To think the Christmas Number One has gone tacky and downhill?

[SoniaFouler]

I just saw that LadBaby has had its 4th Christmas number one single. Based on what? Tik tok and streaming views on YouTube? I haven’t heard the song and not going to bother but does anyone else think music these days is just low effort, cheap and bland? What about real Christmas number ones, like Spice Girls 2 Become 1 for example.

Also saw that they had a rivalry to get to number one with a band called “The Kunts”. Really? I have no problem with the word cunt but I also don’t think this fits in with the whole Christmas theme. Can you imagine a child saying “who reached number one, mummy?” And she replies “it was The Kunts darling”??

Ladbaby is raising money for charity so it can be forgiven when it's a bit cheesy or naff! And its far more preferable to 'the kunts with Boris is a fucking cunt' however true the statement is, its not very festive!
However ladbaby now have 4 Xmas number ones which now rival the Beatles.... they must be doing something right!

The entire mad debate is about the charity aspect!

No it isn’t, from the OP:

but does anyone else think music these days is just low effort, cheap and bland? What about real Christmas number ones, like Spice Girls 2 Become 1 for example

The whole charity thing got dragged into it because some people think that’s a good excuse for releasing dross and cashing in on the promotion benefits. Elton John and Sheeran are just as bad in this case imho - low effort self promotion for high publicity gains. I’m actually quite surprised that their teams weren’t more insistent about the percentage of profit going to charity being better advertised, it’s an vulnerable target leaving it open to debates like this. First rule of fundraising is to be transparent because ambiguity leaves you open to scrutiny and criticism.

It’s fine if people want to support a shit song, but trying to paint it as anything more than that i.e. altruistic when it’s a feeble nod in that vague direction is just irritating. 23k donated is great but none of the participants made this song with the goal of raising 23k alone, they’ve took their cut and expect to see more arising from the promotion benefits.

(And sorry OP, but 2 becomes 1 is also a pile of wank )

It's for a charity and it's a bit of silliness and fun, who cares really?

I thought it was quite entertaining that Elton john & ed Sheeran got on board. If you can't pull off this sort of thing at Christmas when can you.

Yes of course they're using it to promote themselves, nobody's stupid enough to think otherwise. I just don't see how it's any less self-serving and more altruistic to hop on it just to berate people for not Doing More. Especially right after a day of massive unnecessary gift giving and eating (which I have no problem with either).

The thing is that it's not about Doing More, it's about doing different. If everybody who spent 99p on the single donated it straight to the TT then they would have made a lot more money.

@slashlover

Yes of course they're using it to promote themselves, nobody's stupid enough to think otherwise. I just don't see how it's any less self-serving and more altruistic to hop on it just to berate people for not Doing More. Especially right after a day of massive unnecessary gift giving and eating (which I have no problem with either).

The thing is that it's not about Doing More, it's about doing different. If everybody who spent 99p on the single donated it straight to the TT then they would have made a lot more money.

That doesn't make sense, why would they have made a load more? People who want to and often do donate money will presumably still be doing so, but it's a whole load of others who perhaps wouldn't think to or wouldn't always have the means will have bought the single so what's the harm? Pretty sure the Trussell trust wouldn't have been charged for making the video or for it being uploaded onto streaming services etc.

@the80sweregreat

Watch any Spice girls performances or videos and you will notice how good they were for a girl group ; they had a brand, Mel C could sing and they had a bit of charm and sass , the Americans loved them too. They were of a time. Stop ! Is a pop classic.

You see, I would consider the Spice Girls as dross too. Mel C a good singer? Come off it! What they had was good marketing.

With a few notable exceptions the Christmas Number 1 has always been naff. I didn't care about it when I was young, and I care less now.

If your musical tastes encompass more than the latest tacky pop songs, you've always been rather ill-served by the pop charts at any time of year shrug

It's for a charity and it's a bit of silliness and fun, who cares really

The silliness and fun bit doesn’t need the charity bit to justify its existence though does it? If the charity bit is tiny in comparison to rest of the profits it’s out of proportion in its promotion.

@slashlover

Yes of course they're using it to promote themselves, nobody's stupid enough to think otherwise. I just don't see how it's any less self-serving and more altruistic to hop on it just to berate people for not Doing More. Especially right after a day of massive unnecessary gift giving and eating (which I have no problem with either).

The thing is that it's not about Doing More, it's about doing different. If everybody who spent 99p on the single donated it straight to the TT then they would have made a lot more money.

And if everyone who did Christmas had given all the gift and food money straight to the TT, then they would have made a mint. You can always Do More/Different.

Has anyone asked the TT if they're offended and critical?

@DrSbaitso why are you focusing on TT? Of course they’ll be pleased with any donation. The question should be is whether the people who paid for the song are happy with the proportion that went to TT.

[quote Cornettoninja]@DrSbaitso why are you focusing on TT? Of course they’ll be pleased with any donation. The question should be is whether the people who paid for the song are happy with the proportion that went to TT.[/quote]
Because that's who the song was supporting!

If people weren't happy with the percentage to charity, they could have done as everyone so piously says and given ALL the money to Whatever Charity.

That’s the point though, it’s looking highly likely the level of support has been misrepresented or at best glossed over leaving people to make assumptions. That’s not okay, it’s grifting.

It’s a bit rich to throw around ‘pious’ when that’s precisely the angle this sausage roll bloke has been working.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

If somebody stood on a street corner and asked you for £20, promising faithfully (maybe even providing proof) that £3-£5 of that money would go straight to a charity, with the rest going in 'costs', I highly doubt they would get a single punter.

However, do the same thing with a charity pop single, charity Christmas cards and the like - it looks like you the charity can really benefit.

Exactly this. And whilst I do buy from charity shops if I see something I like, I NEVER buy their Christmas cards. They're a rip off, like £3 for 10! You get a box of 30 or 40 for about £1.99 in Wilkos or Asda.

Also, I am shocked to hear that Lad Baby take a cut. So much for doing it for charity. And 136,000 were sold, and only £26,000 of the £136,000 they made has gone to the charity it was meant for? That's disgusting. Where the F is the rest of the money? Where is the other 80% of the money?

Methinks people are being mugged off here. Someone needs to investigate where the rest of the money has gone. Something dodgy is afoot.

@CodenameEgg

It bears repeating:

100% of the PROFIT goes to charity.

That could be a few pence. Since that isn't clear in any way how much profit from this single goes to charity I'd always refuse to buy it and donate directly.

But WHY is there so little profit? It costs nothing for Lad Baby to make these shitty songs, and they're downloads and streams that sell, so what costs are they incurring? Why is only 20% going to the charity?

That’s the point though, it’s looking highly likely the level of support has been misrepresented or at best glossed over leaving people to make assumptions. That’s not okay, it’s grifting.

Reminds me of the certain kind of NRP dad who will go on about how his kids are his world and that nothing is too much for him to give to them - without mentioning that he grudgingly chucks their mum £10 a week as 'maintenance' and even then grumbles about "I've no idea what she spends all of MY money on."

But WHY is there so little profit? It costs nothing for Lad Baby to make these shitty songs, and they're downloads and streams that sell, so what costs are they incurring? Why is only 20% going to the charity?

I always wonder the same when, not uncommonly, an MP3 download costs 50% more than an actual equivalent CD to be manufactured, packaged and sent out to you.

Their recording costs must be minimal - I'm sure Elton or Ed could easily call in a few favours or 'see to the costs' personally anyway - so I completely agree with you that 80% 'costs' for digital downloads sound very suspicious indeed.

Maybe there are rational facts that could be declared to explain this - but if they've been instantly blocking those who do ask for further info (bearing in mind you'd expect this information to be freely stated in promo literature anyway) , it doesn't look 100% transparent, does it?

Have you heard the 'Photograph' cover that was released this year for Cruise? Is a charity single AND a great track. They don't have to be mutually exclusive!

I mean Cruse sorry, it is this one

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

they've been instantly blocking those who do ask for further info.

OMG really? That's proper shady, and further reinforces my concerns about where the money is going. As I say, 80% of the money is vanishing into the ether! Where is it? All I am seeing here is LADBABY making a tidy bit of money here. 100s of 1000s, if you include the 3 other pieces of shit they spewed out over 2018, 2019, and 2020.

Is it twitter where they are blocking people?

@LittleRoundRobin

I don't have any direct knowledge of their behaviour on SM myself - PP said upthread about them blocking questioners.

IF this is what they've been doing - making a healthy wedge themselves based on vast-majority 'charity purchases' whilst a small percentage goes to the charity - I think that's actually far worse than a normal commercial artist never claiming to be anything other than a commercial artist doing it to make a living for themselves (and maybe even also discreetly giving some to charity as well).

Most of us regularly give a small amount of our income from our paid employment to charities and good causes - maybe we can all tell everybody that we basically do our work in aid of charity. All of the proceeds - after we've paid our bills, bought our food, saved some, set aside money for holidays, Christmas, birthdays and car repairs, paid into pensions, got ourselves and our families some lovely treats - go to charity: all £5 of it.

Wiki says they have form.

In October 2020, Mark and Roxanne announced they had partnered with Walkers to create limited edition sausage roll-flavoured crisps with five pence of the proceeds from each pack going to The Trussell Trust and 20p per pack going to The Hoyles. In November 2020, the couple filmed a Walkers Christmas Ad.

Hmm, very interesting, slashlover

So their MO seems to be cashing in off the back of charity rather than actually doing things for charity, then - assuming that the packs of crisps almost certainly did mention/promote the 5p to TT but likely didn't mention the 20p to the Hoyles. Not something that my own personal morals would allow.

Different if you specify the amount going to charity, but when you just hide behind 'proceeds to' or 'in aid of', I think that's very shaky ethical ground.

Different if you specify the amount going to charity, but when you just hide behind 'proceeds to' or 'in aid of', I think that's very shaky ethical ground.

To clarify, I mean as in, by contrast, also mentioning the (4x as much) 'commission' going to the figureheads of the 'charitable' gimmick, whom people would naturally assume are spearheading it out of kindness rather than primarily for reasons of financial self-interest.

If they're actually lying or seriously misleading people about how much goes to charity, that's one thing.

If they state it's only the profits or whatever, it's surely obvious that means not all the money you spend. As people have so very righteously pointed out, you could indeed give more to the charity by donating directly. I really do think most people realise that. They choose to buy the song partly because they want to - maybe because t's a shitty novelty Christmas song and they're in on the joke, or they actually like it, or they want to support the artist- and partly because they know some of that money will go to a good cause. If all they wanted was to donate to the charity, they would do that.

Just had a look at the comments about Lad Baby on Twitter and they are being utterly lambasted on there. And yes they ARE blocking anyone who challenges them!

Just put Lad Baby into the twitter search bar, and most of the comments are about how Lad Baby are just using the shitty Christmas No 1 thing to advance their career, how very little goes to the charity, and how Lad Baby has made £1.2 million from the 4 singles so far. MUCH more than what The Trussell Trust has received. Someone needs to investigate them.

twitter.com/search?q=lad%20baby&src=typed_query

It always has been. Remember we've had previous Christmas number ones from Mr Bobby and the St Winnifred's school choir