Breaking Brand: Reputation hits and misses Podcast

Paul MacKenzie-Cummins

Breaking Brand: Reputation hits and misses breakingbrand.substack.com

Episodes

  1. How Brooklyn Beckham avoided the Harryesque pity-party 'boo-hoo me' approach to PR to make Brand Beckham and Brooklyn Beckham stronger than ever

    Jan 21

    How Brooklyn Beckham avoided the Harryesque pity-party 'boo-hoo me' approach to PR to make Brand Beckham and Brooklyn Beckham stronger than ever

    Earlier this week, Brooklyn Beckham – eldest son of David and Victoria – issued a statement that sent the media and social media world into a spin. I’ve been interviewed by ITV and Reuters as well as international news outlets these past few days for my take on what this means for Brand Beckham and Brand Brooklyn, too. We’ll start by talking quickly about what was said and how it was said. We can then dig a little deeper into the personal brand implications this may have and the impact on the Beckhams’ vast business interests. So, what’s all the fuss been about? Well, if you have been anywhere near a newspaper, TV screen, or social media platform at any point this week you will have seen someone somewhere talking about this story. It has literally gone viral on a scale unseen for some time. Brooklyn set out a series of damning allegations against his patents, David and Victoria, in a six-page statement that he published on Instagram. He accused them of trying to control and undermine him, of crafting and placing what he called “countless lies” about him in the media, and of trying to ruin his relationship with Nicola – his wife. There were more attacks that we don’t have time to cover in this podcast – head over to pretty much any media outlet out there for the details – such in the universal interest in the story. The headline that has really grabbed attention came in the second paragraph of Brooklyn’s six-page statement that he published on Instagram. It said: “I do not want to reconcile with my family.” Ouch. As a father of one soon-to-be-two, that is hard to hear. But from a PR perspective, it was incredibly impactful. Let me explain. First, Brooklyn’s decision to issue his statement to his 16.5 million followers on Instagram rather than pushing it out to the mainstream media, is a statement in itself. He clearly resents the mainstream media – it has been part of his life since birth and he appears to feel his parents exploit it for their personal branding gain. Instead, he opted to engage his followers on social media who he sees as being more on his side and more likely to be sympathetic and supportive in their response to his comments. This is a smart move despite him invariably being aware that the media would pick up on this and go to town with it, which is precisely what has happened. Second, this was a very PR savvy move because communicating his lack of enthusiasm to reconcile the differences with his family closes the door to a retaliatory response from his parents. There is no prompt for a return serve from David and Victoria and to date they have refrained from saying anything – the closest they have come to addressing it was in Davos this week when David stated that parents should let their “children make mistakes on social media – that’s how they learn,” they said. In one interview I did this week I was asked how I would advise David and Victoria from a potential media response perspective. I said that in my view emotionally charged statements levied at one party will invariably be met with many equally high emotions by the other. The worst thing to do is issue a response addressing the allegations – they risk tit for tat, which never looks good and simply escalates matters unnecessarily. I would advise them to either issue a short statement acknowledging the statement but emphasising “this is a family matter and that no further comment will be issued.” So what impact might this have on Brand Beckham? What impresses me about Victoria and David has been their consistent ability to extend their influence with new fans and new generations – many of whom never knew them as the footballer and pop star they once were. They have superbly moved with the times – 30 years ago there was no social media and the number of media outlets available at the time was a fraction of that today. They have ensured they remain relevant to the here and now at every stage and that has made them more relatable and likeable. Indeed, their brand has evolved along with their range of interests, from fashion and sports to wellness and key partnerships with well-known brands and businesses such as those with Adidas, Tudor, and since last November - Bank of America. Right now, and certainly for the next few weeks, the media and social media will be fixated with this story – not just because it involves the Beckhams, the celeb royal family – but because we may never get the truth of what did or did not happen. Speculation will remain rife but there is only so long that can continue. The story is unlikely to escalate beyond the peak it is at now and I don’t see this as having any detrimental impact on Brand Beckham. In the short term, it has absolutely created a dent in the personal brand armoury, but that won’t be enough to stop this 30-year branding juggernaut from continuing along the path it has owned, tweaked, and refined so successfully for so long.. It might, however, prompt a rethink between David and Victoria on just how important it is for them to retain such a high media presence if this is impact it is having on at least on family member. As for Brooklyn, his personal brand and reputation will not be negatively affected by his outpouring of frustration, anger, and emotion. If anything, it could enhance his profile and enamour himself to an eve bigger audience. I say that because of the contrasts that some commentators have made in the media between him and Prince Harry. That is unfair, though. Prince Harry has struggled to rebuild his reputation in the UK over the last few years and this stems from the outpouring of emotion he shared with the media over how he felt he was being treated by his family. The public and the media’s response was not what he had hoped for. Rather than garner sympathy and support, he met with widespread criticism – pity-party “boo-hoo-me” PR never works, at least not in Britain anyway… the sceptical buggers we are. Whereas Harry gladly courted every media outlet under the sun – and made an almighty hash of his comms by either ignoring the advice of his PR team or being given s**t advice by them in the first place – Brooklyn recognised there is a line that if crossed can lead to a place that he doesn’t want to be. He exercised restraint, and that is admirable. Ultimately is there is a clear breakdown in relations between parents and son that may appear irreconcilable in the immediate aftermath of Brooklyn’s statement, but I suspect a reconnection might be possible once the dust settles and some degree of calm returns. Over the last few years, I have featured in the likes of ITV, Reuters, METRO, BBC, The Express, and MSN talking about the personal branding and reputation of those celebs and high profile individuals who find themselves in the media spotlight for both the right and wrong reasons. It is what I do and have done from over 20 years. If you need guidance on an individual level, get in touch. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbrand.substack.com

    8 min
  2. Prince Andrew suffers King's wrath and reputation annihilation

    10/21/2025

    Prince Andrew suffers King's wrath and reputation annihilation

    TRANSCRIPT Prince Andrew has been stripped of his title the Duke of York. His name will seemingly forever be tarnished by his links to Jeffrey Epstein and the damning revelations in Virginia Giuffre’s book that have come to light these past few days have served as a self-inflicted pile-on that Andrew has experienced over the last six years. I make no apologies for my lack of neutrality. The King has had enough. The heir to the throne, Prince William, is none too pleased either – he has pledged to go for the jugular of his uncle should he ascend to the throne during Andrew’s lifetime. It is an ugly situation yet one that some media outlets have questioned whether this really does seal Andrew’s reputational fate and suggesting that a comeback may be possible? This is precisely what LBC radio were asking earlier this week, and I shared my thoughts for an article they published on Monday – you can see a link to this in the comments. So, is there a way back for the Prince? Can he rebuild his reputation over time – will he even try to? It is rare for a high-profile figure caught in the media’s glare to not bounce back from a public backlash and loss of reputation. Full cancellation, it seems, is uncommon. In Andrew’s case, however, this feels like the end of the road. Much like it is for his ex-wife. Indeed, I recently talked about the former Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson’s own reputation crisis which also centres around her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. In the last podcast, No way back: Fergie’s ferocious fall from grace seals reputation fate, I stated that “… given the severity of charges Epstein was found guilty of. the Duchess of York’s continued pursuit of a familial relationship with him has put paid to any possibility of a reputation reconciliation.” When it comes to Andrew, ditto. There will likely be no future role for him from a Royal family perspective and almost certainly none as a public figure. The only reason why it has taken this long for the door to be firmly shut on him is the depth of his pockets to fund his lawyers and a determination among the higher echelons of the Royal household to mitigate any risk of a reputational fallout affecting other senior Royals by association. Media coverage of Andrew’s involvement with Jeffrey Epstein has been damning but might have been much worse if it wasn’t for the legal defence team he employed. They let the investigation into Andrew’s actions drag on for as long as possible. This meant that the public were denied a swift outcome and the longer it continued without resolution the less appetite there was among the public and the media to continue reporting on it. Andrew has been a publicity disaster for the Royal family ever since ‘that’ infamous interview with Emily Maitlis – then of Newsnight, now of The News Agents – a great podcast I urge you to try out if you haven’t already. The King, for his part, has, in my view, handled this supremely well much like he has successfully managed the Harry and Meghan situation. But events have conspired in recent weeks to further weaken any chance of a possible reputation resurgence for Andrew – the revelation of Sarah Ferguson’s involvement with Epstein, and now the damning revelations in Virginia Giuffre’s book. Media cycles run fast, and interest quickly wanes. For Andrew, there is a sense that more will come out about the degree of involvement he has with Epstein. This is not going away anytime soon, but his career and profile most certainly have. [See LBC radio article mentioned above] This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbrand.substack.com

    4 min
  3. No way back: Fergie's ferocious fall from grace seals reputation fate

    09/23/2025

    No way back: Fergie's ferocious fall from grace seals reputation fate

    TRANSCRIPT The Duchess of York is facing a reputation crisis from hell. In the last 24 hours, multiple charities have severed links with her following revelations she continued to court the friendship of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein AFTER his convictions. The case points to the former Royal as lacking in moral and ethical judgement over the relationship between the Duchess of York and her “supreme friend.” This is how she described Epstein in a letter of apology he received from her after publicly severing ties with him where she stated he was “rightly jailed” and that she abhorred “paedophilia”. Epstein, it is noted, issued a lawsuit against the Duchess of York who he accused of labelling him a ‘paedophile.’ What is clear is that the message of support she sent to him was an attempt to sway him into dropping the lawsuit and to safeguard both her publishing career and her reputation. There is no doubt that Sarah, Duchess of York’s patronage of multiple charities has positively advanced their work and benefitted thousands of people who need their help. As someone who lost his mother to breast cancer 36 years ago, I feel that her contribution towards raising funds for the Prevent Breast Cancer Academy cannot be understated. It absolutely deserves to be admired. But we must not lose sight of reality here. Whereas the now-former US Ambassador Lord Mandelson – whose own reputation has also been tarnished by his association with Epstein - bemoaned being duped by Jeffrey Epstein’s charm, the Duchess of York was the one doing the duping. It leads one to question whether her charitable involvement was ever about using her position of power and influence to draw attention to the causes she was associated with, or if it was solely motivated by a need for attention? The Duchess of York’s ethics and values appear to be lacking. Some will feel sorry for her, especially those of my generation who remember her explosive personality that regularly featured on our TV screens and front pages during the 1980s. She was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise dull Royal family at that time. But she is clearly a colossal people-pleaser. Can she recover from this? It is unlikely given the rapid and dramatic fall from grace. I am usually upbeat in these matters and tend to believe that most personalities and other public figures can win back people’s trust and regain their reputation. However, given the severity of charges Epstein was found guilty of and the Duchess of York’s continued pursuit of a familial relationship with him despite knowing what this man was really like, has put paid to any possibility of a reputation reconciliation. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbrand.substack.com

    3 min
  4. 08/21/2025

    Sanex: Intentional or unintentional - the damage is done, forgiveness will not be forthcoming

    Sanex has joined the long list of major brands facing advertising bans for campaigns that are clearly insensitive and lack both cultural and emotional intelligence. Yet, it could all have been very easily avoided. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned a Sanex shower gel TV advert for perpetuating offensive racial stereotypes. The ad depicted black women with visibly dry, cracked, and itchy skin in the “before” scenes, while white women were shown with smooth, hydrated skin in the “after” scenes following use of the product. What action has the ASA taken? Well, they banned it of course. The ASA argued that the advert could be interpreted as suggesting white skin is superior to black skin. They were right. That is precisely what it does. How did Sanex respond to the ban? They were surprised, in a Homer Simpson way. Sanex’s parent company, Colgate-Palmolive, defended the ad as a “before and after” depiction meant to show product efficacy across diverse skin types. Clearcast, the body responsible for approving TV ads, also supported the ad’s intent, stating it demonstrated inclusivity. “I intended to scare the perpetrators off when waving my gun, but I didn’t intend for one of the bullets to fatally wound one of them, super soz. Am I forgiven?” No, because there was a clear failure to anticipate the consequences of behaving so recklessly. The responses from both Sanex and Clearcast focus on the ‘intent’ rather than the ‘offense’ caused. This can and clearly has come across as dismissive of legitimate concerns and, frankly, ignorant and tone deaf. This incident underscores the critical importance of cultural sensitivity and inclusive storytelling in brand communications. While Sanex may have intended to showcase product effectiveness for all skin types, the execution failed to consider how visual contrasts and narrative framing could be interpreted through a racial lens. From a reputation management perspective, this reflects badly on Sanex. It is a real-time case study on how brand messaging can unintentionally reinforce harmful stereotypes. This can and may already be having a significant impact on the brand in several ways: * Negative brand perception that will likely be escalated as more and more media outlets amplify the story * Erosion of consumer trust * Decline in sales * Uptick in market spend in an attempt to win back consumer trust and loyalty Unintended or intentional offence caused – it makes no difference. The case of Sanex and the plethora of other brands who have also found themselves in the firing line (M&S, Zara, Swatch) should never get themselves in such a position in the first place. It is avoidable, they just need to rethink their approval processes. * Establish an inclusive team of creatives and PRs to ensure diverse voices are involved at every stage of the campaign so that they can anticipate and prevent similar missteps from happening again. * Initiate a transparent review process that audits current campaign practices. * Hire people who were constantly question everything – EV-ERY-THING. Campaign makers, whether in advertising or PR, must always be thinking about how their message can be both received and interpreted. Having people who always ask ‘Why?’ and ‘So, what?’ are critical within the planning team. Need expert branding advice before launching your next PR or advertising campaign? Email me on paul@clearlypr.co.uk This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbrand.substack.com

    4 min

About

Breaking Brand: Reputation hits and misses breakingbrand.substack.com