So over this morning’s regular cup of tea a few of us were talking about what the office should do for Comic Relief.
After countless frankly bizarre suggestions (cue baked beans in a bath ideas ?!?), it led to a discussion on why people have to do something funny in order to ‘get’ charitable giving.
The combination of comedy against scenes of poverty stricken parts of Africa make Comic Relief a hugely successful way to fundraise for projects both here and abroad.
Whilst I fully support this as a method to raise awareness and funds I can’t help but wonder how we have become reliant upon celebrity endorsements and doing something ‘funny for money’ in order for people to donate to hugely valuable causes. Is it not enough anymore to see a good cause and donate without having to add comedy , celebs or gimics? By doing something funny and focusing on the comedy, do we forget the essence of what Comic Relief and similar causes are about?
I only ask this not as a critic of Comic Relief (I certainly will be wearing something red on Friday, though not sure how funny that really is… ) but just as someone curious about how effective huge campaigns would be without these new features that are now regularly employed to raise money.