Rosqueta cited the fissure that developed between the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organisation and many of its longtime supporters when Komen, a breast-cancer research and support organisation, stopped funding clinical breast exams and mammograms at Planned Parenthood, a women’s health organisation that also performs abortions.
Komen officials cited an internal policy against funding groups that are under investigation – Planned Parenthood was the subject of a Congressional inquiry at the time – when it halted its annual funding of around $600,000.
Although the decision was reversed just four days later, the backlash was swift and furious, with many of Komen’s supporters assuming the funding was cut in response to political pressure. In this case, Rosqueta says, donors who supported Komen likely supported the overall mission of improving women’s health, and they saw the funding decision as anathema to their goals.
“They had supporters who cared very much about the goals of the nonprofit, but who were turned off by what they viewed as a political move on the part of the organisation. For donors, just like any individual, [an incident like that] is a pause to reconsider support of an organisation when it becomes associated with a set of values and statements that you personally find inconsistent with your own values and statements.”
That personal connection makes it, in some cases, even easier to pick up one’s figurative toys and play in another sandbox. Wharton marketing professor Deborah Small notes that donors often can feel the same sense of accomplishment by simply switching their charitable aims. “Lots of organisations are asking for money all the time. Unlike Chick-fil-A, I don’t get any different consumption value if I give to the local food bank [versus to the Salvation Army],” she says.
The same isn’t necessarily true in the private sector, adds Reed, where consumers can find it easier to explain away their internal inconsistencies. “Few consumers are willing to express negative reactions,” he says. “When it comes to the inconsistency, they’ll say they don’t agree with a company, but they’re not willing to pay more for an alternative.
“Consumers are really good rationalisers. You’ll make up all kinds of different ways to get around it.”
‘Stay out of that stuff’
For Komen, the repercussions of its funding decision were quickly visible: participation in the charity’s multi-day fundraising run/walk event, the Komen Global Race for the Cure, was markedly down in several cities, including Washington, DC.
For the Salvation Army and Chick-fil-A, however, the link between their separate controversies and profits is less clear. The Salvation Army’s red kettle campaign is currently under way. The international organisation hasn’t released a status update on its progress, but local news reports indicate donations are behind pace in several areas, although it is impossible to determine how much of an effect, if any, the boycott is having.
Chick-fil-A got more of a positive bounce from its controversy, thanks in large part to a counter-protest spurred by conservative political leaders. On the so-called “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” held in August, supporters flocked to the business and gave some locations record-breaking sales.
As a corporate strategy, however, Reed says it is too dicey for businesses and nonprofits alike to risk decades of corporate identity on one off-the-cuff comment. “If I were counselling folks on things like this, I’d say stay out of that stuff,” he notes. “At the end of the day, there is too much potential downside to put your company, your brand, your equity at risk based on private beliefs. You can believe whatever you believe. No one wants to take those rights away from you. But you need not come out and make those kinds of statements.”
