December 10, 2010

Branding and charities

Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal. Can you believe Komen wants to own the phrase "for the cure?" And they're not the only ones....

Charity Brawl: Nonprofits Aren't So Generous When a Name's at Stake


  1. this is appalling. They own 'for the cure'? No they own the pepto bismol color they put on everything in October to raise awareness.

  2. "for the cure"?

    I really wonder how many of Komen's actual donors would actually agree with this statement:

    Komen's general counsel, Jonathan Blum, said in an email: "We see it [the "not-so-friendly legal battle "] as responsible stewardship of our donor's funds."

    That "Trademark turf battles characteristic of sharp-elbowed corporations" are now spreading to charities I see as a most unfortunate development.

    The claim that a "foundation relies on the strength of its brand to effectively serve people fighting cancer" I also see as unfortunate.

    I know I would prefer to judge any charity I donate to on the strength and direction of its work, its results, and the apportionment of its budget. Some charities are actually committed to 100% of the donations going directly to the cause! A wonderful example is Ram Dass's (Timothy Leary) SEVA Foundation, which so far has restored sight to 3 million blind people.