Celebrities and Nonprofits

Running head: CELEBRITY INFLUENCE ON NONPROFIT SUPPORT 1
Celebrity Influence on Donors Support of Nonprofit Organizations
Erica Stanzione
Bay Path College

Abstract
Many nonprofit organizations are created by celebrities while others have a celebrity as the face
of the organization. The effects that celebrities have on a donor‟s support of a charitable cause or
nonprofit organization will be thoroughly analyzed through a literature review, interviews, and a
survey. A review of the Strategic Product Innovation Process and trends in donor giving will be
used to determine the level of influence a celebrity has on a donor. By understanding this
celebrity influence quotient on a donor, organizations may be better poised to maximize or
minimize this celebrity effect to get the best results regarding donor interest and support.

Introduction
“Celebrities are up there with pillars of the community—they are voices of influence
(Samman, McAuliffe, & MacLachlan, 2009, p. 138).” Their faces are plastered on billboards,
television commercials and the big screens. They endorse products and advertise makeup,
clothes, cars, and jewelry (to name a few). Celebrities have the ability to attract public attention
on a large scale and stimulate positive emotional responses (Rindova, Pollock, & Hayward,
2006, p. 51).” Additionally, celebrities are created through “mass communication or carefully
selected, prearranged, and oftentimes manipulated information about an individual‟s personality,
talent, and style in order to create a „persona‟ that triggers positive emotional responses in
audiences” (Rindova et al., 2006, p. 52). “Individuals with real ability and unique style become
„stars‟, „superstars‟ or „cultural icons‟ (Rindova et al., 2006, p. 53).” These traits come in handy
when it comes to shining a light on different charities and causes. Therefore, celebrities can be
very influential when advertising a mission as well.
Some nonprofit organizations are founded by celebrities or have a celebrity endorser. In
each case, celebrities are used to help market the mission of the organization. Celebrities are
featured in brochures and/or on a website, stating why they support the organization they endorse
and why others should do the same. Celebrities speak at public events and are used as a way to
draw donors in at special events. Celebrities also create organizations and use their name to draw
attention to the cause that they support. When it boils down to it, just how effective are
celebrities when marketing a cause? Does mailing a letter from Magic Johnson to spread
awareness about HIV/AIDS have a greater response rate then a child in Africa who was born
HIV positive and lost their mother to the virus? Does Ashley Judd‟s charity work with

Population Services International appeal more to the public than a similar organization without a
celebrity endorser? Does a celebrity with a connection to the cause they are representing have a
greater effect on the public than one with no relation to the mission?
Celebrities are known to have a great influence when selling products. But how much do
celebrities actually influence the public when it comes to supporting a nonprofit organization?
According to Rindova et al. (2006) celebrities resemble intangible assets to a nonprofit
organization, which include reputation, status, and legitimacy because “it influences
stakeholders‟ perceptions of and willingness to exchange resources with” an organization (p. 53).
Reputation refers to the beliefs of various stakeholders regarding the likelihood that the
firm will deliver value along key dimensions of performance, chiefly product quality and
financial performance…which are treated as signals of underlying, but unobserved,
strategic characteristics of the firm that can create value for stakeholders. Like reputation,
status is an intangible asset based on stakeholders‟ evaluations of a firm‟s underlying
quality and capabilities…Legitimacy differs from reputation and status in that it focuses
on the degree to which a firm‟s products, practices, and structures are consistent with
societal expectations…The benefits that celebrity confers on a firm are distinct from
those associated with other intangible assets and may predispose stakeholders favorably
in their subsequent evaluations of firms‟ legitimacy, status, and reputation (Rindova et
al., 2006, p. 55).
As a result, these character traits, legitimacy, status, and reputation, play a huge role when it
comes to donor appeal.

“There has been a dramatic increase in celebrity involvement in group activism.
Celebrities like political and charitable involvement because it makes them feel they‟re doing
something meaningful to improve the world (Preston, 2008).” In the year 2000, about 25% of
celebrities had a charitable foundation and that number was increasing (Barrett, 2000, p. 1).
Celebrities realize that they are in the spotlight and can bring attention to causes that are
important to them and/or their families. For example, Bill & Melinda Gates have grown
comfortable using their celebrity status to call attention to their foundation, the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, and the work that they do (Wilhelm, 2004). This has helped make their
foundation the first “super power” of philanthropy with assets totaling $27-billion as of
September 2004 (Wilhelm, 2004).
Celebrity organizations have both advantages and disadvantages when compared to
organizations that are not endorsed or founded by a celebrity. There are both positives and
negatives that relate to marketing. Celebrities can certainly shine the light on a cause and on an
organization, but is this enough to influence a donor? The purpose of this paper is to determine
how influential celebrities are when endorsing a charitable organization or cause. By
understanding this celebrity influence quotient on a donor, organizations may be better poised to
maximize or minimize this celebrity effect to get the best results regarding donor interest and
support.
Literature Review
Studies have been done regarding the impact that celebrities have on nonprofit
organizations. There are some articles out there regarding the public‟s view on celebrities and
how they feel about them representing a nonprofit organization. There are also articles out there

describing celebrities and how they are attention getters, how people look up to them, and how
they influence marketing.
Connection to the Cause
Celebrities in attendance at galas and other events are a big draw for donors to attend,
but according to Flandez (2010), the personal connection that donors have to the cause matters
more. Muehrcke (2003) states that people will not donate time or money to an organization
unless there is a personal connection (p. 2). In addition, celebrities can attract big donors to a
nonprofit organization but it is more likely if the public feels that the celebrity has a personal
connection and commitment to the mission (Panepento & Purcell, 2008).
Likewise, unless there is a real connection between a celebrity and an organization, the
celebrity endorser will not do a good job (Muehrcke, 2003, p. 2). The image and attractiveness of
the celebrity does not define the connection of the celebrity with the nonprofit organization. This
also relates back to the character traits described by Rindova et al. (2006): legitimacy, status, and
reputation (p. 55). Similarly, the actual “connection” of the celebrity to the nonprofit
organization establishes the attraction to the public (Wheeler, 2009, p. 84). The connection is
based upon whether the celebrity is a fit or unfit, logical or illogical, and appropriate or
inappropriate for the nonprofit organization (Wheeler, 2009, p. 84). Mia Hamm, Michael J. Fox,
Doug Flutie, and Albert Pujols are all fit, logical, and appropriate representatives of their
organizations.
Mia Hamm (international female soccer star) created the Mia Hamm Foundation to help
people with bone-marrow disease, which her brother passed away from (Sommerfeld, 2001).

Hamm has a personal connection to the mission of her foundation which makes her a fit, logical
and appropriate individual to be the face of the organization. Michael J. Fox (actor) has high
credibility as a spokesperson for Parkinson‟s disease because he is affected by the illness. This
makes Fox a fit, logical, and appropriate individual to advocate for the support of Parkinson‟s
disease. Doug Flutie, Sr. (retired NFL star) created the Doug Flutie Jr. Foundation for Autism on
behalf of his son‟s diagnosis with the disorder. Flutie Sr. is a fit, logical, and appropriate
individual to be the face of an organization benefiting families whose children have been
diagnosed with autism because his son has the disorder as well. Lastly, Albert Pujols, All-Star
first baseman of the St. Louis Cardinals, created the Pujols Family Foundation benefiting Down-
syndrome and families facing poverty. Pujols grew up in a third world country and lived in
poverty and his daughter was born with Down-syndrome. This makes him a fit, logical, and
appropriate individual to represent these two causes because he has been personally affected by
both.
It is important that the celebrity have a personal tie to the cause or have expressed great
interest in it because there will be natural synergy (Preston, 2008). “The stronger and more
obvious the connection between the celebrity and the nonprofit issue” and organization, the more
appealing and attractive it is in the public eye (Wheeler, 2009, p. 85). For example, cancer
survivor, Lance Armstrong created the Lance Armstrong Foundation to help improve the lives of
those affected by cancer (Livestrong, 2010). Armstrong has a great connection to his Foundation
and the mission that he promotes. Due to his connection, Armstrong‟s foundation has flourished
and as of the year 2007, they had a budget of $32 million (Lewis, 2007). According to Wheeler
(2009), the greater the source credibility of the celebrity leads to a greater intention for the public
to donate money and volunteer time (p. 85). This is shown greatly by the success of Armstrong‟s

Foundation—his foundation has flourished and has great support. This paper shall endeavor to
determine whether the celebrity endorsement of a cause or nonprofit organization impact donor
gifts or participation.
Discrepancy.
There is, however, a discrepancy in the literature. Muehrcke (2003) and Flandez (2010)
state that a personal connection to the mission or cause is extremely important for the celebrities
to have when representing an organization. As previously stated, for example, Albert Pujols has
great source credibility because he is directly connected to the mission of his foundation.
Wheeler (2009) makes this statement as well which is a contradiction of his previous work. Six
years prior, Wheeler (2003) stated that the familiarity and likeability of a celebrity will outweigh
the lack of connection when representing an organization (p. 19). “When you have an
opportunity to use celebrities that don‟t have a connection but who measure up in other ways
(reputation, wholesomeness, star power, etc.), use them (Wheeler, 2003, p. 19).” However,
Wheeler (2009) does go on to say that if you are in the position to choose between two
celebrities to represent the organization, “always choose the celebrity with the link…the most
logical” (p. 19). Therefore, despite the discrepancy, it is most beneficial to have a celebrity
endorse a cause that they are greatest connected.
Benefits to Charities
“Celebrity foundations are hot these days, which is great for children, the environment
and other beneficiaries (Barrett, 2000, p. 1).” Many nonprofit scholars and officials believe that
the growing influence of celebrities on charitable causes is “helping to attract new types of

supporters to charities and the missions they pursue” (Preston, 2008). This is because different
celebrities have more profound effects on certain demographics. For example, adolescents and
sports fans are the most influenced by athletes (Panepento & Purcell, 2008). Unfortunately, some
individuals are not influenced by celebrities. For example, it has been determined that
“established donors don‟t let celebrities tell them where to donate—friends and relatives are
more influential—but celebrities do help raise awareness, thus attracting new donors”
(Panepento & Purcell, 2008). Even though these established donors are not directly influenced,
they are still being indirectly influenced by being informed about the cause that is being
endorsed. In both cases, celebrities have the ability to sell the cause and mission by making
advertisements believable, enhancing message recall, increasing the recognition of the
organization‟s name, and by facilitating a positive attitude towards the organization (Samman et
al., 2009, p. 138).
In a survey done by Samman et al. (2009) on one hundred members of the Irish public,
“most found [celebrity] involvement to be valuable in raising the profile of charities” (p. 137). It
has been found that “the most persuasive celebrity is the one who quietly donates millions and
just gets on with „helping out‟ in modest humanitarian projects” (Samman et al., 2009, p. 146).
For example, the late Princess Diana supported close to 100 hospitals, civic groups, humanitarian
organizations, and charities. Before her untimely death, she helped these organizations raise an
estimated $450 million each year (Samman et al., 2009, p. 138). Princess Diana donated both
time and money which helped to influence many other donors to do the same.
The results of the Samman et al. (2009) study showed that credibility is a “key feature
regarding the persuasiveness of communication, clearly having credibility is not enough, as even

those celebrities rated as highly credible only had a moderate influence of respondents‟ reported
views” (p. 145). This study was done on a very small, selective population (one hundred
members of the Irish public) which does not represent the world as a whole.
Ms. Ashley Judd.
Ashley Judd has a long-term relationship with Population Services International. Judd has
been aiding the organization for eight years and currently serves on the board of directors.
During this time, she has traveled to more than a dozen countries and “testified before the United
Nations and the U.S. congress” (Preston, 2008). Judd has a hands-on approach with the
organization which has brought it significant benefits.
The actress has helped put the issue of family planning on the Congolese government‟s
agenda. She emphasized the link between reproductive health and poverty to local
government officials, who until her visit had not considered family planning to be a concern.
The country‟s top official on the issue of gender recently recognized Population Services
International as the government‟s „partner‟ on family planning (Preston, 2008).
According to the charity‟s director in Congo, this change, along with others, may not have
happened without Judd‟s visit. “The fact that she met with donors and raised the profile of our
work has made it a lot easier for us to get access to people and to be remembered by them
(Preston, 2008).” According to the charity‟s advertising executive, “I have to somehow entice
corporations and tough leaders and powerful CEOs, and a lot of the time they won‟t pick up the
phone to me but they‟ll pick up to Ashley” (Preston, 2008). Once again, this brings up the
powerful connection that today‟s society has to celebrities.

Potential Pitfalls
While celebrities can be very influential and benefit an organization in many different
ways, nonprofit scholars and officials warn nonprofit groups that they need to be smart about
which celebrities are recruited to their causes. “Charities need to go into this with their eyes
open. Sometimes charities underestimate their own brand, and that‟s something they need to lend
out with care, because after all, celebrities are getting something out of this too (Preston, 2008).”
Celebrities have attention-grabbing abilities that while luring “the public‟s gaze towards a certain
issue, the public may in fact be less influenced by those celebrities who are best at doing this—
for they are seen to have a personal benefit in doing so” (Samman et al., 2009, p. 146). In 2007, a
survey of 1022 American adults found that only 15% of them would be influenced by celebrities
in their decision to support a charity (Hall, 2007). Organizations need to determine whether a
minimal increase in support is worth the risks that a celebrity brings to the table.
One year after the earthquake in Haiti, Charity Navigator (2011) conducted a survey
asking respondents the reason they donated to the relief efforts. Out of 2000 respondents, only
3% donated due to celebrity endorsement (Charity Navigator, 2011). The major influences to
donate were based on the specific charity‟s results providing this type of aid after other disasters
(40%) and media coverage of the charity‟s relief efforts (20%) (Charity Navigator, 2011). Many
celebrities do have a personal interest in the mission they are representing; however there are
some that are just trying to build their own brand by supporting the nonprofit organization
(Preston, 2008). Many celebrities are also liked and possibly trusted, but some of them still have
a lot to gain from being associated with a nonprofit organization (Carr & Rugimbana, 2009, p.
97).

According to the survey done by Samman et al. (2009) on one hundred members of the
Irish public, even though most of them thought that celebrity involvement in a charity raised the
profile of that charity, a small number claimed that they were not personally influenced by the
celebrity involvement (p. 137). “The respondents were fairly cynical as to the motives of most
celebrities, whose involvement they felt served their own aim—namely publicity—first and
foremost (Samman et al., 2009, p. 137).” Unfortunately, the perceptions of the celebrity‟s
character were what most of the respondents were more likely to be influenced by, rather than
the charities mission (Samman et al., 2009, p. 137). Respondents did not feel influenced by
celebrities that seemed like they had little knowledge regarding the cause they were advocating
for (Samman et al., 2009, p. 143). “Most of the sample did not feel personally influenced by
celebrity involvement in charity, regardless of how favorably they rated the celebrity‟s
knowledge (Samman et al., 2009, p. 143).” Celebrities also have the financial means necessary to
do something about a certain issue and the mission they are supporting which might also deter
the public from being influenced by the celebrity (Carr & Rugimbana, 2009, p. 97). Klineman
(2003) states that it is absolutely critical for celebrity to donate money to the charity they are
endorsing because while donating time is valuable, giving shows a stronger commitment.
Another potential downfall to celebrity representation for a nonprofit organization is that
there is always the possibility that a scandal will surface. The reality is that celebrities are
followed, photographed, videoed, and written about on a daily basis. Scandals, whether they are
true or just a rumor, are always a possibility. Alex Rodriguez, professional baseball player, is a
supporter of the Boys and Girls Club in Miami (which he used to be a part of). When his steroid
scandal surfaced, not only did it harm his career, but it harmed the “role model” status that he
portrayed through supporting the organization. During Tiger Woods‟ scandal, he was dropped by

many of the for-profit companies he was the spokesman for due to the bad publicity and press.
Unfortunately, scandals are all but rare.
Lance Armstrong Foundation.
Although Lance Armstrong says he is innocent and no charges have been filed, there is a
federal investigation into the alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs during his professional
cycling career (Preston, 2010). This is currently causing minor challenges for his nonprofit
organization, the Lance Armstrong Foundation (Preston, 2010). The CEO and staff are trying to
distance the Foundation from the federal inquiry. LiveStrong has a very strong reputation that
fortunately is not dependent on Armstrong (Preston, 2010). The coverage “isn‟t expected to deal
a fatal blow to the group and its crusade against cancer” however, it has wasted a lot of the staffs
time (Preston, 2010). In this case, the Foundation does not seem to be suffering financially due to
the scandal. However, the Foundation is still being greatly affected because instead of their time
and energy being focused on the mission, they are trying to cushion the so-called “blow” that the
scandal has produced.
Frameworks for Analysis
There are two different models that are relevant and appropriate when discussing the
relationship between nonprofit organizations and celebrities. These two theories are “The
Strategic Product Innovation Process” described by Robert (2006, p. 124) and trends in donor
giving which is described by Prince and File (1994) and Hank Rosso (2003). Interviews and a
survey have been conducted with a goal that the results will support the theories (further
described below).

The Strategic Product Innovation Process
“Strategic supremacy is highly dependent on the organization‟s ability to create and bring
to market new products more often and more quickly than its competitors. This process can be
used by an organization to…generate new revenue streams which allows the organization to
grow faster than its competitors (Robert, 2006, p. 124).” In the case of a nonprofit organization,
this process can help generate more revenue and donations to help support their mission over
competing nonprofit organizations. When debating whether or not an organization should partner
with a celebrity to become the face of their organization, the following concepts must be
considered to determine the attractiveness of the opportunity to the organization: costs, benefits
and strategic fit (Robert, 2006, p. 130).
“Each opportunity needs to be assessed in terms of its relative cost versus relative benefit
(Robert, 2006, p. 130).” Before a nonprofit organization collaborates with a celebrity, they need
to look at the different costs and benefits that this collaboration will bring (see Figure 1). The
different costs and benefits need to be weighed against each other to see just how beneficial the
opportunity of collaborating with the celebrity is for the organization. If the costs outweigh the
benefits, it is probably not a good idea to begin the relationship. On the other hand, if the benefits
the organization will receive based on the relationship are greater than the costs, it is a good idea
to proceed.

Figure 1. Checklist: Cost-Benefit. This figure is an example of a Cost-Benefit Relationship.
The next step a nonprofit organization needs to take is to assess the strategic fit of the
celebrity and the organization. The strategic fit is “the degree to which an opportunity fits a
company‟s direction…It is a question of organized, purposeful, and focused attempts to create
new products that fit the organization‟s business goals” (Robert, 2006, p. 131). In the case of a
nonprofit collaborating with a celebrity, it is important that the celebrity has a strategic fit within
the organization. This means that the celebrity has to have a connection to the mission of the
organization—they cannot just be a pretty face. As previously stated, it is important the celebrity
have a personal tie to the cause or have expressed great interest in it because there will be natural
synergy (Preston, 2008). “The stronger and more obvious the connection between the celebrity
and the nonprofit issue” and organization, the more appealing and attractive it is in the public eye
(Wheeler, 2009, p. 85). The greater the similarity between the mission of the organization and
the beliefs, feelings, and connection of the celebrity with that mission, the closer the strategic fit
is between the two.
The relationship between cost and benefits along with strategic fit are important for
nonprofits to consider before collaborating with a celebrity. If the costs show that it is too risky
Cost
Increased marketing
& advertisement
budget
Accommodate to
the needs of the
celebrity
Possibility of bad
publicity due to
celebrity scandal
Benefit
Increase in publicity for the
mission and organization
Increase in revenue
and donations
Attract new group of
donors and supporters

to partner up with a celebrity, it may be bad business to do so. For example, Lindsay Lohan is a
huge name in Hollywood however she is constantly surrounded by negative publicity. Yes,
collaborating with her would shine the spotlight on an organization but the negativity may bring
a bad name to the organization as well. The next step is the strategic fit—making sure the
celebrity is connected with the mission they will be representing. For example, Melissa
Etheridge fits strategically with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. Etheridge is a
breast cancer survivor herself and is completely credible to represent the Foundation. These three
concepts are the key to having a successful relationship with a celebrity that is beneficial to a
nonprofit organization.
Trends in Donor Giving
When looking at donor trends, it is important to see which groups would or would not be
influenced by a celebrity. Each individual has different motivations for donating to different
causes. According to Prince and File (1994), there are seven different faces of philanthropy and
why people donate to nonprofit organizations. The first of the faces of philanthropy are
Communitarians who donate because it makes sense to do good things and help their
communities (Prince & File, 1994, p. 15). In relation to influence by celebrities, communitarians
may be more influenced by a local celebrity or celebrity who does work within their community.
The second group of donors is the Devout who are motivated to donate because of religious
reasons (Prince & File, 1994, p. 15). Devouts may be more inclined to donate to an organization
that is connected to a celebrity that practices the same religion or they may donate to their place
of worship. The third group is the Investor who donates because of the mission of the
organization and the tax benefits that they get from donating (Prince & File, 1994, p. 15). To get

the noted tax benefits, the Investor may donate to an organization because they were attracted to
it by a celebrity endorser.
The fourth face of philanthropy is the Socialite who donates to nonprofit organizations
because it is fun to socialize (Prince & File, 1994, p. 15). Socialites may be more drawn to be at
the event due to the celebrity presence. The fifth group of donors is the Altruist who is selfless
and gives just because it feels right to do so (Prince & File, 1994, p. 16). An Altruist gives
because they feel it is necessary so they may be influenced to donate to a specific cause based on
the publicity brought to the organization by a celebrity. The sixth group of donors is the Repayer
who donates to an institution or an organization that they (or a loved one) have personally
benefitted from (Prince & File, 1994, p. 16). Based on this definition, Repayers would give back
to the organization that helped them or someone that they know, regardless of whether or not
there is a celebrity influence present. The seventh, and last, face of philanthropy is the Dynast
who gives because it is a tradition of their family (Prince & File, 1994, p. 16). Dynasts may give
to a certain charity based upon tradition or they may give to any charity that they choose and
once again, the celebrity can shine the spotlight on a certain organization.
In addition to donor motivations to give, trends in donor giving also reflects a principle
called “LAI”—linkage, ability, and interest (Rosso, 2003, p. 164). “Linkage refers to the human
connection between the organization and the individual (Rosso, 2003, p. 164).” Donors are more
likely to support an organization where there is a connection between themselves and the cause,
the celebrity and the cause, or themselves and the celebrity. Ability refers to the financial
capabilities of the individual to donate (Rosso, 2003, p. 164). For example, those who are
struggling financially may be less likely to support a charity with a monetary contribution than a

wealthy individual. Lastly, interest refers to the individual‟s personal preference for becoming
involved with the organization (Rosso, 2003, p. 164). The interest of the individual can be based
upon the cause and mission of the organization or other factors, like the celebrity endorser.
Every individual is different. Certain aspects motivate some individuals to become
charitable while other individuals are motivated by different causes. The different faces of
philanthropy define seven types of donors. When these faces are linked with the LAI principle, it
makes individuals even more unique in their motivations for giving. Research has been done
through the conduction of a survey and interviews to determine what type of donor trends are
more susceptible to be influenced by a celebrity.
Methods
Different methods were used to obtain information regarding the impact that celebrities
have on influencing individuals to donate to a nonprofit organization. These methods include
online research, a survey and four interviews.
Survey
A survey (see Appendix A) was created and posted on two social networking websites
(Facebook and Twitter). The survey was also posted in two graduate class online discussion
forums at Bay Path College. The survey was available to be taken during a three week period.
Over the course of the three weeks, one hundred individuals responded. The respondents
included 24 males and 67 females (nine participants did not declare their sex). The ethnicity of
the majority of the participants (89%) was White/Caucasian. The ethnicities of the remaining

participants were: African American (1%); Asian (3%); Hispanic (4%); Native American (1%);
and other (2%).
There was a wide range of ages for the participants. The majority of the participants
(48%) were between the ages of 21 and 30-years-old. The ages of the remaining participants
were: 11-20-years-old (9%); 31-40-years-old (19%); 41-50-years-old (13%); 51-60-years-old
(6%); and 61-70-years-old (2%). Three participants did not include their age. The income for the
participants had a wide range as well. Income ranged from less than $10,000 a year to over
$100,000 a year (See Figure 2).
Interviews
Twenty nonprofit organizations were randomly chosen through a search on the internet.
Ten were founded by or endorsed by a celebrity and the remaining ten had no celebrity
connection. These twenty organizations were reached out to for participation in an interview.
The interview included questions based on their experience working with nonprofit organizations
and/or opinions of celebrity involvement. Out of the twenty organizations contacted, interviews
were conducted with four professionals from the nonprofit world. Those that were interviewed
included: Susan Taylor, Executive Director of Actors and Others for Animals (see Appendix B
for interview summary); Mary Jo Bernardo, Chief Operating Officer of Tony La Russa‟s Animal
0
10
20
30
<$10,000 $10k-$20k $20k-$40k $40k-$60k $60k-$100k >$100,000 Not Applicable
Figure 2. Income vs. Participants

Rescue Foundation (see Appendix C for interview summary); Sandra Miniutti, Vice President,
Marketing and Chief Financial Officer of Charity Navigator (see Appendix D for interview
summary); and Todd Perry, Executive Director of Pujols Family Foundation (see Appendix E for
interview summary).
Results, Discussion, & Analysis
“Now days, most every good sized nonprofit has a celebrity endorsing the organization,
or appearing at fundraisers. In fact, our society as a whole has a fixation on celebrities.
Television commercials are filled with celebrities urging product sales (Taylor, personal
communication, February 2, 2011).” One hundred people participated in the survey to see just
how influential celebrities are on members of society. Out of those 100 participants, 57%
admitted to have been swayed to purchase a product or donate to a charity at some point in their
lives. Meanwhile, 41% have never been swayed by a celebrity (2% did not respond).
Out of the respondents who have children, 57.8% admitted that their children have been
swayed by celebrity influence. (This evidence suggests that this amount may not be completely
accurate due to the fact that parents are speaking on behalf of their children with the possibility
of them making a wrong assumption.) Even though 57% of participants claimed that they have
been swayed by a celebrity, 45% responded that they have never purchased a product based on
the celebrity endorsing it. Lastly, only 15% of participants claimed that they have been swayed at
least once by a celebrity endorser to purchase a product, while 32% have purchased a product 2-
5 times.

Age and sex are two factors compared with whether or not an individual is swayed by a
celebrity to purchase a product. Females (56.7%) are slightly more likely to be influenced by
celebrities than males (54.2%). However, there is a very small sample size of males (24 total
males) which may have an effect on the results. The participant‟s age had a slight factor on
whether or not they were swayed by a celebrity. Participants between the ages of 31-40 years old
are more likely to be swayed by celebrities (73.7%). Every other age group has between a 50-
55.6% response rate of being swayed by a celebrity. Once again, due to the small sample size,
these results may be skewed, especially because there were only 19 respondents in the 31-40 age
range. Participants in the age range of 31-40 also purchased products more often than those in
other age brackets (see Figure 3). Only 26% of participants in the 31-40 age range have never
purchased a product based on celebrity influence meanwhile more than 44% in the other age
groups have never purchased a product based on the celebrity influence. Unfortunately the
sample size skews these results as well because only two participants were over 61 years old and
only 19 participants were between the ages of 41-60 years old.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 70
ResponseRate
Age
Figure 3: Age vs Celebrity Influence on Purchasing a Product
Never
Once
2-5 Times
5+ Times

In addition to the influence that celebrities have on society when purchasing products, the
evidence suggests that celebrities do not have much of an influence when promoting a cause
and/or a nonprofit organization. None of the participants have ever donated to a charity based
solely on the influence of a celebrity. Only 13% of respondents said that that have donated to a
charity because they support the cause and were influenced by a celebrity to donate to the
charity. The remaining 87% claimed that celebrities have had no influence on them when
donating to a nonprofit organization. Also, 80% of the participants who have not been swayed by
a celebrity have never donated to a charity because of the celebrity endorser. Out of those
respondents who have been swayed by a celebrity and have donated to a charity because of the
mission and the celebrity, two of those participants were swayed more than ten times on products
and the remaining nine participants bought products 2-5 times.
In regards to the motivation and donor trends of the participants more than half are
Communitarians (39%) or Altruists (32%) while the remaining participants are Devouts (8%),
Repayers (8%), Dynasts (6%), Socialites (4%), and Investors (3%). (Out of the 13 participants
who have donated to a cause because of the celebrity endorser, 45% are Communitarians, 35%
are Altruists, 10% are Repayers, 5% are Devout, and 5% are Dynast.) In regards to giving
frequency, 8% of participants said they do not donate to any charity while 2% stated that they
only donate during the time of a disaster. Participants who donated on a regular basis amounted
to 23% of the sample. Thirty-seven percent of participants donated seldom while 30% donated
often. Additionally, income does play a factor in donating frequency (see Figure 4). Participants
making under $40,000 a year are less likely to donate to charity on a regular basis. Meanwhile,

the majority of participants that make under $40,000 a year donate on a seldom to often basis.
There is a potential bias in this sample size. The survey was distributed on Facebook and
Twitter along with discussion forums for graduate students at Bay Path College. The
concentration of study for these Graduate students is Nonprofit Management and Philanthropy,
Fundraising, and/or Higher Education. The individuals in these programs are very familiar with
nonprofit organizations and are educated on the donation process. Celebrities may not have an
influence on this group of participants because, as previously stated, they are educated and have
alternative reasons and motivations for donating. “With today‟s two big services, Charity
Navigator and GuideStar, more and more donors are researching their charity choices (Taylor,
personal communication, February 6, 2011).” While these participants may be swayed to
purchase a box of cereal or a sweater, donating to a charity is thoroughly researched on their end.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Never Seldom Often Regular Disaster
PercentageofIncomeGroup
Giving Frequency
Figure 4: Income vs Giving Frequency
< $10,000
$10,000-$20,000
$20,000-$40,000
$40,000-$60,000
$60,000-$100,000
> $100,000

Connection to the Cause
Survey participants were given a choice of five different celebrity endorsed/founded
charities to support. The World Wildlife Fund (WFF) strives to protect the environment and its
wildlife, and it is endorsed by actor Leonardo DiCaprio. The Michael J. Fox Foundation (MJF)
strives to find a cure for Parkinson‟s disease through research. MJF was founded by actor
Michael J. Fox who has been diagnosed with this condition. Boys & Girls Club (BGC) is
endorsed by major league baseball player Alex Rodriguez, who grew up in the BGC in Miami.
Population Services International (PSI) is endorsed by actress Ashley Judd who advocates for
their YouthAids Prevention Program. Lastly, the Pujols Family Foundation (PFF) was founded
by major league baseball player Albert Pujols to help families living in poverty and to help
families affected by Down-syndrome.
These five organizations were included as choices because of the relationships that the
celebrity has to the cause they are promoting. DiCaprio and Judd agree with the mission of the
organizations that they endorse. Both actors have clean cut images and a large fan base.
However, there is no personal connection to the cause, just a passion for the cause. On the other
hand, Rodriguez grew up with BGC and by endorsing them, he is helping to give back (Repayer)
to the organization that was a great part of his youth which makes him a fit and logical choice to
represent the organization. However, he was involved in a steroid scandal in 2009 which may
have tainted his image as a role model and proved him to be an inappropriate to represent the
organization. Lastly, Fox and Pujols are both personally affected by the causes that they endorse.
Fox has been diagnosed with Parkinson‟s disease and has dedicated his life to research and
finding a cure. Similarly, Pujols grew up in poverty and has a daughter with Down-syndrome

which shows that he is greatly connected and passionate about the causes. Both Fox and Pujols
are fit, logical, and appropriate to endorse their cause. According to Miniutti (personal
communication, January 27, 2011), “having a superstar celebrity involved with no personal
connection [to the cause], can generate more awareness. But, it could backfire if the public sees
their involvement as less than authentic.”
Participants were asked to choose a charity out of the five and explain why they chose to
support that charity (see Figure 5). Out of the 20% of participants who chose to donate to WWF,
only one respondent chose to donate because of the celebrity endorser compared to 65% who
chose to support WWF because of the mission. Similar to WWF, out of the 6% of participants
who chose to support PSI, none chose the celebrity connection as a reason to support while half
of respondents stated the mission was the reason for supporting. This evidence suggests that it is
important to donors that they see a strong connection from the celebrity to the cause they are
endorsing in order to be influenced to support that organization. However, Rodriguez is
personally connected to BGC (which 23% of participants chose to support) and none of them
stated his celebrity influence as a reason to donate. Seventy-eight percent of participants support
BGC because of the cause and mission while the remaining 22% have a personal connection
with the organization. This evidence suggests that Rodriguez‟ steroid scandal may have
dissuaded participants from being influenced by him even though he is personally connected
with the cause.

Half of the participants who chose to support PFF stated that the mission of the
organization was the determining factor. In addition, 18.5% said that they had a personal
connection to the cause and 18.5% did not state a reason. However, 13% of PFF supporters
stated Pujols‟ connection to the cause as the determining factor to support the organization. In
addition, 37% of MJF supporters mentioned that the determining factor was Fox‟s connection to
the cause. Meanwhile, 30% chose to support MJF due to a personal connection, 10% due to the
cause, and 23% did not state a reason. Out of the participants who chose to support the above
organizations due to the celebrity endorser, one person was influenced to donate strictly because
of the name of endorser (DiCaprio for WWF). MJF was chosen because Fox personally has the
disease which strongly supports his connection to the cause. Similarly, participants chose PFF
because of Pujols‟ connection to the causes that he supports.
This evidence reflects positively on the necessary celebrity character traits—legitimacy,
status, and reputation—identified by Rindova et al. (2006, p. 55). This also reflects positively on
Celebrity Connection Personal Connection Cause Other
WWF 1 0 13 6
MJF 11 9 3 7
BGC 0 5 18 0
PSI 0 1 3 2
PFF 2 3 8 3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
NumberofParticipants
Figure 5: Reason for Donating to Select Charity

the importance of the actual “connection” that the celebrity has to the nonprofit organization
when establishing the attraction of the cause to the public (Wheeler, 2009, p. 84). Additionally,
both Fox and Pujols are a great strategic fit for the causes that they endorse and their benefits to
the cause outweigh any costs that might be present. This also relates to LAI. People are more
inclined to donate based upon linkage and interest, and in this case the linkage and interest has to
do with the celebrities and the causes that they support. However, the results could be bias due to
the fact that some participants have never heard of Judd. Also, Pujols is popular amongst sports
fans but participants who are not sports fan may not know who he is because both the team he
plays for and the organization are located in St. Louis, Missouri.
Based on the evidence provided by the survey, age seems to play a slight role when
choosing a charity based on the celebrity connection. Similar to the influence that celebrities
have on swaying individuals to purchase a product, participants in the 31-40 year age range were
more likely to choose to support an organization based on the celebrity connection to the cause
(21%). Only 11% of participants within the ages of 21-30 chose an organization based on the
celebrity connection while only 8% in the 41-50 age range chose the organization because of the
celebrity connection. However, 28.5% of 11-20 year olds chose an organization to support based
on the celebrity connection. This result may be skewed due to the fact that only seven
participants were in this age range.
Pujols Family Foundation.
As previously stated, the mission of PFF relates to Down-syndrome and poverty in the
Dominican Republic—both are strongly connected to Pujols. Executive Director of PFF, Todd
Perry (personal communication, January 26, 2011), feels that PFF “definitely has an advantage

[on nonprofits with a similar mission], which is his celebrity status in St. Louis, where they do
most of their work.” Pujols is well liked and well respected in the community which assists in his
appeal to the public (Perry, personal communication, January 26, 2011). Pujols has a great
influence on society because of his connection to the cause.
Albert and Deidre [Albert‟s wife] are just parents when they have an event. They can talk
head to head, toe to toe about Down-syndrome. Involving global poverty, the way Albert
grew up, he can talk with authority regarding this subject. He has great passion for these
things—it isn‟t something you can teach. There is an authenticity when celebrities
endorse a nonprofit organization they are vested in, especially when the cause has
affected them directly. It isn‟t something Albert is just doing, he is connected to it and
passionate about it which makes all the difference in the world. Other people just go
through the motions. I‟m definitely not knocking them because they did lend their name
to a cause, but the public definitely senses the difference and I think that community and
the public senses that immediately. There is a difference between the guys that are doing
things just because they think they should verse the ones who have a passion for it (Perry,
personal communication, January 26, 2011).
Due to this connection and likability of Pujols, fundraisers for PFF get sold out months in
advance and have waiting lists (Perry, personal communication, January 26, 2011). As you can
see based upon Perry‟s comments and the statistics from the survey, there needs to be a strong
strategic fit between the celebrity and the cause in order for donors to be influenced.

Benefits to Charities
As previously stated, celebrity foundations help shine the light on different causes and
attract new types of supporters to the charities that they endorse (Preston, 2008). After working
with three nonprofit organizations not linked with a celebrity, Bernardo (personal
communication, January 29, 2011) feels that ARF is well funded as a result of Tony La Russa‟s
(long-time manager of the St. Louis Cardinals professional baseball team) ability to attract a
larger and more generous donor base. La Russa, and other celebrities, also have the ability to
“garner greater media interest” (Bernardo, personal communication, January 29, 2011). This is
demonstrated by both Keep a Child Alive and the Jorge Posada Foundation.
Keep a Child Alive.
Keep a Child Alive is a registered 501c3 nonprofit organization that raises money to help
fight HIV/AIDS in Africa and India (Digital Death: Home, 2010). Keep a Child Alive partnered
up with 19 high profile celebrities to help promote their cause.
Starting December 1 - World AIDS Day - the world's most followed celebrity Tweeters
are sacrificing their digital lives to help save millions of real lives effected by HIV/AIDS
in Africa and India. That means no more Twitter or Facebook updates from any of them.
No more knowing where they are, what they had for dinner, or what interesting things are
happening in their lives. From here on out, they're dead. Kaput. Finished. But they don't
have to die in vain. And they don't have to stay dead for long. Just watch their Last Tweet
and Testaments, and buy their lives back. Every single dollar helps Keep a Child Alive
fight this terrible disease. And when $1,000,000 is reached, everyone will be back online

and tweeting in no time. You can even join the fight yourself by sacrificing your own
digital life. If Khloe and Kim can live without Twitter for a few days, maybe you can too.
Together, with a little digital sacrifice on our parts, we can give millions of real people
the care, love and hope they deserve. We can give them life - the one thing none of us can
live without (About Digital Death, 2010).
Keep a Child Alive partnered up with these celebrities to help promote their cause. These
celebrities have over one million followers each on these social network websites.
Even though many of their followers did not know the organization existed, they were
still informed about the cause through “tweets” from their favorite celebrities. For example,
Khloe Kardashian (reality television star) tweeted on November 30, 2010 “a few more hours
until I‟ll be digitally dead PLEASE buy my life back and txt [text] KHLOE to 90999! And reply
YES to confirm” (Twitter, 2010). Additionally, on December 1, 2010, Keep a Child Alive posted
that Kim Kardashian (reality television star) has “sacrificed her digital life to fight HIV/AIDS.
No more updates from Kim until we BUY LIFE” (Twitter, 2010).
On December 6, 2010, all of the digitally dead celebrities were brought back to life. Kim
Kardashian greeted her fans: “I am back from the dead! Thank you all so much for your
donations and contributions” (Twitter, 2010). In as little as six days, these celebrities were able
to raise one million dollars for Keep a Child Alive. For each text message that was sent on behalf
of the digitally dead celebrity, $10 was donated to Keep a Child Alive. This means that 100,000
text messages were sent during this time span to bring their favorite celebrities back to life, while
helping those affected by HIV/AIDS in the process. These nineteen celebrities used their star
power to shine the light on a cause (HIV/AIDS) and used their fan base to help raise $1,000,000

for this cause. This shows a strong interest and linkage that the fans have to these celebrities
which ultimately benefit the nonprofit organization they are endorsing.
Jorge Posada Foundation.
Jorge Posada has been the starting catcher for the New York Yankees since 1998, but has
been on the team since 1996. Posada has won five World Series and has been selected to three
all-star games. Posada is a well-known celebrity in New York and amongst many sports fans
worldwide. Posada and his wife, Laura, created the Jorge Posada Foundation (JPF) in 2000 after
their son was born with Craniosynostosis. Craniosynostosis is where the soft spots (sutures) in a
baby‟s skull harden before the brain is finished growing. Surgery is necessary to open up the
sutures to relieve pressure on the brain and allow it to grow properly. Craniosynostosis is
considered a rare disorder, only effecting one out of every two thousand births. Many doctors
misdiagnose it and it is not a talked about disorder (or popular) like others (autism, Down-
syndrome, etc.).
Posada uses his celebrity and JPF to shine the light on this disorder, raise awareness, and
support families touched by Craniosynostosis. Survey participants were asked the following
question: “The Jorge Posada Foundation was created by 5-time World Champion, New York
Yankee, Jorge Posada and his wife Laura after their son was born with Craniosynostosis. The
Foundation supports families diagnosed with Craniosynostosis and promotes awareness about
this disorder. The Foundation is hosting an event, which will be jam packed with celebrities
ranging from athletes to movie and TV stars. If you had the money to support this organization,
would you purchase a ticket?” Notice that Craniosynostosis was not defined. This was

deliberately done to see how Posada‟s celebrity status affected his influence to attract donors to a
rare cause.
According to the survey, 47% of respondents would support JPF. Forty-one percent of
respondents would not support JPF because they do not know what Craniosynostosis is and they
would rather support a different cause. One percent of respondents would not support JPF
because they do not like Posada and/or the Yankees. Lastly, 11% of participants would support
JPF because they get a chance to meet their favorite celebrities while they support a good cause.
Based on the evidence provided by the survey, sex seems to play a slight role in the
answers of the participants. Forty-six percent of females would not support JPF because they do
not know what Craniosynostosis is and would rather support a different cause compared to 33%
of males. Additionally, 46% of males and 43% of females would support families affected by
Craniosynostosis. However, it seems that the celebrity status has a greater effect on males.
Seventeen percent of males would attend the event to meet the celebrities. Additionally, one
male would not support JPF because he does not like Posada and/or the Yankees. In total, 21%
of males chose to or not to support JPF due to Posada‟s celebrity compared to only 11% of
females.
There is, however, a bias in this sample. First, only 24 males participated in the survey
compared to 67 females. This low number could be the reason why the percentage of males
influenced by celebrities is higher. Second, since Posada is a male athlete, men may be more
inclined to support an athlete due to their recognition of their name and/or success on the field
then women. Third, the majority of individuals that the survey was made available to on
Facebook are from New York State and the surrounding states. Since Posada is on the Yankees,

many of these individuals may have been exposed to a commercial during the Yankees game or
through an interview on television where Posada spoke about Craniosynostosis. Lastly, one
participant chose to support families affected by Craniosynostosis but admitted to not knowing
what it was. This evidence shows that there may be more than one person who chose to support
JPF but has no idea what the cause is which proves that Posada‟s celebrity status may have had
more of a pull than the results show.
In regards to donor motivation and giving trends, the survey results show that Devouts
have the highest percentage of being influenced by celebrities (see Figure 6). Twenty-seven
percent of Devouts would support JPF to meet celebrities and help a good cause. Similarly, 25%
of Investor‟s would support JPF to meet celebrities and help a good cause. However, these
results are biased as well due to a very low sample size. Only 11 participants claimed to be
Devouts and only four people claimed to be Investor‟s. As previously stated, the majority of
participants stated they were Communitarian‟s and Altruists. Eleven percent of Communitarian‟s
chose to support because of the celebrity influence along with 9% of Altruists. Interestingly,
none of the six individuals who are Socialites chose the celebrity attraction as the reason to
support JPF. But again, the sample sizes for these populations are extremely low.

Potential Pitfalls
The nonprofit professionals that were interviewed have different feelings as to whether or
not a celebrity scandal would negatively influence the nonprofit organization that they are
endorsing. Miniutti (personal communication, January 27, 2011) feels that celebrity scandals can
have a negative impact on the brand of the nonprofit organization that they are representing and
that the costs can outweigh the potential benefits in this matter. Perry (personal communication,
January 26, 2011) doesn‟t know for a fact how a scandal would affect a nonprofit but he stated
that “it is a double edged sword—you live and die by the celebrity. There is definitely a backlash
when you are in the news negatively.” However, “there is an old saying that there is no such
thing as bad publicity. You see that today in the scandals involving Charlie Sheen. Despite what
most Americans would characterize as demoralizing and abhorrent behavior, his television show
reaps the highest ratings” (Taylor, personal communication, February 6, 2011). When it comes to
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Figure 6: Donor Motivation vs.Supporting JPF
No: Other cause/
Craniosynostosis?
Yes: Love to support
families affected by
Craniosynostosis
Yes: Chance to meet
my favorite celebrities
& help out a good
cause

nonprofit organizations however, it all depends on the scandal the celebrity is a part of and the
mission that they are endorsing (Taylor, personal communication, February 6, 2011).
Tiger Woods scandal.
When for-profit companies are looking for an athlete to endorse their product, they look
for two things: source credibility and desirable personal characteristics (Stone, Joseph, & Jones,
2003, p. 96). Source credibility is defined as an athlete who is at or near the top of his/her game
in their respective field (Stone et al., 2003, p. 96). For example, Tiger Woods is one of the best
golfers in the world. Nike uses Woods to represent their brand because of his excellence in golf
which shows great source credibility. The second characteristic, desirable personal
characteristics, is defined as having a likeable personality, “as well as projecting a charismatic
and trustworthy image to consumers” (Stone et al., 2003, p. 96). Although Woods has great
source credibility, due to his scandal in 2009 his likeability and trustworthiness in the public eye
has diminished.
According to Stone et al. (2003), Woods had undoubtedly set a new standard for the
definition of a product endorser—Woods has both the desirable personality characteristics and
source credibility (p. 97). “Woods appears to be in abundant possession of both source credibility
and the sort of desirable personal characteristics that are in high demand among the select
advertisers lucky enough to sign him to a multiyear contract (Stone et al., 2003, p. 97).” In 2009,
Woods‟ secret life would eventually emerge and hit the tabloids with a bang. Less than a month
after the scandal surfaced, one for-profit company he represented decided to limit his exposure.
Within the month, three other companies dropped Woods as a spokesperson for their brand

(AT&T, Gatorade, and TAG Heuer) with one saying that the golfer was “no longer the right
representative” (MSNBC, 2010).
“Despite Tiger Woods‟ problems surrounding his adultery scandal and lost corporate
sponsors, the world‟s number one golfer remains the top athlete brand as ranked by Forbes
(MSNBC, 2010).” However, in 2008 Woods was bringing in $110 million in endorsements but
since the scandal surfaced, his endorsements decreased to only $50 million (Janoff, 2011). In the
year 2000, Woods had a fan approval rating of 88% which was based on over 1000 respondents
(SportingNews, 2010). In 2005, his approval rating slightly dropped to 85% (SportingNews,
2010). Following Woods‟ scandal, his approval rating by fans dropped to a measly 39% in 2010
(SportingNews, 2010).
Tiger Woods Foundation.
The personal and professional life of Woods was greatly affected by the scandal. But how
did the scandal affect his philanthropic life, and his nonprofit organization, the Tiger Woods
Foundation (TWF)? “Since its inception in 1996 by Tiger Woods and his father, Earl, the Tiger
Woods Foundation has reached millions of young people by delivering unique experiences and
innovative educational opportunities for youth worldwide. What began as simply a dream to
provide young people with opportunities and the tools needed to achieve a bright future has
grown into a global organization that has served young people around the world (About the
Foundation, 2011).”
Not only did AT&T use Tiger Woods as a celebrity endorser, they supported TWF as
well. When the scandal surfaced in late 2009, AT&T dropped Woods from their brand within the

month. However, in May 2010, AT&T announced its continued support of different programs of
the TWF (AT&T National, 2010). Woods even spoke at their media day for their charity event
(AT&T National, 2010). Gatorade and TAG Heuer were two other companies who dropped
Woods from their label after the scandal surfaced. However, they are both still one of his
philanthropic partners for TWF and continue to support the work that he does (TWF Partners &
Sponsors, 2011). Along with AT&T and Gatorade, TWF is philanthropic partners with other
large companies including Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Mercedes-Benz, and Target,
among others (TWF Partners & Sponsors, 2011). Supporters of TWF also include very big
names like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, EA Sports, Nike, PGA Tour, and many more
(TWF Partners & Sponsors, 2011). Even though the scandal affected his professional life, large
corporations are more than willing to continue to support his philanthropic work.
The individual donor has a different view on the scandal. According to the survey, half of
the respondents would donate to TWF (see Figure 7). Out of those that would donate to TWF,
only 20% mentioned the scandal and said they would still donate despite the scandal because it
had nothing to do with the good work that TWF was doing in the community. One female
participant even stated the reason for donating was strictly because of Woods‟ celebrity. On the
other hand, 44% of the participants said they would not donate. Only 34% of that group stated
the scandal and Woods‟ negative image as reasons to not support TWF. The other reason for not
supporting TWF, stated by 45% of the participants who declined, is because they would rather
donate to another charity or cause—had nothing to do with Woods and his scandal. However,
21% of the participants who said they would not support TWF did not give a reason which may
imply that the percentage of participants who did not support TWF because of the scandal may

actually be higher.
In regards to donor trends, almost 75% of Communitarians said that they would support
TWF (only 13% said they would donate despite the scandal). Out of the participants who
declined to support TWF, 9% stated it was because they support other causes and 17% did not
state a reason for not supporting TWF. However, it is interesting to note that none of the
Communitarians mentioned the scandal as a reason for not donating. The reasoning could
possibly be because they see the work that TWF is doing as being beneficial to the community
regardless of his personal image. On the other hand, 16% of the Altruists noted that the reason
for not supporting TWF is because of the scandal, 5% said they would donate despite the scandal
(in total, 63% responded that they would donate). Lastly, there was no significance in donor
trends when it came to supporting TWF. Not only was the sample size small, the majority of the
respondents chose Communitarians and Altruists as their motivation for giving.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Yes: No Reason Yes: Despite
Scandal
No: Scandal No: Other Cause No: No Reason
Figure 7: TWF Support Based on Sex of Participant
Male Female

Conclusion
The purpose of this paper is to determine how influential celebrities are when endorsing a
charitable organization or cause. By understanding this celebrity influence quotient on a donor,
organizations may be better poised to maximize or minimize this celebrity effect to get the best
results regarding donor interest and support. This issue was approached by performing a
literature review and by conducting a survey and interviews. A literature review was used to find
studies and research that has previously been done on the topic. The interviews and survey were
done to find additional information on the public‟s opinion regarding celebrities marketing the
mission of nonprofit organizations.
Many key findings surfaced with the results of the literature review, survey, and
interviews. More than half of the survey participants have been swayed by a celebrity at one
point in their life. This shows that celebrities do have some sort of influence on the majority of
the population. Survey results show that females are slightly more influenced by celebrities than
males. However, males are more likely to be influenced by an athlete. Individuals in the age
range of 31-40 years old are also more likely to be influenced by celebrities. Unfortunately, these
statistics prove to be true for products, not for missions and causes. None of the participants in
the study donated to a charity solely because of the celebrity endorser.
These statistics show nonprofit organizations which group of individuals is more likely to
be influenced by a celebrity. This information can help when trying to cultivate a certain
demographic. Additionally, these findings can constitute further study by examining each group
(sex and age) to see which group is more likely to be influenced and what types of celebrities are

more influential for each. For example, television stars and females compared to athletes and
males.
Another key finding is that all evidence from the survey suggests the importance of the
celebrity connection to the cause that they are promoting. If the benefits outweigh the costs of
the partnership between a nonprofit organization and a celebrity, there must be a strategic fit
between the two as well. The personal connection of the celebrity to the cause is a key
determinant to supporting the nonprofit organization. The majority of the participants that chose
to donate to an organization based on the celebrity influence chose these organizations due to the
strategic fit between the celebrity and the cause.
The linkage and interest of the donor to the cause and the celebrity is very important in
this relationship. This finding confirms the current research in the universe about the importance
of this personal connection. It is important for nonprofit organizations that are interested in using
a celebrity to endorse their cause to carefully choose a celebrity based on the strategic fit that
they have with the organization. It is also important that their current donors have a link and
interest in the celebrity that is being cultivated as well.
Another key finding is that Communitarians and Altruists are more likely to be
influenced by a celebrity to donate to a charity. However, the celebrity is not the sole reason for
their support. The cause that the celebrity is endorsing has to reflect the interest and linkage of
the donor as well. Although the majority of survey participants are Communitarians and
Altruists, Devouts and Investors have the highest percentage of attending an event based on the
celebrity presence. This is important for nonprofit organizations to know because celebrities are
a draw for these certain groups. If an organization is going to have a celebrity present at an event,

Investors and Devouts are more likely to be interested in purchasing a sponsorship and/or a ticket
to the event. However, the sample size for these two groups was extremely low. Only four
people claimed to be an Investor and only 11 people claimed to be a Devout. Further studies
need to be down on these groups, and the other faces of philanthropy, to see which group is more
inclined to be persuaded by a celebrity.
Celebrities and social media are very influential for promoting a cause. As shown in the
Keep a Child Alive campaign, 19 celebrities sacrificed their digital lives in order to shine the
light on a certain cause. In as little as six days, they were able to raise over one million dollars
for this organization. These celebrities had a great influence on this culture/population and
endorsing the cause. There also was no personal connection between any of the celebrities and
HIV/AIDS in Africa and India. The lack of celebrity connection to this cause had no effect on
the 100,000 people who donated to buy their virtual lives back. This is a trend that needs to be
further studied. A study of the demographics of these individuals that donated and their
motivations for giving would be very beneficial for nonprofit organizations.
The last key finding is the effect that a celebrity scandal has on the nonprofit
organization the celebrity is associated with. In the case of Tiger Woods‟ adultery scandal, the
large corporations that dropped him personally from their label, continued to sponsor the great
work that his charity does. On an individual level, only 12% of the survey participants chose to
not support TWF due to his scandal. Tiger Woods is a household name throughout the United
States and while his adultery scandal exploded all over the news, it would be interesting to find
out if a different type of scandal may have had a more negative impact than adultery. For
example, if Woods was participating in illegal activities like theft, battery, or drug abuse, would

it deter the individuals and corporations from supporting his charity? Also, since Woods is a
household name, would a scandal of a less known celebrity or one with a negative rap sheet have
more of a negative impact on the charity they are endorsing?
When determining whether or not to embark on a relationship with a celebrity, nonprofit
organizations need to go into the potential relationship with their eyes wide open. Nonprofit
organizations need to create a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not the positives of
the potential relationship outweigh the negatives of the relationship. It is also important to be
realistic when looking to extend an invitation to a celebrity to be the spokesperson for the
mission or to be honored at an event.
I receive requests from all over the United States from animal welfare organizations
seeking help in getting a celebrity to attend a fundraising event. I always inform them to
remember that unless a celebrity is already working with them, that there are costs
associated if in fact they are able to attract a celebrity. They may give their time, but all
costs such as travel, hotel, transportation, meals, etc. must be covered. I strongly suggest
that they look at their own town for celebrities. Television anchors, weather people,
politicians, and well known citizens can be just as useful in attracting attendees to their
events. (Taylor, personal communication, February 6, 2011)
After determining which celebrity to solicit and the potential benefits are greater than the
costs, the nonprofit organization needs to make sure that the celebrity fits strategically with the
organization. As the survey results and research shows, a strong connection between the
celebrity and the cause that they are promoting has the greatest influence on the public.
However, if there is no connection between the celebrity and the mission, celebrities still have

the ability to shine the light on a specific cause or mission to not only the donors of the
organization, but to their fan base and the rest of society. This helps to spread the word of the
cause, like in the Keep a Child Alive campaign. Even if donors are not influenced by a celebrity,
the mission of the nonprofit may catch the eye of more educated donors. This may result in the
donor performing the necessary research to determine whether or not the organization is
accountable and deserving of their donation. In this case, the celebrity may not have influenced
the donor to support the organization, but attracted them to the cause which resulted in further
research of the organization.
More research needs to be done to determine what population is more susceptible to
celebrity influence. Influence needs to be studied on different demographics and donor trends.
By performing this additional research, nonprofit organizations will be able to determine the best
way to reach out to the targeted population. According to the survey, females between the ages
of 31-40 years old are more likely to be influenced by a celebrity endorser. If this is the target
population for a nonprofit organization, bringing in a celebrity to help spread the word and
attract these donors is a definite plus. In addition, according to the survey investors are more
attracted to attend an event because of the celebrities in attendance. If this is the target
population, having celebrities at an event will help increase the support of this donor group.
“Celebrities are up there with pillars of the community—they are voices of influence
(Samman et al., 2009, p. 138).” Whether they are promoting a new energy drink or a mission of
an organization, celebrities have the ability to attract the attention of millions of people. Even if
the potential donor does not like the celebrity and is not influenced by them, the celebrity still
has still caught that individual‟s attention which could lead to future donations. Meanwhile,

celebrities with a strong connection to a cause and strategic fit within the organization are most
influential; those with no connection once again have the power to spread awareness about the
organization and the cause.
“What these people are doing, especially at the top of their game, can be doing anything
they want to do. The fact that they want to serve those less fortunate shows remarkable testament
to the people they are. It speaks loudly about their character and their heart (Perry, personal
communication, January 26, 2011).” If an organization has the opportunity to partner up with a
celebrity, and the benefits of the relationship outweigh the costs, it is in the best interest of the
organization to take advantage of the opportunity. The perks of the relationship, between the
marketing to current donors, future donors, and fans, can bring great benefits to the mission of
the organization.

References
AT&T National. (2011, May 11). AT&T National supports Philadelphia youth charities:
Tournament to grant proceeds to three youth-based organizations. Retrieved from
www.tigerwoodsfoundation.org.
Barrett, W. (2000). Sweet charity. Forbes, 165(7), 180-182.
Carr, S.C. & Rugimbana, R.O. (2009). Marketing and development out of poverty:
Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marking, 14, 95-100.
Charity Navigator. (2011). Haiti earthquake 1 yr. later: Donor survey results. Retrieved from
www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1188.
Flandez, R. (2010, October 3). Charities rethink galas to attract—and please—more donors. The
Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://philanthropy.com.
Hall, H. (2007, January 25). Celebrities are not a big draw for donors. The Chronicle of
Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://philanthropy.com.
Janoff, B. (2011, January 28). Tiger Woods’ sexploits cost him $50 million, but where did the
money go? Retrieved from www.bleacherreport.com/articles/588195-tiger-woods-
sexploits-cost-him-$50-million-but-where-did-the-money-go.
Keep A Child Alive. (2010). About digital death. Retrieved from http://buylife.org/about.php.
Keep A Child Alive. (2010). Digital death: Home. Retrieved from www.buylife.org/index.php.

Klineman, J. (2003, March 13). Celebrity supporters can bring visibility to charities—but careful
screening is crucial. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved from
http://philanthropy.com.
Lewis, N. (2007). Seasoned fund raiser trades celebrity for new challenge. Chronicle of
Philanthropy, 20(5), 46.
Livestrong. (2010). Join team Livestrong. Retrieved from www.livestrong.org.
MSNBC. (2010). Tiger Woods’ sex scandal. Retrieved from
www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/34969596.
Muehrcke, J. (2003). Real connection. Nonprofit World, 21(4), 2.
Panepento, P. (Interviewer) & Purcell, M. (Interviewee). (2008). Celebrities and Charities
[Interview Transcript]. Retrieved from Chronicles of Philanthropy Web Site
http://philanthropy.com/article/celebritiescharity/63247/.
Preston, C. (2008). Shining the star power. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 21(2).
Preston, C. (2010, October 31). A look at how Lance Armstrong‟s charity will cope as the cyclist
faces drug charges. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved from
http://philanthropy.com.
Rindova, V.F., Pollock, T.G., & Hayward, M.L. (2006). Celebrity firms: The social
construction of market popularity. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 50-71.
Robert, M. (2006). The new strategic thinking: Pure and simple. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Rosso, H. (2003). Achieving excellence in fund raising. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Samman, E., McAulife, E., & MacLachlan, M. (2009). The role of celebrity in endorsing
poverty reduction through international aid. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 14, 137-148.
Sommerfeld, M. (2001, September 16). Soccer champion Mia Hamm scores as charity fund
raiser. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://philanthropy.com.
SportingNews. (2010, March 3). Only 39 percent favorable of Tiger, poll shows. Retrieved from
www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/35693475.
Stone, G., Joseph, M., & Jones, M. (2003). An exploratory study on the use of sports celebrities
in advertising: A content analysis. Sports Marketing Quarterly, 12(2), 94-102.
Tiger Woods Foundation. (2011). About the foundation. Retrieved on January 30, 2010 from
http://web.tigerwoodsfoundation.org/aboutTWF/whatWeDo.
Tiger Woods Foundation. (2011). TWF partners & sponsors. Retrieved on January 30, 2010
from http://web.tigerwoodsfoundation.org/partners/index.
Twitter. (2010). Khloe Kardashian. Retrieved from www.twitter.com/#!/keepachildalive.
Twitter. (2010). Kim Kardashian. Retrieved from www.twitter.com/#!/kimkardashian.
Wheeler, R.T. (2003) Choosing celebrity endorsers: Tips and traps. Nonprofit World, 21(4), 17-
20.

Wheeler, R.T. (2009). Nonprofit advertising: Impact of celebrity connection, involvement
and gender on source credibility and intention to volunteer time or donate money.
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 21, 80-107.
Wilhelm, I. (2004, November 11). A view inside the Gates. The Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Retrieved from http://philanthropy.com.

Appendix A—Survey
1. Demographics & Income--Please check all that apply.
Sex-Male
Sex-Female
Age-11-20
Age-21-30
Age-31-40
Age-41-50
Age-51-60
Age-61-70
Age-71-80
Age-81-90
Ethnicity-African American
Ethnicity-Asian American
Ethnicity-Hispanic
Ethnicity-Middle Eastern
Ethnicity-Native American
Ethnicity-Other
Ethnicity-White
Income-Less than $10,000 a
year
Income-$10,000-$20,000
Income-$20,00-$40,000
Income-$40,000-$60,000
Income-$60,000-100,000
Income-greater than $100,000
2. When you were younger, were you swayed by a celebrity endorsement to purchase a
product or donate to a charity? If you have children, have they been swayed by a celebrity
endorsement to purchase a product or donate to a charity?
I have been swayed.
I have not been swayed.
My children have been swayed.
My children have not been swayed.
3. Have you ever purchased a product (sneakers, perfume, food, etc.) strictly because it was
promoted by a celebrity?
Never
Once
2-5 times
5-10 times
10 or more times
4. How often do you donate to charity?
Never
Seldom
Often
Regularly
Only if there is a disaster (9/11, Hurricane Katrina, Earthquake in Haiti, etc.)

5. What motivates you to donate to charity? (Please choose no more than two answers)
I give because it makes sense to do so and it helps my community.
I give because of religious purposes. (Ex. It is God's will for you to help others.)
I give because it is good for my business.
I give to take advantage of the tax & estate benefits.
I give because social functions that benefit charities are fun and I have a good time doing it.
I give out of generosity and empathy to urgent causes and I wish to remain anonymous. Giving
is a moral imperative.
I give back to a charity that I have personally benefited from, as repayment for helping me.
I give because it is something that my family has always stood for, sort of like a tradition.
6. Have you ever donated to a cause based on the celebrity endorsing the charity or cause?
(For example, donating the help the Haiti earthquake victims due to Wyclef's promotion.)
No.
Yes. I donated solely because of the celebrity influence.
Yes. I donated because of the celebrity influence and I support the cause.
Please give details regarding your answer.
7. Out of the list below, what charity would you support and why?
1. WWF (World Wildlife Fund)--endorsed by actor, Leonardo DiCaprio who advocates for the
environment
2. Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research--founded by actor Michael J. Fox who is
diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease
3. Boys & Girls Club--endorsed by athlete Alex Rodriguez who grew up as a child in this club
4. Population Services International--actress Ashley Judd is a global ambassador for their
YouthAids prevention program
5. Pujols Family Foundation (supports Down-syndrome families and poor families)--founded by
athlete Albert Pujols who grew up in poverty and his daughter was born with Down-syndrome
8. Would you support the Tiger Woods Foundation? Why or why not.
The Tiger Woods Foundation believes in a new generation of bold, courageous youth. They inspire
new perspectives and limitless possibilities. They provide opportunities to Be Someone. Since its
inception in 1996 by Tiger Woods and his father, Earl, the Tiger Woods Foundation has reached
millions of young people by delivering unique experiences and innovative educational
opportunities for youth worldwide. What began as simply a dream to provide young people with
opportunities and the tools needed to achieve a bright future has grown into a global organization
that has served young people around the world. (Tiger Woods Foundation, 1/28/11)
9. The Jorge Posada Foundation was created by 5-time World Champion, New York Yankee,

Jorge Posada and his wife Laura after their son was born with Craniosynostosis. The
Foundation supports families diagnosed with Craniosynostosis and promotes awareness
about this disorder. The Foundation is hosting an event, which will be jam packed with
celebrities ranging from athletes to movie and TV stars. If you had the money to support this
organization, would you purchase a ticket?
No. I do not like the Yankees and/or Jorge Posada.
No. I do not know what Craniosynostosis is and would rather support a cause I am passionate
about.
Yes. I would love to do what I can to help support families affected by Craniosynostosis.
Yes. This is a great chance to meet some of my favorite celebrities and help out a great cause.
Yes. This is a chance to meet my favorite celebrities.
Other (please specify)
10. Have you ever supported a charity endorsed by a celebrity? If so, which one and why? If
not, please explain?

Appendix B—Summary of interview with Susan Taylor, Executive Director of Actors and Others
for Animals
Susan Taylor has been involved with Actors and Others for Animals (AOA) for over 35
years and has been the Executive Director for 12 years. Taylor does not have any experience
working for a nonprofit organization that was not founded or endorses by a celebrity. Taylor stated
“AOA was founded by celebrities and other members of the entertainment industry to bring media
attention on the plight of animals. Forty years ago, working to protect and care for animals was not
on the radar of most people nor government or media. Our name certainly brings us attention as
well as some of our celebrity board members, which is a benefit. But our donation ability is
coupled with our longevity, reputation and success.” When asked whether or not AOA would have
less support is celebrities did not endorse the organization, Taylor stated that “that is difficult to
gauge since we were started by celebrities. However, we provide a needed service and again our
reputation, longevity and success goes a long way to attracting donors.
Now-a-days most every good size, nonprofit has a celebrity endorsing the organization, or
appearing at fundraisers. In fact, our society as a whole has a fixation on celebrities. Television
commercials are filled with celebrities urging product sales. So there is much to be said that the
public likes to see celebrities working with nonprofits which may in turn increase donations. There
are many organizations that do well without celebrities as well. A good message, strong programs,
good reputation and a good success rate will attract donors to any good charity, celebrity
involvement or not. With today‟s two big services, Charity Navigator and GuideStar, more and
more donors are researching their charity choices.” Taylor also feels that the influence that
celebrities have on endorsing a nonprofit organization depends on the celebrity and the mission
that they are endorsing. Taylor states “there is an old saying that there is no such thing as bad

publicity. You see that today in the scandals involving Charlie Sheen. Despite what most
Americans would characterize as demoralizing and abhorrent behavior, his television show reaps
the highest ratings. But it is going to depend on the scandal and the mission of the organization
they are endorsing. Look at Tiger Woods. He lost a lot of his endorsements, but his own charity
foundation remained intact.”
Lastly, Taylor states “I receive requests from all over the United States from animal
welfare organizations seeking help in getting a celebrity to attend a fundraising event. I always
inform them to remember that unless a celebrity is already working with them, that there are costs
associated if in fact they are able to attract a celebrity. They may give all of their time, but all costs
such as travel, hotel, transportation, meals, etc. must be covered. I strongly suggest that they look
at their own town for celebrities. Television anchors, weather people, politicians and well know
citizens can be just as useful in attracting attendees to their events.”

Appendix C—Summary of interview with Mary Jo Bernardo, Chief Financial Officer at Tony La
Russa‟s Animal Rescue Foundation.
Mary Jo Bernardo has been working with Tony La Russa‟s Animal Rescue Foundation
(ARF) for about four years. Bernardo has previously worked for organizations that were not
founded by celebrities. Bernardo feels that ARF is “better funded as a result of attracting a larger
and more generous donor base and this is because of Tony La Russa. A celebrity can garner greater
media interest.” However, Bernardo does not feel that ARF has any advantages over similar
organizations but she does feel that celebrity endorsements are very influential on the public.

Appendix D—Summary of interview with Sandra Miniutti, Vice President, Marketing & CFO at
Charity Navigator
Sandra Miniutti has no experience working with a celebrity endorsed organization and feels
that an advantage to this is that they do not have to worry about the celebrity getting into a scandal
that would affect the charity‟s brand. However, Miniutti feels that celebrity endorsement can bring
more awareness to the charity and its mission which is definitely an advantage. But again, a
scandal can have a reverse impact. If a celebrity were to endorse a nonprofit organization, Miniutti
feels that the celebrity should have a personal connection. “Having a super star celebrity with no
personal connection can generate more awareness but it could backfire if the public sees their
involvement as less than authentic.”

Appendix E—Summary of interview with Todd Perry, Executive Director at Pujols Family
Foundation
Todd Perry has been the ED at the Pujols Family Foundation (PFF) since its creation in
2005 and has no prior experience working with a celebrity or in the nonprofit field. Perry feels that
PFF has benefits over other nonprofits with a similar mission because both causes in the mission of
PFF (Down-syndrome and poverty), Pujols has been touched personally by. Perry states “the
Pujols Foundation definitely has an advantage which is his celebrity status in St. Louis, where they
do most of their work. He is extremely popular, well-liked and well respected in the community
which is as huge plus. Fundraisers get sold out months in advance and have waiting lists. Other
organizations do not have that kind of demand but most of it has to do with the celebrities that
participate. Events with the families usually have a 60-70% response rate compared to a 15%
response rate at other organizations.”
When asked about the influence that celebrities have on endorsing a mission or cause, Perry
has a few different views. “Inside looking out, there are a lot of celebrities that lend their names to
causes and there is nothing wrong with that. I applaud anyone who wants to get involved at that
level. Any time that happens there is an endorsement effect, unless a scandal erupts, but there
always seems to be positive outcomes. Celebrities and athletes with vested interest in the mission
and have close ties to the organization seem to have the biggest impact in my opinion. Albert and
Deidre [Albert‟s wife] are just parents when they have an event. They can talk head to head, toe to
toe about Down-syndrome. Involving global poverty, the way Albert grew up he can talk with
authority regarding this subject. He has great passion for these things—it isn‟t something you can
teach. There is an authenticity when celebrities endorse a nonprofit organization they are vested in,
especially when the cause has affected them directly. It isn‟t something Albert is just doing, he is

connected to it and passionate about it which makes all the difference in the world. Other people
just go through the motions. I‟m definitely not knocking them because they did lend their name to
a cause, but the public definitely senses the difference and I think that community and the public
senses that immediately. There is a difference between the guys that are doing things just because
they think they should verse the ones who have a passion for it.”
In regards to celebrity scandals, Perry feels that it is a double edge sword and that we live
and die by the celebrity. “I do not know for sure, but there has to be some sort of spill over from
the scandal to the success of your charity. There is definitely a backlash when you are in the news
negatively.” All in all, Perry “thinks that what these people are doing, especially at the top of their
game, can be doing anything they want to do. The fact that they want to serve those less fortunate
shows remarkable testament to the people they are. It speaks loudly about their character and their
heart.”

Celebrities and Nonprofits

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (11)

Semelhante a Celebrities and Nonprofits

Semelhante a Celebrities and Nonprofits (20)

Celebrities and Nonprofits