“ We’d like to politely ask that the conversation on this page focus on the core

mission of this community, which is to cure breast cancer. We welcome all

thoughts, ideas and observations, but it's critical that we not lose sight of what

we're all fighting for – a world without breast cancer. Thank you.”

- A post from Susan G. Komen’s Facebook page

The voice that mattered:

Susan G. Komen Social Media Backlash – Feb 2012

01-Jan-2012 01-Feb-2012 01-Mar-2012 01-Apr-2012Feb 2012 Mar 2012 Apr 2012 Jan 2012

Contents

Introduction

Best practises that Susan G. Komen could have employed

What Susan G. Komen had done?

Why was this backlash critical for Susan G. Komen?

Conclusion

Bonus read: FB posts with ‘hyperlinks’ are popular

Annexure: Social Media PR Crisis Management

o Pre-crisis preparation

o Crisis management

Introduction

The best methodology to handle a PR crisis in social media starts with anticipating it. Preparing a

robust framework to handle the crisis helps reduce the negative impact on the brand image, if not

nullify it.

It is even possible to ascertain few crises, in which the affected organizations had used the

circumstance to their advantage and created positive buzz around the brand.

The objective of this document is to examine the social media backlash experienced by Susan G.

Komen in February 2012 following the revision of its grants standards.

This document is also intended to identify the best practices to follow during a social media PR crisis

like what Susan G. Komen had encountered, study the pros and cons of the approach taken and to

outline recommendations.

A framework to handle Social media PR crisis with thorough preparation is explained in Annexure.

Back to Contents

Best practices that Susan G. Komen could have employed

Based on the social media backlash unfolded in February 2012, we establish some pointers that we

expect Susan G. Komen had implemented during the crisis:

Every social media related activity during the crisis was weighed before execution

Attempted to maximise the number & frequency of responses in social media

Utilized the help of influential social media supporters of Susan G. Komen

Broadcasted an interview by Nancy Brinker, Karen Handel or other key employees of Susan

G Komen

Allowed the comments even if they contained strong opinion against Susan G Komen

If a comment published by an author was removed, the author was notified of the reason

behind the removal

Posted constant updates to communicate that Susan G Komen was listening to the opinions

in social media

Thanked the supporters in social media in between and after the backlash

The social media employees or the agency had documented the process for Susan G. Komen

We expect Susan G Komen had not done the following during the crisis:

Asked users to restrict what they post about the crisis

Deleted the comments with opposite opinions (unless it has content / language unsuitable

for public viewing, such as profanity)

Back to Contents

What Susan G. Komen had done?

Since we try to understand the event months after it happened, we start with and limit the focus of

this document to the ‘official’ Facebook page of Susan G. Komen. Findings below:

Published 9 posts (37% of the posts in February) pertaining to this issue – Good

The first five posts published from 1st Feb through 3rd Feb, had highlighted the mission of

Susan G. Komen and justified the decision

o A post recognizing or mentioning the large number of comments against the

decision, would have imparted a feel of ‘being listened to’ among the detractors

Susan G. Komen had published the link of Nancy G. Brinker’s video interview – Good

o An exclusive interview for the social media audience, the major contributors of the

backlash could have been considered to arrest the spread of negative reaction

Susan G. Komen had published the resignation of Karen Handel. The social media audience

were updated on the developments – Good

Susan G. Komen had accepted the mistakes in handling the decisions in its 7th comment on

the issue, in the 7th day of the backlash

The public were thanked in the 8th post of the issue for raising their concerns – Good

o This could have been done in the middle of the crisis rather than in the end

o A thank you note for the concerns would have only helped with the crisis

From the visitors perspective, the ninth and the last post of this backlash suggested users to

not continue with the discussion on the issue:

We’d like to politely ask that the conversation on this page focus on the core

mission of this community, which is to cure breast cancer. We welcome all

thoughts, ideas and observations, but it's critical that we not lose sight of

what we're all fighting for – a world without breast cancer. Thank you.

This comment at the end of the backlash could have possibly extended the crisis (though

fortunately for Susan G. Komen, the impact was considerably lesser).

Users reacted strongly to the post. Few responses to this post are furnished below:

Komen, you can run, but you can't hide. This conversation isn't going to go away

soon, people will not be duped again – Ralphie Gogo

We are focusing our conversation on the core issue which is you have lost your way and have failed the cause and your sister. The truth is out and it hurts. This is what happens to greedy individuals that take advantage of others. You reap what you sow – Matt Leising

Amazing that you are attempting to shut off the conversation rather than answering the myriad of questions posed on this board. Shame on you! – Isadora Garcia

Back to Contents

Why was this backlash critical for Susan G. Komen?

Because of a 6 times increase in public conversation during the crisis

Because 93% of the comments published by users in February were about this issue

Because, the issue related posts received an average of 3820 comments per post, whereas

the non-issue related posts published throughout Q1 2012 had received an average of 178

comments per post

18955

36920

2666 69%

93%

Likes Comments Shares

Facebook page metrics - Feb 2012

Feb-2012

Issue Related

Back to Contents

Conclusion

The boundary of discussion about a brand gets thinner with the increasing adoption of social media

among the users. With this trend comes the challenge of handling scenarios in which the public

disagree with a brand spontaneously in unprecedented volume.

Susan G. Komen had to handle one such crisis in February 2012. The insights from that experience

and creating a social media framework to handle such crisis in future will not only help reduce the

negative impact on the corporate image but also can help gain new supporters.

Back to Contents

Bonus Read: Posts with ‘hyperlink’ are popular

From our observation of the posts published by Susan G. Komen in Facebook, we identify

that posts with a hyperlink to an article or news, had received maximum ‘comments’ and

‘shares’

o Suggests that Susan G. Komen’s Facebook audience do like referred to an article of

interest than other post types

o All the posts published in Q1 2012 (excluding the issue specific posts) were analysed

to arrive at a fair reading

On average, posts with an image had received maximum Facebook ‘Likes’

Likes

Comments

Shares

0

10K

20K

30K

40K

0

10K

20K

30K

40K

0

10K

20K

30K

40K

Total User Reactions to Admin posts - Q1 2012

Jan 2012 Feb 2012 Mar 2012

Comment Contains Average 'Likes' Average 'Comments' Average 'Shares'

Text (only) 495 70 25

Link 354 222 62

Image 627 136 55

Video 231 81 49

Back to Contents

Annexure: Social Media PR Crisis Management

This section outlines the stages involved in handling a social media PR crisis more efficiently:

Pre-crisis Preparation Formulate Crisis management team and protocol:

o The team might comprise of following members:

In-house social media analysts

Social media agencies

Key employees with decision making authority

Key employees who have a public face

Experts from various departments of the organization

o The protocol can comprise the following:

Defined responsibilities for every team member during the PR crisis

Identify owner of the Social media PR crisis management process

Access levels of the team members to various resources (e.g.- corporate

Facebook page and twitter ID)

Timeframe within which the Team should meet once a crisis breaks out

Create and maintain database of influential authors

o Influential authors are not necessarily the authors who publish only positive

comments

They can be experts in the field of organization and have a wide following in

social media

They can also be the people who interact with the official social media

channels more frequently than others

Create pre-set threshold levels and alerts to proactively identify a social media PR crisis

o This threshold can be a spike in discussion volume for specific keywords, a sudden

increase in negative sentiment etc.

o Thresholds can vary between different media types and monitored concurrently i.e.

a threshold level set for Facebook need not be the same for Twitter or official forum

This also helps zero on the website(s) where the crisis requires immediate

attention than the other sources

One or more threshold exceeds: Crisis breaks out

Crisis Management 1. Convene Crisis Management Team meeting as soon as the crisis breaks out. Discussion

points might include:

o Assessment of crisis in terms of volume of comments and potential impact

o Identification of channels / websites that require immediate attention

o Action plan comprising the type of comments to be responded, time limit for

response, frequency etc.

o Posting of regular contents and the frequency amidst the crisis

2. Deploy staff (in-house or agency) to respond to the comments

o A real time or more quicker the response, the better

o Maximum responses to comments will not only help communicate that the brand

cares for their users’ opinions, but it also could repair the brand image among

maximum users and their contacts in social media

3. Consider publishing an address by the public face of the company

4. Utilize influencers – both supporting and detracting influencers to spread positive word on

the company

o This can be done by prioritizing the response to comments published by influencers

(already identified and tracked in a database)

o The response to the influencers has potential for maximum reach among the user

base

5. Do not ask the users to stop publishing negative comments.

o Best practise is to consider it an opportunity to provide answers

6. Transparency is advocated on any assurances given to the public during a Social media PR

crisis and frequent updates can be provided on the same

7. Posting of regular contents and the frequency amidst the crisis can be decided by the Crisis

management team plausible

8. Thank both the supporters and detractors throughout and at end of the crisis for providing

an opportunity to understand the users

o Best done by the public face of the company

9. Document the entire process for case studies and further learning

Back to Contents