Celebs in Children In Need

24

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 383
    Forum Member
    Does it matter why any of the celebs do it? It's a circular argument: we watch because they're famous and we might like them - they need to perform to promote themselves or else they won't be famous.
    If they didn't do it, alot of much needed money wouldn't be raised because there would be no programme.
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    katetow wrote: »
    Does it matter why any of the celebs do it? It's a circular argument: we watch because they're famous and we might like them - they need to perform to promote themselves or else they won't be famous.
    If they didn't do it, alot of much needed money wouldn't be raised because there would be no programme.

    Yes, even though they're there for the publicity, they're still there for the good of disabled kids. That's what matters.
  • MissCultureMissCulture Posts: 704
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    di60 wrote: »
    sorry this is not exactly OT but...

    I think that dress of Fearn Cotton's is really unflattering..

    Thankyou for saying that...I had nightmares last night about that blasted belly of hers :mad:
  • dorydaryldorydaryl Posts: 15,927
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yeah, agree that much of it was about self-promotion. If it gets money for the vulnerable, great, but as as already been said, I don't need pampered celebrities patronizing me and telling me to give generously. Missed the musical theatre 'turns' this year, too. Normally, that's one of the better parts of the later night's entertainments. Also, many of the theatres run nightly collections for CiN, leading up to the big night, which is usually recognized on the show. Has there been a change in licensing for performances from musical theatre on such shows, which means that excerpts from shows cannot be performed on telly? If so, you'd think they'd waive it for something like this. I also missed the BBC News Team's song and dance slot, despite the 'Top Gear' thingy.
  • tediouslyrandomtediouslyrandom Posts: 809
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    dorydaryl wrote: »
    Yeah, agree that much of it was about self-promotion. If it gets money for the vulnerable, great, but as as already been said, I don't need pampered celebrities patronizing me and telling me to give generously. Missed the musical theatre 'turns' this year, too. Normally, that's one of the better parts of the later night's entertainments. Also, many of the theatres run nightly collections for CiN, leading up to the big night, which is usually recognized on the show. Has there been a change in licensing for performances from musical theatre on such shows, which means that excerpts from shows cannot be performed on telly? If so, you'd think they'd waive it for something like this. I also missed the BBC News Team's song and dance slot, despite the 'Top Gear' thingy.

    No idea, but musical theatre is a reason to watch CIN, yes a promo for the show, but we get to see professionals performing and not Cheryl Cole barking into a microphone...

    BBC is always hypocritical; no adverts, but lets the music and film industry 'advertise' their products all over the place.
  • FingersAndToesFingersAndToes Posts: 9,956
    Forum Member
    katetow wrote: »
    Does it matter why any of the celebs do it? It's a circular argument: we watch because they're famous and we might like them - they need to perform to promote themselves or else they won't be famous.
    If they didn't do it, alot of much needed money wouldn't be raised because there would be no programme.

    This is what I tried to say as well, you just did it in much better way. :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I did enjoy Biffa nearly coming a cropper though.

    She would have blamed cowell in her next book.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    And how do we know which celebrities do give money to charities and how much? Are they supposed to publish this? And if they did, that would be called out on that as well, using charity to promote themselves.

    Regardless of why each celebrity preformed, they did it for free and the money goes to a good cause. And people interested get to see a good show. Sounds like a win win for me.

    Sure biffa and the rest of girls are loud done it for free,nothing to do with a comeback tour, single and greatest hits album due?
  • FingersAndToesFingersAndToes Posts: 9,956
    Forum Member
    jsp263004 wrote: »
    Sure biffa and the rest of girls are loud done it for free,nothing to do with a comeback tour, single and greatest hits album due?

    Of course. But all the artists there are doing it for promotion. All their appearances are for promotion. But this one was also for a good cause, what is wrong with that?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 23
    Forum Member
    Of course. But all the artists there are doing it for promotion. All their appearances are for promotion. But this one was also for a good cause, what is wrong with that?

    Nothing wrong with that per se. But it just galls when they implore others to give, when all they're there for is to promote their own interests, which will result in them earning £££.

    The BBC should charge them (sorry, ask for a compulsory donation) for their appearance - £100k for a new single "plug" wouldn't be excessive.

    Oh, and I didn't realise who they were either... thought it was the newsreaders at first...
  • FingersAndToesFingersAndToes Posts: 9,956
    Forum Member
    The H wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with that per se. But it just galls when they implore others to give, when all they're there for is to promote their own interests, which will result in them earning £££.

    The BBC should charge them (sorry, ask for a compulsory donation) for their appearance - £100k for a new single "plug" wouldn't be excessive.

    Oh, and I didn't realise who they were either... thought it was the newsreaders at first...

    If they get some promotion out of it too, what is wrong with that. If people liked their performances, and go and buy their music because of the CIN promotion, it's not away from anyone is it? Charity work usually is good PR, even if it's not for promotion. It doesn't mean that the celebs should stop doing charity work, just because it gives themselves good PR.

    For example, Selena Gomez was just opening a new hospital wing in Texas for Ryan Seacrest foundation. Her job was only to bring the press, attract attention, cut the "opening line" and look pretty for pictures. She appeals to younger audiences,and this was a children's' wing, I think. She used her time and energy to it, most likely spent no money, got good PR, but also attracted attention to the cause. That is how most charity organizations work. Oh, and she is also the youngest Unicef Ambassador. She hardly spends her time working out the kinks of the charity, her job is to promote the charity, go on a few trips and events and bring attention. In return she gets good PR. Doesn't mean that it isn't good of her to do it, and she shouldn't be praised for it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 175
    Forum Member
    Sloopy wrote: »
    I think the BBC should be concentrating on cleaning up their own doorstep before inflicting any more of these self-promoting luvvies upon us.

    What a stupid, senseless post.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 23
    Forum Member
    If they get some promotion out of it too, what is wrong with that. If people liked their performances, and go and buy their music because of the CIN promotion, it's not away from anyone is it? Charity work usually is good PR, even if it's not for promotion. It doesn't mean that the celebs should stop doing charity work, just because it gives themselves good PR.

    I disagree fundamentally with this. CIN features hundreds and hundreds of ordinary people who work their backsides off for weeks on end to raise money for disadvantaged kids. Those ordinary people get nothing.

    In contrast, Biffa & co get free advertising time on TV, do a three minute mime to their latest CD, and reap the benefits of increased sales. It doesn't seem right to me.

    I heard all those kids singing "Bridge over troubled water", and I bet it encouraged more people to donate than any of the celebs. Plus, they managed to do it in tune. Without miming. And without falling over.
  • FingersAndToesFingersAndToes Posts: 9,956
    Forum Member
    The H wrote: »
    I disagree fundamentally with this. CIN features hundreds and hundreds of ordinary people who work their backsides off for weeks on end to raise money for disadvantaged kids. Those ordinary people get nothing.

    In contrast, Biffa & co get free advertising time on TV, do a three minute mime to their latest CD, and reap the benefits of increased sales. It doesn't seem right to me.

    I heard all those kids singing "Bridge over troubled water", and I bet it encouraged more people to donate than any of the celebs. Plus, they managed to do it in tune. Without miming. And without falling over.

    In reality, I'm pretty sure Cheryl & co get more people to view the show than the kids singing their beautiful song. That is how the business works. Many people may have awed at the kids song, but as many wouldn't have bought tickets or tuned in to watch the kids sing if there wasn't some sort of celebrity line up. And if the celebs get promotion out of it, well, who is it going to hurt?

    Do you really think celebs should stop doing public charity work just because it's good PR for them?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 140
    Forum Member
    if they get good PR out of charity work then i suppose its fair enough however crass it may appear to the likes of me...however its when they use charity gifts/donations as an excuse not to pay income tax in this country ,then that really pisses me off..
  • FingersAndToesFingersAndToes Posts: 9,956
    Forum Member
    All public charity work is good PR, though, even if there is not straight up benefits from it at that given moment. When we hear the name Angelina Jolie, many of us think about charity work straight away. The charities do want celebs to represent them, because the celebs attract attention to the charities. I just don't see anything wrong with it.
  • artlesschaosartlesschaos Posts: 11,345
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    All public charity work is good PR, though, even if there is not straight up benefits from it at that given moment. When we hear the name Angelina Jolie, many of us think about charity work straight away. The charities do want celebs to represent them, because the celebs attract attention to the charities. I just don't see anything wrong with it.

    I don't think "charity work" when I hear Angelina's name. I think of many other things.


    It's when they act like promoting their music is enough of a donation that it bugs me. They turned up, sang a couple of songs and did their concerned faces. Not exactly heroic, is it? It's no more arduous than if they were appearing on the X factor.
  • FingersAndToesFingersAndToes Posts: 9,956
    Forum Member
    I don't think "charity work" when I hear Angelina's name. I think of many other things.


    It's when they act like promoting their music is enough of a donation that it bugs me. They turned up, sang a couple of songs and did their concerned faces. Not exactly heroic, is it? It's no more arduous than if they were appearing on the X factor.


    I did say many, not all re Angelina.

    We actually have no clue what kind of charity work celebs do in their private, but I think that on CIN the singers were supposed to turn up, sing their piece, give their 2p worth and then go. No one claimed them to be any heroes, they were there to draw attention and viewers.

    There are so many parts of charity work, and one important aspect is the PR and getting the charity to be recognized. Celebs can draw the public attention to the charities.
  • artlesschaosartlesschaos Posts: 11,345
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I did say many, not all re Angelina.

    We actually have no clue what kind of charity work celebs do in their private, but I think that on CIN the singers were supposed to turn up, sing their piece, give their 2p worth and then go. No one claimed them to be any heroes, they were there to draw attention and viewers.

    There are so many parts of charity work, and one important aspect is the PR and getting the charity to be recognized. Celebs can draw the public attention to the charities.

    But the point is, surely, by choosing to draw attention to their "charity work" by appearing on a charity appeal, by begging people to donate because no child should be without a bed, then people will ask what they are actually donating. There is an aspect of putting your money where your mouth is.

    How much more powerful would it have been to say "I was so moved I have donated."
  • FingersAndToesFingersAndToes Posts: 9,956
    Forum Member
    But the point is, surely, by choosing to draw attention to their "charity work" by appearing on a charity appeal, by begging people to donate because no child should be without a bed, then people will ask what they are actually donating. There is an aspect of putting your money where your mouth is.

    How much more powerful would it have been to say "I was so moved I have donated."

    So the celebs should show their bank statements and show how much they donated to the charity they performed for?
  • artlesschaosartlesschaos Posts: 11,345
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So the celebs should show their bank statements and show how much they donated to the charity they performed for?

    Well, I wouldn't have gone that far, but you can if you want.
  • Betty BritainBetty Britain Posts: 13,721
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    We know these "celebs" are doing CiN to promote something or other.. They have been doing it for yrs. I don't mind that at all.for me they are getting people to donate millions and millions of pounds to help keep open children's hospices..a vital service to some families.. As everyone knows I'm no Peter Andre fan .. But if his appearance raised 1p then good for him.. we don't know if these people donate themselves but so what.. This is about helping the Vunerable in our society
  • SloopySloopy Posts: 65,209
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nicola_T wrote: »
    What a stupid, senseless post.

    Not at all. Perfectly valid, IMO. I've seen far worse on here.

    If you don't agree that's fine, but at least elaborate in a more eloquent manner than to simply dismiss other people's contributions as 'stupid'.
  • FingersAndToesFingersAndToes Posts: 9,956
    Forum Member
    Well, I wouldn't have gone that far, but you can if you want.


    What would you prefer the celebs do then? I just fail to see what is the problem here, it seems like a win win situation for everyone. The charity gets donations, celebs get their promotion, and the viewers who want to watch, get to enjoy a nice show.
  • artlesschaosartlesschaos Posts: 11,345
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What would you prefer the celebs do then? I just fail to see what is the problem here, it seems like a win win situation for everyone. The charity gets donations, celebs get their promotion, and the viewers who want to watch, get to enjoy a nice show.

    I thought I'd already answered that...I'd like them to donate their own money, rather than thinking their "time" is of any value.
Sign In or Register to comment.