We have seen celebrities being “tapped” to promote causes; some of the extremely well-funded NGOs (in the LGBTQIA and HIV advocacies), in fact, use these celebrities to both highlight issues and – let’s be blunt here – to popularize themselves (i.e. that they are “supported” by popular people).
This is why it’s a big deal in the HIV community when the crowned winners of Binibining Pilipinas moved from the Positive Action Foundation Philippines Incorporated (PAFPI, which was a partner organization in 2017) to The LoveYourself, Inc (TLY, which became the go-to organization of past winners including Pia Wurtzbach and Catriona Gray).
The use of non-members of the communities that need representing is, in itself, an issue; or at least it should be. Seriously, if you need Heart Evangelista to wear a rainbow pin (accompanied by an IG post) before you support LGBTQIA human rights, then… you’re a sucker (and I don’t mean that in the – good – sexual way).
Because this “approach” says you only follow what popular people tell you, instead of doing something because it’s what’s right. And in the case of LGBTQIA people themselves, because the issues at hand personally affect you (and not necessarily the celebrities promoting them).
But this is why you have organizers of LGBTQIA “Pride” that focused on heterosexual celebrities, and NOT LGBTQIA people. Celebrity culture elevated over LGBTQIA human rights ang peg.
Gawain ito ng ilang NGOs para sa (Some NGOs do this for) marketing – i.e. use celebrities. This is “beneficial” for both, obviously; NGOs get media mileage, and celebrities create a “kind” persona (for many beauty queens, with the impromptu “partnership”, they auto-gain an “advocacy”, no matter how fake).
TRUE STORY: A few years back, an HIV community-based organization applied for funding to develop a project responding to the mental health needs of PLHIVs. They were rejected by the funding NGO (that did NOT know anything about HIV, and yet were given control of the money – and thus direction – for the HIV community). Instead, this same NGO gave money to hold a photo exhibit, mainly of “big people” who supposedly “support” HIV advocacy in the country. So money was NOT given to PLHIVs to answer an urgent need; instead, money was given to photographers, make-up artists, videographers, caterers, studio, and TF (talent fees). The first model of the photoshoot, BTW, was the one who approved this project.
Here’s an additional “layer” to this issue: A few days ago, a transgender community leader who has been volunteering for HIV organizations for years now disclosed to me that – while developing campaigns for an NGO – she saw TF given to celebrities post-endorsement. She laughed, but sardonically because she was also a “talent” in that campaign (along with the celebrities), but she wasn’t paid (she assumed it’s because she’s no “celebrity”).
The big, BIG question now is this: if your celebrity endorsers accept TF, are they still “advocates”.
Definition-wise (as my partner pointed out), they DO qualify for simply “publicly advocating about an issue”. But in the REAL sense of the word, are they really advocates? Kung pino-promote mo lang kasi binayaran ka para gawin yan, endorser ka na, hindi advocate (If you’re only promoting something because you’re paid to do so, you’re an endorser, not an advocate).
Pero andaming implications nito (But this has lots of implications).
- The one promoting your cause is a fake, and may just be using you and your cause for money.
- The one paying for the faux advocates are, themselves, fake, who can only gain traction through marketing, and not actual best practices.
- Money is “wasted” on marketing (e.g. aside from the TF, the videographers, make-up artists, photographers, et cetera), when the amount can actually benefit the people who need the money most (in HIV, the PLHIVs themselves).
Gamitan is real sa celebrity culture (Using one another is real in celebrity culture).
Moving forward, be critical of your celebrity “advocates”; if they were paid to “promote” you and your causes, then you don’t owe them shit (not even your admiration is deserved). Bayaran sila (They’re for hire), and they’re supposed to do that as part of their job. They shouldn’t even be speaking on your behalf; that microphone they’re given should be given to the people from the grassroots.
And those who solely favor this approach should be called out not only for promoting celebrity culture when it’s the affected who should be highlighted. Andami pa ring namamatay sa HIV, halimbawa, at nagsasayang pa rin kayo ng pera since famewhoring pa rin ang approach mo (Too many people are still dying from HIV, as an example, and yet you’re still wasting money since the only thing you know is famewhoring).
Tama na ang (Enough of) fake advocacy, please.
