i think its just like how every company or school, basically anything that can make money is going green. these companies think that when people see that they are associated with a cause that the people support then they will make alot of money and at times its at the causes expense because they don't always donate the money that they claim to donate.i find it offensive that the idea of using a cause to sell a product is a marketing technique. its a horrible thing, its like these companies want to perceive themselves as giving back to the community but are sometimes also the ones who are causing the cancer or the problems.

In response to zzz I agree that it has been years that companies have been leveraging random causes to gain a profit and it should come as no surprise to any of us now that it is in print for us all to read. I think that if anything is ever going to change about that it will have to start with some of the foundations and organizations themselves. At some point they are going to have to demand more from companies for the right to bear their name. It should be an even partnership or it's really not "giving back".

I actually find the article as no surprise. The world feeds on corporate social responsibility nowadays, so of course these companies are going to do all they can to become associated with causes that millions of people support. There is such a high push at breast cancer advocacy because it is one of the leading foundations in America. Whether these companies do right or wrong by the foundations is neither here nor there. Of course in theory we would like companies to donate a larger percentage of sales to the actual groups instead of pocketing it for profit, but there are larger factors than just company generated donations. Once these corporations partner up with a cause they begin to promote the cause through marketing it to all of its consumers. So on top of the donations given by the proceeds the company is collecting, they are giving away free exposure and advertising, which could lead to further outside donations. I think that we should support the fact that companies are even willing to act as "fundraisers" for foundations that may not even reflect the nature of their products. Whether it is 1% or 100%, they are giving back. I don't know that we will ever get past the other corporate loop holes and coverups... but remember these foundations also have a choice in allowing these companies to bear their name in attempts to make a larger profit. One company that donates to the breast cancer fund is Under Armour here in Baltimore. They run a "Power in Pink" campaign every year in support of breast cancer survivors. A line of athletic clothing is made just for this cause annually and they donate $2 per piece sold to breast cancer charities. This year they have dedicated a site to a few survivors and events at the following address: http://www.underarmour.com/powerinpink/

in response to jgardnerzona22 i agree with what he has to say about corporate philanthropy. Although 3M donates a little about of each pack they sell. 3M sell a lot of products so those 30-50 cent donations add up over time.

in reply to hinch47. I feel that the major league does draw a fair amount of attention towards breast cancer which is good. Unfortunately though the majority of money donated isnt their money its money pledged by others. With only one day designated towards mothers day isnt that great. I feel with the power of the MLB has they can do more!

Josh Jenkins

To comment on anyone who thinks that businesses should not feel obligated to make donations for charitable causes, I am going to have to disagree with you. I feel like anyone with any ounce of moral fiber should in someway always strive to fulfill some sort of civic duty. Especially if these people have millions of dollars to spend.

Slickwilly686's response takes on a different light in supporting what I discussed in my response about corporate philanthropy. It is absolutely true that American society revolves around businesses and corporations. Yes, maybe only a small percentage of the money that these corporations are raising is actually being donated while the other is going to their own profit; however, look how much these contributions have accumulated and helped the causes so far. What other methods can have the effect like that of a big corporation and the impact of its marketing? I know we want to believe that people will just donate money for the mere sake of the cause, however, this exact issue only supports the fact that our American society revolves around the corporate society. -Gincel

It seems like there are no objections to the fact that our society holds money as the number one commodity. Above all else, one must get money to be successful. We can expect that the leaders of this ideal, corporations, are going to push its limits to the most of thier ability. Maybe we should be evaluating the ethical implications of the money gotten. Money is rarely clean and it is important to acknowledge, or for most companies apologize, that they had to make people worse off in order to get that money.

In response to packattack 4507, i agree with the statements he made. I also believe that a corporation like McDonalds should donate a larger sum of money, than that off apple pie sales (2 for 1$), if they are going to be precieved as a company that is making a concious effort to help breast cancer. I realize that it costs money to run a business, but i am positive that even if they donated all BigMac value meal sales, they would still be an extremly profitable company. Donating money from the higher priced more bought items would really catch the public eye, rather than the current apple pie donations. Robert Bromfield

It is clear that the class agree's that corporate philantropy is needed, but at the same time it is not doing what is needed. Yes, they may not donate what they should be donating, but every little bit counts. I think that is true, they could donate more, but they also have a business to run which costs a lot of money. It is good they are attempting to help and each donation is needed.

Samantha King's writing entitled "A Dream Cause" goes into depth about corporate philanthropy and the fact that in recent years many corporations have been selfishly misusing their philanthropy as a way to promote themselves as opposed to donating to a good cause. I believe that in many cases, such as American Express, Yoplait, and others discussed in King's writing, companies do take advantage of the American people and exploit breast cancer for their own benefit. These are mega-million corporations that make generous profits to all who work for them, and they believe they are doing a great thing by donating one penny per transaction? That is a fraction of a fraction of what the CEO makes. He or she is probably a millionaire. On the other hand, how many donations do these companies make that we do not hear about? I am not going to discuss a company that donated specifically for breast cancer awareness. Instead, I am going to discuss Outback Steakhouse, a well known company throughout the entire world. I also work for them. I thought I would never find myself working for "corporate" as they say. But here I am. And after about a week of working for them I was asked if I would like to volunteer for a "special event". I soon discovered that every Outback in existence is given about $30,000 to do whatever they please with it, so long as it is "given for the sake of giving". Usually this entails donating an Outback dinner to an elementary school while they charge families per meal, all the while earning money for their school. This is one elementary school in the entire United States, and that 30,000 is probably a fraction of the profit this corporation makes in a year. But it made a difference to that school. And Outbackers feel good about themselves. But haven't we also just promoted our store? I've lost my train of thought here and I am hoping my next blog will be better. But what I ultimately want to say is What really is any sort of donation, gesture, or philanthropic act that isn't done out of some degree of selfishness? It is human nature to be selfish and yet at the same time the need to give something of themselves. Sure these companies may just be hopping on the Breast Cancer Awareness wagon. EVERY PENNY COUNTS. But lately I feel that America would hop on any old wagon, even if it was destined off the edge of a cliff. Jacqui Betts

I found Samantha King's, "A Dream Cause" a very interesting writing. It came as no surprise to me that big business has finally found away to capitilize on every business decision they make. Corporate America has been able to create profit from almost every business venture they embark on, so why would charity be any different? The answer of course is it isn't. Within the past few decades there has been a shift from contributing strictly to benefit cause to currently using this contributions to build brand equity. Marketers are now exploiting charities through cause relating marketing. These contributions have essentially became investments. Corporations are using contributions to create emotinal ties with their customers and thus creating consumer loyalty. It's no longer about doing a good thing, but creating a good image for their compant. It's becoming increasingly difficult for businesses to use price cuts as a differential advantage. Instead corporations are using their charity ties as their comparative advantage. Not only are corporations exploiting charities to boost brand equity but also to recieve tax-cuts. By creating long term relationships with these charaties big business is placing a tie between a non-profit organization and their profit seeking organization in the consumer's mind. When a woman is shopping and see's a pink product with the breast cancer ribbon on it, they are clearly more inclined to buy it. Not surpisingly most pink products are targeted to women. Although there is a clearly a strong argument against corportations practicing cause related marketing, we can not forget that charaties are gaining from these business practices also through funds and rasing awareness. But what was once only a win for the charity has become more of a win-win situation. One of the more open campaigns, is Juicy Coutures "Viva La Cure." These t-shirtrs with the "Viva lLa Cure." logo on it are sold and 100% of the profits goes to breast cancer research. However when searching companies that donate to breast cancer, this seems to be one of the few that actually donate all profits to the cause. Juicy Couture was very open about using all profit to support this cause. Robert Bromfield

I really learned a lot from the Samantha King article and everyone's responses. I definitely agree with all of the people who said at least these companies are donating something when they do not have to. I do think that people need to bring more attention to the companies who donate a lot and really make a difference, but I do not think we can complain as long as there is some sort of donation being made.

After reading Samantha King's " A Dream Cause" I believe that corporate philanthropy is a good thing. I never realized how many different companies donate money or have fundraisers for different breast cancer foundations. Businesses may just be donating money to these foundations to get there name out and for people to realize that they are donating money for a good cause. The way i see it if they are donating money to any foundation it is a good thing even if they are doing it for the wrong reasons, they are still donating money. One organization that donates a lot of money towards breast cancer is the MLB. Major league Baseball has donated alot of money to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. They hold what they call a "strikeout" challenge where they have people call and pledge money for strikeouts in a week period. On mothers day they also use pink baseball bats which they play with and sell after the games to raise money for breast cancer. After seeing all the money that different companies donate to different foundations just makes me more for corporate philanthropy.

I'm responding to jshort1's post, I completely agree with your views. The society we live in is to make money not give it away. So when large corporations do hand out money we should gladly accept it and thank them.

“...Companies and brands associate themselves with a cause as a means to build the reputation of a brand, increase profit, develop employee loyalty to the company, and add to their reputation as good corporate citizens.” (King, 9) Samantha King brings to light the fast emergence and disputable issue of “corporate philanthropy.” From a business standpoint, cause-related marketing is an extremely cost-beneficial business tactic that companies are continuing to use. It brings in larger markets, including markets of people that may not normally associate themselves with the brand, and it brings in more profit for the company as well. Corporate competition is rapidly increasing everyday, and this is just another great idea to keep the business moving forward. As an average citizen tangled in this American society of “corporate philanthropy,” I completely support it. If these companies never brought awareness to causes, like breast cancer, then how else would all of this money accumulate and go to the research in finding the cure. Whether the company's heart is truly in the right place really doesn't matter; what matters is that there is money being raised and donated. Yes, we as the concerned American citizens want to believe that if they really cared, they would put a lot more than a small percentage into the donation, but that is more than likely not the case. Reality is, businesses want the profit, and if creating a charity event or foundation can create a long-term profit for the company, then it will be done. I support this strategy completely, because although it may seem scheming at times, it really does put the name of the cause out there.
A company who uses “corporate philanthropy” and that King did not cover in her reading was Avon. Avon is a company for women's beauty products. In aiding the support for breast cancer, their foundation is called the Avon Foundation Breast Cancer Crusade, which has raised funds and awareness for advancing access to care and finding a cure for breast cancer. Their philanthropic programs include a number of breast cancer walks and purchasing fundraiser Avon products. Avon's website seems very outspoken through presenting their mission, information about their charity programs, and the openness in showing where the funds go by presenting the annual Avon Foundation Grants List. Overall, I think “corporate philanthropy” is a win-win situation for the company's brand and market, and for helping the efforts of the cause.
-Gincel

Reply to jshort1. I guess I will give ford some credit. Heres a company thats seems to be struggling and they have pledged donate a large amount of money to foundations. Thats a huge risk to make being that the company is having problems.

In response to jshort1 i think in a way you are right but at the same time i think that this may be the one of the few actual donations that actually is doing something. I mean I think the main reason for people downing major corporations and there small donations is the fact that most of the upper management like the CEO's are just living life good and are making tons of money. I mean do they need as much money as they are making and i know its an unfair to take money from their salary without taking it from everybody else's but at the same time maybe instead of taking all the extra money and taking for themselves maybe they could donate more to organizations that benefit others.

In Samantha King's “A Dream Cause” the very essence of what corporate business is, is revealed; make money in any way that you can, that's the most important thing. It points to the fact that most corporate companies like making themselves look good as long as they are making money in the process. For example McDonalds, why is it that they can only donate the money that they make off of apple pies. Given they donate more money than most companies do, but at the same time why couldn't they donate the money made off of all the Big Macs they sell or something like that. If you think about it, even if they only donated a percentage of how much they made off the Big Macs I bet it would be a whole lot more than what they donate for apple pies. But at least they don't lie about what they donate or I guess a better way to say lie is manipulate how much they donate and don't inform the customers who buy their products how much they actually donate. I just think that it is unfair how these large corporations pretty much prey on the consumer's good intentions, just so that they can make themselves look good and make a profit. It's also kind of sad that these corporations are trying to make it seem like they do so much when corporations like American Express, for a person to raise one dollar to donate to research they would “Have to use his or her American Express card one hundred times in thirty one day period.” When I looked up Sharpie markers to see how they donated to breast cancer organizations I found the donated $.10 per marker sold to City of Hope. I couldn't find anything other than that I saw something about $50,000 dollars but it didn't really explain what it meant by it so I believe that is all they are willing to donate. Overall it doesn't seem that any corporations are really trying to help, but I guess it's better than nothing.
William Flynn

As many of the other past posts have said, I agree with the fact that even though companies may not be fully donating everything to the foundation, the idea that companies are still putting a hand in the situation makes a big difference to me. I may buy one product over the other if that product is supporting a cause that I agree with. With that done, I have purchased a new product, and supported a good cause at the same time. If people have a problem with the fact that companies may not donate every single penny to the cause, there are many other foundations which you can donate the money to directly. Many of these foundations have walks and activities which raises thousands upon thousands of dollars every year. Scott Rappaport

This article was very typical for me. Corporate business is above all a business, not a charity. And the number one goal of all businesses is to make money. Before judging a business decision or strategy it is important to take this in account. Everyone's morals are different but there are ways of conducting business that shouldn't be allowed now matter what the situation or strategy you want to go by. I feel that corporate philanthropy is not one of those strategies. Although charity is only charity when you keep others interests top priority and not the well being of the business during the charity process corporate philanthropy should be allowed because its not just the businesses that profit from it. Other organizations get to continue their studies to make life better for us. The corporations see it as “charitable investing”. Most businesses don't give for the sake of giving but we shouldn't ignore the fact that they're still giving. am for corporate philanthropy because you have to think about the greater good. Although the money is only being given to them as an investment its still being given to them and we can't let the corporation's greedy motives stop us from seeing the greater good in this. Businesses will always find ways to manipulate the system to make more money. At least with this strategy research organizations get more funding to ultimately help our way of life. The Brita Products Company, the leading maker of point of use water filtration products released a line of breast cancer awareness pitchers. The company is going to donate $50,000 to City of Hope, a breast cancer research organization during the 2008 campaign. I know this because it says it online when you go to buy it. its obvious that this was an investment for the company and was done to make money in the long run but at the same time $50,000 is still $50,000 going to breast cancer research and I feel that contribution is worth the greed of the company.

I think the same idea has been posted in different ways. The fact is that now in our society the only thing that matters is the money that someone can make for a company. So our society has to get use to people using causes as a way to make the money. Pure and simple its a nescesary evil which will probably stay around till the end of time. But I have to agree with one of the post that said even a little money is better than no money at all. And I still believe the awarness from all these companies can not be measured monetarily.

After reading some of the posts I discovered that most people agree with conporate philantrophy. I do feel like some of these companies like Macdonalds are taking advantage of it a little bit but they are still donating every bit of their apple pie sales to the foundation. Even if people are buying value meals and other items the apple pie is still a consistent money maker for the company. I still believe that after reading these posts that corporate philantrophy does much more good than harm. Frank Olszewski

After reading most of the other posts, it seems to be a consensus that even though corporate philanthropy has its gives and takes, the overall contribution outweighs the somewhat stinginess of some corporations. Like tigerfrank said in his post- though a small portion of some sales gets contributed, it still goes a lot longer way than nothing at all. Hopefully in the future, corporations will feel more obligated to give back to the community.

In response to Bryan Trotter post, I couldnt agree more. I also will buy any other product that has the Breast Cancer logo on it over any other name brand or better product. It is really a matter of principle in that even if it is only a couple of dollars going towards the foundation, it is still more then nothing. Sometimes, people have to stop worrying about the big picture and just remember that a dolar here and there will add up and in turn hopefully save many lives down the road. The Breast Cancer awarness is big already and all that needs to be done to have the awarness grow is to get mjore people on the same page that every penny counts!

Andrew Schwartz

Samantha King's "A Dream Cause" was very interesting to read becasue you finally get the justification about where exactly your hard earned money really goes, and not where you think its is going. Corporate Philanthropy is just another way to say a way to gain additional money for your business/corporation. It is just a two word phrase of saying that. I understand where these companies are coming from. In today's world its al about how much money you have or can make, and in this case, breast cancer is a widely read about topic and it is heard about almost every day. The funny thing is that the Breast Cancer corporation needs companies to help them market the awarness neccesary to have people enlightned about what is going on with in this case Breast Cancer, and yet these companies in my mind have some way to make money somehow to help benefit themselves, not the people that need the help. One company not mentioned in Samantha King's reading is Yoplait. I found this company very interesting becasue of how they donate money to the foundation. They will donate 10 cents for every coover of yoplait returned, but will only donate up to $500,000 total. Its interesting to see that a company will donate money but has to stop at a certain amount. Again these companies are lookoing to benefit themselves when they need to. Saving Lids to Saving Lives is a great approach to helping out this cause but couldn't it be better?

Andrew Schwartz

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/362213/corporate_sponsorship_of_breast_cancer.html

Corporate Sponsorship of Breast Cancer Awareness Month Benefits Companies Also

After reading Samantha Kings "A Dream Cause," it is safe to say that I have learned a good bit about corporate philanthropy, or at least am more aware of this concept then I previously was. I have had the chance to go back and forth in my mind concerning this idea and have evaluated some of the pros and cons. Let me start by saying that the prime directive of any company is to make money. Over anything else a company is considered successful depending on the amount of profit it can make in a quarter. So with that said it is rare to find a company willing to donate a percentage of its profit to a Nobel cause, let alone a large percentage. Yet we keep seeing and reading in the news about these mega corporations that seem to have a new charity program every time it rains. One of the things that bothers me about this notion of corporate philanthropy is that corporations use these charities or drives or whatever you want to call it to make money. If anyone thinks a company is losing money by donating to a worthy cause they are mistaken. Whether they get the money back as a write off or other loop holes, no company is losing their profit. Now although this is one of many cons, there are some pros to this process that help make it seem more worth the while. First off, no matter what it is great seeing these ads on TV or on billboards to help raise money for cancer. Being the nephew of a woman who has struggled with the disease her entire life I know one thing that has always helped her is the idea that people care. And isn't that what is important, to show support and recognize the hardships that people are going through? Finally I'd like to say that even if a company is using a fundraiser for the main purpose of bringing in new customers or work associates and even in the end they are benefitting more than the cause they are trying to help, they still donated more money than I would ever be able to and they still enlightened and informed a nation of people

Strickman

After reading some of the other responses, I'm glad there are many people that agree with me. It's not our place to complain how much a company donates when they aren't legally told to do so. It would be ideal for more companies to donate more to try and get research further along. Overall, I learned a lot about corporate philanthropy and how companies use it for marketting.

After I read “A Dream Cause” by Samantha King, I looked at corporate philanthropy in a new way. I had always thought that contributions to cancer research was obviously good, but had no idea how little some of these big corporations actually donate considering their profits. Corporate America now “treats donations like investments and expect to get something in return for them.” It comes to me no surprise that these businesses are using their marketing program in their in own self-interest and to stride towards making profits from it. I am definitely not complaining about any of these companies for donating, and there are many more benefits then harms that comes out of corporate philanthropy. King's article brings up both the pros and cons of corporate philanthropy. I do think it's important to notice the pros, including the Rally for the Cure march and golf tournaments that are held by these companies and test drives designed to raise money for breast cancer awareness by BMW, for example. I can't really blame these companies for spending as much as they do, because it all goes towards saving lives. If these big corporations didn't spend anything at all, even if it is just a tiny part of their profits, where would breast cancer research be at currently? I looked up what Wal-Mart does for corporate philanthropy and was surprised. The Wal-Mart Foundation donated over 400 million in 2007, gaining the Evangeline Booth Award Excellence in Corporate Philanthropy (http://walmartstores.com/CommunityGiving/338.aspx). Im glad to know that such a big corporation like Wal-Mart donates as much money as they do.
Bill Richardson

In my opinion I think that Corporate Philanthropy is wrong. Most of these companies are money hungry and will do anything to and use anyone to get money. I would only agree with them if these companies really wanted to support Breast Cancer awareness. You will probably only hear of them when its Breast Cancer Awareness month. After that you wont hear until the next Breast cancer awareness month. If they really cared they would advertise Breast Cancer and other things they support all year long. When it comes to donations these companies have people thinking that their donation that they are making, majority of it isnt going toward the breast cancer. Campanies just make these donations to get on the good side of people. They figure if we do this, then will benefit from this more than the cause so why not make a donation that wont hurt ur pockets, but in the long run will we benefit. When Nancy Brinker went to the lingerie manufacturer to ask them to help with breast cancer awarness they responsded by saying " We sell glamour not fear". Clearly they knew that if they would put tags on their products about that they would lose money cause some people dont want to think about cancer let alone want to be reminded about it. Once again this proves that most companies arent worried about it they just want to make themselves look good. Kristopher Boyd

In response to mrcterps05, I find it amazing that McDonalds do donate 100% of their proceeds from baked apple pies to breast cancer awareness. Aren't their apples pies on the dollar menus? I believed that yes, this is a great idea for McDonalds, but people usually add apple pies to their meals. So McDonalds is still making a great profit. Kierra Palmer

After reading “Dream Caused” by Samantha King it gives me a better understanding of what corporate philanthropy is as well as just how sneaky and conniving some corporate companies are when it comes to making a better profit for themselves. To use a good cause such as breast cancer which one of the leading causes of death to our women to make your company look better in the eyes of the world to me is inappropriate and shouldn't be allowed because it uses other peoples generosity towards a good cause and turns it into something less meaningful. In King‘s article, corporate philanthropy is seen as both a positive and a negative thing. Sure the foundations gets more promotions and advertisements and the corporations donate a certain percentage but I just feel like becoming a corporate partner with a foundation should be based upon wanting to help for the cause and not what they can also get out of it. One of the companies not mentioned in Ms. King's article that is a corporate partner with the Breast Cancer Foundation is Target. Target is a company that millions of people shop at on a daily bases. Target sells several items with the breast cancer logo on them. Now how much of a donations do they give the breast cancer foundation is unknown but I'm sure isn't anymore then anyother company.

Kadie Bangura

In response to mrcterps05 response to the article, I was fascinated to hear of such business savvy by the McDonald's corporation. I had no idea that they would think of such an ingenious way to build on their revenue. You're absolutely right nobody goes to McDonald's for an apple pie, which would be like going to Baltimore to watch an Oriole's game; you're aware that they have a baseball team but nobody really wants to watch.

After reading several of the responses, I was surprised the number of people that thought that any donation was a good thing. Honestly i expected most people, and i guess i have no real reason or backing to this, but i expected them to but upset at the small percentage of money that the companies actually donate. Since I am a believer that something is better than nothing, reading these response was quite joyful. I'm glad most people realize, at least at a minimum, that the companies are in a way going above and beyond what they are called upon to do. In an ideal situation they would donate more but it is rare to find anything thats perfect. JShort

I definitely think that everyone seems to be making great points involving breast cancer and corporate philanthropy. It seems to be a great cause in everyones opinion but no body seems satisfied with the percentage amount of money donated from the corporations. It is definitely a great cause for breast cancer. Those corporations that seem associated with breast cancer just seem to donate a small portion even though they advertise with all the pink colors like most of the money will go to breast cancer. Through more research, however, it seems most corporate philanthropy only donates a portion of their money to the given cause.
Bryan Trotter

I agree with another students reply where they say that even though it might only be 5% of the profits go to breast cancer research, it still is a certain proceed. I believe that if we didn't have as much corporate philanthropy as we did, that half the funds that we have trying to support a certain cause wouldn't receive as much money as they would if only individuals donated money. This to an extent is a sad reality. Most people wont or don't donate money unless they know someone or someone close to them that is fighting a battle with cancer or MS or any other type of illness or disability; however, yes there are a select few of us that would still donate if we didn't have corporate philanthropy pushing us from behind. I wish I could say that we really don't need corporate philanthropy but after sitting here and reading through everyone's responses and going back through the reading, I believe that we need it to a certain extent, but maybe not as strongly as it is now in the U.S.

Kasi Harris

This specific article by Samantha King really did not give me any new opinion of any sort of sporting orginization, they're all money hungry. However, in a time of such recession what company wouldn't want to start a monopoly and take the crown as the dominant sport in the country, even if it is using something as important as breast cancer awareness to make money for the teaml. There are even times when baseball players wear pink hats, or wear pink ribbons on the shirt sleeves to show support of breast cancer but what percentage of the jersey sales actually go to the research of cure? Representing your support of breast cancer awareness should be something you want to raise an awareness for, not just because you want to make money off such a serious disease. As long as the media and audience continue to support the business that sporting operations makes off of breast cancer awareness there really is not going to be a change. I personally think that the players should feel priveledged to show support for such a great cause and the paticular sport should be honored to express their help to fight for a cure. Times have obviously changed however since neither of these two are the case.

I think no one was surprised reading the article by Samantha King “A Dream Cause,” that corporate philanthropy is in full swing and one of major corporations main income and selling points to their items. While reading, it made me really think about where all the public's money went when buying from these corporations who slap on their box saying a portion of the purchase will be donated to the breast cancer fund, or autism etc. Most companies say that 30%-50% of the profits go to the funds they are supporting, but I have always highly doubted their trust and honesty within those statements; however, I read this article and think about my experiences then compare them to the numbers polled by the companies of the percentage of donations or the total amount of money donated and I'm somewhat stuck on the fence. In 2004, Altria Group Inc. donated $113,354, 016 to domestic violence, community and education. (http://www.businessweek.com/investing/philanthropy/2005/ccompany.htm, 2005). The only reason I'm not jumping on the bandwagon and saying “Hey they are donating a ton of money to a good cause!” is because it doesn't give you the total amount of profit they did make that year. Therefore, this web page gives you a distorted view of all the companies and the actual percentage of their profit that has been donated. I think corporate philanthropy is a great thing to a certain extent; however, I believe that there is some irony that corporations such as the tobacco industry donate a certain portion of their profit to foundations that research the one thing they are causing, cancer. This will be an on going battle within the world for a long time to come and as you can see I cant even make a solid decision on where I stand on the matter.

Kasi Harris

I agree with the few blogs that say it's not a shocker that corporations and companies will do anything to make money. I do think it's great that they are involved with philanthropy, even if they benefit from it as well. No where does it say that corporations and companies are required to give money to charites. So, giving some sort of funds to a charity is a great and it gives back to the community, no matter how much money it may be. Many Americans don't donate a lot of money, so why should a corporation when involved with philanthropy? The point is, corporations are donating money in some way, no matter how much the amount.

Corporate philanthropy as outlined by Samantha King's article “A Dream Cause” is a duel edged sword. Corporations do donate money to causes such as breast cancer but at the same time they align themselves with the cause and end up making a profit because of such. It is difficult to side with a corporation that makes money off of the same cause they try to help. That being said, I also believe that it is a necessary evil due to the obvious fact that most of the wealth in our economy revolves around major corporations. They are in a better place to donate and help causes regardless of their motives then an individual. For the most part corporations that align themselves with causes are able to turn a profit simply from the good PR that is attained from the public.
Through research I found the “Breast Cancer Site Store” which is a webpage that is dedicated to selling products that sport the site's name or the pink ribbon associated with breast cancer. Though the website does say that the purchases fund mammograms, the fact remains that there essentially is a breast cancer store. What ever happened to the simple donation or information on awareness? If we as individuals are to support funding for causes like breast cancer, we need to know the nature of business. Corporate funding of breast cancer research might not be the noblest endeavor, but it does offer help that otherwise would not have been there.
Bill Reem

I think that what was said in tthe prompt and throughout the article is correct, that is that in our period in time, breast cancer awareness is a hot button for companies to use to get good publicity. Corporate philanthropy in this sence is not a bad thing however because it is bringing this cause, amoung others, to the forefront, and makes these issues ok to talk about in everyday discussion. The fact that these companies do everything in their power to make money off of these campaigns is only a biproduct of our neolibertarian economy. We look at everything, especially in the corporate setting, as a possible profit, ignoring the fact that these campaigns are supposed to be helping people. My argument however is that no matter how much a comapny is willing to give, it is still giving and that should be shown in a good light. While sometimes there may be diabolical motives to giving money to charity, there is good that comes out in the end, and that should be recognized more. In searching for another company that donates to breast cancer awareness, i came across a couple of examples. there are many chain stores, such as target and walmart that have products that, when purchased, donate a certain amount of money to the campaign. Dell was another company who did this. When purchasing a computer, one can purchase this package including a camera, mouse, keyboard, amoung other things, where a certain amount of the procedes went to the Komen Breast cancer Foundation. all of these examples, while they may not give alot per transaction, over a period of time can end up donating alot. Regardless, it should be noted that they are donating where other companies dont donate at all.

I was very interested in all the companies that students found that donate a "portion of the proceeds" to Beast Cancer Awareness. It seems to me that quite a few people that research and found that the companies all weren't donating as much as the main stream society would think. I totally agree with "9 Tremblay Road" when he says "If one company is donating money for the sheer reason of trying to help the cause, I say go ahead." But as others posted thats usually not the case. I almost like the point a student brings up about McDonald's apple pie, I know a few people that just like their apple pies but when it comes to the major of the population I agree that they don't go to McDonald's to have the apple pie.

The reading by Samantha King “A Dream Cause” on corporate philanthropy was interesting and familar in respect to the purpose and reasoning behind donations and in general the money market. I totally agree with corporations giving money to various foundations and organizations. Whether it be a large lump sum or just a little bit of change and it should not matter. Any amount of money can be of help to these organizations and I feel it is solely up to the company to consciously decide what they feel is appropriate to donate, and not the decision of the foundation. I do not believe that whether or not they are using another organizations to sell their product should be an issue either. Our country is revolved around making money and I believe that in one way or another we are all benefiting from the connection. It doesn't necessarily have to be about money for example, last year during the NCAA Women's Basketball season many team participated in the campaign for Breast Cancer some wore pink jerseys others held special ceremonies, while some raised money to be donated. This was not done on the bases of revenue or to gain anything however, it can still be considered corporate philanthropy, it raised awareness.

The reading by Samantha King “A Dream Cause” on corporate philanthropy was interesting and familar in respect to the purpose and reasoning behind donations and in general the money market. I totally agree with corporations giving money to various foundations and organizations. Whether it be a large lump sum or just a little bit of change and it should not matter. Any amount of money can be of help to these organizations and I feel it is solely up to the company to consciously decide what they feel is appropriate to donate, and not the decision of the foundation. I do not believe that whether or not they are using another organizations to sell their product should be an issue either. Our country is revolved around making money and I believe that in one way or another we are all benefiting from the connection. It doesn't necessarily have to be about money for example, last year during the NCAA Women's Basketball season many team participated in the campaign for Breast Cancer some wore pink jerseys others held special ceremonies, while some raised money to be donated. This was not done on the bases of revenue or to gain anything however, it can still be considered corporate philanthropy, it raised awareness.

I agree with those couple of blogs that say, that even if companies only donate 5% of their revenue to Breast cancer it still adds up to be alot. Most companies make millions and if they are only giving 5%, that is still alot of money. One blog metioned that they always suspected the homeless man sitting on the corner to secretly drive a Mercedes...My mom and I actually watched a man park his BMW in a parkinglot, get out in raggy clothes and walk a BLOCK down the road with a cardboard sign. He stood there for most of the day with that sign saying "Please help me in my time of need." People like that make me sick!

I agree with some of the blogs that say there are positive and negative sides of corporate philanthropy. Especially, the point that some money donated is better than no money being donated however there could always be more money donated. But there could always be more money donated to every cause. After reading what everyone has wrote about their views and findings I think it is interesting how many companies do support breast cancer. Brittany Ruzicka

After reading Samantha King's "A Dream Cause," it really hit me how low some of the corporations will go to make enough money to meet their quotas; no matter how they do it, even from an organization like the Komen foundation for breast cancer. Since the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled the legality corporate donations in 1953, corporations have since been using this excuse to show that, even if they are donating a small amount, they are still donating and are thus righteous and should not be questioned. Even though some companies appear to take advantage of corporate philanthropy, I believe it is a good thing because any money is good money especially if it saves lives, even if the contribution may seem small. There are more corporations out there that give a large amount to foundations like the Komen foundation for breast cancer than ones that give little contributions. For example, Major League Baseball and Louisville Slugger team up to support the Komen foundation for breast cancer by having a pink bat day;usually on Mother's Day. Most, if not all the players in the MLB bat with pink bats to extend and show awareness for breast cancer. "Last year, MLB's contribution to Komen was $350,000 according to Komen.org."(Newman) Although Louisville makes money from selling these pink bats, atleast they are donating $10 for every bat sold to breast cancer research. As far as being open about supporting breast cancer in the MLB...I don't think you can be much more open about it than waving around a pink bat in front of tens of thousands of fans and on national television.

After reading “A Dream Cause” by Samantha King I am for corporate philanthropy. It is beneficial to the business, community, and cause or organization being supported. Obviously, the business is concerned with making money and by supporting a worthwhile cause more money will be brought in along with a better reputation. It is beneficial to the community because it gives a sense of togetherness in everyone who participates in working together for the same good reason. Finally, the organization is reaping the benefits of getting the profit from the company, donations from the public, and attention from the media. In Kings writing she mentioned that the NFL women fan base is around 68 million people. If these women are going to be watching the games, attending them, and buying sportswear regardless, it would only be beneficial to educate the public about the cause, in this case breast cancer. Along with educating the public and supporting the cause, the business will still be doing its main job, which is running a national football league and making money. Many other companies and businesses support Susan B. Komen. New Balance has a Breast Cancer donation plan as well. This company supports Susan B. Komen by being a sponsor for “Race For The Cure” and also by having an in store promotion called “Lace Up For The Cure”. This in store retail promotion donates 15% of wholesale sales from the “Lace Up For The Cure” apparel and footwear collection. New Balance also committed to a minimum donation of $500,000 with the possibility of a maximum donation of 1 million dollars. Overall, every bit counts and there are still so many companies who do not contribute anything so credit should be given to the companies and corporations that do contribute some.

In the article by Samantha King, “A Dream Cause,” Mrs. King talks about the increasing corporate philanthropy in today's society. There isn't any doubt that every company's first goal is to make money and to do so at almost any cause. But the question that surfaces with corporate philanthropy is whether or not it's right to do. The companies that hitch their wagon to a specific cause use the cause to help increase their public image and their overall sales. Mrs. King says, “Cause-related marketing is understood as a “filter,” a way to attract the attention and loyalty of the consumer (King 6).” The companies that use the causes to their own benefit are looking at their bottom line. I think corporate philanthropy is a necessary evil because the awareness raised is more than the money sometimes. We know by past history that a doctor's word isn't always enough. Sometimes a national issue can change minds. For example with breast cancer the increased national attention has created a more informed nation which helps lead to early detection and hopefully in the future a cure. Another company that creates a large spectacle for breast cancer and breast cancer research is Major League Baseball. For the past two seasons on Mother's Day baseball has had “Think Pink” promotions. For the day players are able to sign up to use pink bats in the game which are then autographed and auctioned off. According to MLB.com all the money raised from the auction and the money raised from donations goes directly to the Susan G. Komen for a cure. The league also sells pink bats that can be personalized which are sold and $10 from every sale is given to the Susan G. Komen. I think that even though companies may give off the wrong idea that they give more than they do to causes. The silver lining in it all is the awareness that goes out to the world.

Corporate philanthropy, with any controversial idea, has its pros and cons but I believe done right corporate philanthropy is a good idea. I think that only way corporate philanthropy is on the honesty and ethics of each corporation. If each company would list their contributions to their charity publicly and they based each contribution on a percentage of the profit made over a year. Of course this only works with corporate integrity and in my opinion that will never happen with all the greed in the corporate world. When companies and charities get together to accomplish a goal there are mutual benefits. The charity gets introduced into mainstream society, while the company gets great positive publicity and bigger profit. I do agree with Samantha King, in her writing “A Dream Cause,” when she talks about “cause-related marketing” because I believe the key to a good charity and corporate merge is that they are related. I don't think a company that makes rat poison should advertise for breast cancer awareness, king brings up this point when she writes” weak links between and a company are thought to increase the likelihood that a corporation appears to “be cashing in” on other peoples misfortune.” It is hard to find exactly how much a company donate for each grantee they make, but I found the Levi Strauss company created “khakis for the cure program” where they sell “Dockers women's pink ribbon collection” and one dollar for each item sold will be donated to Komen for the cure (Komen 2008). This long search shows why corporation need to be regulated for these programs to work

Brian Elliott "Breast Cancer Aweness" http://cms.komen.org/komen/Partners/CorporatePartners/013603

In Samantha King's "A Dream Cause", corporate philanthropy is a "way to attract the attention and loyalty of the consumer." In other words, corporate wants to make money. Corporate philanthropy is just another way for Fortune 500 companies to make money by getting a new demographic of consumers. In "A Dream Cause" many companies and organizations, such as the NFL, were not only promoting breast cancer awareness but we trying to gain the attention of unlikely consumers and views. The big purpose of corporate companies: TO MAKE MONEY. Very small percentages of a company's revenue is actually used for donations. For example, the make-up company called Avon donates only a PORTION of their sales of certains products to organizations that raise breast cancer awareness. They have a tiny part of their website dedicated to breast cancer awareness and they even have a tax exempt code at the bottom. What does this indicate? Even though Avon is trying to raise awareness for breast cancers the underlined message is to get more customers to buy their product so they will get more profit coming in. Yes, these corporations shed light on a serious issue, but corporate philanthropy is a "way to attract the attention and loyalty of the consumer." In other words, make money. Kierra Palmer

After reading "A Dream Cause" by Samantha King and researching corporate philanthropy on my own, I can honestly say I am for corporate philanthropy. I believe it is a great idea for companies to engage in corporate philanthropy. Not only does a pink breast cancer ribbon make their product more appeal, it also portrays the company in a very good light. When I was looking for a company other than ones mentioned by Ms. King, I found several that would not disclose their information about how much they donate and where they donate to. They would have a large website dedicated to their breast cancer products but then had no details about their actual connection to Breast Cancer Awareness. This turned me off from these companies but I remained in favor of corporate philanthropy. I finally came upon the company 3m, the makers of post-its. They had a whole webpage dedicated to their partnership with City of Hope and Breast Cancer Awareness. On the webpage listed are the Breast Cancer Awareness products and the amount that will be donated to City of Hope for each product sold. A 3-pack of Post-its only runs you a couple bucks but 50 cents of each pack sold go to City of Hope. I originally wasn't too impressed with the 30 to 50 cents donation per product that 3m boasted about. Although it took just a little more scrolling down the page to see they have raised several millions of dollars in Breast Cancer Awareness. Therefore strengthening my opinion that corporate philanthropy is a good idea.

3m Post-it http://www.3m.com/us/office/postit/research/donation.html Josh Jenkins

By reading Samatha King's writting, "A Dream Cause," I learned about both arguments for and against Corporate Philanthropy. As she goes on to tell about the campaigns of certain companies to help donate to breast cancer she also lets the reader know about how these companies are benefiting from their 'generous' desicion to donate. As I understand corporate philanthropy has been seen by many large corporations as a "new and profitable strategy through which to market their product" (King,2). Though these companies are benefiting by donating to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation it shouldn't matter what their reason is for making the choice to donate because any amount of a donation is helpful. I am for Corporate Philanthropy because I know that there are many companies who generate a great deal of money to donate to good causes such as breast cancer. I do however see how some people would be against the notion of Corporate Philanthropy. There are some companies who may use the idea of Corporate Philanthropy as at marketing strategy but may not hold loyal to their word of donating as much money as they may generate for it. What I would say to those people who feel this way is even though there may be a percentage of companies who do not donate as much as they say, they are still donating to something important and and amount matters. There are still those corporations who are donating Millions of dollars, such as Hershey's. Hershey's donated $250,000 in the month of October in 2006 to the Young Surviver Coalition, tageting women under 40 affected by breast cancer. " You can grab an all-pink bag of M&Ms, another million-dollar partner of The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. Or munch on limited-edition Hershey's Kisses or York Peppermint Patties with a pink center," says writter in the Joblin Globe. When there are corporations such as this one making donations that big you must realize that Corporate Philanthropy is good.
Erin Ragan

In Samantha King's " A Dream Cause" corporate philantrophy is looked at as a way for businesses to make money off of a cause that it supports. I actually believe that corporate philantrophy is a good thing because it not only the thought but also the fact that even a little money is going towards the research. There are alot of different products out on the market that use the breast cancer logo. I realize that not as much money is given to these foundations as most think. Nevertheless I believe that any money is good money. Even if it is only a small portion of the sales I still think it can help. I know as a golfer that Pinnacle golf balls are used very frequently in the breast cancer field. They make pink golf balls or white golf balls with the Susan Komen logo on the ball and put a portion of the sales towards research. I had trouble finding on their website how much they use of each sale but I do know that they have an inititive to raise a million dollars towards research. I realize that by doing this they are trying to attract women to play the pinnacle golf ball but I my mind if it is used towards the right cause then I believe that even more people should buy the golf balls. Every company needs to make a profit and if these companies are using the breast cancer logo or pink items as a way to attract more people then I say the more power to them. I mean if there is money going towars the organization then I believe that it will help in the long run. If a company is using the logo and not donating any money then I would have a problem but as I said before any money is good money and it helps. Frank Olszewski

In "A Dream Cause" by Samantha King, corporate philanthropy is seen as both a positive and a negative thing. Even though many corporations seem to give such small percentage of donations collected to the actual breast cancer cause, every little bit counts in my opinion. I definitely think corporate philanthropy is a good thing for quite a few reasons. First of all, anytime I am out and see a pink logo supporting breast cancer, I usually spend some extra money to buy that product because breast cancer has been a huge problem on my Mom's side of the family. I try to see what products donate more to the foundation then another but sometimes it is just to hard to tell at the store. Any money is better than no money in my eyes. My grandmother just recently told me about an ad KitchenAid was putting on that donates $50 for every pink mixer they sell. These sell for $350, but I don't expect KitchenAid to donate it all. Companies are all out there to make a profit. If they donated all of their profit to charity, they would not succeed. That is why I believe that any percentage of donations is better than none at all, however, I do feel the more the better. Not only do the donations look good for the corporations, it creates more advertising and partnership opportunities for itself. Partnering up with other companies, especially when it is a charity organization looks great in the eyes of the media and consumers. I would buy a product that is associated with breast cancer any day of the week over the same product sold by a company that had no affiliation, even if that meant spending a little extra money on my end. It does scare me to think that the extra money I spent that I think is going to a good cause like breast cancer may possibly just not make it. I do support corporate philanthropy, however, shame on those companies that abuse this association and keep the money for themselves! Bryan Trotter

It is tough to decide if corporate philanthropy is good or bad thing. If these companies really do donate money than I really do not care if they are using another organization to sell their product. The problem is after reading this article I am starting to realize that a lot of companies do not donate enough to even make an impact. I never would have imagined that these companies did not donate a substantial amount. This article really opened my eyes to see the truth about corporate America. The problem is it is very hard to criticize a company because they did not donate enough. Breast cancer research needs as much funding as it can, so I know the Susan G. Komen foundation will take any money that companies will donate. It just not really fair to the companies that really do a lot to help. A company that actually worked with and donated a lot of money to the Susan G. Komen foundation is Serta mattresses. “Serta joined forces with the Komen Foundation in September to form the Counting Sheep for the Cure partnership. The company donated $290,000 to fight breast cancer.” Besides donating money Serta also sold mattresses with the breast cancer symbol on them and they painted the Serta sponsored Nascar car pink for awareness. I actually bought a mattress two years ago from them that benefited the company. I was going to buy the mattress anyway because it was comfortable but I remember thinking, "wow that's pretty awesome that this bed is helping out a good cause." Now I realize Serta very easily could have been a company like Eureka where less that one percent of the price of the vacuum goes to the foundation. In the long run I agree with corporate philanthropy because even though some companies are only doing for themselves, there are some companies who really do help.
Perry, David. “Serta racer thinks pink to fight breast cancer.” Furniture Today. (17 Nov. 2005). 7 Sept. 2008

In my opinion, corporate philanthropy is a great idea, but can also get extremely shady depending on the reason for the donations. If one company is donating money for the sheer reason of trying to help the cause, I say go ahead. But if a company is donating the money in hopes of receiving some kind of recognition or prize, then this is where the act of corporate philanthropy is not good. Avon is a company, which has always been on the side of breast cancer awareness, or so they say. They claim to be the largest corporate supporter of the breast cancer cause in the United States. The thing about Avon is that a lot of their products contain a chemical called parabens. Parabens, according to evidence, suggests that young females with developing breast tissue are particularly vulnerable to the increased breast cancer risk while taking or coming in contact with parabens. Avon pushes to make strides in the breast cancer awareness industry with many activities, one major one being the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer. In 2006, close to 70 million dollars have been raised for the cause. In all, I think Avon has done an excellent job in raising awareness about breast cancer and making strides to overcome it with charitable donations, but the fact that they still include parabens in their cosmetics, is something to be thought about. When King said, “Marketers and the corporations for whom they work overwhelmingly view cause-related marketing as a successful business strategy” (King 11), I think it was phrased quite intelligently. Businesses will contribute money to causes without the real reason for doing it in mind. It will be done more for the good of the business, rather than the good of the cause. Scott Rappaport

This article did not surprise me as it went on to say how many companies donate very small percentages of their profit to certain foundations and organizations. It makes sense in the business aspect to do this. They are actually helping out these foundations by giving them money that they are not forced to give. Some companies or corporations may be able to donate more, but at least they are donating what they do. These companies realize they are in a world where one has to look out for themselves if they want to survive. I am happy they are donating what they are and hope they continue to do so. It is a win-win situation for both the large companies and for the foundations. I recently read where Microsoft and Sparks.com are creating a new Resource Center on MSN.com WomenCentral to help the research of breast cancer. The site will help in all aspects of breast cancer, including both physical and mental recovery. It will include tips for parts of the everyday life, including information on career, relationships, family, and fitness. The center will also include programming from the very popular WebMD. To help raise money for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Sparks.com will donate one million dollars for each person who registers at WomenCentral between now and November 30. This one million dollar donation may not seem like a lot from the world's largest paper greeting card store, but that is where the people come in. The more people that sign up will help increase that amount Sparks.com will donate. This is a positive way to help the Breast Cancer Foundation.

From reading Samantha King's “A Dream Cause,” there are quite a few corporations that make charitable donations toward Breast Cancer Awareness, which I think is awesome. It was also stated in King's reading that “…companies and brands associate themselves with a cause as a means to build the reputation of a brand, increase profit, develop employee loyalty to the company, and add to their reputation as good corporate citizens” (King 9). As much as I feel this is a true statement, I am still all for corporate philanthropy. To me, it does not matter how much money or how much service a corporation is giving to a charitable organization. Any time a corporation, organization, company, etc. participates in philanthropy, they are giving back to the community in some way. Whether it is through funds or man-hours, something is being given back, and the community is benefiting from it. The corporations/companies are also benefiting from participation in philanthropy, which I see no problem. Although many people might say that only so much money (which is sometimes not a lot) is given to the charity. However, something is better than nothing. Under Armour participates in what is called the “Power in Pink” campaign. They created the campaign to “honor, inspire and support women fighting breast cancer.” They also state in their campaign that “for each item purchased throughout the Power in Pink promotion, $2.00 will be donated to breast cancer charities.” Now although, Under Armour can be quite pricey, and $2.00 does not seem to be that much money being donated, UA is giving back to the community. Also, with UA's Power in Pink campaign, they have three women who were selected to be the “faces” of the campaign. Under Armour also states that they believe in active lifestyles to battle breast cancer, and the three women selected to share their story are proof. So, besides making more profits for themselves, UA is also campaigning for women to stay healthy and active to prevent and/or fight a disease. Megan Jendrossek

This article did not surprise me at all when it came to the fact that corporations in this country do things to make money. We live in a capitalistic society, our entire goal is to make money. I don't see how anybody can be surprised by reading this article. The way I look at it is, be happy these corporations are giving any money at all. Who cares what their motives are as long as the research is getting done and lives are being saved. These companies are going to do what they need to do to make money, you can't fault them for that. If they need to donate money to breast cancer research to form a bond with their employees and market so be it. They are still doing a good thing in giving money to a non profit organization. I've noticed companies doing this kind of stuff in my line of business working for a liquor store. We have a bottle of wine called Moselland Cat Bottle Riesling, and one of their bottles is a pink support the cure bottle. They donate 6 dollars from every case to Susan G. Koman for the cure. (http://journals.aol.com/grapewiz/halby-herald/entries/2007/05/22/moselland-cat-bottle-riesling/1733) No this is not a lot of money and it is definitely a ploy to sell more bottles of wine considering most people who drink wine are female, but they are still helping the cause and you can't be angry at that. Nick Campitelli

It should come to no one's surprise that everything big business does is in effort to make money. It is the natural of the economic market we live in. Living in the capitalist society that we do, maybe we should step back and actually thank the companies that step forward and donate the money that they do. Nowhere is stated that big business such as GM or Estee Lauder have to or even should make contributions to these causes. Even if these companies only donate 5 percent of their profits, where would Breast Cancer research be without the millions of dollars donated each year by these companies? In March of 2008 Ford motor company announced its commitment of 95 million dollars for the next 14 years to cancer research. This single company donated ¼ of what the US government budgeted for cancer research in 2008, 400 million,( New York Times September 8, 2008) Even if this was a ploy to make money of their own I think we should congratulate organizations like this that branch out and make these generous donations. I know many people will not agree with me here but take a step back from the negative view that we all have on big business and look a little deeper, Ford motor company, in a time of the failing car industry in the US, where factories are shutting down, have pledged to donate almost 1.4 billion dollars over 14 years, no matter what the purpose of that donation may be, even if it is solely a marketing ploy to make money, it is one that deserves recognition. Justin Short

While reading this article it really came to no surprise to me that businesses have, “evolved from what were mostly short term commitments from corporations to their chosen causes… to major, long term commitments to an issue through an alliance that links the company or brand name with the issue in the consumer's mind” (King, 9). Especially, in this day in age where turning a profit is the only thing that matters. What really came to a surprise to me was how little these so called pink organizations actually give to the cause of breast cancer research. Both my mom and grandmother collect the yogurt tops for breast cancer to find out. However they came nowhere near to eating 3 things of yogurt daily for the 3 weeks so the two of them probably only donated like 10 dollars to research. Another company that is “teaming up to fight breast cancer” is McDonald's. In an article from the Business Service Industry, McDonalds will donate 100 percent of the proceeds from baked apple pies to cancer research. While this percentage is significantly higher then the other companies mentioned in the article, this is still a marketing strategy by McDonalds to make money. I mean lets face it who really goes into McDonalds to get just an apple pie. They are hoping to attract more people to the store to get lunch or dinner along with their apple pie that aids in funding breast cancer research. There is one positive to big business getting involved in breast cancer awareness is that even though they might not be providing adequate funds for the cure. They are creating a significant amount of awareness for breast cancer. An example was with the NFL, when they went pink not only did they donate money but instantly millions of people who tune in every week for football games became aware that breast cancer is a serious problem and that women should become more aware of the problem. Michael Cole

While reading this article it really came to no surprise to me that businesses have, “evolved from what were mostly short term commitments from corporations to their chosen causes… to major, long term commitments to an issue through an alliance that links the company or brand name with the issue in the consumer's mind” (King, 9). Especially, in this day in age where turning a profit is the only thing that matters. What really came to a surprise to me was how little these so called pink organizations actually give to the cause of breast cancer research. Both my mom and grandmother collect the yogurt tops for breast cancer to find out. However they came nowhere near to eating 3 things of yogurt daily for the 3 weeks so the two of them probably only donated like 10 dollars to research. Another company that is “teaming up to fight breast cancer” is McDonald's. In an article from the Business Service Industry, McDonalds will donate 100 percent of the proceeds from baked apple pies to cancer research. While this percentage is significantly higher then the other companies mentioned in the article, this is still a marketing strategy by McDonalds to make money. I mean lets face it who really goes into McDonalds to get just an apple pie. They are hoping to attract more people to the store to get lunch or dinner along with their apple pie that aids in funding breast cancer research. There is one positive to big business getting involved in breast cancer awareness is that even though they might not be providing adequate funds for the cure. They are creating a significant amount of awareness for breast cancer. An example was with the NFL, when they went pink not only did they donate money but instantly millions of people who tune in every week for football games became aware that breast cancer is a serious problem and that women should become more aware of the problem. Michael Cole

In Samantha King's "A Dream Cause," corporate philanthropy is defined as "a possible route to gaining access to new markets at home and abroad, finding new partners with whom to do business with," while enhancing sales. I've always wondered where our generous donations are actually going to, considering the fact that we don't physically hand over our paper bills directly to the research facilities. I've always been the skeptical one who believes that the homeless man sitting on the city corner secretly drives a Mercedes Benz and he uses the change we fork over, to pay for his daily cappuccino. I have firsthand experience dealing with corporate philanthropy and the argument against the fact that only a small percentage actually goes to the research at hand. It was this past summer as I was anxiously looking for work that I saw an internship position available for a company who promotes non-profit organizations. The company was called Geopat Enterprises, Inc. and at the time it seemed like a legit marketing based company that had well known clients including D.A.R.E., Toys for Tots, as well as the Breast Cancer Foundation. I thought I can't pass this opportunity up considering the fact that I would be receiving first hand marketing experience while doing a good deed for the community. Turns out that the actual percentage that goes to these great foundations is only about 5% of the company's revenue even though Geopat markets and advertises the fact that over half of their profits go to donations. I'm all for donating my money to a worthy cause I just don't think my money will ever make it to its intended destination. Blake Yospa