Using a celebrity's name in vain

It’s always a clever trick when you can tie an issue you care about in to one of the biggest news stories of the week.  So what better than to link your issue to the X Factor Final?  After all you know the tabloids will be dedicating acres of news print to the topic.

I’m assuming that was the laudable aim of War on Want when they issued a press release titled ‘Dannii in M&S 'sweatshops' storm’.  They were talking about the claim that research showed that workers in two Indian factories which produce clothes for M&S were paying below a living wage. So the tenuous link was Dannii Minogue’s an X Factor judge; Dannii Minogue’s in the M&S ads; therefore ‘X Factor Judge is involved’.

They should be complimented for their creativity and also for the fact that they explained what a living wage was in India.  I get fed up with charities saying ‘look how little this person earns’ without explaining what a living wage is in that country.  For instance, to quote their figures, £126 a month is living wage in that area of India – which we would find miniscule but it’s always important to have the proper context otherwise figures are meaningless.

However back to the celebrity element.  Let’s ignore the tenuous link.  Let’s also assume all the information in the press release is accurate since I have no way of knowing.  Do they want Dannii to support them?  If so this is not how I’d have gone about it.  One she’s under contract to M&S therefore she cannot publicly speak about them, nor can she respond. Two Dannii is not in an M&S sweatshop storm.  This is guilt by association for the sake of a very slim topical peg.  Apart from appearing in the advert how is she involved?  Call me old fashioned but I somehow doubt she’d be making a decision about where M&S get’s its clothes made.

So what have they achieved?  Well they’ve linked her to something of which she probably had no knowledge or responsibility - so that’s a potential relationship they’ve lost.  They've used her name, without her apparent agreement, to try and gain coverage.  However it’s worst than that.  Whilst stars may come and go agents and publicists are around forever and have very long memories.  If you were Hackford Jones PR, (Dannii’s UK PR agency), how would you feel about a future approach from this charity?  Their other clients include Davina McCall, Ant & Dec, Denise Van Outen, Mylene Klass, Tess Daly and Vernon Kay to name but a few.

A quick Google search show’s very little take up by the media (two websites and a minor wire service).  Wouldn’t writing to Dannii in private have been a more effective way of letting her know about the issue?  Working with celebrities is all about building relationships over time.  Relationships that have to involve trust.  None of that appears here.  What’s more if I was an existing celebrity supporter would I become nervous about how the charity might treat me?

Whilst I don’t blame the charity for trying to gain support for an important issue I question whether the positives here (and there don’t seem to be many) outweigh the negatives from a celebrity relationship perspective.

Would you credit it?!

Yesterday saw the ICAP charity day.  The company describes itself as ‘the world’s premier interdealer broker and provider of post-trade risk & information services’.  Since 1993 they’ve been donating all revenues from one day’s global trading to charity.  In the last couple of years that’s been over £11m annually.

Picture from ES website

Like the BGC trading day, which it pre-dates by a number of years, the charities organise celebrity supporters to come along and encourage the traders, as well as getting a chance to make a trade.

 The event got great coverage and made the front cover of London’s Evening Standard, featuring a picture of former Doctor Who star, David Tennant and inside was a picture of Bond actor, Daniel Craig.  There was a great credit for ICAP – deservedly so.  What there wasn’t was a reference to the individual charities the stars were supporting. 


Picture from ES website



It reminded me of a couple of times when great celebrity supporters have failed to get a mention for the charity involved.  One was Nicole Kidman launching Cancer Research UK’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month at Madame Tussauds which got picked up but with no mention of the charity.  Another was when Hollywood A-Lister Ashton Kutcher visited a training exercise with the RNLI.  This one, which was tied in to a film launch, didn’t even get picked up. 

In the ICAP case whilst a mention for the charity would have been nice it wasn't essential.  The main reason for asking for the celebrity support is to reinforce the relationship between the charity, ICAP and its staff.  If the stars help raise the profile of the corporate supporter that’s great and worth using up an ask.

Getting the support of the sort of big names mentioned here is a terrific achievement and never easy.  However they do not guarantee you publicity.  Putting all your eggs in a celebrity basket is always a risk and doesn’t always pay off, which is fine if you recognise this, but it can be hard getting directors and trustees to understand.  Thus managing expectations in advance of an event is incredibly important.

I won't say he told me so....but he told me so......

In shock news it looks like Rob Dyson might have been right (see the tweets below). Last week I was extolling the virtues of Keep a child Alive’s celebrity ‘digital suicide’ fundraiser whilst he was taking a more conservative stance. Read Rob’s analysis here.

  

The aim is to raise US$1m.  Until then the stars will refrain from tweeting and facebook.

The big launch was six days ago and I’d have expected the bulk of the money to have come in in the first day or two.  However as you can see from the web site they have so far raised less than US$300,000, or under 30% of the target.

The question now is will it reach the $1m mark before the PRs, record companies and managers start telling the stars to get back online?  They haven’t broken ranks yet but I’d be amazed if they didn’t. 

In what will probably be a post mortem, rather than a debrief, the questions will be have they understood social media well enough?  Rob clearly didn't think so (see his blog mentioned above).

From a fundraising perspective did they get the price point right? For many peopel a fixed donation can form a barrier to entry. Think of the fan bases, they are frequently young, many teenagers, with more limited disposable income.  Maybe US$10 (about £6.40), when they get nothing in return, is too high.  Think of a 14 year old girl on a pay-as-you-go contract.  Is she likely to be happy with a $10 charge taken from her credit?  Maybe lowering the price point to $2/3 would have helped.  It's a difficult call to work out the price point at which you maximise participation.  For example 100 people paying $10 is good but 500 people paying $3 is better

Lady Gaga, Ryan Seacrest and Usher will die – tomorrow!

Even with celebrity support it’s not always easy to get good coverage so when a fundraising event is talked about in the New York Times and on the BBC News website you know someone’s doing something right.

To mark World Aids Day Keep a Child Alive is ‘killing off’ a host of celebrities.  The ever growing list includes Lady Gaga, Justin Timberlake, Kim Kardashian (pictured above), Katie Holmes, Alicia Keys (pictured below), Usher and Ryan Seacrest.  You can see the line-up on the event's website.  Of course these stars won’t really be dying; they will be killing their digital lives for a day – no tweets and no facebook updates.  Before they go offline each star will post a ‘Last tweet and testament’. 

But fans need not fear since they can bring their favourite celebrities back to digital life by donating to the charity. The money is used to provide HIV medication to children in Africa and India.

It’s a clever idea that, like Christian Aid’s Quiz Aid, uses the fan base of a celebrity and combines it with social media – bypassing more traditional approaches such as producing print materials and using direct mail.

The money collection – always an important part of any big fundraiser – is also fast and immediate with donations of US$10 via text or online.  Alternatively supporters can scan the barcode on the t-shirt, using a smartphone, to donate.  For a small organisation it’s an ambitious fundraiser that punches well above its weight.  With the celebrities having around 30 million fans, if only 1% of their followers donate that could turn into US$3m from one event; not bad for a charity which brought in US$4.3m in 2008 (last year for which figures are available).  In addition that’s 30 million who’ll be made aware of the issue and their work.

The social media model of fundraising is still in its infancy so it’ll be interesting to see how well this works.  I’ll update when they announce some figures.

Having just extolled the virtues of this celebrity led project I can hear celebrity managers across the UK running for cover as their fundraisers demand a similarly stellar line up to promote their own ‘big fundraisers’.  But there’s a little fact I haven’t mentioned; the name of one of the charity’s co-founders.  It’s none other than Ms Alicia Keys – she’s passionate about the Keep a Child Alive’s work and has visited its projects in Africa.  Being on the celebrity circuit and having strong music industry contacts may have had just the smallest influence on stars signing up to a small charity – sometimes it’s not what you know it’s who you know.

Call Me!

I can’t remember the number of times I’ve asked a celebrity to encourage people to call a phone number for more information, support or to get a fundraising pack.  In the UK nearly 11 million people tuned in to see celebrities ask us to call 0345 7 33 22 33 and donate to Children In Need (I believe the donation line is still open).

Fantastic I thought a charity appeal that gets it.  Not the ask for money, the phone number.  So many charities have non-geographic numbers but they are not 03 numbers and many don’t even seem to know about them, even though they’ve been around for years. Why does this matter? Well because I’m a cheapskate is the real answer.

89% of adults in the UK own a mobile phone but more importantly 14% of adults live in a home with no landline. I’m one of the latter – all my calls are made by mobile.  I have a contract with an agreed number of minutes each month. Should I call an 0800 number (which are particularly popular for help and support lines as they are free from landlines) I will get a charge on my bill from my service provider as 08 numbers are excluded from my call plan.  Ironically if I’m having financial problems and want to call the Debt Advice Foundation I am going to end up owing more money!  That wasn’t a swipe at that particular charity. A huge number of charities use 0800 (free from a landline) or 0845 (no more than a local call).  However if I call Pudsey Bear the call must be included in my mobile call plan in the rules set down for Ofcom – and are no more than an 01 or 02 number from a landline.

Non-geographic numbers were set up to be inclusive and many charities embraced these to become more accessible.  However it’s a changing telecoms market and what was once the cheapest way for individuals to reach charities is no longer so.  With 7 million people having no landline (based on a population of about 50 million adults) that’s a lot of people who are potentially not being reached.  Whilst I’m hardly at the forefront of innovation (can I admit I’ve never used a games console?) it seems surprising that so few organisations have switched to 03.  Indeed when they were launched in March 2007 some 03 numbers were specifically kept so that some 08 numbers could simply change the 8 to a 3.

Oh, and just in case you hadn’t noticed, there are now pan European 116 numbers which are free from mobiles and landlines in the UK.  The first three were allocated at the end of last year to Missing People, Childline and the Samaritans.

Whether it’s Ofcom’s failure to get the message out about these changes, telecoms providers not informing customers or charities not keeping up with a fast changing world I don’t know.  The only numbers I’ll be calling – and asking my celebrities to promote (I so know that’ll come back to haunt me) - will begin 03.

Slaughtering a sacred cow

Tomorrow’s the day when a yellow teddy bear with an eye patch will be raising around £40m for children’s causes across the UK.  That the figure is so large is in no doubt a result of the huge coverage across BBC National and local TV and radio.

The BBC is very clear on its approach to charities.  This is to ensure no appearance of bias or endorsement.  So why then did the BBC appear to breach its own guidelines with Help for Heroes’ ‘A Concert for Heroes’ which it broadcast in September?

Below is the Corporation’s Editorial Guidance on the mounting and coverage of charity events:

Firstly I think Help for Heroes is a fantastic charity and the concert, which drew in some amazing names to help raise money for an amazing cause, was terrific.

So what’s wrong you might ask?  There are many worthy organisations which help improve the lives of servicemen and women both current and past. Help for Heroes is not the only one there’s Blesma, Ssafa and the Royal British Legion to name but three – actually there’s quite a comprehensive list on the Help for Heroes website.

The BBC has a number of ways it supports a great many charities through Children In Need, Comic & Sport Relief and the Blue Peter Appeal.  In addition they have weekly radio and monthly TV appeals which, as much as is possible, spreads their support and access to their audiences across organisations both large and small.

Many BBC artists support important charitable projects and the BBC has very strict rules. For example if an actor in a continuing drama supports an organisation the BBC is quite clear that they are doing it in a personal capacity and the name of that drama or the BBC should not be linked as this would imply endorsement. This seems fair enough.

So this leads me to question whether Help for Heroes has now become an official BBC charity or whether, because of the calibre of performers this fantastic charity had secured, the BBC decided to ignore the rules?  If I was really cynical, heaven forfend, I might think that:

1. The BBC has strict rules
2. Pull off a coup and get Robbie and Gary back together and you can forget A

If you watch the programme, it does feel like a telethon for the charity – although at no point is there a request for donations.  The logos and images of the charity appeared heavily throughout the show.  There were “this is the need” and “this is where the money goes” films.  But the Corporation went further.  Their own graphics (as opposed to those of the concert’s) also matched the charity’s colours and style.

If this had been on another channel I wouldn’t have queried it.  But given so many other organisations have to follow strict but fair rules set out by the BBC it feels on this particular occasion the BBC seemed to be clearly endorsing one charity over another.

I am not being critical of either the charity or its superb work. Nor am I critical of it making the most of an amazing opportunity. It was a great PR coup – one I could only ever aspire to emulate.  It just feels a little unfair on other charities that have to play by the rules.

Many charities organise fundraising concerts, just look at Mencap’s Little Noise Sessions or Teenage Cancer Trust’s Albert Hall concerts, but they’re not on the BBC. If charities have to obey the rules surely the BBC should too?

The case of the missing credit

We all know the deal.  Journalists aren’t always interested in your cause.  Some are far more interested in the celebrity, so you hammer out a compromise.  They get access to the celebrity and you get an agreed plug for an area of your work.

A typical example would be Sam Fox.  She is a big supporter of Scope and as such went to support the charity at BGC’s charity day (see The biggest celebfest of the year!).  The Guardian asked for an interview and, having been asked by the charity, she agreed.

For Sam it was something she was doing for the charity, not because she particularly wanted to do an interview for the Guardian. A deal had been struck that they would mention that Sam was supporting Scope at BGC.

Fantastic, everyone wins.  The article came out on Saturday and you can read it here.  There’s a prize for anyone who can spot the reference to the charity – it’s alright I’m not being generous, there isn’t one.

One of the most frustrating parts of working with celebrities is that no matter how hard you work, how well you cross the T’s and dot the I’s, the moment the interview has happened you have, in most cases, lost control.  For whatever reason someone, probably a sub-editor, has cut the credit.

As so many communications folk will tell you this happens more often than you’d like.  It’s certainly happened to me.  A journalist may promise the earth but even they don’t control their work.  What appears in the media is ultimately down to subs and editors.

Is there a solution? In reality, no.  You could go back to the journalist and complain but that won’t change the article.  You could try and guilt trip them into doing something else for you but there’s no guarantee.  The fact is PR is not an exact science.  There are no guarantees.  A piece which was timed to promote an event may not get run until it’s too late.  Even worse you go through all that and then there’s a real news story which means it gets dropped altogether.

So next time something like this happens around your project don’t blame the celebrity manager or media person who set it up.  Just be glad you don’t have a job where you can spend hours working on something with no positive outcome at the end – and remember that the celebrity manager is the one who has to explain to the celebrity why the credit didn’t appear………and if they’re really unlucky, as a friend of mine was, the celebrity manager may also be getting it in the ear from the celeb's own publicist.

Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics

We all use them.  They form a vital part of our work.  So often I’ve talked to celebrity supporters about how many people are affected by a condition or the number of people whose lives can be changed by support. 

So in this blog post there are no celebs but a tribute to the people we all rely on. The statisticians! 

Tomorrow, 20/10/2010 is the first, UN organised, World Statistics Day. OK not very sexy but when I found the National Statistical Office of Papua New Guinea had commissioned a jingle “to celebrate the many achievements of official statistics, to development” I just felt I had to share (the link takes you to the complete lyrics) and you can hear the jingle by clicking on the player below.

So whilst budgets are slashed, Quangos turned into charities, public sector redundancies soar and we all tighten our belts, here’s a little something to cheer you up.  But don’t expect it to last – I’m sure the jingle budget will be one of the first to go in the UK’s Comprehensive Spending Review.

Celebrity Auctions - the route to riches?

When you want to raise money surely what you need is a few big names.  Who bigger (if you’re a child or parent) than Dora the Explorer?  For five year olds she’s a global superstar translated into 30 languages.

But why stop there?  Let’s add some other big names to the mix: Jade Jagger, Eva Longoria-Parker, Salma Hayek-Pinault, Jessica Alba, Matthew McConaughey & Camila Alves, Heidi Klum, Shakira, Sheryl Crow and finally let’s throw in former Guns N’ Roses guitarist Slash.  With all those names the money’s bound to roll in - isn't it?

Well that was the stunning line-up put together by the folks at Nick Jr to mark the 10^th anniversary of Dora.  The nine stars designed their own version of Dora the Explorer back packs and they were auctioned in the UK for UNICEF and the US for the Dora ‘Beyond the Backpack Foundation’.

In the US the backpacks were on display in the window of Macy’s Herald Square store.  There was an even a celebrity unveiling of the window.

I don’t have the figures for the amount raised in the US but in the UK the total was a mere £1,211.  So why bother?  The time and effort involved for something like this is enormous.  To be fair I suspect UNICEF were merely recipients rather than active partners.  In reality it was a PR event to raise awareness of Nick’s CSR activities through the Foundation.

Which brings us to the point. These types of auction shouldn’t be seen as a primarily fundraising activity.  There will always be exceptions, for example some sporting memorabilia, but a vast amount of celebrity auctions don’t make a huge amount of money, especially online.  They can however get you great publicity.

There are also reputational issues.  In the UK auction Matthew McConaughey and Camila Alves’ bag went for only £26. Not something you would necessarily want to have to report back to your star who’s donated their time.

Auctions should be approached with caution and a clear idea of what you’re trying to achieve.  If PR’s your aim that’s great but it’s worth thinking long and hard if you’re investing a great deal of staff time with the specific aim of raising funds via an online auction.  If it’s one of a series of lots at an event where people can get ‘caught in the moment’ an item will probably do much better.

Shout it from the rooftops!

Steve Cram MBE, sports presenters Hazel Irvine, Clare Tomlinson and Jim Rosenthal, Kelly Cates, commentator Clive Tyldesley and Soccer AM's Max Rushden – just some of the names NOT mentioned in a tweet from CRUK yesterday.

Whilst I know a tweet is short I’d have mentioned “sports celebrities” rather than plug the venue.  The event, for the Bobby Moore Fund, looks like a really great evening and clearly an important fundraiser; it brought in nearly £200k last year.

So why not mention the celebrities - they emphasise what a big event this is?  If like me you follow lots of tweeters a tweet needs to stand out.  Whilst you can never rely on PR this is a simple free way to maximise the value of celebrity support and gain awareness beyond those who might attend on the night.

But there’s another reason why mentioning the names of celebrity supporters is important.  Not everyone either follows you or looks at your website. If you haven’t mentioned them then someone doing a web search for their favourite celebrity may not show up their support for you.

CRUK have clearly created a clever, successful event that has strong sports industry support – which adds credibility to a sports quiz.

The key thing to remember is to always maximise the value of support because you can’t rely on PR coverage. As I mentioned in “David Schneider in a crop top” it’s important to mention celebrity support wherever you can, so shout about it in your own publications, newsletters and your social media channels.  It increases the chance of your work or fundraising activities being heard about and, with the right celebrity, enhances your reputation.