As noted in the article, Meghan drives revenue to the brands she promotes.

1. Business Success: Contrary to Brown’s characterization of Meghan’s ventures as missteps, the article reports that her lifestyle brand As Ever earned $10 million in media impact value (MIV) from the Netflix show.
2. Fashion Influence: The article details specific financial benefits to brands featured in the show:
   • Loro Piana earned $1 million in MIV from Meghan wearing their $1,325 sweater
   • Zara earned $973,000 in MIV from her high-low styling approach
   • Jenni Kayne earned $497,000 in MIV from her wearing their cashmere sweater
   • Emilia Wickstead earned $362,000 in MIV from her ship-print midi dress
3. Brand Evolution: The article acknowledges the trademark issues with “American Riviera Orchard” that Brown criticized, but frames the pivot to “As Ever” as a strategic business decision rather than a failure.
4. Netflix Partnership: The article reveals that Netflix is not just the platform for her show but also a business partner in her brand, suggesting a deeper strategic relationship than Brown’s characterization implied.
5. Future Projects: The article mentions two upcoming ventures – As Ever’s first collection and a new podcast called “Confessions of a Female Founder” with Lemonada Media.

Based on the contrasting perspectives between Tina Brown’s critical take and the business-focused article about Meghan Markle’s ventures, one could certainly argue that Brown’s assessment appears out of touch with the measurable business impact of Meghan’s projects.

The financial data presented suggests that, contrary to Brown’s characterization of Meghan’s Netflix show as a “flaming flop,” it has generated significant media impact value not only for Meghan’s own brand but also for the fashion labels she featured. The $10 million in media impact value for As Ever and the substantial financial benefits to brands like Loro Piana and Zara indicate that Meghan maintains considerable influence and commercial viability.

Brown’s critique appears to be focused on cultural authenticity and what she personally believes would resonate with audiences, particularly British ones. However, the business metrics suggest that Meghan’s approach is working commercially regardless of Brown’s assessment of its cultural fit.

Additionally, Brown’s suggestion that Meghan should have “shut up and waited” within the royal system reflects a more traditional perspective on monarchy and power that might not align with contemporary values around agency and independence. Her characterization of Meghan’s desire for commercial success as “naïve avarice” could be seen as out of step with modern views that celebrate entrepreneurship and self-determination.

Brown’s insider knowledge of media and the royal world gives her perspective a certain authority, but the gap between her cultural critique and the reported business outcomes suggests she may be judging Meghan’s choices through an outdated lens that prioritizes traditional institutional power over modern forms of influence and success.