Yesterday, I learned that Susan G Komen for a Cure (r) is releasing a perfume named after Nancy Brinker's book, Promise Me. It has caused quite an internet sensation, THIS being my favorite.
However you might feel about a breast cancer perfume, let's look at the math.
Purchase Price for 3.4 oz bottle of Promise Me Eau de Parfum $59.00/bottle sale price (reference)
13.5% of Sale goes back to Komen $ 7.97/bottle to Komen (reference)
Last year, 90% of Komen's Net revenues were spent on $ 7.17/bottle for expenses (reference)
Expenses
For the last two years, 21% of Komen's expenses $ 1.51/bottle goes to research (reference)
were allocated to Research
 |
| You get a free copy of the book with purchase |
Research, of course, is the only way to cure breast cancer.
Mammograms to low income women won't do it.
Education won't do it.
Don't believe the hype.
This madness will stop when we demand better. When we don't spend $60 on a bottle of perfume (what's in it anyway??) when only $1.50 of that price goes toward research.
12 comments:
Packaging is a big percentage of the expense in making a perfume. As well as advertising. it's a big sham, and--you are right--anyone can do the math.
Thanks for breaking down the costs for us, and breaking down their shaky rationale at the same time. Way more of that money should go to research, and they should be upfront about it.
You go, girl!
Jan
while i COMPLETELY agree with your comments about research being the only way to CURE breast cancer, and that spending $60 on a bottle of perfume thinking you're 'helping' and in reality only $1.50 is going toward research....
i have to say that while Mammograms to low income women won't do it, and education won't do it - mammograms, education and early detection WILL save lives until we DO find a cure. One does not need to negate the other....
Whether mammograms are early detection and whether they save lives are both disputed topics.
However, that's not even the issue here.
A cure can only come from research. An organization that is claiming to be "for the cure" might lead your average person to believe that this money is going to activities (research) that will lead to a cure.
It's not about one "negating" the other, it's about how Komen allocates it resources.
Research was 21% of their total expenses last year. That is an amount equal to their expenses for administration and fundraising.
The rest of their money (58%) went to education, screening and treatment. While you might consider those to be noble goals, they will not result in a cure.
Thanks for commenting,
Katie
Katie,
Thanks for breaking all this down. It is, indeed, misleading to insinuate that proceeds are going toward a cure when they are clearly not.
The figure of 90% for running the organization, so to speak, ASTOUNDS me.
Why is it so difficult for an organization to see that it has traveled SO far from its intent as to be part of the "cancer" so to speak, the growth for growth's sake disease that is so pervasive and destructive?!!!!
Thank you, Katie.... for eyes wide open, brain engaged commentary and research
Mary, you've totally nailed it there -- growth for growth's sake.
Yes, the rest of their revenues are reported as "net increase in assets."
Thanks,
Katie
I grow more and more disgusted with Komen as time goes on. This is just revolting.
Hi Katie!
Great post as usual.
All these organizations are doing same thing. If we had higher taxes for corporations and the wealthy we could take that money and put it into research instead of duplication of jobs. True, we need jobs, but I was not "aware" that that was the "goal".
The goal is a cure. Not non profit corporate welfare.
Remember to connect the dots and vote.
Thanks!
Dorry
Thanks for breaking it down, Katie. I can't believe they don't see the error of their ways. Why wouldn't they just flip their research and education allocations? I would think Komen would want to be known as the leader in breast cancer research funding. Isn't that closer to Nancy Brinker's original promise to her sister rather than leading the pink product brigade?
Katie,
It might be a bottle of perfume, but something here sure stinks.
Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of this new "venture."
Katie,
It might be a bottle of perfume, but something here sure stinks.
Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of this new "venture."
Seeing how a $60 bottle of perfume is allocated into it's charitable parts is telling. I'd love to know how much it cost to 'design' the fragrance too! How much money is wasted on the development, advertising, and distribution of products that could be put into actual research or meaningful education? It's sickening.
Post a Comment