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.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 22 2013: Thanks for the reply

    Is your Naomi Campbell supported PETA example supports the thesis?

    PETA may have been damaged by Campbell's endorsement - but was Campbell damaged or was her reputation/brand reinforced?
    • thumb
      Apr 23 2013: I'm not sure I'll be using that example in depth but honestly I don't think Naomi Campbell cares about her reputation much as she seems to do 'bad' things all the time, but is still a successful albeit ageing model. She has a good publicist, even with the blood diamond issue at the Hague, she was in the papers for that time and now everyone seems to have forgotten about it. PETA is an organisation that doesn't choose it's celebrity affiliation carefully as they realised early on that a celebrity in their ad campaign would make a huge statement and they've carried on with that PR/Advertising model. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, that's their motto!
    • Apr 23 2013: Pity she (Campbell) doesn't treat her staff better, but i suppose peta dont care about that.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.