Celebrities and Charity.

[JLP]

This could be controversial but what the hell. The new Band Aid song is attracting some criticism due to people like Bono appearing when he is well known for tax avoidance. That may be true but I am more interested in children in Need. Last week S Club 7 appeared on said event. Yesterday I heard that they are reforming to do an arena tour next year.

So the question is do these celebrities have vested interests when they go on these shows to get us to diginto our pockets? I no longer watch these shows or contribute because I have felt for a time that celebrities were using a good cause with hidden agendas.

This could be controversial but what the hell. The new Band Aid song is attracting some criticism due to people like Bono appearing when he is well known for tax avoidance. That may be true but I am more interested in children in Need. Last week S Club 7 appeared on said event. Yesterday I heard that they are reforming to do an arena tour next year.

So the question is do these celebrities have vested interests when they go on these shows to get us to diginto our pockets? I no longer watch these shows or contribute because I have felt for a time that celebrities were using a good cause with hidden agendas.

The same could be said about ' Live Aid ' including ' our boys ' Apparently record sales of most artists that appeared that day went up. Apart from buying the occasional single I never part with my money either.

[JLP]

This could be controversial but what the hell. The new Band Aid song is attracting some criticism due to people like Bono appearing when he is well known for tax avoidance. That may be true but I am more interested in children in Need. Last week S Club 7 appeared on said event. Yesterday I heard that they are reforming to do an arena tour next year.

So the question is do these celebrities have vested interests when they go on these shows to get us to diginto our pockets? I no longer watch these shows or contribute because I have felt for a time that celebrities were using a good cause with hidden agendas.

The same could be said about ' Live Aid ' including ' our boys ' Apparently record sales of most artists that appeared that day went up. Apart from buying the occasional single I never part with my money either.

I think it is fairly well documented that Queen realised that they could use Live Aid which is why they were determined to be the best on the day. Whether they thought that when first approached is a matter of debate but I would doubt it.

When I first heard that SC7 were on Children in Need, my initial thought was that they would be doing something on the back of it. Either a tour or an album. The publicity they would get of course would help ticket sales..

[Kes]

When Queen did Live Aid, that sort of thing had never happened before, so they had no way of knowing that their record sales would zoom through the ceiling. They "might" have thought it wouldn't hurt, AND they had to be seen doing something "positive" after Sun City, which was VERY fresh in their minds at that point.

I think, as with everything, there are various reasons a celebrity might appear at a charity event. One of which is publicity. Another reason might be peer pressure -- which is probably how Bob Geldof got ninety percent of the original Band Aid and Live Aid participants to show up. Peer pressure was also driving the recent ALS icew challenge.

But sometimes (not always) celebrities are deeply interested in their charities. I'm thinking about the project Brad Pitt started to build affordable houses for people who lost their homes in the Katrina Hurricane disaster. I heard an interview that he gave, and it sounds like he started the organization and funded it with at least a million of his own money, because he felt deeply -- both for the losses his hometown suffered and for solving larger housing problems by experimenting with new, more efficient structures.

I found the Band Aid 30 video unseemly. It bugged me that it included that sequence with the singers arriving at the studio to a wall of paparazzi, and going into their walk-and-pose routines. I can't really blame the celebrities for that bit. That's what they're supposed to do when they meet up with cameras. But it makes them look like they are there for their own reasons more than they are because they want to help other people.

But, again, drawing attention is what famous people do. If you're an architect, you design houses. If you're a carpenter, you build them. And if you're Brad Pitt, the most useful thing you can do is to draw attention to the project with your celebrity.

mrs eap and I donate directly to charities of our choice

that celebrity malarkey is to be avoided imo

It has been widely reported that Adele did not answer Bob's calls, and ignored pleas to join in, but in 'i' newspaper today, they were criticising BA30 and the celebs 'using' it for exposure, but go on to name Adele as someone who 'donated privately' to the Ebola cause.

Perhaps she felt the same way as you JLP, and shunned the record for that reason, but without apparently ignoring the cause.

For me, whatever reason they use to appear on the record makes no difference... First day on sale BA30 sold 210,000 copies and became the biggest selling single of the year. It raises much more money and awareness for the cause, and, it is possible that stars like Adele may have contributed privately to the fund as a reaction to the song.

I say that because clearly Adele's donation was not entirely private... Otherwise how would the paper know!
Very possibly the donation and leak/nod to the press was to avoid criticism for not taking part in the song.

[JLP]

It has been widely reported that Adele did not answer Bob's calls, and ignored pleas to join in, but in 'i' newspaper today, they were criticising BA30 and the celebs 'using' it for exposure, but go on to name Adele as someone who 'donated privately' to the Ebola cause.

Perhaps she felt the same way as you JLP, and shunned the record for that reason, but without apparently ignoring the cause.

For me, whatever reason they use to appear on the record makes no difference... First day on sale BA30 sold 210,000 copies and became the biggest selling single of the year. It raises much more money and awareness for the cause, and, it is possible that stars like Adele may have contributed privately to the fund as a reaction to the song.

I say that because clearly Adele's donation was not entirely private... Otherwise how would the paper know!
Very possibly the donation and leak/nod to the press was to avoid criticism for not taking part in the song.

Maybe so. I don't carewho sang on it or who did not. My beef is with artists who go on stuff like Children in Need and perform their latest single or then say they are reforming to tour. If they really cared about CiN, surely they would donate all tour proceeds and or royalties to the cause.

Or am I just a cynical old fucker?

Back in the day, Queen donated the proceeds of one of the UK legs of the Magic Tour to a children's charity and I think some of the royalties from One Vision were donated somewhere. Someone on here will provide details hopefully.

You never know what to believe. I know that years ago I read somewhere that all of Freddie' royalties go straight to the THT. Later information seems to dispute that.
Who really knows eh.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about Ebola. I know, I know, it's shocking, but there it is.

Of course the celebs do it for exposure, but the outcome is that money is raised. Taylor is there because he wants to have his ego massaged by the younger set....yeah, I get it, I would want that too. I doubt he gives two fuck's about Ebola though.

I think generating publicity through charity is probably better than doing so through sex tapes, staged rehab visits and twerking, for example, but I can see why people find it annoying.

As for the U2 criticism specifically, remember this: U2 are a company, not just a band. All companies seek to limit their tax exposure, and the U2 company employs far more people than the 4 performing musicians. I very much believe that U2 would probably be MORE successful if Bono wasn't so annoying about the whole Africa thing, so I think that as irritating as he may be, it is all genuine and not a PR exercise.

[Kes]

You never know what to believe. I know that years ago I read somewhere that all of Freddie' royalties go straight to the THT. Later information seems to dispute that.
Who really knows eh.

NEVER, ever, seen that.

Freddie's will left his property and 50% of his remaining wealth and future earnings to Mary Austin. 25% to his mother, and 25% to his sister. i think he also provisioned sums of like either half a million or a quarter of a million to his inner circle (eg Freestone, Hutton, Fannelli and Giddings).

The only thing I've ever seen as far as Queen are concerned pointing towards the Terrence Higgins Trust, was a portion of the royalties from the Bo Rhap/Days Of Our Lives single in late 91. Since then, they've done things for the Mercury Phoenix Trust, something set up completely separate to the THT, but that has nothing to do with Freddie's estate.

To back that up, there "are" copies of Freddie's will knocking around online.

I think that the British public at least, have got somewhat cynical about celebrity charity stuff. It's them giving up their 'valuable time' in exchange for positive publicity and we the public forking out the actual dosh.

I have more respect for celebs who do things in a more low key way. One of my Twitter followers is a board member of an anti-bullying campaign which uses a famous fashion photographer to take pix of both celebs and ordinary ppl in cities around the world, to fund the campaign, working with all kinds of young ppl.

Another Twitter follower is the official photographer for a campaign which uses photos of American actors to publicise the need for more arts funding in American schools.

Maybe celebs are starting to catch on to the cynicism and make their charity work more low key and personal.

Charity isn't just about delivering cash directly to the cause though. Awareness is often crucial. Celebrities have lots of money, but they have even more capacity to generate awareness.

Charity isn't just about delivering cash directly to the cause though. Awareness is often crucial. Celebrities have lots of money, but they have even more capacity to generate awareness.

Awareness can be very important, especially for say a small charity which needs (for whatever reason) to suddenly cope with growing demand.

Prince Harry for example, doesn't just attend a fundraising ball for Sentebale, he goes out to Lesotho and undertakes projects.

To me, if someone famous and wealthy is prepared to get off rheir backside and demonstrate a continuing connection to a charity then I'm more likely to be interested not because it's a celeb, but because it's something a very busy person thinks is worth of their personal involvement.

But we can ALL make a difference, not just by donating money or goods for resale, by volunteering or doing sponsored whatever. We can also do good by retweeting messages, sharing photos and signing petitions. I interviewed the CEO of a small charity last year and he said that social media support really does help get messages out there.