One question in a survey doth not a story make.....

So Yougov have asked one question in a survey and writes authoritatively as if they have the world of celebrities and charities nailed?  Well that’s good.  We might as well all go home now – a large white wine for me please.

Oh, you want analysis?  You want detail?  You want a fuller understanding of the subject?  Why should I bother with that?  Yougov didn’t. 

To be fair Yougov didn’t say they knew everything, but I don’t think one question is enough to justify a story (I can’t blame them for trying though).  It’s certainly not enough to justify anyone making a strategic decision.

In ‘cynical celebrity charity’ they say 46% of all Brits think that celebrities supporting charities are guilty of cynical self promotion.  However 36% of those surveyed said that they thought celebrities were genuinely trying to do good. If we look at just women the figure rises to 41%, which is also the figure for 18-24 year olds.

So what have we actually learnt?  That some people are not influenced by celebrities? Didn’t they already know that?  That men are more cynical than women when it comes to celebrity?  Gosh, couldn’t they have just wandered down to their local newsagents and seen what sells?  Magazine publishing is a multi-million pound business and that huge commercial behemoth produces lots of celeb magazines targeted at women, particularly younger women. I guarantee they spend a fortune to find out what their readers like and don’t like.

Well at least we’ve saved a trip to the nearest branch of W H Smiths. 

So what exactly is the point of the story?  Use celebs?  Don’t use celebs?  Use them carefully?  They don’t say although they try and expand with a quote from War on Want in which they say it's ‘imperative that the power of that [celebrity] voice is directed in the right direction’.  That’ll be the charity I wrote about last Christmas which ‘cynically’ tried to draw Dannii Minogue into a story about high street retailers using sweatshops with a press release entitled Dannii in M&S ‘sweatshop’ storm.  By the way Dannii wasn’t involved; they were just trying to hook their story to the X-Factor Final.

Ask anyone who works in this area of the sector and they could easily have told you that celebrities aren’t right for every audience but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be used.  Celebrity is a part of the marketing mix; a tool to be used properly and carefully, like any other.  For example would many of those magazines cover a particular charity’s work if they didn’t get a lovely celebrity to go with it?

Oh and do they question whether poll answers are representative of actions in the real world? Of course not – they’re a polling organisation.  I’ve seen senior (male) board directors get excited at a charity event because they got to meet a celebrity who showed interest in their work and support for the charity.  I’m fairly certain they would have been in the cynical camp if polled.

All in all a non story with a bit of stating the obvious thrown in for good measure!  Know your audience and target accordingly.  Isn’t that what everyone aspires to?

The PR agency, the charity & the lack of understanding

It’s a common old story.  A small charity wants to try and recruit some celebrity support to help raise the profile of their work. Not an unreasonable thought, but as ever the question is how you go about it.

Finding celebrities who might have an affinity with your cause is a time consuming business which can involve hours of painstaking research – I genuinely know someone who was on page 86 of a Google search when they found a mention of a celebrity who had a direct link with the work of their charity (the celebrity did go on to support them!).

Of course a bit of luck never hurts.  Nothing like spotting a reference to something useful in the last but one paragraph of an interview with a celebrity who’d be perfect.

I’m not discounting luck but random mass appeals for celebrity support rarely if ever work and hardly make a celebrity feel like it’s them in particular with whom you’d like to work. 

I’ve queried before the use of tweeting as a method of approaching celebrities.  Today I’ve seen another version of this kind of apparently untargeted appeal which does nothing to enhance the reputation of the charity involved.  Those in the PR and communications world will probably have heard of Response Source – a way for journalists and PR’s to get in touch with each other.

An email from Response Source today read as follows (I’ve removed references that I think might identify the charity):

Hi,

I work for [name of small UK charity] and we're in the process of appointing some more high profile ambassadors to help promote our messages of [key message].

We're particularly interested in GB Olympians past and present as well as other sports stars from the world of football, rugby and tennis to promote the importance of [area of work].

We're also after celebrities that would appeal to housewives and families such as daytime TV personalities and big name soap stars.

We would hope that any ambassador would be able to give up a couple of hours for one appearance a year and the possible endorsement of some quotes once in a while - we appreciate that their time will be limited.

Had it been an enthusiastic, overworked, PR from an understaffed communications team in a small organisation I might have had some sympathy.  However it isn’t.  It’s from a PR agency appointed by the charity to run a national awareness campaign.

I doubt they’ll get any response since the one group of people I know won’t be reading it is agents and managers.  This is not the sort of service that most agents subscribe to.  The only people who might be relevant are companies who have a contract with a celebrity to promote that company’s product or service.

If the charity wants to gain one or more high profile supporters they, or their PR agency, should develop ‘thought through’, relevant approaches to individuals who have an affinity to the cause and with whom they would hope to have a long term relationship.

This email shows very little understanding of how to work with celebrities when you’re a charity.  If I was the charity I wouldn’t be very happy with my agency.  More particularly I’d be unhappy paying for expertise which doesn’t appear to be there – although for all I know the agency is very generously doing this pro-bono. 

If you want a long term relationship, how do you make someone feel wanted and special when you haven’t sent them a personal approach?  What happens if someone comes back who doesn’t fit with your brand or (as a health charity) healthy living messages and you have to turn them down? 

They’ve clearly identified their target media and the sorts of people who might appeal, now they need to do the research.  I’ve done radio days with celebs and when we had to change the interviewee at the last minute what was the first question I was asked by the radio stations? What’s your new celeb’s link to the cause?

Whilst they are quite clear in the ‘ask’ I’d question whether they’ve got it right. They want a “couple of hours for one appearance a year” but what does that mean?  They talk about target media so maybe they mean be available for two hours of interviews – except that is frequently not two hours.  If they live in Dundee and the interviews need to be done face to face in London that’s at least a day.  If they were lucky enough to get their celeb on ITV1’s This Morning (given the demographic they’ve identified) that alone would use up the commitment they’ve asked for.

If they really do mean a personal appearance do they honestly think two hours is sufficient?  Again they don’t seem to have allowed for any travel time although I assume they’ve allowed for any travel costs and possible food or accommodation.

Whilst the concept of working with a celebrity is perfectly reasonable this is not the way to be going about it.  There are no short cuts to gaining celebrity support and an email like this does nothing to enhance the reputation of the charity or its PR company.

The thing I find most perplexing, above everything else, is that the agency itself claims strong sport related clients.  Surely they have access to just the sort of people they need? 

Oh well, maybe this email is just a blip – after all who hasn’t had an off day?