Red Nose Day Celebrity fundraising

[thunderbird69]

Celebs go on trips (all expenses paid?) that others would consider a trip of a lifetime/wonderful experience/would never be able to afford. At the same time they get to raise their public profile and get more offers of work.

Something about it just doesn't sound right.

If it raises £millions then does it matter?

I would rather that they did something that benefited other people and not just themselves.

I would have thought they pay their own expenses

If other people do fundraising treks etc they generally pay for their own travel costs

Anyway, you always have to spend some money to get money in fundraising

If you spend £1ook and raise £2 million then that is a good payoff

I kind of agree with you but the fact is using them generates a lot more income than expense. Some not-for-profits feel ambivalent about celebrity supporters but to get the revenue, they rely on it.

Terry Wogan used to get paid for Children in Need - quite a lot for one nights work. Then the papers found out and funnily enough that was the same year he started donating his fee

I hate Red Nose Day more than any other fundraising event. All that forced 'hilarity' makes me turn the telly off and go to bed early with a book.

I also hate the fact that they are actively encouraging millions of those little red noses to get chucked in the landfill every year. I don't see how that is good for anyone, whoever they live.

What does the jammy dodger mean?

It wasn't so much the money being spent on the trip, but the benefits that the celebs get out of it. The actual act of them climbing a mountain, trekking across a desert etc is fairly meaningless in itself.

I'm not doubting that it works.

I'm with 2cats.

No doubt some of the celebs pay for the trips themselves, or give generously to charity. Others probably don't. Surely the problem is that the public dig much depeer into their pockets for charity events where there are celebrities doing someething than for ones where ordinary people are doing similar things. So charities have the choice of getting celebs to do stuff (and having to cover the costs in some cases) or of not getting the exposure and therefore the income.

We could say "everyone should be nice and generous" but out here in the real world, lots of people just aren't, celebs included.

The celebs could spend 6 months digging latrines without any camera crew, which would be useful but not bring in any extra income.

It's not the slebs that wind me up the most though, it's the
whole 'You laughed! Look at this sick child and you are laughing! now give us money!' thing that annoys me.

I don't watch children in need either

Didn't Ricky Gervais take the piss out of this one Comic Relief?

Had a tearful African in a shack, the camera drew back to reveal the studio location.

Yes that was hilarious midnight!

Interesting - I wanted to see if others felt the same way I did about this, and as far as I can see, on the web, this is the only forum that has debated this from this p.o.v.

I've started up a page about this on facebook:

www.facebook.com/pages/No-more-red-nose-day-Please/207674655913890

please click on like button on page if you have an fb account to up the numbers! also I may link to this thread unless anyone objects?

I don't really get the Sport Relief one.
They seem to just be the same comedians and celebs, and not necessarily very sporty.

@cat64

points taken.

I still have 3 major issues:

(1)
I really question the expenses of some of the stunts: climbing kilimanjaro and the like. so much seems to end up being about the personal challenge to a celeb and the original reason i.e. dosh for those who need it seems to get lost along the way

(2)
there is a real danger, in a supposedly social-welfare state, of this replacing what the state should be doing anyway. I know it's prob. not what someone who needs the help right now wants to hear, but long term, I actually think this is detrimental to our society. we would rather pat ourselves on the back for giving soooo generously than just paying in tax and insisting everyone who needs it has a bed/food etc

(3)
people are taking choice away from themselves. they give to this giant pot of red nose day, which then picks charities as it sees fit, instead of deciding which they think is more deserving and just giving to them. no fuss needed.

Until you can come up with a better way of raising £30m+ then YABU, sorry!

Celebs are famous because they provoke an emotional response from "normal" people, who then wish to identify with that person to the point that they will give money, either to buy a piece of the celeb & their product, or to support a charity they are fronting. It's called a psychological contract, and charities rely heavily on it.

I too am a bit "meh" about celebs in general and so it's difficult to understand the appeal. However I have seen many a fundraising event suddenly take off because a big name confirms their attendance.

Yeah the whole telethon thing is looking very dated now, but it gets results.

It really annoys me when you see someone on these charity things that has a song or whatever to promote and have been on everything else that week. To me it looks like they are just doing their promotional work and not doing it for charity.

Of course there has to be some expense - you don't get money without putting some money in. But these people draw in far more money than would otherwise be achieved.

When the celebs trecked through the desert they managed to raise over £500K from the £1 text messages alone - if I am ten other plebs did the same we'd probably be lucky to raise 5 grand.

I do get your point about charity to an extent but the thing is that it is ultimately a choice - no-one has to give, and I don't think that anyone would want to have that choice taken away from us in the form of higher taxes, plus I'm not entirely sure that raising UK taxes in order to benefit people in foreign countries when there are people struggling on our own doorsteps is a good idea. Yes people in the developing world do need help, but we should be able to choose to donate, not be forced into doing so through tax increases.

helkav I agree with all of your points. The snag with (1) though is finding celebs (or indeed, anyone) who are willing to do a "cheaper" story. I thought the 4 who went to Kenya for Comic Relief recently, headed up by Lenny Henry, were amazing. They were cleaning out sewers & mopping mess off hospital floors.

The other snag is that people are more likely to tune in with & want to positively identify with a story of personal achievement, and then make a contribution themselves. Climbing Kilimanjaro has a happy ending and out comes the wallet. The celebs in Kenya didn't have that chance to finish up with a nice neat bow tied on top of their story, which makes it a hard sell.

again I do see the point about using fame to get the dosh etc

I think essentially points (2) and (3) are still not answered.

@wannaBe you talk about people wanting the choice of giving rather than tax increases. This is why I find it ludicrous that people then allow the choice of where the money goes to be taken away from them. People are not so happy to wipe 3rd world debt, it seems, they'd rather be seen as the generous benefactor. people may feel that's fine or they may not have really thought about it...I just want to open the debate more about this

and again just to re-iterate I think it's not enough to sit back and say well it gets the money...I think it's a really flawed idea that is turning us back, along with the bleeping big society to victorian times.

OH: I just had not a bad idea. I may try to get people to donate whatever they were going to donate to red nose day to the charity of their choice, and make a note of it somewhere - would be fun to keep a running total. If the idea is you're going to give to charity anyway this might be the anitdote...go on tell me it'll never work!

but people do choose. They choose to give to comic relief, or not. And some people choose to give to other charities, it's just that we don't see it because the other charities don't always get the level of publicity.

3rd world debt is a different argument altogether because that is essentially political. You'll never iradicate 3rd world debt through fundraising - you won't even iradicate it through tax increases. Because one of the biggest reasons for 3rd world debt is not the reluctance of the western world to contribute, it is the corruption within the governments of the 3rd world, and inn order to beat that you have to be able to bring about change within these countries which simply isn't possible. So we have to seek to help the victims of these corrupt governments in the only way we are able - by giving directly to the causes. If we write off 3rd world debt the individuals aren't going to be any better off - the governments will merely be richer, while their subjects live in poverty.

Starting a campaign for people to redirect their donations would IMO be really counterproductive. There is absolutely no way you could publicise that without it coming across as an anti comic relief campaign, and I can't imagine many people would want to be seen to put their name to that.

@wannaBe my point is I don't see comic relief as a charity (it's an umbrella org) so that is not a choice of 1 charity vs. another

you do make some valid points about 3rd world debt, I'm not 100% convinced it's a good thing for a poverty stricken country to be in debt, but I really do take your points.

re you last point I think already people in this thread have made their feelings clear how against comic relief they are - for various good reasons I think so I completely disagree with your analysis that people wouldn't want to be seen to be against it

The Public are entitled to much more financial transparency from Red Nose Day.

It would be fair if the celebrities got normal appearance fees from the BBC which they then automatically passed on to the charity.

Celebrities should be paying all their own expenses, they can easily afford to pay their own way and they are getting loads of invaluable publicity.

I suspect that the BBC are getting lots of very cheap TV (since they are not paying the performers) and lots of unique corporate self-promotion.

I personally find this kind of celebrity and corporate self-congratulation on the backs of needy children a bit revolting.

Where was the BBC when the children of Gaza needed them ?

david119 For a moment there I thought you'd put the children of Gazza.... spat tea in indignation and then giggled.

I think you are right. Moyles has had massive cross promotion for his stunt which is all well and good but my mate is a fundraiser for the Heart FM charity and is all down because they only managed a pittance in comparison for a similar amount of effort.

It's amazing what you can do all "thanks to the unique way the BBC is funded"!