THE SUSAN G. KOMAN FOUNDATION A case study on Jonathan D. Herzberger, Aaron Johnson, Mohammad Saqer

PUBLIC MESSAGES Credibility Is your word perceived to be worth anything? Consistency Do we have a stable position? Control Victim, Villain, and Vindicator – which are you?

the initial message January 31 Associated Press breaks the story* Immediate narrative is pro-choice v. pro-life  AP, NYT, others weigh in on the controversy Initial message “The cutoff results from the charity's newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities.”

backlash Within 48 hours of the story breaking NYC Mayor Bloomberg donates $250,000 to PP Rock band The Decemberists pulls support from SGK PP receives $650,000 in unsolicited donations – very nearly the yearly amount ($680,000) it received from SGK ABC reports multiple SGK officials “resigning in disgust” over the incident

response “This is not a political decision,” the foundation’s chief executive, Nancy Brinker, said on MSNBC today, responding to a charge by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., that the move was a “witch hunt” and reminiscent of the McCarthy era. Planned Parenthood was the only grantee among 2,000 other organizations whose funding was cut off under the new policy. Twenty-two senators signed a letter calling on the Foundation to reverse its decision. Seen as disingenuous in public opinion

inconsistent messages Also on Feburary 2 (From the Washington Post) SGK President Elizabeth Thompson calls decision “unrelated to the investigation into whether Planned Parenthood was illegally using federal funds to pay for abortions.”*  This contradicts the original reasoning. – Komen founder Nancy Brinker says that SGK “wants to support groups that directly provide breast health services, such as mammograms.”  Says PP was only providing referrals.

a swift reversal February 4: SGK announces a reversal of their policy shift Criticized from both sides Issue remains a polarizing wedge between right and left – SGK's actions are still under a microscope "The key issue here is integrity. Integrity really matters—it is critical to ethical behavior and is a key driver of trust" Business News Daily

a brand in crisis August 8 – half a year after the initial incident, fallout continues Resignations: CEO and founder Nancy G. Brinker President Liz Thompson Board members Brenda Lauderback & Linda Law

continuing backlash California branch 50-60% decrease in private funding  Despite strong protest to the motion, and continuing to fund PP throughout the controversy Cleveland branch 15% drop in “Race for the Cure” participation  20% elsewhere, Akron down 45%

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

the crisis before the crisis “Komen had been under fire about PP for years” (Handel, 2012, p. 75) Culminating in the July 12, 2011 news release:

“Bishop of Toledo Bars Assistance to Komen Group—Fear of stem-cell use cited.”

Bishop Blair’s Letter (written 07/05/2011): “I am directing that in the fight against breast cancer, fundraising carried out under Catholic auspices, including our schools, should be channeled to our locally known Mercy Cancer Centers instead of Komen.”

Catholic Conference of Ohio Letter (07/20/2011): “At their meeting on January 20, 2011…Bishop Blair (Toledo) and other Ohio Bishops added that individual Catholics who want to contribute to Komen for the Cure locally can continue to do so on the basis of Komen’s assurance that no local funds go to Planned Parenthood.” Backlash?

Problem or market attack?

proper response 1. Be proactive 2. “Preach to the choir” (SGK and PP) 3. Emphasize principles/ (“Preach to the parish”) 4. “Agree with the enemy”/ Address the concerns of the attackers.

So, what could have been done differently? Proactive communication Being first Consistent Messages Don't flip-flop Hang on to the moral high ground Cloak an argument in a principle