<\/p>\n
Prince Harry<\/a> and Meghan Markle<\/a> have been criticised by a PR expert for going on a \u201csnore-fest\u201d tour in Jordan<\/a>, which failed to \u201cshift perception\u201d. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex spent two days in the Middle East<\/a> to raise awareness of the humanitarian efforts of the Jordanian authorities.<\/p>\n They also aimed to highlight a range of agencies supporting the health and wellbeing of Syrians and Palestinians who have sought sanctuary in Jordan over the decades. During the pseudo-royal tour, the Sussexes met Jordanian leaders and senior health officials, engaged with World Health Organization teams<\/a>, visited frontline health and mental health programmes, and met World Central Kitchen staff co-ordinating food relief for Gaza from Amman. But a PR expert said that while the Jordan visit was not meaningless, it also \u201cwasn\u2019t transformational\u201d, failing to spark public interest.<\/p>\n Renae Smith, founder of PR and branding agency The Atticism<\/a>, told the Daily Express: \u201cFrom a PR lens, the visit wasn\u2019t meaningless, but it also wasn\u2019t transformational.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cIt followed the now-familiar Meghan\/Harry formula: humanitarian settings, carefully curated visuals, light diplomacy tone, no institutional framework behind it.<\/p>\n \u201cThat structure is always going to divide opinion, considering who they are and what position they have (or more importantly, don\u2019t have).\u201d<\/p>\n Ms Smith said that for a visit like this to \u201cgenuinely shift perception\u201d, the Sussexes would have to give it \u201cmeasurable impact, a strong narrative hook, or a defining moment that cuts through the noise\u201d.<\/p>\n But she blasted: \u201cThis trip had none of those. It felt casually competent, but not strategic.\u201d<\/p>\n She also noted the timing of the trip, which took place just a few days after Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor\u2019s arrest<\/a> and shortly before the Middle East crisis.<\/p>\n The expert explained: \u201cData consistently shows that celebrity or soft diplomacy coverage drops significantly during high-conflict news periods<\/a> because attention shifts almost entirely to hard news.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cSo even if the visit was well-intentioned, it was always going to get buried. That doesn\u2019t mean it was badly planned, but it does mean the impact ceiling was low from the outset.\u201d<\/p>\n The PR expert added: \u201cDid it help rebuild their image? Not really. It reinforced what people already think.<\/p>\n \u201cSupporters see two independent global advocates doing meaningful work. Critics see a scaled-down royal tour without the official mandate.<\/p>\n \u201cIn brand terms, it maintains their existing base and continues the exact same arguments for and against them, but it doesn\u2019t expand it, heal it, or fix it in any meaningful way.\u201d<\/p>\n Ms Smith concluded by saying the faux royal tour<\/a> was not disastrous, but while it still maintains visibility, it does not \u201cmeaningfully shift perception. Snore\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n