Meghan Markle’s Hollywood problem may have very little to do with whether people are interested in her. In fact, the opposite could be true. She remains one of the most recognizable women in the world, yet the enormous curiosity surrounding the Duchess of Sussex has not consistently translated into enthusiasm for the entertainment and lifestyle projects carrying her name.

That distinction may explain why her latest setback matters more than the performance of a single documentary.

According to a recent Daily Mail article, PR professional Rebecca May believes Meghan “doesn’t have a visibility problem… but she does have a perception problem.” It is a revealing assessment because it suggests Meghan’s greatest asset — the attention surrounding her — may simultaneously be one of the biggest obstacles facing her Hollywood ambitions.

When the celebrity becomes bigger than the project

The latest example is Cookie Queens, a documentary about Girl Scout cookies made by Archewell Productions.

Despite Meghan’s enormous profile, the film received a lukewarm critical response. Critics described it as “staged as it is sweet,” while Variety reportedly considered it “too much of a reality-show ramble.”

Its theatrical performance added another uncomfortable comparison. The documentary reportedly generated only around £500 per cinema screening, while CatVideoFest 2026 earned £421,334 despite appearing on 191 fewer screens.

Those numbers do not necessarily determine the long-term value of a production, but they highlight a larger problem. Meghan can attract headlines simply by attaching her name to something. Getting audiences to care about the thing itself appears considerably harder.

May summarized the dilemma clearly:

“The person continually risks becoming bigger than the product itself, and the project simply gets overshadowed.”

That may be the central contradiction of Meghan’s post-royal career.

Six years later, Megxit still enters the room

Harry and Meghan entered Hollywood roughly six years ago, but they did not arrive as ordinary producers looking for their first break.

They arrived carrying one of the most discussed royal stories of their generation.

Memories of “Megxit,” along with Prince Harry’s reported feud with King Charles and Prince William, remain attached to Meghan’s public identity. According to May, that history has affected Meghan’s brand.

This becomes particularly complicated when the image Meghan appears to be building is wholesome, warm and aspirational.

Jam, cooking, lifestyle programming and Girl Scout cookies occupy a very different emotional world from royal family disputes. Yet audiences do not necessarily place those stories into separate boxes.

As May explained, Hollywood can handle high-profile personalities, but excessive controversy can eventually become a “brand risk.” Producers do not want the individual associated with a project repeatedly becoming a bigger story than the project.

In Meghan’s case, every new product effectively competes against Meghan Markle herself for attention.

Control may be creating another problem

There is another tension underneath this.

Meghan has increasingly pursued control over her own businesses and narrative. Earlier this year, As Ever separated from Netflix, allowing Meghan to take complete control of the lifestyle company.

In 2025, Netflix had held a stake in As Ever, whose products include jam, rosé wine and flower sprinkles. The streaming company also helped launch Meghan’s accompanying lifestyle series, which ran for two seasons and received an additional holiday special.

A source quoted by The Sun said Meghan remained on good terms with Netflix and personally close to Ted Sarandos, but was pleased to gain full control. The source also claimed Meghan had wanted to take As Ever global and had previously been constrained by Netflix’s more cautious approach.

From a business perspective, greater control makes sense.

From a branding perspective, however, May identifies a potential contradiction.

“Controlling the narrative too tightly can work against her,” she said.

May does not argue that Meghan owes the public unrestricted access to her private life. She specifically acknowledges that Meghan may have genuine private reasons for her estrangement from her father. Nevertheless, from a reputation standpoint, that unresolved story has become an “elephant in the room.”

Her proposed solution is not more exposure. It is greater vulnerability.

“There needs to be some vulnerability and something that feels less practised and managed,” May argued.

That distinction matters. Privacy and vulnerability are not necessarily opposites. Meghan could maintain boundaries while allowing audiences to encounter something that feels less carefully constructed.

The Netflix relationship is not over

It would also be misleading to portray Meghan’s Hollywood story as simply collapsing.

Harry and Meghan signed a more restrictive first-look agreement with Netflix last August. Meghan called it “an incredible sign of the strength of our partnership,” despite speculation that Netflix might be moving away from the couple.

They also remain involved in another Netflix production: an adaptation of Jasmine Guillory’s 2018 romance novel The Wedding Date, the first book in a six-novel series.

The adaptation is being written by Tracy Oliver, who worked on the 2017 film Girls Trip, while Harry and Meghan are producing alongside Ms Ryerson.

The story follows Alexa Monroe and Drew Nichols after an elevator encounter leads Alexa to accompany Drew to a wedding as his last-minute date.

So opportunities remain.

But there is also evidence of how quickly major media partnerships can disappear. Harry and Meghan’s Spotify agreement ended in 2023 after one season of Meghan’s Archetypes podcast, followed by the damaging moment when one of Spotify’s executives publicly called them “grifters.”

May notes that previous projects hitting obstacles — combined with criticism from former collaborators and industry figures — can follow someone into the next venture.

Changing projects cannot solve an unchanged perception

This may ultimately be why Meghan’s next move matters more than another production announcement.

She has moved across podcasts, documentaries, lifestyle television, consumer products and film production. But May believes the deeper issue requires “reputation-management mode” behind the scenes to identify why the brand itself is not evolving.

“At this level, there are also only so many major deals and opportunities available,” she warned.

Her most consequential observation may be this:

“You can’t keep changing the project if the public perception of the person behind it stays the same.”

That turns Meghan’s Hollywood challenge into something larger than whether Cookie Queens succeeded.

The Duchess already possesses what countless aspiring Hollywood figures spend careers pursuing: global recognition. What she may not yet have achieved is the separation between curiosity about Meghan Markle and trust in a Meghan Markle product.

Perhaps the next phase of her career therefore requires something counterintuitive. Instead of exercising even greater control over how Meghan Markle is presented, success may depend on allowing audiences to see something less polished, less predictable and slightly more vulnerable.

Because after six years in Hollywood, the challenge may no longer be convincing people to look at Meghan.

It is convincing them to keep looking when Meghan herself is no longer the story.