The power of licensing #11: Can Harry and Meghan Use Licensing To Build A Billion Dollar Brand?

January 23, 2020 | By Michael Stone, Chairman and Co-founder of Beanstalk

Right now, Harry and Meghan are probably the world’s most bankable couple. Speculation is rife that they could become a billion dollar brand. Young, glamorous, aspirational, determined to do things in their own way—the British prince and his American TV star wife are celebrity A-Listers with enormous popular appeal. The question is: can they find a route to financing their new life without demeaning themselves or the Royal family with inappropriate or crass product partnerships?

As the world knows, the couple—formally, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex—has agreed to a new settlement with Queen Elizabeth II: they will no longer have to undertake  royal duties but, in return, they have forfeited their right to use their HRH titles and their access to public funds. It means they may need to find a way to, as they say, “become financially independent.”

On the face of it, this should present no problems at all. Last year, they filed   applications in multiple product and service classes to trademark their own brand—“Sussex Royal” (@SussexRoyal, their Instagram account, was launched last April and already has over 10 million followers).  The trademark registrations raised the prospect that they could license the manufacture of a wide range of consumer products and license services, including stationery, clothing, charity campaigns and the provision of sport, social care and training. Potentially, they could derive a significant income from the royalties that companies would pay to license their brand.  And let’s not forget opportunities for brand collaborations and endorsements.  Indeed, they (particularly Meghan) have already proven themselves powerful albeit inadvertent brand ambassadors.  For example, when Meghan wears something that the influencer community considers particularly stylish, sales of that brand skyrocket.

But this road is not so straightforward.  There is a great deal of debate and speculation about what they should do. While there are opportunities, there are also challenges and risks.  We can’t see around the bend.  So great care must be taken.

First, there is serious doubt about whether they will be allowed to keep the word “royal” in their brand name. Earlier this week, one of the Queen’s aides, who serves as the quaintly titled Garter King of Arms, said  now that the couple no longer carried out royal duties, it would not be “satisfactory” for them to use the word. “You are either [royal] or you are not,” he said. Ultimately, this subtlety may be lost on many people—certainly in the United States. After all, Harry remains sixth in line to the throne, the grandson of the Queen, the son of the future King and the brother of another future King. In other words, he is royal in, perhaps, all but name—and that’s probably good enough for most companies that want to partner with him and most consumers who may want to buy his and Meghan’s products. And, although Sussex Royal does not include their actual names, it is inextricably tied to the two of them.  Other more traditional celebrities have followed this path - - Draper James (Reese Witherspoon), The Honest Company (Jessica Alba), Flower Beauty (Drew Barrymore), among others.  Indeed, if they were required to change their brand to, say, “Harry & Meghan,” there is no reason why that would be any less appealing.

A second issue is the way they conduct themselves in public. Traditionally, members of the British royal family have resisted the temptation to go toe-to-toe with the media, preferring to follow the mantra favored by  Queen Elizabeth’s mother: “Never complain, never explain.” But, in a marked break with tradition, Harry and Meghan have tried to fight back, particularly in the U.K., showing a potentially litigious tendency. Within hours of Harry’s landing in Canada to rejoin Meghan and their baby son Archie, the couple issued a legal warning to the legions of paparazzi camped outside their home. There may be some sympathy for their actions: no-one can forget the tragic fate of Harry’s mother, Princess Diana, who died in a car crash after trying to escape the intrusive camera lenses of Parisian paparazzi. But will major companies want to be associated with a couple that is constantly in the headlines for this kind of high-profile activity? The jury’s out.

A third question is this: can Harry and Meghan really generate an income by licensing products and, in effect, cashing in on their royal connections? Under the terms of the agreement struck with the Queen, they have promised not to do anything that would undermine “the values of Her Majesty.” That would seem to limit their room for maneuver.  How will the public react?  I suspect that in the U.K., where the royal family is revered, there might be some backlash.  Consumers in the United States would undoubtedly be more accepting. However, reputational damage to themselves as well as to the monarchy as an institution is a serious risk should they make the decision to proceed with licensing.  To mitigate those risks, if that is even possible, a careful strategy must be developed.

But there is, perhaps, a model for what they do next in the shape of Harry’s father, Prince Charles. The heir to the British throne is, among other things, the Duke of Cornwall, and 30 years ago he founded the Duchy Originals brand as an outlet for organic food grown on his farms—with proceeds going to charity. It has now morphed into the Waitrose Duchy Organic brand, with the U.K. supermarket chain holding the exclusive licence to develop and distribute products using this label. The royalties from this venture still go to charity. Separately, Prince Charles derives a separate personal annual income in excess of £20 million from the Duchy of Cornwall, a private estate that was established in the fourteenth century to provide an income for the heir to the throne.

Using this as a model, Harry and Meghan could generate charitable income by licensing their brand for products connected with their special interests—equality and women’s rights, in the case of Meghan; Africa, conservation, mental health and military veterans’ welfare, in the case Harry. (Meghan has gotten a bit of a jump on this with her Smart Set fashion line with Marks & Spencer; every time a piece is sold another is donated to Smart Works, which helps unemployed and underprivileged women dress for job interviews.)

And while Harry and Meghan don’t have a significant landed estate, they could generate a parallel income through speaking engagements, books and other such activities. From Churchill and Clinton to Blair and Obama—presidents and prime ministers have long derived a significant personal income from the U.S. speaking circuit and book deals without incurring the wrath of the public. Organizations, companies and events happily pay significant sums to put their audiences close enough to such celebrities to get a sprinkling of their star dust.

If this twin approach is a viable way forward, it remains the case that there is much work to be done before they can really become a billion dollar brand. They have the required celebrity status, that’s for sure. But if fame is necessary, it is not sufficient. There are some other things that they will need to develop and requirements that they will need to satisfy in order to have a successful licensing brand.

First, they need to develop a compelling story that consumers can readily understand, relate to, and embrace. Second, they need to cultivate a clear vision: what does their brand say? What does it stand for? Are the products they choose to license consistent with that vision? Third, they need to identify some white space—a gap in the market—that their products can fill. Fourth, they need to ensure that their brand has authenticity. Their fingerprints need to be all over their products. That will require them to make a  significant time commitment to their licensing business. Fifth, they need constantly to burnish their personal brand, so that they don’t lose credibility in the market.  That’s a lot to consider.

Never before has a royal couple been so free to roam the commercial market. It presents huge challenges—but also huge opportunities for Harry and Meghan, the companies that partner with them, and the charities that stand to gain enormously from their energetic and creative philanthropy. If this is, indeed, the right path for them, if they can pull it off, if they can put  “royalty” into the royalty business for all the right reasons, that would be a significant achievement.