The Missteps of Komen

There has been a lot written about the Susan G. Komen for the Cure decision to discontinue funding of programs with Planned Parenthood. If you somehow missed this story, here is an article from Reuters that seems as good a summary as any.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/us-usa-healthcare-komen-idUSTRE8111WA20120202

This story generated a lot of opinions.  Most of the marketing/PR based opinions I have read about this incident seem to feel that Komen did something wrong, but they vary widely in their analysis of the facts, or even what they feel the facts are.  One perspective that I haven't seen discussed much is the lack of openness and honesty that Komen used when they first unveiled their decision to no longer work with Planned Parenthood.

When Komen spokespeople announced the decision to no longer fund Planned Parenthood, they said it was because they "had a new strategy that barred money from going to groups that were under investigation by US authorities."  They said their decision "reflected a new strategy aimed at using donation money more effectively by eliminating duplicate grants and tightening eligibility rules."  Regardless of if this was a genuine reason or a canard designed to deflect criticism, the justification rang hollow.  That was in part because Planned Parenthood was the only organization that was impacted by their new criteria.

It is clear that the Komen organization spent a great deal of time discussing their decision to change their funding process.  There were reports of heated internal debates and at least one person quitting in protest.  I suspect that since this was a controversial decision internally, they were trying to avoid additional controversy when they went public.

One of the basic goals in crisis communications is to try to keep the story in as few news cycles as possible. The best way that you can accomplish this is to be honest and forthright with information.  Don't leave anything for a reporter to "discover."  Rather, tell the whole story, especially if it is a story that does not reflect well on your organization.  It is better to have one day of really bad news but with your organization being open and upfront than to have the story drag out over days or weeks, making headline after headline, as new facts emerge.  That  is what happened to Komen.

To make matters worse, as the issue became more and more controversial, the explanations kept changing at Komen.  This led to mistrust of their message, their messengers and their veracity.  It also kept them in the headlines for weeks.

I can't help but wonder if things would have gone smoother if Komen, an organization that had an excellent reputation and thousands and thousands of deeply dedicated supporters and volunteers, had simply told the truth.  If they had come out and said:

• "We share a mission of women's health with the Planned Parenthood organization.  Nevertheless, Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood each approach women's health issues from different directions.  Recently, given the media and political attention that certain aspects of Planned Parenthood's operation have been getting, we are uncomfortable continuing our relationship.  Fortunately, in most areas, there are other options for mammograms and other services we support.  We will be switching our funding to some of those other options."

or

•  "We are a women's health organization, not a political one.   Increasingly, an organizations we fund has become increasingly political.  While we don't fund anything related to abortions or family planning, Planned Parenthood does get involved in these things.  We have become increasingly uncomfortable with that and have decided to find other ways and venues through which we will continue to support women's health issues."  

What do you think?  Regardless of what you think about their decision, or the politics of this issue, do you think that Komen could have mitigated some of the damage they did to their reputation by presenting the decision differently?  Please share your thoughts in the comments.