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?