Poster Calling Breast Cancer Charity A ‘Scam’ Goes Viral, Then Someone Explains Why It’s Wrong
Breast cancer is a serious health problem in society. But that doesn’t stop some people from using the illness as an excuse to siphon off money from emotionally distraught and charitable individuals. Or at least that’s the criticism some internet users shared after ‘exposing’ one breast cancer charity for being a ‘scam.’ There are some big, glaring holes in this belief, however, and it shows that some individuals rush to conclusions before doing their research.
Internet users shared a ‘fact card,’ stating that the largest and best-funded breast cancer organization in the United States, the Susan G. Komen charity is, allegedly, a ‘scam’ that is geared towards making a profit for its CEO and, supposedly, not meant helping out ill people.
The charity, which has been known by several different names throughout its 37 years of existence, is linked to some controversy. However, lots of people have also pointed out that the criticism the charity faces is outdated, taken out of context, factually incorrect, and not applicable.
To learn more about breast cancer, read through Bored Panda’s previous article on the topic that also includes an in-depth interview with the National Breast Cancer Foundation (NBCF), as well as useful and informative resources about the illness.
More info: Komen.org | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube
This ‘fact sheet’ started an intense discussion online…
According to Snopes, the idea that Komen is using only a fifth of the money people donate to fund breast cancer research is technically (almost) correct, but the implication is wrong. In 2009 and 2010, Komen spent 20.9 percent of all proceeds on research. But it also spent 39.1 percent on public health education, 13 percent on health screening services, 5.6 percent on treatment, 10 percent on fund-raising costs, and 11.3 percent on administrative costs.
Not only is the criticism geared towards Komen outdated, but it’s also intrinsically flawed. Some people believe that charities only help the ill by funding research. This is not the case. Organizations like Komen deliver a wide array of services to support people with breast cancer. It’s not just the research that’s important.
…and some internet users rushed to criticize the charity
As for the criticism that the charity’s CEO earns 684,000 dollars a year, this is factually wrong. In September 2017, Paula Schneider became the president and CEO of Komen, and she earned 137,155 dollars in March 2018. But even if Schneider would earn more money, it wouldn’t make her corrupt or the charity’s mission somehow less important: large charities tend to have CEOs with large salaries, which is a question of size, not a question of transparency.
From 2011 to 2017, the Komen charity’s revenue dropped by four-fifths, which led to some state chapters having to be closed. It’s also no secret that the charity’s reputation in the US has had some ups and downs, which can be expected of any large organization. No company or charity is perfect, but they should be criticized based on facts, not opinions taken out of context.
Some people jumped on the blame bandwagon…
…while others pointed out that criticism has no basis
I really dislike the term "breast cancer awareness". You're raising money for whatnow? We all know what breast cancer is by now. Say the money is for early detection methods are research for a cure or whatever. I do also have to get sad at how nobody seems to give a f**k about prostate cancer. The insides of mens buttholes just don't hold the same mass appeal as 2nd base does.
While I think awareness is important I also do agree about the lack of for prostate cancer. My father was recently diagnosed. I haven't yet had much time to really dig in and find good research for him, but so far all my searches are littered with other information regarding other cancers, mostly breast cancer. I'm not denying the need for this information to be out there. It certainly DOES. I just wish it was also this direct for other types of cancer. Prostate cancer is fairly common, I can't even imagine if you or a loved one are diagnosed with something rarer. Finding information and support on that must be so difficult.
Load More Replies...
They had the audacity to sue more than 100 charity organizations for the use of the phrase "for the cure" and for the use of pink. This alleged trademark infringement was a strategic move against other competing charities to achieve a better position for fundraising. At the same time they have no problem putting their pink ribbon on carcinogenic products and pay their CEO a salary that's clearly above the salary of comparable organizations. Susan G. Komen isn't a fraud, but it is a very bad choice if you want to donate money.
They do seem to forget that public image is something to cherish greatly.
Load More Replies...
“large charities tend to have CEOs with large salaries” No. Their salary takes away from the charity. If they believed in the charity, they would take less. If they think they deserve the money rather than the charity, why would I give them mine?
Keep dreaming in wish-it-was-like-this land. Rissie is right. No charity organization operates in a world that somehow functions differently from the rest of the universe. That said, there ought to be a cap on CEO salaries overall. Over the past 50 years, the CEO salary increase has been many times that of average incomes.
Load More Replies...
If you do your research before donating I suggest using charity Navigator it brakes down all the spending $137,155 -Paula Schneider -President, CEO/ $380,450 - Ellen WillmottInterim CEO/ $271,623 - Former Chief Executive Officer / also gives you other related non profits too https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.programs&orgid=4509
When I was donating a portion of my biz's profits to various charities, I assumed all my "pink" money would be going to Komen. But after doing the research at Charity Navigator, I ended up choosing Breast Cancer Research Foundation as the recipient instead. www.charitynavigator.org is a great site that does your homework for you!
Load More Replies...
Most CEOs of charities get paid an extortionate amount of money and half a million seems to be the starting price of most. That's a lot of can shaking before anyone needing their services gets the very basic of help and the morality of getting rich off of the back of working for a charity doesn't seem to effect them whatsoever....
@Pored Banda. A big charity is a multi-national organisation. It has turnover, potential losses, PR campaigns, HR issues, procurement, legal experts, stock management, research divisions, staff to look after, pension funds, over-seas divisions, property management, sub-contract controllers. When you add it all up, it is as complicated as running a business. Calling it a multi-national organisation was not wilful obfuscation, but intended to draw your attention to the fact these are massively complicated organisations with many, many moving parts that need to managed by experienced people to make anything happen at all.
Load More Replies...
They tried to copyright the pink ribbon! Profit is first priority. Try to find a cancer research or treatment center they funded. Part of the Mass General Hospital cancer treatment was funded by the Avon Walks. When in doubt, donate directly to a cancer research or treatment center. All are doing their own fund raising. No administrative fees from a larger charity.
We need to stop judging charities by how much the CEO makes. By all means find out, and make sure it's on par with other similarly sized organizations. But why on EARTH should we expect any nonprofit worker to work for nothing, and how can we expect good people to pass up high salaries from for-profit companies to work for nonprofits? Because they're "nice"? They have bills to pay just like anyone else, and should be rewarded for skills and hard work just like the CEO of a gas company or a fast food place. NOTE: None of the above is specific to Komen, I don't know enough a about them to comment, but I'm sick of the CEO salary being dragged up like it's a moral failing. IT ISN'T, at least not by default. All companies should have the CEO salary compared to the lowest paid worker.
I've been in npo fundraising for almost 20 years. Here is the deal, the orgs that are really genuine...they tend to be run by CEO's who are semi-retired from the business world. They made mega bucks running major corps and retired. Now they run an NPO at half the salary it would take to pay a your imaginary CEO you just described, sometimes they don't even take a salary, they are donors themselves. Also, these CEO's tend to bring contact list with major donor prospects, so it's a win win.
Load More Replies... 
Cancer sucks, sure, we all know that. But so does Celiac, and fibromyalgia and MS and MD and autism and a whole host of other issues people live with, but the cancer centers specifically the breast cancer centers get all the attention because of stuff like this. Let the other groups have their awareness campaigns and collect money for research too
All I have to say about this is...Komen wouldn't let me participate in an event because I didn't raise enough money. Plus, cancer makes a lot of people a LOT of money.
My battle with Breast cancer started 4 years ago, after so many Chemo, Radiation and other natural therapy treatments that I took just to cure my Breast cancer, it all did not work for my condition. I was treating this disease for almost 4 year, I was cured with World Rehabilitate Clinic formula. This is medication that totally kills cancer cells. They also have a cure for hysterectomy issues, Alzheimer's Disease and more other chronic diseases. Contact ( worldrehabilitateclinic.com or WhatsApp +17278553511.
Such charities are usually created from rich people who do not want to give, and adress to people who have little money but are willing to help. Be very causious whom you support.
They also give to Planned Parenthood, which is a bit "problematic" if you are pro-life.
I'm good with slightly higher % for overhead IF the money is spent on further development of staff. I worked with a few NGOs and their CEOs ditched corporates because they were passionate about the causes of the NGOs, and they had no problem with lower pay. I understand some charities can be multinational organizations, but if CEOs are only in for the money, they should stay with banking, law firms or commercial businesses in general
I don't have anything against them but I do not donate to any breast cancer charities. That's because breast cancer charities are everywhere you go. No one is talking about other cancers as much as they should. Where and when was the last time you were asked to donate to a charity for prostate cancer to name one. Compare that to fundraisers about breast cancer and make your own judgement. I am not saying breast cancer don't need more money, all I am saying is breast cancer charities are hogging all the publicity and overshadowing any other charities for other cancers.
Idk which breast cancer charity it was, but because I donated $20 one time to one charity I get calls almost daily from every sort of charity asking me for money. It’s exhausting and I wish I never donated a dime. Go harass the 1%ers who would actually turn the economy around and solve world hunger but refuse to.
Komen's really been known as a scam for over two decades. Old old old news.
The first thing we need to remember about a charity is that it is an organization of individuals that have given their lives to a cause meant to better others. These charities have to function like a business: advertise to raise funds, expend funds to cover overhead costs, and perform their primary function, whatever it may be (in the case of cancer research, they fund/further cancer research). They also have to file tax returns. A business has a lot of overhead they have to pay for. Charities are no different. Just because it's a charity does not mean it is operating out of someone's garage or den. And those that have turned their life over to this charity of theirs, they still need an income. So the officers and some workers will have a paid salary. Hard to avoid those costs. Just because it's a charity does not mean those that run it should live in poverty.
Well said Nunya. I'm not sure if people expect monks and nuns to be running charities. You want competent people doing what they can to make the world a better place and competent people also want to feel valued and raise families. Charity pay is notoriously low compared to private sector equivalents as it is.
Load More Replies...
I really dislike the term "breast cancer awareness". You're raising money for whatnow? We all know what breast cancer is by now. Say the money is for early detection methods are research for a cure or whatever. I do also have to get sad at how nobody seems to give a f**k about prostate cancer. The insides of mens buttholes just don't hold the same mass appeal as 2nd base does.
While I think awareness is important I also do agree about the lack of for prostate cancer. My father was recently diagnosed. I haven't yet had much time to really dig in and find good research for him, but so far all my searches are littered with other information regarding other cancers, mostly breast cancer. I'm not denying the need for this information to be out there. It certainly DOES. I just wish it was also this direct for other types of cancer. Prostate cancer is fairly common, I can't even imagine if you or a loved one are diagnosed with something rarer. Finding information and support on that must be so difficult.
Load More Replies... They had the audacity to sue more than 100 charity organizations for the use of the phrase "for the cure" and for the use of pink. This alleged trademark infringement was a strategic move against other competing charities to achieve a better position for fundraising. At the same time they have no problem putting their pink ribbon on carcinogenic products and pay their CEO a salary that's clearly above the salary of comparable organizations. Susan G. Komen isn't a fraud, but it is a very bad choice if you want to donate money.
They do seem to forget that public image is something to cherish greatly.
Load More Replies... “large charities tend to have CEOs with large salaries” No. Their salary takes away from the charity. If they believed in the charity, they would take less. If they think they deserve the money rather than the charity, why would I give them mine?
Keep dreaming in wish-it-was-like-this land. Rissie is right. No charity organization operates in a world that somehow functions differently from the rest of the universe. That said, there ought to be a cap on CEO salaries overall. Over the past 50 years, the CEO salary increase has been many times that of average incomes.
Load More Replies... If you do your research before donating I suggest using charity Navigator it brakes down all the spending $137,155 -Paula Schneider -President, CEO/ $380,450 - Ellen WillmottInterim CEO/ $271,623 - Former Chief Executive Officer / also gives you other related non profits too https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.programs&orgid=4509
When I was donating a portion of my biz's profits to various charities, I assumed all my "pink" money would be going to Komen. But after doing the research at Charity Navigator, I ended up choosing Breast Cancer Research Foundation as the recipient instead. www.charitynavigator.org is a great site that does your homework for you!
Load More Replies... Most CEOs of charities get paid an extortionate amount of money and half a million seems to be the starting price of most. That's a lot of can shaking before anyone needing their services gets the very basic of help and the morality of getting rich off of the back of working for a charity doesn't seem to effect them whatsoever....
@Pored Banda. A big charity is a multi-national organisation. It has turnover, potential losses, PR campaigns, HR issues, procurement, legal experts, stock management, research divisions, staff to look after, pension funds, over-seas divisions, property management, sub-contract controllers. When you add it all up, it is as complicated as running a business. Calling it a multi-national organisation was not wilful obfuscation, but intended to draw your attention to the fact these are massively complicated organisations with many, many moving parts that need to managed by experienced people to make anything happen at all.
Load More Replies... They tried to copyright the pink ribbon! Profit is first priority. Try to find a cancer research or treatment center they funded. Part of the Mass General Hospital cancer treatment was funded by the Avon Walks. When in doubt, donate directly to a cancer research or treatment center. All are doing their own fund raising. No administrative fees from a larger charity.
We need to stop judging charities by how much the CEO makes. By all means find out, and make sure it's on par with other similarly sized organizations. But why on EARTH should we expect any nonprofit worker to work for nothing, and how can we expect good people to pass up high salaries from for-profit companies to work for nonprofits? Because they're "nice"? They have bills to pay just like anyone else, and should be rewarded for skills and hard work just like the CEO of a gas company or a fast food place. NOTE: None of the above is specific to Komen, I don't know enough a about them to comment, but I'm sick of the CEO salary being dragged up like it's a moral failing. IT ISN'T, at least not by default. All companies should have the CEO salary compared to the lowest paid worker.
I've been in npo fundraising for almost 20 years. Here is the deal, the orgs that are really genuine...they tend to be run by CEO's who are semi-retired from the business world. They made mega bucks running major corps and retired. Now they run an NPO at half the salary it would take to pay a your imaginary CEO you just described, sometimes they don't even take a salary, they are donors themselves. Also, these CEO's tend to bring contact list with major donor prospects, so it's a win win.
Load More Replies... Cancer sucks, sure, we all know that. But so does Celiac, and fibromyalgia and MS and MD and autism and a whole host of other issues people live with, but the cancer centers specifically the breast cancer centers get all the attention because of stuff like this. Let the other groups have their awareness campaigns and collect money for research too
All I have to say about this is...Komen wouldn't let me participate in an event because I didn't raise enough money. Plus, cancer makes a lot of people a LOT of money.
My battle with Breast cancer started 4 years ago, after so many Chemo, Radiation and other natural therapy treatments that I took just to cure my Breast cancer, it all did not work for my condition. I was treating this disease for almost 4 year, I was cured with World Rehabilitate Clinic formula. This is medication that totally kills cancer cells. They also have a cure for hysterectomy issues, Alzheimer's Disease and more other chronic diseases. Contact ( worldrehabilitateclinic.com or WhatsApp +17278553511.
Such charities are usually created from rich people who do not want to give, and adress to people who have little money but are willing to help. Be very causious whom you support.
They also give to Planned Parenthood, which is a bit "problematic" if you are pro-life.
I'm good with slightly higher % for overhead IF the money is spent on further development of staff. I worked with a few NGOs and their CEOs ditched corporates because they were passionate about the causes of the NGOs, and they had no problem with lower pay. I understand some charities can be multinational organizations, but if CEOs are only in for the money, they should stay with banking, law firms or commercial businesses in general
I don't have anything against them but I do not donate to any breast cancer charities. That's because breast cancer charities are everywhere you go. No one is talking about other cancers as much as they should. Where and when was the last time you were asked to donate to a charity for prostate cancer to name one. Compare that to fundraisers about breast cancer and make your own judgement. I am not saying breast cancer don't need more money, all I am saying is breast cancer charities are hogging all the publicity and overshadowing any other charities for other cancers.
Idk which breast cancer charity it was, but because I donated $20 one time to one charity I get calls almost daily from every sort of charity asking me for money. It’s exhausting and I wish I never donated a dime. Go harass the 1%ers who would actually turn the economy around and solve world hunger but refuse to.
Komen's really been known as a scam for over two decades. Old old old news.
The first thing we need to remember about a charity is that it is an organization of individuals that have given their lives to a cause meant to better others. These charities have to function like a business: advertise to raise funds, expend funds to cover overhead costs, and perform their primary function, whatever it may be (in the case of cancer research, they fund/further cancer research). They also have to file tax returns. A business has a lot of overhead they have to pay for. Charities are no different. Just because it's a charity does not mean it is operating out of someone's garage or den. And those that have turned their life over to this charity of theirs, they still need an income. So the officers and some workers will have a paid salary. Hard to avoid those costs. Just because it's a charity does not mean those that run it should live in poverty.
Well said Nunya. I'm not sure if people expect monks and nuns to be running charities. You want competent people doing what they can to make the world a better place and competent people also want to feel valued and raise families. Charity pay is notoriously low compared to private sector equivalents as it is.
Load More Replies... 
56
46