It’s been a celebfest of charity this weekend with the Comic Relief juggernaut delivering not only its third instalment of ‘Let’s Dance’ but also the worldwide internet sensation ’24 Hour Panel People’ in which David Walliams appeared on 19 consecutive panel shows over 24 hours.
So naturally I’m going to blog about something much smaller as I do like being perverse. It’s hard to gain celebrity support – just ask the folks across the charity sector who make it look easy; and once you’ve got it, it’s difficult to maintain and develop. Some of the most committed supporters are those who have an affinity with the cause.
I’m particularly sympathetic to small charities which are founded by people who themselves have experienced a problem and work doggedly to support others going through the same thing. A classic example was Bob Woodward who founded CLIC (now CLIC Sargent).
I’ve talked about the use of Twitter by charities before in Tweet Off! but was disappointed to be sent this tweet that was spotted by a friend recently:
My friend’s comment? “Ridiculous”.
It’s from a very small charity. It shows a lack of understanding which seems common across the sector.
I won’t identify the charity as is it’s so small that I doubt it has any paid staff and is run by a group of parents whose children share a rare and horrible condition. Having done a lot of research on them I have a great deal of sympathy for what they do but I have to concur with the ‘Ridiculous’ comment.
So why is it ridiculous? They want to align their brand with that of a celebrity – a perfectly reasonable idea. The problem is that they think they can do this with the celeb doing nothing and that they will still raise awareness.
Firstly it would be impossible for a patron to do nothing. At very least they would have to agree to support the charity, approve the use of their name and a quote. They’d also need to supply a photo and possibly a signature.
However they’d need to do far more if the aim is to raise awareness (as opposed to reinforcing existing supporters). Whilst the charity has understood that a celebrity endorsement can gain you media coverage the reality is that unless they do media interviews or start tweeting about the cause it is unlikely that they will raise any awareness.
So how would I go about it? I’d talk to my existing supporters and see if, in their networks, they know someone with a profile – always remembering that if it’s a small local charity where it’s about local coverage you don’t need a national name (think about the ‘stars’ of your local radio station or football club).
If not I’d go away and do lots of research. Why would someone want to support my organisation? As I always say, celebrities are people too and frequently support a cause because it is either relevant to them (maybe a family member has been affected) or fits in with an issue about which they are passionate – such as Duncan Bannatyne who is a big advocate of giving up smoking (he’s supporting this Wednesday’s No Smoking Day).
If you’re a charity about children then targeting someone who’s a parent is more likely to gain support. But imagine you got a lorry load of direct mail every week to support a diverse range of charities. Think about which one you’d pick over another - that’s the decision many celebrities face. Find a reason to be relevant to the individual you approach.
But the other thing this charity has missed is that a celebrity is the cherry on the cake, it’s not the cake as another colleague in the industry argues 'the charity liaison who says "happy to give you my expertise but you don't need a celeb" is worth their weight in gold'. There are a huge number of ‘real life’ magazines as well as the women’s pages of newspapers and a really good story about how the condition affects the lives of children and their families could also help raise awareness.
