Despite all we have learned about managing difficult announcements in the past year (can you say Netflix, Bank of America, Verizon?), the actions by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure in the week of Jan. 30 and beyond are some that students will study for decades to learn how not to make a crisis worse. In contrast, Planned Parenthood’s choices were textbook perfect, 21st century communications. (Transparency alert: I’m a breast cancer survivor, my oncologist is the medical director for Komen and one of my best friends is the medical director for a Planned Parenthood office. To say that I was conflicted about this crisis is an understatement.)

For millions of us who, up until last Tuesday, thought Komen could do no wrong, the news was simply unbelievable. Like many others, I heard it first on Twitter. In fact, unless you were on a Planned Parenthood or MoveOn mailing list, your only source of information was the news. Komen did no proactive outreach to inform its supporters—or even its organizers—of the firestorm that was coming.

The lack of communications is even more surprising when you consider that Komen won communications kudos just a few years ago, when it rebranded and spent a year reaching out to local chapters to explain why they did it and to strengthen relationships to ensure that the new logo and brand were correctly used.

That entire outreach campaign went up in smoke as board members and local spokespeople were caught off guard by the news that broke on Tuesday, Jan. 31. Typical was the story of one former Komen chapter board member who, on the morning after the news broke, was scheduled to go on TV for what she assumed would be a “good news” puff piece to promote the local Race for the Cure. The reporter quite naturally asked about the Planned Parenthood decision. That was the first the board member had heard of the defunding issue.

For nearly 72 hours, there was no news out of Komen. Posts to their blogs, forums and Facebook pages went unanswered, there were no updates and their Twitter account was silent, except for an unfortunate retweet by Karen Handel, the controversial VP of public affairs who was being blamed for the decision. Finally after two days of rage, the CEO of Komen posted a stilted and formal video to their Web site explaining the decision. Less than a week later, Handel resigned and took to cable news to give her side of the story, prolonging Komen’s embarrassment.

Anyone wondering about the “value of PR” needs to look no further than the outcome last week of this total lack of communications. Board members tendered their resignation, race teams dissolved and sponsors and donors fled in droves.

On the other side, Planned Parenthood took a very different PR approach. Instead of crying over the loss of a major partner and $700,000 worth of funding, the organization immediately reached out to all of its donors, partners and supporters, asking them to make up the difference and put pressure on Komen to reverse the decision. Minutes after the news broke, an e-mail went out to anyone, anywhere who had supported Planned Parenthood in the past. The e-mail had a call to action and recipients were asked to pass it along. Local chapters were informed, accessible and sharing information. Less than 24 hours after the news broke, I received an e-mail from a friend who is a medical director for PP, describing how she had recently detected suspicious lumps in five women who, as it turned out, had breast cancer—cancer that would have gone undetected were it not for that Planned Parenthood visit.

Planned Parenthood also reached out to the media ensuring that its spokespeople were available, and regularly connected to social media to share news updates. They told their story early, clearly and often. Their call to action was clear: “Urge Komen to change its mind and, just in case, donate.” As a result, the lost funding was replaced in just 48 hours—much of it coming from former donors to Komen. PRN

[Editor’s Note: Katie Paine will be a presenter at PR News ’ PR Measurement Conference on April 18 in Washington, D.C.]

Susan G. Komen for the Cure
Criteria	Grade	Comments	Advice
Extent of coverage	F	The news spread between social and traditional media, guaranteeing coverage in morning drive time and ensuring that anyone with an interest heard it.	Avoiding the media is a sure way to guarantee lots of coverage—and almost all of it will be undesirable.
Effectiveness of spokespeople	F	Komen CEO Nancy Brinker may have been the logical spokesperson, but her stiff and formal video style was ineffective in a crisis that demanded authenticity.	The key to rebuilding trust is transparency and authenticity. If your CEO can’t convey that, find someone who can.
Communication of key messages	F	Komen stuck to the message the way any good politician does, and as a result its “statement” was widely picked up. The problem was Komen never got the message out to the people that might have helped out: its chapters and supporters.	It’s not enough to just get your message out. It needs to be believed and trusted, and that doesn’t come from a press statement or a video.
Management of negative messages	F	The trouble was that everyone was calling the move “political,” so acting like a good politician and never varying your message only added fuel to the fire. Pro-life supporters who piled on in response to the negative backlash only ensured that the discussion became even more political. Additionally, the crisis reprised every old negative rumor and allegation of financial mismanagement, leading to charges of board ineptitude.	In order to counteract negative messages, you need trust and good word of mouth from trusted spokespeople, not from “the usual suspects.” Also, remember that if you’ve ever come under suspicion before, all those stories will return.
Impact on stakeholders	D	Sponsors may hang in there, as long as their sales aren’t impacted. Employees are no doubt shaken, but surprisingly few have quit, with the exception of the originator of the policy that reportedly caused the crisis. Donors who have abandoned, and continue to abandon the charity, probably won’t return.	In today’s networked world, every policy decision will have both short- and long-term impact on your relationships with your stakeholders. Measuring the short-term drop in donations paints only a partial picture. Long-term impact will be measured by a decrease in volunteers, event participation and sponsorship.
Overall score	F	So many bad decisions in so little time. It’s hard to imagine any viable, visible organization in 2012 making as many PR mistakes in such a short period of time.	Just because you survive the first week of a crisis does not mean your organization will survive. As we have seen time and time again, if you make people angry enough, you will be replaced.

 

Planned Parenthood
Criteria	Grade	Comments	Advice
Extent of coverage	A	Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood was mentioned in every story. It also featured prominently in social media and was as visible in blogs and comments as Komen. The difference was that most of its coverage (outside of comments) was neutral.	Coverage today does not mean television and newspapers. Opinion is shaped as much by social media and word of mouth as it is by the news, so in a crisis you should be monitoring blogs, Facebook and all the comments as well.
Effectiveness of spokespeople	A	Unlike Komen spokespeople, Planned Parenthood’s people, and particularly its president, Cecile Richards, were in front of reporters all week.	One spokesperson is never enough. You need numerous, informed, authentic and credible spokespeople if you want to get your messages across in a crisis.
Communication of key messages	A	Planned Parenthood’s message that it provides breast health services to low-income women was clearly communicated all week.	The best cure for a crisis is having a single, clear message communicated by multiple spokespeople to multiple channels.
Management of negative messages	B	Given the polarization of the two sides of this debate, it was actually remarkable how little discussion there was of the actual investigations that were the purported root cause of the defunding.	If you can limit the negatives to social media comments and get the mainstream media to stick to the facts, you are doing the best anyone can do in a crisis.
Impact on stakeholders	A	Planned Parenthood kept its stakeholders informed and the people it serves in focus. If anything, rage against Komen drove new stakeholders onto Planned Parenthood’s doorstep. In general, stakeholders were communicated to, and they responded with donations.	If you keep your stakeholders at the top of your priority list, keep them informed and tell the media that you are valuing stakeholders above all else, chances are you’ll survive.
Overall score	A	Planned Parenthood clearly had its strategy in place, its messages defined and its spokespeople lined up long before they lit the match on this controversy. As a result the organization didn’t just survive, it thrived.	There’s no such thing as being over-prepared for a crisis.

Contact:

Katie Paine is CEO of KDPaine & Partners, a PR measurement agency. She can be reached at [email protected].

Follow Katie Paine: @kdpaine