Who is paying for Meghan Markle's PR?

Meghan Markle is on the cover of this week's People Magazine in the US, part of what Enty has suggested is a long paid co-operation with the magazine to ensure positive coverage.

But how much does this type of coverage cost?

A poster on CDAN yesterday who said she had worked on the advertising side for 15+ years listed some prices.

Her comment:

Any sort of print advertising is going to cost you: a single, full page ad in People is $386,400. Editorial coverage is sold in bundles, but it runs every bit as high. 

A huge caveat to these prices is that stories about royals sell - palace PR firms know full well that they can negotiate down the price by offering up exclusive interviews/photos and by leveraging past sales figures.

To put into perspective how much money royals generate: Entire sections (featured on the home page) of Hello!, US, OK! and People's websites are devoted to them. Prime real estate like that is based on revenue.

People then takes it to an entirely different level. They push out 5-7 features on Meghan every weekday (come close to doing the same for Kate), and about half of those features are shoppable. Seen in such quantity and structure, with commission-oriented discount codes, we are looking at a well-oiled, royal money machine. 

In this light, a cover-worthy feature - which will easily result in a sales spike for People - is part of a long-term business agreement: strengthen Meghan's brand value/influence, as it benefits both parties. An ordinary brand/studio could expect to pay in the realm of $5-7 million for this sort of annual coverage, but for a popular young royal, the price is likely a fraction.


Since she was kind enough to share her knowledge, I didn't want to disagree with her - but my impression is that Meg is not a particularly popular young royal.

Meg has a distinct fan base, largely among women of color age 25-55, if the composition of her Twitter defenders and the Lipstick Alley posters can be extrapolated.

But I'm not sure if that fan base is large, or that the people within it are ready to spend money on Meghan-endorsed products. The clothes she merches don't seem to sell out - at least, the Victoria Beckham ones haven't.

And I don't think there's a general sense of excitement about Meghan as "The American Princess." There was potential for that, but it never seemed to be reached, perhaps because  - unlike Grace Kelly - she wasn't well-known before her marriage to Harry. This is not exactly Rhianna marrying Harry (although according to gossip those two did have a moment.)

Conclusion: I think Meg probably paid full price, or close to it, for the People Magazine coverage.

So who pays?

The follow-up question, of course, is who pays for this?

It's probably not Harry - his allowance comes from his father, as well as a trust Diana left made up mostly of money from her divorce settlement. The trust reportedly pays about $320,000 per year, which is not enough to meet Meghan's needs. (She has spent around $500,000 on clothing alone since her marriage 9 months ago.)

And it's probably not Meg, either. Her income on Suits was reportedly $50,000 an episode, which doesn't go far after taxes and management fees. There is nothing on record of her owning any real property. That is traditionally where the rich park their money.

She also reportedly paid large "hush money" settlements to both her ex-husband Trevor and her former partner Corey Vitello, whom she was dating at the time she became involved with Prince Harry.

Although she probably has some income from merching everything from clothes to breath mints, is it enough (post-tax) to pay $5 million to People Magazine? Not to mention paying the external PR staff constantly pumping out ridiculous stories about Meg.

(There's always the possibility, however, that she is borrowing money hand over foot. Both of her parents have been through bankruptcy proceedings, and children generally learn attitudes about money from their parents).

Charles vs the British taxpayers

The most common answer when it comes to who is financing Meg's spending is Prince Charles, who has a good deal of income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

That's probably the best hope, because the only other alternative would seem to be the British taxpayers.

While I think the taxpayers get good value from a Royal like Princess Anne or Prince Edward, who spend their time doing hundreds of appearances a year for small local charities around the country, it would be hard to argue that Meg is in the same category.

She does a few appearances a month in an expensive new designer outfit and doesn't stay long. (Before Meghan's defenders rush to say the same about Kate, Kate is raising three children under the age of 6, one of whom is a future monarch. It's not a good comparison.)

I hope the money is coming from Charles, although one could argue that the Duchy of Cornwall should belong to the British people anyway, not an unelected king-in-waiting with dubious decision-making abilities.

If he is spending money on flashy public relations efforts in a different country - why should he care what Americans think of Meg? - this would be another example of his poor executive abilities, and more evidence that he should never be King.