Live 8 Goodie Bags

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,245
Location
Edge's beanie closet
I wonder how many of the artists will take the stuff. It just doesn't seem all that appropriate to me. If they need to be "thanked" in that way maybe they shouln't do the concert-don't celebrities get enough free stuff already? And obviously they can buy all of this for themselves.


Live 8 Artists to Play for Free, but Take Home Bag of Gifts Worth As Much As $12,000

The Associated Press

Jun. 30, 2005 - Live 8 performers are playing for free, but local organizers plan to shower the celebrities with a Hugo Boss duffel bag loaded with high-fashion trinkets valued at about $3,000.

They'll also be able to add to their goodie bags with big-ticket items including Hugo Boss suits, valued at $800 to $1,000 each; XM satellite radios and subscriptions, $500; Gibson guitars, $2,000; Bertolucci watches, valued between $1,500 and $6,000; and other items.

In all, a celebrity could walk away with a bag of gifts worth as much as $12,000.

"We want this to be a thank-you to the celebrities who are giving up their time and energies," said Nicole Cashman, whose firm was tapped by Larry Magid's Electric Factory Concerts to put the bags together.

One ethicist said there is a disconnect in the fact that the rich gifts are being offered at a concert whose aim is bringing attention to poverty in Africa.

"It's not unethical, but it falls into the middle gray zone," Loyola Marymount University business and ethics professor Thomas White told The Philadelphia Inquirer. "Because on one hand the motivation is to help other people, while on the other hand the motivation is to help yourself, and that doesn't seem to go hand in hand."

Another ethics expert said he wonders why the companies who donated the gifts wouldn't just give the money to charity.

"There is nothing stopping the businesses from taking a stand, saying, `No, we are going to take this money, and we are going to give it to the charity,'" said Rushworth M. Kidder, president of the Institute for Global Ethics in Camden, Maine.
 
Wow, that really sounds quite outragious to me. I thought the point of doing a charity gig was that the artist don't get paid for it-in any way?

One asks himself indeed why the contributors to the goodie bags didn't just donate that budget to charity.

The answer : free publicity. :|
 
What? They shouldn't be given stuff like this as a thank you. They should be doing Live 8 because they believe strongly in the cause and should be happy to be there.

:shame:
 
the soul waits said:

The answer : free publicity. :|

That's really what this is all about. It might sound ludicrous but that's what the companies' intent is on this "gift bag" thing.

I don't think it's "right" but I am not really outraged by this. :shrug:
 
BrownEyedBoy said:


That's really what this is all about. It might sound ludicrous but that's what the companies' intent is on this "gift bag" thing.

I don't think it's "right" but I am not really outraged by this. :shrug:

Well, I am outraged.
I think the artists should take a stand and refuse the goodies.
This will not be taken well by the hard-working audience, who will not likely be able to afford any of these items.

IF the artist deserve a gift, a less commercial item would maybe be better received. Really, it comes across shallow, imo.
 
celia said:
What? They shouldn't be given stuff like this as a thank you. They should be doing Live 8 because they believe strongly in the cause and should be happy to be there.

:shame:

Word to the nth degree.

I've given up my free time and have done loads of volunteer work and I was lucky if the place I volunteered bought us a pizza.
 
The celebrities could auction off the goodie bags to raise money. I understand why companies do this but it seems twisted.

I can't remember who said it but in reference to all these perks celebrities get he said "now that I'm rich and famous no one will let me pay for anything"
 
Last edited:
This is not good! If they donate the bags to homeless kids or something it might be ok, but giving out this high priced stuff to the performers seems to defeat the purpose to the show.:(
 
The worth $12,000 is somewhat decieving. It would be worth that if it were sold at retail. It costs the companies fractions of that. So actually the companies lose money but gain publicity. I wouldn't think less of the artists. I would find the companies to be very greedy if they were seeking publicity and weren't somehow giving to the cause, but we don't know what each of these companies is or is not giving.
 
All technicalities aside, it just doesn't jive w/ me to take a $6000 watch when you're performing at a concert to raise awareness about people who for the most part might never see $6000 in their lifetime. I might be wrong about that, I'm not an expert about Africa and would never claim to be.

Sometimes it is about appearances and impressions
 
redkat said:


I can't remember who said it but in reference to all these perks celebrities get he said "now that I'm rich and famous no one will let me pay for anything"

It was actually Larry, in a drummer magazine. He said that when they first started out, he couldn't afford nice drums, but now that he can afford them, they give them to him.
 
If it's any consolation, none of these goods actually cost $12,000 to make. It's called "markup."

Melon
 
I don't know anything about these goody bags, but I have a feeling that whatever is in these bags were DONATED by companies to thank the performers for their time in participating in Live8.

Although the knowledge that you have just participated in a worldwide effort to save Africa's Future should be enough - don't you think?

:yes:
 
That's despicable to me, but what would be worse is if anyone actually takes the stuff. Yeah, it would be great if they donated it to charity, but how many would?

It's just wrong. About as wrong as the person who put the Live 8 tickets on eBay.
 
aislinn said:
That's despicable to me, but what would be worse is if anyone actually takes the stuff. Yeah, it would be great if they donated it to charity, but how many would?

It's just wrong. About as wrong as the person who put the Live 8 tickets on eBay.

If someone was to donate the money they gain from selling Live 8 Tix to Unicef or Care or some other organization giving aid to 3rd world nations, I wouldn't have too much of a problem. But to use it for personal monetary gain is rather despicable.
 
20 years ago today I watched the first Live Aid - live and commercial free. I was watching the free streanm on aol but they couldn't keep up. MTV has freakin commercials every 5 minutes so they're cashing in big time.

Couldn't they just have social justice as their purpose 1 f***ing time?
 
There's always a way for corporations to take a tax write off for contributing to "charitable causes".
 
I'd love to see some of those goodies signed by some of the performers and auctioned or raffled off for various good causes. Now that would be very cool.

(I like the raffle idea because the ticket price could be low enough to allow many more people to have a chance at the item, and so it could be great for fans who aren't stinking rich too. :) )
 
Before we all get a way ahead of ourselves here...

From what I have read, I believe that these "goodie bags" were offered to the artists in Philadelphia only. Doesn't mean it's right but it does mean you can probably forget about Bono asking the mrs later that night if his bum looked big in is Hugo Boss suit.

I am pretty positive that if anything like that went on in London, Sir Bob Geldof (at the very least) would have went nuts about it. When he went across the Atlantic in the 80s to be a part of 'We Are The World', it has been reported that he went nuts after finding out that the American celebrities were tucking into the finest food and drink during the session.

So, until the facts are confirmed can we please state that this 'goodie bag' behaviour was probably only actually happening at the US Live 8 show.
 
well lots not even forget about the bling bling and designer clothing that was worn on probably all of the stages at some point. or the fact that most of those people will go back to their bazillion dollar mansions at the end of the day. and i criticise as i sit here typing on my $1400 laptop. it's all very questionable.
 
with ALL of the GOOD that this event has done

all of the time the performers have GIVEN to this


and some of you choose to nit pick?

unbelievable!
 
I don't understand why this is contentious at all.

The suggestion that the celebrities performed so they could get these goodies is absolutely ridiculous given their wealth and the ability to purchase all these items many times over.

If some company wants to give them thanks in the form of free advertising, so what? I don't see how it defeats the purpose.
 
anitram said:
I don't understand why this is contentious at all.

The suggestion that the celebrities performed so they could get these goodies is absolutely ridiculous given their wealth and the ability to purchase all these items many times over.

If some company wants to give them thanks in the form of free advertising, so what? I don't see how it defeats the purpose.

I agree.
 
I don't think anyone was suggesting they performed to get these items, obviously they can purchase whatever they want..that's sort of the point. Why do they have to take freebies even at something like this? A thank you if they need one might be in the form of the satisfaction of doing something positive to raise awareness or whatever. I'm broke but I'd still feel uncomfortable taking things for doing something to raise awareness about poverty.

I think it's tacky :shrug: and yes I'm aware that they all have bling or whatever-Bono in his D&G jacket on stage (which I assume he purchased himself or received for something other than Live 8). But in my opinion a line should be drawn somewhere.
 
anitram said:
I don't understand why this is contentious at all.

The suggestion that the celebrities performed so they could get these goodies is absolutely ridiculous given their wealth and the ability to purchase all these items many times over.

If some company wants to give them thanks in the form of free advertising, so what? I don't see how it defeats the purpose.

I agree.
 
I agree it's tacky. I just don't find it upsetting nor do I think it is worth anybody's time to seriously complain and nitpick about details which in the long run, given the context of the day and our time, are absolutely and completely inconsequential. JHMO, of course.
 
Back
Top Bottom