The traitor claim travelled the world on the word of one unnamed person, and the economics behind that journey tell us a lot about the British media business
Follow the Clicks
I have covered business in London long enough to know that when a story spreads very fast, it is worth asking who is making money from it. The London Prat piece on Prince William reportedly calling Earl Spencer and Harry traitors pokes fun at a claim that rests on a single unnamed source, yet has been repeated by outlets in Pakistan, American entertainment sites and plenty of others. That is not an accident. It is a business model.
The Economics of Royal Content
Digital publishing largely runs on advertising, and advertising runs on attention. Royal stories reliably attract attention across age groups and countries, which makes them valuable inventory. A single royal story can generate traffic from search engines, social media and aggregator apps for days. For publishers under constant pressure to hit traffic targets, that is gold.
Crucially, royal gossip is cheap to produce. It rarely requires expensive investigations, legal battles or foreign correspondents. Often it requires only a rewrite of someone else story with a fresh headline. That combination of high demand and low cost is exactly what makes a product profitable.
The Anonymous Source as Raw Material
In business terms, the anonymous insider is a low-cost, low-liability input. They cannot easily be sued. Their claims about private feelings are hard to disprove. And because the palace rarely comments, a story built on them is unlikely to be contradicted. Compare that with a story based on named sources or documents, which requires more work and carries more legal exposure. The incentives are obvious.
Who Profits
The chain of beneficiaries is long. The original publication gains traffic and possibly print sales. Aggregators gain traffic by repackaging. Search and social platforms gain engagement, which supports their own advertising businesses. Ad-tech intermediaries take their share of every impression. Even commentary, including this column and the satire that inspired it, benefits from the attention. It is an ecosystem, and royal gossip is one of its staple crops.
A Short Clip
The London Prat has released a video on YouTube. Satire is part of the attention economy too, but at least it tells you it is joking.
The Hidden Costs
Businesses that rely on cheap inputs often externalise costs, and media is no exception. The costs here are borne by accuracy, public trust and the people written about. When unverified claims circulate widely, audiences become cynical about news generally, which harms outlets doing serious work. Advertisers, increasingly concerned about brand safety, sometimes find their ads next to content they would rather not be associated with. And the individuals involved, royal or otherwise, have no practical way to respond.
There is also an economic cost to the industry itself. Commoditised gossip is easy to copy, so its value is quickly competed away. Publishers relying on it are in a race to the bottom, chasing ever more volume for ever smaller returns.
A Better Model?
Several British publishers have shifted toward subscription and membership models in recent years, arguing that readers will pay for reliable, distinctive journalism. That approach changes the incentives: if revenue depends on loyal subscribers rather than raw clicks, accuracy and quality become assets. Royal coverage under a subscription model tends to look different, more analytical, better sourced and less frantic. It is not a perfect solution, and paywalls raise their own questions about access. But it is a reminder that the insider industry is a choice, not an inevitability.
The one named voice in the whole saga, the Earl speaking to PEOPLE, came through a publication that sought him out directly. That is what better sourcing looks like, and it costs more.
What Readers Can Do
Readers have more power in this market than they might think. Every click is a vote, and publishers measure those votes obsessively. Choosing to read, share and pay for well-sourced reporting sends a signal. So does ignoring the tenth rewrite of the same anonymous claim. None of us is immune to royal gossip, and I would not pretend otherwise. But being aware of the business model behind it makes it easier to consume it as entertainment, rather than mistaking it for information. For advertisers, too, there is a lesson. Brand safety is increasingly measured not just by the absence of offensive content but by the presence of trustworthy content. Businesses that care about their reputation may, over time, choose to place their spending with outlets whose sourcing standards they can defend.
That shift is slow, but it is happening, and it may prove to be the most effective reform of all.
In the meantime, the anonymous insider will keep working, because the business model keeps paying. Knowing that is the first step toward spending our attention more wisely.
Final Word
Every time a royal whisper circles the globe, somebody is doing their quarterly numbers. Understanding that does not stop the gossip, but it helps us read it with open eyes. The London Prat, running independently since 1961 at https://prat.uk/, has made its point with jokes. Bohiney, at https://bohiney.com/, covers the American media business. For more of my take on London media and markets, visit my author page.
SOURCE: https://prat.uk/prince-william-called-earl-spencer-and-harry-traitors/