Harry and Meghan Markle ‘are in a really good place’ Sussexes’ friend Gayle King says
Daily Mail
Mark Borkowski said that Meghan has difficult decisions to make as their popularity in the US has tumbled.
He said: ‘There will definitely be a relaunch by Meghan. It is impossible for them to stay quiet. They need the royal pomp and ceremony. They could end up becoming an entity like Edward and Mrs Simpson. Forlorn royals with no connection to the family being in exile. There are parallels there.
‘They will be very quick to regenerate interest. But it is going to be more and more and difficult. For many Spare was a set of stories that went too far’.
The Tig was, in her own words, her ‘passion project’. The brand is still owned by the Duchess’s Delaware-based company Frim Fram.
So what next for James Corden?
Mail Online
PR guru Mark Borkowski told MailOnline that trying to bring back Gavin & Stacey could be a mistake and that instead Corden could be snapped up by ITV either for a new reality show or chat show.
If the latter does come to pass for Corden, who can call on appearances from A-lister friends such as Adele and Prince Harry, it would be bad news for Jonathan Ross, according to Mr Borkowski.
He said: ‘Reviving classics are rarely a good idea. It’s a risk. However ITV would be able to give him an enormous platform. The big TV formats are very hard to develop, nevertheless he is a draw and with a winning format he’d be a huge asset.
‘Talk shows are a thing of the past because it’s so difficult to land A-listers. He might be able to attract the talent and that’s bad news for Jonathan Ross.
‘If he finds an authentic route to manage his public image and align to a good very good format he will be ubiquitous. Natural talents like Corden are thin on the ground.’
The era of the great working-class entertainers is over – Len Goodman was the last
Daily Telegraph
“This old guard didn’t become famous overnight thanks to a TikTok, a reality show or a sex tape,” says branding and PR expert Mark Borkowski. “They rose through the ranks because they were bloody good at what they did and they were grateful and gracious when they found success because it didn’t come overnight. They were steeped in music-hall values – demonstrating real talent, being versatile and putting the hours in. They took nothing for granted, they loved what they did and that shone through to their audiences in theatres and homes.”
The new light entertainers are a very different breed. However likeable and confident they may be – Ant & Dec, Dermot O’Leary, Graham Norton – today’s presenters have none of the polish of, say, Bob Monkhouse. Michael McIntyre does a fine line in observational comedy but stylish and authoritative he is not; even on his big-budget Big Show, McIntyre can’t help but channel “baggy supply teacher” rather than bespoke Savile Row. They reflect an informal age. If theu lack the gravitas that comes with sharp tailoring, they also lack the the ability to ad lib without recourse to an autocue. Or swearing.
Where Len Goodman compared Anita Rani’s 2015 Cell Block Tango routine to “a cowpat on Countryfile: hot and steamy”, the place erupted. And when he once observed, “I’m a cup of tea in a world of skinny lattes,” a great many of us could empathise.
“Len had talent and style but bringing him, a virtual unknown aged 60, onto Strictly was was a high-risk strategy,” says Borkowski. “It paid off many times over, but it’s a different landscape now. He’d be deemed ‘too pale, male and stale’ and there’s a real disrespect for boomers.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2023/04/24/len-goodman-strictly-come-dancing-with-the-stars-showman/
Meghan will make bid to relaunch her career after King’s coronation, says Mark Borkowski
Mail Online
PR guru Mark Borkowski said that Meghan’s next move is crucial, because Spare and her husband’s ‘truths’ in the media blitz that followed had damaged his brand and tarnished her, too.
He said: ‘She’s kept her head down for some time. I suspect this is due to the noise that accompanied Spare, it created debate and a huge amount of coverage. I don’t think it played well in America, especially with their fundraisers.
‘The Royal Family refused to comment so it became one sided whinging and a visceral story of his life that didn’t resonate well. And they were both challenged by that because they are on a constant mission to raise money and generate coverage to help her brand.
‘There is nothing for her to gain from disrupting the King’s big day. She needs to stand back. In the PR game it is choosing your battles and the strategy will be to get past the coronation.
‘The fact that she is not there is a statement that the UK does not particularly engage with her and looks like: “Poor me”.
‘But the Meghan and Harry story is way beyond the boundaries of Britain and the Commonwealth. There will definitely be a relaunch by Meghan. It is impossible for them to stay quiet.
‘They need the royal pomp and ceremony. They could end up becoming an entity like Edward and Mrs Simpson. Some forlorn royals with no connection to the family being in exile. There are parallels there.
‘They will be very quick to regenerate interest. But it is going to be more and more and difficult. For many Spare was a set of stories that went too far’.
The speculation around Meghan Markle’s career come after she stepped back from the limelight after the release of her husband’s memoir Spare.
So what WILL Meghan’s next move be?
The Daily Mail
Meghan Markle has been in hiding for months as Prince Harry promotes Spare but she is set to make a very public comeback just days after the Coronation with new TV projects plus The Tig 2.0 also said to be in the pipeline, MailOnline can reveal today.
The Duchess of Sussex has only been seen four times in public since the launch of the Sussexes’ Netflix series in December as experts claimed she has kept her head down to avoid flak sparked by her husband’s royal-trashing memoir.
Brand experts told MailOnline today that Meghan would be wise not to announce any new ventures until after May 6, or face more accusations of using her royal links to make piles of cash without actively supporting the King or the institution itself.
An opportune time will come ten days after the Coronation, when she is in New York on May 16 as a guest of honour at the annual ‘Women of Vision Awards’, where she will be described as ‘one of the most powerful and influential women in the world’ and collect an award for being a ‘feminist, champion of human rights and gender equity, and global role model’.
Her decision not to be in London next month to see her father-in-law crowned King will allow her to celebrate Archie’s fourth birthday with her mother Doria and friends – but it will also give her time to plot her next move in TV, books and podcasting, insiders claim.
One source told The Telegraph that Archewell, the Sussexes’ broadcasting business, is looking to hire writers to create ‘feel-good’ shows including romantic comedies for Netflix. She is also looking increasingly likely to relaunch her blog, The Tig, having seen how Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop lifestyle website has made the actress £200million or more.
Meghan was reportedly very upset by a merciless episode of South Park, which was dedicated to lampooning the couple with a fictitious ‘Worldwide Privacy Tour’ while plugging a memoir. Perhaps the most brutal moment came when the Prince opened his wife’s mouth to look inside and found nothing – an unkind reference to her being an empty vessel.
PR guru Mark Borkowski said that Meghan’s next move is crucial, because Spare and her husband’s ‘truths’ in the media blitz that followed had damaged his brand and tarnished her reputation too as millions believe Harry ‘went too far’.
He said: ‘She’s kept her head down for some time. I suspect this is due to the noise that accompanied Spare, it created debate and a huge amount of coverage. I don’t think it played well in America, especially with their fundraisers.
‘The Royal Family refused to comment so it became one sided whinging and a visceral story of his life that didn’t resonate well. And they were both challenged by that because they are on a constant mission to raise money and generate coverage to help her brand.
‘There is nothing for her to gain from disrupting the King’s big day. She needs to stand back. In the PR game it is choosing your battles and the strategy will be to get past the coronation.
‘The fact that she is not there is a statement that the UK does not particularly engage with her and looks like: “Poor me”.’
With multi-million pound bills to pay, Meghan may also look for a second series of her Spotify podcast, Archetypes, while the couple could front more shows for Netflix, who signed them up for a reported $100m in 2020.
Friends of Meghan have claimed that her low profile in recent months has been to support her husband as he released Spare and put their children first – the opposite of what Harry claimed his childhood in Britain was like.
The Tig ran from 2014 to 2017 – at the height of her Suits fame – and featured everything from New Year’s resolutions to diet tips and fashion finds. She also explored feminist topics and shared musings from her childhood and career before she got her big break. If she were to relaunch it, she is now much more famous and would be unshackled by any constraints of being a working royal.
Brand and culture expert Nick Ede told MailOnline Meghan is in the process of separating herself from the royals, for her own benefit, while her husband maintains his connections by heading to London May 6.
He said: ‘I think once the Coronation is over and the eyes of the world are off the king and Prince Harry then Meghan will launch a new initiative. I suspect she will have been working on some new projects that will enable her to stand alone rather than use Prince Harry.
‘I would advise her to let the coronation pass and then launch new projects that will make money and allow her to put a real stake in the ground and establish her properly as a worldwide celebrity. She needs to wait a bit! Otherwise it will damage her. I think she is most likely to announce a wellness space like the Tig or a new documentary series’.
Mark Borkowski said that Meghan has difficult decisions to make as their popularity in the US has tumbled.
He said: ‘There will definitely be a relaunch by Meghan. It is impossible for them to stay quiet. They need the royal pomp and ceremony. They could end up becoming an entity like Edward and Mrs Simpson. Forlorn royals with no connection to the family being in exile. There are parallels there.
‘They will be very quick to regenerate interest. But it is going to be more and more and difficult. For many Spare was a set of stories that went too far’.
The Tig was, in her own words, her ‘passion project’. The brand is still owned by the Duchess’s Delaware-based company Frim Fram.
And even though Meghan closed her old blog in 2017 to minimise public scrutiny ahead of marrying into the royal family, she has retained the rights. There have been an increasing number of reports that Meghan will imminently revive it.
Boasting tips on fashion, health and wellness, she may hope the website could rival Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop website, which is reportedly worth £200million.
Meghan founded The Tig while starring in legal drama Suits, naming it after her favourite red wine, a £135 to £215-a-bottle Tignanello from Tuscany.
The blog featured her tips on food, wellness, fashion, travel, fashion, the arts, design, and ‘conscious living’.
And, in the Sussexes’ recent Netflix series, Meghan gushed about it saying: ‘It wasn’t just a hobby, it became a really successful business’.
She said: ‘I’ve never really been the type of person to do only one thing, I guess that’s how my website was born.
‘There was fashion, tons of food, and travel – all the things that I loved. The Tig wasn’t just a hobby, it became a really successful business.’
‘If there’s a reason to complain, someone will’: Soccer AM star Rocket says cult show couldn’t continue because modern day audiences get offended too easily as TV bosses push for ever-more ‘inclusive’ football shows
The Daily Mail
Soccer AM star Rocket has said he ‘doubts’ the cult show could have continued in the current climate because people ‘get offended too easily’ – after it emerged the programme was being axed after almost 30 years.
The Saturday morning football staple is set to be shelved as part of a drastic Sky Sports shake-up, with staff reportedly told yesterday it was to wrap up at the end of the current season.
Fans have complained about Sky’s decision to axe the series, with one accusing the broadcaster of overseeing an ‘ultra woke’ regime that jarred with the programme’s freewheeling and sometimes controversial approach.
Rocket, who was on the show from 1998 to 2017, said he and his fellow presenters delighted in ‘pushing the boundaries’ and recalled being regularly summoned by bosses ‘for something that had been inappropriate or he pushed it too far’.
‘Sadly I don’t know if that show can exist now because if there’s a reason to complain about something, generally someone will. They’ll take offence,’ he told The Sun. ‘There’s so much you could have taken offence at. We pushed it to the line a lot of the time.’
But he insisted him and his colleagues’ antics were always ‘tongue in cheek’ and said what really attracted viewers was the chance for some light-hearted escapism.
‘We were a bunch of blokes just messing about on a Saturday morning,’ he added. ‘I think all we wanted to do was make people smile.’
Soccer AM regular Chris Kamara lamented the show’s demise yesterday, tweeting: ‘Just heard that @SoccerAM is finishing at the end of the season.
‘I had 14 years of going through Premier League & @EFL clubs dressing rooms. Training with Clubs for features & basically having a laugh.
‘Fun part of my time at Sky.’
Today John Fendley, who currently presents the show with Jimmy Bullard, said none one had yet been informed of any redundancies.
He wrote on Instagram: ‘There’s been a lot of coverage in the past few days about Soccer AM so I wanted to clarify the situation.
‘Sky has made a proposal about next season and we will go into a consultation process. No decisions have been made at this stage and no one has been made redundant.
PR experts have said that the programme – which was first broadcast in 1992 during the height of the ‘Lads’ Mag’ era – could no longer compete in the way it once had due to change in public attitudes.
It had been forced to drop some of the more well-known features that made it such a hit with viewers, including the ‘Soccerettes’ segment, which involved young models and actresses appearing in a football shirt.
It was pulled in 2015 after it triggered claims that they were being exploited or mocked by the ‘laddish banter’.
The show also saw an exodus of popular presenters who fronted the show and made it such a success, such as Tim Lovejoy and Helen Chamberlain.
Experts cited the impact of YouTube too, with viewers switching to social media sites to watch the sort of the jokes and skits similar to those performed on the programme.
PR guru Mark Borkowski, told MailOnline: ‘Quite simply it ran out of steam.
‘It was very iconic in its day but gradually they have really lost the impact after the departure of stars like Tim Lovejoy and Helen Chamberlain, who really started it and made it a huge success.
‘There has been a lack of promotion of the programme and it has lacked any energy and become quite tired.
‘It’s had to tone down from the Lads’ Mag era because times are now different.
‘If people are not watching it, it’s because that sort of irreverence is being done by YouTubers now.
‘A lot of celebrities as well are frightened of going into a space – like Soccer AM was – which had a bit of a brash and laddish reputation in case there is backlash.
‘There is also a lot more competition now, so people have a lot more options if they don’t like it any more.
‘It’s of an age where it can’t be what it wants to be.’
Another day, another photo of Kate. But will the nonstop exposure neutralise the rebel Sussexes?
The Guardian
It’s been a busy March so far for the Princess of Wales, following a lively February, and an active January. Last Thursday she was at a Muslim centre in Hayes, west London, paying tribute to fundraisers for the earthquake victims in Turkey and Syria, and the day before on exercises with the Irish Guards on Salisbury Plain.
The visits presented two superficially contrasting images – one in headscarf, the other in army camouflage – but she could equally have been attending a space station and a yoga centre, and would no doubt have produced the same picture of smiling earnestness.
Such photographs have become a commonplace on newspaper front pages in recent months, accompanied by glowing reports of an uncomplicated, unshowy and selflessly loyal royal. There have been photo opportunities with the Welsh Guards in Windsor, a spin class in heels in Port Talbot, a visit to a drug rehabilitation centre, and to the England team’s dressing room after they beat Wales, the nation of which she is princess.
This is the kind of work, of course, that members of the royal family have performed for decades, but not normally with the degree of media prominence that the princess has enjoyed this year. Not since her predecessor Diana’s heyday at the Aids unit or on landmine walk has a female royal garnered such positive attention.
While Diana’s daughter-in-law’s handshaking exploits are too safe and formal to conjure that kind of iconography, she can’t be faulted for her work rate. The Observer picture editor has received photographs from 21 different events featuring the princess since January 12.
The publicist Mark Borkowski says that “being tactical about visibility is a key craft of the publicist”. While relentless positive coverage might seem desirable, he says, it also leaves the “sword of Damocles” hanging over the subject’s head.
Between the whistlestop schedule that Kensington Palace has put together and the willingness of a significant section of the press to plaster the princess’s progress across its pages, it almost seems like a coordinated PR campaign. Or perhaps a counter-PR campaign, one constructed with the specific purpose of neutralising a less conformist message disseminated by the Wales’s arch-enemies, the Sussexes.
Ever since the Duke of Sussex launched his global multi-media denunciation of his family (and the press), with a December Netflix documentary series and the January publication of his damning memoir Spare, the Windsors have been waging a battle to regain control of the narrative. Not by responding to the duke’s lavishly remunerated primal scream, but by presenting an image of quiet resolve and understated devotion in as many media outlets as possible.
It seems that the person chosen to embody these stoical qualities, leading up to King Charles’s coronation, is not the king himself, a man whose equilibrium cannot survive a leaking pen, nor his heir, William, who, according to his younger brother, is possessed of a dangerously volcanic temper. Instead the face of all that is good and constant, determined and calm, is the saintly Kate, an angel in combat fatigues, a heroine in a hijab.
As Lieutenant Colonel James Aldridge, commander of the 1st Battalion of the Irish Guards, said last week, speaking for women who were not in a position to voice an opinion: “It is particularly fitting on International Women’s Day that a few of our female soldiers met such an inspiring female role model.” Perhaps they will all be motivated to meet princes.
It rather feels like a genteel but not exactly subtle form of propaganda, a steady supply of handpicked events in which the Princess of Wales is able to remind us just how much she is not the Duchess of Sussex. Needless to say, there are plenty of people who are only too happy to be reassured of that fact – they’re just not the constituency the royal family needs to win over.
Borkowski thinks that the princess’s team “has a honeymoon period up to the coronation. After that, who knows?”
In this manufactured image contest, the princess is the continuity candidate, the last word in highly visible silent duty.
The playground Prime craze is a lesson in modern marketing
Financial Times
The relationship younger audiences have with influencers, says Mark Borkowski, a PR executive, differs from that of past generations to celebrity-endorsed products. Today’s youth are complicit. “They follow them, understand the algorithms, they are learning from them. [Because] they think that they can do it. Younger kids are smarter than a marketing executive.”
Full article:
https://www.ft.com/content/4e9c33f2-deeb-4dbe-a296-3cf44bb2c5de
BBC begs Gary Lineker to return to Match of the Day calling him ‘best in the business’
The Mirror
Bosses are begging Gary Lineker to return to Match of the Day – but he says he will never apologise for giving the Tories a kicking.
BBC sport shows are in chaos as presenters, pundits and commentators down tools in support.
They are furious the Beeb suspended Lineker, 62, for comparing the language around Home Secretary Suella Braverman ’s “cruel” migrant policy with that of 1930s Germany on Twitter.
Tonight Gary’s son George, 31, said of his dad: “He loves Match of the Day. But he won’t ever back down on his word. I’m proud of him, he will always speak up for people who don’t have a voice.
“He is passionate about helping refugee charities – he took in two refugees who he is still in touch with and trying to help.”
He spoke after under-fire director general Tim Davie grovelled to footie fans, heaped praise on Lineker and said he wanted him back.
Mr Davie said: “Gary Lineker is a superb broadcaster, he’s the best in the business.”
He admitted it had been a “difficult day” but said he would not quit, adding: “Success for me is – Gary gets back on air and together we are giving audiences that world-class sports coverage which I’m sorry we haven’t been able to deliver today.”
Tonight’s Match of the Day was set to be cut from 90 minutes to 20, without commentary or analysis.
TV’s Football Focus and Final Score, and Radio 5 phone-in 606 were axed as presenters including Ian Wright, Alan Shearer and Alex Scott refused to go on air.
And interviews were scrapped after players and managers refused to be involved.
Tomorrow’s MOTD2 was also in jeopardy as host Mark Chapman pulled out of his Radio 5 slot yesterday and ex-England striker Jermain Defoe announced he would not appear.
A TV expert warned that MOTD – the world’s longest running football show and watched by 11 million – could get the boot itself.
Mark Borkowski reckons the BBC may not be able to compete with streaming giants like Amazon when its £211million deal to screen Premier League highlights ends in two years.
He said: “The world around them is changing faster than they can adapt. Most football fans will find coverage elsewhere.”
He said the BBC should have stood by Lineker – like ITV backed Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield over the Queen’s funeral queue row – then “moved him on gently, bringing in new talent”.
And Mr Borkowski said the MOTD fiasco could spark an exodus of talent – as it was reported BT Sport had already offered Lineker a new job.
Ian Wright has already vowed to quit MOTD if the BBC gets rid of Lineker.
Today, fans cheered Lineker as he watched his hometown club Leicester City lose 3-1 to Chelsea.
A MOTD insider said: “Bosses have no idea how to fix the situation. Pundits have all vowed to stay off as long as Lineker is off – and he is adamant he won’t apologise or agree to not do it again.
“There have been walkouts amongst crew. Things could get worse if the BBC gets banned from club press conferences.”
Labour leader Keir Starmer said: “The BBC is not acting impartially by caving in to Tory MPs. They’ve got this one badly wrong and now they’re very, very exposed.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/bbc-begs-gary-lineker-return-29434148
Gary Lineker faces a dilemma: toe the BBC line or be a social media influencer
The Guardian
The BBC’s decision to take Gary Lineker off air leaves its most outspoken personality with a potentially career-defining decision, as the corporation looks to risk its reputation to make a public example of one of its biggest stars.
Lineker’s politically loaded tweets about the government’s new asylum policy – followed by a pledge to stand by his comments – had left the BBC in an almost impossible position, balancing impartiality with freedom of expression by its staff.
The BBC, which has tried to rebuild a “fragile trust” with the government, reining in perceived partiality on and off screen by implementing an ultra-strict social media policy for news staff, has been put under pressure by Conservative ministers to make an example of Lineker.
However, the Match of the Day presenter has received support from big voices including Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s former press secretary, the former Sky News presenter Adam Boulton, ex-Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis and Piers Morgan.
Supporters viewed the decision to remove Lineker from Match of the Day as capitulating to political pressure, which weakens its independence, at a time when its chair, the former Tory donor Richard Sharp, is under investigation over allegations he helped engineer a loan for Boris Johnson.
Strictly speaking, Lineker’s official status as a freelance employee and member of the sport department means he is not governed by the same social media rules that the director general, Tim Davie, introduced to keep the views of news staff in check.
The BBC has struggled with the outspoken Lineker. Last year he was publicly reprimanded for breaking impartiality guidelines after he tweeted about the Conservative party taking money from Russian donors, but no action was taken when he questioned Qatar’s human rights record during the World Cup.
Lineker had felt he had ridden out the worst of the furore over his latest posts, saying on Thursday that he was looking forward to presenting Match of the Day on Saturday, while at the same time BBC insiders were saying the situation was far from resolved.
The corporation has said Lineker will not be allowed to return to presenting until it has an “agreed and clear position” on his use of social media. Lineker, who has more than 10 million social media followers, faces a dilemma. One observer has said he has to decide between the BBC and being a social media influencer.
The multimillionaire, the corporation’s highest-paid presenter on a £6.75m deal that runs until 2025, does not need the profile or income the BBC role affords him.
“This is now social conscience stuff,” says the PR expert Mark Borkowski. “Does he stay true to the Lineker brand? If he agrees to being muzzled then he severely damages his brand.”
For the BBC, the removal of Lineker is not proving to be a step towards resolving the furore. In a show of solidarity, the pundits Ian Wright and Alan Shearer tweeted on Friday that they would not be appearing on Match of the Day on Saturday.
“The BBC are damned if they do and damned if they don’t on this one,” said Borkowski. “The BBC is going to be seen to score an own goal on this one, by one side or other, no matter what they do.”
Will Gary Lineker get a red card from the BBC over his tweets? Probably not
The Guardian
Gary Lineker may have famously managed to avoid being carded for foul play during a 16-year professional football career, but the latest politically loaded social media salvo from the BBC’s highest-paid presenter has the corporation’s director general seeing red.
Tim Davie, who may now be rueing the £6.75m deal to keep the former England star at the BBC until 2025 that was announced two weeks after he took over running the corporation, has made it his mission to rebuild a “fragile trust” with government by reining in perceived partiality on and off screen. To that end, an ultra-strict social media policy is now in force for news staff.
The problem Davie faces is an inability to control his biggest star – as a member of the sports department Lineker doesn’t have to automatically abide by the new rules.
The multimillionaire, who has more than 10 million social media followers, knows his brand is bigger than needing to fit a BBC plan to placate ministers. The royal charter expires in 2027, although negotiations are unlikely to begin in earnest until after the next general election.
“Lineker could disappear from the BBC tomorrow and still have a very lucrative career,” says the PR expert Mark Borkowski. “In that sense Gary Lineker is bigger than the BBC. How do you deal with someone with a huge following, who has displayed a social conscience, and has happily faced up to being considered Marmite to a lot of people on social media?”
Lineker’s tweets on topics such as Brexit have long been an issue for the BBC, attracting criticism from rightwing newspapers and Conservative MPs.
In October, he was publicly reprimanded by the BBC for breaking impartiality guidelines after he tweeted about the Conservative party taking money from Russian donors.
The BBC social media guidelines asks individuals “to avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters”.
Unbowed by criticism from the prime minister down over his latest tweets – which compared the government’s immigration plans to policies in “Germany in the 30s” – Lineker doubled down on his comments by thanking supporters.
Davie’s challenge is complicated by the fact that some big voices have lined up behind Lineker. Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s former press secretary, said Lineker was “pointing out the kind of facts the BBC should be pointing out relentlessly about the scale of a problem being exploited for populist polarising reasons”.
The former Sky presenter Adam Boulton tweeted that because Lineker is not a political reporter he should be allowed to tweet his views, saying the BBC does not censure comments made by actors in its shows.
Emily Maitlis, the former Newsnight presenter, wrote in a tweet that the corporation were fine with Lineker raising questions about Qatar’s human rights record during the World Cup.
“The BBC struggles to get a backbone at these times because unlike other broadcasters they are owned by everybody, and with that comes unrelenting pressure,” says Borkowski.
“ITV stuck with Jeremy Clarkson despite pressure over his comments about Meghan, as they did with Phillip and Holly over Queengate. But the BBC is damned if they do and damned if they don’t.”
It has also been suggested that Lineker’s penchant for getting in hot water with his employer could help the presenter make his case against a £4.9m tax bill. Lineker is involved in a long-running legal case over whether he owes substantial back taxes relating to whether he should be classed as a freelance worker for the BBC and BT Sport for his work during the mid-2010s.
One legal expert has argued it might be helpful if Lineker were able to prove he was a true freelance worker who had control of his work life, unshackled by employer rules. However, Lineker’s brazen approach cannot continue indefinitely, others advise.
“Lineker probably has three strikes at the BBC, and assuming they reprimand him this time he will be on his final warning,” says Borkowski. “But the BBC will probably have to suck it up as he doesn’t need them. With the fierce competition in TV and streaming, the BBC do need him, for the time being at least.”
The Guardian – Will Gary Lineker get a red card from the BBC over his tweets? Probably not
Tommy Fury’s £10million knock-out blow
Daily Mail
Tommy Fury has made at least £3.7million from his win over Jake Paul in Riyadh – and could bring home at least £10million more by the end of the 2025, experts told MailOnline today.
The Love Island star and boxer, 23, may even eclipse his influencer partner Molly-Mae Hague, 23, who is said to earn £2million-a-year and can secure a £20,000 fee for a single Instagram post.
Last night Fury, who recently had his first child Bambi with Miss Hague a month ago, settled his grudge match with Jake Paul after winning a split decision in Saudi Arabia in front his half-brother Tyson, Cristiano Ronaldo, Mike Tyson and Deontay Wilder with millions watching on pay-per-view (PPV).
Fury is reportedly set to receive a £1.6million ($2m) purse – and 35 per cent of the PPV money. In total, the 23-year-old will earn £3.7million ($4.5m). Paul’s fight purse will be £2.6million ($3.2m) – but he will also take 65 per cent of the pay-per-view money, taking his overall prize money to £7.1million ($8.6m) even though he lost.
Brand and culture expert Nick Ede believes that if well advised, Fury will make ‘at least £10million’ in the next 2-3 years – much of it from outside boxing.
Mr Ede told MailOnline Fury could make many more millions from a Netflix-style documentary and rematch with Jake Paul, Mr Ede believes. A film career could also be on offer, given the popularity of boxing on the big screen.
He said: ‘Tommy went on to be amass millions from fast fashion deals and endorsements as well as public appearances after Love Island.
‘Now with his win against Jake Paul he has all eyes on him internationally and he could make many more millions as a fighter. With the support of his brother and some of the most famous people in sport including Ronaldo and Mike Tyson, the world is his oyster.
‘I can see him working on a documentary series, a possible rematch with Jake Paul and lots more endorsements too. With his good looks he may start to do more luxury brand endorsements desperate for new customers and perhaps he may go into movies too like many other famous sports stars including Mike Tyson.
‘With the popularity of films like Creed I can see him pursuing the Hollywood route and eclipsing his wife’s fame by becoming a truly international star’.
PR guru Mark Borkowski predicts that a fight with YouTube star and boxer KSI could be next for Tommy in yet another money-spinning fight.
He said: ‘Jake Paul is Teflon, he can survive a few bumps. You feel this grudge match with Fury isn’t over. I’d expect another episode of the soap opera as KSI dives in. KSI wrote on Twitter: “Honestly I would destroy both Jake Paul and Tommy Fury.” There’s more yet to come’.
But he added: ‘Tommy is still overshadowed by his dad and the more able YouTubers’.
Experts warn Mason Greenwood case could leave sexual abuse victims scared to speak out
The i
Mark Borkowski, a leading PR consultant, agreed that Manchester United had to protect their brand.
“They probably will think of Mason Greenwood, no matter how big a football talent he is, it’s more important to be seen to be doing the right thing at the expense of the individual, which answers a big question about the commodification of football players.
“For [Mr] Greenwood, I would assume that they would ship him off to another country to play football, to rebuild his entire life in a country that probably doesn’t have the scrutiny of the media that we have in this country and the pressures that come with the Premier League.”
King Charles could reconcile with Prince Harry by changing his approach to the press. Here’s why he probably won’t.
INSIDER
Mark Borkowski, a PR advisor and commentator, told Insider that there’s unlikely to be reconciliation for Harry and Charles in the short term. If the pair were to make amends, Borkowski believes it could take a long time, possibly several years.
He said that from a PR perspective, the palace’s current objective is to focus on Charles’ coronation in May, which means Harry is likely to be kept “at arm’s length” until then.
“The royal family never do anything quickly or randomly,” Borkowski told Insider. “It’s always calculated, it always moves over time — that was a legacy left by the Queen.”
In the meantime, he said Charles could keep tabs on Harry “through intermediaries,” working to gradually repair their relationship in the long term.
“When someone is so wounded — and Harry is so wounded — the job of the palace is to manage their internal comms and to protect their interests and what they do,” Borkowski said. “And there is no place for Harry.”
Exodus of BBC Radio 2 legends continues
The Daily Mail
Brand guru Mark Borkowski said that the BBC has to freshen up its Radio 2 line up for the next generation – but risks upsetting devotees.
He said: ‘The BBC have to take the pain to renew and find new blood. It’s in danger of being sucked into a niche at a time they have to express values to those who still pay a licence fee. Don’t forget Wogan was axed’.
Exodus of BBC Radio 2 legends continues as Ken Bruce, 71, QUITS | Daily Mail Online
What’s next for Harry, Meghan after bombshell book further isolates them from royals
Page Six
“I suspect the ‘bunker mentality’ has left them threadbare on future messaging,” Borkowski said. “As each interview landed, Harry exposed a deep well of emotional unresolved pain. He should spend time and effort on dealing with the pain instead of turning it into a three-ring Barnum and Bailey circus act.”
Megxit’s the new Brexit: a vitriolic battleground that pits generations against each other
The Times
“Meghan and Harry encapsulate what a youth audience, a millennial audience, wants to talk about,” says Mark Borkowski, a PR expert. “Black Lives Matter, ecology, the state of the planet, trans rights; plus she’s a Hollywood princess, which captures the imagination. The boomers are fixed against it. They don’t understand it and think it’s irresponsible. The rest is box office.”
What will Harry do next? PR experts on the prince’s next steps
The Guardian
Royal interviews have a long pedigree, but not necessarily a good one. “When you look at history, any time that a senior royal has sat down for an interview, ultimately it has always backfired,” said Katie Nicholl, author of The New Royals, and Vanity Fair’s royal correspondent, who has been writing about the Windsors for nearly two decades.
ITV will expect huge ratings for its interview with the Duke of Sussex on Sunday night, but Harry may pay the price in the long run.
Prince Andrew’s “car-crash” Panorama interview with Emily Maitlis fuelled a lawsuit that led to a £12m out of court settlement last year, but before that were Harry’s parents: the then Prince of Wales admitted his infidelity in an interview with Jonathan Dimbleby, and Diana, Princess of Wales, cemented their divorce by detailing her unhappiness and Charles’s relationship with Camilla in a controversial interview with the BBC’s Martin Bashir.
Then there is his great-uncle, Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor, who also married an American, also wrote a memoir (in 1951) then picked over his abdication and dispute with his family with the BBC’s Kenneth Harris in 1970, shortly before his death in 1972. As with all his predecessors, the question facing Harry is “what happens afterwards?”
Nicholas Owen, who was ITN’s royal correspondent from 1994 to 2000, and covered the fallout from the Charles and Diana interviews, said: “The parallels with the Duke of Windsor are amazing. But at least they conducted the rest of their lives more or less in obscurity.
“Harry and Meghan live close to Hollywood now – the thing about film stars is they constantly renew themselves by appearing in more films. After they’ve finished getting angry with the royal family, what else do they have to say?”
The six-hour Netflix documentary and 400-page memoir may be the peak, Nicholl said, adding: “The irony in all of this is that when Harry and Meghan left Britain, it was about starting a new chapter, launching themselves as global philanthropists. Yet they seem intent on dwelling on the past.”
Anyone hoping for a swift response from the royal family is likely to be disappointed: the King and the Prince of Wales have no engagements listed in the royal diary, eliminating any opportunity for a TV reporter to yell across the barricades if they knew that when he attended William’s wedding, Harry had a frostbitten penis.
The reaction in the US may be crucial – the Sussexes are more popular among young Americans. Dr Patrick Wanis, a Los Angeles-based behaviour expert, said the couple should wait to see how the American public responded. “America is a very forgiving place,” he said. “Americans go one of two ways – side with the hero or the victim. If they see them as victims, and people treated badly, then maybe they can flip the coin. But they have to let it sit.”
Part of the prince’s problem with being “the spare” was that he didn’t feel seen, Nicholl said. “He’s been very keen to find his voice and use it, and set the record straight. But I also think settling scores is a major part of it, and it also ultimately comes down to the big bucks.”
The Sussexes’ media excursions will certainly help bankroll their Archewell Foundation, which aims to “unleash the power of compassion to drive systemic cultural change”. That requires a podcast production arm, with a reported $30m (£25m) deal with Spotify, a TV production house with a reported $100m Netflix tie-up, and an advance from Penguin Random House for at least two books estimated at $20m. The couple have hired an executive from Universal’s film division to run their PR and another from Sony Pictures to head their marketing division.
“It’s expensive being Harry and Meghan,” said Mark Borkowski, a public relations consultant and author. “They’re not going to live in a two-up, two-down in Hatfield, and they need some money to fuel the amount of good work they want to do.”
Harry’s tell-all truth bomb could really backfire for Meghan’s political hopes
The Daily Mail
PR guru Mark Borkowski warned that Prince Harry will regret ‘weaponising’ his past in his ‘dirty laundry’ book – and so will his wife – because it leaves them with little left to sell.
Adding that the couple had been poorly advised, the brand expert said their ‘desperation’ to make headlines has echoes of Edward VIII, who ‘became a sad irrelevance’ after selling his story in full after abdicating.
He continued: ‘The content of the book is very damaging for their ambitions. Post the chaos of the coming TV interviews how much more can he reveal. He is playing his last shot.
‘The Royal Family’s silence makes it more difficult for Harry to continue to generate future headlines. He will hate being ignored and underlines his powerlessness.
‘He is drifting toward irrelevance. This need to tell his story echoes Harry’s great-grand uncle, the Duke of Windsor.
‘He became a sad irrelevance after he, penned his version of the events that led him to abdicate the throne to marry American divorcée, Wallis Simpson.
‘The key concern for me the outing of his service kills. He has placed himself and his family in grave danger to create a sensational publicity hook.
‘Has he forgotten the recent attack on Rushdie in Boston? These jihadis play a long game. Again this smells of desperation and poor guidance.’
He added: ‘Harry and Meghan got through the documentary with a bit of dignity intact but the book is just a bit crass and petty –dirty laundry stuff.
‘So the Royals just have to keep quiet and they’ll look dignified and like they’re taking the moral high ground’.
