Should celebs front charity campaigns?

OP

Unicef have decided to enlist the help of two of the most high profile celebrities in their new campaign.
David Beckham and Robbie Williams have been enrolled to help raise awareness about AIDS in children all over the world.
Do you think its ethical to use famous, high earning celebrities to front charity campaigns? do these celebs really know what they are endorsing?
I personally think this is a good move for Unicef as it will attract more peoples attention as people have become slowly immune to images of real people sufferering, and if this new campaign makes more people stand back and take note then surely its worthwhile??

Reply 2

No, because it's hypocritical. Celebs represent everything that the people needing are not.

Reply 3

No, because it's hypocritical. Celebs represent everything that the people needing are not.

Reply 4

Talya

16

People like Brad Pitt, maybe, who've actually donated something to someone (60 orthopaedic hospital beds to Pakistan, at a cost of £60000) but I've not heard of anything Robbie or David have given to charity....

Reply 5

Talya

16

People like Brad Pitt, maybe, who've actually donated something to someone (60 orthopaedic hospital beds to Pakistan, at a cost of £60000) but I've not heard of anything Robbie or David have given to charity....

Reply 6

Yes, but the celebs are there to be an inspiration, an inspiration the needy have no chance of ever emulating.

Reply 7

Yes, but the celebs are there to be an inspiration, an inspiration the needy have no chance of ever emulating.

Reply 8

Trousers

jaydoh

No, because it's hypocritical. Celebs represent everything that the people needing are not.

Yes, it's much better to run an advertising campaign no one takes any notice of. You might not get much money, but at least you're not being a hypocrite.
:rolleyes:

I don't think ethics or hypocrisy should have anything to do with it: If it makes money, they should do it. If the celebrities don't know what they're endorsing or don't personally give money to the cause, who cares?

Charities use them as a tool for prising money out of people, and it works really well, so why not? Of course, it would be nice if the Beckhams did something worthwhile with their cash instead of spending it on parties and new breasts, but ho-hum. I'm sure all of us could donate more than we do.

--------------

jaydoh

Yes, but the celebs are there to be an inspiration, an inspiration the needy have no chance of ever emulating.

I'm not needy, but I have no chance of ever becoming a world famous footballer. Does that mean David Beckham should never be on TV because not all of us can be like him?

Reply 9

Trousers

jaydoh

No, because it's hypocritical. Celebs represent everything that the people needing are not.

Yes, it's much better to run an advertising campaign no one takes any notice of. You might not get much money, but at least you're not being a hypocrite.
:rolleyes:

I don't think ethics or hypocrisy should have anything to do with it: If it makes money, they should do it. If the celebrities don't know what they're endorsing or don't personally give money to the cause, who cares?

Charities use them as a tool for prising money out of people, and it works really well, so why not? Of course, it would be nice if the Beckhams did something worthwhile with their cash instead of spending it on parties and new breasts, but ho-hum. I'm sure all of us could donate more than we do.

--------------

jaydoh

Yes, but the celebs are there to be an inspiration, an inspiration the needy have no chance of ever emulating.

I'm not needy, but I have no chance of ever becoming a world famous footballer. Does that mean David Beckham should never be on TV because not all of us can be like him?

Reply 10

jaydoh

Yes, but the celebs are there to be an inspiration, an inspiration the needy have no chance of ever emulating.

No they're not! What a ridiculous interpretation!

Celebrities front charity campaigns to raise their media profile, and encourage the celebrity-driven public to donate. If it works, they should be praised for their help.

Reply 11

jaydoh

Yes, but the celebs are there to be an inspiration, an inspiration the needy have no chance of ever emulating.

No they're not! What a ridiculous interpretation!

Celebrities front charity campaigns to raise their media profile, and encourage the celebrity-driven public to donate. If it works, they should be praised for their help.

Reply 12

OP

In fact both the Beckhams and Robbie have been involved with charity work. Robbie did some work for comic relief and even has his own charity called 'give it sum' which aims to help those who are disadvantaged.
As for the Beckhams, although they are prob more renowned for their lavish shopping sprees and designer clothes, they did hold an auction for NSPCC charity in 2002 which raised more than £400,000

Reply 13

OP

In fact both the Beckhams and Robbie have been involved with charity work. Robbie did some work for comic relief and even has his own charity called 'give it sum' which aims to help those who are disadvantaged.
As for the Beckhams, although they are prob more renowned for their lavish shopping sprees and designer clothes, they did hold an auction for NSPCC charity in 2002 which raised more than £400,000

Reply 14

piglet23

In fact both the Beckhams and Robbie have been involved with charity work. Robbie did some work for comic relief and even has his own charity called 'give it sum' which aims to help those who are disadvantaged.
As for the Beckhams, although they are prob more renowned for their lavish shopping sprees and designer clothes, they did hold an auction for NSPCC charity in 2002 which raised more than £400,000

Fantastic, good for them.

Reply 15

piglet23

In fact both the Beckhams and Robbie have been involved with charity work. Robbie did some work for comic relief and even has his own charity called 'give it sum' which aims to help those who are disadvantaged.
As for the Beckhams, although they are prob more renowned for their lavish shopping sprees and designer clothes, they did hold an auction for NSPCC charity in 2002 which raised more than £400,000

Fantastic, good for them.

Reply 16

Angel Interceptor

jaydoh

No, because it's hypocritical. Celebs represent everything that the people needing are not.

that is such an ill interpretation, and you're completely missing the point - if using celebs makes more people aware of certain problems and certain charities, then it's worthwhile, as the chances are, they'll donate more, which is good for everyone.

you just sound really bitter. plus, the celebs aren't being hypocritical if they help, because surely it means they have some sort of interst/concern for the problems the charities are trying to combat.

--------------

Trousers

Yes, it's much better to run an advertising campaign no one takes any notice of. You might not get much money, but at least you're not being a hypocrite.
:rolleyes:

I don't think ethics or hypocrisy should have anything to do with it: If it makes money, they should do it. If the celebrities don't know what they're endorsing or don't personally give money to the cause, who cares?

Charities use them as a tool for prising money out of people, and it works really well, so why not? Of course, it would be nice if the Beckhams did something worthwhile with their cash instead of spending it on parties and new breasts, but ho-hum. I'm sure all of us could donate more than we do.

--------------

I'm not needy, but I have no chance of ever becoming a world famous footballer. Does that mean David Beckham should never be on TV because not all of us can be like him?

:dito:

Reply 17

Angel Interceptor

jaydoh

No, because it's hypocritical. Celebs represent everything that the people needing are not.

that is such an ill interpretation, and you're completely missing the point - if using celebs makes more people aware of certain problems and certain charities, then it's worthwhile, as the chances are, they'll donate more, which is good for everyone.

you just sound really bitter. plus, the celebs aren't being hypocritical if they help, because surely it means they have some sort of interst/concern for the problems the charities are trying to combat.

--------------

Trousers

Yes, it's much better to run an advertising campaign no one takes any notice of. You might not get much money, but at least you're not being a hypocrite.
:rolleyes:

I don't think ethics or hypocrisy should have anything to do with it: If it makes money, they should do it. If the celebrities don't know what they're endorsing or don't personally give money to the cause, who cares?

Charities use them as a tool for prising money out of people, and it works really well, so why not? Of course, it would be nice if the Beckhams did something worthwhile with their cash instead of spending it on parties and new breasts, but ho-hum. I'm sure all of us could donate more than we do.

--------------

I'm not needy, but I have no chance of ever becoming a world famous footballer. Does that mean David Beckham should never be on TV because not all of us can be like him?

:dito:

Reply 18

OP

yeah and hopefully this new campaign with Unicef will be successfull as well. even if it does just enlighten a few people about the crisis!!! i mean we always associate aids with the older population and fail to realise how many kids are affected by it as well.

Reply 19