[bots]

i think this case is very specific. They made a definitive decision to step back from royal life, it is the height of hypocrisy to then start a business with Royal in the name. It's hilarious that people actually try to defend it

[arista]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i think this case is very specific. They made a definitive decision to step back from royal life, it is the height of hypocrisy to then start a business with Royal in the name. It's hilarious that people actually try to defend it

Yes Good Points

[Ammi]

...for balance, it’s interesting to get a bit of an American take on this as well because obviously Canada is where they’re laying their hat down...this is a really good article in Forbes...

Ouch!

The Queen has just banned Harry and Meghan Markle from using "Sussex Royal." Apparently, they won't be allowed to sell themselves as "Royal" after stepping down as working members of the British royal family.

Game, set, match, I hear you say?

Not quite. In fact, the ban has left me scratching my head.

What was the Queen thinking?

Not only have the Duke and Duchess of Sussex spent tens of thousands of dollars on their Sussex Royal branding with a new website and Instagram page, but they've also registered Sussex Royal as a global trademark for a range of items including clothing, stationery, books, etc. And to top it off, Sussex Royal is the name of the much hyped "billion-dollar" earning charitable organization they were looking to establish—Sussex Royal, The Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Yes, but what about maintaining the integrity of the British royal family's brand? I hear you ask.

Brand integrity doesn't mean a brand straight jacket.

In case the Queen and her advisors haven't noticed, it's 2020. The Woke consumer (born in the mid-Nineties and early 2000s) has arrived, and the rules of the game have changed.

Yes, you have to remain true to who you are and what you believe in. I like to call that brand authenticity. But that doesn't mean you are inflexible to change, you don't reinvent yourself with the times, and you end up losing relevance with a new Generation-Z that thinks and feels very differently from previous generations. (An audience, by the way, that represents $150 billion of spending power in the United States and makes up a whopping 40% of consumers worldwide.)

Just look at what happened to Victoria's Secret.

In my 2015 interview with Business Insider, I predicted the demise of Victoria's Secret brand. The brand refused to embrace body positivity and continued to perpetuate "conventional" media ideals of beauty and what it meant to have a sexy body.

I have no doubt that Victoria's Secret also thought they were retaining their brand "integrity" too. That's before their parent company J Brand's share price tanked, and their integrity went out the window. Too bad.

So what can we all learn from this situation?

First off, allowing Harry and Meghan Markle to retain their "Royal" Sussex brand would have been an excellent opportunity for the entire British royal family brand. I have no doubt the dynamic inter-racial duo would have helped the royal family press refresh on the brand that is quickly losing relevance, especially in the USA. As I've said in my interview in with The Times, in 2017, the U.S. declined to go gaga over the royal baby. I'm not saying we haven't seen a temporary uptick in interest since the wedding and the royal exit fiasco. But as a whole, Millennials and Gen-Z are just not that into the royals.

Secondly, there is a greater need for innovation and entrepreneurialism in the marketplace—not to mention more forgiveness than ever before. Long gone are the days that the most prominent celebrities like Michael Jackson would emerge from their Neverlands once a year to do an interview with Oprah. Now audiences want full access to organizations and individuals, and they don't mind if they mess up with their brand extensions. They want to see it all.

Does anyone remember Mastercard's Kardashian Kard, the prepaid debit card? How about Cosmopolitan yogurt? That's right, the women's magazine Cosmopolitan, that launched a yogurt. Probably not.

Even if some of you do remember these brand mess-ups, today, it makes these brands more human. Vulnerability and flaws are where's it at for organizations and individuals today. And, leaders need to recognize that if they're not facing resistance or making any mistakes, they're probably not on the right path.

Last but not least, I'm a big believer in the age-old saying: “no risk, no reward.”

Audiences want to align with individuals and enterprises on a values level. And, a whole new breed of fan-appointed "Royals” have arrived. (Think David and Victoria Beckham or Beyonce and Jay-Z.) So, there's no sitting on the fence and playing it safe. Not in this climate anyway.

Twitter is abuzz with encouraging responses to the Queen's decision to ban Harry and Meghan Markle from using "Royal" in Sussex Royal.

"You don't mess with the boss," states one, "Boom!" says another, "The queen always wins," tweets a third.

But does she now?

I believe with decision making like this, she might end up being the biggest loser.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeetend...ts-a-bad-idea/