PEORIA
Stephen Colbert lampooned it. The Huffington Post highlighted some of its aggressive legal actions against small mom-and-pop charities. The Wall Street Journal headlined "Charity Brawl: Nonprofits Aren't So Generous When a Name's at Stake."
This unwanted recognition building over the past year is focused on Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the organization's sometimes aggressive and expensive legal battles to protect its trademark that covers not just its name but also the phrase "for the cure."
Komen's legal team has targeted charities such as "Mush for the Cure," a small dog sledding fundraiser in Minnesota and "Kites for a Cure," a family kite-flying event that raises money for lung cancer research.
Komen spokeswoman Andrea Rader, from the organization's Dallas headquarters, said misunderstanding surrounds this issue.
The organization has been evaluating its position and expects to have a revised strategy for dealing with trademark issues in 30 to 60 days.
Rader said Komen sends a "respectful letter" when learning of other charities using "for the cure." She said Komen has not seen a decline in charitable donations but is aware of the large volume of negative comments on social media.
"It is unfortunate this is such a distraction to the work we are doing," Rader said, noting that sisters Susan Komen and Nancy Brinker grew up in Peoria.
With more than 2 million charities in the country, there are just so many words and colors that can be used, and legal wrangling about pink and "for the cure" begins to "sound ridiculous," said Laurie Styron, an analyst with the American Institute of Philanthropy. "This could really backfire if Komen takes it too far."
The American Institute of Philanthropy gives Komen a ranking of "B+" based on its financials. In 2009, Komen directed 74 percent of its total expenses to programs. It spent $17 to raise each $100 in public support. The American Institute of Philanthropy's top-rated charities direct 75 percent or more of total expenses to programs.
Sandra Minuitti, spokeswoman for Charity Navigator, which evaluates the operations of not-for-profits, said she is unaware of other charities that have a trademark on just a portion of their name.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure is maintaining its top, 4-star rating by Charity Navigator, but Minuitti warns that Komen's numerous legal disputes with other charities could risk alienating donors.
"Charities and for-profits have to protect their brand. Nothing is wrong with that," she said. "The risk is going too far. That's the road Komen is going down. There are more friendly ways to protect their brand than legal actions against even little mom-and-pop charities."
When donors give money to a charity, they expect it goes to the cause, not to legal battles, Minuitti said.
Ed Bond an associate professor of marketing at Bradley University, disagrees with the notion of being too aggressive in brand protection.
"Organizations invest huge amounts of time and money into establishing their brand and must protect it. With global organizations like Komen, I can see the need to be very aggressive. There is a huge risk. Organizations owe it to their customers to protect their brand in order to avoid confusion with other organizations over which they have no control," he said.
A statement on the Komen website insists its legal bills are much less than the nearly $1 million cited in news reports. The statement said Komen considers its action to protect its trademarks responsible stewardship of donor funds and total legal expenses have been $515,405, only a portion of which is for trademark protection.
Styron said $515,405 is based on Komen's 2009 tax filing and does not include expenses for all of last year.
Never again will they get a penny from us. OP if there is a way to donate for research on Alpha Mannosidosis please let us know.
I mean, I'm not saying Presidents/CEO's should make peanuts but that's way beyond excessive for a "charity" organization, IMHO.
