Can Komen Recover?

The problems at Susan G. Komen for the Cure are well documented at this stage. In this great article Ad Age asks, can they recover?

(Source: Ad Age, Alexandra Bruell, Feb 6th, 2012)

In a case for the marketing textbooks, Susan G. Komen for the Cure showed how a brand can boomerang from one of the most loved into one of the most reviled in a head-snapping two days.

The story of how Komen got consumers seeing red, rather than pink, says a lot about how social-media wildfire can singe even the most fireproof of brands. But it also demonstrates how inconsistent communications can fan the flames, and illustrates how quickly sponsors can become engulfed in controversy. On its website, Komen, which has raised billions of dollars for breast-cancer research, lists more than 200 corporate partners. The question now is how much collateral damage those partners have sustained, and whether Komen can persuade them to stick around in the aftermath.

AP broke the story Jan. 31 that the charity was withdrawing funding from Planned Parenthood. Komen quickly became the New Coke of nonprofits last week when within 48 hours it confirmed that it was pulling funding, contradicted itself in explaining its motive, and then backtracked on the decision following a groundswell of protest. It initially cited a new policy requiring it not to fund organizations under government investigation. The move prompted Planned Parenthood to berate the organization for letting right-wing, pro-life politics influence its decision, and critics quickly took up the cudgel on Facebook and Twitter.

The first public response, a video of founder and CEO Nancy Brinker via YouTube, didn’t help. PR executives said the background — a stuffy library — and Ms. Brinker’s seemingly calculated statement was counterproductive. “Nancy Brinker is coming across not like the woman who made the promise to her sister,” said Carol Cone, vice chairman of the business and social-purpose group at Edelman. “Unfortunately, she’s coming across so hard.”

A day later, Ms. Brinker told the Washington Post that the real reason for the funding cut “…has to do with the fact that [Planned Parenthood does] not provide mammograms to women, but only provides mammogram referrals.” That same day, a Komen board member flip-flopped the message again. Lobbyist John D. Raffaelli told The New York Times that Komen “had become increasingly worried that an investigation of Planned Parenthood by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R.-Fla., would damage Komen’s credibility with donors.”

But Komen was doing a fine job of damaging that credibility on its own. What started as a communications crisis quickly flamed into a brand crisis as the organization went more than 24 hours without a tweet, during which time consumers besieged the Facebook pages of Komen’s corporate partners and voiced concerns on Twitter. As of Feb. 3, there were 18,645 likes on the “Defund the Komen Foundation” Facebook page. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave Planned Parenthood $250,000 out of his own pocket, indirectly admonishing the organization’s decision.

“If they had quickly come out and communicated and said, ‘Oops, we blew it,’ that’s one thing. But 48 hours is an eternity today with social media,” said Kivi Leroux Miller, author and blogger at the website Nonprofit Marketing Guide.

Now its reputation — in a Harris poll last year Komen ranked second among nonprofits in terms of trust and tops in brand equity — and the stability of its relationships with corporate sponsors hangs in the balance. While it’s said the organization has not lost any official corporate sponsors at this point, it will have its work cut out for it in the coming weeks in reaching out to sponsors, partners and affiliates.

When asked how a sponsor should react, Ms. Cone said, “I’d follow it and wait it out first. Komen has to stay true to what it does, [which is] help to build a sisterhood, continue to create awareness and help those who need to get preventative [care].” Some sponsors may have time to think it over; Breast Cancer Awareness Month is October.

General Mills, which is one of the marketers most publicly allied with Komen via its Yoplait brand, said: “We are committed to the fight against breast cancer, and we will continue to partner with organizations that will have the greatest impact in that fight.” And Pepperidge Farm told Ad Age that it “concluded its sponsorship of Susan G. Komen for the Cure at the end of 2011 for business reasons.” Related or not, that timing coincided with when Komen told Planned Parenthood of its decision.

Komen declined to comment. But an executive close to the charity said that former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, who had previously been brought in by Komen as an advisor, initially helmed the communications effort. Ogilvy, Komen’s corporate and issues firm on retainer, was asked to take over that role Feb. 3.

“It’s surprising that such an established organization didn’t take a pulse check on different stakeholders,” said Tara Greco, senior VP-corporate responsibility at APCO, a public-affairs firm.

“Did they not learn, especially at the highest level, about the power of social and of their own community?” asked Ms. Cone, citing the outcry over its earlier gaffe of painting pink ribbons on buckets of KFC.

All that said, it’s likely the brand will be forgiven. “There’s still awareness to be made and funding for search and access to services that are critically needed,” Ms. Cone said. “I don’t think [Komen] will go away.”

4 thoughts on “Can Komen Recover?

  1. As part of the breast cancer community, I have followed this story with a keen interest and as a PR professional it has provided a fascinating study on how not to handle a communications crisis. It’s a lesson to all organisations to think carefully before entering into a controversial area of public debate (and the abortion debate is hugely divisive in American politics) without a communications strategy. Komen compounded the damage by staying silent, thereby losing control of the dialogue while others take it over. It really is a fascinating study in how a communications crisis can escalate, particularly given the power of social media. The interesting thing in all of this is how social media exploded. On Twitter, on Facebook, in online petitions and letters and blogs and message boards Komen were relentlessly hammered. My personal belief from following this story not just over the past week, but over the past year, where there is growing disquiet over how Komen spend their funds, is that brand Komen has been seriously called into question and will have to do a lot of work to win back the trust (and funding) of the public

    • Marie,

      thanks so much for your comment. I think you are right the brand has a lot of work to do. Their silence and mixed messages were disasterous. They need to really consolidate now and move quickly with some crisis management. I find it interesting that they aren’t out there commenting on blogs like this? Even to say, we are listening.

      • Conor, there has been a growing backlash against Komen in the breast cancer blogosphere over the past 18 months or so – for those of us who have been following it for a while, this latest is just another episode in the saga.

      • Thanks for the comment Marie, I have probably not followed it closely but recall some backlash last year around pink washing. Is it a case of a great organisation that has lost sight a bit?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s