Susan G. Komen for the Cure--A Charity That Is Destroying its Own Good Reputation

Susan G. Koman for the Cure (SKC) is a charity that is well known for its support of breast cancer research and education. It has done some wonderful things. However, it has recently become a political and monolithic behemoth that not only is it overstepping its bounds, but also quickly destroying its reputation.

It began with their overzealous protection of the word "cure". Susan Koman for the Cure has aggressively sued other charities to stop them from using the word "cure". Due to the size and wealth of SKC, they have been successful in stopping a number of worthy healthcare charities from using the word "cure" in their name.

This is a very old mindset in which trademarks were considered the property of a single entity. It is even stranger that a charity that professes to want greater health for woman would stop others from focusing on the cure to other ailments. One would think that the strategy would be to encourage others to seeks cures, not stop them from using the word.

Now comes word that SKC has stopped its support of Planned Parenthood. The "spin" is that they are stopping their support because Planned Parenthood is being investigated by Congress. Both SKC's curtailment of support and Congress' investigation are fueled by the same anti-abortion passion. While more than 90% of Planned Parenthood's work is to provide healthcare to those who might not otherwise be able to afford it, the fact that they also provide abortions has led right-wing Congress and SKC to take actions that might jeopardize the health of millions of woman in the U.S. The effort by SKC was lead by the head of public policy who at one time ran for governor of Georgia on an anti-abortion platform. She brought her personal, political, religious zeal to SKC, helping to transform them from a charity to a political entity, which is very problematic for an organization that exists on donations.

The furor that Susan G. Koman for the Cure has created is causing great concern among many and the "blogisphere" is filled with protests and calls for cutting donations, writing members of Congress, boycotts, etc. This is not the stuff a charity wants, but they have brought it on themselves.

SKC is headquartered in Dallas, where people, companies and politicians profess a love for being "bigger the better", SKC may have gotten their views skewed. Texas politics have long supported a perspective of ownership and the rights to drive someone off your land, by force, if necessary. Sadly, it seems that this view has permeated their management philosophy, leading to their view that they alone own the word "cure" and must protect it. Strategic growth no longer is about ownership but open innovation and finding collaboration that can grow an organization even faster. SKC should be looking for open innovation. I would think donors would demand it, rather than having their donations go to lawyers making money on trademark protection that provides nothing to help cure cancer.

It is really a shame that such an important charity has become a monolithic, corporate giant that seems intent on putting its pink ribbons on anything that moves, trying to drive out other vital charities trying to also do good work, and now is taking a right-wing political turn. This is all the stuff that destroys organizations. Let's hope that there are a few members of the board who can help shift and corre

Posted by Elliot Schreiber at 11:53am
Labels: Adam Schreiber, Brand, CSR, Elliot Schreiber, Reputation, Risk, Susan G Koman, Value

• 1 Comment‚
• Post comment‚
• Share‚