Official "It's No Longer Funny" RAW Thread for 9/29

[FourFifty]

Isn't the Susan G Komen foundation a giant corporation that spends more in advertising than their self proclaimed cause?

[Poit]

Originally Posted by FourFifty Isn't the Susan G Komen foundation a giant corporation that spends more in advertising than their self proclaimed cause?

I feel like the whole "this charity spends more money on advertising than what it should be supporting" thing needs to be taken with a big lump of salt.

Scenario A:
Spend $1 million/year on advertising
Raise $5 million/year, allowing $4 million to go to "the cause"

Scenario B:
Spend $20 million/year on advertising
Raise $25 million/year, allowing $5 million to go to "the cause"

Obviously made up numbers, but the point is that Scenario B is both easier to criticize and objectively more effective.

Just sayin'.

[FourFifty]

Originally Posted by Poit I feel like the whole "this charity spends more money on advertising than what it should be supporting" thing needs to be taken with a big lump of salt. Scenario A: Spend $1 million/year on advertising Raise $5 million/year, allowing $4 million to go to "the cause" Scenario B: Spend $20 million/year on advertising Raise $25 million/year, allowing $5 million to go to "the cause" Obviously made up numbers, but the point is that Scenario B is both easier to criticize and objectively more effective. Just sayin'.

Financial reports reveal Nancy Brinker, founder and CEO of the Susan G. Komen foundation, received a 64 percent raise for a total pay package of $684,000, and despite Brinker announcing she would be stepping aside 10 months ago, she is still CEO of the charity.

That's my issue. Not all charities are corrupted, but the Komen one is. Aside from the CEO, there are other people making bank from that corporation. There are people just as qualified who'll do it for less and give more.
They're also poorly managed, fiscally speaking. In 2010 about 40 percent of their funds went to public health education. People know what breast cancer is. Frankly they should cut that funding in half, and put it towards research.
Don't get me wrong- I'll donate and raise money for breast cancer charities, but not that one. I have a cousin fighting it, and lost an aunt. It's terrible, and hopefully one day there will be a cure, cheaper treatment, etc.


But that's neither here nor there. This is the Raw thread.
BOOOOO! IT'S CENA! BOOOO! HE PANDERS TO THE CROWD! I LIKE THINGS THAT OTHER PEOPLE DON'T LIKE.

[Poit]

Originally Posted by FourFifty That's my issue. Not all charities are corrupted, but the Komen one is. [stuff] But that's neither here nor there. This is the Raw thread. BOOOOO! IT'S CENA! BOOOO! HE PANDERS TO THE CROWD! I LIKE THINGS THAT OTHER PEOPLE DON'T LIKE.

Oh, yeah, I wasn't defending Komen, just saying that spending lots of money on advertising isn't a bad thing for a charity.

Also, I'm finding this more interesting than the main event segment.

[Emperor Smeat]

Originally Posted by FourFifty Isn't the Susan G Komen foundation a giant corporation that spends more in advertising than their self proclaimed cause?

Yes and they also sue anyone who uses pink ribbons or "cure" for their charities and promotions. Been involved in some recent scandals involving cutting funds to research places because of political reasons with their CEO.