Is It just me? Part duex

[burk48237]

Or do many celebrities participate in charities more to make themselves look good then because the cause is actually important enough for them to sacrifice for?

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/c...deeper_if.html

I'm not attacking Alonzo Mourning or the celebrities involved here, and I'm sure the same thing happens with many white celebs too. This is more an indictment of celebrity culture. But, if the charity is really important why would they insist on first class accommodations, gourmet dinning, and A-lists parties as part of the package for them being part of a charity fundraiser? Obviously all of these things cost the charity a great deal of money. You would think they would be willing to stay at a Motel Six or pay for their own rooms. When I've been on missions trips to the third world, we've stayed in very primitive conditions, Conditions that would make a Motel Six look like the Waldorf Astoria. We do it because we feel that to stay at a first class hotel while your ministering among the homeless (for instance) is an insult. I don't consider it a great sacrifice, it's only a few weeks. And I know plenty personally who have made far greater sacrifices to help the poor then I'll ever make. But to many celebrities it appears that leaving their sheltered first class cocoons for an evening is an imposition. Is the phrase "Charity Ball" an oxymoron? Is it just me?

[cheesemonkey]

It's totally for making them look good. If they were really trying to help they wouldn't have them pay for parties and fancy food...

[JimB52]

Celebrity participation in charities helps raise awareness, regardless of the celebrities race.
For the rest of us, give anonomously, but talk to everyone you can to raise awareness.

[Mark Latimour]

Sometimes you gotta spend money to [make] money. Whats better for those in need of it:

(a) A low profile charity that takes in $150,000 gross, spends $25,000 doing it and disperses $125,000 those in need? or

(b) A high profile charity that takes in $15,000,000 gross, spends $7,500,000 doing it and disperses $7,500,000 to those in need?

Seems to me that even though (a) is a lot more efficient, (b) is the one that is making the bigger difference to those who need it.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

Sometimes you gotta spend money to [make] money. Whats better for those in need of it:

(a) A low profile charity that takes in $150,000 gross, spends $25,000 doing it and disperses $125,000 those in need? or

(b) A high profile charity that takes in $15,000,000 gross, spends $7,500,000 doing it and disperses $7,500,000 to those in need?

Seems to me that even though (a) is a lot more efficient, (b) is the one that is making the bigger difference to those who need it.

I wouldn't argue, and obviously not every public figure is doing charity to get noticed. But, OTOH, when a charity asked you to come speak or perform, and your response includes a contract rider for gourmet dinning, five star hotels, a-list parties, and limo service, it's pretty obvious that you care a whole heck of a lot more about your comfort and image then the cause. And in the case sited in the link, the charity a B type charity (per your example), did not make as big a difference as many A type charities. The article sites a 70% standard for fund raising costs as a minimum for an efficient charity. Their are several fine large charities, whose COSTS ARE WELL UNDER 30%. I can guaranty that every one of these stars would have accomplished far more just giving a donation to one of them.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by burk48237

I wouldn't argue, and obviously not every public figure is doing charity to get noticed. But, OTOH, when a charity asked you to come speak or perform, and your response includes a contract rider for gourmet dinning, five star hotels, a-list parties, and limo service, it's pretty obvious that you care a whole heck of a lot more about your comfort and image then the cause.

Sure, but maybe it doesn't matter if the celebrity cares about the charity or not. Perhaps the charity understands that just having any celebrity will increase the charities profile and therefore increase overall revenue. Its like having an independent film and getting Will Smith to start in it, sure, 90% of your budget may go on paying for him, and he may suck as an actor, but if that means you film will make more money and get more exposure in the end, then maybe its worth it (if your goal is exposure and money).

I guess my point is maybe its irrelevant whether the stars support the charity or not, it could just be a business decision by the charity to help raise more money.

And in the case sited in the link, the charity a B type charity (per your example), did not make as big a difference as many A type charities.

I didn't see in the article where it gave absolute numbers for donation for any charities other than saying that overall, the charity had given $8mil away as donations over the years.

I can guaranty that every one of these stars would have accomplished far more just giving a donation to one of them.

I am not so sure about that. People love to see celebrities attached to things. Its sad, but its reality.