Do celebrity benefits help in the long run?

[Number Six]

Okay, so I'm cynical about celebrities lately but I think rightfully so. We're seeing people doing benefits and talking about doing benefits and it's painted as a big sacrifice on their part and I don't get it. It seems like it doesn't cost them anything overall and in fact it helps them.

It costs them time. And what do they get in return? A lot of exposure and also an association in the publics mind with helping poor people in need. This seems a net positive to me so they're no really sacrificing but rather just doing something to help their career and therefore their long term pocketbook.

Money is generated for relief by such things so some might say "A net positive is good so what's the problem?" Well nothing is wrong in the short run but in the long run doesn't that just reinforce connections in peoples minds that should be discouraged instead of encouraged? Why do people have to go to a benefit concert or buy a benefit record to help a cause? Wouldn't it be better if people were mature and self-aware enough to separate entertainment and philanthropy? Benefit concerts just reinforce the association between the two in the minds of the public. It makes them more dependent on "I'll see what the celebrity thinks before I make up my mind" kind of thinking.

I'd like to see a celeb come out and say "Hey, I'm glad you like my songs, but when it comes to real world stuff you should learn to gather data and think for yourself instead of looking to someone famous to give you answers and direction."

 

[zenith-nadir]

As long as the monies the benefit raises gets to the people in need I have no problem with celebrity benefits. It is when the celebrities make outrageous demands to do such a benefit then I have a big problem.

Case in point - (courtesy of the Smoking Gun):

Even when Jennifer Lopez is doing a music video benefiting victims of both the recent terrorist attacks and the African AIDS epidemic, J. Lo is high maintenance. Along with dozens of other performers, Lopez has participated in a charity remake of Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On," and was at Miami's Big Time studio on October 20 to film her cameo in the accompanying music video. But before the shoot, Lopez's representatives gave the production crew this detailed "rider" describing what needed to be in place prior to the diva's arrival.

(rider here)

A copy of the document was provided to The Smoking Gun by two sources involved in the "What's Going On" production, both of whom thought Lopez's demands were a bit much considering the charitable nature of the project...

 

[crimresearch]

Do we seriously think that the Rod Stewart, Paul Simon, Sheryl Crow, Neil Young, or Paul McCartney, Dave Matthews, the Neville Brothers, et al, need exposure, and they are doing benefit shows to boost their careers?
Sure it is good publicity , but I suspect they can still pay this month's rent without it.

And, I would tend to think that if no one had ever heard of the musicians involved in these benefit shows, that it wouldn't raise as much money.

And as far as sacrifice, why isn't it? Did anyone think that all those many thousands of dollars worth of equipment just popped up out of nowhere? Or that these events just planned, rehearsed, promoted, and executed themselves?

And most importantly, where would you rather have the musicians...on stage, and sending money, or down in the middle of the mess trying to tell rescue workers how to do their jobs?

 

[Number Six]

It's not a sacrifice because their benefitting rather than losing out. I don't know who pays for equipment and all that stuff but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't the "artist" and even if it was I don't think it costs as much as the benefit they derive.

Yeah, having them do benefits is better than having them down there interfering with the rescue but IMO having them just donate money and leave themselves out of it is best of all in the long run.

And yes, I do think some of these seemingly famous people are doing it to benefit their careers, partly because famous people sometimes go through money like water and they need to stay famous for the cash inflow and partly because even if they don't need the money right now it's in their interest to keep their name and face out there because it's a lot easier to keep a music career going than it is to let it fade away and then try later to start it back up again.

But as far as the really, really famous ones go, sure, that's probably not for the money but rather for the ego trip of being adored by millions, which is probably quite a rush. Why do the Rolling Stones still tour after all these years? People like to be famous and be adored. I don't think that necessarily helps poor people though. I think it would be better if the public were able to help poor people without associating such help with celebrity benefits.

 

[JenJen]

Part of the problem is that they raise the money but nobody pays much attention to what happens to it afterwards. Who's spending the money? What are they spending it on? People dump a bunch of money into these funds rather than legit charitable orgs (which often aren't all that effiecient, either). It's just an impression I have but, this time, it seems like there is more fundraising for existing charities rather than setting up new funds.

After 9-11, Bill O'Reilly did catch some celebs backing funds that turned out to be hard to account for, in the end.

Jen

 

[varwoche]

Part of the problem is that they raise the money but nobody pays much attention to what happens to it afterwards.

How does that differ from most charitable giving?

Who's spending the money? What are they spending it on?

These are good questions for any charitable organization.

People dump a bunch of money into these funds rather than legit charitable orgs

Which funds are not legitimate? How about some facts.

It's just an impression I have

Do any facts support your impression?

After 9-11, Bill O'Reilly did catch some celebs backing funds that turned out to be hard to account for, in the end.

I saw O'Reilly make such claims but tend not to take him at his word. Do you have any evidence?

 

[Luciana]

It's not a sacrifice because their benefitting rather than losing out.

When people donate, they don't lose. They donate because it makes them feel good about themselves.

And that's excellent.

Who said that, in order to be a dignified, competent and honored help it has to involve sacrifice? What is the problem if a person benefits from his own generosity? This is what is understood as a win-win situation.

If I were a celebrity, wouldn't I at some point take advantage of the spotlight and then put forth some belief of mine? Yes, I'd make public donations to JREF, praise Randi in public, make my opinions on astrologers and homeopathy very clear, protest the actions of charlatans, etc.

It is unfortunate, but some people's opinion matter more than others, be it for the wrong or right reasons. For a scholar, JLo's opinion on anything doesn't matter. For the general public, maybe it does. But that's a fact of life, really.

I also do not understand why, in order to be respectable, donations should be secret. Some people think that, once it's made public, it loses some of its value as the donor gets the laurels for it. I love the fact that good deeds are advertized as desirable. When a person earns admiration for having donated, this person sets the example so other people can help out too. People feel good about themselves, get recognition for it, and the amount of aid can only increase.

I remember when Liz Taylor and Michael Jackson embraced the cause for AIDS research. That raised a level of awareness that I'm not sure would have been achieved by guys in lab coats or documentaries on TV.

When Bill Gates donates billions, he is indicating which causes are worth it. Sure, a billion for him isn't a sacrifice, but it sure embarrasses those who have billions and millions to spare and do nothing. Also, he could just donate ZERO. Yet, he does. Kudos for him. If I had his money, I'd have donated too, so I can't fault him.

We reward behaviors that are desirable. If there's a cause to whom no one publicly supports, it is likely this cause will go unnoticed, and those who need help won't get it.

 

[Number Six]

How does that differ from most charitable giving?

If people were more concerned about the tragedy itself and less concerned about which celeb is doing the benefit then they'd be more likely to give money directly to the charity and then want to know that it's spent well. That is part of my point about how having celeb benefits may do more harm than good in the long run. Making a big celeb show of it all detracts from the substance of the matter and encourages people to think more superficially.

 

[Luciana]

How does that differ from most charitable giving?

That much is true, the vast majority of people do not follow up on how the money is being used. I worked in a non-profit and in that industry everybody felt that to be true.

I feel that, once you donate the money, it is not yours anymore. If you do no like the way it is being spent, donate next time to another charity (we're talking of honest use of the money, otherwise authorities should be called to investigate). Because if you feel the money is still yours, then really, please never part with it. The reason you donate is because you understand that that charity has the know-how and will to develop their projects, in that case, they are the best judges of how to use it. Unfortunately, what I found is that people with very little understanding of social work, of the environment being faced, or just how business are run, felt entitled to interfere "because it was their money". Well, it is not.

You should follow up on your money as accountability increased the general level of competence on the part of non-profits. But understand that they are specialists on the matter, and better qualified than you. It might take years until the effectiveness of a social project can be evaluated, so until them, it is a matter of trust.

 

[drkitten]

That is part of my point about how having celeb benefits may do more harm than good in the long run. Making a big celeb show of it all detracts from the substance of the matter and encourages people to think more superficially.

"May" do.

Do you have any evidence that this is actually the case?

 

[Number Six]

I remember when Liz Taylor and Michael Jackson embraced the cause for AIDS research. That raised a level of awareness that I'm not sure would have been achieved by guys in lab coats or documentaries on TV.

The reason people need their level of awareness raised in the first place is they're too busy adoring Liz Taylor and Michael Jackson rather than paying attention to substance. I'm saying that we'd be better off of if people took whatever entertainment value they wanted from Liz Taylor and Michael Jackson and then ended it there and used their other energy to engage with reality. Instead they live in Liz-and-Michael fantasyland, and in the short term when Liz and Michael tell them to give money for a good cause then that's a good thing but in the long term it'd be better if they thought for themselves instead of doing Liz and Michael's bidding.

Granted I'm being idealistic in all this because there's no way people are going to stop worshipping celebrities anytime soon.

 

[Number Six]

"May" do.

Do you have any evidence that this is actually the case?

I think the fact that people let their giving be directed by people that are famous for singing or whatever is evidence itself of superficiality. (Is superficiality a word?)

 

[Luciana]

Making a big celeb show of it all detracts from the substance of the matter and encourages people to think more superficially.

When a celeb calls up a charity informing them they'd like to help, well, those guys open champagne bottles!! Because that will bring a publicity they would not have otherwise and that will mean increased funds for the cause.

Some charities hire PR people whose only job is to convince celebs to participate. They actively seek actors and actressess because very few have the resources to spread the details of their cause to the whole world.

 

[Number Six]

I know that celebs help charities now via publicity. Given the system that's in place, celebs can help via publicity.

But I'm saying that a better system would be one in which getting publicity via celebs was irrelevant. But of course such a system would be to the detriment of the celebs so they're going to fight it.

And by "system" I don't mean a formal system but rather a mindset of the public. Yes, with the way people fawn over celebrities now it helps to have a celebrity push a cause but I'm saying we'd be better off if people cared about substance instead of celebrities.

 

[JenJen]

How does that differ from most charitable giving?

Unfortunately, in some cases, it doesn't. However there are watchdog groups that report on them.

Charity Navigator

Charitywatch

Forbes

These are good questions for any charitable organization.

See above.

Which funds are not legitimate? How about some facts.

Although I think "legitimate" is not a word that describes what I was talking about, I didn't accuse any specific fund of anything and, therefore, I have no burden of proof. I will, instead, admit to the assumption that some funds/orgs are better than others. Anyone considering donating to any fund should do some research themselves. I do. But I'm not going to research a bunch of groups that I don't plan to donate to.

Do any facts support your impression?

I think the fact that I specified that it was my impression was clear that I don't and don't plan to back it up. Dismiss it if you like. It's insignificant, in any case.

I saw O'Reilly make such claims but tend not to take him at his word. Do you have any evidence?

Yeah. I really hate quoting him. I did see George Clooney admit to O'Reilly that he didn't keep tabs of some org he raised money for and that he'd do better in the future. As I understand it, there were others didn't address O'Reilly's charges.

I'm sure, if you care, you can subscibe to one of O'Reilly's goofy clubs and search the archives for the information or, though unlikely, O'Reilly may be offering that info for free. But, I'm not going to go pull this stuff out, either.

It's best that everyone do their own research on where they give their money. Not just send it in to some fund because they like somebody's movie or music. It's personal responsibility. Then we don't have to worry about if the celeb is keeping tabs on the fund.

Jen

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think it depends on the celebrity in question.

There are the ones like Audrey Hepburn, who gave not just money but also her time to working with starving kids in Africa in Unicef. She had made enough money, she felt, retired from her acting career, and decided to do some good. She knew what it was like to grow up hungry.

Then there's Bob Hope. His career was made by the US military. He got all the tapes of his USO shows, where the US taxpayers paid for his performances, then sold the tapes and launched his career. In later life, he generously did all sorts of charity events---and generously took 75% of all the proceeds off the top. My grandfather organized a great many charitable do's, and cannot speak of Bob Hope without spitting in anger. Apparently Hope did a single comedy routine for a veteran's group raising money for underpriviledged kids and then demanded most of the intake, threatening them with lawsuits if they didn't immediately pony up. Hope was already a millionaire himself by then.

I never found Bob Hope the slightest bit funny, anyway. He attempted to upstage Lucille Ball on her own damn show.

I think celebrities can help, if they are doing it for the right reasons. The clues are, they won't demand payment, they won't demand goods and services, they won't demand to be treated like royalty, and they will be willing to give time and effort, not waltz on and off a stage.

 

[varwoche]

JenJen, here's how I interpret your non-replies: Your contribution to this thread consists purely of idle speculation, and you do not intend to support the speculation with evidence.

Fair enough I suppose.

 

[Luciana]

The reason people need their level of awareness raised in the first place is they're too busy adoring Liz Taylor and Michael Jackson rather than paying attention to substance. I'm saying that we'd be better off of if people took whatever entertainment value they wanted from Liz Taylor and Michael Jackson and then ended it there and used their other energy to engage with reality. Instead they live in Liz-and-Michael fantasyland, and in the short term when Liz and Michael tell them to give money for a good cause then that's a good thing but in the long term it'd be better if they thought for themselves instead of doing Liz and Michael's bidding.

Granted I'm being idealistic in all this because there's no way people are going to stop worshipping celebrities anytime soon.

Very few people want to be faced with the harsh realities of poverty or disease. They won't read extensively about hunger in Africa and come up with conclusions themselves. This is too unpleasant.

Notice how TV stations sugarcoat reality for us. Right after the tsunami, when "only" 20,000 people had been found dead, and the tragedy was widespread, TV showed us about a little boy finding his mom. Why? Because otherwise it's just too depressing. Greek style tragedies don't do it anymore. People want a happy ending, but depending on the cause, it might not be possible in real life.

I do not believe people will actively seek tragedy scenarios. They will want it spoonfed. Oh, and nowadays, what is it that people don't want spoonfed?

 

[JenJen]

JenJen, here's how I interpret your non-replies: Your contribution to this thread consists purely of idle speculation, and you do not intend to support the speculation with evidence.

Fair enough I suppose.

Very good. Yes.

I believe - without any cited evidence - that it is a pretty good idea to research orgs to which you are considering the donation of time or money.

Further, it is my very own, personal, and unsubstantiated opinion that there may be better ways of choosing an organization to donate your hard earned dollars to than which celeb is pimping it.

My speculation, however, is in no way idle - unsupported, yes, but not idle.

Jen

 

[varwoche]

it is my very own, personal, and unsubstantiated opinion ...

Yes, exactly.

... that there may be better ways of choosing an organization to donate your hard earned dollars to than which celeb is pimping it.

I agree with your moved goalpost, although it's not clear why you choose the word "pimping".

Who exactly is "pimping" what? All this vitriol without even submitting a single piece of (credible) evidence?

My speculation, however, is in no way idle - unsupported, yes, but not idle.

A distinction without a difference.