In recent weeks, Meghan Markle has encountered a series of challenges that have cast a shadow over her entrepreneurial endeavors.
First, her attempt to secure a trademark for “American Riviera Orchard” was denied, and now she’s facing significant criticism for her investment in a handbag brand called Sesta Collective, which many are derisively dubbing “Povertycorn.”
This unfolding situation raises questions about her business acumen and the ethical implications of her ventures.
Markle’s ambition to launch a high-end lifestyle brand akin to Goop has been met with skepticism, especially after her trademark application was rejected.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) highlighted that geographical names cannot be trademarked, noting that “American Riviera” is primarily descriptive of the Santa Barbara area where Markle resides.
The agency pointed out that the addition of “Orchard” does little to alter the geographical nature of the name.
Critics are baffled by how someone of Markle’s stature could overlook such a fundamental aspect of trademark law.
It raises eyebrows when a public figure fails to secure their brand identity before announcing it to the world.
While some argue that establishing a business presence is necessary for trademarking, the fact remains that Markle’s team seemed unprepared for this major oversight.
Adding fuel to the fire, the backlash against her investment in Sesta Collective has intensified.
This company, which markets handbags made by Rwandan artisans, has been accused of exploiting these women while promoting a narrative of empowerment.
Critics argue that the marketing strategy employs Rwandan women as props to enhance the image of Western consumers rather than genuinely uplifting the community.
The controversy surrounding Sesta Collective centers on its pricing model.
While the founders claim to pay the Rwandan collective significantly above the national average salary, the reality is that the wages still fall short of providing a sustainable living.
The International Labour Organization reports that the average monthly salary in Rwanda is approximately $43, yet the artisans reportedly earn only a fraction of the price of the handbags sold in the West.
Social media has amplified the conversation, with voices like TikToker Georgie X. James articulating the ethical concerns surrounding Markle’s business practices.
Many have expressed that using African women as a marketing tool for luxury goods is not only inappropriate but also perpetuates a cycle of exploitation.
Images from Sesta Collective’s promotional materials have also drawn criticism, depicting Western women in positions of power over their Rwandan counterparts.
This dynamic raises important questions about representation and ownership in the fashion industry.
Critics argue that if the artisans are integral to the brand, they should be compensated fairly and included in the decision-making processes.
Markle’s approach to her investments appears misguided, as she seems to prioritize branding over genuine support for the communities involved.
The narrative of helping others falls flat when the underlying business model relies on low-cost labor while reaping high profits.
This disparity highlights the problematic nature of “poverty porn,” where the struggles of marginalized communities are commodified for profit.
As Markle navigates these controversies, the stakes continue to rise.
Her team now faces the daunting task of addressing the backlash while attempting to salvage her brand image.
With public sentiment turning against her, it remains to be seen how she will adapt her strategies moving forward and whether she can regain the trust of her audience.
In light of these developments, Markle’s aspirations to create a successful business empire may need reevaluation.
The rejection of her trademark application serves as a stark reminder that even high-profile individuals must adhere to the same rules as everyone else when it comes to business practices.
This situation serves as an important lesson for all entrepreneurs, particularly those looking to establish themselves in competitive markets.
Success requires not just ambition but also a deep understanding of the legal and ethical landscape that governs business operations.
As the story unfolds, it will be intriguing to see how Markle responds to the mounting criticism and whether she can pivot her approach to better align with the values of social responsibility and ethical entrepreneurship.
The world is watching, and the pressure is on for her to prove that she can rise above these setbacks and emerge stronger than ever.