Question

Susan G. Komen for the Cure: Can This Relationship Be Saved?

Written by Mary Anne Doty, Texas A&M University– Commerce

On January 31, 2012, news reports circulated that Susan G. Komen for the Cure had decided to stop funding clinical breast exams through a grant to Planned Parenthood. Initially, Komen cited the congressional investigation of Rep. Cliff Stearns, a conservative legislator who has pushed for abortion restrictions, as the reason for the change in policy barring grants to groups under government investigation. This decision had been made quietly in late November, 2011, with notification to Planned Parenthood in mid- December. As the story broke, Komen found itself in the middle of a controversy. Overnight the organization faced severe criticism (and some praise) as the story mushroomed through television and newspapers, as well as Facebook, Twitter, and other social media.1

Susan G. Komen for the Cure has become the largest source of nonprofit funds dedicated to the fight against breast cancer in the world, investing more than $1.9 billion since 1982. In April 2012 their website listed 124 corporate sponsors from varying organizations, including product brands (American Airlines, Ford Motor Company, Mohawk Flooring, and Yoplait Yogurt), retailers (Belk, Lowe’s, Old Navy, Walgreens), and sports organizations (Dallas Cowboys, Major League Baseball, Ladies PGA).2 In thirty years the brand had reached iconic proportions, beloved by people on all parts of the political spectrum. Charity Navigator, a website that rates nonprofit organizations on the percentage of funds used for the organization’s mission and on transparency, gave Komen a rating of 4/4 stars, with a score of 62/70.3 Supporters have a very personal link with the organization because volunteers have given (or walked) in honor of loved ones affected by breast cancer.

As word trickled out about the Komen decision, supporters and critics began sharing opinions through social networking sites. Former Komen supporters responded with anger and disappointment, many expressing feelings of betrayal. While the Komen grants totaled only $680,000 in 2011, an outpouring of donations to Planned Parenthood raised $3 million in three days, including over 10,000 new donors. As the lines were drawn for supporters of both organizations, most chose Planned Parenthood.4

The negative publicity also drew attention to many of Komen’s practices that had not faced public scrutiny.5 Among the complaints were: (1) the relatively small percentage of Komen funds that go to medical research for a cure (less than 19%); (2) high salaries of the founder and board members (founder Nancy Brinker is reportedly paid over $400,000 annually); (3) large legal expenses incurred from suing other charities defending the words “for the Cure” in their trademark; and (4) making women’s health a political issue.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure did not respond to the social media uproar initially, which angered many of their former supporters.6 Komen received a strong defense from people who disapproved of Planned Parenthood. Many of these were people who previously did not support Komen’s activities because of their grants to Planned Parenthood. In spite of the approval, it was not clear that this segment would replace the funding and other support at risk by the decision.

Corporate sponsors, who generally fear controversial issues, complained that Komen had not informed them of the policy change in advance.7 While none of the sponsors publicly abandoned Susan G. Komen for the Cure in the short term, they made it clear that better communication was expected if the relationship was to thrive.

After four days of intense negative publicity, Komen announced they were reversing their decision and would consider reinstating the Planned Parenthood grants.8 Komen founder Nancy Brinker apologized and announced that in the future groups will only be disqualified from receiving grants when they are under investigations that are “criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

This response was probably a case of “too little, too late” that angered those on both sides of the debate. Planned Parenthood supporters claimed the wording was full of loopholes and not a strong repudiation of the initial decision. Planned Parenthood opponents were angry that the decision was reversed and vowed not to support Komen in the future. The slow response managed to alienate a majority of the public.9

When the decision to defund Planned Parenthood’s grant became public on February 1, 2012, a number of Komen executives and employees resigned in protest, including a medical advisory board member, a health official, and the directors of several large Komen chapters. After the reversal on February 3, public outcry did not fade away. Karen Handel, Senior Vice President for Public Affairs, received most of the blame for the initial decision and for politicizing Komen policies by focusing on abortion politics rather than detecting and treating breast cancer. Handel, a former political candidate who had campaigned on an anti–Planned Parenthood platform, resigned on February 7.10

By February 23, news stories reported Komen hired a consulting firm to assess damage to their brand among supporters.11 The 20-minute survey tested the wording of various apologies and then measured the credibility of the Komen foundation and its leaders, along with the credibility of other public figures. Komen’s problems continued into March when two top executives resigned, the Executive VP and Chief Marketing Officer, as well as the CEO of Komen’s New York City affiliate. As the organization struggled to repair its relationship with supporters, some Komen affiliates reported revenues were substantially lower than in previous campaigns, and participation in the Race for the Cure was also down.

It may take years to determine if Komen can repair its relationships and be restored as a premiere charity brand. The damage of these events affects employees in the form of poor morale, former supporters who are angered by Komen’s initial decision and are not mollified by the reversal of that decision, corporate sponsors who are leery of future controversy, a public that views Susan G. Komen for the Cure as a tarnished organization, and disappointed anti-abortion groups who remain opposed to Komen. Moving forward, it may be time to reexamine their mission. When the organization was founded in 1982, breast cancer was often a death sentence for women (and a few men) because the prognosis was poor when cancer was detected in later stages. Komen raised awareness of breast cancer and spent millions of dollars on public education and breast cancer screening. By any measure, those efforts were a resounding success. It may be time for Komen to focus their strategy on research and treatment (as implied by the trademark name, “…for the Cure”) and save their education campaigns for less informed segments.

Question 1: How did social media impact the complaining behaviors of donors and participants for Susan G. Komen for the Cure activities?

Question 2: What types of complaining behaviors were most apparent? What was the response by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to negative public publicity after their decision to stop funding mammograms in partnership with Planned Parenthood? Would you have responded differently had you been in charge?

Question 3: Officials at Susan G. Komen for the Cure seemed unprepared for the intensity of response that they encountered. How would an understanding of the difference between customer loyalty and customer inertia have prepared the Komen officials for the reactions they experienced?

Question 4: Does the Komen organization demonstrate I characteristics of relationship loyalty with their donors? Why or why not?

Question 5: Many Komen supporters switched their donations to Planned Parenthood after the negative public publicity. Use the concept of share of wallet to explain why this might have happened.

Answer 1

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****

1. How did social media impact the complaining behaviors of donors and participants for Susan G. Komen for the Cure activities?

Social media has influenced donors and participants 'complaining habits for Susan G.Komen's Cure programs by providing them with a forum to openly express their opinions and requirements. I strongly believe that today social media will make or break individuals and businesses. Things go viral, the world learns so much more about what's happening in the country, people look up, and leave business reviews. The Internet is an incredibly powerful device. Social media has the potential to affect anything and everything because word of mouth is a powerful tool. It has the potential to affect any entity either positively or negatively. As of 2012, the average donation to a non-profit through social media was $59, which was almost double of what it was two years prior.

2. What types of complaining behaviors were most apparent? What was the response by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to negative public publicity after their decision to stop funding mammograms in partnership with Planned Parenthood? Would you have responded differently had you been in charge?

The most noticeable forms of complaining activities were the cynical approach to voicing frustration and dissatisfaction in Susan G. Komen with peo-ple taking to social media. Including people sharing their present thoughts, they have brought up other scrutinies on the policies of Susan G. Komen which had not been brought to public attention. The fact that people complained about the Susan G. Koman foundation pulling their grants from Planned Parenthood had a negative impact on the donations to the Susan G. Koman for the Cure foundation and directed donations directly to Planned Parenthood in an attempt to circumvent the pulled funding.

The Susan G. Komen's initial response to the Cure foundation was to dismiss the negative public input from Planned Parenthood's dropping grants. The negative attention ultimately influenced the foundation in such a way that they reversed their decision and restored Planned Parenthood grants. I would have reacted differently if I had been in charge, by answering the public's concerns immediately. The first move would have been to discuss the issue, clarify the rationale behind the decision in depth, and then follow that with the assurance that the policy will be checked, and evaluate the decision.

3. Officials at Susan G. Komen for the Cure seemed unprepared for the intensity of response that they encountered. How would an understanding of the difference between customer loyalty and customer inertia have prepared the Komen officials for the reactions they experienced?

If the foundation knew the power of consumer resistance then they might have expected the potential response that was generated when the Planned Parenthood funding was pulled. Customer inertia is a pattern of conduct that changes when he or she is driven to improve by some greater force. By pulling funding from a controversial nonprofit such as Planned Parenthood because of a political witch-hunt by Rep. Cliff Sterns. If a contentious topic like this occurs people prefer to choose one side and make known their deep feelings about the situation.

4. Does the Komen organization demonstrate I characteristics of relationship loyalty with their donors? Why or why not?

Komen organisation's supporters have a loyalty; however, customer indifference has the potential to change the emotions of anyone involved. While many stood by the Komen organization as they moved the funds to Planned Parenthood, a substantial number of people opted out of the organization's positions and some removed their contributions from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and turned them back to Planned Parenthood.

5. Many Komen supporters switched their donations to Planned Parenthood after the negative public publicity. Use the concept of share of wallet to explain why this might have happened.

Wallet shares, or consumer shares, are the portion of resources allocated to one brand among the rival brands group. They made them rival labels, because the Komen organization identified with Planned Parenthood. When support was pulled from Planned Parenthood, many immediately diverted their contributions to Planned Parenthood to continue paying for the mammography. The negative coverage led to people withdrawing their sponsorship from the Komen foundation because they didn't want to be associated with anything that might withhold money from such a vital program.