Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Middleman charities like Komen are nothing more than a scam. They collect contributions, bleed off a significant portion for their executives and employees and funnel the remainder to the organizations that are doing actual charitable work. The reason people form charities like Komen is to put money in their own pocket while being able to claim with a straight face that they are actually doing something worthwhile.
That's simply not true.
"Since its inception in 1982, Komen has invested nearly $2 billion for breast cancer research, education, advocacy, health services and social support programs in the U.S., and through partnerships in more than 50 countries."
"Since its inception in 1982, Komen has invested nearly $2 billion for breast cancer research, education, advocacy, health services and social support programs in the U.S., and through partnerships in more than 50 countries."
How much money did the executives keep for themselves during that same time period?
I don't know, but we know that no one was making more than $440,000 a year. So let's say it was a few million. There is always a cost to fundraising.
Let's say you can find an extremely effective fundraiser and pay her $400,000 and that year you raise $ 100 million.
You pay a less effective fundraiser $200,000 and you raise only $ 80 million.
It is still of far more benefit for breast cancer funding to have the more effective fundraiser.
In the case of Nancy Brinker, the woman earning $400,000, there wouldn't even BE this charity if she hadn't started it. She STARTED it. So yes, she made a high salary, but the entire fund wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for her work, so who are we to begrudge her a salary that pales in comparison to what most non-profit healthcare CEOs (mostly men) are making. It wouldn't have made much difference if she made $200,000 a year or $400,000 a year, not when you are talking about budgets of $380 million a year.
I don't know, but we know that no one was making more than $440,000 a year. So let's say it was a few million. There is always a cost to fundraising.
Let's say you can find an extremely effective fundraiser and pay her $400,000 and that year you raise $ 100 million.
You pay a less effective fundraiser $200,000 and you raise only $ 80 million.
It is still of far more benefit for breast cancer funding to have the more effective fundraiser.
YOU'RE still missing the point.. The fact is that in a non-profit fundraiser, there shouldn't be profits paid to any fundraisers.
The question is.. what pockets, exactly, have been lined by all those millions?? Advertising?? (for what purpose.. to gain more $$.. ?) Business expenses? None of which help the actual cause.
It all reminds me of the televangalist's days of yore..
The "donors" should be the ones setting the criteria for what is too high and what is acceptable. Many donors, after seeing these percentages, may back away, feeling it is not what they thought their donations were going to. OK, let us go with your premise even though it is a criteria YOU are setting. Are all donors in agreement with your criteria? I venture to guess that it is not. However, for the sake of argument let us say that it is. Apparently, they do not mind because overall they are still donating and supporting the organization because if it was not the organization would fold.
Now, realistically not all donors may agree with the percentages. You say "many donors". How many is enough to say "many"? Regardless of how many it is the point still stands due to the fact that enough remain loyal to the cause. Some may even think the percentages may not be what they want but the cause and the goal is what they support and agree that the organization is still doing good overall.
If the goals of "awareness" were your criteria, then it's been acheived (quite expensively). HOWEVER, most women have been aware of the importance of annual mammograms from their doctors long before this charity spent vast sums of donor;s money advertising the "pink" phenomenom.
Apparently there are lots of women worldwide that still support and believe that the organization is helping with programs, research, awareness, etc. It does seem that your standpoint does not have enough power for them to leave the organization. Are there those that may leave, yes. I venture to guess that if the organization's percentages were exactly as you think were the right ones, there would still be those that would leave for the same reason you state here.
The point being.. millions of donor's money wasted administrative salaries and perks, on advertising their campaign, selling pink stickers for cars, focusing on "runs" for cancer.... ALL vastly different from donors money spent on researching cures that the American Cancer Society works on simultaneously.
Well, every organization runs their program as they see fit. Wasted money? Just another subjective view, others do not see it that way. Is there a perfect organization that does not waste money in some ways, not in my opinion. So, I am sure they may waste in some ways just as any organization that you may think is doing its jobs and I am sure it also has its detractors. Actually, I guess there are supporters that actually believe some waste is done but overall they still stand by the organization.
Isn't that what the goal is all about?
The goal that is all about can be achieved in different ways and people do vary on how to achieve it. Keep in mind that they are non-profit organizations and people do choose which ones they support by donating or volunteering and even by running for the cause. Good points you brought up and it is good for people to consider and either leave the organization support or stay with it. Apparently, not enough support your views by the fact that the organization still keeps going strong. Take care.
"Since its inception in 1982, Komen has invested nearly $2 billion for breast cancer research, education, advocacy, health services and social support programs in the U.S., and through partnerships in more than 50 countries."
The detractors will not accept your point and will come up with reasons to put down the organization. They will find ways to counter your points. Their minds are made up. You can try, maybe the more objective ones will at least consider your points. Take care.
How much money did the executives keep for themselves during that same time period?
How much money YOU think they should keep? The point is that this very subjective. The people that support he organization apparently do not mind that point because they keep behind them and the organization keeps going strong. Take care.
YOU'RE still missing the point.. The fact is that in a non-profit fundraiser, there shouldn't be profits paid to any fundraisers.
The question is.. what pockets, exactly, have been lined by all those millions?? Advertising?? (for what purpose.. to gain more $$.. ?) Business expenses? None of which help the actual cause.
It all reminds me of the televangalist's days of yore..
It's not profits --- it's pay for the work she did. People who work in non-profit do not have to sacrifice their livelihoods to the cause. They don't have to work every day of their working life earning a sub-standard salary just to work in an area they believe in.
It's already on this thread many times as to where the funding from the Komen foundation has gone so I'm not going to repeat it.
YOU'RE still missing the point.. The fact is that in a non-profit fundraiser, there shouldn't be profits paid to any fundraisers. There shouldn't be profits? That is the key word, "shouldn't" does reflect subjectivity. We are in a country that overall does not support socialist views. In socialist views people tend to put criteria on others on how much they should get paid and say how things are supposed to be run. In this country the people that support and donate for those organization decide how much is to much or to little. Again, apparently thousands out there do not support your views.
The question is.. what pockets, exactly, have been lined by all those millions?? Advertising?? (for what purpose.. to gain more $$.. ?) Business expenses? None of which help the actual cause. A lot of good questions I must say. However, do you have a breakdown of all the money needed to keep the organization going? To run such organization of such size requires people that have the expertise and savy to run it and keep it to a successful level. That does require to pay those people. I do not think an organization like that would succeed by expecting executives to be paid what I suspect you want them to get paid.
It all reminds me of the televangalist's days of yore..
Simply a reflection of your bias against the organization and that is fine. No organization has 100%n approval. Actually, many that have not walk the walk tend to be negative. Have you ever run an organization of such magnitude? If so, I am also very sure there are people that may comment about you the same way as you are of Susan G. Komen. Take care.
YOU'RE still missing the point.. The fact is that in a non-profit fundraiser, there shouldn't be profits paid to any fundraisers.
The question is.. what pockets, exactly, have been lined by all those millions?? Advertising?? (for what purpose.. to gain more $$.. ?) Business expenses? None of which help the actual cause.
It all reminds me of the televangalist's days of yore..
Actually I would be more interested in how much was spent in suing other organizations for using the phrase "race for cure".
Why do the Komen have a problem with this if it is simply all about getting the word out about diseases and illnesses, etc.?
from Huffington post - During his "Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger" segment last night, Stephen Colbert satirically tipped his hat to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation after learning from HuffPost that the foundation has been using donor money to go after smaller charities who have the audacity to use the phrase "for the Cure" in their own efforts to battle cancer.
"Anybody who knows me knows I am a huge supporter of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, which raises millions of dollars a year in the fight against breast cancer . . . So I'm giving a big Tip of my Hat to the Komen foundation for spending almost a million dollars a year in donor funds to sue these other groups. If they don't own the phrase "for the Cure," then people might donate money thinking it's going to an organization dedicated to curing cancer, when instead it's wasted on organizations dedicated to curing cancer."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
