I’m hugely impressed with Nancy Schwartz’ analysis of the Komen For The Cure’s (Komen) disastrous cause marketing partnership with Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC).
Nancy does a terrific job of both dissecting the bad idea itself and then commenting on Komen’s communications response (or more accurately, lack thereof).
She calls her article a case study … and it’s that indeed. Keep it in your file. Bad things can happen to any of us!
I must say, I was struck by the rapid response to the situation by Komen’s rival cancer-fighter, Breast Cancer Action, which launched a "pinkwashing" campaign that in about two weeks has generated 3,200 messages protesting the Komen/KFC deal.
Roger and I have been writing about competition in the nonprofit space. BCA’s guerrilla warfare is as "in your face" as it gets!
Tom
This article was posted in: branding, cause marketing, charities, communications, Don't Miss these Posts, nonprofit management, nonprofits, online activism, social networking.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
While I agreed with Nancy on the Komen/KFC debacle, I disagree with her praise of BCA and their approach to the situation “What the Cluck.” I’m not naïve enough to think nonprofits don’t compete for fundraising dollars, but one nonprofit attacking for its own personal gain another nonprofit with a long history of great work is outside the lines in my opinion. Komen made a bad marketing decision, not a bad research/medical decision. Komen is working as hard today as ever to cure breast cancer.
Many might think “What the Cluck” is cute. I personally find it a little in bad taste. And how much good did BCA accomplish by encouraging people to write letters criticizing the Komen/KFC partnership. I think Komen already knows they made a mistake and those 3,000 people could have been encouraged to actually do something that might help cure breast cancer.
Hi Scott,
You’re right on target — Komen made a bad decision but I’d argue it’s a bad strategic decision at the organizational level, not “just” a marketing decision.
And that indicates to watchdogs, for the breast cancer prevention/research/treatment cause, that they need to improve, which I see as the motivation for BCA’s campaign.
In addition, I think BCA saw the opportunity here to grab some attention for the cause, and ran with it. That’s a good thing, right?
Agreed they could have been a bit less “in your face” about it but then we probably wouldn’t be talking about it. Their organizational “personality” is very aggressive, so the response isn’t surprising.
Best,
Nancy
I’m concerned there isn’t any conversation about the Chevron/Komen relationship which has been ongoing for 20 years. Petroleum products are a prime source of cancer causing agents yet, everyone is flipping out about KFC because of the obesity/poverty questions. Yes, there are arguments to be made in these issues but, Chevron worldwide cause FAR more health and medical issues than KFC would ever be able to. Yet, here we sit with Chevron sponsoring at least 100 foot races each year with little criticism coming from the cancer-focused fundraising industry.
I have a different issue – with all organizations that raise funds for cancer or other disease-related research. The vast majority of research funds continue to support reserach using animals – including cats, dogs, monkeys, chimps, etc. — but FAIL to state this anywhere in their materials.
This seems clearly unethical to me. I believe that a great many people would NOT support organizatons and fundraising drives to fund animal research (we can argue about its merits or value another time) – were they to have this information. But they do not. Why? Because these rganizations are very quiet about this aspect of theri business.
Isn’t this “secrecy” or lack of information clearly in conflict with our donors’ bill of rights?