I watch those videos where a celebrity or content creator takes a camera around as he does his good deed for the day, changing the lives of ordinary citizens and putting a smile on their faces.
Most times as I watch, I find tears coming to my eyes because of the joy and happiness expressed by the recipients of the gift knowing fully well what a gift connotes in this harsh economy especially for people who are down and out. As I wipe my tears, I say a prayer for the donor whose largesse has made me and others vow to replicate in our own little ways, the joy and happiness of others.
However, despite my feelings, there was always that nagging thought that wondered why a camera follows the donor around and why his good deeds are publicised for the world to see. You may think me strange for asking why, afterall, were it not publicised I would not have had the opportunity to give expression to my charitable side and people’s lives have been changed. But somehow the attendant publicity just didn’t seem right, especially in the face of the Biblical injunction in Matthew 6:3 that says “But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing”. The apparent good done in these videos made me push my feelings of unease aside, until I came across an article on stunt philanthropy and suddenly what I felt had a name and was apparently a thing.
There is no doubt that philanthropy is a noble act of giving back to society, supporting causes and improving lives. However, the rise of social media and the constant need for public recognition has given birth to the controversial trend known as stunt philanthropy. American YouTuber MrBeast can be said to be the pioneer of stunt philanthropy, and the genre has since travelled to many parts of the world. In Nigeria, 26-year-qold Akinyemi Oluwaseun Omotayo, a popular Nigerian content creator who goes by the name Asherkine on the internet, is leading the growing crop of stunt philanthropists.
Stunt philanthropy refers to charitable acts or donations that are performed primarily for public attention, media coverage, or personal gain rather than a genuine commitment to philanthropy. These stunts are often highly publicised, sensational, or performed in a way that emphasises the giver more than the cause. The main goal of stunt philanthropy is to boost the individual’s or organisation’s image, brand, or social status. Examples of stunt philanthropy might include large donations announced with great fanfare, viral social media challenges that draw attention more to participants than the issues, or one-time charity events that focus on celebrity involvement rather than long-term support or impact.
I must say that stunt philanthropy is distinct from crowdfunding organised by celebrities for a cause because the cause is usually the main focus of the giving and not the promoter. Also the giving is done by several people and organisations so no one person is seen as the main donor although the promoter does get some publicity and may generate revenue too depending on the amount of views.
There is a controversy as to whether stunt philanthropy is overshadowing genuine charitable efforts as people who may have felt uneasy like I did, are beginning to look at the ethics of the practice and the motives behind the giftings . It is not in doubt that there is definitely some good being achieved by stunt philanthropy. The recipients of the cause are the foremost proof that people’s lives can be changed dramatically and the attendant publicity (if only for a short time) may bring attention to the individuals and to causes that might otherwise remain underfunded or ignored and can be, the catalyst to throw them into the public domain and showcase whatever hidden talents and skills they possess.
The public is introduced to issues they may not necessarily come across and it makes for a widening of public interest and information and maybe even government intervention. It is inspiring and the acts of kindness and generosity, even if staged, can spark similar behaviour among the public as it has surely done for me. Seeing successful people use their platforms for charitable purposes can inspire their followers to do the same, potentially fostering a culture of giving.
The main issue people have against this genre of philanthropy is the motive. Stunt philanthropy can easily turn into a tool for self-promotion. Instead of centering the cause or the people in need, the spotlight shifts to the donor, often overshadowing the issue itself. High-profile donations that come with press conferences, social media posts, and personal branding can make it hard to discern whether the primary motivation is the cause or the donor’s image. The truth is that with the views generated the donor makes a lot of money. For example, Asherkine has a following of over 1.5 million each on TikTok and Instagram. Some of his videos showcasing his philanthropic gestures have been viewed over 3.4 million times on each play thereby generating revenue for him. Some may say that the revenue generated goes back to funding his philanthropy but others say that while it looks good on the surface the motive is to generate more engagement and followers which in turn results in wider fame and sponsorship deals. In fact Suraj Olunifesi, an associate professor and social media researcher at the University of Lagos, told Rest of World “a global non profit publication covering the impact of technology beyond the western bubble” that “These creators should rather be called business people and not philanthropists.”
Stunt philanthropy can sometimes border on exploitation, using the struggles of vulnerable communities as a backdrop for self-serving acts of generosity. Publicity-driven campaigns often lack sensitivity to the dignity and needs of those they purport to help, turning their stories into mere props in a performance designed to make the giver look good. Finally, stunt philanthropy is often superficial in its impact. Acts are frequently one-time events that prioritise visibility over long-term solutions. The focus on short-term gains can overshadow the need for sustained support, resulting in temporary relief rather than meaningful, lasting change. Most times once the camera leaves and the spotlight fades, the cause is out of the mind of the philanthropist and the public.
I must say that it looks as if the good does outweigh the bad but the genre is still developing and time will tell if the fears expressed by the few who are asking questions will be realised. In the meantime my advice is that we strike a balance by harnessing the positive aspects of stunt philanthropy while mitigating its drawbacks. To do so, a more mindful approach is needed.
Donors—whether individuals, celebrities, or corporations—should ensure that their charitable actions go beyond optics and contribute to real, sustainable change by prioritising long term impact and supporting ongoing programs, funding systemic changes, or partnering with reputable organisations.
Donors should be honest about their motivations and the impact of their contributions. Transparency builds trust and shifts the focus back to the cause rather than the donor’s public image. They should use their platforms to elevate the voices of those directly impacted by the issues, giving them space to tell their own stories. This approach ensures that the cause remains the central focus and they should, rather than creating spectacles, encourage authentic engagement with the issues, inviting their audiences to learn, volunteer, and contribute in ways that make a meaningful difference.
By shifting the focus from the donor to the cause and emphasising genuine, long-term impact, stunt philanthropy can evolve from mere spectacle to a powerful force for good. Ultimately, the goal should be not just to be seen as generous but to truly make a difference in the lives of those in need. I still feel more comfortable with the biblical injunction though but maybe that’s just me.