The Daily Mail recently published what it called “expert analysis” of Meghan Markle’s lifestyle brand “As Ever.” But reading the quotes from Canadian lawyer Phillip Millar reveals something troubling about how personal vendettas can masquerade as professional commentary in today’s media landscape.

Where Business Critique Ends and Personal Attack Begins

Legitimate brand analysis focuses on strategy, execution, market positioning, and consumer response. It examines what’s working, what isn’t, and why. What it doesn’t do is launch into personal character assassinations disguised as business insights.

Consider Millar’s language: “I’m agitated by her so much because it is a deliberate misrepresentation of what she is” and “She was a fraud what I can see from the beginning.”

This isn’t analysis—it’s a personal grievance aired in public. Professional consultants don’t typically announce they’re “agitated” by their subjects or call them frauds without evidence. The emotional language reveals this commentary says more about Millar’s feelings than Markle’s business acumen.

Meanwhile, his co-host Camille Moore delivers equally unprofessional assessments, declaring Meghan responsible for “really probably having the worst brand execution to date” and concluding with the charming observation that she’s “getting this like free PR and then absolutely s***ing the bed.” This is the kind of language you’d expect from a gossip blog, not professional marketing consultants.

The “Gullible Consumers” Problem

Perhaps most telling is Millar’s dismissal of people who purchase As Ever products as “gullible.” This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of consumer behavior and market dynamics.

People buy celebrity-endorsed products for various reasons: curiosity, supporting entrepreneurs, trying new things, or simply liking the product. Dismissing all of these motivations as “gullibility” shows either a lack of marketing sophistication or an inability to separate personal animus from professional analysis.

Real brand experts understand that consumer choice is complex. They don’t insult the intelligence of entire customer bases to make their point.

Moore does make one potentially valid criticism—that Meghan has “zero ownership in this business” and is “effectively like she’s just like labeling her brand.” This touches on a legitimate concern about celebrity brands that are essentially licensing deals rather than authentic business ventures. But this insight gets lost in the unprofessional delivery and personal attacks.

The Tabloid Symbiosis

The Daily Mail didn’t stumble upon these quotes by accident. They specifically sought out sources who would deliver the inflammatory commentary that drives clicks and engagement. Notice how they elevated both Millar and Moore’s credentials—describing them as “leading North American brand experts”—despite limited evidence of major brand consultancy work with the high-profile clients they claim.

The fact that these two co-host a podcast together makes their coordinated attack even more suspect. This appears to be a planned media offensive rather than spontaneous expert analysis.

This creates a symbiotic relationship: tabloids get quotable outrage, and commentators get a platform for their personal vendettas. The loser in this arrangement is the reader, who thinks they’re getting professional analysis but are actually consuming personal attacks.

What Legitimate Criticism Looks Like

There are valid critiques to be made about celebrity lifestyle brands. Questions about authenticity, market positioning, product quality, and long-term sustainability are all fair game. But professional critics make these points without:

• Announcing personal animosity toward their subject
• Calling consumers stupid for their purchasing decisions
• Making sweeping character judgments based on business strategy
• Using inflammatory language designed more for shock value than insight

The Financial Voyeurism Problem

Beyond the personal attacks, there’s something equally troubling about the article’s obsessive focus on Harry and Meghan’s finances. The piece includes a weirdly detailed breakdown of their expenses—mortgage payments ($480K/year), security costs ($3M), utilities ($24K)—that reads more like financial stalking than journalism.

This financial voyeurism reveals the tabloid media’s manipulation tactics. By creating a “will they go broke?” narrative, publications generate ongoing engagement while feeding readers’ complex feelings about wealth, privilege, and financial anxiety. The detailed financial speculation has nothing to do with evaluating Meghan’s business strategy, yet it takes up significant space in what’s supposedly a brand analysis piece.

The money obsession also serves to undermine the subjects by suggesting they’re financially desperate—making every business venture seem like a cash grab rather than a legitimate enterprise. It’s a particularly insidious form of coverage that weaponizes financial information to drive both clicks and negative sentiment.

The Larger Media Problem

This incident highlights a broader issue in contemporary media: the blurring of lines between expert analysis and opinion punditry. When publications present personal attacks as professional expertise, they mislead readers and degrade public discourse.

Real expertise involves measured analysis, acknowledging complexity, and separating personal feelings from professional judgment. When “experts” can’t manage these basic professional standards, it raises questions about both their competence and the media outlets that platform them.

The Bottom Line

Phillip Millar may have legitimate insights about brand strategy, but his commentary reveals someone who has confused personal dislike with professional analysis. His emotional language, consumer-shaming, and character attacks cross well beyond the bounds of legitimate business criticism.

Media consumers deserve better than personal vendettas dressed up as expert commentary. And if this is what passes for “leading brand expertise,” it’s time to raise the bar for what qualifies as professional analysis in our public discourse.

The real story here isn’t about Meghan Markle’s jam—it’s about how our media ecosystem enables and amplifies commentary that prioritizes outrage over insight, personal grievance over professional analysis.