# Susan G Komen cuts funding to PP **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 1, 2012, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413 "2012-02-01T13:08:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/141 "2012-02-03T05:59:35Z")
> [@Kolga](#): > > Ah, still dismissing the symbolism, I see. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. In the opinion of those of us who are outraged, we see one women’s organization pulling money from another women’s organization due to a failed anti-choice politician’s vendetta. While continuing to provide money to an organization under investigation, which was the smokescreen used to defund Planned Parenthood. YM, obviously, V. Well, you’re not actually presenting a persuasive argument that the symbolism is anything more than just fluff. I also think you need to consider that Planned Parenthood and SGK seem to have very different overall missions, that intersect because PP’s large umbrella of women’s health issues obviously includes breast cancer. But if I was the CEO of SGK I might, for example, be hesitant to continue a $600k a year association that might be costing my organization millions of dollars. If I’m running a charity that is primarily focused on breast cancer research and education, I probably don’t want to be associated with more controversial outfits like Planned Parenthood that are irrevocably caught up in the abortion debate. I’m not convinced it is desirable by anyone but radical politicized leftists for SGK to see itself as part of the “larger women’s movement.” I think that positions them on a certain side of the political spectrum; that’s unavoidable for Planned Parenthood but I think it’s unnecessary (and thus unwise) for SGK. [Again I’m slipping into the first person here but I’m still mostly playing DA’s, I don’t think any of us know enough about the inner workings of SGK to know their motivations or what numbers they’ve seen so I’m just working off the fact that organization administrators whether they be corporate CEOs or not for profit CEOs are validly interested in maximizing revenue because it takes money to achieve you goal whether it b maximizing shareholder value or maximizing aid to your chosen charitable cause.) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/142 "2012-02-03T06:02:56Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Maybe. Of course, since they haven’t discussed problems in raising funds because of their association with Planned Parenthood and haven’t said anything about the effects of that association or differences in the mission of their two organizations, we’re just assuming. Even if all of that were true, you might wonder about Komen deciding to cut Planned Parenthood off rather than explaining that they were funding mammograms for low-income women, not abortions. Right, but PR is a difficult game. Lots of people in the pro-life crowd insist the U.S. government is paying for abortions, when the government funding for Planned Parenthood very specifically _does not_ pay for abortions. More than half of Americans think that abortion is immoral. The strongly pro-life are a large and extremely activist minority. This is political toxic waste and I’m not convinced that it’s easy (and thus perhaps not a good use of limited organizational resources) to try and fight a PR battle that will probably not change perceptions when you could just sever the ties between organizations. I think in reality you’d be hard pressed to make a strong argument that severing the ties has materially _hurt_ Planned Parenthood. So the question is, does it hurt SGK or help SGK? It could hurt them short term but long term it’s possible they’ve projected it is a better move. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/143 "2012-02-03T06:27:54Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > If I’m running a charity that is primarily focused on breast cancer research and education, I probably don’t want to be associated with more controversial outfits like Planned Parenthood that are irrevocably caught up in the abortion debate. If that’s the charity you’re running, then the mission of your charity is to fund breast cancer research and education when politically expedient for you to do so. This appears also to be SGK’s new mission. Many of those who previously donated money to them thought that their mission was to fund breast cancer research and education, full stop. Presumably you are clever enough to understand the difference. Whether you personally find it significant or not, rest assured that _many, many_ other people do. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/144 "2012-02-03T06:32:58Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Lots of people in the pro-life crowd insist the U.S. government is paying for abortions, when the government funding for Planned Parenthood very specifically _does not_ pay for abortions. Maybe the people in the pro-life crowd weren’t intending to make a factual statement. Saying this hasn’t hurt Planned Parenthood in the short term (because a couple of people are making up for the shortfall for now) is, well, short-sighted. Planned Parenthood now has to keep going back to those donors or find other ones to replace this source of funding. It may not make a difference when the outrage is fresh, but later on, who knows. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/145 "2012-02-03T06:39:24Z")
[From Handel’s blog](http://web.archive.org/web/20100921093610/http:/blog.karenhandel.com/2010/07/karen-handel-on-life-and-planned-parenthood/)(through The Wayback Machine) > [@](#): > > First, let me be clear, since I am pro-life, **I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood.** During my time as Chairman of Fulton County,\*\* there were federal and state pass-through grants that were awarded to Planned Parenthood for breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as a “Healthy Babies Initiative.”\*\* The grant was authorized, regulated, administered and distributed through the State of Georgia. Because of the criteria, regulations and parameters of the grant, Planned Parenthood was the only eligible vendor approved to meet the state criteria. \*\*Additionally, none of the services in any way involved abortions or abortion-related services. \*\* In fact, state and federal law prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions or abortion related services and I strongly support those laws. **Since grants like these are from the state I’ll eliminate them as your next Governor.** So even though grants for breast and cervical cancer screenings were not related to abortions, she vowed to eliminate them. ---
**Author:** ![SnakesCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@SnakesCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakesCatLady)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/146 "2012-02-03T07:08:33Z")
> [@SnakesCatLady](#): > > Ok, some Florida politician has announced he is “launching an investigation”. What does this mean? Who is doing the investigation? Who is funding it? Who do they report to? What is the timeframe? Who will the results be reported to? > > Can anyone in Congress “launch an investigation” into anything? I’m quoting myself because I’d like to have someone give me a clue on this. I just don’t get Handel. How can a woman be so hateful toward other women? More of PP’s funding goes toward education and contraceptives than toward abortion. How better to reduce abortions? She reminds me of those women who “regret” having had an abortion, so they want to ban it for everyone else. “I got mine when I needed it, but since I changed my mind/got God/became a politician I want to deny you the choice”. ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/147 "2012-02-03T07:12:33Z")
From [The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/top-susan-g-komen-official-resigned-over-planned-parenthood-cave-in/252405/), in case there was still any doubt that this was a deliberate attack on Planned Parenthood: > [@](#): > > "Komen, the marketing juggernaut that brought the world the ubiquitous pink-ribbon campaign, says it cut off Planned Parenthood because of a newly adopted foundation rule prohibiting it from funding any group that is under formal investigation by a government body. (Planned Parenthood is being investigated by Representative Cliff Stearns, an anti-abortion Florida Republican, who says he is trying to learn if the group spent public money to provide abortions.) > > But three sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process told me that the rule was adopted in order to create an excuse to cut off Planned Parenthood. " ---
**Author:** ![Invisible\_Chimp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f05b48/32.png) [@Invisible\_Chimp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Invisible_Chimp)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/148 "2012-02-03T07:31:42Z")
Upon closer inspection, SGK looks like an awful charity. They spent a lot on overhead. A lot of people supported both organizations, but with this divorce, people are going to have to choose sides. I hope many more people choose PP over SGK. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/149 "2012-02-03T07:35:24Z")
So all that has to be done to get SGK to stop funding something is to get a friendly Congresscritter to “investigate” the said something for improprieties? How about if Nancy Pelosi investigates SGK? She’s in a really safe district. Does that mean that they would burst into a big ball of flaming contradiction? [http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/susan-g-komen-for-the-cure-in-dallas-tx-3432](http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/susan-g-komen-for-the-cure-in-dallas-tx-3432) The BBB lists the top exec’s compensation at $480k a year. That is more than Bill Gates or Steve Jobs made at Microsoft or Apple. That isn’t a charity, that’s living large. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/150 "2012-02-03T10:18:30Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > No, I’m not defending Komen. I’m also not against what they did. As I said, I don’t care one way or another. I’m just interested in what I feel is the needless outrage. Well, sir, if you feel the outrage is needless all I can say is that your opinion is your opinion. Clearly, a LOT of other people feel otherwise. It’s not just about the numbers here, it’s about a large “charity” doing something that appears counter to its alleged core mission. Given that breast cancer is a life-or-death thing for millions of people affected by it (patients, their families, their friends) yes, there is going to be outrage. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/151 "2012-02-03T10:58:16Z")
**Martin** , Let me try to spell this out for you. People have supported SGK; morally, financially, and with their time. They believed in it’s mission. A very large proportion of those same people also support PP. The organizations’ missions do overlap after all, in that they both focus mainly on women’s health issues. Suddenly, SGK launches what many see as a blatantly political attack on PP. They launch that attack seemingly based on opposition to something that many of SGK’s supporters see as a basic right that has been very much under attack in recent years. So they see an organization that exists largely because of their time and money suddenly turning and attacking them. You may not agree with their viewpoint, but it shouldn’t be difficult to see that this is very real outrage and not “recreational”. I’ll add that the right-wing accusing people of “recreational outrage” is hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/152 "2012-02-03T13:24:10Z")
Just thought I’d share this opinion piece: > **[Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos](https://www.yahoo.com/)** > > Latest news coverage, email, free stock quotes, live scores and video are just the beginning. Discover more every day at Yahoo! > [@](#): > > What do I think caused Komen to change their mind? While their favorite color is pink, green is a very close second. Pro-life advocates had been sounding the alarm against Komen for years to stop giving them money and running in their “Races for the Cure” each fall. I believe the money coming into Komen was starting to dry up and they made a simple business decision to defund Planned Parenthood. Their board decided they would get more money from donors if they defunded Planned Parenthood. It appears that simple to me. The writer makes his own feelings clear enough: > [@](#): > > My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1997. She beat it and my siblings and I did the Komen race for the cure to celebrate her beating breast cancer every year until we realized that Komen was funding abortions. We then stopped. Now that Komen is not paying for abortions via Planned Parenthood, I can support Komen for the Cure again and look forward to the race this fall. As a traditional Roman Catholic, I see abortion as a clear sin against the Fifth Commandment: “Thou shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13). It is also possible in nine different ways to be responsible for the sin of another as [Catholic.org](http://Catholic.org) teaches. In this case, Komen was consenting to Planned Parenthood doing the abortions and anyone who funds Komen is guilty of the same consent and silence as well. Also note on another list on the same page that murder, including abortions, is a sin that cries out to God for vengeance. If this is typical of many SGK supporters (in this post-divestment time), then it appears to be a philosophical action, although dressed up with recently enacted procedural reasons to give it plausible deniability. SGK is completely within its rights to do so, of course, but it ought to expect a lot of defection by previous supporters who don’t agree with its philosophy. Possibly a massive defection. Yes, I know that several posters have made it clear that the SGK to PP grants weren’t used for abortion funding. But it pretty clearly doesn’t make a difference to this writer. Their view would probably be that, even if the money wasn’t allowed to be used for abortions, it freed up other funds that would otherwise have been targeted at mammograms, so the noe could be used for abortions. ---
**Author:** ![biddee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@biddee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/biddee)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/153 "2012-02-03T13:35:08Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Yes, I know that several posters have made it clear that the SGK to PP grants weren’t used for abortion funding. But it pretty clearly doesn’t make a difference to this writer. Their view would probably be that, even if the money wasn’t allowed to be used for abortions, it freed up other funds that would otherwise have been targeted at mammograms, so the noe could be used for abortions. I know that a lot more of SGK’s beneficiaries will become public now. As other posters have noted SGK has a grant out to Penn State which is under investigation. I wonder it the ‘pro-life’ brigade will pay any attention if they find out that any of SGK’s beneficiaries subsequently send money or use money for any kind of military funding. Surely that would go against their ‘pro-life’ stance. Or does pro-life only mean before birth? ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/154 "2012-02-03T14:16:33Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Finally, SGK spends some $46.9m on health screening, so if they bring in more money through this from donors who previously weren’t giving to women’s causes then you probably will still set a **net increase in money for breast cancer screenings**. It could be that they turn out losing money because of donors who are upset about SGK refusing to fund Planned Parenthood. In which case this will turn out to be a bad business decision. Catering to the “recreational outrage” of pro-life people who refuse to donate to SGK, if SGK helps Planned Parenthood do breast cancer screenings for poor people, might actually end up hurting SGK in the long run. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/155 "2012-02-03T15:06:23Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > If that’s the charity you’re running, then the mission of your charity is to fund breast cancer research and education when politically expedient for you to do so. This appears also to be SGK’s new mission. Many of those who previously donated money to them thought that their mission was to fund breast cancer research and education, full stop. Presumably you are clever enough to understand the difference. Whether you personally find it significant or not, rest assured that _many, many_ other people do. That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is you have X amount of dollars as any sort of operational entity that you can spend on different things. If you’re SGK you’ve made the decision to spend around $45m a year on screening. I don’t know where most of that goes, but it doesn’t go to Planned Parenthood. SGK was previously sending some $600k to PP divvied up among 19 State PP organizations. If you can decide to no longer spend $600k on PP, and it generates $5m in revenue (from “new customers”), so you now spend $47m a year on screening instead of $45m, you’re actually doing _more screening_ because you have made a decision that increases your revenue. That has nothing to do with only doing screenings when it is “politically expedient”, instead it has to do with **maximizing charitable spending** , which should be the goal of charitable organizations. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/156 "2012-02-03T15:10:05Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Maybe the people in the pro-life crowd weren’t intending to make a factual statement. Saying this hasn’t hurt Planned Parenthood in the short term (because a couple of people are making up for the shortfall for now) is, well, short-sighted. Planned Parenthood now has to keep going back to those donors or find other ones to replace this source of funding. It may not make a difference when the outrage is fresh, but later on, who knows. Even if it hurts Planned Parenthood, it won’t hurt them **much**. It was $600k out of a $1bn + budget, and it only impacts 19 State Planned Parenthood associations because SGK didn’t even have a relationship with PP in the rest of the States. If you’re running SGK, your operational goal isn’t to “make sure nothing we do negatively impacts Planned Parenthood.” You’d probably _like_ that you don’t step on other not-for-profit’s toes who work in the same general field, but your goal isn’t to make sure that not-for-profit is doing well. If you can “hurt” PP to the tune of $600k but generate $5m more for yourself, you an very logically argue you’ve helped the “cause” more in the aggregate so the “cause” is better off even though individual participants in the cause may be worse off. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/157 "2012-02-03T15:14:35Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > So all that has to be done to get SGK to stop funding something is to get a friendly Congresscritter to “investigate” the said something for improprieties? How about if Nancy Pelosi investigates SGK? She’s in a really safe district. Does that mean that they would burst into a big ball of flaming contradiction? > > [http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/susan-g-komen-for-the-cure-in-dallas-tx-3432](http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/susan-g-komen-for-the-cure-in-dallas-tx-3432) > > The BBB lists the top exec’s compensation at $480k a year. That is more than Bill Gates or Steve Jobs made at Microsoft or Apple. > > That isn’t a charity, that’s living large. Not it isn’t. That’s more than Bill Gates or Steve Jobs made in salary, but not more than they _earned_ running those companies. At one point Steve Jobs was gifted an $85m jet for personal use by the Apple Board. That alone is more than 6 lifetimes of earnings by the CEO of SGK. Plus, Jobs made around $50m/a year in dividends from Disney stock he owned. It’s not really meaningful to compare his salary at Apple to the salary of someone running an outfit like SGK who probably has that as 80% of their income stream. I have no idea if SGK misuses funds, but $480k isn’t outlandish for the CEO of a large not for profit. Especially since unlike private sector CEOs there isn’t the potential to earn vast sums in stock options and etc. Lots of private sector CEOs of large companies only make a few hundred thousand a year but irregularly get stock grants (which they often immediately execute) that can total in the tens of millions. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/158 "2012-02-03T15:16:28Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Well, sir, if you feel the outrage is needless all I can say is that your opinion is your opinion. Clearly, a LOT of other people feel otherwise. It’s not just about the numbers here, it’s about a large “charity” doing something that appears counter to its alleged core mission. Given that breast cancer is a life-or-death thing for millions of people affected by it (patients, their families, their friends) yes, there is going to be outrage. SGK’s “core mission” is to fund PP $600k a year? I find that strange since if it was their core mission you would expect them to have been spending more. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/159 "2012-02-03T15:18:23Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I’ll add that the right-wing accusing people of “recreational outrage” is hilarious. I’m not “the right wing.” I’ve never engaged in recreational outrage, so I don’t give two shits if other people of the same political persuasion have, has nothing to do with me. I’m not making sweeping generalizations about a whole political persuasion here, I’m talking about the specific recreational outrage _in this thread_. If you think you’ve seen me engaged in mindless recreational outrage somewhere _here_ then let me know, because I assure you that is never my intent. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413/160 "2012-02-03T15:20:13Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > It could be that they turn out losing money because of donors who are upset about SGK refusing to fund Planned Parenthood. In which case this will turn out to be a bad business decision. Catering to the “recreational outrage” of pro-life people who refuse to donate to SGK, if SGK helps Planned Parenthood do breast cancer screenings for poor people, might actually end up hurting SGK in the long run. Right, I’ve admitted we’re just speculating (and pointed out the Netflix pricing example as one where a corporation miscalculated how _much_ a change would piss off its customers.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/susan-g-komen-cuts-funding-to-pp/611413.md?page=9)