AIDS/HIV | Kim Kardashian | News

BigGayDeal.com

Celebrities 'Die' Temporary Twitter, Facebook Deaths in World AIDS Day Campaign

Kardashian

Dying for attention (to AIDS).

Mashable writes:

Millions of people will be deprived of their favorite celebrity musings later this week as the likes of Lady Gaga, Justin Timberlake and Ryan Seacrest go dark on Twitter and Facebook. The silence will only be temporary, however, as it’s part of a $1 million fundraiser for World AIDS Day, which takes place December 1.

The project was organized by Alicia Keys on behalf of her charity Keep a Child Alive. According to the Associated Press, the celebs — which also include Kim and Khloe Kardashian, Jennifer Hudson and Serena Williams — will remain silent in the social media universe until the charity raises $1 million.

The effort will be further supported by dramatic videos featuring the celebs in what the AP describes as “lying in coffins to represent what the campaign calls their digital deaths.” Presumably, those videos will be tweeted out before the celebs sign off to raise awareness.

Dlisted thinks the campaign got it all wrong: "This is NOT how you do it. If Alicia really wants all of us to turn our PayPal pocketbooks upside down and shake the cash into her hands, she should've promised us that Kim will stay off of Twitter forever once $1 million is raised. Where was Don Draper when Alicia really needed him?!"

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. or even to match the funds raised

    Posted by: r | Nov 29, 2010 12:35:12 PM


  2. I'm sure this was well intended, but it comes off as incredibly tacky and shallow.

    Posted by: Tigerama | Nov 29, 2010 12:36:08 PM


  3. we don't need to pay attention to aids in the rest of the world?

    Posted by: r | Nov 29, 2010 12:36:42 PM


  4. Show of hands for anybody who agrees that, as per usual, most celebrity campaigns like this one aren't about the reasons behind the campaign but about the celebrity and how they can get yet one more picture of themselves on the internet.
    It's just gross. Are we still falling for this shit?!
    This isn't about World AIDS Day. It's about bimbos like Kim Kardashian pouring her tits in a designer dress and pouting.

    Posted by: TPL | Nov 29, 2010 12:37:43 PM


  5. One million seems like a paltry sum. And how much exactly was the marketing budget?

    Posted by: virtualdespot | Nov 29, 2010 12:52:31 PM


  6. Are we really complaining about a fundraiser for AIDS? As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if the campaign is tacky as long as it helps the cause. NEWSFLASH! CELEBRITIES ARE TACKY! However, they are a useful tool in attracting the attention of the population.

    Complain all you want, but Kim Kardashian is doing a lot more for the AIDS cause by participating in this than many of us are by sitting at our computers whining about it.

    Sometimes I feel like most of the commenters on this blog are just here to participate in a 'who can leave the cattiest comment?' contest.

    Posted by: BC | Nov 29, 2010 1:05:24 PM


  7. I love "Made-Ya-Look" advertising, but these vainglorious stunts (the DWTS flung-arm, really?) give the unspoken message, "but if KIM ever died, that WOULD be important. AIDS, huh?"

    Annie Lennox brought much more attention to AIDS with a simple t-shirt. I would have paid to see giant, "KIM KARDASHIAN IS HIV POSITIVE" and "JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE IS HIV POSITIVE" ads. Put the focus where it belongs, really grab people's attention, and start working on that stigma issue at the same time.

    Posted by: lodenmuse | Nov 29, 2010 1:05:24 PM


  8. I can't take anything involving Twitter seriously

    if this fundraiser was satire, it might be kinda funny in a slightly inappropriate late night premium cable comedy way (?)

    but as it is, just comes off bad... even if well intended

    Posted by: neverstops | Nov 29, 2010 1:06:58 PM


  9. The message here seems to be that people are salivating waiting for tweets from these celebs and will desperately pay (not really donate, so it's a form of extortion) for them to start reposting inane observations (most of which are probably written by their assistants). I couldn't care less.

    Sure, it's for a good cause, but it's a drop in the bucket financially and seems like a promo tool for the celebrities. Why not just get money from the celebs, then announce what wonderful, giving people they are? The net self-aggrandizing effect would be the same.

    Posted by: Paul R | Nov 29, 2010 1:14:44 PM


  10. No matter how tacky, they are trying to involve people and it's for a good cause. That's why all the whiny little c*nts can sit down and not donate anything at all.

    And who said some of these celebrities don't donate and spend time to fight aids behind the scenes and not in front of the camera?

    This campaign obviously did it's job. Catch your attention. Now DONATE. You wouldn't even spend this moment thinking about aids if it weren't for this (tacky) campaign.

    Posted by: June | Nov 29, 2010 1:45:43 PM


  11. What about people that need HIV/AIDS assistance in the United States? Great that we're helping people in India and Africa, but I know more than a few people who can't afford their medication in our own country. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this to offer assistance to those living in America.

    Posted by: Wayne | Nov 29, 2010 1:55:47 PM


  12. death in a 140 characters? meh

    Posted by: David B. 2 | Nov 29, 2010 2:32:13 PM


  13. Do pseudo-celebrities collect charities and causes like they collect spinoff reality shows? I believe the campaign is a little tactless in its galmourization of death in some altruistic, superficial manner. Are the marketers here honestly expecting us to buy into yet another campaign showcasing some 'has been' trying to show face for a charity..Its just stupid.

    Posted by: Taylor Ward | Nov 29, 2010 3:02:58 PM


  14. it might be more effective to have a live-feed-pay-per view of the Kardashian's and other "reality" celebs going to a free clinic for an HIV test and watching while they await the results?

    Posted by: my2cents | Nov 29, 2010 3:32:12 PM


  15. Does the average Joe Blow celeb stalker have permission to kill the nearest attention whore celeb yet? Even with this campaign by PR minded shitheads to make living and dying with HIV/AIDS as callow and irrelevant an experience as consuming the trash they create is? Kim Kardashian can get run over by a truck and I would fall apart in hysterics, really. These people are vile. Every last one of them.

    Posted by: SeriouslySick | Nov 29, 2010 3:37:10 PM


  16. @June: Yeah, absolutely correct. As a gay man I never spend a single f'ing second thinking about HIV/AIDS, and haven't for 27 years. Death is absolutely hilarious to me and people I care about.

    Posted by: Paul R | Nov 29, 2010 4:43:28 PM


  17. If only it were true!

    Posted by: Toro Castano | Nov 30, 2010 2:12:11 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Ninth Circuit Judicial Panel Line-Up Looks Bad for Prop 8 Supporters« «