Charity Celebrity Blog

When celebs become a problem

2023-06-01T17:34:00.005+01:00

UPDATE: Since writing this piece both the Prince's Trust and the RVS have confirmed that they will no longer be working with Phillip Schofield

You can't have missed the stories in the last week about Phillip Schofield. He was hailed for coming out by Stonewall in 2020. He initially said he was leaving This Morning but later left ITV and admitted to lying to ITV, his agents (which terminated their relationship), family and friends, about an affair with a junior staff member.

A difficult time for all, but also the charity sector. For example the Prince's Trust, which supports vulnerable young people.

It has been widely shared that he first met the young person when they were only 15. That person went on to work on This Morning. It has been said that nothing of an intimate nature happened until the individual was 20 and whilst Phillip said the relationship was 'unwise' there was nothing illegal.

I am not a safeguarding expert. Whilst at the NSPCC I wrote the safeguarding policy as it pertains to celebrities made possible by drawing on the enormous experience and advice of its amazing child protection experts. There is an obvious concern that a young person might be in awe of someone who had been on their TV screens their entire life.

As Gaby Hinslif said in a Guardian op ed, this is a complicated issue (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/29/phillip-schofield-scandal-workplace-metoo-this-morning-itv). You have an older star coming out late in life and a, possibly, star struck young staff member but would it have been different if it had been a male female relationship?

So what do charities do now? Phillip didn't attend the Prince's Trust awards, despite being widely reported as an Ambassador. He is not listed on the charity's website, except in historical news releases.

Celebrities can be vital in gaining media coverage and influencing donors. However it is important to remember that you are aligning two brands and the fall of one can do damage to the other. Just look at the ending of the commercial partnership between Adidas and Kanye West when Kanye allegedly said something against Adidas's values.

There have been many people who have fallen from grace. I joined the NSPCC post Jimmy Savile, hence ensuring that the charity added a celebrity safeguarding policy. When someone meets a celebrity there is a power imbalance and it's important that the person managing high profile supporters is completely conversant with this.

So what do you do when a supporter gets negative headlines?

Firstly don’t panic and act in haste but look carefully at what they are accused or convicted of doing. Does being over the drink drive limit or speeding mean they are not still able to help? If you're an alcohol charity then yes but if you are a medical research charity then possibly not. I have also had a celebrity charged with a significant drug offence who was subsequently found not guilty.

Secondly, if there is a conflict, the CEO needs to flag to trustees that the relationship is no longer viable. Review every interaction from media releases to events attended to ensure no one was put at risk. An honest and careful conversation needs to be had with the celebrity and/or their agent.

There is an historical story of a celeb who was interviewed by police about inappropriate child images. They were found completely innocent. During that period the celebrity wasn't invited to a big charity event they attended every year. As a result of the way the charity handled the situation the person walked away.

An agreed statement needs to be drafted, where possible. Proactive statements are not recommended. That just drags you into the story but you need to prepared.

Thirdly, like Phillip's agent, immediately remove them from your website as a Patron or Ambassador. Don't try and remove things that are already in the public domain, like media releases. We all know that anything that was on the internet is there forever and you can't remove every person's Instagram or Twitter post of a celebrity meeting them at your high profile charity event.

Fourthly, have due diligence processes in place. For some that will just be Google, at others there will be access to more sophisticated tools like Nexis Lexis. At one cancer charity I was tasked to find chefs. I found that one chef was a Patron of a pro smoking lobby. Needless to say smoking and cancer are not great partners. You won't always be able to spot problems. You can reduce your risk by doing checks in advance but you can't eliminate it.

No charity could have predicted this story but being prepared is vital. If an internal ITV investigation found no substance to the rumours then there is no way a charity can be expected to know. It's how you handle it that's important.

The big winner from the Olympic opening ceremony

2012-08-01T11:41:00.001+01:00

One and a half hours of entertainment and three weeks of wall to wall coverage; yes the Olympics have arrived. Needless to say I‘m avoiding it by listening to Radio 4 extra whilst medicating with something fizzy and pink.

Friday saw the much anticipated Opening Ceremony watched by nearly 27m viewers in the UK and a speculated global audience of 1 billion. I confess I watched until the 204 teams started entering the stadium when I slowly lost the will to live.

Widely considered to be a successful spectacle that was quintessentially British by the world’s media, the not-for-profit sector was represented in various forms. I’m sure I spotted the RNLI as well as the wonderful Kaos Signing Choir and membership organisations, Liberty and CND. I’ve probably managed to miss some other examples.

But for me the biggest winner from the night, as far as the voluntary sector is concerned, was the Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity. As the sequence on children’s literature began we were treated to J K Rowling reading an extract from Peter Pan. For those who don’t know, J M Barrie donated the rights in Peter Pan to Great Ormond Street. Whilst copyright currently lasts for 70 years from the death of the author, an amendment to the Copyright Designs & Patents Act of 1988 means that Great Ormond Street receives royalties in perpetuity.

We were treated to a 25 second shot of the GOSH logo – which looked fantastic from the aerial shot above the stadium. This link between GOSH and Peter Pan also gave a very neat way of tying together the NHS and children’s literature.

So why do I suggest GOSH were the biggest winners? Because, according to one media buyer a 25 second ad reaching that sort of audience could, were it possible to buy one, easily cost around £100m. Somehow I’m guessing that GOSH may have waived their extract fee given the value of what they got in return. A friend who’s a literary agent tells me that would have been in the region of £200 or so. It was also a fantastic opportunity to recognise what I often think of as the Hospital of Last Resort to many thousands of children across the UK.

Quote me, quote me.....

2012-05-25T10:22:00.002+01:00

The Independent has taken a look at celebs taking on 'ultra challenges' today and have included a bijou quotette from little old moi! They've also outed me as a girl - but am I? You can read it here.

What was that about paying peanuts.....?

2012-05-11T12:40:00.000+01:00

One of my bête noire’s is that the skills involved in managing celebrity relationships are not properly understood by some of the charity sector and frequently undervalued. As a result jobs are advertised expecting the earth for money that simply doesn’t match.

I was disappointed today to have one such example pointed out to me.

The role is ‘Celebrity Liaison Assistant’. Here’s some of what they’re looking for:

experience gained in either a talent, media, PR or charity environment,
hands on experience of working with celebrities and VIPS’s,
good contacts with agents, publicists and artists
strong and creative copy writing skills
strong understanding of the digital media landscape
strong influencing and negotiation skills

So not just doing the admin and supporting the team but actually doing some of the job then.

None of the above surprises me. All perfectly sensible requirements. That the job is an 11 month contract is fine. What really surprises me is how much they want to pay for the role - £18.5kpa.

If they can find someone with that skill level (most of which only comes with experience) good luck to them, but it really doesn’t seem to match what they’re asking for. By comparison one UK charity recently recruited a celebrity officer, working to a hugely experienced celebrity manager at £27k. Two major charities are currently recruiting senior celebrity managers, who run teams, at over £40k. In 2009 the Alzheimer's Society advertised a similar role, although with far less experience required, for £5k more

If the role is truly junior and they’re happy to recruit someone for whom this would be a second job then that’s fine, but I can’t see how someone like that will have all that they’re looking for.

Incidentally, I thought I’d look at what else is available in the area where the job was based. Candidates might be interested to know there’s a job going as a van driver which pays more, or indeed a role as an assistant manager in a sandwich shop which has a similar salary.

According to the GLA, the living wage in London back in May 2011 was £8.30 an hour or over £17k for a 40 hour week. Not sure who they think is going to have that level of experience and then want to work for a smidgen over a basic living wage.

In my opinion they’ve either seriously over stated the skills required or they’ve drastically under valued the role.

Can you ‘bribe’ celebrity support?

2012-03-21T12:34:00.000+00:00

It seems that once again passion and a misguided belief that celebrities don’t do enough for charities has spawned another website that will neither help charities engage with the famous, nor will it do anything to enhance the work of the charities being featured.

Readers of my blogs over at the Guardian Voluntary Sector Network may recall Africa Needs You (ANY), which I felt, although well intentioned, was misguided. You can see that blog here. Indeed, Unicef, the charity that was to ‘benefit’ from ANY, commented on my blog, saying “UNICEF does not encourage any activity that seeks to embarrass or challenge celebrities in a negative way in a bid to secure their support for any cause”.

Thanks to the ever eagled eyed @RobmDyson I have now discovered another well meaning but ultimately flawed attempt by enthusiastic volunteers trying to engage celebs with charities. Charity Bribes, unlike ANY, is more generous and charming in its tone and aims but won’t ultimately work for a number of reasons.

The concept is that individuals come up with ways in which a named celebrity could help a charity and then pledge money for the celebrity to do this. Site visitors vote for the favourite and each month the one with the most votes is selected to be taken forward. If the star in question does take up the challenge they have 30 days to participate. Should they do so then the money pledged will be sent to the charity – if not then the pledgers are not charged.

The creators, William Burks Spencer and Chris Baker, are quite clear that they are not affiliated to any charity which is featured and have made no prior contact with the celebrities.

So it’s a bit of fun and ultimately harmless? Right? Well yes and no. Let me break it down:

1) They have no prior relationship with the celebrity. That suggests to me that they therefore don’t know whether or not the celebrity already supports the charity.

2) They expect it to be completed in 30 days – this is a ridiculously short time in which to expect this to happen (if someone’s away filming a movie for the next six weeks then they’re scuppered). There is no consideration that the celebrity may have a ‘day job’ which controls their availability

3) There is no relationship with the charity. This too becomes a problem. The charity may have been trying to cultivate the chosen celeb for months and this won’t help that process

4) Random members of the public are selecting the activity without considering what the charity’s priorities might be. If you, as a charity, only get one or two requests from a high profile individual you’ll want to maximise the value that can generate

On the day I looked at the site the ‘bribe’ with the most votes was ‘Morgan Freeman to spend an afternoon narrating user-submitted animal videos’ with pledges going to the Red Cross. I can’t see how this really helps the charity.

1) Morgan already has a relationship with the American Red Cross

2) What have animal videos got to do with the Red Cross?

3) How does this highlight or advance the amazing work that the Red Cross does (apart from maybe raising a $1,000 or so)?

4) Who is going to organise these user-submitted videos? Who will edit them? Who will script them? Who will pay for this? What are you going to do with them afterwards?

5) If Morgan wanted to support the Red Cross again would this be the best use of the limited time he might be able to offer?

6) It is possible that an approach like this could damage the working relationship between the celebrity and the charity

7) If you were Morgan Freeman would you consider a donation of around $1,000 worth sacrificing your free time for when you know that offering the same amount of time at the right charity auction would raise considerably more for the cause?

My suggestion – let the charities decide what their priorities are and what the best use of potential celebrity support might be.

Whilst a nice idea, this project is not thought through and lacks any idea of how charities work or how they engage with celebrities. It’s always possible that I will be proved wrong but my gut reaction is that, apart from taking up the time and energies of its designers, it won’t achieve anything of value for the charities.

Festive 'Spot the Difference' with the X Factor

2011-12-02T14:23:00.001+00:00

Here at celebrity towers everyone seems to need a little Christmas – me, I’m a little more ‘Bah, Humbug’, at least until my third glass of champers. Anyway, I thought I’d attempt to join in the fun with a suitably festive game of ‘spot the difference’. So pop-pickers, can you spot the, rather expensive, difference between these two videos?

Here’s the spoiler sweeties….

It takes a while but if you pause at 48 seconds in you’ll see the frames below

Now you see him...

...now he's gone
...to Hollywood maybe?

As you can see M&S (okay, their ad agency, don’t get picky) has edited Frankie Cocozza out of the group scene from their X Factor themed Christmas ad. This is different from the various versions where they’ve changed the soloists in the line up as people leave the show. It’s specialist editing which needs to be done one frame at a time and, I’m guessing, can’t have been cheap – I would imagine it certainly won’t have been budgeted for.

But you might ask whilst this is all lovely, fluffy, Christmas frivolity and an excuse for me to put Crimbo cheer upon my blog what does it have to do with charities and celebrities? Well pop on the reindeer slippers and ears, pull up a comfy chair, grab a mince pie and something medicinal, and I’ll tell you (you may want to turn down The Sound of Music).

Many charities work with celebrities and that endorsement can have terrific benefits for the charity…… but…… here comes the science bit (well they said Management was a science at my university)… when you work with a celebrity you are aligning two brands, yours and theirs. Damage to one brand can affect the other. Whilst 99.9% of the time it will be fine just occasionally something happens in the celeb’s life which means you want to distance yourself from them – after all you don’t want an interview being dominated about their personal life instead of their support for your cause or your key messages.

You might say that Frankie’s alleged misbehaviour falls into the category of predictable but I know of cases when it hasn’t been. What if you’d secured Frankie to headline an event? Put him on posters? Even worse signed him up to a front your new ‘just say no’ to drugs campaign? If you’re M&S you quietly make him disappear (and of course have the funds to do it). If you’re a charity you can cancel press interviews, that’s cheap, but can you so easily afford to cancel an event, reprint posters or even recall all your fantastic ‘just say no’ leaflets?

There are no easy answers but it’s something any charity that works with a celebrity should always bear in mind. So my yuletide message is to not assume that once you have a celeb that everything’s solved and the world will be a happier place. Just occasionally what looked like a fantastic opportunity can turn into reputation management nightmare.

….and on that cheery note I’m off to look for last minute deals on a bauble-free winter break. It’s been tinsel a-go-go wherever I look since the August bank holiday and, quite frankly, I’m beginning to get a little fed up of it. Personally, I blame Charles Dickens!

The stunt that got lucky with timing

2011-08-11T12:14:00.001+01:00

A conversation this morning reminded me that real news has a nasty habit of getting in the way of your story or event as I mentioned back in June over the Conran donation to the Design Museum.

Last week Remember a Charity got a lot of pick up for this stunt with Rocky Taylor throwing himself from a burning ‘building’. Here’s the video:

Creativity is increasingly important and this got coverage because it was a lot more than a simple stunt.

1) Rocky is a world class stuntman

2) He’s 64 – which is probably 500 in stunt years

3) The stunt he was doing nearly killed him last time he tried it in 1985, so a real sense of jeopardy

4) The stunt actually tied back to the core message – ‘when you make a will think about charities as well’. I’d imagine anyone about to do a ‘death defying’ stunt would make sure they’d organised their will.

This was a straight media opportunity which went well – Rocky survived. I have no doubt it cost a fortune. They had numerous cameras and the insurance on a man repeating something that nearly killed him 26 years ago can’t have been cheap. However also think about how lucky they were with the timing.

Just a week later these were the images that were dominating the news:

Let’s be honest would you want to be staging that stunt this week? Even if you did, do you think any news outlet would want to run it? If anything the charity would have almost certainly come in for criticism for trivialising something we had just seen for real on the front page of many of the

’s papers – there’s a copy of that image on the Daily Mail website.

So when you’re risk assessing a media activity remember to allow for the possibility of real news either meaning you get no coverage or even worse that you have to call the whole thing off, possibly at great expense.

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

2011-07-26T16:20:00.000+01:00

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

2011-07-20T16:52:00.000+01:00

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?

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

2011-06-30T15:59:00.001+01:00

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

2011-05-10T15:58:00.000+01:00

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

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

2011-05-06T11:55:00.001+01:00

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?

2011-04-06T16:23:00.000+01:00

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!

2011-03-07T16:01:00.000+00:00

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!

2011-02-07T11:41:00.001+00:00

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)

2011-01-28T15:49:00.000+00:00

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!

2011-01-18T17:01:00.003+00:00

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:

Great celebs for the target audience (tick)
Interactivity on Facebook AND Twitter (tick)
Keeping people engaged & making them comeback (tick)
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

2011-01-12T10:49:00.000+00:00

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

2010-12-14T16:13:00.000+00:00

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.

Would you credit it?!

2010-12-09T16:28:00.001+00:00

Yesterday saw the ICAP charity day. The company describes itself as ‘the world’s premier interdealer broker and provider of post-trade risk & information services’. Since 1993 they’ve been donating all revenues from one day’s global trading to charity. In the last couple of years that’s been over £11m annually.

Picture from ES website

Like the BGC trading day, which it pre-dates by a number of years, the charities organise celebrity supporters to come along and encourage the traders, as well as getting a chance to make a trade.

The event got great coverage and made the front cover of London’s Evening Standard, featuring a picture of former Doctor Who star, David Tennant and inside was a picture of Bond actor, Daniel Craig. There was a great credit for ICAP – deservedly so. What there wasn’t was a reference to the individual charities the stars were supporting.

Picture from ES website

It reminded me of a couple of times when great celebrity supporters have failed to get a mention for the charity involved. One was Nicole Kidman launching Cancer Research UK’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month at Madame Tussauds which got picked up but with no mention of the charity. Another was when Hollywood A-Lister Ashton Kutcher visited a training exercise with the RNLI. This one, which was tied in to a film launch, didn’t even get picked up.

In the ICAP case whilst a mention for the charity would have been nice it wasn't essential. The main reason for asking for the celebrity support is to reinforce the relationship between the charity, ICAP and its staff. If the stars help raise the profile of the corporate supporter that’s great and worth using up an ask.

Getting the support of the sort of big names mentioned here is a terrific achievement and never easy. However they do not guarantee you publicity. Putting all your eggs in a celebrity basket is always a risk and doesn’t always pay off, which is fine if you recognise this, but it can be hard getting directors and trustees to understand. Thus managing expectations in advance of an event is incredibly important.

I won't say he told me so....but he told me so......

2010-12-06T12:54:00.000+00:00

In shock news it looks like Rob Dyson might have been right (see the tweets below). Last week I was extolling the virtues of Keep a child Alive’s celebrity ‘digital suicide’ fundraiser whilst he was taking a more conservative stance. Read Rob’s analysis here.

The aim is to raise US$1m. Until then the stars will refrain from tweeting and facebook.

The big launch was six days ago and I’d have expected the bulk of the money to have come in in the first day or two. However as you can see from the web site they have so far raised less than US$300,000, or under 30% of the target.

The question now is will it reach the $1m mark before the PRs, record companies and managers start telling the stars to get back online? They haven’t broken ranks yet but I’d be amazed if they didn’t.

In what will probably be a post mortem, rather than a debrief, the questions will be have they understood social media well enough? Rob clearly didn't think so (see his blog mentioned above).

From a fundraising perspective did they get the price point right? For many peopel a fixed donation can form a barrier to entry. Think of the fan bases, they are frequently young, many teenagers, with more limited disposable income. Maybe US$10 (about £6.40), when they get nothing in return, is too high. Think of a 14 year old girl on a pay-as-you-go contract. Is she likely to be happy with a $10 charge taken from her credit? Maybe lowering the price point to $2/3 would have helped. It's a difficult call to work out the price point at which you maximise participation. For example 100 people paying $10 is good but 500 people paying $3 is better

Lady Gaga, Ryan Seacrest and Usher will die – tomorrow!

2010-11-30T12:17:00.002+00:00

Even with celebrity support it’s not always easy to get good coverage so when a fundraising event is talked about in the New York Times and on the BBC News website you know someone’s doing something right.

To mark World Aids Day Keep a Child Alive is ‘killing off’ a host of celebrities. The ever growing list includes Lady Gaga, Justin Timberlake, Kim Kardashian (pictured above), Katie Holmes, Alicia Keys (pictured below), Usher and Ryan Seacrest. You can see the line-up on the event's website. Of course these stars won’t really be dying; they will be killing their digital lives for a day – no tweets and no facebook updates. Before they go offline each star will post a ‘Last tweet and testament’.

But fans need not fear since they can bring their favourite celebrities back to digital life by donating to the charity. The money is used to provide HIV medication to children in Africa and

India

It’s a clever idea that, like Christian Aid’s Quiz Aid, uses the fan base of a celebrity and combines it with social media – bypassing more traditional approaches such as producing print materials and using direct mail.

The money collection – always an important part of any big fundraiser – is also fast and immediate with donations of US$10 via text or online. Alternatively supporters can scan the barcode on the t-shirt, using a smartphone, to donate. For a small organisation it’s an ambitious fundraiser that punches well above its weight. With the celebrities having around 30 million fans, if only 1% of their followers donate that could turn into US$3m from one event; not bad for a charity which brought in US$4.3m in 2008 (last year for which figures are available). In addition that’s 30 million who’ll be made aware of the issue and their work.

The social media model of fundraising is still in its infancy so it’ll be interesting to see how well this works. I’ll update when they announce some figures.

Having just extolled the virtues of this celebrity led project I can hear celebrity managers across the UK running for cover as their fundraisers demand a similarly stellar line up to promote their own ‘big fundraisers’. But there’s a little fact I haven’t mentioned; the name of one of the charity’s co-founders. It’s none other than Ms Alicia Keys – she’s passionate about the Keep a Child Alive’s work and has visited its projects in Africa. Being on the celebrity circuit and having strong music industry contacts may have had just the smallest influence on stars signing up to a small charity – sometimes it’s not what you know it’s who you know.

Call Me!

2010-11-23T13:05:00.000+00:00

I can’t remember the number of times I’ve asked a celebrity to encourage people to call a phone number for more information, support or to get a fundraising pack. In the

nearly 11 million people tuned in to see celebrities ask us to call 0345 7 33 22 33 and donate to Children In Need (I believe the donation line is still open).

Fantastic I thought a charity appeal that gets it. Not the ask for money, the phone number. So many charities have non-geographic numbers but they are not 03 numbers and many don’t even seem to know about them, even though they’ve been around for years. Why does this matter? Well because I’m a cheapskate is the real answer.

89% of adults in the UK own a mobile phone but more importantly 14% of adults live in a home with no landline. I’m one of the latter – all my calls are made by mobile. I have a contract with an agreed number of minutes each month. Should I call an 0800 number (which are particularly popular for help and support lines as they are free from landlines) I will get a charge on my bill from my service provider as 08 numbers are excluded from my call plan. Ironically if I’m having financial problems and want to call the Debt Advice Foundation I am going to end up owing more money! That wasn’t a swipe at that particular charity. A huge number of charities use 0800 (free from a landline) or 0845 (no more than a local call). However if I call Pudsey Bear the call must be included in my mobile call plan in the rules set down for Ofcom – and are no more than an 01 or 02 number from a landline.

Non-geographic numbers were set up to be inclusive and many charities embraced these to become more accessible. However it’s a changing telecoms market and what was once the cheapest way for individuals to reach charities is no longer so. With 7 million people having no landline (based on a population of about 50 million adults) that’s a lot of people who are potentially not being reached. Whilst I’m hardly at the forefront of innovation (can I admit I’ve never used a games console?) it seems surprising that so few organisations have switched to 03. Indeed when they were launched in March 2007 some 03 numbers were specifically kept so that some 08 numbers could simply change the 8 to a 3.

Oh, and just in case you hadn’t noticed, there are now pan European 116 numbers which are free from mobiles and landlines in the UK. The first three were allocated at the end of last year to Missing People, Childline and the Samaritans.

Whether it’s Ofcom’s failure to get the message out about these changes, telecoms providers not informing customers or charities not keeping up with a fast changing world I don’t know. The only numbers I’ll be calling – and asking my celebrities to promote (I so know that’ll come back to haunt me) - will begin 03.

Slaughtering a sacred cow

2010-11-17T16:24:00.001+00:00

Tomorrow’s the day when a yellow teddy bear with an eye patch will be raising around £40m for children’s causes across the UK. That the figure is so large is in no doubt a result of the huge coverage across BBC National and local TV and radio.

The BBC is very clear on its approach to charities. This is to ensure no appearance of bias or endorsement. So why then did the BBC appear to breach its own guidelines with Help for Heroes’ ‘A Concert for Heroes’ which it broadcast in September?

Below is the Corporation’s Editorial Guidance on the mounting and coverage of charity events:

Firstly I think Help for Heroes is a fantastic charity and the concert, which drew in some amazing names to help raise money for an amazing cause, was terrific.

So what’s wrong you might ask? There are many worthy organisations which help improve the lives of servicemen and women both current and past. Help for Heroes is not the only one there’s Blesma, Ssafa and the Royal British Legion to name but three – actually there’s quite a comprehensive list on the Help for Heroes website.

The BBC has a number of ways it supports a great many charities through Children In Need, Comic & Sport Relief and the Blue Peter Appeal. In addition they have weekly radio and monthly TV appeals which, as much as is possible, spreads their support and access to their audiences across organisations both large and small.

Many BBC artists support important charitable projects and the BBC has very strict rules. For example if an actor in a continuing drama supports an organisation the BBC is quite clear that they are doing it in a personal capacity and the name of that drama or the BBC should not be linked as this would imply endorsement. This seems fair enough.

So this leads me to question whether Help for Heroes has now become an official BBC charity or whether, because of the calibre of performers this fantastic charity had secured, the BBC decided to ignore the rules? If I was really cynical, heaven forfend, I might think that:

The BBC has strict rules
Pull off a coup and get Robbie and Gary back together and you can forget A

If you watch the programme, it does feel like a telethon for the charity – although at no point is there a request for donations. The logos and images of the charity appeared heavily throughout the show. There were “this is the need” and “this is where the money goes” films. But the Corporation went further. Their own graphics (as opposed to those of the concert’s) also matched the charity’s colours and style.

If this had been on another channel I wouldn’t have queried it. But given so many other organisations have to follow strict but fair rules set out by the BBC it feels on this particular occasion the BBC seemed to be clearly endorsing one charity over another.

I am not being critical of either the charity or its superb work. Nor am I critical of it making the most of an amazing opportunity. It was a great PR coup – one I could only ever aspire to emulate. It just feels a little unfair on other charities that have to play by the rules.

Many charities organise fundraising concerts, just look at Mencap’s Little Noise Sessions or Teenage Cancer Trust’s Albert Hall concerts, but they’re not on the BBC. If charities have to obey the rules surely the BBC should too?

The case of the missing credit

2010-10-26T11:08:00.000+01:00

We all know the deal. Journalists aren’t always interested in your cause. Some are far more interested in the celebrity, so you hammer out a compromise. They get access to the celebrity and you get an agreed plug for an area of your work.

A typical example would be Sam Fox. She is a big supporter of Scope and as such went to support the charity at BGC’s charity day (see The biggest celebfest of the year!). The Guardian asked for an interview and, having been asked by the charity, she agreed.

For Sam it was something she was doing for the charity, not because she particularly wanted to do an interview for the Guardian. A deal had been struck that they would mention that Sam was supporting Scope at BGC.

Fantastic, everyone wins. The article came out on Saturday and you can read it here. There’s a prize for anyone who can spot the reference to the charity – it’s alright I’m not being generous, there isn’t one.

One of the most frustrating parts of working with celebrities is that no matter how hard you work, how well you cross the T’s and dot the I’s, the moment the interview has happened you have, in most cases, lost control. For whatever reason someone, probably a sub-editor, has cut the credit.

As so many communications folk will tell you this happens more often than you’d like. It’s certainly happened to me. A journalist may promise the earth but even they don’t control their work. What appears in the media is ultimately down to subs and editors.

Is there a solution? In reality, no. You could go back to the journalist and complain but that won’t change the article. You could try and guilt trip them into doing something else for you but there’s no guarantee. The fact is PR is not an exact science. There are no guarantees. A piece which was timed to promote an event may not get run until it’s too late. Even worse you go through all that and then there’s a real news story which means it gets dropped altogether.

So next time something like this happens around your project don’t blame the celebrity manager or media person who set it up. Just be glad you don’t have a job where you can spend hours working on something with no positive outcome at the end – and remember that the celebrity manager is the one who has to explain to the celebrity why the credit didn’t appear………and if they’re really unlucky, as a friend of mine was, the celebrity manager may also be getting it in the ear from the celeb's own publicist.