The power of how social media can be an effective part of Public Relations within the third sector, is demonstrated by the ‘Komen for the Cure’ story which is currently unfolding in the US. Komen for the Cure is a US-based charity that raises funds for breast cancer research. Up until the end of January 2012, they provided funds to Planned Parenthood, to fund mammograms for low-income women. On the 31 January 2012 the Associated Press reported that Komen had pulled their financial support to Planned Parenthood –reportedly as a result of Planned Parenthood being under investigation in US Congress, facing allegations of spending government funding on abortions (Komen’s constitution allows for them to withdraw funding from organisations under investigation). Nancy Schwartz has a great summary of events on this story, read it here.
What we find fascinating and a lesson in itself is Komen’s response or as we see it, lack of response. Planned Parenthood were very quick off the mark, immediately sending an email out to its subscribers making them aware of the developments, and asking for donations, emphasising the importance for breast cancer screening for all women, specifically those who were of low income and deserving women at Planned Parenthood Centres.
The public reaction was not something Komen could have anticipated, their social media pages were bombarded with accusations of them “not focusing on their mission”, and “becoming too involved in politics” for a cancer research charity. For 24 hours, Komen said nothing.
In a world dominated by social media, communication in real time, and prolific content sharing, 24 hours is 24 hours too long. By the time Komen released what we think is a vague and unhelpful video of their CEO (watch it here), opinions had been firmly formed by the online community. Kivi Leroux Miller calculated the social media responses to be about 80 anti-Komen comments for every one pro-Komen response. If, in response to Planned Parenthood’s initiatives, Komen had released a statement explaining their own rationale to their followers, the story may not have made headlines.
In our opinion, another major blunder was Komen’s attitudes towards their online following. If you look at the Komen Facebook page, you might not realise how irate their following is, the page administrators are diligently monitoring and deleting negative comments. It is generally accepted that the only situation where it is appropriate to delete a fan’s comment is if it is spam, or if it violates the terms and conditions of the website. Social media is a conversation, by deleting comments instead of addressing them; Komen has come across as elitist. Donors are the organisation’s shareholders; Komen is alienating a large source of their revenue by not listening to their donors, particularly when they are explaining how they want their money to be spent.
Komen has learnt the hard way that trust lost is difficult to get back, and a quick look through the hundreds of tweets on the subject shows that a large number of Komen’s donors have pledged to support a different breast cancer research charity, or Planned Parenthood directly. An interesting point to note is that Komen fired their Public Relations officer and reinstated Planned Parenthood’s funding, a couple of weeks after the public outcry. Unfortunately for Komen, a few bad PR decisions may cost them dearly, and have further reaching repercussions than they could have ever envisioned.
By Colette Palmer - Business Professional Services Limited, Executive Officer - Communications
