to think that slebs doing a charity event should provide their services for free?

[deaconblue]

Dh has signed up for a help for heroes concert. The organiser told him last night that the reason the ticket prices are so high is to cover the cost of the opera singer's fee (she is joining the choir for a number). Surely if she is being billed as part of the charity concert then she should be being charitable about it???

Definitely NBU. Surely the point of a charity concert is that all the profit goes to charity.

YANBU. I always assumed they did it for free. to find out they get paid.

Terry Wogan has taken a fee for Children in Need for many, many years. Alledgedly

I guess they justify it that more people will buy tickets if their name is associated with the concert but I'm still that it goes on

Ok, not so "alledgedly". BBC admit it.

I am clearly the most naive person in the world. I thought that doing something for charity it would be a given that no fee changed hands.

I think it's up to the charity. You can't force someone to give up their time for free. The singer (I wouldn't describe an opera singer as a celebrity!) decides if they will do it for free or not, the charity then decides if they think they will still get more money if the singer attends and gets paid.
If it's not a charity the singer feels strongly about she may not want to turn down paid work on that night for working free for that charity.
In general I don't think this is any of my business.

YANBU its disgraceful - they are getting the publicity, why the fee as well?

I hate charity events with celebrities and "celebrities". The hypocrisy is laughable.

YANBU, but it's like Rebecca says, if the singer doesn't want to donate time for free for a charity they aren't interested in, they shouldn't have to just because of the charity label.

The charity should spend more time trying to find a celebrity that will donate their time for free, or choose to hold a different sort of fundraiser.

It's the same with any service or form of entertainment, it still has to be paid for unless the celebrity is so big that they really don't need any more income. The charity could have a disco, and would still have to pay the dj or band and for the catering. Many charities operate like businesses, and in the case you mention, people can choose to buy a ticket or not.

It is very hard to get a celebrity to support a charity - unless it is a particular cause they have a personal interest in. They just get so, so many requests.

How much are the ticket prices? It depends on how they are marketing it. There are supporters who will but a ticket to an event regardless because they support a charity, and there are other people who are interested in the charity but are only going because there is a particular opera singer (or whatever) there.

It is better to have more expensive tickets for a sold out event, than cheaper tickets for a lower profile, less well attended event. Even if the charity makes less on the tickets, high attendance means more people to fundraise from on the night.

Yes curlymama - I think a lot of people think if you were holding a disco, for example, all you have to do is say you are doing it for charity, and you get it for free - sadly not true!!

tickets are between £20 and £35 per person. It means my sister can't afford to come to bring her kids to see their uncle as £60 for their family is just way beyond her budget. not a big deal as he's doing it for the singing and to raise money, it's not a big deal if his whole family are there, I was just surprised to hear she had a big fee

goodness me, apologies for shocking punctuation and sentence structure there - not properly concentrating

I think it is okay for a singer to charge for their performance because I wouldn't give up a days pay and then do my job for free.

However, I think that if a celebrity is actively telling people to donate money, rather than just performing a song, then they are hypocritical if they have haven't put their own money where their mouth is.

I remember a similar storm over fees paid to Bob Hope in the US many years ago. He was well known for his 'charitabe work' and most especially connected to charity golfing events.

He did not charge a personal fee but did demand his expenses were covered. In effect, it was an all expeneses paid mini break.

Truth is, charity events are now big business. The 'stars' and well known public figures who appear are really earning money for the charity. That has a value. Its just like chuggers who get paid on the high street. Celebriies at charity events are just supper chuggers.

This article in Forbes magazine describes how in the US it is regarded as essential that celebrities support a charity even though the expenses may eat up almost all the money raised.

"Celebrity foundations that use sports fundraising are often among the least efficient. Consider Bob Hope, the legendary entertainer who died in 2003 at age 100. Around Palm Springs, Calif., Desert Classic Charities d/b/a Bob Hope Classic runs a golf tournament that produced $1.6 million for other charities. But to do so it had to spend nearly five times that sum in expenses. ?It's very hard to evaluate a charity like ours on the basis of efficiency,? says business manager James Reed."

I love that quote BeenBeta. And charities wonder why it's hard to get people to donate.
If an event costs more than it will generate, then the charity needs to rethink its strategy or it will alienate the very people who it relies upon to donate.

Big name celebrities seldom do charity for free.

It suprise a lot of people that they often ask for a big fee. (and keep quiet about it.)