Komen Versus Planned Parenthood
Officially The Agitator is a blog about nonprofit fundraising and communications.
So I’m recommending you read Getting Attention’s Nancy Schwartz’s excellent analysis of the Komen vs. Planned Parenthood debacle from the perspective of what makes for effective (and ineffective communications) and smart fundraising (on Planned Parenthood’s part) in response to threat.
Tom
P.S. Stuff ’em Planned Parenthood!
3 responses to “Komen Versus Planned Parenthood”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Thanks so much for raising this. Yes, capturing donor information can be helpful for stewardship like newsletters, thank-you letters, impact updates. But how you ask matters. Forcing full data capture introduces friction that can significantly depress conversion, many donors may simply abandon the process. Beyond the friction itself, required fields also shift the emotional experience […]
Read Full Answer
Unlike holidays that everyone already knows, Giving Tuesday is a created event. Many donors recognize the name but not the exact timing, so referencing it becomes a helpful cue. It serves as a reminder and taps into social norm activation (“everyone’s giving today”), which boosts response. However, we still want it paired with the mission, […]
Read Full Answer
When a subject line leads with the match (“Your gift matched!”), it risks triggering market-norm thinking: the sense that giving is a financial transaction rather than an act rooted in values, identity, and care. This shift reduces intrinsic motivation and, over time, can weaken donor satisfaction and long-term engagement. It also makes the email indistinguishable […]
Read Full Answer
There’s no evidence that QR codes suppress mid-value giving; all available research suggests they either help or have no negative effect. In fact, behavioral and usability research consistently shows the opposite: reducing friction at any point in the donation process increases completion rates and total response. And that has nothing to do with capacity and […]
Read Full Answer
What you’re experiencing is very common. Resistance often isn’t about capability, but about motivation quality. If board members feel pushed into fundraising, that triggers controlled motivation (low quality motivation) i.e. obligation, guilt, or fear of judgment, which often results in avoidance. Instead, we need to create conditions for volitional motivation (high quality motivation) by satisfying […]
Read Full Answer
That’s a really thoughtful question, and you’re not the first to raise it. Many of our clients have been cautious about placing the ask at the very end. To address their concern, we’ve tested both approaches, and the results are clear: when the ask comes last, even if that means it appears on the second […]
Read Full Answer
Hey Tom, do you remember when Planned Parenthood affiliates in seven or eight states accepted donations restricted for aborting black children?
Do you consider that “effective” fundraising?
Now, please remind me again: Does Planned Parenthood perform mammograms?
Tom,
I am surprised. Not that you would be pro or anit PP, or pro or anti Komen, but that you would pass along this article as excellent analysis.
I will agree that from a grassroots perspective & engaging their followers, yes, PP has done well with that. And yes, Komen partnering with KFC & suing others for the use of “cure” were bad moves. And yes, those that support this move (even if they don’t understand the WHY of the move) have been WAY to quiet. All that said, there are some holes in the analysis….
Here are my problems with this article:
1) Yes, the news broke Tuesday, but PP was informed in December of this change to the application guidelines, so the “immediate response” was 6 weeks later. (Regardless of whether or not you agree with the change, the Komen FOUNDATION is a foundation that has the right to change their funding guidelines. We as fundraisers deal with foundations that do this all the time, but more on that later). So if it was so devastating to PP, why didn’t they break the news in December?
2) The Penn State Grant that Schwartz’s references is to the Hershey Medical Center (a part of Penn State, but I will admit I don’t know to what extent). That grant was a 5 year grant made before the change in the application guidelines (& by my guess before the investigation & scandal at Penn State broke). This multi-year grant, much like the multi-year grants to PP, are being paid out as awarded. From what I have read, most of Komen’s grants to PP will end on March 31st of this year, but some are multi-year going into next year, and at least one that I have heard of goes into 2015. Since these grants were already awarded, they will be honored, it is just that PP cannot apply for any NEW grants at this time. (Again, something we as fundraisers deal with from time to time)
3) Komen is still funding breast health screenings for ALL women, they are just not sending the money to PP clinics. In the Austin area alone, TEN other organizations receive funding from Komen under this program. There are other low-income, under-insured, & uninsured clinics out there, they are just not as commonly known as PP. (Shame on them for not marketing themselves better)
4) From a Nonprofit Management standpoint, Komen is trying to give their donors the most bang for the their buck by granting money to those clinics/organizations that preform mammograms. PP does not provide this service. They provide manual breast exams and then refer to other clinics for mammograms if necessary. Isn’t this what we would like ALL nonprofits to do? Use the money donated to them to work on their mission? If any of us give to Komen to help rid this world of breast cancer, they are still doing that. If you give to Komen to fund money to PP, then why are you giving to Komen? It is our right as charitable givers to decide where OUR charitable dollars go, and it is a foundations right to set guidelines to make our dollars given have the most impact. Aren’t we always saying that we should not forgo mission to appease donors? Shouldn’t we stick to our mission & cause and help our donors see WHY we are allocating funds one way & not the other? I will agree that Komen did not do a great job of explaining to their donors why they made the change.
5) Maybe this approach works for PP (I doubt it) but even when a foundation turns down one of my organization’s proposals or gives us new funding guidelines, my organization does not publicly bad mouth that foundation. Seems to me that would make it very hard to get funding from them in the future.
My two cents, for what they are worth (maybe a half a cent?).
Dear Debra,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.
My issue with Komen is their lack of transparency, honesty and reliability. They’ve been backpedaling wildly, changing their story and that to me says there’s something fishy going on.
The fact that they’re hemorrhaging leadership and affiliate EDs tells me that others inside Komen feel just the same way.
Regards,
Nancy