As
another reality TV show wound to it’s conclusion, so it’s winner promptly
became the latest social media suggestion of a potential celebrity chief for
Guiding. This was only days after the
next lady due join the Royal family was the one being touted, hot on the heels
of suggestions of a former Blue Peter presenter, who had succeeded a former
Olympic rower, several female presenters of nature/countryside television
programmes, and various suggestions before that. The cynic in me suggests that soon the
reality show winner will have been forgotten, another name suggested, and so it
will continue. And if a celebrity chief
ever were to be appointed to head UK Guiding (which is a ‘big if’ given we
don’t even know whether the topic is under consideration), I suspect there
would be few praising whoever got such a job, no matter who it might be or
whatever relevant skills and qualifications they might have for the post – that
few drowned out by the flood of critics.
Regardless.
First
question – why might we want a celebrity chief?
A celebrity could attract publicity to Guiding, and could give it a
higher profile, especially if high profile themselves - which could encourage
recruitment, especially youth recruitment.
Higher profile is likely if they chose the right celebrity – one who
would be known to and attractive to all youth members (even the youngest), and
who would have on-going fame amongst the youth age groups in particular over an
extended period (not the classic ‘famous for 15 minutes’). But - also someone who would present a
positive image for Guiding to parents and the public, would mention Guiding at
many of their public appearances whether specifically Guiding-related ones or
not, and who would have the availability to attend some of the key Guiding
events each year.
We
would equally need someone who could do all that whilst avoiding ever doing or
saying anything controversial for the tabloids to latch onto – we have to
consider the age range, especially impressionable younger members – so no
inappropriate behaviour, at any time. From
the experience of Scouting we can see pros and cons of being fronted by a
celebrity whilst having a ‘working chief’ in the background – and a glance at
the Scout social media forums confirms that the picture is mixed, with a lot of
negative comment from Leaders regarding their current postholder (youth opinion
is harder to discern). This leads us
onto the less positive reason for some in Guiding wanting a celebrity chief or
figurehead for Guiding – simply ‘because the Scouts have got one’. Need we copycat everything they do, and be assumed
to be displaying jealousy? Or would the
pros outweigh the cons and justify that risk?
On the
pro side, there is no doubt that positive publicity enhances the image and
reputation of any organisation, and celebrities can bring media attention and
coverage to events that wouldn’t otherwise attract it. Media are far more likely to turn out to any
event if there is guaranteed to be a celebrity appearance and photo opportunity
to fill their gossip pages with, merely in exchange for mentioning the
charity. And dependent on the background
of the celebrity, it may help to bring awareness of the organisation to
sections of youth which can sometimes be hard to reach or to engage with,
helping to kill some of the myths about the organisation being white, Christian,
middle class, etc.
On the
con side, though a celebrity chief could attract publicity – you wouldn’t have
any choice over what sort of publicity it might be. Ill-drafted tweets, controversial opinions,
‘wardrobe malfunctions’, ‘four-letter words’, ‘indiscretions’ – any or all would
automatically be presented as ‘Guides’ chief says’ or ‘Guides’ chief does’ –
whether there was any connection between what was allegedly said/done and their
Guiding role, or none whatsoever, and whether it was recent or years ago. Not all publicity is good publicity, and with
anyone high-profile enough to draw media attention, all types of media
attention will indeed be drawn, good and bad.
To quote Jonathan Swift “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping
after it”. We’ve all seen the giant-size
tabloid headlines and double-page spreads accusing someone in the public eye of
whatever kind of inappropriate behaviour (and all failed, despite trying, to
spot the single paragraph of retraction, months later, buried in the bottom
corner of an inside page under a bland title!)
Nevertheless,
even with a ‘celebrity chief’ you would still need to have a ‘working chief’ as
well – someone to chair the meetings, to attend the County and Region events
around the country, to actually take charge of the running of the organisation,
to make the policy decisions, and do all the backroom work which doesn’t
attract attention, but is often more important than the occasional public
appearances which do. Would you still be
able to attract a sufficiently high calibre of candidate to this ‘working
chief’ job, if candidates knew it would mean doing all the hard work in private,
but being upstaged at public events by the celebrity who turns up for 20
minutes, signs a few autographs, says the ‘few words’ you scripted, then isn’t
seen for dust?
The
other thing to consider, is what you would actually be getting for your money
(for of course, the celebrity’s presence would generate expense even if they
themselves were giving their time for free).
How many hours a year would the celebrity be able to allocate to your
cause? If they are still active in their
career then any charity commitments would have to be fitted around their
working hours – and your bookings then fitted in amongst the bookings from the
other causes which have already recruited the same celebrity, or may in future
do so. Would the days/times the
celebrity can offer be ones Guiding could readily utilise? Would they be willing to attend events around
the UK and occasionally beyond, or only those within an hour’s travel of their
home? Then you need to consider the
expenses – when attending events will they require a driver to take them to and
from the venue, business class air travel or first class train? Helicopter?
Dressing rooms? Catering? Accommodation? Security?
Will they be willing to meet and chat to youth members at events – or
would they need to be protected and kept apart for ‘security reasons’? Will they be bringing staff with them, and
will those staff need hospitality too?
Would they be willing to appear in Guiding uniform - or not? Will extra admin staff be needed to deal with
their correspondence and itineraries?
Then,
what sort of person would we want to have, and what would we expect of
them? If you ask someone newly famous,
there is the risk that their career may wane – and you end up with someone who
doesn’t attract any media coverage for you, and whom younger members have not
heard of. If you ask someone more
established then they are likely to already have many other charity commitments
taking up what free time they can offer to volunteer work. Also , someone more established may not
currently be at a career peak – Rainbows and younger Brownies will only have
heard of someone who has been high profile during the last 2-3 years,
regardless what they have achieved in the past (or may achieve in the future),
nor whether they are reckoned to have ongoing fame by adults. If you choose an adventurer then it may help
to promote your organisation as outdoors-based and exciting, but you risk
negative headlines if the adventurer is caught taking safety shortcuts, if any
accidents happen to them, or if they are caught implying hardship or jeopardy
where actually there was little or none.
If you choose someone in the music or acting trades then their
performances and outfits (far in the past as well as recent) are likely to be
analysed in search of anything inappropriate for young children. Sports people are famous when at the peak of
their career, but careers are short and they retire comparatively young,
usually to a low-profile.
Last,
and perhaps most important – if we look back at some of the people who have
been caught up in public scandals over the last few years – many of them are
the sort of people who were or could have been approached by charities to be
ambassadors. We as an organisation have
to consider very carefully who we bring into contact with our young members. Even those who seem to be good role models
may turn out to have skeletons hidden in their closets. Is the risk of that justified by what might
be gained?
Do we
want a celebrity figurehead? And if so,
how do we decide on the right person, what sort of role would we be looking for
them to take, and to what extent would we be willing to live with the expense
and the possible consequences?
