Pro-Sussex magazine turns against Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex after printing her famous cover interview - saying her projects 'keep flopping'

The shift in tone from The Cut and other outlets regarding Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's ventures underscores a turning point in their media narrative. Once celebrated for their break from the royal family and their efforts to redefine themselves in the U.S., the couple now faces intensified scrutiny as their projects encounter widespread criticism.

Meghan Markle's favoured magazine The Cut appeared to have turned against her with a scathing review of Polo. Meghan and Harry are pictured in April this year

Key Developments:

1. The Cut's Changing Perspective: Known for its 2022 profile that supported Meghan's perspective on royal life, The Cut now critiques their endeavors, notably describing their projects as consistently "flopping." This signals a departure from its earlier alignment with the Sussexes' narrative.

This week, The Cut published a piece titled 'Harry and Meghan's Projects Can't Stop Flopping' by pop culture and entertainment writer Danielle Cohen

Meghan's 2022 cover interview with the magazine sparked backlash with its claims against the royal family

2. Underwhelming Reception of Polo: Their Netflix series Polo, centered on elite athletes in the U.S. Open, has been criticized for lacking engagement and featuring minimal appearances by Meghan and Harry. Reviews like "flat, plodding, and really rather boring" highlight its failure to resonate with audiences beyond niche interests.

3. Media Climate Shift: The criticism reflects a broader trend where U.S. outlets—once seen as sympathetic—are reevaluating the couple's relevance and output, driven by the mixed reception of earlier projects like the Netflix docuseries Harry & Meghan and Harry's memoir Spare.

Implications:

• Public Perception Challenges: The lack of impactful content risks alienating even supportive audiences. Publications turning critical suggests waning patience with their storytelling approach.
• Reputation and Marketability: With Polo receiving scathing reviews, questions about the couple's ability to create compelling, broadly appealing content arise, potentially impacting their ongoing Netflix deal and future ventures.
• Need for Strategic Pivot: To regain momentum, Meghan and Harry may need to focus on projects that better align with public interest and showcase their involvement more prominently.

This shift marks a critical juncture for the Sussexes as they navigate their post-royal careers. Their ability to adapt to feedback and deliver engaging content will likely determine their long-term success in the U.S. media landscape.

The critique of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's Netflix series Polo—including the sharp commentary from The Cut—reflects the growing skepticism surrounding their ventures. What's notable here is not just the negative reception but also the shift in tone from previously supportive outlets, signaling broader challenges for the Sussexes' media presence.

Observations:

1. Brief and Cutting Critique from The Cut: Writer Danielle Cohen's remarks, despite admitting she hasn't watched the series, frame Polo as part of a pattern of failed projects. Her comment about the series sharing the fate of Meghan's "beleaguered jam company" is a pointed jab at their perceived struggles to establish successful enterprises.

2. Shift in Tone Among Supportive Media: Even The Guardian, traditionally sympathetic to the Sussexes, described the series as destined for "obscurity at the speed of light." This signals diminishing goodwill among outlets that once championed their post-royal journey.

3. Limited Engagement with Polo: The lack of appearances by Harry and Meghan in their own series undercuts its appeal, as critics expected a stronger narrative focus on the couple themselves. Without significant involvement or promotion, Polo struggled to differentiate itself from other niche content.

4. Critique of Danielle Cohen’s Work: While Cohen's commentary in The Cut has resonated for its directness, her writing history—focused on pop culture, politics, and celebrity relationships—may influence how seriously readers take her critique. The comparison to her analysis of figures like Barron Trump or Taylor Swift adds a layer of intrigue to the reception of her piece.

Implications for the Sussexes:

• Content Strategy Reevaluation: The Sussexes may need to rethink their approach to media projects, ensuring their active involvement and creating content with broader appeal.
• Navigating Public and Media Sentiment: The increasingly critical tone of even friendly outlets suggests the couple may need to rebuild credibility and demonstrate the tangible impact of their ventures.
• Broader Brand Concerns: References to other underperforming endeavors, like Meghan’s lifestyle brand, indicate growing doubts about the couple's ability to translate their high-profile image into successful business ventures.

While The Cut's brief and critical take may reflect a cultural appetite for sharp commentary, it also highlights the challenges Meghan and Harry face in maintaining relevance and favorability in a competitive and often unforgiving media landscape.

Meghan Markle's 2022 interview with The Cut, titled "Meghan Markle on Her New Life in California", marked a significant moment in the Sussexes' narrative but also generated substantial controversy. The piece revealed Meghan and Harry’s perspectives on their departure from royal life and broader grievances with the monarchy. However, it also exposed them to sharp criticism, both in the UK and the US.

Key Highlights from the 2022 Interview:

1. Comments on the Royal Family:

   • Meghan and Harry reflected on the difficulties of their royal roles, with Meghan claiming their mere presence disrupted the "hierarchy."
   • Harry suggested some royal family members were unable to "work and live together."
   • Meghan revealed Harry's sense of "loss" concerning his relationship with King Charles.

2. Focus on Financial Independence:

   • Meghan framed their desire for financial freedom as a modest request, emphasizing that they were not "reinventing the wheel."
   • These remarks added to the narrative of frustration with the constraints of royal life.

3. Veiled Criticisms and Warnings:

   • Meghan suggested they had been treated differently from other senior royals, implying unfairness in their experiences.
   • Her comment that she could “say anything” was interpreted as a subtle warning, adding tension to the already strained relationship with the royal family.

4. Public Backlash:

   • The interview was widely criticized as "vanity PR" and for being overly self-serving, especially by American readers. It was seen by some as an attempt to rewrite the narrative while alienating potential supporters.
   • Critics accused Meghan of being overly candid and lacking strategic foresight in her remarks.

Meghan's Response to the Fallout:

Months later, Meghan acknowledged that she had been "too trusting" and "too open" in the interview. She expressed regret over the unintended backlash, stating that the interview was originally intended to promote her podcast Archetypes and other projects. Despite the criticism, she emphasized her desire to remain open and unjaded, framing the experience as a learning opportunity.

Broader Implications:

The Cut interview demonstrated the risks of public vulnerability in a media-savvy world. While it offered insights into Meghan and Harry's perspective, it also underscored the challenges of balancing authenticity with public perception. The backlash likely influenced their subsequent media strategy, prompting more cautious and measured approaches in their engagements.

Meghan Markle's reflection on her controversial The Cut interview during a subsequent discussion with Variety showcased her evolving perspective on navigating public and media scrutiny. Addressing the backlash, she took a self-reflective tone while subtly distancing herself from the way the original interview was perceived and presented.

Key Points from Meghan's Variety Interview:

1. Acknowledgment of Backlash:

   • Meghan recognized that some readers found The Cut interview "snarky," acknowledging the polarized reactions it generated.
   • She hinted that the focus and tone of the piece diverged from her initial intentions, implying a disconnect between her expectations and the final outcome.

2. Framing the Interview's Intent:

   • Meghan clarified that the interview was meant to spotlight her podcast, Archetypes, and her and Prince Harry's other projects.
   • This explanation seemed to address critics who felt the original piece strayed into unnecessarily controversial or self-promotional territory.

3. A Desire to Remain Trusting and Open:

   • Meghan emphasized that her approach to life is rooted in trust and openness, qualities she does not want to lose despite negative experiences.
   • Her comment, "I don’t ever want to become so jaded that that piece of me goes away," underscored her desire to remain authentic despite challenges.

4. Resilience in the Face of Controversy:

   • The Duchess declared her ability to "survive" the controversy, reflecting a forward-looking attitude: “So despite any of those things? Onward.”

Context and Implications:

Meghan's comments in Variety highlighted her awareness of the delicate balance between sharing her story and managing public perception. By framing herself as "too trusting" and expressing regret over the fallout, she positioned herself as someone learning from, rather than dwelling on, past mistakes. However, her subtle critique of The Cut and its writer Allison P. Davis also hinted at lingering frustrations with how the media handles her narrative.

This moment also emphasized the broader challenges she and Prince Harry face in controlling their brand and message in an environment where every word and action is heavily scrutinized. Her remarks demonstrated an ongoing effort to refine their public engagement while staying true to their personal values.

The reception of Polo, the latest Netflix project from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, has been overwhelmingly negative, signaling a challenging moment in their post-royal media endeavors. The couple, serving as executive producers, made limited appearances in the five-episode series, which focuses on the elite sport of polo. Critics noted the show's inability to captivate broader audiences, compounded by the absence of substantial involvement from the Duke and Duchess.

Critical Reception of Polo:

1. The Guardian:

   • Stuart Heritage awarded the series two stars, remarking that it "looks destined to fall through the submenus into obscurity at the speed of light."
   • He pointed to the niche appeal of polo and the lack of compelling content as significant drawbacks.

2. The Telegraph:

   • Ed Power criticized the series as "a dull indulgence about a rich person's pursuit," emphasizing its limited appeal beyond elite circles.
   • Power also highlighted the minimal appearances of Harry and Meghan, which failed to elevate the show's relevance or engagement.

3. General Sentiment:

   • The series was described as "flat" and "plodding," lacking the dramatic or emotional pull often expected in modern documentary-style programming.

Broader Implications:

The underwhelming reception of Polo follows a pattern of mixed outcomes for the Sussexes' projects, which have often been met with high expectations due to their global profile. While their Netflix documentary Harry & Meghan and Harry's memoir Spare generated significant attention, they were also polarizing. Projects like Polo, however, highlight the difficulty of sustaining audience interest in content disconnected from the broader narratives of their lives or activism.

The Cut's History of Provocative Coverage:

The Cut, which previously supported the Sussexes, has also faced backlash for its provocative editorial choices, such as labeling King Charles III a "big, fussy baby and a jerk" during a period of national mourning for Queen Elizabeth II. This history of sensationalism underscores the magazine's tendency to generate controversy, even as it now appears more critical of Harry and Meghan's ventures.

Conclusion:

The tepid response to Polo and shifting media narratives, including critiques from previous allies like The Cut, signal a need for the Sussexes to recalibrate their media strategy. With a string of high-profile projects receiving lackluster reviews, the couple faces increasing pressure to redefine their brand and produce content that resonates more widely.

The lukewarm reception to Polo, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's latest Netflix endeavor, has sparked concerns about the sustainability of their high-profile deal with the streaming giant, reportedly worth £80 million. The series, which focuses more on professional polo players than on Harry or Meghan, has been criticized for its lack of engaging content and star power, raising questions about the couple's long-term viability as producers.

Key Criticisms:

1. Limited Presence of Harry and Meghan:

   • Harry appears in the opening credits and only surfaces again in episode four, contributing minimally to the overall narrative.
   • Meghan’s presence is even less pronounced, with no substantial role in the storytelling.

2. Focus on Players:

   • The series highlights renowned polo players such as Adolfo and Poroto Cambiaso, Timmy Dutta, Nacho Figueras, and others, overshadowing Harry’s involvement.
   • Critics argue that the documentary fails to capitalize on the Sussexes' star appeal, which could have drawn a broader audience.

3. Critical Reviews:

   • Descriptions of the series as "flat" and "tedious" reflect widespread disappointment.
   • The show’s niche subject matter and limited focus on the Sussexes make it a tough sell to mainstream viewers.

Expert Insights:

Brand and culture expert Nick Ede described Polo as a potential "nail in the coffin" for the Sussexes' Netflix deal. Speaking to MailOnline, Ede emphasized that producing compelling and commercially successful content is essential for justifying such lucrative partnerships. The Sussexes’ continued foray into media has yet to deliver consistent hits, with mixed results across their Netflix projects, Spotify podcast, and other ventures.

UK brand and culture expert Nick Ede revealed that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's Polo (pictured) may be the 'nail in the coffin' for their Netflix deal

Challenges for the Sussexes:

• Balancing Star Power with Substance: Projects like Polo demonstrate the difficulty of leveraging their global profile while producing content that resonates beyond their existing fanbase.
• Sustaining Audience Interest: As their initial post-royal projects—such as the Netflix docuseries Harry & Meghan—fade from the public consciousness, the Sussexes face growing pressure to prove their staying power.
• Media Market Realities: The highly competitive streaming landscape demands not only star power but also innovative, audience-driven content, a balance Polo seems to have missed.

Conclusion:

The underperformance of Polo adds to the Sussexes' recent challenges in cementing their media brand. While their Netflix deal was initially seen as a groundbreaking partnership, its long-term future could hinge on their ability to produce content that aligns with viewer expectations and drives substantial engagement. As Nick Ede warns, another high-profile misstep might risk their standing with Netflix and other potential collaborators.

The muted response to Polo underscores significant challenges for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle as they strive to establish themselves as content creators in the competitive streaming landscape. The five-part Netflix series, which has been jokingly dubbed "the Nacho show" due to its heavy focus on Argentine polo player Nacho Figueras, has struggled to capture audience interest, drawing skepticism about its potential to make Netflix’s coveted Top 10 list.

Nacho Figueras and Delfina Blaquier with Meghan and Harry at the Royal Salute Polo Challenge benefitting Sentebale in April

Key Issues Highlighted by Nick Ede:

1. Low Visibility of the Sussexes:

   • Harry and Meghan's minimal screen presence is a major drawback, leaving the series reliant on niche appeal rather than leveraging their star power.
   • With little promotional effort surrounding the release, the show lacked the fanfare necessary to generate buzz.

2. Audience Mismatch:

• Polo, an elite and relatively niche sport, doesn't inherently appeal to Netflix's broad subscriber base.
• Competing against blockbuster offerings like Black Dove and festive favorites such as Lindsay Lohan’s Christmas films further diminishes its chances of success.
3. Algorithm-Driven Reality:

Netflix increasingly relies on audience data to greenlight projects, meaning poorly performing series like Polo could harm the Sussexes’ chances of future collaborations.

The failure to deliver consistent hits might pressure the streaming giant to reassess its investment in their projects.

Critical Reception and Branding Implications:

Ede’s quip—“Oh No! Rather than Polo!”—captures the sentiment around the series’ underwhelming impact. The heavy focus on Nacho Figueras and other players, combined with limited storytelling appeal, has left the show struggling to justify its place in Netflix’s content lineup. Without Harry and Meghan’s prominent involvement or meaningful PR support, the project risks being forgotten quickly.

Harry has played polo for years, but the sport is far from accessible for a person earning an average salary

What’s Next for the Sussexes?

1. Reevaluating Content Strategy:

   • To remain relevant in the streaming world, future projects must either prominently feature the Sussexes or focus on universally engaging narratives that extend beyond niche interests.

2. Reviving Public Engagement:

   • Strategic promotion and storytelling aligned with their personal brand could help reignite public interest. Projects like their Invictus documentary succeeded due to their clear emotional resonance and focus on Harry's personal journey.

3. Navigating Partnership Pressures:

   • If Polo fails to make an impression, it could increase scrutiny on their overall value to Netflix and pressure the couple to pivot quickly with more compelling offerings.

In their first Netflix documentary, Harry and Meghan were able to say what they wanted and the prince took full advantage by delivering a slew of devastating and damaging 'truth bombs'

Conclusion:

While Polo might not be the knockout hit the Sussexes needed, it could serve as a wake-up call for recalibrating their content ambitions. The streaming space thrives on audience-driven choices, and aligning their brand with the right narratives will be key to maintaining their relevance and partnerships. As Ede warns, another misstep could jeopardize their high-stakes Netflix deal, marking a critical moment for their burgeoning media ventures.