As you very well know by now, among other things, I write about celebrities and their philanthropic efforts (or lack thereof).
I think it’s a great thing when a celebrity can support a cause that is already well-established. Surely, it can’t be denied that the right starlet aligned with a charity can mean major brand awareness and increased financial support.
However, should a celebrity be at the helm of an organization? Should they be Chief of Development or President and CEO of an effort to put a dent in the ailments of our world?
My answer is hell no.
To be a savvy NPO leader requires years of study, finesse and expertise. Experience is the best teacher when it come to good organizational leadership. Further, there are thousands of highly qualified applicants in the pool. Why add celebs into the mix?
So why, oh why, corporate America, do you choose celebs to not only endorse your goods, but take on ‘roles’ as well?
Marc Jacobs is “creative director” for Diet Coke. Justin Timberlake is “creative and musical curator” for Bud Light Platinum. Alicia Keys has a desk at BlackBerry. Beyonce wears a suit at Pepsi.
The list goes on and on. As someone who was in the entertainment industry for many years, I know that in fact, it isn’t these celebrities who are generating and acting on these ideas. It is likely those who support them and these companies.
Please, let’s stop insulting the intelligence of consumers and the millions who are out of work who could very well serve as marketing super-rockstars for way less.
I think celebs belong on a stage and should keep to using their super-powers for good not dollars.