Transcription
What, what do I want to share? What do I authentically, organically want to share?
She said, "This is a show. This is good stuff. A show."
So the success of the brand, I believe, is rooted in the fact that you can feel when I am involved in something. So many friends at the same time had texted saying, "Your jams just make me so so happy. Don't bake the cake without me."
What's wrong with the questions and answers in this podcast? What do Megan's statements reveal about her personality? How do Megan's business tactics cast doubt on Netflix's sincerity? These are the questions this language analysis will answer.
If it's your first visit to this channel, welcome aboard. And if you've been here before, welcome back. There's so much to talk about today, and I am dying to get into this new brand launch because I think this specific audience is one that is obsessed with pivots, obsessed with, you know, changing what they're doing. A lot of people are thinking about starting businesses or starting their own, you know, ventures, and that's exactly what you've done.
But before we get into that, I really want to understand where you got the entrepreneurial bug. Did you have, you know, like business owners or founders in your family?
Where does it come from? It comes from a title, Duchess. A title she got when she married into the royal family and a title she's kept even though she can't stop complaining about the family while making money off of it. Just because Emma calls it an entrepreneurial bug, it doesn't mean it is. That's a presupposition. A presupposition that the audience is expected to agree with.
Looking at Megan's self-serving rebranding failures, there's nothing entrepreneurial about them. They're about damage control and not about making relevant content that people want to see. Megan's new podcast has been severely criticized. Her old podcast was cancelled after the first season. Her animated series was cancelled. Her book got negative reviews, and her cooking show is at 3.2 on IMDb. Thus, the misrepresentation in this podcast is immediate. Not that it wasn't foreshadowed by the performative buzzword aspire.
One of the ways flattery can be identified is by the calculated omission of nuances that contradict the flattering statements. Here, Emma deliberately avoids telling her audience about Megan's many failures and the circumstances that made Megan relevant, circumstances that have nothing to do with talent and everything to do with marrying Prince Harry. Emma's question, which is actually an unreliable presupposition, encouraging Megan to speak in a monologue format, distorts the conversation right from the beginning. This distortion makes it easy for Megan to resort to her script like this:
"My mom, though she was a travel agent for many years, she also used to do, um, you know, like not a county fair, but street festivals and things like that where you have little pop-ups and vendors. And so she would—we'd go downtown, she'd buy fabric and she'd make dresses and we'd sell those. I love—and when we were down there, we'd go to downtown LA, I would buy with my allowance just sort of the overstock. You can buy like one yard at a time. And I started using my own sewing machine. I would make scrunchies. So when I was about fifth, sixth grade, I was selling scrunchies for a dollar a piece at school. And uh, so I guess it starts young."
"You could buy the remnants of fabric really affordably. You know, just made scrunchies and sold them at school. This is when I was in elementary school. So this was—I was what, nine?"
"That's amazing."
What does that have to do with a cooking show, for instance? How can Megan even have a cooking show? What are her merits? What does that have to do with writing a children's book? How's Megan a writer? This way of branching out before achieving success in just one of the areas they're expanding their activities into is common for people who aren't actually talented, people who aren't truly gifted at one thing but sell their failures as successes.
"I'm better than okay. So, you mentioned the show or the podcast or the brand. This is what I worked so hard for. But I'm happy. I'm happy. But I'm trying to also enjoy these, these big wins right now."
"Yes, enjoy them."
Furthermore, many people have sold something to their classmates in school. This doesn't mean they were predestined to become an entrepreneur. Just like complaining about a commercial when you were 11 years old doesn't mean you've made an impact.
"It was at that moment that I realized the magnitude of my actions. At the age of 11, I had created my small level of impact."
And when we were—I like how Emma loves this considering that Megan told this story years ago. There's nothing new here. Speakers, and in this case, interviewers, often exaggerate when there's nothing impressive about what they're hearing. I wonder if that's the case here. When the interviewer doesn't care about telling the whole truth, it's easy for Megan to make self-aggrandizing statements. We see that next.
"I knew that I wanted to put something in the world. And for years, I mean, we've been out here for 5 years now, really trying to decipher what, what do I want to share? Mhm. What do I authentically, organically want to share and how to translate that? And you know, truth be told, I had just been making a lot of jams and preserves at home and sharing them as holiday gifts with a lot of friends. And it was one morning, beginning of the new year, so many friends at the same time had texted saying, 'I don't know what it is, but your jams just make me so so happy.'"
"Yes, because that's what Megan's jam does. It makes you happy. Jam from the supermarket, on the other hand, can't."
One of the reasons why Megan's statements sound rehearsed and contrived is because she's constantly preoccupied with image, trying to make people have the same high regard for her as she has for herself. This results in performative terms like authentic and organic.
"Authentic part of her script, no matter if she's talking about jam or her spare. Anything I learned about him and his family was what he would share with me and vice versa. So for both of us, it was just a really authentic and organic way to get to know each other."
What about this: "It was several years ago in 2014 that I was first invited to be a counselor at One Young World. I was probably a lot like each of you. Young, ambitious, advocating for the things I deeply and profoundly believed in. Truth be told, I—"
Well, have no doubt Megan's being truthful. She has a long history of only making truthful statements.
"I didn't know much about him. And so the only thing that I had asked her when she said she wanted to set us up was I had one question. I said, 'Well, was he nice?' Cuz if he wasn't kind, it just didn't—it didn't seem like it would make sense. And so we went and—"
If that was the only question Megan had, her friend could have arranged a date with a truck driver, which is how we can be sure that Megan had more questions. Statements that appeal to truth or honesty, like "I'm telling you the truth," or "I'll be honest with you," aren't deceptive, per se. However, they show that the speaker is self-aware, aware of how he or she wants to be perceived, which in this case is in line with Megan's other performative statements and then made a very big pivot, as you say, when I went from about to onboard a CEO and a small team to having Netflix as my partner.
"That takes it to a completely different level. And totally different."
"Yes. I'm glad Megan doesn't shy away from praising herself because working with Netflix has definitely resulted in invaluable content that's both authentic and organic."
Everything in this podcast is also authentic and organic, right down to Emma's reactions. However, how did Megan's brand become a reality, I wonder?
"Uh, we have the CEO of Netflix here. I did binge your show with love, Megan. There's nothing you can't do, which is amazing. But, and then Bella Bajari as well has just been so incredibly supportive. And what I'd love to do was always make things in my kitchen, do small flower arrangements, pick a lot of jam. And uh, when I was sending those as gifts, one day Bella said, 'There's a show here.'"
Megan always seems to have ulterior motives.
"And if you go to someone and you ask for advice, they're much more likely to give you money. That's a good tip."
"Mhm. All right. I'm taking that one to the bank. Just go for advice because otherwise people aren't immediately feeling pressurized."
In other words, go for people's money by pretending that you want their advice. These are the words of someone who isn't interested in other people's advice. And it shows—it also shows later in this interview when Megan talks about whose boss her on Netflix—as you know, in building brands.
"It doesn't happen overnight. It can't happen overnight. I guess the difference was with me is that so much of that work that can typically be done behind the scenes for most founders, there's just so much curiosity that you are building the plane while and and flying it at the same time."
According to Emma, this podcast is about giving advice on how to start companies, and according to Megan, her new podcast is about the same. However, Megan spends most of the time underlining how different her situation is from everyone else's. Thus, what she says isn't relatable to people. This is another way in which it's revealed that interviews like this and Megan's projects are about self-branding exclusively, making her sound special.
"There's just so much curiosity."
Backlash, more like it, but that's nothing like a deceptive euphemism and overcompensating laughter to cover for that. Next, notice Megan's evasive answers that reveal how she's trying to control this conversation.
"Well, it's a gift and a curse, right? It's one of those things where there must be a part of you that's like, great, there's an interest in what I'm doing, but there's also just such scrutiny in what you're doing. There's a lot of focus on every detail and every moment of quiet. Do you—every single moment quiet and everything? It really does. It really runs the gamut. But at the same time, what a blessing that it creates and generates so much buzz and so much interest. But I'm still never willing to sacrifice or compromise on the quality and to take my time. Someone else's urgency is not my urgency."
"I mean, I honestly think that that's a great way to think about it."
Lexical reuse, or simply repetition, is a practice through which interviewees can propose that they're attending to the question in detail and are thus properly responsive to the issues it raises. However, Megan isn't being properly responsive. She reuses some words there, but changes the main noun scrutiny to focus and later buzz and interest.
"There's also just such scrutiny in what you're doing. There's a lot of focus, buzz, and so much interest."
This reveals Megan's tactic to turn anything negative—and Emma's question did indeed emphasize something negative—into something positive. This is image protection on Megan's part. Self-protective and thus self-serving language as she goes as far as to talk about the overwhelmingly negative focus as a blessing, which is as misleading as it gets. Emma even made a distinction between interest and scrutiny. Yet Megan mentions interest as if Emma hadn't.
"Great. There's an interest in what I'm doing, but there's also just such scrutiny. But at the same time, what a blessing that it creates and generates so much buzz and so much interest."
That's how sensitive it is to Megan not to talk about the scrutiny, which again is a euphemism for more realistic terms like severe criticism or backlash.
"But I'm still never willing to sacrifice or compromise on the quality."
"No, of course not. Everything Megan does is high quality."
"I mean, I honestly think that that's a great way to think about it."
There's reason to believe that Emma's not being entirely honest here, which could be the exact reason why she says she is. Appeals to honesty show that the speaker's self-aware, aware of herself and the other person in the room. Here, the appeal to honesty is accompanied by Emma crossing her arms, closed-off body language, and it's completely unmotivated because why shouldn't she be honest? Many times, speakers use terms and phrases like honestly and to tell you the truth because they're comparing them to opposite thoughts, that they're not being honest or truthful, or also that it's unexpected that the person they're talking to says something they agree with.
"With this partnership, do you think it brings more scrutiny or is it all upside?"
"I don't think it brings more scrutiny. I think it certainly brings more attention and curiosity. How could it not? Especially because it's a new chapter for Netflix as well from the CPG side. And really, when you link it to the Netflix series with Love Megan, it is where content and commerce can meet in a really unique way."
"Oh, of course it's unique."
I like how Megan draws the conclusions for people in case they hadn't already realized that.
"More attention and curiosity. More attention and curiosity."
The word more implies that attention and curiosity have characterized people's reactions to her projects. Megan uses the adverb certainly as if it's supposed to be some kind of an admission on her part that it's not all upside.
"More scrutiny or is it all upside? I don't think it brings more scrutiny. I think it certainly brings more attention and curiosity."
Yet, she only wants to talk about the supposed upside, which speaks to her agenda, image protection over truth every time. Because Megan and Emma don't talk about the bad ratings, the negative reviews, and people's extensive criticism of Megan's projects. If an interviewer doesn't bring up criticism when interviewing someone who's faced years of backlash, he or she doesn't care about truth, but is only there to cheer the person on. Attention and curiosity can't even be called euphemisms because they have nothing to do with reality. Criticism and backlash, on the other hand, do.
"Remember the room. Oh, hi Mark. You're just a chicken. Chip chip chip chip chip chip. You know what they say, love is blind."
I mentioned that movie because it's rated higher than Megan's cooking show. So Megan talking about her cooking show as if it's part of something unique is unintentionally funny. Unless unique has suddenly become a negative adjective.
"So I think with season 2 coming up, we've been able to really maximize that opportunity also and look at what I'm making in season 2 and see that reflected and complimentary in what the brand has an offering."
This is like Kirk Cameron discussing his steep and profound intentions with Saving Christmas. Imagine talking about a show that's currently at 3.2 on IMDb as a pivotal moment. In that case, Saving Christmas was also a pivotal moment.
"We—" Megan says as if this isn't merely about her, her trying to rebrand herself and as if her supposed intentions haven't already failed. Considering how her cooking show's been received, no amount of rehearsed, affected language that's designed to impress people can change that.
"Maximize that opportunity. Maximize the opportunity."
Megan's the prime example of someone whose brand identity misaligns with their brand image. She's memorized lines that portray her as unique, thoughtful, or whatever is needed in a given situation, brand identity, but what she says about herself doesn't translate to how people actually perceive her, brand image. Megan continues to elaborate on what she thinks makes her special because that's exactly what people need to hear in a podcast that's supposed to help them. According to the deceptive branding of this podcast, that is—
"Well, I think what's different than what you're saying is your initial experience is that we've been in partnership with Netflix for 5 years already."
"Absolutely."
"My husband and I. So, there's familiarity and there's comfort. And while that was just on the content side, not on the commerce side, these are relationships and friendships."
Now, what Megan's saying here is more revealing than she probably thinks it is. How's this disastrous partnership even possible? What made it possible? The royal family made it possible because Megan and Harry's first Netflix collaboration was about creating a victim narrative at the expense of the family.
"They were happy to lie to protect my brother. They were never willing to tell the truth to protect us."
It would make all the talk about making scrunchies isn't only annoying and irrelevant, but it's also a smoke screen because it wasn't Megan's entrepreneurial bug that started her so-called business. It was her association with and later disassociation from the royal family.
"These are relationships and friendships now."
Oh, I'm sure they're very deep and profound relationships and friendships that don't have a self-serving purpose at all.
"And uh, when I was sending those as gifts, one day, Bella said, 'There's a show here.'"
Megan would never dream of being opportunistic.
"This beautiful woman just sort of literally tripped and fell into my life. I fell into her life."
Megan says this as if it's a good thing. However, it's very problematic if a platform like Netflix prioritizes so-called friendships over making content people actually want to see, considering the almost exclusively negative reactions to Megan's cooking show and the facts they're moving forward with season 2. In spite of that, this could be the case here. Not that the one-sided and overly dramatic so-called documentary hadn't already exposed Netflix for what it is, a disingenuous platform.
"After an event where every single member of the family, senior members of the family had been, including the queen, and on the front page of the Telegraph, Megan, I went, 'Oh my god.' She was like, 'But it's not my fault.' And I said, 'I know.' And my mom felt the same way."
Having a friendship and a nice rapport with Bella.
"Bella Bajaria has been such a champion of both the series and of this brand. And you know, it was only from me sending her fruit baskets and jams and whatnot that she said, 'This is a show. This is good stuff. A show.'"
Which in a sane world should be more than enough for Netflix to make sure that someone like Bella, the chief content officer, isn't associated with the company in any way, shape, or form. The fact that Megan even tries to make something that's so unequivocally negative and devastating to Netflix's sincerity sound positive speaks volumes about her lack of self-awareness. Being sent fruit baskets and jams should never be enough to convince you into making a contract with one of the most universally disliked former belist actresses. If it is, it shows that your interest can be bought and that you prioritize personal relationships over talent, quality, and what people want to see. Because to say that there are far more qualified candidates to host a cooking show than Megan is an understatement. In Megan's case, mentioning friends in high places doesn't do her any favors. It exposes her friends. It exposes that her career isn't based on talent or an entrepreneurial bug. I wouldn't want Megan to call me her friend considering how she gets her friends to give her money.
"All right, I've taken that one to the bank. Just go for advice because otherwise people aren't immediately feeling pressurized."
How can you trust someone like that? Next, Emma once again emphasizes one thing while Megan emphasizes another because there's a lot of compromise when it comes to partnerships.
"And I say this to founders all the time, right? When you give something, you have to imagine that something's coming back. And so what—what does that partnership actually look like right now?"
"Well, I think at the end of the day, what I appreciate is in the contract, they understand that this is my vision. It's my vision. And also the success of the brand, I believe, is rooted in the fact that you can feel when I am involved in something."
So the success of the brand is rooted in the facts that people can feel Megan's involved. Talk about a self-aggrandizing presupposition. To talk about the brand as an unequivocal success without addressing the backlash is deceptive. And the supposed belief that it's a success because of her fails to recognize that she's also immensely unpopular, which hurts her brand and by extension Netflix's brand. But yes, you can definitely feel when Megan's involved in something. I like how Megan says you—guiding people what to feel—as if she, in the midst of the backlash, is in a position to generalize like that. Emma emphasized compromise, but Megan emphasizes how she gets her will, which once again makes it sound like a special case in a podcast that's supposed to be relatable to its audience, whoever they are. Megan continues with affected language that sounds like it's been rehearsed once or twice.
"And so because I have been in this state of ideation of what I wanted to have as an offering for so long, the fact that they trust my final judgment is great on what I want to put out there. But equally, one of the things I've said from the onset, I love being part of the creative process. It's important to me. It's also where I find a lot of joy. So the analogy I say is don't bake the cake without me. Meaning, if I'm in the kitchen, I want to be part of making the batter. What's the flavor profile? And there's an entire team that can help put that cake in the oven, but I want to check it before it goes in the oven. And I want to be involved in frosting it and presenting it and the language surrounding it. I—"
Other words, I really, really want people to understand how fantastic I am. It's a well-known fact that Megan sings her own praises. Her image protection depends on it. But has she ever stopped to ask herself why none of it works, judging by people's reactions to what she does? That maybe she shouldn't be involved in the frosting, presenting, and the language that she shouldn't have a cooking show?
Of course, I know she hasn't asked herself that, and the lack of self-awareness is astounding. Again, this is like Kirk Cameron emphasizing how he was involved in every little detail of making Saving Christmas after seeing the negative reactions to the movie. Megan's cooking show has already flawed. Yet, she talks about it as a success. This makes me skeptical of the Yes Ever products as well. The products that Megan and her flatterers never miss an opportunity to say are sold out. It's your product line as ever. Mhm. Uh, it's my understanding the first drop was sold out in 20 minutes. 45 minutes. Okay. 45 minutes. Can we trust those numbers? Can we trust that they didn't only have a relatively limited amount of products in store so that it only looks like they were in demand?
The fact that they trust my final judgment is great. Which unintentionally exposes two things: Netflix's incompetence and Megan's inability to make judgments. When someone's elevated to a position they haven't earned and aren't suited for, failure ensues. I like how Megan mentions this as if it's a side note before she's about to make a contrast. The fact that they trust my final judgment is great on what I want to put out there. But equally, one of the things I've said from the onset, I love being part of the creative process. However, the contrast isn't an actual contrast that relates to Emma's words about compromise. Because there's a lot of compromise when it comes to partnerships. It's a whole new topic about Megan's self-proclaimed creativity. This way, everything Megan says is designed to elevate her, to make sure that people realize who's boss. This is as narcissistic as it gets. It's also where I find a lot of joy. So what if Megan finds a lot of joy in it? So what if any director creator finds joy in what they do? What about the viewer's joy? The viewer who pays for Netflix? What about talent? What about merits? What about getting a relevant education before being handed a cooking show?
Megan's mindset speaks to how she's only in it for herself and exposes Netflix's priorities. Many people have someone they look up to, not because they like everything about the person, but because they recognize their talent. Thus, when someone who isn't talented at something they're supposed to be talented at, like cooking, receives endless amounts of flattery from disingenuous interviewers, people get an aversion to the person, especially when they find out that the person's so-called success is a result of everything but talent, that the person's success is a result of their title and befriending the right people.
If you like the video, click the like button. See you next time. [Music]