In this week’s reading, “Inspiring evangelists” Crutchfield and Grant talked about the win-win outcome nonprofits and some celebrities have achieved after those celebrities became the evangelists of those nonprofits. In particular, they took Arnold Schwarzenegger as an example.
In my opinion, involving celebrities can be a double-blade sword to a nonprofit. On the one hand, it can expand the influence of the nonprofit. More people will get to know the mission and value of the nonprofit. As a result, the nonprofit will win more donors and supporters for its idea. On the other hand, the fame of the nonprofit will fluctuate as the celebrity’s career goes up and down. When the celebrity is thought of positively by the general public, the nonprofit can benefit from being related to the celebrity. However, when some negative sides of the celebrity is exposed, it can do harm to the fame of the nonprofit. Some donors and supporters might start to relate the bad news of the celebrity to the nonprofit and wonder whether the nonprofit has some ulterior motives.
So what do you think? Do you think it is still worthwhile for the nonprofits to cooperate with some celebrities? Will the benefit offset the possible damage?
I agree that organizations should be very careful when deciding whether to partner with celebrities. If I was running an organization, I would steer clear of starting major partnerships with stars-of-the-moment, like the most popular actors and pop musicians. These celebrities are most likely to move in and out of the public's favor (and are probably more likely to act in ways that would tarnish an organization's reputation). Quite a few of the organizations mentioned in chapter 4 did partner with celebrities, but I think they probably chose wisely and put a lot of time into deciding whether or not to partner with them. Past presidents, other prominent politicians, and other celebrities who are more fixed in the public eye are probably wiser choices. There is still some risk of alienating potential supporters by partnering with these celebrities, but I think the expanded visibility often outweighs the risks in these cases.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also found the concept of 'celebrity as evangelists' intriguing. I was most intrigued by Teach For America leveraging Jimmy Carter's support. To answer your question, I think that it is situational. It all depends on how the nonprofit leverages celebrity support.
ReplyDeleteFor example, although Teach For America has supporters like Oprah Winfrey and Jimmy Carter, the general public does not immediately associate the organization with the celebrities. The general public tends to not associate the nonprofit with the celebrity largely because Teach For America does not market itself as a 'celebrity-driven' nonprofit. However, if a nonprofit is driven entirely by a celebrity, than it is bound to have risks. For instance, celebrity-controversy could create public scrutiny of the nonprofit associated with the celebrity. Overall, if the nonprofit is mission-driven and not 'celebrity-driven' than I do not find anything wrong with a celebrity serving as an evangelist.
I agree with what both Hayley and Tamaria said in response to this post. I think that celebrities can do a lot to increase name recognition of nonprofit organizations that would otherwise be unknown by the vast majority of people. While this is not exactly related to what you posted, I think it's also worth noting that celebrities can raise peoples' awareness about social issues (not just individual nonprofit organizations), as well, which has the potential to benefit many different nonprofits that deal with the social issues that the nonprofits work to alleviate.
ReplyDelete