The Red Cross Rivals Pork-Friendly Congress
Yes, you read that correctly. As Captain Ed points to this piece in the WaPo today.
The American Red Cross paid consultants more than $500,000 in the past three years to pitch its name in Hollywood, recruit stars for its "Celebrity Cabinet" and brand its chief executive as the face of the Red Cross -- just a year before ousting her, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.
In a $127,000 contract, a Houston corporate image company agreed to create a plan to make Red Cross chief executive Marsha J. Evans the face of the organization as part of a "senior leadership branding project" that ran from October 2003 to November 2004.
At the same time, Evans was laying off workers at the Red Cross's blood-services operations and at its Washington headquarters, as well as eliminating merit pay and limiting travel in a bid to cut millions from the national headquarters' budget.
This sounds strangely familiar, and I liken it to the way the education system is run. Has anyone noticed how the NEA and the Department of Education do not want "merit pay" for good teachers, and instead opt to raise pay based on tenure? Meanwhile the high-ups at the local level are the ones reaping the greater share of their budgets? And yet every year there is more and more money thrown at a failing system, and the fiasco created hardly warrants the raise in budgetary allotments.
The contract with Public Strategies Inc. pledged to secure at least two "media opportunities" a month for Evans and to get her speaking engagements before influential groups.
In December, Evans abruptly announced her resignation after a falling out with the organization's 50-member Board of Governors.
On Friday, the Red Cross defended the contract, saying Public Strategies landed Evans appearances before high-profile business groups and at other get-togethers, thus boosting donations to the organization when it faced financial difficulties in 2003 and 2004, including a depleted Disaster Relief Fund.
Ah, but the question remains as to where that money was actually going. Based on what you read here by the WaPo, it sounds as though the money was spent on things that were not needed. Those in need needed the money more than a sampling of PR stunts and appearances.
One nonprofit leader said hiring consultants to raise the public profile of chief executives, while unusual, could be defended if it increased donations. Even so, she said, the subject is seldom discussed.
It is not the chief executive who needs their profile elevated. It is the organization, as a whole, which translates to advertising dollars to TV outlets to run your commercials asking for donations to needy causes. The Red Cross, in their desire to increase their donations, has basically lied to the public. The money did not go where it was intended to go.
"It surprises me that an organization would do that and spend that amount of money," said Diana Aviv, chief executive of Washington-based Independent Sector, which represents nonprofit groups.
Also in 2003 and 2004, the Red Cross paid a Beverly Hills, Calif., firm $113,900 to promote its name to writers and producers for television and film to get the charity included in story lines.
Red Cross spokeswoman Carrie Martin said the contract has resulted in such successes as Red Cross first-aid kits included in the MTV reality show "The Real World" and Red Cross emergency vehicles used in an episode of the TV drama "The West Wing."
I do not watch "The Real World," and I only tune into "The West Wing" when I need a good laugh. (Believe me, nothing will leave you in stitches more than watching Martin Sheen trying to play the role of the president, and handling crisis after crisis in the Oval Office; the show is anything but "dramatic.") And I am sure that a fair majority of people who tune into the idiot box to watch such tripe barely pay heed to such things in the show. It is like watching a movie that is nothing more than one, two-hour long advertisement for cars, soft drinks, water, or Leftist causes.
Martin said the contracts were a defensive move as well, "to make sure that the Red Cross name and symbol is used appropriately."
How appropriate is it when the money given to a relief organization, such as the Red Cross, is instead spent on a PR campaign? It does not seem too appropriate to me. How about you?
But Peter Dobkin Hall, a specialist on nonprofit groups and a Harvard University lecturer, questioned the strategy's usefulness to the organization, which annually receives more than $500 million in donations.
It's "not as though the Red Cross needed to do it," Hall said. "When disaster happens, people turn to the Red Cross and throw money at them."
Ah, the ability to cut through the garbage and get to the point; TY Mr. Hall. Indeed, the Red cross is one of the first organizations with it's hand extended when crises occur, and donations are needed. EVERYONE knows and recognizes the Red Cross for what it portrayed itself to be. NOW we know different.
In 2003, the charity began paying New York publicist Paul Freundlich $6,000 a month to work in the celebrity world and solicit high-profile personalities for its National Celebrity Cabinet.
Cabinet members agree to participate for a year, attending Red Cross events and taping public service announcements, said Darren Irby, Red Cross vice president of communications and marketing.
Irby said Freundlich has helped the organization negotiate the labyrinth of celebrityhood.
"Working with celebrities has become, over the last decade, a lot more complex with so many more nonprofits engaging with celebrities," Irby said.
Members of the Celebrity Cabinet include actress Keiko Agena of the WB show "Gilmore Girls" and filmmaker Spike Lee.
Nonprofit groups say hiring celebrity "wranglers" is increasingly common among large charities that want to maintain visibility in fame-obsessed America.
And it is also good for that worthless Hollywood ditz or stud to get thier mugs plastered all over my TV. Hollywood has become the town that embraced President Clinton's familiar mantra of "I care," but few uphold it, and even fewer could really care about anything other than themselves, their "buzz," and their latest dose of pap handed out to the mind-numbed people of our nation whose lives seem to revolve around giving these fools any credence whatsoever.
UNICEF has a staff member who solicits celebrities, Save the Children has hired consultants to handle the work and Habitat for Humanity recently designated a staff person to work with celebrities, spokesman Duane Bates said.
Take note of these organization, dear readers. Their hearts, though they may be in the "right place" are hardly worthy of donations; this is especially true for UNICEF, on the heels of the sexual abuse allegations surrounding the UN and its peacekeeping missions.
"We know it's important to engage with celebrities," Save the Children spokeswoman Kate Conradt said.
Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, which monitors how charities spend their money, isn't impressed.
"They're hoping people will send them money on the basis of celebrity as opposed to good works and effectiveness," he said.
A $3 billion charity, the Red Cross has stumbled in recent years, drawing criticism for its performance after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina in the fall. Its leadership structure is under investigation in Congress. And in the past seven years, it has churned through five acting or permanent chief executives.
And that is what is the real tragedy of this whole story. Once considered one of the premier agencies for handling the needs of those in need--whether it was disaster relief or donations used to help people for health services, such as blood drives--it has been reduced to another petty organization working on it's image. The image it once had was more than enough for them. People knew that when disaster struck, the Red Cross could be counted on. 9/11 opened up a facet of the organization that most would have hoped had stayed swept under the carpet. Katrina showed even more of the mismanagement going on behind the scenes. And now, we have this piece from the WaPo showing just how bad that management really was.
Let this be a lesson for everyone to pay attention who you send your charitable contributions to. Check them out, and make sure that the money you send is going into the hands that need it, rather than those desiring it for their own little pet-project.
Bunny ;)
Yes, you read that correctly. As Captain Ed points to this piece in the WaPo today.
The American Red Cross paid consultants more than $500,000 in the past three years to pitch its name in Hollywood, recruit stars for its "Celebrity Cabinet" and brand its chief executive as the face of the Red Cross -- just a year before ousting her, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.
In a $127,000 contract, a Houston corporate image company agreed to create a plan to make Red Cross chief executive Marsha J. Evans the face of the organization as part of a "senior leadership branding project" that ran from October 2003 to November 2004.
At the same time, Evans was laying off workers at the Red Cross's blood-services operations and at its Washington headquarters, as well as eliminating merit pay and limiting travel in a bid to cut millions from the national headquarters' budget.
This sounds strangely familiar, and I liken it to the way the education system is run. Has anyone noticed how the NEA and the Department of Education do not want "merit pay" for good teachers, and instead opt to raise pay based on tenure? Meanwhile the high-ups at the local level are the ones reaping the greater share of their budgets? And yet every year there is more and more money thrown at a failing system, and the fiasco created hardly warrants the raise in budgetary allotments.
The contract with Public Strategies Inc. pledged to secure at least two "media opportunities" a month for Evans and to get her speaking engagements before influential groups.
In December, Evans abruptly announced her resignation after a falling out with the organization's 50-member Board of Governors.
On Friday, the Red Cross defended the contract, saying Public Strategies landed Evans appearances before high-profile business groups and at other get-togethers, thus boosting donations to the organization when it faced financial difficulties in 2003 and 2004, including a depleted Disaster Relief Fund.
Ah, but the question remains as to where that money was actually going. Based on what you read here by the WaPo, it sounds as though the money was spent on things that were not needed. Those in need needed the money more than a sampling of PR stunts and appearances.
One nonprofit leader said hiring consultants to raise the public profile of chief executives, while unusual, could be defended if it increased donations. Even so, she said, the subject is seldom discussed.
It is not the chief executive who needs their profile elevated. It is the organization, as a whole, which translates to advertising dollars to TV outlets to run your commercials asking for donations to needy causes. The Red Cross, in their desire to increase their donations, has basically lied to the public. The money did not go where it was intended to go.
"It surprises me that an organization would do that and spend that amount of money," said Diana Aviv, chief executive of Washington-based Independent Sector, which represents nonprofit groups.
Also in 2003 and 2004, the Red Cross paid a Beverly Hills, Calif., firm $113,900 to promote its name to writers and producers for television and film to get the charity included in story lines.
Red Cross spokeswoman Carrie Martin said the contract has resulted in such successes as Red Cross first-aid kits included in the MTV reality show "The Real World" and Red Cross emergency vehicles used in an episode of the TV drama "The West Wing."
I do not watch "The Real World," and I only tune into "The West Wing" when I need a good laugh. (Believe me, nothing will leave you in stitches more than watching Martin Sheen trying to play the role of the president, and handling crisis after crisis in the Oval Office; the show is anything but "dramatic.") And I am sure that a fair majority of people who tune into the idiot box to watch such tripe barely pay heed to such things in the show. It is like watching a movie that is nothing more than one, two-hour long advertisement for cars, soft drinks, water, or Leftist causes.
Martin said the contracts were a defensive move as well, "to make sure that the Red Cross name and symbol is used appropriately."
How appropriate is it when the money given to a relief organization, such as the Red Cross, is instead spent on a PR campaign? It does not seem too appropriate to me. How about you?
But Peter Dobkin Hall, a specialist on nonprofit groups and a Harvard University lecturer, questioned the strategy's usefulness to the organization, which annually receives more than $500 million in donations.
It's "not as though the Red Cross needed to do it," Hall said. "When disaster happens, people turn to the Red Cross and throw money at them."
Ah, the ability to cut through the garbage and get to the point; TY Mr. Hall. Indeed, the Red cross is one of the first organizations with it's hand extended when crises occur, and donations are needed. EVERYONE knows and recognizes the Red Cross for what it portrayed itself to be. NOW we know different.
In 2003, the charity began paying New York publicist Paul Freundlich $6,000 a month to work in the celebrity world and solicit high-profile personalities for its National Celebrity Cabinet.
Cabinet members agree to participate for a year, attending Red Cross events and taping public service announcements, said Darren Irby, Red Cross vice president of communications and marketing.
Irby said Freundlich has helped the organization negotiate the labyrinth of celebrityhood.
"Working with celebrities has become, over the last decade, a lot more complex with so many more nonprofits engaging with celebrities," Irby said.
Members of the Celebrity Cabinet include actress Keiko Agena of the WB show "Gilmore Girls" and filmmaker Spike Lee.
Nonprofit groups say hiring celebrity "wranglers" is increasingly common among large charities that want to maintain visibility in fame-obsessed America.
And it is also good for that worthless Hollywood ditz or stud to get thier mugs plastered all over my TV. Hollywood has become the town that embraced President Clinton's familiar mantra of "I care," but few uphold it, and even fewer could really care about anything other than themselves, their "buzz," and their latest dose of pap handed out to the mind-numbed people of our nation whose lives seem to revolve around giving these fools any credence whatsoever.
UNICEF has a staff member who solicits celebrities, Save the Children has hired consultants to handle the work and Habitat for Humanity recently designated a staff person to work with celebrities, spokesman Duane Bates said.
Take note of these organization, dear readers. Their hearts, though they may be in the "right place" are hardly worthy of donations; this is especially true for UNICEF, on the heels of the sexual abuse allegations surrounding the UN and its peacekeeping missions.
"We know it's important to engage with celebrities," Save the Children spokeswoman Kate Conradt said.
Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, which monitors how charities spend their money, isn't impressed.
"They're hoping people will send them money on the basis of celebrity as opposed to good works and effectiveness," he said.
A $3 billion charity, the Red Cross has stumbled in recent years, drawing criticism for its performance after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina in the fall. Its leadership structure is under investigation in Congress. And in the past seven years, it has churned through five acting or permanent chief executives.
And that is what is the real tragedy of this whole story. Once considered one of the premier agencies for handling the needs of those in need--whether it was disaster relief or donations used to help people for health services, such as blood drives--it has been reduced to another petty organization working on it's image. The image it once had was more than enough for them. People knew that when disaster struck, the Red Cross could be counted on. 9/11 opened up a facet of the organization that most would have hoped had stayed swept under the carpet. Katrina showed even more of the mismanagement going on behind the scenes. And now, we have this piece from the WaPo showing just how bad that management really was.
Let this be a lesson for everyone to pay attention who you send your charitable contributions to. Check them out, and make sure that the money you send is going into the hands that need it, rather than those desiring it for their own little pet-project.
Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home