Idol Gives Back

Well, in all truth, American Idol gives me a headache. I know it’s blasphemous to speak of this prime time pop music phenomenon in such a disrespectful manner, as I seem to be in the unpopular camp on this one; the vocal talent show has an enormous amount of followers spanning the nation, with roughly 20 million dedicated viewers (give or take a few). I’ll admit I tune in each week to watch a group of culinary authorities nitpick over the exact amount of citrus in a savory South American ceviche, and I can’t tear my eyes away from the screen as that blond tressed, bandana clad, aging front-man continues in his quest for love. So, it’s not so much this variety of reality television that I find troublesome. I simply can’t stomach a program whose stars include an egomaniac that prides himself on lengthy diatribes and the individual responsible for introducing ‘Straight Up’ to the nation in the early 90’s.

Putting my personal hang-ups aside, however, ‘American Idol’ recently caught my attention with the noble new charity aptly named ‘Idol Gives Back’. As one of the few Americans who didn’t have the pleasure of watching the broadcast on Wednesday, April 9th that featured the effort, I am intrigued by its ability to raise millions in a matter of minutes.

The fundraiser-awareness campaign hybrid kicked off in 2007, spearheaded by ‘American Idol’ with the help of the Charity Projects Entertainment Fund, and drummed up a hefty sum to the tune of $76 million from dedicated fans for various non-profit organizations across the globe. Now its own entity and in its second year, I can’t help but be impressed by the fact that since only last Wednesday night’s show, the charity has already raised $225 million for this year’s fortunate organizations: the Children’s Defense Fund, the Children’s Health Fund, the Global Fund, Make It Right, Malaria No More and Save the Children’s U.S. programs. Somewhat of a celeb-extravaganza, and sponsored by huge corporations such as Coca Cola, Ford and Exxon Mobil, the show featured everyone from Brad Pitt and Reese Witherspoon to Snoop Dogg and long lost Heart (remember them?).

Even British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was involved in the shenanigans, and pledged to buy 20 million mosquito nets for malaria-hit countries on behalf of his country (accounting for the majority of the $225 million that was raised).
Leaps and bounds from the antiquated Sunday afternoon PBS phone-a-thon, all parties rallied to address prevalent, international issues such as poverty and hunger, and the need for increased attention towards catastrophic diseases such as Malaria.Viewers soaked up images of ‘Idol’ judges gallivanting about the globe and a smorgasbord of celebrities speaking to the importance of giving back. And, apparently, the spectators did.
If only a one off event, this circus seems to have served its purpose: widely broadcast and create a buzz around the selected causes, then raise as much as possible for them. Still, I find myself with many a question, aside from the obvious logistical questions most non-profits are constantly pummeled with concerning percent towards overhead, measurable returns, and the like. And, for the record, ‘Idol Gives Back’ has yet to release a formal financial report.

A recent brief in the Chronicle of Philanthropy very concisely highlights a number of the queries that naturally arise: Is it the cause, the pitch, or the show that leads people to give? Are people giving to the images they see on TV or because of the celebrity pitch? And, I’m tempted to add, if this is truly an awareness campaign, and considerable dollars are raised for the cause at hand (which, can never be a bad thing, right?), does a donor’s intent or motivation even matter?
On the other hand, there was Save Darfur (which has yet to be saved, to my knowledge) and Free Tibet (whose brightly colored peace flags adorn many a stylish college dorm room, right next to the tapestry and Phish poster). While both campaigns were hugely publicized and, at their peak, support even dangerously trendy, they seem to have faded from the limelight only to be replaced by new charitable fads.

50 years ago the WHO led a campaign to eradicate malaria by raising funds and awareness around the deadly disease, similar to ‘Idol’. Initially appearing to be a step in the right direction, it became a mere Band-Aid that led to fierce resurgences.
While the juries still out on the conundrum of benefits versus setbacks, it’s indisputable that awareness is essential in eventual systemic change. ‘Idol Gives Back’, along with other comparable fundraising efforts, clearly has the ability to harness their existing media channels and popularity to spread the gospel. But, is there also a danger in becoming the celebrity driven flavor of the month?
When the spotlight fades, and celeb attention wanes, then what?