3rd From Sol

~ Learn from before. Live now. Look ahead.

3rd From Sol

Tag Archives: Planned Parenthood

Public Relations Techniques That Kill Organizations

06 Wednesday Feb 2013

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Generational, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Public Relations, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology, Traditional Media

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

anti-listening, Conservatives, Managing the message, Nancy Brinker, Planned Parenthood, PR, Race for the Cure, sim, sm, Susan G. Komen

In Part I, “Why ‘Managing the Message’ Doesn’t,” we discussed the dangers of trying to ‘manage the message’ in a Social Media world. Part II looks at the techniques used by organizations to manage the message and why they fail.

Organizations that adopt a manage the message policy for Public Relations (PR) assume that they are the controllers and manipulators of the public image of their organization, which demotes the public to the role of a mindless zombie. If that doesn’t sound stupid enough, let’s look at the methods that organizations use to manage the message.¹

[¹ I realize that I’ve used the words Manage the Message five times in the first two paragraphs; however, “insulting PR techniques” isn’t quite specific enough as there are so many of them. 😉 ]

Corporate PR:  We manage the message by not listening

Corporate PR: We manage the message by not listening

Anti-listening Techniques
The subtle use of anti-listening techniques is one strategy used by organizations who seek to manage the message. The concept is simple: an organization can’t be held accountable for issues that don’t exist. By not listening an organization can effectively deny existence of an issue because they can claim ignorance, therefore can deny accountability.

One example is the use of formalized procedures for communication from the stakeholders, including the public. An organization might ignore or restrict communication on their Facebook page, requiring complaints and comments to be made through a process that is more complex or requires greater risk to complainer.

EXAMPLE:  From the Facebook page for a Parent/Teacher group of an Elementary School after parents discussed concerns about major changes in the school calendar:

“Please remember that this page is used for the PTC to share PTC sponsored fundraising events and activities. If anyone has comments/complaints about the school they need to be addressed with the administration.”

(From the School’s Marketing Director)

The strategy of denying open discussion of issues allows an organization to divide and conquer people who may object or have a strong reaction to negative events or significant changes. By restricting public comment on their website or Social Media formats such as Facebook, an organization can prevent all but the most committed people from voicing their opinion or concern. For those that do comment, the organization can hide dissent and concerns behind a veil that only they have access to, so the true scope of the issue is hidden from public.

The problem with this technique is that issues or concerns do not go away by ignoring or hiding them. Whether expressed or not the reaction exists and it impacts the public image of the organization. A divide and conquer strategy increases the reaction once people discover that others share their concerns. In the Social Media world, the truth will eventually come out through a disgruntled customer, employee, or other source.  Once the full scope of the deception is exposed the organization will lose all credibility and once the organization loses credibility the public image is also lost.

In January of 2012, the Susan G. Komen Foundation was receiving massive condemnation for a politically charged decision to defund Planned Parenthood. Rather than accepting that the public voice was valid, CEO Nancy Brinker attempted to double down on their position by claiming a bogus conservative-initiated Congressional investigation was reason to deny the grant requests by Planned Parenthood. Her efforts to paint an obvious conservative-motivated action as justified left her and the organization looking like right-wing wackos who had no clue that the organization depended on the perceived goodwill of the public.

By the time they tried to back peddle and fix the problem it was too late. Race For the Cure events in 2012 lost as much as one-third of the participation from the previous year and many donors question the use of their money by the Foundation. The irony is that Nancy Brinker had founded the organization thirty years earlier in her sister’s memory and now the Susan G. Komen name is not so much a symbol of fighting breast cancer as it is a reminder of conservative attempts to use backdoor methods to inflict their religious beliefs on everyone else.

MONDAY: The Dark Side of PR: Distraction and Deception Or ‘Armstronging’ the Public. When ethics are not a consideration, an organization is headed into a downward spiral that will almost always end with a public image that can be fatal. 

Romney Defending Women? Who is He Kidding?

14 Saturday Apr 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Ethics, Government Regulation, parenting, Politics, Religion, Respect, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ann Romney, Conservatives, GOP, Mitt Romney, Planned Parenthood, Republicans, Romney, Rush Limbaugh

“the Democratic Party has done an effective job trying to mischaracterize our views”

Mitt Romney, regarding  women’s issues. April 2012

Romney keeping his hands clean from touching women's issues

According to Mitt Romney the reaction of women to the Republican view of issues important to them (women’s health choices, birth control, education, social justice, etc.) is part of an evil plot by the Democrats. Romney seems to feel that the GOP’s well-documented misogynistic views would not be an issue, if only women and the other political party would conveniently ignore them.

Among the many alleged ‘mischaracterizations’ was last month’s tirade by Rush Limbaugh who made a horrific personal attack on Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, calling her a slut and a prostitute because she voiced her support to require mythological-based institutes to offer physician ordered pharmaceuticals even if it was contrary to their mythology. 

If Romney was not just another Conservative Pig-in-a-Suit he COULD have said:

Mr. Limbaugh’s characterization of Sandra Fluke was slanderous and outrageous. His attack on this honorable American was absolutely and unequivocally inappropriate for in any decent society. Mr. Limbaugh should immediately apologize to Ms. Fluke and to women in general. This type of discourse should never occur in the media or on the street as it lessens the moral character of every citizen of this great country.

Instead Romney’s reaction was:

“I wouldn’t have used those words.” 

What words would Romney used? Would he rather Limbaugh called her a whore or a bitch? Romney inferred his approval of Limbaugh’s statement in general, just a difference of verbiage.

In addition to his impotent reaction to Limbaugh’s remarks, when asked about Planned Parenthood, a program that provides a wide range of low and no cost health care for women, Romney has been quoted as saying:

“…we’re going to get rid of that!” (Romney, March 2012)

Despite his clear views against women and issues they care about, multi-millionaire, jean-clad Romney is now trying win women back. His campaign is surrounding him with women at political events where, rather than listening to them, he talks down to them. He tells women that the economy is what they care about and that a recovering economy under Obama is bad for women. Romney wants women to support him in his bid to return to the Republican policies of deregulation that destroyed our economy at the hands of Conservative business men who decided “Greed is Great” even when it put our country at the brink of disaster.

Ann Romney betraying American women with a kiss

Ann Romney, Mitt’s spouse, has been put front and center as the face of ‘the average’ woman. As a homemaker raising five boys she would seem to be a great image to counter the chauvinism of the Republican party; however, there is a disconnect between the difficulty the spouse of a multi-millionaire might have raising five boys and that of a woman of five boys whose husband has just laid off because Mitt Romney’s investors have just purchased his company and sliced it up and sold it off for the capital. Somehow the challenges Ann Romney may have had in deciding which SUV to take to the boy’s soccer game just doesn’t seem to be a fair portrayal of women.

Romney’s campaign was up in arms about one Democrat who said that Ann Romney “has not worked a day in her life.” While that remark was  poorly worded, there is no comparison between the resources Ann Romney had with millions of dollars at her disposal and the average American woman. If Romney feels that is a ‘mischaracterization’ he can kiss my Karl Rove.

PR & SM Nightmare: Komen Foundation Race To A Self-Inflicted Kill

03 Friday Feb 2012

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Communication, Ethics, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Politics, Public Relations, Religion, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Women

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Karen Handel, Nancy Brinker, Planned Parenthood, Public Image, Race for the Cure, Susan G. Komen

Founder & CEO Nancy Brinker leading a PR disaster

It is a public relations worst case scenario.

The decision-makers in an organization make a bad decision and then after it becomes public, the organization desperately seeks to ignore the obvious. Unfortunately, in a Social Media world, making a bad decision is tragic enough, but to try and deny the obvious is fatal. Such is the fate for the Susan G. Komen Race to the Cure foundation.

When a for-profit angers their customers they may see a downturn in sales, but often the customer often has some dependency on the product or service, so they may be willing to eventually forgive and forget.

Non-profit organizations are different. Non-profits depend on public goodwill and in the case of the Susan G. Komen foundation, they are heavily dependent on the active involvement of volunteers and donors of all political and religious views for their Race For the Cure® runs. While the Komen foundation’s purpose is noble, there are many organizations working on behalf of cancer victims and raising awareness of cancer issues. The Komen foundation has no lock on those people who have supported them in the past and continued goodwill is necessary for their continued survival.

A View To A Kill
The Komen foundation had been haunted by religious and conservative political groups once it was learned that grants by the foundation had gone to Planned Parenthood. These grants were specifically for women’s breast health issues, but the conservative groups kept pressure on the foundation to stop all funding of Planned Parenthood.

Karen Handel and Sarah Palin at campaign event

Enter Karen Handel, a rabid anti-choice advocate. Handel unsuccessfully ran for Governor of Georgia in 2010, on an anti-choice/defund Planned Parenthood platform. Her campaign was endorsed by Sarah Palin and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Handel narrowly lost in a primary run-off election. In April 2011, The Komen foundation hired Handel as Vice President in charge of public policy. The choice of Handel in this position was a clear message the Planned Parenthood funding would be in jeopardy and the first step in the PR nightmare to come.

In December 2011, the Komen Board of Directors created a procedural rule that would allow the organization to defund Planned Parenthood. The reaction within the organizations was immediate. According to an article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, Mollie Williams, the senior public health director quit in protest. At least two sources in Goldberg’s article indicate that the procedural rule was invented to allow the Komen foundation to cut funding to Planned Parenthood.

After the decision became public the reaction throughout Social Media was quick and massive. People began announcing their condemnation of the decision and that they would no longer support the Komen foundation and the Race For the Cure.

A Possible PR Save?
Once the scope of the reaction became obvious, the Komen foundation might have had a public relations opportunity to save the organization by voting to reverse their decision and immediately firing Karen Handel and any others responsible for putting the organization in a public image blood bath. That move would have instantly made them the target of conservative political and religious groups, but the organization had already experienced that pressure. A reversal would have helped to restore their public image and bought back some goodwill.

 The one thing they could not do was spin the decision to try and make it look palatable to the non-Conservative public.

The Nail In The Coffin
Rather than facing up to the bad decision the Komen foundation, led by CEO and Founder Nancy G. Brinker, instead began aggressively spinning the decision and denying the conservative religious and political motivations. Choosing to stand by the decision has now compounded the PR disaster assuring a slow and dishonorable death for the Komen foundation. Blogs are discussing the organization’s budget and how much money is retained for administrative costs. Certainly they might gain some short-term financial support from well-financed Conservative donors; however, they will not be able to replace the legions of volunteers who made The Race to the Cure possible in communities throughout the country.

It is apparent that the Susan G. Komen foundation leadership has little understanding of the impact of Social Media on public relations. They have acted as if they were operating in 20th Century media environment where a bluff could be held through a news cycle and the voice of the organization could drown out the facts of a situation. Now Nancy G. Brinker has spent all her credibility and has become the face of the scandal. Unfortunately, there is no turning back now. The Race For the Cure has made themselves political by making this decision, and by trying to spin the story they have made a serious wound a fatal one.

UPDATE:

At approximately 8:30 AM PST on Friday, February 3, 2012, CNN said the Komen Foundation was reversing its decision and would fund Planned Parenthood.

Other Pages of This Blog

  • About Paul Kiser
  • Common Core: Are You a Good Switch or a Bad Switch?
  • Familius Interruptus: Lessons of a DNA Shocker
  • Moffat County, Colorado: The Story of Two Families
  • Rules on Comments
  • Six Things The United States Must Do
  • Why We Are Here: A 65-Year Historical Perspective of the United States

Paul’s Recent Blogs

  • Road Less Traveled: How Craig, CO Was Orphaned
  • GOP Political Syndicate Seizes CO School District
  • DNA Shock +5 Years: What I Know & Lessons Learned
  • Solstices and Sunshine In North America
  • Blindsided: End of U.S. Solar Observation Capabilities?
  • Inspiration4: A Waste of Space Exploration
  • A Representative Democracy: It’s NOT All About You

Paul Kiser’s Tweets

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

What’s Up

May 2022
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Feb    

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,648 other subscribers

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

 

Loading Comments...