So let me see if I have this right. Here we have Mosh, by any standard a kept woman with no discernible talents or accomplishments of her own other than apparently being able to have orgasms with any camera on sight, and she’s lecturing on the empowerment of women? Seriously? What is wrong with this picture?
Then again, the media and the public are happy to give anyone with a tad bit of celebrity status any kind of credit:
They hug a brown baby - voila we have a humanitarian
They post a picture of a dead tree - tata: here is your environmentalist
They blog about their new vegan diet and make-up: Oh, look totally into health
They manage to get into a UN something (
and seriously how could something so wonderful like the UN de-generate into a media and celebrity circus?) and we have a Human rights, gender equality name it activist.
And to be fair, Mary is no shrinking violet, she and Fred know everything there is about female power....
I can't understand this either...and I've been working with different UN institutions for years! Some causes need publicity though (probably) so that may be it. I always get frustrated about celebs/royals using the UN system because the real people behind projects get overshadowed. But then again, as my boss tells me - it's not about individuals but about ideas and impact and all the ideas, operations, and impact and everything associated with that comes from people who do day-to-day work not from fame hungry people trying to establish themselves as something they aren't.
Yvonne, is publicity required for:
a) fundrasiing for solution/programme development and implementation?
b) solution adoption?
c) a&b
( Celebs include royalty for convenience) Where does the majority of the funding come from for example, programmes you are currently involved in? Does the value of a cdlebrity endorsement/support lie in face recognition/ networks? Face recognition would help with raising funds from Joe public, yes/no? Networks are where the single big donors would arise from yes/no?
Solution adoption could only be assisted by celebrity involvement if the celebs had some legitimacy, yes/no?
Are there more efficient ways to raise funding/awareness than celebirty endorsements or patronages?
Happy to be corrected by others but this is my experience:
- Fundraising for different projects may be why celebs may be needed for organization such as UNICEF, they also ask for donations from common folks in supermarkets and on flights, I've noticed. We always joke that UNICEF is a big charity, not a multilateral, but I love the organization nonetheless. I'm not sure though how much it is donations and how much it's money from governments that UNICEF spends. I don't think that donations are enough to cover the cheapest programs and salaries for staff and consultants working on them ...
- Celebs are never needed for solution adoption, it's done by senior folks - with at least P-4 level as it depends on so many factors that only insiders may know. Maxima may be an exception due to her work experience, but again she may only voice her opinion.
- UNDP, UNAIDS, UNESCO, and others work with money from nation states/governments and/or by cooperating with donors such as the World Bank, IMF, USAID. That's the type of funding used on the projects I've worked. Never through fundraising from the public or through celebs/royals. Nation states pay their regular part based on many factors (GDP, economic strength, etc) and in addition may give financial support to particular projects because of policies/threats in their own countries. Donors again come not because of celebs/royals but because of their own programs - it is beneficial to partner for many operational reasons.
- Nation states adopt UN frameworks not because of celebs but because it is UN people who come and talk to governments there, not people like Mary.
- I unfortunately can't comment on efficiency of different ways of fundraising or raising awareness as my field doesn't need that: we get stable funding from a few western governments and some big donors, and the topic is something that is important but doesn't require the public to contribute in any way, if that makes sense.
- One of the things UN is doing is changing attitudes/behaviors so this is where celebs may step in - gender equality, LGBTQ rights, refugees, for example - this is where the public in many places needs to change how they treat certain groups of people so having someone famous on board may be good for that. But Emma Watson or Jolie may be them, not Mary or Sofia or MM in the future.
