Should artists perform stunts at Charity Shows to get more donations?

The use of stunts by artistes to obtain more generous donations is controversial. While there is no denying the bravery of the artistes, is it perhaps too excessive? Are the extra donations garnered worth the risk of injury (during the 1997 an actress fell and broke her nose during a rehearsal)? Stunts would also raise overheads through equipment costs and insurance. In my opinion these stunts are unnecessary as similar effects can be accomplished with other less risky performances.
First, let us look at why these charity shows are held in the first place. The key objective is to reach a wide audience, gain publicity and of course garner donations. Celebrities help to provide the publicity by giving a higher profile to the show and perhaps drawing their fans to watch the show. Thus, having the celebrities sing or dance etc. already satisfies their fans and gains the audience attention. This has been the recent trend in the President’s Star Charity with less stunts being performed. This has not resulted in a decrease in donations, instead the stunt-free 2007 show (raised $5.46 million) outperformed the 2008 show (raised $5.05 million). In addition, in 2007, the American Idol charity show also managed to raise US$ 76 million without the use of stunts.
In addition, stunts can be seen as overly dramatic and overdone, spoiling the effect. In the 2003 show, Hong Kong actress Zhu Mi Mi andMediaCorp artiste Pan Ling Ling Dangled from wires overhead and had to unlock chains that bound and submerged actors Aaron Aziz and Jeff Wang. While submerged to her chest, Mi Mi made a plea to viewers to donate. In my opinion, this is overdone and seems to be a blatant use of pity for the actress to garner donations. Other comments to the article this was reported had similar feelings. The knowledge that there are safety measures in place and thus not likely to suffer serious injury spoils some of the suspense. It also allows for allegations that the actors are merely faking.
Stunts themselves may be outweighed by other factors such as the economic condition. The 2003 show, which along with four stunts in all, including the above mentioned one garnered $540,000 from the hotline tally, down from the previous year’s $920,000. In addition, it raised $2.46 million, compared to the 2007 show’s tally of $5.46 million. This relatively figure was likely due to the economic downturn during that period.
Other factors such as public trust are also important. Events such as the NKF scandal can cause viewers to doubt if their donations are going to those in need. Thus, factors such as transparency of the charities are also important, not just a celebrity endorsement.
In addition, the stunts may detract the viewers’ attention from compassion for the less fortunate and the charities to their idols. They may thus donate on a one off basis, merely a spur of the moment decision inspired by their idols, with no lasting impression of the charities.
In my opinion, stunts may be needed only initially, to draw viewers’ attention and make them take notice. However, established shows like the President’s Star Charity are already well known so stunts are not needed. The effect of the stunts is also likely to decrease, with stunts being performed each time, there is the danger the stunts will become repetitive. Repeated use of stunts also makes the viewer “desensitized” and may lead them to treat the stunt as just another part of the show. Instead, the focus should be the plight of the less fortunate. Some viewers may not be aware of their plight or the severity of their situation and be moved to make consistent donations.
All in all, I feel while charities may have needed stunts initially to draw attention, this is not required in subsequent shows. Repeated use of stunts also reduces their impact. The extra cost and distraction from the plight of the less fortunate are other reasons why stunts are unnecessary.