The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation seems to be in a panicky self-destructive spiral. They shot themselves in the foot last year with their defunding of Planned Parenthood, and dishonest statements about it. When people rose up in anger, Komen’s reversal helped a little, but now the public was ready to listen to bad things about Komen. A lot of people had bad things to say, things they’d been trying to talk about for a while.

The amazing thing about shooting yourself in the foot is that typically, OMG! YOU HAVE ANOTHER FOOT! Don’t give up! Shoot the other one!

In 2010 Komen was listed as one of the most-trusted non-profits in the U.S. They had a good public image, although people in the non-profit world knew how viciously they attacked anyone who dared to use the words ‘for the Cure” for anything. (They spent a million a year on this.) Others criticized their relentless marketing, hooking up with anyone who wanted a feel-good charity partner, thus providing “pinkwashing” to companies that might be criticized on health grounds. And some malcontents were just fed up with the loathsome pink ribbons.

But most people thought Komen fought breast cancer in a big way, and that’s good.

Then in January 2012, Komen bungled. They cut off grants for breast exams and mammography referrals at Planned Parenthood affiliates. The flimsy excuse was that a Republican congressman was investigating Planned Parenthood, and Komen didn’t want to deal with organizations being investigated. A list of organizations that consisted only of Planned Parenthood.

People – especially women – were outraged. The general view was that Komen was doing this due to right-wing anti-abortion activism both inside and outside the organization. Komen had recently hired Karen Handel as VP of Public Affairs. Handel is a former Republican politician, on record as being opposed to Planned Parenthood. Komen founder and director Nancy Brinker (a longtime Republican supporter) made a video explaining that it wasn’t like that at all, then withdrew it.

After four devastating days of unconvincing denials, and several resignations including Handel’s, Komen reversed the Planned Parenthood decision, but a lot of damage had been done. The word was out about the pinkwashing, the attacks on lesser charities, and hey, the withdrawal of funding for breast cancer research using embryonic stem cells, and hey hey, the rather small percentage of Komen’s budget that actually went to research.

24%? When CharityWatch suggests at least 60%?

The number of people participating in Komen fundraisers went way down. Later that year a documentary, Pink Ribbons (based on a book of the same name), came out, taking a hard look at Komen’s activities.

So the image of an organization headed by a grieving sister determined to fight for the health of all women was changing to the image of a tacky, tyrannical money machine with a stream of lies dropping from its corporate lips.

Komen’s most recent how-can-we-make-it-worse step was to commission a survey on how people feel about them. One of the questions was “Do you think Susan G. Komen for the Cure has sufficiently apologized about the situation?” (The “situation”? If you didn’t mention your actions, it wasn’t an apology.) Reporter Laura Basset wrote, “one section of the Komen survey asks participants whether they feel that the organization still owes them an apology, and then lists a series of potential apologies to test whether or not they are effective. The options range from deeply apologetic to defensive and deflective of blame.”

Alas, I haven’t been able to find a source for the complete survey, and see if there really are any good apologies.  (Or any mention of percentages.)

Two screen shots that have been circulated show defensive quasi-apologies.

One reads “We have made mistakes, but political elements on the right and left have sought to use our missteps to advance their own political agendas. As a result, the broader mission of the organization to eradicate breast cancer and the millions of current and future beneficiaries are the true victims. As we re-focus on our core mission, the political opportunism should stop so that together we can find a cure for breast cancer.”

“We have made mistakes” is not an apology. And BAD POLITICAL PEOPLE USED US LIKE KLEENEX is a poor defense when those mistakes were political maneuvering. Trotting out the “true victims” Komen would cure if the BAD PEOPLE would just shut up is tasteless.

Another reads “Susan G. Komen for the Cure was founded as a promise from one sister to another who was dying of breast cancer. The promise was to end breast cancer. We have made mistakes in recent days that we regret. But the promise made to Susan Komen 30 years ago endures, and we will continue working to fulfill it.”

Still bad. Sticking in “regret” isn’t good enough.

Maybe some of the other “apologies” in the survey were better. Maybe they got more honest in their questions. “Say, what would it take to make you think we were speaking from the heart? Does the promise to the dying sister work for you here? Do we really have to grovel, or can we just blame mean girls?” Maybe.

To be seen test-marketing apologies is dumb. It makes any apology you might make later seem insincere, just a collection of phrases that tested well.

(Anyway, it never works for me. I’ll ask, “Suppose I said ‘Sorry I ate your lunch, but I forgot to bring mine.’ Would you be more or less likely to lend me a few bucks for Friday pizza? Oh huh. Well, what if I said ‘Sorry I ate your lunch, but I’m pre-diabetic and my blood sugar was crashing.’ No? What about ‘Sorry I ate your lunch, but I didn’t know it was yours, and Aidan and Rowena said I could have it, and then they were all like OH YOU’RE IN BIG TROUBLE NOW and I cried’? Does that work for you?” It never does. The longer I talk, the more they hate me. Are you paying attention, Komen?)

To look sincere, it helps to be sincere, or at least to hire someone sincere to work with you. Maybe they should have hired some medical ethicists to help them out, not a PR firm.

They could say, “We lost sight of the fact that millions of people support us as a nonpartisan attack on breast cancer. By indulging in partisan political maneuvering, we betrayed their trust. We also failed to be honest and transparent about our actions.

“That was wrong. We are very sorry, and we won’t do it again.

“We have rededicated ourselves to the nonpartisan effort to fight breast cancer. We have created a new, nonpartisan, scientific and medical advisory body to advise what research and medical care we should fund to attack breast cancer most effectively.

“We promise increased transparency in these decisions. We will also be more selective in choosing corporate partners in line with our mission. And we are increasing the percentage of our income that goes to research from 24% to 60%.”

Would that be so hard?