mondochallenge
close this window

Select a challenge:

You have chosen to accept our mondochallenge; that's great news!

As you can see, you have a choice. It should only take you a couple of minutes to get through it. Additionally, if you score a perfect 10, we'll donate one euro to a local charity. So go ahead and see how much you know about topics related to our own business.

Home ›› Expression ›› Blogs ›› Giray's blog ›› Champions of change?

Champions of change?

Companies have had spokespeople for decades, so too have public interest organisations. Is the approach valid? Do the benefits outweigh the risks?
Image taken from Gillette website as a screen capture.

By now most of you will have heard and opined on the Tiger Woods saga. Yes, he did cheat on his wife. Yes, he has tried to keep a low public profile about it. Yes, his sponsors initially stood by him, albeit lukewarmly. But no, the story has not gone away. No, his sponsors have not now stuck by him. And no, he won't come out unscathed.

By the time you read this, who knows what else might have transpired, but that is not the purpose of this blog. Instead, I would like to debate if ambassadors do a cause good. Are they valuable attention getters? I've blogged about this before and those of you who read this blog regularly know that I am split. On the one hand I welcome the extra attention but on the other hand, from experience, I know that goodwill ambassadors are often/usually very available for the first three days of their commitment. Then 'whoosh' they vanish. Their agent will always reply they are too busy or away (on some Antarctic research mission no doubt!).

There is another issue: the dark closet. Few people don't have one, especially those whose life has been dedicated to a steep climb, often by all and any means. How can one be sure that there is clarity? One cannot and so one gambles.

My opinion is that ambassadors should be vetted to only include those who want to give genuine time to the cause. Yes, Brad Pitt seems to be genuinely committed to New Orleans. No, Jackie Chan does not seem committed to AIDS. Sorry to be so blunt, but I really do want to increase attention to causes, not to the celebrity. If this is their way of cleansing their sins, stick to your day job. If, on the other hand, you want to really make a difference, join in.

One closing note. I won't name him, but we recently had an interesting connection with one of the Gillette champions. She or he (actually they're all guys) is willing to speak for a razor blade but was not interested in supporting a cause — a major international cause — that was attached to a treaty/convention/accord that was signed in his city; shame.

Comments

Log in or create a user account to comment.

Giray

Giray's blog

Welcome to my blog. In it you will find some of my thoughts on campaigning, institutional change, the issues and current events that shape them.

Calendar

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Tag cloud