In Brief: Using celebrities is bad for charity fundraising, research suggests

Using celebrities for charity fundraising and campaigning is counterproductive, according to a new report from the Development Engagement Lab, which monitors public attitudes around aid. In a poll of over 2,000 people across all social classes in the United Kingdom, messages from front-line aid staffers were found to be the most impactful with the public. Celebrity entertainers serving as spokespeople decreased the chance of Britons saying they were likely to sign a petition. Respondents were 7% less likely to make a donation if being asked by a celebrity. The most effective messengers were those seen by respondents as both “warm” and “competent”: volunteers, front-line workers, and a group the report labeled “iconics” — famous people who aren’t entertainers, such as Malala Yousafzai. The findings “provide a check against the presumption that messengers rated highly on some traits are also necessarily effective in appeals,” the report said, highlighting that people saw celebrities as “warm” but not necessarily “competent.” Scoring even lower with respondents than celebrities were businesspeople and philanthropists. The survey data also found that female messengers were more persuasive with audiences and that there were significant biases among Britons against messengers belonging to minority ethnic groups. Why does it matter? The development sector has long relied on celebrities to promote causes with the public. Actor Angelina Jolie famously joined forces with former Foreign Secretary William Hague for the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative. Unicef UK’s website lists dozens of celebrity supporters, including former soccer player David Beckham and actors Olivia Colman and Tom Hiddleston. However, the use of celebrities in campaigns has sometimes attracted controversy, particularly accusations of “white saviorism.” The data suggesting biases against spokespeople from minority ethnic groups is another aspect of this.