QUOTE=sndral;1326136]
Covering up this time Pippa? Fergie shows more flesh than Miss Middleton at breast cancer charity event | Mail Online
Sarah's pix is halfway down.
I assume these charity events raise money by selling expensive tickets - are there a % of free tickets handed out to celebs to get publicity for the charity and/or to encourage wealthy persons to buy tickets to attend in order to mingle w/ the celebs?[/QUOTE]
I have transferrred this from the 'Interviews and Current Affairs' thread so that I do not go Off Topic.
Please can I help with a little bit of information here?
Over the years, UK charity fundraising events have changed very much in their nature: For many years up until the 1990's or so, upscale 'Society' charity Evening events consisted of Balls and Dances and Film Premieres etc with a few Receptions at Private Views [Art and Antiques exhibitions] etc. Funds were raised by the sale of tickets and the actual organisation was done [usually] by the beneficiary charity's own [paid] staff. 'Assisting' these charity staff members was a 'Committee' formed for each event under a Chairman. The Committee consisted of '
Society' ladies and their friends - with (usually) the grandest acting as the Chairman. The Committee used to do very little work - mostly their 'organising meetings' were actually rather social get-togethers at the Chairman's house. The purpose of the Committee was really for its members to sell the Event tickets [and the inevitable raffle tickets] to their friends and members of their wider circle. There were usually no 'Celebrities' as such; the 'celebrity factor' were mostly provided by the presence of the 'Society Ladies', e.g. Lady so-and-so. The Committee ladies usually bought tickets to their own events, although I suspect that one or two managed to get freebies. The money raised was the net proceeds i.e. money raised from the sale of tickets less the expenses of putting on the event.
[For the sake of completeness, I should also mention that some of the large balls were actually organised by a certain breed of 'quasi-Society lady' who took a fee for her services - this practice was, to a certain extent frowned on].
Things started to change very much as the 1990's advanced; the reason for this was probably because of the decline of 'Society' and the rise of the 'Celebrity culture'.
The social programme also changed, including slightly less 'upscale' events i.e. - some felt to be a little.........hard to define this exactly, but vulgar is probably the nearest description. Perhaps the other most significant change was the increasing prevalence of Sponsorship, with companies underwriting some or all of the expenses of putting on the event, which meant that more of - or if the sponsorship was total - ALL of the ticket price going to benefit the charity. It also became the practice to start inviting celebrities, who not only did not have to buy a ticket, but sometimes received an 'appearance fee' for their attendance.
It the Ball was not unwritten ENTIRELY by one company, certain components were sometimes sponsored - for example, the Programme [nearly all charity events have a programme, listing something about the event and the charity etc which is then sold to the attendees]. Sponsoring the wine / champagne is another common practice. This means that the charity beneficiary will receive more of the ticket price.
One matter common to both the pre 1990s and the contemporary Event scene is that ALL organisers try to secure a Royal presence at the ball / premiere / reception etc. The presence of a Royal means that the ticket price be fixed at a much higher price than would otherwise be the case. And of course, the 'hotter' the Royal, the higher the ticket can be priced at!! Plus, of course, the 'hotter the Royal', the quicker the tickets will sell! In the 1980's, a ticket for an event graced with the presence of Princess Diana would be quite expensive and sell out very quickly when compared with (say) a ticket for an event by Princess Margaret. [ I digress here, but the other problem of Princess Margaret gracing an event was that she was prone to to cancel.....]. I should make it clear that tickets to sit at the table of the Royal were not any more expensive than tickets to sit at the less-grand tables, [ a difference with the USA] and there was never any guarantee that there would be an introduction to the Royal guest] but 'Top Table' guests are inevitably Society people and / or those of those who have given a lot of money to the charity concerned and/ or are from the Sponsors etc.
Another point: I have attended several 'fundraisers' in the USA over the years, and from my own personal experience, I can tell you that ticket prices in the USA are MUCH more expensive than a corresponding ticket to a UK event would be. I think that this is for a variety of reasons: Americans on the whole have a greater history of large scale philanthropy and also some of their tickets are, I believe, tax deductible.
Having finally explained all of the above, I would assume, based on what I know from my own experiences of charity events, BUT with no inside information about the event in question, is that Fergie and Pippa Middleton and most of the other celebrities were at the event on 'Freebies', both to attract other guests and also to attract publicity [press coverage] for the event [and thus the beneficiary charity]. I am fairly certain that Pippa would not have been paid to put in an appearance; I hardly dare like to think whether or not Sarah was paid to attend....... Certainly, rumours of her receiving money for appearances at charity events have dogged her for years and years - from long before her divorce incidentally!!
Slightly OT, based on what I know from my own circle, I would think that Buckingham Palace
may start to feel a slight unease at the increasing appearance of Pippa Middleton at events. I do NOT think that the papers are at fault for apparently 'building up' Pippa by continuing to feature her at various events etc. In my very humble opinion, Pippa Middleton is becoming increasingly socially prominent purely because she is Catherine's sister, and BP can get a bit sensitive at what they sometimes see as people apparently 'cashing in' on their Royal connections.
Just my thoughts, and not meant to offend,
Alex
