Soaring commodity prices. A once-in-a-generation shift to online shopping. New hipster competitors and staff who want to permanently work from home. The consumer-goods giant Procter & Gamble (P&G) has plenty of problems to contend with. But hey, not to worry: Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, are here to help. The company last week agreed a long-term deal that will see the Sussexes advise the conglomerate on issues such as gender equality, inclusiveness and resilience.
Really? It is very hard to believe that the royal-ish couple have any real insight to offer. In truth, the history of celebrities getting involved in businesses is very poor. From Jamie Oliver’s role as a brand ambassador for Sainsbury’s to Johnny Depp’s publishing imprint for HarperCollins, the results have tended to be at best, mildly disappointing, and rarely worth the effort and time. The only people who will be celebrating Harry and Meghan’s latest gig will be shareholders at Unilever and Nestlé, P&G’s great rivals.
Navigating the culture wars
P&G was already one of the most “woke” of the major multinationals and it will now have Harry and Meghan on hand to offer guidance, support and advice on such tricky issues as whether its razor blades are sexist. Last week the company agreed a deal with the couple’s Archewell Foundation for advice on gender equality, inclusive online spaces and resilience. Next time executives are worrying about whether a product is acceptable or not they can get one or other of them on the phone and figure out the best way of dealing with it.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Of course, on one level it is possible to see what P&G is getting at. Consumer-goods companies face an unprecedented level of political activism. Social-media storms can be whipped up, brands boycotted and products removed from the shelves at the blink of an eye. The Sussexes might seem like a useful shield to deflect any criticism. Any woke activists can at least be told it has the okay from Harry and Meghan, and perhaps that will deal with any criticism.
But there are three big problems. First, the celebrities don’t actually know anything about business and have little useful to offer. A small handful of celebrities have managed to create significant businesses, but mostly they don’t have the time or the skills to contribute anything meaningful to running a company. Meghan Markle knows a little about acting and marrying a prince, but it is hard to believe she knows anything about managing a major conglomerate. As for Harry, he has hardly clawed his way up from the shopfloor.
Secondly, their popularity can easily implode, with knock-on reputational damage to the company they are working with. Jamie Oliver is hardly the brand he once was, for example. Fame is a perishable, transient commodity; the Sussexes may have a following at the moment, but that could easily disappear in a few years. Worse, any form of scandal will damage the company’s brand as well as their own.
A shot in the foot
Finally, this is all just a distraction from real problems. A multinational such as P&G faces plenty of real challenges. As we switch to shopping online, brands don’t have the same power they once did. They face more and more competition, both from internet platforms – Amazon Basics is as much of a threat as supermarket own labels once were – and niche, artisan rivals. Meanwhile, raw materials are more expensive than ever, and staff are adjusting to home working. A consumer-goods conglomerate should be focusing on addressing those issues, not worrying about some political activists who will disappear in a few years. Still, at least Unilever and Nestlé will be raising a quiet glass of plant-based milk to the appointment. It is always good to see a rival shoot themselves in the foot.
-
Rents rise at slowest pace for four years – is buy-to-let still worth it?Slowing rental growth and higher property taxes are creating a headache for landlords. Does buy-to-let still offer a good yield?
-
Should you bag a bargain with a half-price investment trust?Twenty-six investment trusts look cheap by historic standards, with some trading at a discount of more than 50%. Are they a bargain or value trap?
-
Who’s driving Tesla?As Elon Musk steps back from government with his eyes on the stars, investors ask if he’s still behind the wheel at his electric-car maker.
-
Investment opportunities in the world of Coca-ColaThere is far more to Coca-Cola than just one giant firm. The companies that bottle and distribute the ubiquitous soft drink are promising investments in their own right.
-
Streaming services are the new magic money tree for investors – but for how long?Opinion Streaming services are in full bloom and laden with profits, but beware – winter is coming, warns Matthew Lynn
-
'Pension funds shouldn't be pushed into private equity sector'Opinion The private-equity party is over, so don't push pension funds into the sector, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
Greg Abel: Warren Buffett’s heir takes the throneGreg Abel is considered a safe pair of hands as he takes centre stage at Berkshire Hathaway. But he arrives after one of the hardest acts to follow in investment history, Warren Buffett. Can he thrive?
-
Who will be the next Warren Buffett?Opinion There won’t be another Warren Buffett. Times have changed, and the opportunities are no longer there, says Matthew Lynn.
-
'Ignore the gloom: US stocks are a buy'Opinion The consensus says the age of American exceptionalism is over. But that is not the way to bet, says Max King
-
Will Comstock crash – or soar?Opinion The upside for Comstock, a solar panel-recycling and biomass-refining group, dwarfs the downside, says Dominic Frisby.
