What did Komen do wrong?
Most of the commentaries I've seen about Komen and Planned Parenthood are written either from the perspective of those who oppose the initial decision to terminate the relationship or those opposed to the reversal; largely along pro-choice and anti-abortion partisans. But what I haven't seen is an analysis of how Komen handled the matter from an objective POV. Here is where I think Komen erred.
1. If you are going to end support for cancer screening at a nationwide network, you need to have a plan in place to replace the services so that there is continuity of care. The replacement must cover the same catchment areas and populations and should expand, not cut back, the level and scope of care. More people, especially in vulnerable populations, should be served, and at the same or better price point. And since many people utilize Planned Parenthood for other reasons and are thus many who would not otherwise seek screening are encouraged to get screened, the new provider should also be able to demonstrate that they will be able to get the same referrals. Komen was vulnerable because they had no "Plan B" ready to go when they made their announcement and it was clear that many people would lose access to care.
2. If you are going to terminate a relationship, it is too late to assume you can do so quietly. Social networking has changed everything and it is now impossible to control the message, how it is released, or how the story will be played. The days of media just reprinting press releases without comment are over, forever. And anything you have said or done in the past is going to be found, put out there and will come to haunt you. Don't even bother trying to keep things quiet. It only creates suspicion.
3. As a corollary, be honest and credible in the rationale you give. Nobody, not those who supported Komen's decision and certainly not the opponents, believed for a nanosecond Komen's excuses for why it cut funding. The lack of credibility, coupled with an alternative explanation that made far more sense given the politics surrounding the decision, resignations, past statements by Komen's staff, etc., made every further statement by Komen's embattled leaders look more ridiculous than the last.
Komen is under no obligation to partner with an organization that its board or staff would prefer to disassociate with. But having effectively partnered with them up until now, if it decided to end that relationship it should have acted differently. A good strategist would have guided them to:
1. Have a viable alternative ready to go
2. Work with, not against social media
3. Be honest and credible in everything you do and say
Had they followed these simple, basic steps, I believe that while there would still be negative reactions and some bad press, they could have blunted the most serious criticism and mitigated the damage to their reputation. Instead, they got a relentless (and successful) campaign that kept them in the news as villains for days and severely damaged their reputation among every group, left, right and center.
No comments:
Post a Comment