can understand people wanting to donate to a food bank - not sure why you have to buy a novelty song to do that though.
Disclaimer: I am not 'related' to Ladbaby, in spite of my username....!!
I agree with PPs that it's annoying that 'being in aid of charity' gets it a free pass - even if the charities don't actually see a very big percentage of the sale price.
Also the fact that these causes have to rely on charity at all. Every time I see the WaterAid appeals, it always makes me think that we and other wealthy countries were so desperate to spend millions, if not billions, funding Covid vaccines, which has the relatively small potential of seriously harming the people in these countries; but when it comes to ensuring they have clean water (much less a basic anti-starvation amount of food), we really don't seem to care at all about these 'boring' everyday deaths.
This is not to slate WaterAid or food banks in the least for the great work they do - but they shouldn't need to do it in the first place.
In theory, the Christmas Number One should be a completely 'free' choice, with people choosing their favourite, without feeling that they 'should' choose the charity one. Supposing millions of people did choose their actual favourites for musical reasons, split between 10 different options, but also all downloaded the charity one (maybe not even bothering to listen to it) as a 'little extra' - it's still a hijacking, however worthy.
Suppose 30 children give their teacher a token present at Christmas, but each child only gives their parent(s) one or two presents each - statistically, that would suggest that all of the 'sample selection' of children love their teacher far more than any of them do any of their individual parents.
Imagine if you regularly entered a serious painting competition with your finest, painstaking work - maybe you're an artist as your full-time job - where the exposure of winning would really help your continued livelihood, along with other skilled adults; but every time, a 4yo child with a sweet face entered with a blurry splodge, but was trying to draw attention to their pet good cause. Every year, they leapfrog all of the serious contenders with a wholesale pity vote. Why can't they feature/support the child's cause and efforts as a side effort, without taking away from the people who should seriously stand a chance of winning?
Yes, I know a lot of rubbish has historically got through - and I have no great love of Simon Cowell (although it did also begin the career of a hitherto unknown, as well as making him a packet) - but it just seems more honest that people should choose a rubbish song because they decide that they like it (or even just enjoy the kitsch value) rather than feeling that they should choose it - and if they don't, they're 'obviously' a nasty person who doesn't care about feeding the poor.