Most Americans Were Never Interested in Meghan Markle Podcasting
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Meghan Markle's struggle to break through with her business podcast Confessions of a Female Founder may in part be explained by polling conducted at the time she first signed with Spotify.
The Duchess of Sussex has now chalked up two podcasts: Archetypes, about sexist slurs, and Confessions of a Female Founder, which featured interviews about prominent women who run companies.
The first made waves when she dished about the royal family in the early episodes but sunk in the charts in later shows when she steered clear of the palace soap opera.
Meghan Markle listens to a broadcast through headphones during a visit to Reprezent 107.3FM community radio station in Brixton, south west London, on January 9, 2018.
Meghan Markle listens to a broadcast through headphones during a visit to Reprezent 107.3FM community radio station in Brixton, south west London, on January 9, 2018.
DOMINIC LIPINSKI/AFP via Getty Images
The second had nothing do with the monarchy and struggled to make an impact beyond the first episode.
That may in reality be no surprise as polling as far back as 2020 suggests Americans may simply never have been particularly interested in Prince Harry and Meghan podcasting.
Why It Matters
Meghan launched a flurry of new projects in 2025 but had a rough ride among critics for both her Netflix cooking show and Confessions, which were both tied to her own business As Ever, which launched in April.
Now the first phase of those ventures is over, she will have a chance to take stock and consider what is working well and what could do with a revamp.
What to Know
Polling agency YouGov asked 5,400 U.S. adults in December 2020 how much interest they would have in listening to Harry and Meghan's podcasts.
Just 8 percent said they were "very interested" while 53 percent said they were "not at all interested."
And 16 percent were "not very interested" while 15 percent were "somewhat interested."
This adds up to a total of 69 percent falling on the side of disinterest compared to 23 percent who expressed interest.
At the time, they had just signed their Spotify deal but no specific shows had been publicly revealed and in the end it would be a year-and-a-half before Archetypes dropped.
It was, though, also a time when they had not been giving interviews and therefore media appetite to hear what they had to say was far higher than now.
The Oprah Winfrey interview, for example, was still months away and was not even known about in December 2020.
In that respect, Harry and Meghan's reputations in America were still mostly uncontroversial bar a run-in with Donald Trump after they commented on the presidential election he lost to Joe Biden.
Some might, therefore, by tempted to conclude that Meghan should not take the lukewarm response to her podcast to heart and simply focus on other more successful projects.
What Happens Next
Meghan's As Ever online shop has sold out all three of its product runs in mere minutes but more produce is expected to drop this summer, specifically a sparkling wine.
Season 2 of her Netflix show With Love, Meghan is also due out in the fall, while the Netflix deal itself is due to run out in September.
As yet, a new deal has not been signed and The Sun and People both reported Netflix does not intend to renew it.
Time will tell whether some continuation of the partnership gets renegotiated or not.
Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.
Do you have a question about King Charles III and Queen Camilla, Prince William and Princess Kate, Meghan and Prince Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
We must loosen China's chokehold on battery supply chains
A ceasefire in the U.S.-China trade war doesn't change the fact that Americans are subject to Beijing's whims when it comes to critical supplies of everything from magnets to minerals. This is not an accident but the result of decades of Beijing's deliberate practices to build monopolies, dominate supply chains, stifle competition, and foster resource dependencies. But the U.S. and its allies can break China's stranglehold on the battery supply chain, if they work together now to build the components and mine the minerals that go into advanced batteries, while fighting back against China's market manipulation. In our new report, Unplugging Beijing: A Playbook to Reclaim America's Advanced Battery Supply Chains, we lay out the scale and scope of China's non-market practices in battery supply chains — dumping, price manipulation, intellectual property theft, monopolies, and forced technology transfers — and, more importantly, say what America can do about it. One key way in which China controls the battery market is through intentional overproduction — making too much of everything — driving prices below profitability in ways that push out competition. For 2025, Chinese analysts are projecting that China will make twice as many electric cars as the entire global demand from last year. While enormous subsidies and state support cushion Chinese companies, American companies cannot sustain unprofitable production. China's decision to dump cheap batteries and underlying minerals on global markets sustains their monopolies but harms free markets and open competition. Beijing may finally be acknowledging that its massive overproduction of just about everything is fueling a race to the bottom. But as the central government frets about what Xi Jinping has labeled 'disorderly price competition,' local governments in China are still backing absurd strategies to juice production, such as state-sponsored programs to sell brand new cars as 'zero-mileage' used cars — sold at a loss and dumped on foreign markets, but allowing companies to inflate sales numbers to justify factories operating at full tilt. While Beijing deploys a suite of non-market tactics at scale, its price manipulation is especially damaging. Advanced batteries depend on a host of refined minerals — lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite — that are responsible for most of the cost of the resulting battery. China's intervention in nickel markets, for instance, has saddled Western producers with unsustainable costs. In lithium, Beijing has driven prices up or down at will, undermining competing U.S. projects. To counter this, we propose creating a critical minerals and metals exchange, backed by physical assets and a U.S. strategic stockpile. This would offer offtake guarantees above a price floor to support domestic processors. China's monopolies on mineral processing have also become a weapon in the broader trade war. Beijing has imposed export restrictions on key minerals, including graphite — of which it controls more than 95 percent of global battery-grade processing. To reduce these choke points, we advocate for the creation of special economic zones that co-locate processing, infrastructure, and energy access near known reserves. These zones could take advantage of colocation synergies around large reserves, such as the Salton Sea, and could feature pre-vetted environmental analysis and rigorous safety protocols to localize mining, on-site processing, downstream fabrication, energy, and water needs for all related infrastructure. We also recommend expanding the U.S. Development Finance Corporation's risk appetite to back more processing projects internationally. Beyond supply and demand, China's record on intellectual property theft is extensive. Most Chinese espionage cases involve attempts to acquire commercial technology. The battery sector is a repeated target: the Justice Department has charged Chinese actors with stealing battery tech from Tesla and Phillips 66. Many of China's non-market tactics — from forced labor to environmental shortcuts — thrive in secrecy. To increase transparency, we recommend that the U.S. bar foreign firms from selling into American markets unless they meet strict digital customs and trade data standards. U.S.-listed companies should also be required to map their full supply chains to expose any hidden reliance on forced labor. To compete with all this, the U.S. must invest in cleaner, more efficient, and higher-performing manufacturing processes. We propose increased academic research in battery science in exchange for low-cost licensing to U.S. companies, full cost recovery for research and development in the tax code, and publicly owned modular testing facilities to reduce innovation barriers for smaller firms. There is a way forward — if we choose to act boldly. New supply chains won't emerge from one nation alone. We need domestic reindustrialization and international ally-shoring. Both require upgraded infrastructure and reliable access to the raw inputs of advanced manufacturing — minerals, chemicals, and tooling. Strengthened trade rules, coordinated tariffs, and harmonized regulations among market economies are essential. Most importantly, this effort must be spearheaded by strong American leadership and a dynamic, integrated North American trading bloc. Rebuilding America's supply chains will take industrial work and political will, but we must commit to the hard tasks now to protect our economic security and resilience for the long term. The future of American prosperity depends on it. Elaine Dezenski is senior director and head of the Center on Economic and Financial Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Joshua Birenbaum serves as deputy director.
8 minutes ago
Majority of US adults are stressed about grocery costs, an AP-NORC poll finds
NEW YORK -- The vast majority of U.S. adults are at least somewhat stressed about the cost of groceries, a new poll finds, as prices continue to rise and concerns about the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs remain widespread. About half of all Americans say the cost of groceries is a 'major' source of stress in their life right now, while 33% say it's a 'minor' source of stress, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Only 14% say it's not a source of stress, underscoring the pervasive anxiety most Americans continue to feel about the cost of everyday essentials. Other financial stressors — like the cost of housing or the amount of money in their bank accounts — are also broadly felt, but they weigh more heavily on younger Americans, who are less likely than older adults to have significant savings or own property. The survey also found that about 4 in 10 Americans under age 45 say they've used what are known as 'buy now, pay later' services when spending on entertainment or restaurant meals or when paying for essentials like groceries or medical care. Adam Bush, 19, based in Portland, New York, is one of those younger Americans who has used pay-later services for things like groceries or entertainment. Bush works as a welder, fabricating parts for trucks for Toyota, and makes under $50,000 per year. 'I just keep watching the prices go up, so I'm looking for the cheapest possible stuff,' he said. 'Hot pockets and TV dinners.' Groceries are one of the most far-reaching financial stressors, affecting the young and old alike, the poll finds. While Americans over age 60 are less likely than younger people to feel major financial anxiety about housing, their savings, child care, or credit card debt, they are just as worried about the cost of groceries. Esther Bland, 78, who lives in Buckley, Washington, said groceries are a 'minor' source of stress — but only because her local food banks fill the gap. Bland relies on her Social Security and disability payments each month to cover her rent and other expenses — such as veterinary care for her dogs — in retirement, after decades working in an office processing product orders. 'I have no savings,' she said. 'I'm not sure what's going on politically when it comes to the food banks, but if I lost that, groceries would absolutely be a major source of stress.' Bland's monthly income mainly goes toward her electric, water and cable bills, she said, as well as care of her dogs and other household needs. 'Soap, paper towels, toilet paper. I buy gas at Costco, but we haven't seen $3 a gallon here in a long time,' she said. 'I stay home a lot. I only put about 50 miles on my car a week.' According to the poll, 64% of the lowest-income Americans — those who have a household income of less than $30,000 a year — say the cost of groceries is a 'major' stressor. That's compared with about 4 in 10 Americans who have a household income of $100,000 or more. But even within that higher-income group, only about 2 in 10 say grocery costs aren't a worry at all. Housing is another substantial source of worry for U.S. adults — along with their savings, their income and the cost of health care. About half of U.S. adults say housing is a 'major' source of stress, according to the poll, while about 4 in 10 say that about the amount of money they get paid, the amount of money they have saved and the cost of health care. About 3 in 10 say credit card debt is a 'major' source of stress, while about 2 in 10 say that about the cost of child care and student debt. But some groups are feeling much more anxiety about their finances than others. Women, for instance, are more likely than men to report high levels of stress about their income, savings, the cost of groceries and the cost of health care. Hispanic adults are also particularly concerned about housing costs and both credit card and student debt. About two-thirds of Hispanic adults say the cost of housing is a 'major' source of stress, compared with about half of Black adults and about 4 in 10 white adults. Some people are making changes to their lifestyle as a result of high costs. Shandal LeSure, 43, who works as a receptionist for a rehabilitation hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and makes between $85,000 and $100,000 a year, said she's started shopping for groceries at less expensive stores. 'It's an adjustment,' she said. 'Sometimes the quality isn't as good.' As they stretch limited budgets, about 3 in 10 U.S. adults overall say they've used 'buy now, pay later' services such as Afterpay or Klarna to purchase groceries, entertainment, restaurant meals or meal delivery, or medical or dental care, according to the poll. Bland, the Washington state retiree, said she's paid for pet surgery with a pay-later plan. Younger Americans are much likelier than older people to have used pay-later plans for entertainment, groceries or restaurant meals, but there's no age gap on medical care. Black and Hispanic people are also especially likely to adopt the plans. An increasing share of 'buy now, pay later' customers are having trouble repaying their loans, according to recent disclosures from the lenders. The loans are marketed as a safer alternative to traditional credit cards, but there are risks, including a lack of federal oversight. Some consumer watchdogs also say the plans lead consumers to overextend themselves financially. LeSure said she's used pay-later services for things like new clothes, while she balances debt payments for a car loan, student loans and medical bills. She's also turned to them to cover hotel costs after being evicted. 'That's been able to help me stretch my dollar,' she said. ___ Sanders reported from Washington. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. ___ The Associated Press receives support from the Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Spotify to raise subscription prices in select markets
-- Spotify (NYSE:SPOT) will increase the monthly price of its premium individual subscription in select markets starting from September, the Swedish music streaming giant announced on Monday. Related articles Spotify to raise subscription prices in select markets Risks Rising? Smart Money Dodged 46%+ Drawdowns on These High-Flying Names After soaring 149%, this stock is back in our AI's favor - & already +25% in July Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información
