When the real world gets in the way of your great story

Gaining the support of a high profile individual is hard work for any organisation.  Carefully stewarding that support over the years to ensure you retain it is even harder.  The hardest of all is when you turn that supporter into someone who also donates significant amounts of money.

Clearly this is something that The Design Museum has achieved in its relationship with Sir Terence Conran and the Conran Foundation.  It was announced yesterday that the Foundation is to donate £7.5m in cash plus the value of the sale of the lease of the museum’s current site, expected to be in the region of £10m.  The money will be used to help fund a move to a new site at the Commonwealth Institute.

This is a fantastic commitment from Sir Terence, although to be fair, he was involved in establishing the forerunner of the museum and establishing the museum on its current site.

So why am I blogging about it?  Because I think the timing of the announcement is at best a little insensitive.  Sir Terence is probably the foremost proponent of design and style in the home.  It was Habitat that started turning houses across the country into light, bright, stylish palaces of design.  That’s why I think the timing is insensitive. 

Just a week ago it was announced that Habitat was to go into administration as part of a sale of the name, online presence and three flagship stores to the Home Retail Group.  The sale price is £24.5m, just £7m more than the value of Sir Terence’s donation to the Design Museum.  For the 750 staff who work outside of the core business there is a very uncertain future.

Now it should be made clear that Sir Terence stopped being Chair of the Storehouse Group in 1990, some 21 years ago.  Should he have stepped in to rescue his baby which is now fully grown up and has a life of its own?  Well that’s for him to decide not me, it’s really none of my business.

I just feel the timing of this announcement is a little bit off.  As the High Street brand, that established him as a leading name in design, appears to fall apart, would I have made that announcement now?  I think not.  In the circumstances I would have left a suitable, reverent pause.  Sir Terence turns 80 in October.  Even if he’d written the cheques now (and I have no doubt this was planned well before the news of Habitat) I think I would have played it safe and used his birthday celebrations, and a four month break, to make the announcement.

I think there’s a lesson here for all of us in being sensitive to the world around us.  No matter how long it’s taken you to put together a project or media event, when you’re working with high profile individuals always be aware that the real world and news agendas can just occasionally get in the way and rather spoil the party.

Celeb support is only as good as the PRs promoting them

When I started this blog I thought I’d be writing for myself (or maybe me and a couple of friends who work in the sector and are willing to humour me) so I’m amazed that in fact it’s been read by around a thousand people.  Who knew I’d even end up contributing the odd blog for the Guardian’s Voluntary Sector Network?

Apparently with profile comes getting targeted by PR people – which I take as a huge, if unexpected compliment.  On twitter I’ve been asked to promote charity events and singles.  On the blog I’ve been asked for advice and today has seen my first full blown press release!

Only problem is that the PR was close but won’t be winning any cigars from me.  On the left of this blog I explain what I write about; specifically “the use of celebrity in the UK's charity sector”.  Today’s release was about a Hollywood A-lister backing a campaign.  Credit where credit is due it is about charity and it is about celebrity. Apparently they’re asking “Americans to pledge and make a difference”.  How does that relate to the UK?

Ironically said Hollywood A-Lister was in London promoting the UK version of the cause a month ago.  Had I been targeted then I might have blogged something.

The opening paragraph of the email says “Wanted to see if you could show your support and post [Big Hollywood Name]’s PSA for their new campaign”. Have you read my blog? No seriously? Have you? It’s not about promoting particular causes.  It’s about commenting on when charities working with celebrities get it right and when I think they get it wrong. I don’t support any particular cause via this blog – oh and NEVER assume I know what an acronym stands for.  I’m guessing PSA means Public Service Announcement since I don’t think they wanted me to talk about the star’s Prostate Specific Antigen test results.

Celebrities are only as good as the media team that’s promoting their support for the cause.  For me a bêtte noir is the media person who randomly targets you without knowing about your publication or output.  I’m just a little blogger – imagine the amount of stuff that real journalists and TV producers get sent.

I’m always impressed by the media team that spends time scouring newspapers and magazines and can quote chapter and verse on where and when particular publications will use celebrity interviews.  But I’ve seen the same people pitch to a TV or radio show having never watched or listened to it.  Pitching to This Morning is no different to pitching to Celebs on Sunday (The Sunday Mirror Magazine).

In fact I have heard of one Media Manager who was asked to listen to a particular radio show as they had a big awareness event coming up for the condition they represented and it was something that would be common to listeners of that programme.  She didn’t understand why she should listen to the show rather than just shooting off a press release.

Having been on the production side of TV and radio shows I know how irritating untargeted approaches can be.  There’s an element to which doing the work of an over worked, under resourced researcher can pay dividends.  Don’t just have a story, have an item that is fully formed and which fits the format of the programme.  The only way you can do that is by actually knowing how the programme treats stories like yours.  You won’t always get it right but you’ll get more respect and stand a better chance of building a relationship and having your calls taken again if you know their output.

A few years ago a charity for which I worked had a big fundraising event and wanted to try and get on a leading TV magazine programme.  A researcher’s going to think “so what?  Every charity has big fundraising events”.  So I sat down with the media team and we created an item that worked for the format of the show and then persuaded a high profile celebrity to agree in principle to participate before we pitched it to the programme.  Guess what – they went for it.

In the days of iPlayer and online catch-up TV services there really is no excuse for a media team not to know how Daybreak, The One Show, BBC Breakfast, Lorraine, This Morning, The Alan Titchmarsh Show, The Jeremy Vine Show or You and Yours work.

….Oh and if a colleague comments on you sitting in the office watching This Morning on your computer tell them it’s work – honestly!

Who's kidding Who

Just written a new little blog post about Dr Who, the BBC and breaking the rules for the Guardian Voluntary Sector Network.  Check it out here.

Is Managing Celebrities a volunteer's job?

Celebrity relationships are tricky things.  They require tact, finesse, and a level of understanding of their world.  You need to be able to research those who might be relevant for your cause and keep track of their careers as well as keeping in contact in a relevant and planned way.

This is not a job for the faint hearted.  As any agent will tell you they receive hundreds of requests every week for some of their clients so making sure your request is relevant is vital.  Hiring someone who gets all this and is capable of acting as a productive interface between the celebrity and the charity is essential.

Too often charities don’t get it as I’ve written in various blogposts such as:

• The Myth of the Little Black Book - why thinking that someone needs to have a contacts book if they’re to be of use to a charity
• Celebs, Runs & Treks
• We Love You…. We Love You Not - about building & sustaining relationships
• Tweet Off about using Twitter to gain celebrity support
• The Case of the Missing Credit – understanding just one of the perils of being a celebrity manager

and in a post on the Guardian Voluntary Sector Network Why TV quiz shows don't really care about charities.

So with all these things to think about and the problems of dealing with celebs and their people you’d imagine that’d it would be difficult to find the right person for the post, and to be honest it is.  I’m shocked at how little some charities want to pay for this skillset.  One charity is currently advertising a role for only £28k.

However today I was blown away to find that Livability thinks this is the job for a Volunteer!  Ignoring the fact that you’ll be entrusting personal and sensitive information to this person (in my organisation access to celebrity records is very tightly controlled) this is about building long term relationships.  The probability of getting someone who’s willing to do this for several years unpaid has to be incredibly low.

Whilst I understand that for small charities it is incredibly hard to justify a full time salary this is not the way to go.  What many do is give one of the media team the extra responsibility for handling celebrities or hire in a consultant either for a day or more a week, or even on a project by project basis.  If you need advice on how to get started with celebrities the Media Trust holds regular workshops on working with celebrities.

Whatever you do, in my opinion. putting important high level relationships in the hands of a volunteer is complete madness.  But if you think I’m wrong feel free to comment.

By George they've got it - not!

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.

Ooops!

I've posted a new blog over at Guardian Voluntary Sector Network on research that I thought missed the point and stated the obvious at the same time!

Boom! Boom! (with a Kazoo)

Getting into the psyche of the great British Public is something that can really make a fundraising project take off.  You have to hand it to the lovely folks at Comic Relief when it comes to being creative.  After last week’s Inbetweeners Rude Trip they come up with something truly ridiculous.

We love the stupid, the inane.  Just tune in to Radio 4 on a Monday at 6:30pm to hear I’m Sorry I haven’t a Clue.  Well the lovely peeps at Radio 3 have come up with the Big Red Nose Show.  But what’s got Twitter buzzing is that using the audience they’re planning to create the world’s largest Kazoo orchestra – check out #bbckazoo.

The event is hosted by Radio 3’s Katie Derham and of course that classical music stalwart Basil Brush (not that I’m name dropping but I have actual met Basil)!  When I saw the video above it really made me smile.

Of course playing the kazoo is easy and anyone can do it.  But what’s clever is that to help the event along they have a stellar line-up of stars who, coincidentally I’m sure, happen to have popular twitter accounts and spurred on today by Emma Freud.

Nice use of social media and a silly idea that engages people.  I’d be amazed if they didn’t sell out and break the world record. Mind you when I said the Inbetweeners would do well they crashed their car!

If in doubt resort to smut!

From Jules and Sandy, through Are You Being Served to Julian Clary, who famously liked a warm hand on his entrance, there’s nothing we Brits like more than a smutty innuendo.  It probably goes back to the very earliest days of Music Hall.

We’re also a bit of a fan of the underdog or the awkward geek.  Not for us the All American Football Hero and the Homecoming Queen.  So it seems like the peeps over at Comic Relief should be onto a winner with The Inbetweeners Rude Road Trip.

In simple terms it’s four guys in a car trying to visit 50 places with rude place names in 50 hours.  Naturally it’s being filmed and the end result will be available to download from iTunes for £1.89.  This is the video trailer:

What’s good about this project is that it engages with the social media generation.  There’s a chance to ‘join in’ – at the time of writing over 5,000 people had put comments and suggestions for Britain’s rudest place names on their Facebook page.

But not only have they got Facebook going they’ve also got the Twitterati enthused.  Check out #rudetrip. Plus they’re keeping followers up to date by posting pics as they go – here’s an example (although not suitable for lovers of House Elves).

So that’s: 

1. Great celebs for the target audience (tick)
2. Interactivity on Facebook AND Twitter (tick)
3. Keeping people engaged & making them comeback (tick)
4. Raising money….ahhh, we don’t know yet

My general feeling is that social media doesn’t deliver when it comes to fundraising.  Just look at the disaster of Last Tweet and Testament.  In that case around 70% of the US$1m fundraising target came from one donor.

This is different.  Firstly there’s the video to download.  At less than the price of a Starbucks Latte I can see that doing well – it’s a pocket money price. Given the audience that seems like a good price point AND you get something in return.  I have to confess to being a little surprised that when I went to the donation page the amount had been filled in with a suggested £40.  Call me a cheapskate but that seemed a little high.  Since I’m not a fundraiser I’ll just assume that Comic Relief know what they’re doing. [Since writing this the suggested donation amount has changed to £10]

All in all, if they got no press coverage and didn’t transmit something on telly, I’d be amazed if this project didn’t do well (probably the kiss of death – a bit like Richard predicting who’s going to win on Pointless [see my blog on Guardian Voluntary Sector Network to understand that]).  The point I’m making here is that this would work for any charity, not just the big rollercoaster that is Comic Relief.  It’s the creativity behind the idea and the clever use of social media that makes this so strong.

Guardian Voluntary Sector Network

In case you don't already read it I've just written a piece for the Guardian Voluntary Sector Network - you can read it by clicking here. It's all about getting cerlebrities on to quiz shows.

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.