Susan G Komen

Foundation Case Study

2Brannan - Gulsvig - Smith

Questions Q1. Using the typology of social media crises, describe what type of crisis Komen Foundation faced?

Q2. Compare and contrast the social media strategies implemented by Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood

Q3. Imagine that you are a social media firm hired by Komen Foundation to create a response after the crisis emerged on social media. What would be your suggestions to Komen Foundation? Support your suggestion with concrete arguments.

Q4. What steps do you suggest Komen Foundation should take to be better prepared for such a social media crisis in future?

Susan G Komen Foundation

‘Our mission is to save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering others, ensuring quality care for all and energizing science to find the cure’

Planned Parenthood ‘We are a trusted health care provider, an informed educator, a passionate advocate, and a global partner helping similar organizations around the world. Planned Parenthood delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide.’

The typology of the social media crisisTwo dimensions for categorising social media crises:

Controllability: A social media crisis is controllable if responses to limit or eliminate the crisis by influencing its causes are known as well as executable.

Shock value of trigger: Shock value refers to the degree to which an incident that is embedded in the context and time offends members of the social media community.

Soft Crisis: High level of controllability and a low shock value. Not the type of crisis most businesses are scared of but can turn more serious if left unattended.

Firefighting Crisis: Highly controllable but also have a high shock value. Can be stemmed if dealt with correctly

Wait and Watch Crisis: Low controllability and low shock value, asks for patience and a thick skin.

Disaster Crisis: Highly uncontrollable and shocking crisis situations. Can break a brand image.

Types of Crisis

S. G. Komen’s initial crisisControllability: Initially controllability was fairly high. Komen made the decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood and had control over how they made that information public.

Shock value of trigger: Komen G underestimated the shock value of their decision. They obviouslyrealised it would cause some controversy but didn’t account for the reaction of Planned Parenthood.

Exacerbation of the crisisControllability: Komen didn’t control the message.They let Planned Parenthood control the dialogue on theirdecision thus having a negative impact on their brand.

Shock value of the trigger: By underestimating the powerof social media and the significance of women’s rights to their supporters, shock value increased as they came across as disingenuous.

Komen should have reacted straight away in order to control the crisis. Their inability to do so turned their

firefighter crisis into a disaster crisis.

Extent of the crisisNon-profit rankings in terms of trust

Susan G. Komen for the cure 2010: #2

Susan G. Komen for the cure 2013: #14

Susan G. Komen for the cure 2016: #10

Analysis of the 2 companies crisis strategiesCritical differences in each company's approach and response ultimately lead to the downfall for Susan G. Koman. Each company chose to approach the crisis in a completely opposite way:

Planned Parenthood ApproachSusan G. Komen Approach

Evidence of Susan G Komen's social media mistakes

Socialbakers Crisis Plan ● Based on Socialbakers crisis

plan, Planned Parenthood performed well and followed all protocol.

● Planned Parenthood used the four T’s

○ Tone → saddened, looking for reinforcement from supporters.

○ Timeliness → Quick Response via email.

○ Thoroughness → Distributed info on various channels

○ Transparency → very apparent throughout whole debacle

* see appendix A

and how the two companies stack up

Proposed Alternative StrategyI would propose the complete opposite of the steps Komen took.

Decide on strategy formulated from meeting of employees from all departments

Implement strategy based on the principles of;

Ensure strategy is properly communicated to everyone involved, especially the social media team to avoid any internally generated vulnerability.

This teamed with the principles of transparency and apology should avoid deepening the crisis.

TRANSPARENCY APOLOGY ACTION REITERATION

Short TermKomen’s first social media mistake was silence, their eventual response was dreadful. *see appendix C.

1.They should have been quick to post a response based around aforementioned principles.

- Starting with an apology.

- Recognising their mistake and showing they understand the views of their followers by announcing reversal of the decision.

2. Direct response to criticisms on social media, again following the principles;

Long Term Update Followers;Keep followers up to date with the steps they are taking to reverse the decision. Attempt to involve them, organise a joint fundraiser with Planned Parenthood to raise funds for both charities. This shows the relationship is strong again

● Increases Transparency ● Shows followers they understand them● Shows followers they LISTEN to them.

New Campaign● Launching a new campaign will focus social media interaction.● Do not involve a Twitter hashtag avoiding user generated

vulnerability, emphasis on Facebook and Instagram.● Use Stories and Emotions elements of STEPPS framework to

enhance reach.● Users sharing stories of their survival journey with Komen.

Turn a social media disaster into a chance to listen and

grow with what the followers expect from the company.

Future Approach for Susan G. Komen

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C