Twitrelief twitstorm
Hello.
Like an awful lot of people, I’m on sale today. The deal is, if you’re on Twitter, you can bid money for me to ‘follow’ you. In addition to following you, I undertake to send you a personal tweet once a week. And also, I do a bit of stand-up on a subject of your choosing and put that bit in my next show.
This is a part of a thing called Twitrelief. It’s essentially a ‘slave auction’ on Twitter. All the money goes to Comic Relief. Fine? Pretty much fine, you’d think.
Twitter being what it is though, a lot of people have got pretty irate about this idea. Great, more massaging of celebrities’ egos! Great, a public who’s-got-the-biggest-dick contest between people who already spend all their time trying to out-do one another in wankerish ways. Fantastic, a patronising reminder that YOU (the public) are so adrift of THEM (the celebs) that you ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY MONEY before they condescend to listen to what you have to say. These are valid opinions. But wrong.
I think I’m fairly well placed to comment on this debate, because on the one hand I’m involved in this; on the other, I’m not a celebrity – I’m probably the least well known person in the entire shebang and was a bit surprised to be asked to do it. I agreed, as most people asked probably agreed, because if someone says ‘here’s something easy you can do which will raise money for someone in Africa, will you do it?’ you’d be a bit peculiar to say no. Or so you would think. But I’ve had some far from civil tweets and some of the stuff written has been far worse.
So here’s what I think, as briefly as I can put it. The purpose of Comic Relief is to raise a shitload of money for people whose lives are worse than ours by a margin that’s difficult to imagine, let alone justify morally. No-one disputes that. Within reason then, we should do pretty much anything we can within Comic Relief to make it as profitable as possible. This may mean that there’ll be some things happening which are not your personal cup of tea. I personally do not want to see people dressing up and clowning around to Lady Gaga tracks, so if I hear the words Let’s Dance For Comic Relief, my first thought tends to be No, Let’s Not Actually. But would I criticise the people involved? Hell no. Because if someone’ll get clean water for a year as a result of soap stars shaking their, or indeed ‘they’, booty, then how much of an arsehole would I need to be to stand in the way of that?
And that’s how I feel about Twitrelief. Some people might think it’s a narcissistic exercise, fine, but last time I checked, there was £400 on the table JUST TO BE FOLLOWED BY CHRISTIAN O’CONNELL. That’s four hundred quid for a family that lives off maybe a tenner a week. Don’t get me wrong, Christian is a really nice and funny guy (and I very much doubt I’ll raise that much). But you see my point. That’s just one man off the radio. Leona Lewis will probably fetch ten times that. McFly, who knows. This thing has still ten days to run. I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire enterprise raised upwards of £50,000. In the sort of communities this money is going, that’s a mind-boggling amount. Even if you’re the kind of cynic who claims that ‘well, hardly any of the money goes to poor people anyway, it goes to the charity’ – which is a crass simplification of the way charities work, by the way, but even if you do – then imagine just two percent went to actual Africans: £1000. Do you know how useful that thousand pounds would be?
Can you honestly say it would be better if that hadn’t happened, because much as you’d like a village in Sierra Leone to get a new well, you’d prefer not to have a complex about the relationship between celebrities and the public? Please.
Yes, of course it would be better if people just gave money to charity without the incentive of being ‘followed’ by a famous person, but the whole point is we tend to ignore the need of 3/4 of the world’s population unless we’re forced to confront it, so that’s why we have things like Children In Need and Comic Relief and so on. And yes, it’s all very well to say ‘well if celebs are so concerned about charity, why don’t they give all their money away?’ Answer: because like you, celebrities tend to be people who have other stuff to think about. Sure, Alexa Chung can probably find a grand somewhere else, and I guess Richard Curtis could sell his house and give everything he’s ever earned to a hospital. But it’s not very realistic for that to happen. It IS realistic for them to sell their names for a good cause. That’s what this is.
(You should also be very careful saying ‘why don’t X Y and Z give to charity themselves, if they’re so great’, because quite often, they do. A lot of well known people give huge sums to charities without publicity. Even I have got four different standing orders to charities. People aren’t necessarily doing stuff like Twitrelief INSTEAD of giving discreetly. They may be doing both.)
And as for people saying ‘how sad would you have to be to want someone to follow you on Twitter?’ – well, the fact is, whatever you think of it, Twitter is popular. Someone like Jonathan Ross has, whatever, more than a million followers. That means, like it or not, quite a lot of people find it fun to listen to him. That in turn means some people probably will pay to have some kind of conversation with him. Weird? I guess, but then isn’t it weird to buy a version of ‘Heroes’ you’d never actually want to listen to when you had the Bowie original, or attend a kids’ cake sale when you could easily get a better cake from Sainsbury’s? Yes. But you do it so that much worse-off people benefit.
So if you have a problem with it, you’d better be able to prove (a) giving to charity is actually not a good thing, or (b) you personally have a better way of raising £50,000; not as in ‘oh, well, if footballers didn’t earn so much…’ or ‘if Bono did this and that’, but YOU yourself can do better. If not, perhaps best to admit that an event which raises sacks of cash for good causes out of thin air is not such a bad idea.
Sorry to rant, but it pisses me off when people get like this about a charitable venture which isn’t harming a soul. It feels like not seeing the wood for the trees.
So anyway – you might well not feel like paying money to have me take an interest in you, especially as I tend to keep a fairly close watch on many of my readers anyway. But if you search Twitrelief on ebay you’ll find it. (I’m not sure I’m up there yet; they’re putting us on sale a few at a time. I assume I’m being held back for last. It’s 2am here, but I feel strongly enough about this that I’ve stayed up to write a blog.) Spread the word. Naturally, if the successful buyer IS someone from this blog, I imagine I might throw in a few little extras. But that sounded a bit more sexual than I’d have liked.
Do you know what the really annoying thing is: six months ago I’d have posted a link to this blog on Twitter, but at the moment I just can’t be doing with all the arguing-with-idiots that would ensue. So maybe Frankie did win after all. Oh well. I’m off to bid for Leona. Night.
Posted by Rachael on March 14, 2011
I agreed from the start. Who is christian o’connell?
Posted by Beth on March 13, 2011
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you’ve said. It’d be nice for people to give to charity without an incentive, but, if this is something that raises huge sums of money and awareness relatively easily then I can’t see anything wrong with it at all.
Posted by Kate W on March 12, 2011
I agree with Mark (and additionally with Linzy and Anna). It’s fundamentally a good thing to raise money for Comic Relief and people being annoyed by that need to take a breath.
I’d agree that some of the “extras” on offer are amazing and I’m slightly puzzled that they’ve chosen to highlight the Follow bit above everything else. The majority of what people are bidding for isn’t actually a Follow, it’s a prize you might have in any charity auction (but in some cases, better – the idea of going to the pub with Caitlin Moran, getting Bill Bailey’s guitar or having chip tea with Stuart Marconie is ace). The charity absolutely needs to make the most money it possibly can, but it would have been great if there could have been a raffle/draw as well as the auctions, if only so those of us who can’t donate £200+ could get involved. And the competitive element could work in much the same way – just measure how much has been raised in £5 tickets for a particular celeb. I’ll definitely be donating, it just won’t be through Twitrelief – I was outbid for an Michael Kupperman portrait in seconds….
Posted by Aislinn on March 12, 2011
Right this moment you’re my favourite person in the world ever.
Posted by Daniel on March 12, 2011
Really good piece. Twitrelief is hardly self-promotion or massaging of egos, it’s just people doing what they can to help and I have been amazed by just how much money is being bid. Good luck to everyone involved.
Looks like there’s no chance of Mark breaking out the spandex and giving us his best Irene Cara / Fame routine on Let’s Dance though. A sad loss…
Posted by Lydia on March 11, 2011
I think you’re right.
Though I can’t pretend that how celebrity centered a lot of it is doesn’t bug me sometimes. But then I guess pretty much everybody could say that. I would never not be involved in it because of that though, it’s way too important. And during the day none of that stuff really registers anyway, because there is always weird stuff going on at school with teachers getting waxed and other disgusting things you would never normally want to see, lol.
I would be terrified to be the person who won the Twitter thing. I think they could have made more prizes for people who don’t want to feel like they have to say something massively insightful every time they tweet because someone they admire is watching (and judging) them. I guess it’s the most attention grabbing thing though, and again, that’s the important part.
Posted by LauraJ on March 11, 2011
It’s not just the Twitter idea that has had backlash, similar things have been said about the 100k walk in the desert. I completely agree with Mark, if you’re not interested or disagree then leave it alone, don’t actually go to the effort to complain about people who are fundamentally trying to do A GOOD THING!
Posted by Ingrid on March 11, 2011
Very well said.
I was looking at it last night, and i was surprised by how much people are bidding already! I thought it might be nice to bid, but then i thought the added pressure on having to say something witty by it being seen by you favorite celebrities probably isn’t something i would want. So im just going to donate regularly instead.
Posted by corey on March 11, 2011
Well said Mark
Posted by cymruangel on March 11, 2011
Excellent piece Mark. I actually am a charity fundraiser (and there are people who don;t agree that what I fundraise for is a legitimate cause) so thought I’d add my 2p worth…
As you point out, this is essentially a giant charity “slave auction” – these often take place at big gala dinners for charities, to which rich people are invited and whom inevitably walk off with the prize because they have the most money. This is the whole point of the exercise: to ensure that the charity raises as much money as possible, NOT to give access to a person or thing just because someone happens to be a fan. The alternative would be a prize draw, with lots of people paying £5ish and the winner drawn out of a hat but, and here’s the thing, that tends not to raise the same amount of money. This is because it lacks a competitive element/ because it’s really all down to fate, not tactical bidding. Also, the results of a prize draw or raffle can ALSO be fixed by a rich person buyin 90% of the tickets, so really it’s no fairer anyway.
Plus, I believe that the Twitrelief scheme really has a dual purpose: part of its role is to provoke discussion (and perhaps Emma Kennedy hadn’t quite intended to cause quite such controversy, but no publicity is bad publicity and all that), and it’s undeniable that this certainly has. Every time someone new complains and uses the hashtag, that’s another nudge into the wider consciousness of Twitter/ the world.
To a certain extent, I don’t see the fuss – I wouldn’t pay to have a celebrity follow me on Twitter, because I think half the joy of someone responding to your ramblings is that they actually find you interesting/ amusing, rather than being paid to like you, and also because I don’t have enough money. And if someone happens to possess £1000s and wants to spend them on both ‘buying’ a follower (and don’t forget that a lot of people, like Mark, are offering additional prizes) and helping charity then hurray for them. This idea might in fact prompt some people into giving who would never have done so before, precisely because there IS something in it for them, which is not always the case with charity donations – it’s not a great attitude, but at the end of the day the charity, and more importantly those it helps, will benefit.
I won’t bid to be followed (no offence intended to anyone!) but I will donate to Comic Relief regardless, and will celebrate innovative ideas like this which raise the profile of charitable giving.
Posted by Carl on March 11, 2011
Cracking blog, Mark.
I’m not a bug fan of seeing some of the entertainment in Comic Relief, but that doesn’t stop me from donating. It’s like an old variety show, they’ll be bits you like, bits you dislike and bits that make you cringe, but unlike a Bruce Forsyth or Ant and Dec show, the money helps a lot of people in need.
Hope you make a lot of cash, Mark. Even for this post alone.
Posted by Chris H on March 11, 2011
Very well said. I just wish those complaining so violently put as much energy and effort into making the world a better place.
Posted by Shell on March 11, 2011
Bravo! All good points.
I wish you had felt you could have tweeted it (and then ignored the idiots and let them argue amongst themselves if possible) as that felt less directed at us regular blog readers than usual and more to address ‘those out there’ who’ve been whining about this.
I think we can all do our bit as we see fit and as we are able…only this evening I selflessly ate a MaltEaster bunny, thereby donating 2p to Comic Relief…yes really…but I don’t like to brag…(Actually I did brag all over twitter – oh for shame!)
There seems to be a bit of a backlash happening with the celeb thing generally and whilst I think it is healthy to move away from the mindless worship and emulation thing, being negative and judgmental about everything celebs do /just/ because of their fame is just as lacking in balance and perspective.
Ah well – I think your offer along with the follow is a cool and unique one. If I won that I’d probably try to choose a really tricky (in a fun way) subject for you and I’m sure you’d handle it with aplomb!
x
Posted by Matthew B on March 11, 2011
I agree and disagree:
- Anything that raises money for charity is a good thing. Undoubtedly.
-The whole legalese and disclaimer around the ninety day limit (and I note, that you Mark have put 6 months) does make it seem a little seedy.
In the end, I am sure this “negative” reaction is not an enormous shock to the organisers, and I am sure it is also a lot of publicity. This has been talked about a lot on twitter, and that makes people seek out the auction and just have a look, and a lot of the things definitely seem interesting if just for the extras included.
That said, I am sure it must be absolutely horrid to be persecuted for doing something just to raise money for charity at personal expense of time and energy. No one berates Marathon Runners for just seeking self publicitiy.
Posted by Emily on March 10, 2011
Frankie only won if winning means having the most arsehole twitter followers. Mark’s got this lot of loveable weirdos to tell stuff to, and in a lot more than 140 characters.
I agree, though. People seem to get more inexplicably irritating about charity than anything else. I don’t have twitter, but this is a great thing to do and I’m sure, for the person who eventually wins, being followed by Mark is a brilliant reward. And a personal tweet might pretty much make their week.
(A level module results + wine = first comment in ages)
Posted by Lisa D on March 10, 2011
Not only am I completely sick of people complaining about the different ways charities come up with to raise money–without offering a viable alternative in its place–but this idea is not so much new as a new format for an old idea. People auction off autographs for charity all the time without being told it’s an ego trip, because it isn’t. It’s providing something that fans are willing to pay for. And this is SO much better that a framed bit of card or a headshot photo. What I find amazing is that people can complain about celebrities stroking their ego while simultaneously being so closed up in to their own world view that they miss the part about helping obscenely poor human beings.
Posted by Beth on March 10, 2011
I’m tired, so I’m just going to say – what Mark said? That’s what I think as well. Well put, sir, and two very enthusiastic thumbs up.
PS, Mark, if you’re still in Brisbane – say Hi to my city for me!
Posted by Ally on March 10, 2011
Gah. I find people like that so frustrating. I think the whole twitrelief thing is a brilliant idea. It’s nice to the benefit that all this new media stuff can have as opposed to hearing about how it’s going to end the world as we know it (For my degree in media the people running it are awfully anti-media considering they study it…)
Posted by Suzy on March 10, 2011
Very well said! Some people just can’t accept that others have different opinions about things and just respect that, and that’s very sad. I will bid for you if I can afford it, because you are lovely and it’s for a very good cause. I won’t berate others for choosing not to if it’s not their thing. I would hope they wouldn’t berate me for joining in. There are people out there with nothing, literally nothing .. young children living on the streets with nothing and noone … how people can justify criticising others who are raising money on their behalf is beyond me.
Posted by amycool on March 10, 2011
P.S. Wow, Christian O’Connell is beating JLS and Leona
Posted by amycool on March 10, 2011
I very much agree. I was surprised when trying to raise sponsorship for Sport Relief last year when one person got really angry and started a tirade against any charity. I hadn’t even asked that person for any money! So they made me feel embarrassed in public as if I were begging because they personally don’t believe that anyone should receive help from anyone else in any situation (unless it’s them). Some people are just pig-headed and you have to assume that the majority of people are kind, lovely and caring or you’d get very depressed.
I don’t use twitter anymore but sadly I have no money to bid anyway (found out today that the house we’re buying needs £3000 of work…we don’t have £3000)
Posted by Jen on March 10, 2011
well said that man… Jx
Posted by Anna Lowman on March 10, 2011
If there’s a gripe to be had with TwitRelief, and it’s not much of one, it would be that a raffle system would feel more Twitter-esque (collaboration, inclusivity etc) – everyone could donate a fiver, and come away happy in the knowledge that not only have you given to charity but you’re in with a chance of someone you admire following you – which is just a nice thing! (The moral/high horse argument, as you say Mark, just doesn’t wash. It’s boring and churlish.) I assume theyve worked out that a bidding system will just plain raise more money though, and while it excludes a lot of people getting involved, that is in the end the bottom line when raising as much money as possible is the whole point.
Posted by Phill on March 10, 2011
I honestly can’t understand what all the fuss is about. If you don’t like TwitRelief, then don’t visit the website. You don’t have to get involved. You don’t have to bid.
I just thing some people like a moan if the entire world doesn’t bow itself to their own personal taste sometimes.
Oh, and “I tend to keep a fairly close watch on many of my readers anyway”… I’ve noticed someone hanging around the area a bit recently in a raincoat. Mark, I’m onto you…
Posted by ChrisP on March 10, 2011
Yup, well said indeed.
Posted by Anji on March 10, 2011
Frankie did not win. Sometimes putting you first is more important, and in this case, if not posting the link saves you some hassle and stress then that’s OK!
I tend to feel the people who shout the most do the least towards whatever it is they are shouting over. If something little old us can do, potentially helps a lot of others worse off, then surely it’s a good thing!
I won’t be bidding on anyone to follow me, purely for the fact I hardly ever use twitter, but I will be doing something to put cash in the mix.
Hopefully Mark, when you wake up, the new day is less pissey offy and something else is getting everyones attention!
Posted by Misha on March 10, 2011
I’m with Linzy, in reality being followed by someone you admire (be they famous or not) really just means you spend a large amount of time feeling self conscious that someone you think is awesome can see your banal witterings about weeing. (mentioning no names
However, I do think it’s a lovely idea to raise money for charity. I gave a fiver to comic relief last week which gave me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
It has to be said i’ve not seen the furore either, but i’ve been asleep in a small heap all day, so yeah.
Posted by Linzy on March 10, 2011
Well said!
I’ve not seen much of the furore surrounding this, but I find it upsetting that people can be so opposed to raising some money for charity, which is what this is all about.
I do wonder if they’ve gone for the wrong angle with all of it though. While the whole Twitter follow thing is raising a lot of attention on Twitter, I do think some of the extra prizes are more interesting than the being followed by that person. If you win Chris Addison, for example, you’d also get a phone call from him and Peter Capaldi as their respective characters in The Thick of It. That is certainly something I’d be more interested in than being followed by someone, but maybe that’s just me.
I couldn’t begrudge anyone for taking part or for bidding. As you said, if someone can use their name to raise money for a good, then why shouldn’t they? I hope the whole thing makes them a shed load of money for them!