... to not want to watch Children In Need

[NewName73]

... and be quite annoyed that HIGFY is not on in its usual slot?

Why do you need to have celebrities pratting around on the telly to make you want to donate money to charity?

If you support the charity why not just give them money anyway?

Asking for an arsehole...

grimbles
I never minded when it was actually a good evening's telly. Celebs did fun entertaining things, interesting interviews, etc.

It seems the TV evening (at least lady I watched around 3 years ago) seems to be one long guilt trip advert of celebs trying to prove how caring they are and telling people to donate.

I watched it until about 9pm. Hadn't seen it for years and I thought it was really thin on entertainment.
About 30 yrs ago I worked for a regional tv station on the organisation of their cin output.
My info may be out of date but:
Terry wogan was paid. Which seemed unfair as no one else was including the camera operators etc. He was rumoured to get increasingly well oiled throughout the night too!
The charity itself is a grant giving body and enables many smaller charities to exist.
Part of my office created the charity films for the night. This was harder than you think as they had to be subjects which would encourage donations. Most of the grants were made to projects which would either not encourage sympathy or be unfilmable . Many were for "troubled teens."

I do think that CIN needs to exist to support "unattractive " and smaller charities. What you see on tv is a smaller more palatable part of the grants given.
I do agree though that the programme I saw was pretty awful entertainment.

I've always called it 'celebrities in need'

I like this.

@Grimbles If you don't know a charity exists, how can you donate to them?

If a charity do good work somewhere, the chances are that the people who know about are the recipients of that charity. By default, they may not be able to afford to donate the amount needed to keep the charity functioning.

Also - if charities didn't need to raise money via CIN to maintain their existence, then CIN wouldn't need to exist, would it? So people obviously don't just donate anyway.

Why not try telling the arsehole to actually try thinking? They might be less of an arsehole that way.......

I do think that CIN needs to exist to support "unattractive " and smaller charities.
I do agree though that the programme I saw was pretty awful entertainment
That sums up my feelings.
I think it's good to have an umbrella charity who can then support smaller charities who do great work but are often overlooked or haven't the resources for big campaigns.
I just dislike the amount of tat related to CIN and the TV evening has been going downhill for years.

I donate every year and the kids participate in various things via school and other clubs, likewise most workplaces and local supermarkets etc so they get a fair whack of money and involvement from us but I never watch it on tv.

@SirChing

The question I asked is why do you need to have celebrities pratting around on telly in order for you to donate to a charity?

Wouldn't a non arsehole just donate to the charity after being notified of its existence and being told of the work it does, without the need to get something in return?

You could just as easily have clips in between programmes showing the causes and asking for donations rather than celebs boosting their own profiles and bank balances by having a prime time slot promoting their latest ventures.

Thing is, children in need isn't just about the money it's about awareness. My dc loved watching children who have been through similar things to them. It's also a boost to their self esteem knowing that for one day people are raising money for their activities. When you spend your whole life trying to live in a world that doesn't fit you properly then one day a year with children in need in the schools, supermarket and on the tv is a big thing.

So the focus should be on the kids and the projects rather than celebs pratting around

@Grimbles

I was focusing on your second point rather than your first.

But to answer the first point: to try to entice people to watch.....hence most popular people on ar the end of the night to keep people watching and therefore increase their likelihood of donating?

Numerous posters here have said that they dont like the upsetting bits about the kids. Others have said they hate the celebs partying about.

So maybe it would be a good idea to have a programme that was a combination of both so it appeals to as many as possible? Wonder why they didn't think of that? Oh, wait.........

Nope, you are still missing the point and as you want to be a rude sarcy twat about it then I'm not going to waste my time on it.

@Grimbles Apologies for being a rude, sarcy twat. I was a bit. It just hits close to home. I'm disabled, my daughter is too. CIN has funded a charity that helps her a lot.

So it seems crap that a production which is trying it's best to raise money is criticised for the less than scintillating celebrity bits.

If they changed the formula one year and few people watched it, then less money donated means charities may be unable to remain open. It's too important to risk changing a proven format just so people don't get mildly annoyed at irritating celebrities. Can't you see that? For you it's a crap night on telly. For others, it's a major thing to be thankful for.

SirChing I have to agree with you. Some people will donate because of the true stories, they've seen where their donation could go. Some people love celebrities so much they will honestly just donate because of seeing them. Almost as if they're doing the celebrity a favour. Anyway, somethings raised all the money!!!

Never watch it... Its terrible. Happy to donate without having to suffer it

Some people love celebrities so much they will honestly just donate because of seeing them. Almost as if they're doing the celebrity a favour

Yes, and that's what I dont understand. Why do you need some celebrity having to do something to make you want to donate to charity?

My ire is more directed at the people who will only give if they get something in return. Like if some bbc celebrity does a stupid dance I might deign to put 50p in the pot but otherwise the charities can go whistle.

I watched some of it. I've never watched all the way through but what I have seen, I've enjoyed and it's interesting to see the charities that are supported by Children in Need, some not well known. I'd particularly wanted to see the Eastenders people doing 'Strictly' and I did; it was good but not enough of it, that bit was over too soon.

Normally, charities will identify the need and then seek donations to support it.

That's one way, but not necessarily very effective unless you're high profile or well known locally for smaller charities and with something media friendly to say to get the local press on side.

I've worked with projects funded from various grants including Big Lottery and CIN. Funding is often for three to five years, money is not given in one lump sum, but given yearly.

Grant providers like CIN are really valuable and have an important role to play.

I have never given money to CIN. I believe a big chunk of the money goes to the 'fat cats' on top.

Go and find out then. The information is out there. A quick Google suggests the CEO is paid around £130,000. Given the tens of millions raised every year and the level of responsibility that brings, that doesn't seem excessive.