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.

Bringing Up The Past

I was reading some older entries in one of my favorite blogs on marketing Seth Godin"s Blog and came across an interesting quote:  "A significant byproduct of the connection revolution is that things that were private because they were difficult to measure will no longer be private. When devices can talk to each other, the information rarely remains private." 


We have certainly seen this to be true in recent years as politicians and business leaders have to contend with statements and video clips, often taken out of context, of their earlier deeds and misdeeds.


Facebook now lets people see messages you sent and received from years ago.  With online newspaper logs and a wealth of resources online, not only does information rarely remain private, but the past no longer stays in its place.


I wonder, however, if we are getting close to a point where someone's incongruous past will cease to be sensational or to have a significant impact.  Kind of like tattoos; if everyone has them, they no longer have the power to shock.

In the Pink: The Branding of a Color

This blog is being reposted.

I complimented a colleague the other day, who was looking sharp in a new pink dress shirt.  "It's salmon," he corrected me.

It got me to wondering how pink got so strongly identified as the color of femininity (and to a much lesser extent, blue as the color of masculinity.)

I think most brand managers would kill to be able to have a brand association as strong as the association of females and pink (or light red as another male colleague always calls it.)

I Recognize the Value of Recognition

Yesterday, I wrote a blog titled The Fallacy of Awards. In it I questioned the value of awards like the ADDYs or the Academy Awards.  I questioned the value of awards that (often) stray from the primary mission of the activity (increasing sales or selling movie tickets.)  My comments should NOT, however, be taken as casting of aspersions on the value of recognition.

Recognition can be a powerful tool.  Most lists of top things employees are looking for from a good workplace will include "appreciation," "respect" and "recognition" near or at the top, well ahead of good pay.  Customers respond to recognition the same way.  I went to a certain dry cleaner for years because the woman who worked the counter always remembered my name and phone number and, if she was with me, that my daughter liked Tootsie Rolls.  After she retired, I became a number.  I had to give them all of my information every week.  Shortly after that, I found a new, cheaper dry cleaner.

But recognition only works when it is genuine and sincere and when it provides true value to the targeted person.  My kids could not have cared less about the participation trophies they got in Pee Wee soccer because the didn't do anything extraordinary to earn it.  On the other hand, I have stayed with Netflix, despite being upset by their pricing and listing fiascoes, because their recommendation tool already has thousands of my movie reviews loaded into it and does often make inspired recommendations.  They recognize my tastes in movies and create value out of that recognition.

Awards are great, if they recognize and encourage actions and behaviors that support the mission and purpose of the organization.  Often, however, the recognition of a simple "thank you" and "good job" delivered honestly, directly and in a timely manner can be just as effective or more so.

The Fallacy of Awards

If you produce a movie, your primary purpose is to sell tickets.
If you create or purchase an advertisement, your primary purpose is to get people to buy what you are selling.

Which makes me wonder, what is the value of industry awards like the Academy Awards and the ADDYs?  You should be able to track the winners and losers by box office numbers and by increase of business for the advertiser.  Everything else, it would seem, is meaningless.

Given that, are the Oscars are like those participation trophies my kids got when they were 7 and playing soccer?

The Marketing Value of Social Media?

I have to admit that while I see social media as a valuable communications tool, I have had a hard time figuring out how to make some social media make sense from a marketing perspective.  The Ad Contrarian blog has an interesting take on this in the blog Farcebook.  Your thoughts?

Some of my thoughts on social media: Social Media: Quality vs. quantity

An Inside Job: The Importance of Internal Marketing

A friend of mine recently spent a lot of time and money developing a very good marketing campaign. He was very excited about the project and had seemingly done everything by the numbers.  He even tested the campaign before launching it, scoring very well with the test audience.

A few weeks after the launch he was dismayed.  The beautiful (and expensive) campaign had not yielded the results he had hoped.  Sales hadn't really increased.  Testing showed that even his reputation and similar scores weren't changing.

It wasn't until a customer cornered him and told him about the negative things that she had heard an employee saying about the company that my friend realized that he HAD NOT done everything by the numbers.  He had forgotten to market to his internal customers.  While he was sending out positive, marketing-focused messages out the front door, his staff (or at least some of them) were sending out negative complaint-focused messages out the back.  Any marketing who has been working in this field for 30 minutes can tell you that negative word-of-mouth trumps positive word-of-mouth almost every time.

My friend tinkered with his campaign to make it appropriate for his internal audience and shared it with his staff.  Slowly but surely, as his staff understood and bought into his campaign, sales started to improve.

In my blog It's All About Relationships, I talk about the value of developing good relationships with your customers.  The same holds true with your employees.  You not only have to treat them well as a "boss," but you need to keep them informed and up-to-date as potential spokespeople.  An informed employee is an extension of your marketing efforts.  A misinformed or uninformed employee is the worst enemy to your marketing efforts, often unintentionally.

Readers, please share any stories or tips you have on marketing to the internal audience!  Thanks!