Please Help!!!

CASE 5-2 Susan G. Komen for the Cure: Can This Relationship Be Saved? Written by Mary Anne Doty, Texas A&M University- Commerce On January 31, 2012, news reports circulated that Susan G. Komen for the Cure had decided to stop fund- ing clinical breast exams through a grant to Planned Parenthood. Initially, Komen cited the congressional investigation of Rep. Cliff Stearns, a conservative leg. islator who has pushed for abortion restrictions, as the reason for the change in policy barring grants to groups under government investigation. This decision had been made quietly in late November 2011, with notification to Planned Parenthood in mid-December. As the story broke, Komen found itself in the middle of a contro- versy. Overnight the organization faced severe criticism (and some praise) as the story mushroomed through television and newspapers, as well as Facebook, Twitter, and other social media.! Susan G. Komen for the Cure has become the largest source of nonprofit funds dedicated to the fight against breast cancer in the world, investing more than $1.9 billion since 1982. In April 2012 their web- site listed 124 corporate sponsors from varying orga- nizations, including product brands (American Air- lines, Ford Motor Company, Mohawk Flooring, and Yoplait Yogurt), retailers (Belk, Lowe's, Old Navy, Walgreens), and sports organizations (Dallas Cowboys, seve publicity Komen announce were in their decision and would stating the planned Parenthood prants. founder Nancy Brinker apologized and announce that in the future groups will only be disque from receiving grants when they are under investig ons that are criminal and conclusive in nature and participation in the are CASES Pethura had het bloed ws of the patrum Charity of fund for the actions transpare korting of with one of 70 Supporters with the ratio become volunteers Men for walled in honor of loved ones affected wordtkled out about the Komnen som up anterior sharing options throhial king wes Former Kompporten responded anger und die appointment many pressing feel betral While the Komen grants totaled only to in 2011. an outpouring of donations to Planned hoodied 3 million in three dans tocloding 10,000 sewdaon. As the lines were draws for ten of both organization, most chowe Panned hood be patie publicity also drew attention to any poctices that had not faced public scrutiny the complaints were: (1) the relatively small per of komen funds that go to medical research for dess than 10 (2) high salaries of the founder deben (founder Nancy Brinker is report $60.000 may (3) lange legales. ered from sing other charities defending the for the Crete their trademark and (4) making a political Gomes for the Care did not respond to al media prouincially whered many e punten komen omhed a strong disapproved of Paed Per day of the people who previously did be of their grants to ple place the funding not political This response was probably a case of online, le that angered those on both sides of the debe Planned Parenthood supporters claimed the worden was full of loopholes and not a strong reprodation of initial decision. Planned Parenthood opponents were gry that the decision was reversed and vowed not to be peet komen in the future. The slow response managed toaletea majority of the public Where the decision to defund Planned Pa hood's grant became public on February 1. DOLL umber of komen executives and employees ed protest, including medical adolu beard member, a health official, and the directo several large Komen chapters. After the mos wlon February 3, publie outery did not fide Karen Handel, senior vice president for pubilles received most of the blame for the initial decision for politicizing Komen policies by focusing on be tion politics rather than detecting and treating cancer. Handel, a former political candidate whole campaigned on an anto-Planned Parenthood platform resigoed on February 7." By Feliruary 21 ws stories reported ku hired a consulting firm to assess damage to their be mong supporters. The 20-minute survey the wording of various apologies and then the credibility of the Korea foundation des e, along with the credibility of other pabili Komeal problems continued into March when is resigned the meeti VP and de keting dicet well as the CEO of komeals City. As the organisation struded to ship with supporten, som kommende pod were substantially lower than from people dowed Susana It may take years to determine if be restored as spre N sponsors brand. The damage of these events affects employees be time for Komen to focus their strategy on researd and treatment (as implied by the trademark nam "...for the Cure") and save their education campaign in the form of poor morale, former supporters who are angered by Komen's initial decision and are not mollified by the reversal of that decision, corporate who are leery of future controversy, a public that views Susan G. Komen for the Cure as a tarnished organization, and disappointed anti-abortion groups who remain opposed to Komen. Moving forward, it may be time to reexamine their mission. When the organization was founded in 1982, breast cancer was often a death sentence for women (and a few men) because the prognosis was poor when cancer was detected in later stages. Komen raised awareness of breast cancer and spent millions of dollars on public education and breast cancer screening. By any mea sure, those efforts were a resounding success. It me for less informed segments. em versions of the truth. The only thing not in question was that Komen had detended its decision to no longer send a certain sum of money to Planned Parenthood. Everything else depends on perspective. In addition, each organization made mistakes in communicating its actions publicly. For this critical thinking challenge, answer each of the three questions below in a well-organized paragraph. Make sure you number each of your answers. 1. How did Komen and its supporters see the decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood? In other words, describe what Komen and its supporters believed were the reasons for taking this action. 2. How did Planned Parenthood and its supporters see the decision to stop funding their organization? In other words, describe what Planned Parenthood and its supporters believed were the reasons for the Komen organization taking this action. 3. What communication mistakes were made by each organization? Make sure you proofread your answers for clarity and correctness. NOTE: This assignment will be set up as a discussion. As with Discussion #1, you will not be able to view the initial postings of your classmates until 30 minutes after you have posted your initial response. You must also post comments on the recommendations of two of your classmates. However, since there is considerable reading for this assignment, you will have two weeks to complete it. . Your initial posting must be completed by no later than Friday, November 6. . Your responses to the postings of two classmates must be completed by no later than Monday, November 9. CASE 5-2 Susan G. Komen for the Cure: Can This Relationship Be Saved? Written by Mary Anne Doty, Texas A&M University- Commerce On January 31, 2012, news reports circulated that Susan G. Komen for the Cure had decided to stop fund- ing clinical breast exams through a grant to Planned Parenthood. Initially, Komen cited the congressional investigation of Rep. Cliff Stearns, a conservative leg. islator who has pushed for abortion restrictions, as the reason for the change in policy barring grants to groups under government investigation. This decision had been made quietly in late November 2011, with notification to Planned Parenthood in mid-December. As the story broke, Komen found itself in the middle of a contro- versy. Overnight the organization faced severe criticism (and some praise) as the story mushroomed through television and newspapers, as well as Facebook, Twitter, and other social media.! Susan G. Komen for the Cure has become the largest source of nonprofit funds dedicated to the fight against breast cancer in the world, investing more than $1.9 billion since 1982. In April 2012 their web- site listed 124 corporate sponsors from varying orga- nizations, including product brands (American Air- lines, Ford Motor Company, Mohawk Flooring, and Yoplait Yogurt), retailers (Belk, Lowe's, Old Navy, Walgreens), and sports organizations (Dallas Cowboys, seve publicity Komen announce were in their decision and would stating the planned Parenthood prants. founder Nancy Brinker apologized and announce that in the future groups will only be disque from receiving grants when they are under investig ons that are criminal and conclusive in nature and participation in the are CASES Pethura had het bloed ws of the patrum Charity of fund for the actions transpare korting of with one of 70 Supporters with the ratio become volunteers Men for walled in honor of loved ones affected wordtkled out about the Komnen som up anterior sharing options throhial king wes Former Kompporten responded anger und die appointment many pressing feel betral While the Komen grants totaled only to in 2011. an outpouring of donations to Planned hoodied 3 million in three dans tocloding 10,000 sewdaon. As the lines were draws for ten of both organization, most chowe Panned hood be patie publicity also drew attention to any poctices that had not faced public scrutiny the complaints were: (1) the relatively small per of komen funds that go to medical research for dess than 10 (2) high salaries of the founder deben (founder Nancy Brinker is report $60.000 may (3) lange legales. ered from sing other charities defending the for the Crete their trademark and (4) making a political Gomes for the Care did not respond to al media prouincially whered many e punten komen omhed a strong disapproved of Paed Per day of the people who previously did be of their grants to ple place the funding not political This response was probably a case of online, le that angered those on both sides of the debe Planned Parenthood supporters claimed the worden was full of loopholes and not a strong reprodation of initial decision. Planned Parenthood opponents were gry that the decision was reversed and vowed not to be peet komen in the future. The slow response managed toaletea majority of the public Where the decision to defund Planned Pa hood's grant became public on February 1. DOLL umber of komen executives and employees ed protest, including medical adolu beard member, a health official, and the directo several large Komen chapters. After the mos wlon February 3, publie outery did not fide Karen Handel, senior vice president for pubilles received most of the blame for the initial decision for politicizing Komen policies by focusing on be tion politics rather than detecting and treating cancer. Handel, a former political candidate whole campaigned on an anto-Planned Parenthood platform resigoed on February 7." By Feliruary 21 ws stories reported ku hired a consulting firm to assess damage to their be mong supporters. The 20-minute survey the wording of various apologies and then the credibility of the Korea foundation des e, along with the credibility of other pabili Komeal problems continued into March when is resigned the meeti VP and de keting dicet well as the CEO of komeals City. As the organisation struded to ship with supporten, som kommende pod were substantially lower than from people dowed Susana It may take years to determine if be restored as spre N sponsors brand. The damage of these events affects employees be time for Komen to focus their strategy on researd and treatment (as implied by the trademark nam "...for the Cure") and save their education campaign in the form of poor morale, former supporters who are angered by Komen's initial decision and are not mollified by the reversal of that decision, corporate who are leery of future controversy, a public that views Susan G. Komen for the Cure as a tarnished organization, and disappointed anti-abortion groups who remain opposed to Komen. Moving forward, it may be time to reexamine their mission. When the organization was founded in 1982, breast cancer was often a death sentence for women (and a few men) because the prognosis was poor when cancer was detected in later stages. Komen raised awareness of breast cancer and spent millions of dollars on public education and breast cancer screening. By any mea sure, those efforts were a resounding success. It me for less informed segments. em versions of the truth. The only thing not in question was that Komen had detended its decision to no longer send a certain sum of money to Planned Parenthood. Everything else depends on perspective. In addition, each organization made mistakes in communicating its actions publicly. For this critical thinking challenge, answer each of the three questions below in a well-organized paragraph. Make sure you number each of your answers. 1. How did Komen and its supporters see the decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood? In other words, describe what Komen and its supporters believed were the reasons for taking this action. 2. How did Planned Parenthood and its supporters see the decision to stop funding their organization? In other words, describe what Planned Parenthood and its supporters believed were the reasons for the Komen organization taking this action. 3. What communication mistakes were made by each organization? Make sure you proofread your answers for clarity and correctness. NOTE: This assignment will be set up as a discussion. As with Discussion #1, you will not be able to view the initial postings of your classmates until 30 minutes after you have posted your initial response. You must also post comments on the recommendations of two of your classmates. However, since there is considerable reading for this assignment, you will have two weeks to complete it. . Your initial posting must be completed by no later than Friday, November 6. . Your responses to the postings of two classmates must be completed by no later than Monday, November 9