The Komen Controversy: 75% of Traffic is Critical as Social Policy Meets Social Media

The Susan G. Komen Foundation is the largest source of funding for breast cancer research in the US - and possibly the world. It raises support through its 'Race for the Cure' in cities around the US for which all genders and age groups pay to participate in 5K walks or races with proceeds going to the charity. Until this week, it was one of the most successful charitable activities in the nation.

But the foundation, founded by heiress Nancy Brinker in honor of her sister who died of breast cancer, announced this week that it would no longer partner with the Planned Parenthood organization which provides breast cancer screening free or at reduced rates to thousands of women annually - but which also provides birth control and abortion counseling.

Komen officials claim the move was in response to their charter which denies funding to organizations under investigation. But the move was widely seen as political: conservatives have long targeted Planned Parenthood and recently funded an such an investigation, Brinker is a prominent Republican donor and Komen recently hired a former conservative gubernatorial candidate from Atlanta known for her strong anti-abortion views.

The political backlash has been fierce. Conservatives have tried to rally support for the move but data shows that 75% of the reaction to date has been negative. Longer term, the Komen brand as an apolitical force for good has been sullied and will likely become the target of a boycott, hurting its fund-raising - and related breast cancer research.

The problem from a marketing, rather than a political standpoint, is that appeasement of social movements - of whatever religious or social persuasion - rarely works. Their decisions are made on what they believe are moral grounds. To compromise, therefore, is immoral. Organizations like Komen are easy targets for such tactics because they perceive themselves to be providing a good that transcends politics. But in this age, whether one is in Pakistan, israel, Italy or the US, there is increasing demand by such forces for choosing sides, damaging previously apolitical reputations.

It is unclear whether Komen will try to find a way out, will stand by its decision or reverse itself. But the damage has been done. Organizations vulnerable to similar pressure must contemplate in advance how to insulate themselves from such tactics if they wish to continue operating 'above the fray.' JL

Michael Sebastian reports in Ragan.com:

Susan G. Komen for the Cure unleashed a series of tweets on Wednesday to respond to criticism over its decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood. For instance, one tweet said: "For 30 yrs we have provided help to low-income, uninsured & underinsured women. Changes to our granting policies reinforce that commitment."

The breast cancer foundation, which is facing a stiff PR backlash and boycott after announcing on Tuesday that it would no longer give money to Planned Parenthood for breast examinations and related services, remained largely silent on social media until late Wednesday, when it started tweeting and posted a video to YouTube with its CEO Nancy G. Brinker responding to criticism. According to PoliPulse, 75 percent of the conversations about Komen since this story emerged have been critical But as Komen prepared this response, negative comments piled up on the organization’s Facebook page:

•“What a terrible, terrible policy. Your group should be ashamed.”
•“I have always been a big supporter... I am appalled at your position regarding Planned Parenthood!!! I will no longer support you unless you reverse your decision!”
•“Thanks a bunch for throwing low-income under the bus in order to ‘prioritize’ the political ideology of some of your upper management.”

(Thanks to Kivi's Nonprofit Communications Blog for pointing out this statistic.)

The nonprofit said it is no longer partnering with Planned Parenthood due to new criteria that prohibit it from funding any organization under government investigation. Last year, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) started looking into whether Planned Parenthood uses public money for abortions, which it cannot do.

But many are calling it a political move, due in large part to the arrival of Komen’s new vice president Karen Handel, a prominent abortion foe who ran for governor of Georgia in 2010. Handel has said she opposes Planned Parenthood.

In a statement posted to its Facebook page on Wednesday morning, Komen denied that the decision has anything to do with politics:

“Grant making decisions are not about politics--our priority is and always will be the women we serve. Making this issue political or leveraging it for fundraising purposes would be a disservice to women.”

Amid growing criticism on Wednesday, Komen released a longer statement on its website that begins: "We are dismayed and extremely disappointed that actions we have taken to strengthen our granting process have been widely mischaracterized. It is necessary to set the record straight."

Pro-life supporters are celebrating the decision and leaving their own comments on Komen’s Facebook page. Many have thanked the organization and insisted they will now donate.

The issue is front and center on Planned Parenthood’s website, which features a statement claiming Komen bowed to pressure from anti-women’s health organizations. The statement goes on to say:

“At immediate risk are low-income women, many located in rural and underserved communities, served by 19 Planned Parenthood programs funded by the Komen Foundation. This funding has enabled designated Planned Parenthood health centers to provide women with breast health education, screenings, and referrals for mammograms — lifesaving care for women where Planned Parenthood is their only source of health care.

“We believe that women of all economic levels need access to breast health screenings, referrals, and education. We’re determined to make sure that Komen’s decision doesn’t jeopardize these women’s access to health care. Please make a contribution today to help us defend access to care and continue to protect and promote women's health."

The Washington Post noted that the Planned Parenthood controversy is among several moves by Komen that have caused PR crises. From the Post:

“Another controversy for the charity has been the growing argument that Komen indulges in ‘pinkwashing,’ or using breast cancer and the ubiquitous pink ribbon to promote unhealthy corporate products (like KFC chicken), in exchange for donations. Komen argues that that donations are much needed, having received over $55 million a year from corporate partnerships, according to USA Today.”

“Komen has also been criticized for aggressively trying to protect the phrase ‘for the cure,’ as well as the usage of the pink ribbon. The charity has taken legal action against other nonprofits or organizations for using either one, sparking the Wall Street Journal to write ‘nonprofits aren’t so generous when a name’s at stake.’ Komen’s legal counsel argued that a mix-up in names could see a donation go to the wrong charity.”

Given the backlash, it seems this current move might be its most serious PR challenge yet.