In April of this year, the Komen/KFC cause marketing campaign “Buckets for the Cure” turned more than a few heads in the cause marketing and non-profit communities…and not in a good way. Bloggers and pundits cried foul across social media channels, citing a lack of authenticity and massive levels of incongruency in pairing fat-laden fried chicken with a mission to improve the lives and health of women suffering from breast cancer. The response from Komen? Cricket. Cricket. Even KFC stepped up to the plate to comment on the cause marketing campaign. But zippo from Komen in these social media channels.
So when Karen White from Komen took the stage at the Cause Marketing Forum Conference last week in Chicago, everyone held heir breath and laughed probably a bit too hard when she joked that perhaps she should’ve brought some chicken for everyone to eat. However, it wasn’t until White was directly asked to comment on the KFC cause marketing partnership that she addressed the issue in vehement defense. We learned that the KFC cause marketing campaign was vetted through Komen‘s founder and board. And learned that the reason Komen opted to partner with KFC (aside from the $8.5 million donation) was that KFC operated in 900 communities Komen has labeled “white space”, where Komen does not have a presence and viewed the partnership as an opportunity to expand their reach. White concluded with, “I will stand behind those pink buckets of chicken any day of the week.”
No News is Good News?
White’s appearance prompted further posts like Estrella Rosenberg‘s, “Finger Lickin’ Failure“, who points out that some humility in sharing lessons learned might’ve been better received. And certainly there was room for improvement in the partnership, to which almost anyone could attest. But hearing the rationale behind the partnership from Komen‘s side of the table (albeit hesitantly) was refreshing and makes me question why they’ve chosen to remain silent against the astonishment and confusion among their community of supporters and the cause marketing community at large.
But here’s the thing, unrelated to the KFC cause marketing campaign, that struck me even more disturbingly.
Pink Market Domination
White began her talk with a discussion of how crowded the “pink” space was becoming and admitted, “We held on to our pink ribbon so tightly to reclaim our niche in the space that we inadvertently added to the pink clutter.” She then went on to describe Komen‘s efforts to reclaim their niche and reestablish themselves as the queens of pink through a rebranding effort.
And while you have to give Komen credit for astute marketing and impressive brand equity, their efforts at market domination struck me as incredibly odd for a cause. Wouldn’t the more appropriate course of action be to serve as a platform for other organizations focused around breast cancer? Establish market domination by becoming the ultimate source of information and credible breast cancer organizations instead of racing to “beat” their “competition”? For an organization so incredibly talented at establishing partnerships, it struck me as odd and just kind of…wrong that they neglected to focus on partnerships within the breast cancer community and instead chose to view them as competition.
So all of this raises a larger question. How much should/can a non-profit organization act like a traditional brand? Is it OK to consider others fighting for the same cause “competition”? Is their a different level of ethics and responsibility to which a non-profit organization must adhere? What do you think? Comment and let me know!
Image credit to krazydad/jbum.
Good questions Megan. I have always maintained that when it comes to cause marketing, there should be no conflicts. We are all working to help promote awareness, education and dollars for important causes. We should all be working together to lift each other up as well as the specific cause we are working on at the time.
Agreed, Mike. I’m of the “rising tide floats all boats” school myself. I’m sure there have been some not insignificant challenges of other organizations using Komen’s intellectual property inappropriately and I get wanting to keep your brand focused and maintain integrity, but I think there are ways to do that and still work collaboratively with deserving partners. Appreciate your comment!
Congratulationas for grasping the essence and pointing out the useless vanity of SK. “Wouldn’t the more appropriate course of action be to serve as a platform for other organizations focused around breast cancer?” this says it all. Why there should be a deployment of SK around every corner? Why not let local communities develop the citizen support groups they need and are able to manage. Why not offer their resources? Why should they “sell” the right to have a race for the cure at such high prices and royalty agreements that remind a for profit corporation. One would expect a wealthy and well organised group to put its resources at the disposal of the global community.
I don’t really expect answers but these questions were long ago on my mind. As for the SK/KFC affiliation it is one the worst of each kind all the more after the cynical explanations given.
Thanks so much for your comment. I have lots of respect for the work Komen has done to develop their awareness and put Breast Cancer on the proverbial map. I do also think that once you reach a certain level where your partnerships are generating millions if not billions of dollars, you have a certain ethical responsibility to be the leader in the field. In my humble opinion, being a leader means enabling and supporting others in their quest to rally around “the cause”.
These are all big questions, Megan, and a blog comment is too limited a venue. Having said that, I see several angles to look at the issues.
If you look at the issues you outline with less value judgment and more in terms of outcomes, it doesn’t really matter whether a nonprofit acts like a brand and competes with other nonprofits. What does matter is who can do more good with what they have.
The buckets campaign was a massive misstep by Komen, and an example of how the market domination logic can misfire. If market domination is the goal, then it’s a misguided one.
However, if Komen can demonstrate that it provides the best solution to the problem it’s dealing with, I’m all for their beating out all other anti-cancer organizations (that being pro-health rather than anti-disease may be a more positive approach is a whole another issue). If collaboration would achieve best results, let’s see it, if they can do it by themselves, all the power to them.
In other words, I see nothing wrong with competition among cause organizations if it’s with the cause in mind. In fact, I’d say the spirit of why-can’t-we-just-get-along may be hurting the causes nonprofits address. Competition in the marketplace of ideas and solutions to social and environmental problems generates innovation that’s needed to deal with these large issues.
Nonprofit is a tax designation, not a license for a different level of ethics. Dan Pallotta has my back here. Nonprofits have a responsibility to their supporters, beneficiaries, and society at large, but removing them from the market economy to some other space is more harmful than beneficial.
Finally, if a nonprofit can raise the support it needs by acting like a traditional brand, it should. In fact, once again Dan Pallotta also argues, nonprofits must act more like businesses to increase their share of wallet!
Keep raising the tough questions!
Cheers! My reply echoes yours but less elegantly. To the comment that nonprofits must act more like businesses, I always ask: which businesses? Non-profit does not mean not profitable — it’s just means that different shareholders get the profits.
Great points, Peter.
I, too, am a big fan of Pallotta’s work and I definitely agree that NPOs should harness the tools of capitalism to their very benefit but I still contend that this doesn’t change the fact that their mission, at the end of the day, is to work themselves out of a job by the eradication of breast cancer.
Does this mean they must collaborate with others in their space without regard to the quality of their programs? Absolutely not. They have a standard to maintain and it only makes sense to partner with the very best and brightest to accomplish their goals and objectives.
However, I disagree that there shouldn’t be a different ethical standard for an organization whose mission is cause versus product or service. If their mission truly is in service of the cause, than by virtue of that mission, it’s their obligation to serve the cause above all else and that means collaboration in the very large majority of cases. I dispute the argument that Komen can do EVERYTHING better than ANYONE else and contend that certainly there is room for partnership to increase their reach and mission.
Case in point is the whole KFC issue. The reason White offered for partnering with KFC is that they were able to reach more “white space” where Komen hasn’t traditionally had a presence. Sorry, but it’s impossible to be the best at absolutely everything. I guess my point is that Komen should recognize this and leverage their power and presence for extended good.
As an aside, I also think large companies are obligated in the same way, as do the vast majority of consumers, which is why we’re seeing such a movement toward CSR efforts (and cause marketing). So, per Pallotta’s argument, I technically AM holding the NPOs to a similar standard.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I suspect we could have a lively discussion!
Branding is a technology that works, and there’s nothing generally objectionable about it. Brands tend to develop as ways to generate trust by building a reputation. And in the charitable sector, trust is an organization’s main asset. So I suspect branding is even more crucial there than it is for organizations selling goods & services.
As for competition, I suspect it’s inevitable to see other charities as competitors. After all, there’s a finite amount of money to be squeezed out of donors. Even if we admit that it would be good (and possible) to get people to donate more over all, the fact remains that a dollar donated to one charity is a dollar not given to another charity. Of course, given charities’ avowed commitment to the public good, we might reasonably argue that there are stricter limits on the *means* they can use in competitively pursuing their objectives.
Thanks for the comment, Chris, and I agree that branding is probably more important for NPOs than traditional brands. Just heard a great quote from Kurt Aschermann of Charity Partners last week at the Cause Marketing Forum that said, “If you have a choice between money and awareness, take the awareness, hands down.” Solid brand awareness is what leads to sustainable funding in the long term.
And of course donor dollars are limited and I can definitely see wanting to establish trust and credibility among “competing” organizations.
But isn’t there a place for Komen to identify what they do well and what they don’t, then leverage their power and influence to bring other organizations into the fold in the name of the cause? Happens all the time in the private sector. They’re called strategic partnerships and are considered smart corporate strategy. As savvy as Komen is, I guess I’m surprised they choose to see the competitive aspect over the strategic aspect.
I appreciate the post and respond without any cause marketing expertise (oh, be gentle in response please!). I have been a front-line major, principal, corporate/foundation, and annual fund fundraiser, and I have performed many of these roles at one of the top medical research universities in the country (including its top-ranked cancer research center). I see a clear distinction between a fundraising mission and a service program mission – they are not the same thing, and they are measured by different standards. Also, I’ve seen problems, first-hand sadly, with ethical and unethical fundraising methodology. So these are the two measures against which I consider the KFC and the market growth of Komen.
As a board member for a medical charity, I am always dismayed to hear misleading comments made by another charity that serves to eradicate the same illness that does my charity. I am faced with this conflict — do I draw potential donors’ and sponsors’ attention to the source of those misleading statements when they repeat them to me, or correct them at all and discredit the other charity passively? Does either response serve to sink us all in a mire of unsportsmanlike competition? If I don’t rebuff the misleading statements, will the donors and sponsors give support to this other organization because it tells a compelling, albeit misleading, story? My first question is: is Komen displacing other organizations because it is dishonest? If Komen is hurting other orgs or misleading the public and not achieving its mission, then boo on Komen. But that’s not what I’m hearing here. There is a dissatisfaction about the partnership with KFC because of its products, but Komen hasn’t said that the health correlation isn’t true. It says that it is a market-opener.
So, if one accepts that Komen is an ethical player, is Komen a marketing machine and, by that measure, a destructive force in the field? I think Komen is meeting its mission and is raising a ton of money for research and grassroots care and programs. This is its primary mission. My secretary, a breast cancer survivor, is a self-described grassroots organizer because she has been raising money in the Komen walk for 10 years. She is a grassroots fundraiser, not a grassroots service programmer. [as a disclosure, know that as a survivor of a different type, I am not working and have not in the past worked with or for Komen nor participated in its walks -- I do not consider myself a grassroots fundraiser or user of its grassroots programs.]
I cannot emphasize enough that the research dollar donations at the Komen-level are critical to support top level medical research. THIS LEVEL OF GIVING IS CRITICAL. I have seen the gift income reports for quite a few different organizations with research missions, and the donor segments that can do what Komen’s done are far too few, sadly.
As hard as grassroots organizations try, they do not fill the fundraising “white space” at the rate Komen can. Please don’t misunderstand me: I absolutely want grassroots efforts to succeed. I am active as a grassroots health fundraiser myself. Collectively, grassroots fundraising all adds up to major support with, quite frankly, a likely higher level of donor retention.
But Komen’s fundraising success in this economy has become really important. Let’s not lose perspective about the growth of medical and research costs — they are escalating at a rate faster than almost all other industry sectors. In this way, Komen does provide some leadership, to expand donor geo-markets faster than grassroots fundraisers can. In a class A market, Komen is, quite literally, competing for donor and sponsor attention from Avon and other medical charities; the market can become a zero sum game with a hope that all float upwards. In a class C or D market, however, some awareness and discussion is better than no discussion, and Komen sees this clearly. Awareness and discussion leads to charitable support.
Komen are winners in the fundraising game, no doubt. But the gap I’m hearing is the translation into support of service programming in all markets. When one reads Komen’s annual reports, service programming is primarily coming from improved service and treatment methodologies at medical centers, not by establishing service centers in communities.
Here’s where I’d like to see some additional discussion: how well does, or will, Komen take the attention gained in the smaller markets with fewer medical centers and turn it into dollars and program action, and what are the measurables? How does it use its major market strengths and build malleable distributed service programming for grassroots’ use?
Thanks so much for your comment, Jana, you’re obviously a seasoned pro in this arena and make some great distinctions between fundraising and service programming, which actually leads into my very point.
I certainly agree that just because Komen operates in the “Breast Cancer” arena, they are not obligated to partner, promote or affirm “competing” organizations. They have a standard to uphold, just like anyone else.
My argument has more to do with leveraging strategic partnerships to promote the cause effort and fill in the spaces that Komen can’t/doesn’t currently address. Your comment points out so many of these service-focused areas. I have to believe that there are non-profit organizations out there besides Komen doing good work toward a similar end. Instead of quashing these organizations, it seems to make more sense to me to find out ways to work together to round out the mission, if you will (more on this in both of my comment responses above).
I so appreciate you lending such great points to this discussion – you’ve really given me more to think about and information I didn’t have previously. Thank you!
Megan,
Very important post in this conversation about Komen and KFC. While so much attention has been focused on the (lack of) synergy between those two brands, not so much has been directed at what Komen’s competitive nature in general.
I have read some of the critiques of this post and people are saying that competition amongst similar nonprofits is a good thing. I agree with this completely. The market should decide who’s the best stewards of donors’ money.
But just like no company should get too big (ie, be a monopoly), no nonprofit should either, for the exact same reasons. I’m not saying Komen is a monopoly in the dictionary definition of the word, nor do I know what their market share is, or even how to calculate it.
As a proxy, though, I did go to Charity Navigator and search for “breast cancer” in the advanced search, with the filter “expenses above $13.5M”. 8 nonprofits come up, and among them only 3 are expressly dedicated to breast cancer. One has $16M in revenue, the other has $34M. Obviously big money.
But SGK brings in $305M!
So SGK makes 10 times it’s largest “competitor”. Is it a monopoly? Not for me to decide. But does the ethic of competition really drive Komen to innovate, find creative solutions, to optimize, to be the most efficient, etc? Probably not.
Now, perhaps they do that because they’re good people and they should be doing it for the cause of breast cancer. But it’s not because there’s competition.
And so I agree with your assessment completely – they should do more to partner with others rather than destroy them. In the end, it’s got to be better for everyone.
Hey, great data that paints a nice comparison and overview of Komen’s market share, Ian, thanks so much!
Hadn’t thought about it before the way you put it, but I agree – being huge in comparison to your closest “competitor” probably doesn’t make you overly innovative or creative.
Guess only time will tell what happens to a non-profit “monopoly” (for lack of a better term). Are they SO far ahead that they never reach outside their pink castle walls to converse with the rest of the market, or does someone else enter the picture that forces their hand?
Appreciate your thoughts!
Megan,
Excellent review of Karen White’s talk at CMF10 and I applaud you for bringing up a point that wasn’t relevant to what I discussed in my piece!
I’ve read all the comments here and I’m in agreement with most that non-profits are a business just like any for-profit and work best when run that way.
One thing I think those who commented have missed, and I’m not sure everyone in the audience at CMF caught it either, is that when Karen talked about how Komen had inadvertently cluttered the pink space and their plan to “take it back” she was speaking about affiliate organizations that they themselves fund and support. This means that even though they see the services of those organizations as valuable to the breast cancer community (if they didn’t, why fund them?)they feel a need to compete against them. Not just compete, but WIN, which their $305M raised/year can most certainly accomplish.
As you pointed out in response the one comment, it’s impossible to be the best at everything all the time. Organizations like Be Bright Pink and Young Survivors Coalition (partner orgs of Komen that Karen included in the visuals on her presentation)offer programs and services that Komen doesn’t….do they really want to dominate organizations they helped grow and debase their ability to help those who need it? From her speech I can only say yes – that is their intention.
When you are a non-profit your highest missive is your cause community…the people you seek to serve and whose lives you seek to improve. Drowning out the “competition” does not achieve that unless you can be everywhere all the time doing everything. Komen can’t achieve that…no one non-profit (or for-profit for that matter) can.
Thank you again for such a thoughtful and provocative piece, Megan – it was so fantastic to meet you in person at CMF!
Thanks so much for the distinction on Komen’s Affiliate partners, Estrella – I was one of the ones that missed that subtle but important relationship. And now, in pondering the “competition” aspect in light of this information, it makes even less sense to me. Perhaps Komen felt they made a mistake in sharing the pink, thereby diluting their own brand.
And, to the point in your blog post, what is the lesson learned here? I think we miss out on so much by not knowing what Komen would’ve done differently if given a choice to have a “do over”.
I still contend that, with all the marketing smarts behind Komen, there must be a better way to be inclusive AND maintain the integrity and awareness of the Komen brand.
So appreciate your comment and likewise – loved meeting you at CMF10!
Just a quick observation regarding what Komen so politely refers to as “white space.” Is the best way for Komen to reach out in these communities through fried chicken? I find this argument fails in any number of ways. I’m making an educated guess that most of the “white space” Komen refers to is populated by minorities and the poor (economically challenged if you prefer).
It would have taken too much time and money to do actual outreach in all those communities so they took a short-cut through the KFC drive-thru. For them to imply this was anything but a money decision is disengenuous.
Thanks for your comment, John, appreciate your thoughts. Love the visual of the drive-through short cut – you nailed it.
Megan,
What a thoughtful and important post! And the comments have been a great extension of the conversation.
I am a nonprofit professional. I think that what this entire scenario makes very clear is that the nonprofit community needs a significant readjustment of how they function. I do agree that nonprofit organizations need to acquire some aspects of the business community, especially when it comes to budgeting. However, I do NOT agree that competition in the nonprofit community is a good thing. Now, I am coming at this without having heard the session at the Cause Marketing Forum and I am not totally up to speed on Komen and all of the other organizations dealing with breast cancer. But I do know that this attitude of beating out the other organizations is completely antithetical to why nonprofits are on the planet. Estrella mentioned this in her comment about their highest missive being their cause community. If Komen (and every other nonprofit) truly had that in mind, then why would it be so important to them to defeat the competition? Why not see who is doing what and make sure that every organization receives the funding it needs to do its important work. Two organizations working together add up to more than the sum of the parts. Two organizations doing collaborative fundraising raise more money than the combined total when each raises money alone.
So as successful as Komen has been, I have to wonder if they truly embraced collaboration, what might they have been able to accomplish? Perhaps they would NOT have partnered with KFC, or maybe at least used a healthier alternative to fried chicken. And perhaps their combined creative juices might have come up with a method to bring in even more money and to build multiple organizations in the process. (Not to mention to actually include meaningful learning and relationship building through what they did.)
At some point, we need to raise our collective voices to provide opposition to all of these competitions for dollars as well…but that is for another post…
Thanks everyone…thought provoking conversation.
Thanks, Heidi! I appreciate you posting your thoughts as a representative of the non-profit community. I think the more we all discuss and share and think, the better the eventual outcomes will be (so speaketh the idealist in me).
Nice posts! People are definitely hot about BC. It feels like the CM arena is going through some growing pains and how CM is to manifest itself is still up to the players. I’m very impressed with the well thought out replies.