Latest news with #flop
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
'Harry and Meghan's Netflix deal is dead': Bosses are 'just waiting for the credits to roll' on $100m contract with 'no appetite for anything new' after 'dismal' viewing figures, insiders claim
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's hopes of a new Netflix deal are 'dead' after their two most recent shows flopped, it was claimed today. The Duchess of Sussex has 'had everything going for her ' but the viewing figures for With Love, Meghan have still been 'dismal', an insider at the streamer reportedly said. Meghan's lifestyle show failed to break into Netflix 's top 300 programmes for the first half of 2025 and was even thrashed by multiple seasons of Suits. Harry's passion project documentary Polo ranked at a disastrous 3,436 out of 7,000 shows and was only watched by 500,000 people in six months. A second season of With Love, Meghan, was announced by the Duchess herself as the first season came out in March this year as part of the couple's $100million deal with the streaming giant, which expires this year. But a Netflix source has claimed: 'This deal is dead. 'She had everything going for her—name, platform, press—and the numbers were dismal. 'They're just waiting for the credits to roll. They're letting it expire without drama. There's no appetite for anything new.' Former executive editor of the American edition of Ok! magazine, Rob Shuter, has claimed that the streaming giant will not offer them a new contract once it concludes. 'The interest just isn't there anymore. They went from buzzy to background noise', a Netflix source told Mr Shuter. Some experts have even claimed that Netflix will want 'to keep a vague hand in' with them in case Meghan and Harry ever split up, so they can get in first with a docu-series on a divorce. There are rumours that they could leave the door open for one-off projects with the Sussexes, although apart from their fly-on-the-wall documentary, Harry & Meghan, most of their shows have been considered flops. MailOnline has asked Netflix to comment. As Ever, which showed Meghan cooking, gardening and hosting friends, was outperformed by hundreds of shows in the first six months of this year. Millions more people watched repeats of Suits, which made Meghan Markle a star before she met Prince Harry. Its 5.3million viewers put it roughly on a par with the second series of BBC hit Peaky Blinders, a 2007 series of Gossip Girl, kids show Grizzly and the Lemmings and a true crime show called Worst Ex Ever. Yesterday MailOnline revealed how two of North America's leading brand experts have claimed Meghan Markle is a 'fraud' and As Ever is all about 'milking' her fame from marrying Prince Harry to 'sucker people into buying her stuff'. Canadian lawyer Phillip Millar and California marketing executive Camille Moore, stars of popular The Art of the Brand podcast, believe the launch and concept of her lifestyle business has been one of the worst they have ever seen. 'I love sh***ing on people who suck. Meghan Markle sucks as far as I'm concerned', Mr Millar has said. 'It [As Ever] is run by a confederacy of dunces working on this platform that is just maximising the value from her fame that came from Suits and being a part of the Royal Family and they're just milking that for everything they can'. Millar and Moore, who have advised big businesses including Mercedes-Benz, L'Oreal, Olaplex, Dior, Van Cleef and Air Canada, say Meghan's business has been a 'royal disaster'. Mr Millar believes that As Ever lacks authenticity because he claims that Meghan is 'pretending' to be a domestic goddess and most people don't believe it. But he added that the people who have rushed to buy her wine, jam, crepe mix and tea shows 'how gullible a lot of consumers are'. Canadian lawyer Phillip Millar and California marketing executive Camille Moore, stars of popular The Art of the Brand podcast, believe the launch and concept of her lifestyle business has been one of the worst they have ever seen He said: 'She's not substantial. I'm agitated by her so much because it is a deliberate misrepresentation of what she is because she thinks she can pretend to be that while actually being this and sucker people into buying her stuff and every step of the way she's failing because it's not legitimate. It's not intelligent. It's not well executed. 'There was nothing about her brand that was good from the start to a distinguishing eye. She was a fraud what I can see from the beginning who was just using opportunities to advance herself. Her brand wasn't one built on substance. It was based on using people. 'They're not executing anything well on any show on anything. But it shows how gullible a lot of consumers are'. Mr Millar said that investors including Netflix appear to have failed to ask serious questions of Meghan before the launch. 'People who consider themselves smart because nobody ever questions them are running this business and telling her to use a playbook that works for products where scarcity matters. Confectionery scarcity doesn't matter. He added: 'There's an egocentric approach to it that if you achieve some level of celebrity, you think you can build a brand, but that's the start of your brand. You can make short-term money from it, but it's not a long-term strategy'. Phillip believes Meghan has failed to see what she really is - a 'disruptor' rather than a homemaker. He said: 'Her brand should be I'm a disruptor. I go into TV. I make noise. I go into the Royal Family. I make noise. She should brand herself as a rebel, but she's not consistent with what she is. 'She should be a disruptor and sell products that are not that expensive and that represent disruption, but that audience is not spending a lot of money'. Ms Moore said Meghan is responsible 'for really probably having the worst brand execution to date', adding: 'She's had zero ownership in this business. It's effectively like she's just like labeling her brand'. She added: 'I feel like she's doing such a brutal or good job, depending on how you're looking at it, of getting this like free PR and then absolutely s***ing the bed'. When she started posting links on the ShopMy e-commerce site, some thought that this was going to prove an irresistible source of serious income for the Duchess of Sussex. It couldn't be easier, really – influencers link posts from their Instagram to the online shop, and then rake in a percentage of every item of clothing, make-up or homeware sold as a result. Some of the top creators make up to $1million (£740,000) a year with a cut of between 10 and 30 per cent per item, depending on the retailer. The 'creators' are ranked in a tiering visible only to other ShopMy entrepreneurs; the biggest earners are 'icons' and the lowliest ranking is 'enthusiast'. After an initial flurry on the site, in which she directed shoppers to the sweaters she wore in her Netflix show With Love, Meghan, the denim dress she wore on a 'date night' with Prince Harry to watch Beyonce and her make-up and hair favourites, Meghan has fallen silent. Indeed, she's not posted in over two months on ShopMy and it seems that her ranking has dropped from icon to enthusiast as a result. While she continues to appear regularly on her own Instagram page and that of her brand, As Ever, she or her team are not linking through for 'easy money'. At the start of ShopMy, Meghan directed shoppers to a number of items she had worn, including the denim dress she wore on a 'date night' with Prince Harry to watch Beyonce A spokesman for the couple did not respond to requests for clarification but a source says that – however lucrative – this potential revenue stream is simply not important to her. 'Her current priorities are centred on As Ever and expanding her business ventures. ShopMy represents an exploration into social media that she enjoys.' The source adds: 'The duchess has consistently approached ShopMy with a focus on authentically sharing products and designers she supports, particularly female founders she wants to uplift.' The deal is then: Meghan doesn't need the money, because she's making plenty already. As speculation grows over the couple attempting to renew links to the UK – with two key members of the Sussex team meeting the King's aide, Tobyn Andreae, earlier this month, as revealed exclusively by The Mail on Sunday – it's intriguing to examine what commercial successes the couple have had since moving their lives to California. The bottom line, of course, has always been significant for both Harry and Meghan. As they seemingly make steps towards rebuilding bridges with the Royal Family, you have to ask: How would a rapprochement serve the Sussexes? And, more than this, might they need to make up with the King for financial reasons. After all, he used to fund his son Harry's life ... right down to a wardrobe allowance for his wife. People who know the Sussexes say the reopening of communications doesn't mean they're any less committed to life in Montecito. I'm told: 'They're very happy living in and raising their family in California and, as it stands, have no plans to leave. The duke will of course continue, as he has done since he emigrated, to visit the UK in support of his charitable causes and patronages.' Indeed, Montecito is the epicentre of how they are marketing themselves. Meghan's As Ever brand was originally known as American Riviera Orchard, after the area in which they live. Five months after Megxit in February 2020, the Sussexes bought their house in Montecito for $14.65million (£10,890,000). And it's that purchase which seems to have fired the starting gun on the Sussexes' endeavours. In their tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey the following year, which took place while Meghan was pregnant with daughter Lilibet, Prince Harry reflected on their money-making activities to date. He said their deals with Netflix and Spotify had both been driven by financial necessity. The prince said he was cut off by his family in the first quarter of 2020, shortly after he and Meghan announced they would step back as senior members of the royals. He added that he still had the money left to him by his late mother, Princess Diana. 'Without that, we wouldn't have been able to do this,' he said, referring to the family's move to California. If Harry and Meghan had really been getting $100million over five years from Netflix at a steady rate of $20million a year, then you could consider it taken care of. But a source with knowledge of the Netflix deal say it's never worked out like that But even the reputed £10million left by Diana wouldn't be enough to buy his house and sustain their lifestyle for long. The couple are widely reported to have taken out a mortgage, with repayments apparently standing at $480,000 a year. On top of this, property tax will be a further $68,000 a year. Utilities are estimated at $24,000 a year, staffing costs $250,000 and security – always a priority for Prince Harry, who made two tours of duty in Afghanistan with the Army Air Corps – is said to cost up to $3million a year. It all adds up to needing to clear around $4million a year after tax, which is quite a task. Sources also indicate that the price Harry and Meghan pay to run their Archewell production company is significant, 'probably $3million a year, which as an overhead commitment is quite big by Hollywood standards', though some of those costs come out of charity funds. If Harry and Meghan had really been getting $100million over five years from Netflix at a steady rate of $20million a year, then you could consider it taken care of. But a source with knowledge of the Netflix deal say it's never worked out like that. They said: 'From speaking to someone with knowledge of the deal, it looks like they've probably managed to maybe keep $10million-$15million or a touch more purely for themselves over the nearly five years so far – not bad business, but that kind of money doesn't last long with their lifestyle. 'Netflix paid for the production of [the tell-all hit documentary series] Harry & Meghan, which would have included a big fee for them. 'I'd guess [the money Netflix spent on it] works out at $20million all-in. 'Netflix haven't done too badly out of the relationship in as much as they've probably only gone out of pocket to the tune of around $40million or thereabouts, and they did at least get a huge hit documentary out of the investment, and a less successful show in With Love, Meghan.
Forbes
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Forbes
Rihanna's ‘Smurfs' Movie Flop: Reviews — And Box Office — Look Dismal
'Smurfs,' which billionaire pop star Rihanna stars in, produced and wrote music for, is shaping up to be both a critical and box office flop despite marketing that placed the billionaire's name front and center. Rihanna stars in, produced and wrote music for "Smurfs." (Photo byfor ... More Paramount Pictures) Getty Images for Paramount Pictures 'Smurfs,' which opened in theaters Friday, failed to impress critics, earning just a 20% score on Rotten Tomatoes. The movie is also on track for a poor performance at the box office, with Deadline projecting Friday morning it could earn 'anywhere in the high single digits to low teens' in its opening weekend, while Variety projected between $10 million and $12 million. That total would be a rough start for 'Smurfs,' which was reportedly produced on a budget of $58 million before marketing costs. 'Smurfs' looks to underperform despite a star-studded cast, led by actor-producer-singer Rihanna, who stars alongside James Corden, Nick Offerman, Sandra Oh, Natasha Lyonne, Jimmy Kimmel, Octavia Spencer and more celebrities. Weeks before the film's release, Rihanna—who has not released a proper album in almost a decade, much to her fans' frustration—released the song 'Friend of Mine' from the 'Smurfs' soundtrack. 'Superman' is expected to best new releases 'Smurfs' and 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' at the box office this weekend, winning a second straight weekend with a projected gross of around $60 million, multiple outlets reported. Critics slammed the movie as unfunny and offering little appeal outside of Rihanna. Associated Press critic Jake Coyle said Rihanna gives the movie a 'half-hearted injection of star power' and suggested the movie tried and failed to benefit from its basis on existing intellectual property, stating the viewer can 'feel IP-rights pressures animating the entire enterprise.' Washington Post critic Michael O'Sullivan called the movie's plot 'all over the map' and 'hard to follow,' criticizing its setting in a 'multiverse.' The Telegraph critic Robbie Collin called it one of the 'worst films' he has ever seen, stating it has the 'charm and personality of a dented traffic cone,' questioning, 'Did ChatGPT take a pass at the script? And if not, should it have?' How Was 'smurfs' Marketed? Nearly every poster for the movie contained the same phrase: 'Rihanna is Smurfette,' placing the billionaire front and center, though some social media users poked fun at the marketing tactic. 'Would anyone out there care to explain the marketing to me?' one TikTok user said in a video that garnered nearly 300,000 likes, stating the 'Rihanna is Smurfette' line is the 'only consistent thing' about the marketing, with few mentions of co-stars or a director. In a one-star review, The Independent critic Clarisse Loughrey noted the film's posters have 'have repeatedly screamed at us that, 'Rihanna is Smurfette'– as if that's meant to trigger some kind of ecstatic revelation in itself,' questioning, 'why, exactly, is Rihanna Smurfette?' The new 'Smurfs' movie marks a reboot for the film franchise despite its waning success. Three 'Smurfs' films were released between 2011 and 2017 to diminishing box office returns and universally negative reviews. The 2011 film, 'The Smurfs,' was a commercial success, grossing $35 million in its opening weekend and $563 million for its entire worldwide theatrical run, making it the ninth-highest-grossing film of 2011. In 2017, 'Smurfs: The Lost Village' grossed less than half of the first movie, making $197 million in its global run. In 2022, Nickelodeon Animation and Paramount Animation picked up the rights to the 'Smurfs' franchise from Sony. How Successful Is Rihanna's Film Career? Rihanna has forayed into film before, though her films have seldom clicked with critics. Her first major film role, 'Battleship' (2012), was panned by critics and underperformed at the box office, grossing $303 million on a huge budget that exceeded $200 million. She played a leading voice role in 'Home' (2015), which grossed nearly $400 million worldwide but earned a middling 53% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes. She starred in 'Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets' (2017), which was a box office bomb and earned mostly negative reviews. Rihanna was a member of the 'Ocean's Eight' ensemble cast, which was better received with a 69% Rotten Tomatoes score, and was commercially successful, grossing nearly $300 million on a $70 million budget. She has previously had success writing music for films: In 2023, she wrote and sang 'Lift Me Up' for the 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever' soundtrack, which reached No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 and earned her an Oscar nomination. Forbes Valuation Rihanna is worth an estimated $1 billion, according to Forbes' calculations. She is the world's second-richest female musician, a title she previously held until Taylor Swift surpassed her after her highly profitable Eras Tour. Rihanna, whose real name is Robyn Rihanna Fenty, became a billionaire in 2021 largely due to the success of her cosmetics line, Fenty Beauty, as well as her lingerie line, Savage x Fenty. Further Reading Rihanna Says She Finally 'Cracked The Code' On Long-Awaited New Album (Forbes) 'Superman' Will Fly Over The Heads Of 'Smurfs' & Posh Peeps Who Did Things Last Summer With $60M Second Weekend – Box Office Preview (Deadline)
Forbes
15-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Will Dusan Vlahovic Become Known As Juventus Worst Ever Transfer Flop?
Dusan Vlahovic in action for Juventus on December 11, 2024 (Photo by) As he looks certain to leave the club this summer, talk has begun as to whether Dusan Vlahovic might be the biggest transfer flop in the history of Juventus history. Set to be replaced by new signing Jonathan David – the subject of this previous column – the cost of Vlahovic is certainly steep, with a statement on Juve's official website revealing they handed Fiorentina a fee of €70 million ($81.77 million) back in January 2022. With a FIFA solidarity contribution of €11.6 million ($13.55 million) and potential bonuses of up to another €10 million ($11.68 million), the full cost of Vlahovic's transfer is estimated at €83.5 million ($97.54 million) Why Dusan Vlahovic has flopped at Juventus Yet despite that huge fee, it was seen as quite the coup when Juve acquired the Serbia international. Celebrating his 22nd birthday the same day the move was announced, Vlahovic had found himself as one of the most hotly pursued players in Europe after a surprising breakout. Having signed for Fiorentina in the summer of 2018, his first 18 months at the Stadio Artemio Franchi were – outside of the stunning solo goal against Inter shown below – not particularly noteworthy. But, after netting just six goals in his first 40 Serie A appearances for Fiorentina, the start of the 2020/21 campaign would see Vlahovic's form suddenly explode. Over the next 18 months, the young striker bagged a staggering 38 league goals in just 58 outings for the Tuscan side. It was that decisive ability in front of goal that saw Juventus pounce, but they have certainly not seen that version of the player in Turin. And while there are certainly mitigating circumstances regarding coaching and the make up of the side, it would appear that Vlahovic has simply reverted to type. Indeed, with 58 goals over his 145 appearances for the Bianconeri, Vlahovic's average of 0.4 goals per game is neatly between his marks of 0.15 goals/game of his first 18 months at Fiorentina and the 0.65 goals/game of that impressive final year and a half. Who else is in contention as Juventus' worst signing? When seeking alternatives to Vlahovic as Juve's worst-ever signing, the name Melo is certainly prominent. Arthur Melo was signed from Barcelona for a nominal fee of €72 million ($84.1 million) and contributed just 63 appearances before leaving on a series of loans, including a year at Liverpool that saw him manage just 13 minutes of action. Miralem Pjanic was a makeweight in that deal with Barca, which perhaps mitigates the fee somewhat and allows Felipe Melo to enter the conversation as a candidate for the worst Juventus transfer of all time. Signed from Fiorentina – something of a theme there – for €25 million ($29.2 million) back in 2009, the Brazilian only lasted two years with the Bianconeri, but he made sure they were certainly memorable. Juve would slump to a seventh-place finish in Serie A in both seasons, with Melo managing almost as many red cards (three) as he scored goals (four) over that period. There were also a number of incidents between the player and those on his own side, caught insulting Juve supporters on two separate occasions and getting into a fight with Giorgio Chiellini. With Douglas Costa (€40 million/$46.72 million) and Marko Pjaca (€29.4 million/$34.34 million) both worth mentioning, it would also be remiss not to wonder whether Douglas Luiz and Teun Koopmeiners will enter this discussion if they remain at Juve in 2025/26. Yet they are unlikely to rival Dusan Vlahovic, whose impending exit makes it almost certain he will be remembered as the biggest flop signing Juventus have ever made.
Washington Post
21-05-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Elon Musk's pullback from politics comes after his last big investment was a flop
MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin could go down as billionaire Elon Musk's last big spend on a political campaign. And it was a flop .
