Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I regularly (daily) work with start-ups, both for profits and nonprofits. I serve as a business advisor, director, investor, etc, depending on the situation. There is not a start-up that I know that has not made a mistake or two. Every CEO that I know will tell you that he or she, in fact, learns more from mistakes than successes. Read any business book by a business executive, and they will tell you the same thing. Komen has been a great success, though the PP decision was idiotic. But, as noted above, the mistake here did not cause death or property damage, did not involve a criminal act or a civil violation (even a minor violation). Komen made a stupid business decision and then quickly reversed it.

SKF is not a startup. SKF, like it or not, was seen as a woman's right organization. Now SKF is seen as a anti-woman's right group. People are going to support the foundation based on pro choice or pro life. I don't know in what capacity you advise and evaluate CEOs on a daily bases, but " cause death or property damage, did not involve a criminal act or a civil violation (even a minor violation)" is not the standard that most(in your case, the CEOs are held to that standard) CEO are held to. PS I am sure the board likes being hung out to dry.

SKF made a stupid decision, which it then reversed. And the person who appears to have been involved in the stupid decision resigned, not doubt under pressure. But you view SKF as an anti-woman's rights group, because of what? SKF has raised substantial sums for breast cancer research, awarenes, treatment, etc. Does SKF have to get involved in the abortion debate to be a women's rights group. Moreover, many women are pro life, my not being one of them. I certainly am pro choice, but I am not so narrow in what I consider to be womens' rights. The power of the SKF network is amazing and should not be overlooked.

Anonymous wrote:Komen never said they spent everything on research.

The money spent on education included, no doubt, making people (including low income women) aware of the need for check ups as well as advocating politicians for greater federal funding for breast cancer research and for necessary regulatory changes. One of the key ingredients of Komen's power is its network of affiliates around the country. That gives Komen great influence in DC.

Ironically, Komen easily could have eliminated all grants for education, screeing and treatment, and spent everything on research. In that case, PP receives nothing, no lower income women are helped, and no advocacy work is done to increase federal funding for breast cancer research.

As for whether Komen is a right wing group, that is silly. Komen has been a long time supporter of PP. Komen made a stupid decision to cater to the folks who oppose abortion, and then reversed it to cater to the folks who are pro choice. Both are political decisions in a sense. The sad part is that breast cancer has nothing to do with abortion. So, the Ps here are saying that we American women can't even get together to support a charity focused on breast cancer, because we are too caught up with our views on other issues that have nothing to do with breast cancer. Get a life!!

I guess the money they paid Joseph Lieberman's wife Hadassah falls under "educations"?? Keep giving them money...if they match your politics.

Anonymous wrote:I regularly (daily) work with start-ups, both for profits and nonprofits. I serve as a business advisor, director, investor, etc, depending on the situation. There is not a start-up that I know that has not made a mistake or two. Every CEO that I know will tell you that he or she, in fact, learns more from mistakes than successes. Read any business book by a business executive, and they will tell you the same thing. Komen has been a great success, though the PP decision was idiotic. But, as noted above, the mistake here did not cause death or property damage, did not involve a criminal act or a civil violation (even a minor violation). Komen made a stupid business decision and then quickly reversed it.

SKF is not a startup. SKF, like it or not, was seen as a woman's right organization. Now SKF is seen as a anti-woman's right group. People are going to support the foundation based on pro choice or pro life. I don't know in what capacity you advise and evaluate CEOs on a daily bases, but " cause death or property damage, did not involve a criminal act or a civil violation (even a minor violation)" is not the standard that most(in your case, the CEOs are held to that standard) CEO are held to. PS I am sure the board likes being hung out to dry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

actually i guarantee you that the Komen 3-Day walks for the cure will continue to be packed.

But for how long and how strong? I bet that this year and next year will see a significant decrease in the number of attendees, while the Avon Walk will see a significant increase. Depending on how they manage the next year or two, the trend may continue or they may be able to salvage this publicity debacle and plateau. But chances are they will be a much smaller force in the charitable world, since there are other charitable donations that have the same focus and will be less objectionable to some donors for the near future at least.

Anonymous wrote:Agree with PP. Komen is a fairly inefficient non-profit that has signaled that, in addition to being inefficient, cares more about signaling support for right-wing social issues than it does making sure that poor women have access to health care.

In 2010, the last year for which Susan G. Komen for the Cure released an annual report, total gross revenue (all dollar values have been rounded to the nearest million; all percents to the nearest tenth) was $421 million. They chose to spend those funds as follows:

Direct benefits to donors and sponsors – $20 million (4.8%)
Research – $75 million (17.8%)
Education – $141 million (33.5%)
Screening – $47 million (11.2%)
Treatment – $20 million (4.8%)
General administration – $41 million (9.7%)
Fundraising costs – $36 million (8.5%)
Change in net assets – $41 million (9.7%)

Or, stated a bit differently:

Running Susan G. Komen for the Cure – $97 million (23.0%)
Putting more money in Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s coffers – $41 million (9.7%)
Telling people about breast cancer – $141 million (33.5%)
Looking for breast cancer using proven methods – $47 million (11.2%)
Treating breast cancer using existing methods – $20 million (4.8%)
ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR “THE CURE” – $75 million (17.8%)

(http://bit.ly/w8VQnC)

Message received, and no hard feelings. I hope they're successful in their new incarnation as a right-wing organization.

In 2010, the last year for which Susan G. Komen for the Cure released an annual report, total gross revenue (all dollar values have been rounded to the nearest million; all percents to the nearest tenth) was $421 million. They chose to spend those funds as follows:

Direct benefits to donors and sponsors – $20 million (4.8%)
Research – $75 million (17.8%)
Education – $141 million (33.5%)
Screening – $47 million (11.2%)
Treatment – $20 million (4.8%)
General administration – $41 million (9.7%)
Fundraising costs – $36 million (8.5%)
Change in net assets – $41 million (9.7%)

Or, stated a bit differently:

Running Susan G. Komen for the Cure – $97 million (23.0%)
Putting more money in Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s coffers – $41 million (9.7%)
Telling people about breast cancer – $141 million (33.5%)
Looking for breast cancer using proven methods – $47 million (11.2%)
Treating breast cancer using existing methods – $20 million (4.8%)
ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR “THE CURE” – $75 million (17.8%)

Anonymous wrote:If you had any real knowledge of startups, you would know that startup executives make bad decisions all the time. The issue is not whether, but when and how they respond. Ask any sucessful CEOs. By any measure, Komen has been a great success. That does not mean that Komen has made no mistakes.

Step up, tell us who you are and show us your real knowledge.