Credentials
It seems almost impossible. The way the Susan G. Komen For the Cure organization handled their news about severing ties with Planned Parenthood was a case study in awful PR, as I wrote previously. It would be hard to think that their incompetence could sink even lower. Well, it only took two days. Now that organization, which has enjoyed one of the finest reputations in the nation, has taken another step in the wrong direction. The first rule of crisis communications is to “do no harm.” Oh boy! The Komen people have managed to violate that principal in not only one but – count ‘em – four ways. Let’s take a look:
- They failed to define the issue and attempt to control the story. Believe it or not, the entire matter exploded into the public without any input at all from the Komen people. They did not issue a news release to announce their action. Hours after the issue became one of the most discussed in social media, they still had no mention of it on their web site – not even in their own “News” section. All they did was have their spokesperson react to queries from the news media, forcing them to be on the defensive from the start. Big mistake.
- They lost control of their own senior people. Once finding themselves on the defensive, rather than rally their own troops in-house, they started seeing major defections from within their own ranks, including (but hardly limited to) a radiologist on the organization’s medical advisory board, their top public health official, and the executive director of Komen’s Los Angeles County chapter, who resigned explicitly in protest of the organization’s decision about Planned Parenthood. They did not simply resign, but in the process they undermined the Komen organization’s argument that their decision was based on a new policy about not supporting organizations under investigation. Rather, they asserted quite aggressively that the Komen decision was due to the organization “caving-in” to political pressure from the right. This reflects that the Komen organization not only doesn’t know how to handle their external communications strategy, but they have failed at internal PR as well.
- They tried to re-write history by changing their excuse for their decision. At first they trotted-out the line that their decision was due to their policy related to organizations under investigation. But within two days of seeing that excuse fail to fly, they abandoned that line and, as The Washington Post reported, “Komen founder Nancy Brinker said the organization wants to support groups that directly provide breast health services, such as mammograms. She noted that Planned Parenthood was providing only mammogram referrals.” How nice! It wasn’t that Planned Parenthood was doing too much … it was because they were doing too little! Hey … if you are going to take a stab at revisionist history, at least make it somewhat consistent with the original storyline, not 180° opposite from the first excuse.
- They decided to attack their victims. Once the uproar started, and the prospect of the loss of money and goodwill became clear, they started to blame the negative reaction on Planned Parenthood. Komen board member John Raffaelli said of Planned Parenthood’s totally justified reaction at losing hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding: “… They want to raise money, and they’re doing it at the expense of a humanitarian organization that shares their goals and has given them millions of dollars over the years.” Here’s a PR hint: when you are being attacked for your actions against another party, and when the sympathy moves dramatically in the direction of that other party, it’s better by far to ignore them or “play nice” to them rather than blame them.
In my post of the other day, I suggested that the Komen organization’s handling of this matter would become a case history for communications students on what comprises bad PR and communications strategy. With their most recent mistakes, I should strengthen that to: it will be a case history in bad PR globally, and it will be studied for years in the future.
But here is the really troubling question:
How could an organization with such a stellar reputation and such deep grassroots support, become so dramatically stupid and incompetent so suddenly?
This was a simple issue and the fact they let their “policy” drag them this far is folly. To define a “government investigation” as one driven by a partisan Member of Congress and therefore cut funding pursuant to the investigation was the error. Komen’s leadership would have scored far more kudos and would have had so many more defenders (than detractors and resignations) had it just ignored the action that caused the investigation of Planned Parenthood. Komen is getting what it deserves here, top to bottom. The error was letting themselves get dragged into a decades-long partisan squabble over abortion funding with public dollars. And to let their mission – breast cancer – get dragged into the entirely different realm of abortion where there is no middle ground, now causes collateral damage to women’s health issue overall.
I agree that with Sam but for one point. They didn’t let a policy drag them in this debacle. It seems the Komen management is on the same team as partisan member’s harassment investigation. Their VP of public policy is the failed republican candidate Karen Handel. She vowed to shut down Planned Parenthood. The policy was a smokescreen to rationalize their shift to the right and they underestimated the intelligence of their supporters because nobody bought it.
The problem for Komen is that people like me are finding out unsavory things about the organization that others had known about but which got drowned out by all the feel good pinkwashing. The Komen foundation needs to clean house and purge all the right wing ideologues, starting with Brinker, or settle for being a much smaller organization that looks to a donor pool of people who are active in the war on women.
I tend to disagree with Sam Roth’s contention that Komen’s ineptitude, “now causes collateral damage to women’s health issue overall”. It may be zero-sum in that people will continue to support the research toward cancer research in other ways, and with other agencies. Most of us, whether personally impacted or not will contribute toward the eradication of this terrible disease as best we can. Just not to the radical off-center Brinkman/Stearns agenda.
As a long-standing supporter of the Susan G Koman Foundation, I am horrified at the Foundation’s behavior in re to Planned Parenthood. I will probably find it difficult to contribute as I have for many years . When trust goes so goes the support in a different direction.
There’s only one chance to stem the tide of negative public perception of SGK. Elizabeth Thompson, Karen Handel and, yes, Nancy Brinker need to resign. They destroyed in three days what hundreds of thousands of volunteers took thirty years to build. If they stubbornly and selfishly hang on in a futile attempt to defend their actions, the good that the organization does for women’s health will in peril.
Other top women in the organization may(and should) resign but Karen Handel will not leave on her own. No one else was stupid enough to hire her and she needs a job.
Yes, you are right on the money. They need to go with shame on their faces at having so badly midjudged those who have helped them succeed.
Excellent opinion piece by J. Floyd in the Dallas News. She suggests that this might well have been a studied move by Handel to recharge her political career. Unlike Komen or Brinker, the PR this mess as given Handel as a right wing conservative political candidate has been stellar. She can quit Komen and walk away from this disaster as a darling of the right. The Komen brand meanwhile has been destroyed,
and I don’t believe there is any fixing it. Brinker will never quit. She IS Komen, and her politics are now Komen’s politics. This will indeed go down in the books as a perfect example of sudden death by PR.
At this point, Komen has no friends. They have both infuriated the overwhelming majority of their base, and alienated their new right wing supporter within hours of gaining them. Their only hope for survival is to either jettison Handel (easy) and Brinker (impossible), or just throw in the towel, embrace political extremism, and become a right wing nitch organization.
As someone in PR, I dumbfounded by this whole episode. The multiple layers of self destructive poor judgement are breathtaking.
Thanks — intriguing comments and a comment on where America’s “head” is at this time. Assume that J. Floyd was totally off-base on Handel’s ulterior motives, just the fact that such manipulative maneuvers sound like they COULD be legitimate and that people accept that as a very real possibility instead of as a total farce says a great deal about where we are at this time in our history
The next step, and perhaps the only step that will partially ressurect Komen’s reputation is for those who formerely supported the organization to pressue their corporate sponsors to back away. Retail outlets that hawk Komen merchandise are heavily dependent on the goodwill of female consumers.
Right … you can buy just about everything in a pink version, with part of those proceeds going to Komen. Now that they have immersed themselves into a political issue supporting them will become increasingly difficult. If there are any paint companies making a lot of money by selling pink color paint, go short.
Seeing the Komen foundation in the stark reality a bare truth is very sad. When you first learned there was no santa or easter bunny the truth was unexpected and to many somewhat disconcerting but nevertheless the truth. Komen has revealed itself as the man behind the curtain, much as in the Wizard of Oz. The core has been revealed and now is the time for Komen to pick a position, not waffle, and regain some integrity by doin so.
I am astounded, and disheartened, that in this day and age, there are still those who want to wage war on women’s health and rights. Their short-sighted, simple-minded, narrow-minded goal seems to be to return women’s health to the dark ages. As a SGK volunteer and fundraiser I am disappointed the organization has allowed a political agenda get in the way of their mission of saving women’s lives and finding a cure for breast cancer. A connection to Planned Parenthood should be viewed as a means to give access to preventive care to women in need.
Please, if you don’t agree with birth control, don’t use it. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. But please, don’t force your beliefs on others! Every woman should be free to make their own choice.
By the way, I do not plan to participate or contribute to Komen any longer.
Your view makes perfect sense to me. Personally, I’m done with pink.
Janice — you make the point quickly, but I think a great number of people are saying the same thing and that, I think, is called net net net.
First, thank you for all your information as my wife prepares for a double masactomoy this Friday, Feb 10 at Mission Hospital in Mission Viejo, Ca. It was infomative and really helped in making a serious decision. BUT the events of the last week really has affected our support in the future, remember “Just because it is legal does not make it right”. You have not earned the right to support an organization that consider pregnacy a dease.
Jim — our best wishes will be with you and your wife on Friday. And I think that is universal despite what organizations people may belong to (or not).
PR ineptitude aside (and there was plenty of it), I’m appalled at the Topsy-Turvey approach to reality taken by the original post and respondants. Komen went on to compound their PR errors by “attacking the victims”? Assuming you define “victim” as Planned Parenthood rather than the 329 thousand-plus unborn children aborted under the auspices of this organization last year or the suffering women whose breast cancer may or may not be related to earlier abortions (the evidence remains largely anecdotal), you would be correct. And assuming you narrowly define politically motivated as any action that isn’t in lock-step with the “pro-choice” mentality, you would also be correct. But neither is the case and what happened last week amounted to a left-wing shakedown–and a highly successful one, at that.
I understand and appreciate your points. Let me respond to the two main arguments you make:
1. When I referred to “victims” I meant their institutional victims. I appreciate that unborn children are victims of abortion as well (although I am pro-choice). But when trying to look at this as a PR issue, I think it was clear that there were two organization involved: Komen and Planned Parenthood, and that Planned Parenthood was “victimized” by Komen in the sense that they were denied funding (uniquely, as it turns out, because no other organization Komen was supporting fell subject to their policy about investigations). I did not mean to denigrate or dismiss the issue of a fetus that isn’t allowed to grow.
2. By “politically motivated” I do not think I was narrowing my comments to liberal or left-leaning political philosophy. I would day, for example, that a decision by a real estate developer who chooses to stop contributing charitably to a “green” organization that is protesting against a certain project would also be “politically motivated.” I do not think that political motivation is owned by the left or right. But I do believe that political motivation very often leads to wrong decision-making, at least in PR terms, as in the case of the Komen organization.
I don’t doubt your passion for the abortion issue. But while it is quite obvious, it is quite misplaced. Scroll up and re-read the topic of this thread. It’s about the corporate decisions and behavior that created the backlash, not abortion.
And that is the point. Komen is not about abortion. They specifically target their funding to breast cancer. At least, that’s what they tell their donors. So to remove funding for thousands of women who have to rely on PP for their health checks is just wrong. “A left wing shakedown”? Balderdash. This wasn’t about PP or abortion. It was a Flash Mob of disgust aimed at the corporate structure. Ari Fleischer tried to spin that the negative tsunami of internet scorn was organized by PP. Not a chance. “We” don’t care that PP provides abortion services with 3% of their money. “We” aren’t leftists or rightists on this issue. We’re women (and men) who thought Komen was authentic in their mission to fight breast cancer. They aren’t, and they didn’t think we’d care. But we were heard. Really, really heard.
I am sure that after all these years that Komen is and has been authentic about their cause to find a cure for breast cancer. From my perspective, Komen has every right to determine how it is going to administer it’s grants, just as every other non-profit does, in order to create efficiencies. What is sad, is they were not allowed to, given the nature of PP. However, by the mid-afternoon of that day, public officials and other philanthropists matched and then surpassed the total amount that PP would have received from Komen. In essence, there are enough donors out there to relieve Komen of those grants to PP. Komen then could have expanded its cause by granting to other non-profits the services women need, to have access to mammograms. Komen could have reached a wider spectrum of women. In the end, it is women who lose because of the level of arrogance displayed and the focal point got away from best practices for women’s health. It’s disappointing that Komen got bullied and then reversed its initial decision. It would have been helpful to see over the course of time how its model would have taken shape, to see what they had in mind. All the other ‘what if’s’ concerning ‘motives’ are just a waste of breath and precious creative energy. Komen has every right to decide what its policies will be in these tough economic times. Generally corporate partnerships require communication to be successful. It would be of interest to know if PP was informed of Komen’s decision before its public announcement. My guess is, yes. As far as the earlier comment above ,” if you don’t like abortion, then don’t get one”, again, we need to look how legalized abortion is actually being interpreted. As having the status of a “medical treatment” it is over-used and has become a routine procedure, just as cesaerians are/were and just as hysterectomies are/were because doctors find them ‘convenient’ and the argument that these procedures are reserved for emergency situations is bogus. Making profits as an abortion industry is a real cause for concern as we are impacted with a serious social deficiency: the diminished value of human life, and what it means to have a sense of security in the world remains divisive. It also impacts the public interest for support of the alternatives to abortion. There are many unrecognized non-profits that are struggling to meet the health and care needs of the women who continue with their pregnancies. So while some may say that the issue here was not about abortion, its about Komen’s admin decisions, I’d say, no, it was about abortion, otherwise the reaction and backlash to Komen would have been instead, a yawn. It’s about having the freedom to make choices, remember? To say the obvious, Komen’s freedom to administer its policies for its organization has been seriously denied.
Never before in the history of the world has ANY “group” or organization managed to create so close an association with a color! Think about that..How could you let that fish get away? To go from unmitigated adoration, and enthusiastic UNIFIED trust and support across race, creed and political lines too vilification is historic. What if Pfizer used BLUE for male reproductive health or heart disease in conjunction WITH erectile dysfunction? The sympathy wouldn’t be a close second to what Komen had ! It’s sad that such an equalizer came at the expense of an otherwise noble effort. It will be interesting to see what “the 3 day” becomes…
Right …. most usually colors become associated with moods or commands: red means stop and blue on a thermostat means cold ot in reference to oneself blue means downcast. It’s interesting: maybe what Komen represented in its totality was not simply an organization but, similar to other colors, an attitude. That attitude was one of hope and optimism and achieving the impossible (actually reach the cure for cancer). That’s why their fall from grace was so hard. It wasn’t simply the organization that took a hit, but it was a punch in the gut to the optimism that pink (and Komen) represented.
The politics of the issue aside, the biggest mistake the made was not including communications counsel in their business decision making process. Had that happened, they could have anticipated, and avoided, the outcome. I’ve been blessed to work with companies and clients who insist on senior PR counsel being at the table with the senior leadership team. That makes our jobs infinitely easier.
I concur totally. That is the logic for why the senior PR function should be married with some collateral responsibilities and turned into Chef Strategic Officer in my view.
The hair on the back of my neck stood up when I saw Planned Parenthood painted as a victim here. Obviously, Planned Parenthood has its share of sympathizers here and elsewhere, but “victims?” Give me a break. SEC is right. While the billion-dollar Planned Parenthood was denied some six-figure funds from a much smaller nonprofit, keep in mind, Planned Parenthood is the bully on the block in D.C. This instance shows how merciless Planned Parenthood can be in destroying someone who gets on its bad side. Without Komen, Planned Parenthood can continue to do everything it has done and more, and that includes breast screenings. The only development that happened here was Planned Parenthood decided to flex its muscle.
As for political motivations, I’m always amused at how progressives are quick to say things like, “both sides are guilty” right before launching into an attack on the right. Same deal here.
At the end of the day, Komen screwed up because they got into bed with Planned Parenthood in the first place. Due to Planned Parenthood’s aggressive nature, there’s no neat way out of that relationship. But when it decided to get out for obvious reasons, it should have done so more gradually as to avoid headlines. But given that it did what it did so aburptly, the one thing it should not have done was caved in to Planned Parenthood. Now they have people ticked at them from both sides of the issue, and those wounds won’t heal for a while. I’ve been on enough boards to know the one thing Komen lost sight of was their primary purpose – breast cancer. If they had made all of their decisions with that in mind, Planned Parenthood would not have been in the picture. PP does hundreds of thousands of abortions each year and spends many millions lobbying lawmakers on the issue of abortion. It does not do the same for breast cancer.
TJ — I think that you are correct that it would have been better for Komen never to have gotten into bed with Planned Parenthood — the reason for that wouldn’t matter in reality — the history of the past few days simply justifies that view.
Two other quick points that relate to your comment and I think are important in messaging and communications strategy:
1. Planned Parenthood was indeed a victim when you look at positioning — that is how the media presented them, and that is the position they adopted, and, in fact, that is the position the Komen people gave them an invitation on a silver platter to take. Sometimes Obama positions himself as an underdog and sometimes he positions himself as the likely winner. Same with Gingrich et al. Sometimes the media helps that positioning become more buyable. Just because an organization is positioned as a winner, or loser, or victim or challenger doesn’t mean that is actually the case in any way other than positioning. So, for THIS forum on communications issues, I think the discussion about whether Planned Parenthood is an actual victim or not is about as useful a discussion as whether Obama has a legitimate U.S. birth certificate.
2. I’d like also to address your statement: “As for political motivations, I’m always amused at how progressives are quick to say things like, ‘both sides are guilty’ right before launching into an attack on the right.” I do not think a phrase such as “both sides are guilty” is owned by progressives or the right wing or aliens. It is just a phrase that lots of people use, sometimes correctly sometimes not, when they think that’s the case. I also think the launching of negative attacks is not a tool exclusively for the use of progressives — in fact, I think the right wing and even moderates have used negative attacks pretty well and frequently also. Or were those ads I saw last week on my TV in Floria (where I live) for the Democratic primaries?
I think a prerequisite for successful communications campaigns is to cut through and toss away the BS and glib maxims that tend to mask the truth and thereby preempt the clear thinking necessary to craft the right communications strategy. And those are the issues I wanted to address, and which have been addressed here quite vibrantly and well, I think.
That tiny little pristine pink ribbon is pretty tattered, for sure. But survival is always possible. Eyes and ears are going to be focused on the “surviving” board and execs.
But if Komen looks back to their early days to evaluate what made them so successful, they should find some good clues. They were about women. They were about breast cancer, period. They were about finding The Cure. Pretty simple, pretty pure . . . just like that dainty pink ribbon.
Komen made it acceptable to actually say “breast” cancer in public because of that ribbon. They brought breasts out of the closet. They managed to turn a simple charity donation into huge, enthusiastic, joyful and successful races around the country.
But methinks they lost their way in the labyrinthine course to corporate sophistication. Their teeny ribbon is everywhere, even on yogurt that contains potential carcinogens. What strings are attached to huge donations by huge corps?
This brouhaha was all about supposed “regulations” regarding grant recipients. Are there any such regs about how they raise money? If a mission is replaced by an agenda, they’re toast.
All this boils down to is the hard fact that Komen will have to do more than a a good house cleaning. It’ll take a full fledged rehab to gain the trust of their former devotees. That trust left the building with Williams and Plesser. But full transparency and an emphasis on ethics as they rebuild must remain in their headline. Women, breasts, cancer, cure. Are those four words their truth? That there is your primary prerequisite identifier question, TJ. (they done a really big oops)
Elle: what you are saying, at least in part, is that there are dangers inherent in being successful, especially being too successful. The danger is that you start to think that maybe those niches just outside your core “wheelhouse” would be interesting to pursue, and soon you find yourself more outside your wheelhouse than inside and dealing with issue you and/or your supporters are either not interested in, don;t want you involved with, or where you are just plain incompetent. Thanks for the comment.
Pingback: Next on CLBR: Crisis PR, ACTA, Privacy and More « ILC Cyber Report
How could an organization with such a stellar reputation and such deep grassroots support, become so dramatically stupid and incompetent so suddenly?
1. I think the distance between Komen and its extensive grassroots support did not happen suddenly. they got spoiled by their own success and drifted away from a very powerful individual and community base and courted a new and less powerful corporate commercial base. They pinked themselves with their own delusions.
2. Since Komen was unware of their strategic flaws, they overestimated their strengths and underestimated the strengths of social media and the internet to create a flash mob practically overnight with no specific leadership. This phenomenon is new and Komen’s dramatic reversal overtook them like a tsunami. The flash mob is powerful when it resonates with technically savvy and skilled but unorganized leader cadre that can and did the widespread and effective messaging. Komen thought that their issue was abortion funding and with Planned Parenthood. They were wrong and no one in the organization noticed in time or those that did were overwhelmed by a more powerful group within the organization. The bloggers and tweeters won the messaging battle hands down.
I thought the victims were all the volunteers and small donors who felt violated by Komens high handed actions and they were angry enough to punish them for it. Each cancer victim is surrounded by a family and community and they are very powerful in the collective memories or in person.
Since they failed several times to tell the truth about the underlying reasons for their actions -to their staff & spokespeople, to the media and to the public, and have been caught in obvious lies or implausibilities, there is nothing easy that can resore their credibility nor the trust of donors. Ooooopes!
It is not just a PR fiasco, it is a business fiasco. Komen is in the cancer/prevention/mitigation business. That’s their mission. They strayed from their mission and it blew up. Planned Parenthood has, in part, a parallel mission. Planned Parenthood remained on mission, Komen strayed. We have witnessed countless companies go belly up when they stray from mission. Was Netflix bad PR or bad business. I would argue that essentially Komen’s problem was bad business. Then, I heartily agree, they committed a epoch series of PR mistakes.