath) and in an account dedicated to their house renovation.
Sara suspects a pivot may be in action. ‘I wonder if they’ve attracted a different audience with their renovation account, which is less au fait with what happened,’ she says. ‘They can still make money from it, but Clemmie is less directly in the firing line. It’s possible for her to re-emerge as a different type of influencer without necessarily putting her name to it.’ The pivot strategy worked for Logan Paul, the vlogger who sparked widespread criticism for posting a video showing the body of a Japanese suicide victim. He’s now making more money than ever after reinventing himself as a boxer.
Mel Gibson has a long history of alleged anti-Semitism, yet remains a major Hollywood player, while Johnny Depp’s career continues despite his status as a domestic abuser being proved in court. Mark points out that they have vast resources at their disposal, including teams of PRs, ‘and a loyal fan base built up over many years – that older audience is more forgiving than the younger one.’ It’s difficult to imagine women in the same position being allowed to carry on, however.
What’s clear is that cancel culture isn’t going away anytime soon – and the most important thing for cancelled celebrities to realise is that their predicament is usually their own fault. ‘People are usually cancelled because they’re out of touch with today’s culture and they say or do things without realising they’re a problem,’ says Sara. ‘If enough people who follow them are angry, it’s very hard to find a way back because ultimately, their success is entirely down to their audience.’
The Art Of The Cancellation Comeback | Grazia (graziadaily.co.uk)
Can deliberately provoking ad complaints work as a marketing strategy?
Campaign
Two very different types of campaigns from BrewDog and John Lewis have drawn consumer complaints recently.
BrewDog, the self-styled punk brewer, displayed some softer edges this week after finding itself on the wrong side of an Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruling.
The offending work was a promotion that offered consumers the chance to win a “solid gold, 24-carat” can via two tweets and a Facebook post. The cans turned out to be gold plated not solid gold, provoking the ire of those who won them. The ASA upheld 25 complaints and a chastened BrewDog ate humble pie, blaming a “miscommunication between its marketing and social media teams”.
It wasn’t always like this, of course. Back when BrewDog was a scrappy young pup with limited budget, creating noise by causing offence was very part of its marketing toolkit.
The spats that occurred over the years are too numerous – and perhaps too tedious – to list, but memorable moments include BrewDog calling the ASA “motherfuckers” for demanding the removal of that word from its website back in 2013. At the time, the regulator’s invitation to BrewDog to a Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) training course seemed about as likely to be accepted as… a brand giving away solid gold cans.
Then, after going back on a previous claim by founder James Watt, who once declared he would rather “set fire” to his money than invest in traditional advertising, a billboard ad fell foul of the watchdog.
“Sober as a motherfu” was the tagline on the 2019 poster promoting its alcohol-free beer, Punk AF, channelling what seems to be BrewDog’s favourite expletive. The inevitable happened and the work, created by Uncommon Creative Studio, was banned.
Yet no single piece of BrewDog marketing has generated the amount of complaints and conversation as John Lewis’ latest spot for its insurance. Featuring a boy in a dress causing havoc as he dances with a passion around the house, more than 300 people have complained about the ad to the ASA. With gender identity currently one of the hot-button culture war issues, the ad has set social media alight.
Unlike BrewDog, John Lewis has made its mark on the nation’s consciousness by evoking warmth through its marketing output, rather than anger, and few would suggest the retailer single-mindedly set out to draw complaints. But given the current climate, its marketers and ad agency, Adam & Eve/DDB, will have been aware they would raise some eyebrows.
Perhaps they decided that the risk was worth it for the cut-through. Certainly, there must be many more people who now know that John Lewis does home insurance who didn’t before. The retailer itself is playing it with a straight bat, saying the ad “simply shows a young boy getting carried away with his dramatic performance”.
So in this age of outrage, can deliberately provoking ad complaints work as a marketing strategy?
Jo Arden
Chief strategy officer, Publicis.Poke
We’re living in a new era of activism. More people have more to say about more stuff than they have for some time. We’re hearing views that would previously have been shouted down, from voices that would have been silenced.
At the same time, advertising is increasingly irrelevant. If what we make gets enough attention to gather complaints, we’ve cracked the relevance problem. Conviction is key: say something with substance and welcome the challenge. Make sure your stance is defensible. Involve the communities who have a stake in the issue but remember that not one of us can speak for all of us on the things that matter most.
As a strategy, work that makes people feel enough to give you feedback can’t be knocked – outrage is always better than apathy.
Nick Hulley
Joint executive creative director, Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO
I’m not sure deliberately provoking complaints is a strategy. How long before the approach will feel jaded, contrived or even cynical?
I think it is far more interesting to think about it in terms of accepting that your work might attract complaints because it is work that pushes past the status quo to find powerful, fresh stories; it’s work that is not afraid to have an opinion; it’s work that is willing to piss off a few people in order to connect with so many more.
The work that is never complained about is the anodyne work that is never noticed. And that seems an even poorer strategy.
Paul Mallon
Head of special ops, Lucky Generals
Driving debate through creative is a fine craft. Likewise, throwing sharp wit at events can lighten the load for consumers in a society that’s creaking under the weight of the world.
But deliberately provoking ad complaints is madness, and potentially costly, because just one valid complaint being upheld by the ASA can derail a campaign.
It’s tricky to cut through and not draw some flak (something brand chiefs should be aware of) but there’s increasing evidence the standard of complaint ain’t what it used to be either.
Whatever a brand does should be rooted in a more intelligent, bigger strategy. If you just go out to upset people, there’s a risk you end up looking like the kid at school who set fire to bins.
Gen Kobayashi
Chief strategy officer, Engine Creative
I’m not sure either of these ads was conceived to deliberately provoke complaints. The John Lewis ad was a remix of “Tiny dancer” and BrewDog ran a golden can promotion that turned out to be less golden than promised.
Whilst it’s true that the latest John Lewis ad has racked up more complaints that any other this year, I doubt the intention was ever this. Instead, I suspect the intention was to make the brand culturally resonant.
This means giving the brand the opportunity to join or generate conversations that are bigger than advertising, and I’d argue this latest John Lewis work has done exactly that.
Whether it’s the yearly Christmas blockbuster or this latest ad, John Lewis has a knack of joining a wider cultural conversation. Choosing to use a boy rocking out in his mother’s clothes has meant the brand has joined a public conversation (whether it likes it or not).
Visha Naul
Director of business marketing EMEA, Pinterest
I love seeing brands pushing the boundaries of creativity when it comes to marketing, creating new ways to engage consumers. But I’m a firm believer that consumers should only have content in their feeds that is trustworthy. With misleading content, you leave all credibility at the door. Losing consumer confidence erodes brand loyalty and ultimately affects the bottom line.
Kyle Harman-Turner
Executive creative director and co-founder, Other
I once had three of the top five most complained about ads of the year. There was some debate as to whether this was a bad thing or a badge of honour?
Over the years, I’ve gone on to make ads with people being kidnapped, whipped or pole dancing before the watershed, to name but a few.
In the short term, I think it can work as a strategy to gain attention quickly and land a tone of voice. Like the Greggs “Baby Jesus” sausage roll. But I wouldn’t build an entire long-term brand strategy just around baiting for complaints.
For me, complaints aren’t something to be feared, but often just an acknowledgement that we’re for some and not for others. That’s OK. Lots of ads are so desperate to speak to everybody, that they end up speaking to nobody.
Mark Borkowski
Founder, Borkowski PR
Controversy as a tool is a double-edged sword. Without strategic thinking about where it will take you, it seldom pays off. Malcolm McLaren’s mischief and mayhem inspired me to become a publicist. However, Malcolm’s 20th-century modus operandi would struggle to navigate this complex age. Controversy as a tactic involves a combination of forethought and intuition – you have to know where the maelstrom will cast you and, perhaps more importantly, how to survive a cruel uncertainty
In the case of the recent John Lewis ad (which was atrocious as an idea), I’m not sure that that forethought about how to shape the controversy was there. That said, its unlikely to hurt its bottom line: unless a brand, product or person is “cancelled” due to complaints, then massive bursts of attention and awareness will rarely have a negative impact on sales.
The million-dollar question is whether deliberately provoking ad complaints can be a successful marketing strategy and benefit the reputation of the ad’s subject, long term. I submit that it can only be so with careful strategic positioning.
In the pre-internet days, we all consumed the same material and then weighed in on it. But we’re no longer in it together, and the truth cannot reach everybody. So, where it was once possible to become a lightning rod for outrage in a way that conveyed fearless trailblazing, youthful rebellion or unshakeable principles, we are now fragmented in so many ways that, just as it is futile to try to please everyone, it is now virtually impossible to create outrage with substance.
Moreover, the dust is kicked up by hubristic, two-dimensional agencies that’ll do anything for the money but are blind to cultural references outside their own ghetto. If you spend too long in a bubble, you don’t know how people outside it think, and it’s nigh-on impossible to anticipate every possible short- and long-term reaction to a campaign. To compound things, the crowd never reads past the headline.
Thus, those who claim to understand the rules of engagement, freely pour petrol on the fire. Sometimes this brings short-term benefits, but the inevitable cost is control of the cultural narrative. So, when the platform is burning, and you’ve forgotten to fill the water pistol, you are stuffed; especially when the narrative is driven by the majority who wade in not understanding the idea that has got them outraged in the first place. In those instances, it pays to have a cool head to clean up the mess or stop the wrong things being done really well.
Emma Raducanu ‘in talks with luxury jewellery brand Tiffany & Co’
Evening Standard
Emma Raducanu is rumoured to be in talks with jewellery brand Tiffany & Co to become the high-end brand’s new ambassador.
Rumours of a potential deal began over the weekend after the 18-year-old from Bromley was seen wearing various pieces of the brand’s jewellery during her victorious US Open final.
The tennis champion stunned the world by winning the US Open on Saturday, beating Canadian Leylah Fernandez, 19, in straight sets.
She wore a set of £4,500 pearl and diamond earrings during the match, a white gold £3,275 ring and a £2,750 cross pendant. Ms Raducanu also wore a £17,100 diamond hinged bangle.
The star also wore jewellery by the brand when attending Monday night’s Met Gala alongside Jennifer Lopez, Billie Eilish and Kristen Stewart at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Ms Raducanu is also being linked with Chanel after she wore the French fashion house to the exclusive party.
Already the tennis player has a sponsorship deal with Nike and it is likely she will have received a bonus following her US Open win.
The details of her deals are likely to remain private. She is being managed by Max Eisenbud, vice-president at IMG sports management group, who was behind Maria Sharapova’s reported £200 million career.
Experts have predicted Ms Raducanu – who only sat her A-Levels this summer – could be Britain’s first billion-dollar sports star.
The PR guru Mark Borkowski, who has worked with Michael Jackson, Joan Rivers and Led Zeppelin said: “This is the start of something epic. She is a billion-dollar girl, no doubt about it.
“She is the real deal. It’s not just that she plays extraordinary tennis, it’s also her background, her ethnicity, her freedom of spirit. People also love the fact that she is vulnerable, but laughs the pressures away.”
The money-savvy teen – who achieved an A in A-Level economics this year – comes from a financial background. Both her Chinese mother and Romanian father work in finance.
And, according to The Times, she registered Harbour 6 Limited – which is said to be the vehicle to manage her finances – when she was just 17.
On Tuesday, Raducanu ticked off another of her bucket list visits during her stay in New York.
Raducanu – who made history by becoming the first qualifier to win the US Open on Saturday – was pictured talking to trading floor staff during her tour of the New York Stock Exchange.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/emma-raducanu-tiffany-co-brand-ambassador-b955467.html
Emma Raducanu can be a ‘$1 billion girl’ after US Open win
New York Post
Emma Raducanu’s future looks very bright.
The 18-year-old tennis sensation is on cloud nine after her historic US Open victory on Saturday night, when she beat fellow teenager Leylah Fernandez, 6-4, 6-3, to bring home Britain’s first women’s Grand Slam singles championship in 44 years.
Raducanu, who earned $2.5 million in prize money, never dropped a set throughout her 2021 US Open run — 10 matches, including three qualifying matches — and stole the hearts of fans everywhere. After her grand slam win, publicist to the stars Mark Borkowski tweeted, “And so the journey begins for the billion dollar girl.”
In a separate interview, he explained why the young talent will be a magnet for brands.
“Potentially, I see her as a billion dollar girl,” Borkowski told The Sun. “She’s everything that is really positive about the new icons that this age has got to throw up. In the conflicting culture wars, here we have someone who is young, incredibly talented, has a multicultural background.
“Everything about her is what every brand would like to get their hands on right now. Everyone will want a piece of her. Tough times ahead.”
Borkowski went on to compliment how Raducanu has handled herself throughout various public events — including her withdrawal from Wimbledon in July when she suffered breathing issues while down 6-4, 3-0 to Croatian-Australian star Ajla Tomljanovic.
“In terms of coming out of a pandemic, the way she handled the Wimbledon incident, the way she’s come back, the way she tackles interviews, the way the crowd responds to her, the way she plays the game … if she is as good as the form suggests the sky is the limit,” Borkowski said.
“You get a sense with Emma that she’s got a really powerful personality to go along with the talent.”
Raducanu’s whirlwind summer of success has made her one of tennis’ most-watched stars. She’s climbed the ranks from No. 336 in the world, to 150. Over the summer, her social media presence has reportedly doubled, with her Instagram follower count at 1.6 million and counting.
Just a few weeks before she stunned the tennis crowd in Flushing Meadows, Raducanu had finished her high school A-Level results. According to ESPN, she received an A grade in both math and economics.
In the days leading up to her US Open championship, Raducanu was featured in British Vogue. She posed with her tennis racket in a fashionably sporty photoshoot, and in an accompanying interview, described herself as “the quiet one.” On the night before her Vogue shoot, Raducanu attended her high school prom in Orpington.
And to think, Raducanu’s initial goal was to advance in the US Open, so she could replace a lost pair of AirPods.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/13/emma-raducanu-could-be-a-billion-dollar-girl-after-tennis-fame/
Raducanu set for global media stardom, say UK marketing experts
The Guardian
Emma Raducanu’s fairytale run to the US Open final has put her on track to become the hottest property in British sport, according to brand and sponsorship experts.
The 18-year-old, who swept aside her semi-final opponent, Maria Sakkari, in straight sets, will be the first British woman to reach a grand slam final for 44 years when she competes for the US Open title on Saturday night. For that victory she has made $1.2m (£864,000), four times her career earnings to date, and if she can triumph in the final her pay day will hit $2.5m. But that will just be the beginning.
Making it to the last 16 at Wimbledon on her grand slam debut confirmed her as the next British tennis talent but a win at the US Open would make her a global media star and a magnet for multimillion-pound sponsorship and advertising deals.
Tim Crow, a sports marketing consultant who advised Coca-Cola on football sponsorship for two decades, said: “I haven’t had this many calls from clients, major brands, who are interested in her since Lewis Hamilton broke through in Formula One. If she wins she will become one of the hottest properties in British sport, if not the hottest.”
Crow said Raducanu’s combination of youth, sporting prowess, charismatic personality and international appeal – she was born in Canada to parents from Romania and China and is a product of the British tennis system – makes her commercial gold for brands. She has a shoe and clothing contract with Nike and racquet sponsorship with Wilson.
“As far as brand appeal is concerned I think you can draw parallels with Naomi Osaka [born in Japan to a Haitian father and Japanese mother and raised in the US],” said Crow. “Because of the multicultural aspect of her heritage she is able to resonate in so many markets. She is a world citizen: she appeals so far beyond a typical white, British, middle-class female tennis player.”
Osaka is the world’s highest-paid female athlete and has total earnings of $37.4m (£27.2m), according to Forbes, and has a total of 15 corporate sponsors.
Raducanu’s earnings potential is also enhanced by the fact that she is excelling at tennis, one of the few truly global sports with the biggest endorsement deals and prize money for women, which Crow says “makes it the best sport for a woman for marketability and market potential”. The nine highest paid female athletes in the world are tennis players, according to Forbes.
Experts agree, however, that for her to become a long-term earner at top level she needs continued success.
“In order for her to really achieve the potential she has, she needs to be successful on a consistent basis,” said Neil Hopkins, global head of strategy at M&C Saatchi Sports and Entertainment.
He said the sheer brilliance she had displayed so far would interest sponsors, particularly in the UK. Tf she wins the US Open, she will be thrust into the top echelon of female players, he said.
“[Raducanu] has gone straight in at the top of tennis. You’re going to have sponsors looking at her for the potential she has. And there’s no limit to the type of organisation that could be looking at her,” said Hopkins.
“If she wins [the US Open], her earning potential will get a real boost. When we look at potential athletes for our clients to sponsor, she wouldn’t have been in the conversation a year ago, but she will feature now in lots of conversations.”
Matt Gentry, long-term agent and co-founder of Andy Murray’s agency 77 Sports Management, said she had broad global appeal and if she had continued success there was huge potential. But, he said, “given her age, it’s about being careful and considered, rather than burdening her with lots of brand partners over the next 12 months”.
Gentry said: “It’s about working with companies that, maybe she likes, or in areas she feels passionately about. Not necessarily taking the most money, the marketing investment from big brands is also important. So there are lots of considerations as to who she partners with.
“It should be tennis development first and foremost, and a slow longer-term focus on brand building.”
Financial services, consumer goods and fashion would all be interested, Gentry said. “It’s sky high in terms of potential for her, and not just in the UK. There will be many global companies keen to be part of her journey.”
Raducanu set for global media stardom, say UK marketing experts | Emma Raducanu | The Guardian
Meghan Markle and Harry’s Netflix plan will be ‘hard to stomach’ for Royal Family
The Express
Meghan and Harry’s first Netflix series was announced earlier this year, marking a major step in their pursuit of independence in their new life away from royal duties. The programme – which is called Heart Of Invictus – will be produced by Harry and Meghan’s Archewell Productions company and follow competitors as they prepare for the 2022 games. Harry remains passionate about the Invictus Games which he established in 2013 after witnessing the US’s similar Warrior Games for veterans with physical and mental disabilities.
As part of their deal with Netflix, the couple plan to make documentaries, docu-series, feature films, scripted shows and children’s programming.
But a PR agent warned in September 2020, when the deal had just been announced, that the Sussexes’ new venture could be hard to stomach for the Royal Family.
Mark Borkowski told The Sun: “Viewers will be interested to see what they are up to but there needs to be authenticity.
“They have laid out a grand plan and are fulfilling it. They are doing this all on their own terms.
“Their determination to have their voice heard sustains them.”
He added: “The big hits on Netflix are ones based in reality so it makes sense.
“But this is something the Royal Family will find hard to stomach.”
Netflix said in a statement at the time “The couple already have several projects in development, including an innovative nature docu-series and an animated series that celebrates inspiring women.
“But we are not disclosing any of the programming slate at this time.”
Meghan’s animated series – titled “Pearl” – is already in the works.
Archewell Productions, the company formed by Harry and Meghan, said in a statement that the programme will centre on the adventures of a 12-year-old girl who is inspired by a variety of influential women from history.
The series will be produced by Meghan, and she said in a statement that she is “thrilled that Archewell Productions…will bring you this new animated series, which celebrates extraordinary women throughout history.”
Upon the announcement of the Netflix deal last September, a source close to Meghan also said the Duchess wants the world to see the “real her”.
They added: “Much of the docu-series will be about their philanthropy rather than what they get up to behind closed doors.
“But it will still be a fascinating insight and Meghan hopes viewers will get to see the real her.”
But the agreement with the streaming giant was also met with criticism from some quarters, as royal author Ingrid Seward argued it contradicted their wishes for privacy.
She said: “We were told they had gone to California for greater privacy so it all appears rather hypocritical.
“It is extraordinary. This is exactly what they said they wouldn’t do.
“The more they talk about themselves the more people will want them to do just that and won’t be interested in anything else they have to offer.”
What’s next for Prince Andrew?
CBC News
Duke of York has repeatedly denied sexual assault allegation at heart of lawsuit recently launched against him
The civil suit launched a few days ago against Prince Andrew may be new, but the allegations at its core — that he sexually assaulted one of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime accusers when she was 17 — are not.
And there is nothing new in how Queen Elizabeth’s second son, who has repeatedly denied the allegations, has responded to the latest legal situation: with public silence.
That’s not to say there’s been silence around the suit filed by lawyers for Virginia Giuffre in Manhattan federal court.
“It has caused a media storm, as would be predictable,” said Judith Rowbotham, a social and cultural scholar and visiting professor at the University of Plymouth in southwestern England, via email.
Rowbotham said it is highly unlikely that the suit came as a surprise to either Andrew or the Royal Family.
The official line, she said, is that this is a personal matter for Andrew, and not something for the Royal Family to handle in an institutional sense.
“He has his own team of legal advisers and there is no suggestion of any involvement from the Royal Household’s legal retainers, further underlining that it is being handled as a purely private and personal matter for the prince.”
Andrew stepped back from official royal duties in the aftermath of his disastrous BBC interview in November 2019 about his friendship with Epstein.
The spectre of that interview, which was excoriated for its arrogance and Andrew’s seemingly tone-deaf focus on himself, as well as the lack of empathy he showed for Epstein’s victims, has hung over him ever since.
“If he hadn’t done the interview, there would have been a lot of noise, [but] it would be more difficult … to keep the narrative going,” British PR expert Mark Borkowski said in an interview.
While Andrew may have stepped back, there has also been a sense he may be interested in resuming a more public role. At the time of the death of his father, Prince Philip, in April, he spoke to the media — a move that in particular sparked speculation he might be eyeing a return.
But in the eyes of many observers, such a return is unlikely. Borkowski considers chances of it happening “very slim, microscopic.”
“It’s a story that is not going to go away. Any time he raises his head above the parapet … it’s not a good look. And the tactic he deployed to supposedly draw a line over this has done anything but that.”
Andrew’s circumstances are hardly the first time a member of the Royal Family has been caught up in high-profile legal matters over the centuries.
The real question here, suggested Rowbotham, “is not whether or not Prince Andrew is guilty of something, but rather, how will public opinion view not only him, but also the wider Royal Family, as a result of the outcome — whatever it is — of the suit brought against him.”
Looking back in time, she points to the case of George IV and his wife, Caroline of Brunswick. In 1820, he arranged to have her put on trial in the House of Lords for adultery.
“Public opinion was hotly engaged, with most people very firmly on Queen Caroline’s side,” said Rowbotham, who is also a legal and constitutional historian.
Ultimately, George IV didn’t get his divorce, and both the monarch and the government survived.
“At that time, attitudes to the sexual mores of the elite were very different, but the public discerned an unfairness over suing the Queen for adultery when the King had, for years, been an open and flagrant adulterer himself,” said Rowbotham.
Borkowski sees Andrew’s situation as a “recurring scar” for the Royal Family.
“It makes it more difficult for the Royal Family to start rebuilding and projecting positively when we’ve still got these negative stories swirling around.”
Rowbotham said the situation for Andrew, who is now ninth in the line of succession and essentially a minor royal, “is undoubtedly embarrassing and problematic for him, and for his family in the personal sense.”
“But it is honestly difficult to see that it is a threat to the Royal Family as an institution surrounding the monarchy.”
Many minor royals have been caught up in scandal over the years, she said, noting, for example, a previous Prince George of Cambridge in the 1800s. (This George had illegitimate children, mistresses and a mixed reputation regarding his time in the military.)
“While the family — with a lowercase F — may be affected [by Andrew’s situation], the Royal Family will be in the long term not significantly affected,” said Rowbotham.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/prince-andrew-civil-suit-environment-butterflies-titles-1.6140055
Prince Andrew Cannot Escape Sexual Allegation Lawsuit; Queen Elizabeth Leaving Him to Defend Himself?
Enstars
There’s no escaping Prince Andrew’s latest sexual assault lawsuit this time.
Despite his best attempts to distance himself from the controversy, the Duke of York is facing “death by a million daggers” with the new suit. Now, it seems like the entire thing keeps coming back to haunt him.
According to PR expert and crisis management consultant Mark Borkowski, the favorite son of Queen Elizabeth II had an “albatross gripping his neck” regarding Virginia Roberts-Giuffre’s latest US lawsuit filed against him.
The expert also claims that no matter what Prince Andrew would do, he wouldn’t escape the allegations and it was already justified because of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew also didn’t fully cooperate with the US authorities during their Epstein investigation. Giuffre is taking matters into her hands by filing a lawsuit against the royal, claiming he sexually assaulted her when she was only 17 years old.
Speaking on Sky News, Borkowski explained, “This a horrendous albatross gripping his neck, it’s hanging around his neck like some evil totem.”
“And sadly this is death by a million daggers, every time there’s any distance from the story another knife is put into the back.”
Prince Andrew, who’s the third child of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, has denied all the claims and said he has never met Giuffre despite a picture of them made its rounds online but added that the image of them together was “doctored.”
According to Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies, the royal couldn’t ignore the claims anymore and would have to, at least, acknowledge that there is a case now against him.
Boies told Sky News, “He can’t ignore the process. He can ignore me and ignore my client. He can ignore other victims and their lawyers, but he can’t ignore the court.”
“The court process now is going to compel him. If he were to try to ignore the court the way he’s ignored us, there would be a default judgment entered against them.”
Queen Elizabeth II may not be able to do anything anymore, but she can protect the royalfamily.
Though he is her favorite child, she had to let him go after allegations came to light in 2019.
Prince Andrew had to step back from his royal duties, but he is still being taken care of backstage by the Queen.
Now, though, it seems like Her Majesty can’t do anything anymore but protect others in the royal family as her son takes the fall.
Prince Andrew facing ‘death by a million daggers’ as crisis expert claims he can’t escape
The Express
PRINCE Andrew is facing “death by a million daggers” amid the latest sexual assault lawsuit filed against him as despite his best attempts to distance himself from the controversy it keeps coming back to haunt him.
Author and crisis management consultant Mark Borkowski explained Prince Andrew had an “albatross gripping his neck” with regards to the latest US lawsuit filed against him and claims no matter what he could not escape the allegations. Mr Borkowski said to some it was quite justified considering his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and the fact Prince Andrew has not fully cooperated with US authorities during their Epstein inquest. Virginia Guiffre has filed a US lawsuit against Prince Andrew, alleging he sexually assaulted her when she was 17.
Speaking about the topic on Sky News, Mr Borkowski gave his opinion on the dire situation Prince Andrew finds himself in.
He claimed: “This a horrendous albatross gripping his neck, it’s hanging around his neck like some evil totem.
“And sadly this is death by a million daggers, every time there’s any distance from the story another knife is put into the back.
“Some people would say justifiably so.”
Prince Andrew denies all claims and says he has never met Ms Giuffre, adding a picture taken of the two is doctored.
Ms Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boies, told Sky News Prince Andrew could no longer ignore the claims of Ms Giuffre and would need to at least acknowledge the case put against him.
Mr Boies said: “He can’t ignore the process. He can ignore me and ignore my client. He can ignore other victims and their lawyers, but he can’t ignore the court.
“The court process now is going to compel him. If he were to try to ignore the court the way he’s ignored us, there would be a default judgment entered against them.
“That could be enforced in the United States or in England or elsewhere in the world. So I don’t think he’s going to ignore the court.
“And as a result, he’s going to be held to account.”
A statement published by Buckingham Palace in 2019 read: “The Duke of York has been appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes.
“His Royal Highness deplores the exploitation of any human being and the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent.”
Currently, Prince Andrew is reportedly in Balmoral with the Queen and Sarah Ferguson after pictures were shown of them driving to the house.
It has been a long time since Ms Ferguson has met with the Queen or attended royal residences with royal author Angela Levin telling Sky News the accusations against Andrew will “hang like a dark cloud”.
Ms Guiffre filed the lawsuit in New York where time restraints on making the case are not applicable when compared to England where they are.
The US court will have the power to call upon any evidence to help the case including phone records, communications, pictures, and any other important records provided they still exist.
Ghislaine Maxwell, who worked for Jeffery Epstein, is currently under arrest for sex trafficking charges and will face court in November.
However, it could be the case she is called upon as a witness as one of Ms Guiffre’s claims took place in the house of Ms Maxwell.
Can Johnny Depp bounce back?
The Telegraph
It feels portentous now watching Johnny Depp in Edward Scissorhands, seeing the peculiar tenderness he brought to a role that turned him from ’80s heart-throb into ’90s indie icon (and earned him his first major awards nomination – a Golden Globe for best actor). In Scissorhands (1990), Depp plays a fragile loner whose strangeness makes him captivating, yet ultimately isolates him. It was a part for which Depp seemed destined (although, weirdly, Tim Burton wanted Tom Cruise to play it), propelling him to other roles as eccentric outsiders that came to define him. In What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (1993), Ed Wood (1994) and Donnie Brasco (1997), he was sealed in the public imagination as a wounded hero, personifying the ’90s grunge backlash against ’80s pop. For biographer Michael Blitz, Depp encapsulated an era: ‘The curious by-product of conflicting forces in American popular culture and, to a lesser extent, European pop culture.’
On screen Depp played misunderstood outsiders, amplified off-screen by his wild-child image. His reputation for heavy drinking and rumoured drug-taking later saw him confess to Rolling Stone, ‘I spent years poisoning myself. I was very, very good at it.’ His dysfunction seemed bound to his relationships. He was engaged to Winona Ryder within five months of meeting her, having ‘Winona forever’ tattooed on his bicep, later amended to ‘Wino forever’. He dated supermodel Kate Moss – being arrested for vandalising a hotel room they were staying in, causing £8,000 worth of damage. He only seemed to find some stability when he met (in 1998) long-time partner Vanessa Paradis, who wrote love letters to him in French Elle. They had two children, Lily-Rose, now 22, and Jack, 19.
Actor Greg Ellis, who has known Depp since their children attended the same preschool and kindergarten in LA, describes him as ‘humble, down-to-earth, funny, generous, a wonderful dad’. In 2003, as Lieutenant Theodore Groves, Ellis appeared with Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. It was Depp’s first outing as Captain Jack Sparrow, who he based on Rolling Stones guitarist Ronnie Wood. ‘Jack Sparrow is a piece of cinematic history,’ says Ellis. ‘To play an effeminate, drunk, bejewelled pirate was risky – but it worked.’ It turned Depp into the mega-star of a blockbuster brand. Pirates earnt Depp his first Oscar nomination and – over five instalments – a reported $300 million. By 2010, when Depp commanded $55 million for Alice in Wonderland, he was one of Hollywood’s highest-paid actors.
Yet now, just over a decade later, the 58-year-old’s career seems to have crashed. Amid a bitter divorce, allegations of abuse from his ex-wife Amber Heard and a devastatingly public libel trial that labelled him a ‘wife beater’, he has been dropped from film projects. With his latest movie Minamata, a biopic of photographer Eugene Smith, being released on 13 August with a fizzle, it’s unclear if this is Depp’s comeback or swan song.
Some might suggest that Depp’s career had long been on the downturn. He’d had flops with The Tourist (2010), Dark Shadows (2012) and The Lone Ranger (2013). For some fans, the actor’s downfall began in 2009 when he met Amber Heard – 23 years his junior – on the set of The Rum Diary. Within three years, Depp and Paradis had split. By 2015 Depp and Heard wed. Just 15 months later they filed for divorce amid stories of a tumultuous and toxic relationship, with Heard accusing Depp of domestic abuse and obtaining a temporary restraining order against him.
Depp fans refused to believe the allegations; his team denied them. Pointedly, a joint statement released in 2016 when Depp and Heard reached a $7 million divorce settlement read: ‘Our relationship was intensely passionate and at times volatile, but always bound by love… There was never any intent of physical or emotional harm.’
It was a message confused by reports that Heard would donate a chunk of her settlement to a domestic violence charity, and the subsequent op-ed she wrote for The Washington Post about domestic abuse. In it she described how she’d ‘felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out’. (An article over which Depp is now bringing a $50 million libel suit.)
But the pivotal moment came when a 2018 column published in The Sun questioned Depp’s casting in Fantastic Beasts, calling him a ‘wife beater’. For Depp, a line had been crossed. ‘When your son is coming home in tears because he’s been bullied about never-ending news stories about his father’s alleged “violent” behaviour, I think a parent, particularly a father, gets to a point where you’ve had enough and say, “I have to take a stand now,”’ says Greg Ellis. ‘Depp has two kids, they look at social media, they’re aware of the outrageous things that are written. I think for his kids’ sake, for their futures, so he could look them in the eye and say, “I tried,” he felt he had to take a stand and say enough was enough.’
Depp brought a defamation case against The Sun. It was a move international media law specialist Mark Stephens, of firm Howard Kennedy, describes as ‘self-immolation’. He explains such libel cases are ‘extremely rare’ because they carry such huge reputational risk: ‘Even if you win on legal merit you lose the reputational war.’
Defamation cases attract what is known as the Streisand Effect: named after singer Barbara Streisand’s attempt to suppress photographs of her Malibu home, which only publicised them further. ‘Bringing this case meant attracting the attention of every single journalist worldwide – you’re going to ignite an explosion,’ says Gary Farrow, one of Britain’s best-known entertainment publicists, whose clients have included Sir Elton John. ‘Footage of you at court is going to be all over every TV station and is going to be forever associated with you.’
‘In his best interest would have been to swallow his pride and put his head down,’ adds leading talent manager Jonathan Shalit OBE (who discovered Charlotte Church). ‘Depp has never been charged or convicted of a criminal offence, so when The Sun wrote [that Depp was a ‘wife beater’] some would have believed it and some wouldn’t have believed it.’
Until Depp brought his libel case, it was a he-said, she-said. Now Depp effectively challenged The Sun to prove he was a wife beater in court.
‘He could have apologised, said he was going to rehab and everyone would have forgiven him,’ says Mark Stephens, ‘but instead he mounted this full-throated attack. Nobody is a winner in a situation where a break-up of a relationship is picked over by top QCs in public.’
Crime journalist Nick Wallis live-tweeted the trial. He called it a ‘Hollywood opera’ played out in the middle of lockdown, amid London’s desolate streets, with the stage the otherwise empty Royal Courts of Justice. ‘It was a very surreal experience, and I’ve covered a lot of trials,’ Wallis says. ‘Having this Hollywood circus, two Hollywood stars, their flunkies and the press at the High Court is unusual but it’s even weirder when it’s the only show in town – it’s almost as if you’re on a film set yourself.’
Wallis’s tweets reached 100 million views, his ‘mentions pinging like a fruit machine’; fans gathered outside court holding placards reading ‘Justice For Johnny’, others dressed as Edward Scissorhands.
The trial ran across five courts – two for lawyers, two public courts, and one press court where international journalists sat stunned as ‘within about 10 seconds these amazing revelations were spilling out’, Wallis says. Revelations about Depp’s drug abuse; his detox on his island in the Bahamas; rows on a private jet flying from Boston to LA, where Depp allegedly kicked Heard and called her a whore; and in a rented mansion in Australia, where Heard flew to join Depp, there filming Pirates of the Caribbean – she claimed he trashed the house with smeared food and broken glass, and by writing with blood on the walls, causing $150,000 damage. ‘It was extraordinary,’ Wallis says.
Depp arrived at court in a silver people carrier, with collar-length hair and a mini-goatee. He changed his outfit every day. He wore aviator sunglasses and pulled his bandana over his face ‘like an outlaw’, Wallis says. ‘He looked really good!’
Heard arrived at court with her sister Whitney, her girlfriend Bianca Butti, Australian barrister Jennifer Robinson and American attorney Elaine Bredehoft. Newspapers labelled them her ‘girl squad’. Wallis found Heard ‘incredibly sharp and poised. Often quicker than the barristers in finding references and recounting what she had or hasn’t said.’
Depp was ‘lucid’, ‘entertaining’, ‘his charisma and level of articulacy was impressive’. He was ‘scrupulously polite’, calling the barrister ‘Ma’am’ and judge ‘Sir’, before correcting himself ‘M’Lord… protocol’.
‘He was very respectful of the court process and everyone in it. He was a courteous southern gentleman,’ says Wallis. Indeed, Depp has previously described himself as a southern gentleman and ‘played that card for all it was worth during the time he was in court. If he was acting then it felt like a role he’s been playing for 20 years.’
‘He’s a brilliant actor,’ says Depp’s biographer Blitz, ‘some say that he is nearly always acting, whether on or off screen.’
Once, Wallis clocked Depp in a corridor, sweeping towards court with his entourage, coffee in hand. As Depp walked towards the courtroom door an usher held it open for him. ‘And Depp handed his coffee to his bouncer and put his hands together in a prayer, like a bow, to the usher and swept into court. It was this beautiful little Hollywood vignette of a star behaving both graciously and to the manner born,’ Wallis says.
The trial lasted 16 days, during which Heard accused Depp of attacking her on at least 14 occasions, between 2013 and 2016, under the influence of drink or drugs. Heard’s team alleged Depp hit Heard, headbutted and slapped her, threw things at her, tore her clothes and grabbed her hair. They claimed in one row he hit her ‘so hard that blood from her lip ended up on the wall’. In another he ‘slammed her against the countertop and strangled her’ in an attack that left her ‘scared for her life’.
The evidence included photographs of Heard’s injuries and texts Depp had allegedly sent actor Paul Bettany describing drowning Heard and burning her, writing, ‘I will f—k her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she’s dead.’
During the case Depp revealed his abuse of alcohol, marijuana, MDMA, magic mushrooms and cocaine and dire financial mismanagement, which had cost him $650 million. Although this wouldn’t have shocked fans who’d have read about his famous high spending: his $10 million yacht, the $55 million French chateau, the $5 million he paid to shoot his friend Hunter S Thompson’s ashes out of a cannon and the Rolling Stone interview where Depp joked it was ‘insulting to say that I spent $30,000 on wine… because it was far more’.
Depp’s team meanwhile mounted a defence that Stephens says left lawyers ‘incredulous’. They presented the grand theory that Heard was a ‘gold digger’ perpetrating an opportunistic ‘hoax’. They released photographs of Depp with a black eye after Heard allegedly punched him, and accused her of throwing glass bottles at him which severed his finger; of having affairs with James Franco and Elon Musk and defecating in their bed – leading him to brand her ‘Amber Turd’ (all of which she denied).
Depp’s former partners Winona Ryder and Vanessa Paradis submitted witness statements stating he was never violent towards them.
Depp lost. Perhaps he considers it a pyrrhic victory to have had his day in court, although it cost him an estimated £5 million and an initial payment of £700,000 towards The Sun’s legal costs. In a 129-page judgment, Mr Justice Nicol dismissed Depp’s ‘hoax’ theory, finding The Sun’s story ‘substantially true’, stating that: ‘The great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard’ and ‘I accept her evidence of the nature of the assaults he committed against her. They must have been terrifying.’ The legal case’s conclusion was just the start.
As legal experts speculated over whether Depp would face criminal repercussions for his admissions of abuse and drug use, the fallout for his career was immediate. Days after the verdict, Depp revealed he’d been ‘asked to resign by Warner Bros’ from Fantastic Beasts. The Hollywood Reporter claimed that even before the libel trial Disney had distanced itself from Depp, declining to commit to future appearances of Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates films, and suggested Depp was being sidelined from a prestige Harry Houdini TV project.
Meanwhile, however, Dior kept Depp as the face of its Sauvage fragrance; while loyal fans continued to fight vociferously for his name under the hashtag #justiceforjohnny-depp. Depp, it seemed, had become a cultural totem in a wider gender war going on.
Heard and Depp’s fight came amid a growing backlash against Hollywood misogyny, and a rising awareness of male abuse fuelled by movements like Time’s Up and MeToo. Some legal experts found Depp’s court tactics out of step with such movements. Stephens was disturbed by the way Depp’s defence was ‘run around aggressive tropes about women’.
‘It was a character assassination of Heard,’ Stephens says, noting the similarities to how rape victims were once re-victimised on the stand. ‘If the accusation is that he’s a wife beater, what does it matter if she’s a gold digger? Or if she put a turd in the bed?’
Stephens was concerned by hashtags used to abuse Heard, who ‘had to be escorted into court every day because of the fans outside, whereas Johnny was walking up the front steps being adulated’.
After the libel verdict, domestic violence charity Refuge issued a statement praising the ‘important ruling… which we hope sends a very powerful message’. Describing how domestic abusers often used power to control and silence victims, they said: ‘We stand in solidarity with Amber Heard who has shown immense bravery in speaking up and speaking out.’
Depp’s supporters saw things very differently. Greg Ellis describes Depp’s case as ‘a conflation of cancel culture, the rush to judgment and mobbing on social media – and a particularly pernicious branch of the legal system, the family court, that doesn’t offer presumption of innocence’. Ellis, to whose recently released book The Respondent: Exposing the Cartel of Family Law Depp wrote the introduction, believes Depp’s ‘reputation savaging’ began in the family court in 2016, when Heard accused him of domestic violence. Ellis calls this the ‘silver bullet playbook of high-conflict divorce – it’s become the go-to strategy for spouses and the attorneys because it’s the easiest way to destroy your opponent and win the game before conflict in the courtroom has even begun.’
However, Depp’s loss in London was merely round one. In April 2022, Depp brings an even more substantial case – the $50 million defamation suit over Heard’s Washington Post column, which Depp claims damaged his reputation. The case looks set to be just as salacious, with evidence from celebrities reportedly including Keira Knightley, Elon Musk and Angelina Jolie. Meanwhile, Heard is counter-suing Depp, following his allegation she lied about spousal abuse. Where will this revenge spiral end?
Perhaps not in court. The legal outcome for Depp won’t necessarily correlate with the conclusions of the court of public opinion. Neither Woody Allen nor Kevin Spacey have been convicted of a crime but both have seen their careers impinged by accusations of sexual misconduct. Singer Chris Brown, who apologised after being convicted of assaulting Rihanna, has continued his career. Others, like Weinstein and Cosby, seem beyond redemption.
‘I don’t think you can put Depp and Weinstein in the same sentence,’ Shalit argues. ‘Weinstein was charged with a series of horrific criminal offences for which he was found guilty. As unpalatable as his private life seems, individual film-makers and studios will take their own view as to whether Depp will be box-office gold again.’
Ellis is optimistic. He ‘absolutely’ thinks Depp should be able to return to Pirates of the Caribbean as Captain Jack Sparrow. ‘Given Depp was a large part of making that million-dollar franchise it’d be nice if Disney didn’t desert him.’
Farrow – who met Depp on numerous occasions and found him ‘charming’ – says: ‘The best policy is to be honest, to come out and say, “I did have problems at the time, it doesn’t excuse what I did but I want to make amends.”’
Would an apology be enough to launder Depp’s reputation? So far, he doesn’t seem inclined to make one. ‘I intend to prove that the allegations against me are false,’ Depp wrote on Instagram – just before his lawyers lost their appeal against the London libel case.
Some men, notably Depp’s idols and friends, Hunter S Thompson and Keith Richards, have built careers on unapologetically wild reputations. Perhaps this is the mould in which Depp sees himself. ‘Depp is and almost always has been a heavy drinker, smoker, drug-user and excess-seeker,’ says Blitz, noting Depp’s characters ‘are deeply flawed, often profoundly damaged and/or tortured souls… That his roles reflect his life, and vice versa, is not likely to come as much of a surprise to his fans.’
British PR expert Mark Borkowski notes Depp has ‘a phenomenally loyal and very active fan base calling for justice for him’. Although Depp’s ‘hell-raiser pirate boy image might be anachronistic’, he believes with the right ‘hot director’ Depp could find ‘a challenging, dark script that allows him to prove to people why he is such an enigmatic, compelling personality on-screen. You let the work do the talking by proving Depp can still have an impact and that, commercially, he’s moved on. I think there’s going to be an interesting next period of his life. Don’t write any obituaries for Depp yet.’
On Instagram, Depp insists, ‘My life and career will not be defined by this moment in time.’ His refusal to apologise appeals to his fans – tilting at windmills in a quixotic war gives him credence. Writing about how his ‘resolve remains strong’, Depp has positioned himself as a wounded hero in a dark fairy tale. A misunderstood man who wants to be loved – but, like one of his most famous characters, can only reach out with weapons. Whether this is a story that will win the public over only time will tell.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/can-johnny-depp-bounce-back/
CEOs told to ‘think before they tweet’ after Just Eat spat with Uber
The Guardian
Chief executives are being warned to “think twice before they tweet” after the boss of takeaway company Just Eat Takeaway was told his Twitter spat with Uber threatened to undermine the firm’s reputation.
Jitse Groen this week became the latest in a growing list of chief executives to be rebuked by customers, investors and even regulators over ill-judged tweets.
Cat Rock Capital Management, an activist investor which has a 4.7% stake in Just Eat, highlighted Groen’s Twitter battle with Uber boss Dara Khosrowshahi as an example of outbursts that damaged the brand. The investor said Groen’s tweets had partly led to the firm being “deeply undervalued and vulnerable to takeover bids at far below its intrinsic value”.
Earlier this year Groen had a rant at financial analysts on Twitter, claiming that “some can’t even do basic maths”. He tweeted that he was “amazed how bad these analysts have become … All of them mix up definitions. It’s unbelievable.”
Brand and marketing expert Mark Borkowski said Groen’s case highlighted the difficulty executives face when trying to engage with customers on the platform.
“Everyone sees Twitter as a huge marketing opportunity that can drive a business forward, and it really can,” Borkowski said. “But these bosses must stop and think twice before they tweet, as just one misjudged tweet can send their share price plunging.”
Possibly the most expensive tweets ever sent were posted by Elon Musk, the maverick boss of electric car company Tesla, in 2018. The US Securities and Exchange Commission fined Musk and Tesla $20m each after he tweeted that he had “funding secured” to take the company private at $420 a share. The regulator said the tweet, which sent Tesla’s share price up by as much as 13%, violated securities law. As part of the settlement, Musk was ordered to step down as Tesla’s chairman.
Musk’s tweets continued to anger some investors. Pirc, an influential adviser to shareholders including the UK’s local authority pension funds, last year recommended that investors voted against Musk’s re-election to the Tesla board because his tweets posed “a serious risk of reputational harm to the company and its shareholders”.
Pirc said his controversial outbursts on Twitter had cost Tesla millions of dollars in settlements, but Musk easily won the vote, and has continued to tweet several times a day to his 59 million followers.
“Twitter is all about personality,” Borkowski said. “While Musk’s tweets can be very controversial, they fit with his brand. Twitter is perfect for renegades, mavericks and disruptor brands. It’s much harder for well-established brands with solid reputations, if something goes wrong for them they risk damage to their hard-earned brand.
“People now think that to run a successful business, you have to be on social media and every brand has to have a Twitter account,” he said. “The chief executives see that the bosses of their rivals have a Twitter profile, and they feel they have to have one too.”
Borkowski said some bosses have been very successful at building a presence and personality on Twitter, and using their platforms to promote social issues such as LGBTQ+ rights and the Black Lives Matter movement (as well as promote their brand and products).
James Timpson, the chief executive of cobbler Timpson, this week celebrated passing 100,000 followers on his account on which he weaves photos of his colleagues working in shops with posts tackling tax avoidance and prisoner reform.
This week, he responded to Boris Johnson’s proposal to create “fluorescent-jacketed chain gangs” of people found guilty of antisocial behaviour with a tweet suggesting offenders should be helped into work instead.
Tim Cook, the chief executive of Apple, has won praise for using Twitter to successfully pressure the governor of Indiana into revising proposed legislation that had threatened to allow discrimination against gay people on religious grounds.
Researchers at Harvard Business School and Duke University said Cook “effectively framed the debate using social media at a time when opinions were being formed and the impact went beyond the political”.
Borkowski suggested that before chief executives tweet they should “consider whether they have the personality and temperament to get the tone right each time”.
“There is nothing more inelegant than a chief executive going after rivals publicly on Twitter,” he said.
It was exactly that sort of behaviour that Cat Rock had accused Groen of undertaking. When Uber Eats announced earlier this year that it would take on Just Eat in Germany, Groen lashed out in a tweet directed at Khosrowshahi, accusing him of “trying to depress our share price”.
Khosrowshahi replied that perhaps Groen should “pay a little less attention to your short term stock price and more attention to your Tech and Ops”. That sparked Groen to reply “thank you for the advice, and then if I may .. Start paying taxes, minimum wage and social security premiums before giving a founder advice on how he should run his business”.
Alex Captain, Cat Rock’s founder, said: “The response should not happen on Twitter. It should happen on a credible forum with the facts, data, and analysis that the company has at its disposal.”
A Just Eat spokesperson said: “Just Eat Takeaway.com has a regular dialogue with all its shareholders and we take all their views very seriously.”