TED Conversations

Lakshmi Narayan

This conversation is closed.

Celebrity Activism: Who ultimately benefits, the celebrity or the cause?

I am doing a dissertation on this topic and would like people to give an opinion on what they think of the question. I study PR so anything that relates back to media, how the publics attitude is swayed and what happens if the celebrity and the cause don't align, and does the cause push the celeb profile or the other way around. Case studies that I've looked at are- Bob Geldof-Live Aid, Joanna Lumley-Gurkhas , Sean Penn-Haiti and Angelina Jolie- any campaign she has been affiliated with.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 21 2013: To sort out the genuine from the most self interested will be difficult. Even people such as Mother Teresa, with great contributions to the poor of India, had in fact ? secrets lurking in the closet. Such things as political biases, power, self interest, conflict of interest, race or religious biases are never ever apparent. Sometimes it may the thing that clinches a big contracts . Not every one operates with a transparent profiles. I am sure there are some really genuine souls who want to help because they themselves have made it big. e.g Warren Buffet
    The Mahatma ( Gandhi) was the most self less human being any century has ever seen . He may not have been a celanthropist in the true sense of the word , yet any publicity or marketing globally, he attracted brought India its independence. His was based on very severe personal scarifices, He was without a doubt a visionary leader who asked nothing for himself. He was exemplary . He was not dressed in Armani suits etc, but a dhoti for which he suffered ridicule in Britain from the then prime minister who called him a ' naked fakir.' Imagine walking around in a dhoti half frozen just to regain India's diminishing cotton industry which had been diverted to UK. One may or may not agree with all of his philosophy or concepts etc, yet one has to acknowledge that he himself personally courted no real advantage politically, materially or in any other way. He was a true spiritual leader, a highly developed soul perhaps, which would explain the reason for his selfless scarifice. All free Indians everywhere owe him a lifetime of gratitude and thanks for what he achieved, independence for 'FREE INDIA.' All that through non violence and passive movement . He was a great man and he was an Indian.
    Unintentionally perhaps Gandhi achieved a kind of 'global brand in leadership'. It was not in a commercial sense but rather in a spiritual sense and no less worthy.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.