The article continues:

… A lot of people have been writing that Komen didn’t have a communications strategy and that was their problem. Well that was one problem. Others include a complete lack of understanding of the Internet, how news spreads during a news cycle, and the temperature of progressive activists after a lot of backsliding on this issue specifically, and more generally with things learned from the ACORN fight. But the biggest issue is they completely changed their mission without even realizing it.

The mission departure

Komen For The Cure found innovative methods to extend awareness of their brand in a positive way... until this week's game-changing fumble.

There has been plenty of controversy from Komen to date ranging from accusations they are denying links to cancer because of donations they receive to suing smaller organizations for using “for the cure” in their marketing. But they’ve weathered it because they’ve remained focused on what is and should be a completely non-partisan cause – preventing, treating and curing breast cancer. They’ve attracted women and men of all political stripes and backgrounds to their cause. It was a safe place for corporations to support the cause. Komen’s board thought they were simply cutting off a grant, for what many believe to be ideological reasons driven by Karen Handel, but what they were really doing is changing their entire mission. By taking a side in the abortion debate they essentially decided: we only want to work with men and women on the anti-abortion side of the debate, cutting off at least 50% if not more of their support.

… The lesson for nonprofits here is you have to always bring strategic decisions back to your mission and your supporters. How would they perceive it? Mission statements aren’t something top of mind every day and they usually aren’t something we can rattle off in an elevator. But that’s why they exist, to guide you as things like this come up. ….

What’s the lesson for the National Geographic Society? Here’s our mission statement:

To inspire people to care about the planet.

But here’s what our “supporters” are seeing every day on television:

National Geographic hasn’t experienced a Komen-esque brand implosion yet. But we fear that our Society is gradually losing its brand halo as our mission gets hopelessly muddled:

Remember our idea that National Geographic should celebrate Earth Day by shutting down the Society’s TV channel and its website once a year on that special day (April 22)?

By turning off its digital spigot for 24 hours, National Geographic would demonstrate to the world — in a public and powerful way — that our Society’s mission really is to inspire people to care about the planet rather than to inspire people to care about pictures of the planet. (As we’ve argued before, photographs can add to the media fog that prevents us from seeing the world — and each other — clearly.)

Obviously, National Geographic hasn’t embraced our idea. But we still think it’s a worthy one, especially after listening to William Powers talk to Katie Couric about the benefits of pulling the digital plug:

Watch the whole interview here. (The clip above begins at 20:35.)

William Powers’ book — Hamlet’s Blackberry: A Practical Philosophy for Building a Good Life in the Digital Age — can be purchased here.

(Subscribe below)

Here at Society Matters, we already have:

• a website with traffic that continues to grow (per Google Analytics).
• an all-star team of advisers.
• an expanding catalog of live multimedia roadshows that we’ve been sharing with communities in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC. (After our presentation last night in Arlington, one gentleman in the audience said our talk was the best one he’d attended in five years; he then invited us to participate in a lecture series he manages. … Interested in bringing one of our presentations to your community? Please contact us for details.)
• a gradually expanding campaign to persuade John Fahey, Chairman & CEO of the National Geographic Society, to sit down with us for an extended chat. (See Dear John: Let’s Talk, at right.)
  AND
• … branded merchandise that one day we’ll get around to actually producing.  :-)

So this next step was almost inevitable, don’t you think?

Worth repeating: We won’t share your name or email address with anyone.

We’d be delighted — honored, really — if you’d subscribe. (You can unsubscribe at any time.) And to sweeten the deal, we’re including this extra-special bonus:

One lucky newsletter subscriber, whose name will be selected at random, will receive
a free one-year membership to the National Geographic Society,
which includes a one-year “subscription” to our Society’s official journal,
National Geographic.
(Technically, you don’t subscribe to the Magazine; rather, it’s a benefit of membership.)

Yes, our Society keeps losing members, but we firmly believe that our best days are still ahead.

Clay Shirky

“That’s the real message of PIPA and SOPA. [Legacy media companies have] called and they want us all back on the couch, just consuming. Not producing, not sharing. And we should say no.”

- Clay Shirky

“That’s the real message of PIPA and SOPA. [Legacy media companies have] called and they want us all back on the couch, just consuming. Not producing, not sharing. And we should say no.”

- Clay Shirky

If the National Geographic Channel hasn’t yet quenched your thirst for Hitler programs with…

Hitler and the Occult
Hitler’s Hidden Holocaust
Hitler’s Stealth Fighter
Hitler’s Hidden City
Hitler’s Lost Battleship
Making History: Hitler’s Death
Hitler: Rise and Fall
42 Ways to Kill Hitler
Apocalypse Hitler
… and many more …

… don’t worry: Six more Hitler shows are on their way.

Did Adolf Hitler die? Or did he just go into syndication?

_____
≡  photo of Adolf Hitler via HolocaustResearchProject.org 

Howard Owens, the new President of the National Geographic Channel, recently greenlit a TV movie based on the book Killing Lincoln, by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. According to The Hollywood Reporter:

Howard Owens

… As it happens, Owens walked in the door at Nat Geo with the project, which one of his former William Morris colleagues not only had had the rights to but also the interest of producers Tony and Ridley Scott. That the network and the project’s author share a corporate boss in News Corp is “totally fortuitous,” Owens told The Hollywood Reporter in an interview, adding that there will be fact checkers on this as there are on every project at the network.

Other genres Owens is eager to explore include politics. The desire is fitting not only because Nat Geo is based in Washington, DC, but also because Owens is the son of a former Senator. What such a push will entail he isn’t yet sure; though he insists the channel has no plans to take sides politically. “All I know,” he added, “is that we’re sitting in the middle of DC and it’s an election year and we’re not going to deny that.”

_____

The fundamental flaw in National Geographic’s “partnership” with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp is rapidly becoming too big to ignore. Specifically: Our Society seems to have no control over what News Corp produces using National Geographic’s (once) good name.

Perhaps the most alarming red flag is the testimony of people who have long admired the Society, but who now are telling the world that they feel “betrayed, heartbroken, and sick” by what this “partnership” is producing.

For example, here’s National Geographic News — which, as of this writing, is still controlled by our Society — sounding the alarm about the endangered bluefin tuna:

But here’s the National Geographic Channel — which is majority owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp — announcing a new reality series called Wicked Tuna, which transforms the killing of the endangered bluefin tuna into “intense and compelling” adventure television:

Save the bluefin! … Kill the bluefin! 

How can the National Geographic Society maintain any semblance of credibility while playing this game?

More to the point: How soon before lots of people begin connecting the dots the way Virginia Willis just did? A chef, cookbook author, and a longtime fan of National Geographic, Ms. Willis just posted Wicked Tuna: A Deal With the Devil. An excerpt:

“… To this day, I don’t read National Geographic magazines – I relish them. Each issue is a journey and exploration into a whole new world. National Geographic fulfilled its mission with me; it inspired me to care about the planet.

Virginia Willis

Yet, today I feel betrayed, heartbroken, and sick. The National Geographic Channel will debut a show this spring called “Wicked Tuna”, a reality series that follows the lives of tuna fisherman in Gloucester, Massachusetts…. 

It’s an absolute disgrace. It’s wicked in the true sense of the word, evil and morally wrong…. 

National Geographic is capitalizing on and exploiting the very species they have declared to be on the verge of extinction….

As a chef and food writer, I care about the food I prepare, the food I eat. I work to educate my students and readers about responsible and sustainable food. As the National Geographic Society mission states, I work to inspire people to care about the planet.

John Fahey, Chairman & CEO of the National Geographic Society should hang his head in shame. At minimum, he and the National Geographic channel have some serious explaining to do. If you’d like to let the National Geographic Society know what you think of Wicked Tuna, please shoot them a note to comments@natgeochannel.com

Sincerely,
Virginia Willis
Chef and cookbook author

CC:
Editor, the Washington Post
Editor, the New York Times

_____

Dear John:
Any thoughts for Ms. Willis?