Nancy Brinker, CEO of Susan G. Komen For the Cure, earns an annual salary of more than $5 million from the breast-cancer awareness foundation she founded, according to an article by Sandra McElwaine published today on The Daily Beast. McElwaine also reports that Brinker "has raised billions to prevent and battle the disease."
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (21)
So just because she has raised billions, doesn't mean she is entitled to millions! What about all those foot soldiers who actually do the work to get the money in. Are they each entitled to millions as well? Or is it mainly for her benefit.
A really bad and greedy example for a charity CEO.
- 4 votes
Alternet has updated this story. She only makes $417,000/year. I hope that she donates a large percentage to charity.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/775558/$5_million_per_year%3A_outrageous_salary_for_komen_ceo_nancy_brinker/
UPDATE: In what can only be described as an epic reporting #FAIL by The Daily Beast, a quietly made correction to Sandra McElwaine's article about Nancy Brinker, CEO of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure, now restates her salary as $417,000 a year, as opposed to the $5 million originally reported in the article.
- 3 votes
That's a HUGE difference in figures!
Even so, that's a large salary for a charity.
- 4 votes
Yes, it is, and there are also questions about how much money that is raised is actually spent on research or breast exams.
http://jezebel.com/5840564/the-breast-cancer-charity-scam
Nonprofits have to report financial information to the IRS, but it's easy to fudge the numbers. Money used to hire telemarketers can be described as funds used for education if the words "Don't forget to get a mammogram!" are stamped on the bottom of the charity's stationary. The value of gifts may be inflated to make it seem like the charity is bigger, and distort the fact that most of the money isn't going to breast cancer research.
http://jezebel.com/5380683/breast-cancer-is-a-disease-not-a-marketing-opportunity
Maybe, maybe not. As Aimee Picchi writesat AOL's Daily Finance, the breast cancer-specific packaging is more an indication of savvy marketing than corporate benevolence. In some cases, there's no guarantee at all that part of your purchase price will go to a charity; Procter and Gamble will only donate two cents of your pink Swiffer purchase if you have a specific coupon that appeared in newspapers a couple of weeks ago, for instance. In others, the fine print tells you there's a cap on donations — e.g., $15,000 for Herr's Whole Grain Pretzel Ribbons — so if you buy the product after the limit's been reached, your money goes exactly where it would go if you bought the normal package. And in still other cases, such as Hershey's Bliss chocolates, the donation is not only capped (at $300,000 there), but entirely separate from sales of the product, so there's no reason at all to buy the pink package unless you like your chocolate gendered.
I will never buy a product with a pink ribbon, unless I was going to buy it anyway. If I want to give to a charity, I'll make a donation directly to the charity and make sure that my money doesn't go towards a corporation's profits.
- 3 votes
If I want to give to a charity, I'll make a donation directly to the charity and make sure that my money doesn't go towards a corporation's profits.
That is always the best way to do it. Very interesting links, thank you!
- 4 votes
Yes, the recent Komen scandal has opened my eyes about charities.
- 3 votes
I haven't checked in a few years but, the last time I did the average overhead cost at most major charities was anywhere between 15 and 30 percent. The only exception was The Salvation Army where overhead was less than 10%.
- 1 vote
It seems that anything up to 20% is very good. Anything over that is suspect.
- 2 votes
If we really wish to help others in need, let's help someone directly. We used to call this "Doing a good deed"; doesn't have to be money (that is in short supply and is not personal). If we can't think of someone who deserves it, perhaps we need to interact more with those around us. Sharing with others is a win-win for everyone.
- 4 votes
Good idea but charities can reach much more people quicker. The trick is to find the best ones whose admin costs are low. I guess it is very tempting to help one's self to the money when it starts rolling in.
- 3 votes
Yes, and charities can help large numbers in need (like natural disasters). I'm frustrated with people I know personally, who's idea of charity is motivated by the tax deduction, yet individuals are needy because, "They brought it upon themselves."
- 2 votes
Well, if she helps to raise billions but makes a few million then I don't have a problem with it. What I do have a problem with is these sports stars who make 90 million just for playing a game. Talk about not being entitled. If they were paid just half their salery then maybe the ordinary person could afford a ticket.
- 2 votes
If they were paid just half their salery then maybe the ordinary person could afford a ticket.
Indeed! :o(
The trouble is that they know they can pull in the crowds, so their fee will never go down!
- 2 votes
The salaries of sports stars do not come from funds that were raised for charity like Brinker's salary.
- 1 vote
The salaries of sports stars do not come from funds that were raised for charity like Brinker's salary.
So? It is still way way too much. And every time I have to pay hundreds for a ticket and the team looses it sure feels like charity.
- 2 votes
Have you tried asking them for a refund when they lose, SavickConn?
- 2 votes
Have you tried asking them for a refund when they lose, SavickConn?
LOL, wouldn't that be awesome if you could really get one.
- 2 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |



