Subscribe by Email

Your email:

Connect with us

Subscribe to our weekly eNewsletter

not-sure-why-your-performance-metrics-ar

download-our-strategy-paperfrom-crisis

Browse by Tag

Our Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

The Susan G Komen Social Media disaster - prevention

  
  
  
  
  
  

Social Media disaster

Unless you have been buried in a management retreat, or your server room went up in flames so you did not have access to the internet, you know about the for the Cure debacle last week. Just to make sure, here's what happened: on Tuesday January 31st 2012, the Susan G Komen for the Cure foundation announced it was pulling the funding it provides to Planned Parenthood, which PP uses to provide mammograms to low-income women. Enter our Facebook friends and Twitter followers, unleashing a true social media storm, resulting in the foundation reversing it's decision by Friday February 3, a mere 4 days later. Mashable gives a pretty good run down of the entire incident, with sample tweets, here. The net outcome for the foundation is a pretty dramatic loss of face, one I am not sure they will recover from any time soon.

What went wrong? They went against their own brand identity. For years, the Susan G Komen foundation for the Cure has managed to mobilize the world. I have seen tough macho men put on pink t-shirts and participate in a race. I have seen people who are normally not that engaged write many checks, and organized my team, at the different companies I worked, to get involved. And I was not alone. Millions of people got involved. Because we all at least know someone, or have lost someone to cancer. 

Their mission is to find ways to cure breast cancer, one of the leading causes of death for women. To do so, Susan's sister created  the world’s largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists fighting to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find the cures. And that was what it was all about. An organization made out of ordinary people, addressing one of the biggest and scariest health issues women face.

Bu cutting their funding to Planned Parenthood, specifically allocated and used for mammograms for low-income women, they went against everything they stand for. It doesn't matter why they did it, what matters is that a lot of women rely an Planned Parenthood to get their breast cancer concerns addressed, and then, in the eyes of the world, that gets taken away from them. Doesn't matter that Planned Parenthood doesn't just rely on Komen foundation money, or that they are indeed subject to a criminal investigation. What matters is the way it looked: perception became reality.

So to anyone out there thinking about making major changes to stakeholder relationships, I would recommend putting together a stakeholder matrix. You might still make the same decision, but you might also go about it a different way.

Comments

You're right, they certainly botched it from a P.R. standpoint. 
 
But I disagree when you write, "They went against their own brand identity." Komen has a finite amount of funding and an infinite variety of places to invest. Komen chose to move money from Planned Parenthood to some other investment in cancer-related work--nobody on either side believes Komen was just going to take the old Planned Parenthood money and blow it on an employee pizza party. So it was not at all "against their own brand identity" to invest in some other form of (or organization handling) cancer research and treatment. 
 
If anything, the world learned once again that there is a huge P.R. risk to refusing to give to politically favored recipients. Whether you're Komen or any other philanthropic group with money to share, you can't afford to choose based on ROI or alignment or net good or even on your own organizational principles. Instead, you have to choose based on politics, lest social media be used against you as a very effective weapon. It's the worst type of pretend relationship: You are only a good friend as long as the payments keep coming. The minute they stop, you are an enemy to be destroyed. 
 
In my opinion, Komen did screw up their brand identity in one way--they changed their mind BACK and ended up funding Planned Parenthood. I don't care, personally, if they invested or not in Planned Parenthood. The choice is theirs. I don't have a dog in this political fight. But the waffling suggests the Komen brand was not as solidly defined as I thought. For that, Komen probably deserved some of the problems they now face.
Posted @ Monday, February 06, 2012 8:22 PM by Todd Beck
Hi Todd - thank you, as always for your comments! I love the perspectives that you offer. 
The thing is with brands, they are living, breathing things, that are as much made up out what a business wants it to be, as what stakeholders perceive it to be. That actually makes them hard to define, and requires quite a bit of resources to do so.  
When you are an organization like the Komen organization, a lot of the equity you get, and the engagement you create, comes from the perceived part of a brand. For a lot of women, theirs is an organization that finally cared and that women could identify with. So when they pulled that funding, used to provide low income women with mammograms, they appeared very uncaring, which went against their brand. The way this got communicated, and the lack of a further communication strategy, made things worse. 
In the greater scheme of things $250K for an organization like Planned Parenthood, doesn't prevent them from administering those mammograms. They would have found the money. Unfortunately, the discussion that ensued was far from rational, and got completely politicized. Regardless, I do continue to believe that if they had thought through this and done their risk assessment, they might have gone about this a different way.
Posted @ Monday, February 06, 2012 9:40 PM by Katleen Richardson
"Regardless, I do continue to believe that if they had thought through this and done their risk assessment, they might have gone about this a different way." 
 
You are sooooo right. The best part of your article--and I'm sorry I didn't thank you for it--was your actionable direction on the stakeholder matrix. All the other articles I read on this were just arguments for or against. Nobody else but you took the productive step of saying "Here's how to do it better next time." So thank you!
Posted @ Monday, February 06, 2012 9:55 PM by Todd Beck
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics