Got a blog tip? Contact us
« Toilet Paper advertising auction II | Main | The new SUV PSAs esuseekay »
For marketers, BREAST cancer is the BEST cancer
Associated Press reports that prostate cancer is more common and more deadly than breast cancer, but the latter gets a lot more funding. The AP story skirts the issue, but one important reason (though certainly not the only one) is marketing: in the past decade, the makers of cosmetics and other consumer products have increasingly used breast cancer as a way to target women. The pink ribbon campaign we hear so much about was first launched as part of a cross-promotion between the magazine Self and Este Lauder. And mainstream cancer charities like the Susan G. Komen Foundation--one of the largest funders for breast cancer research in the U.S.-- are driven by their corporate donors' agenda. In fact, according to Breast Center Action, which sponsors the Think Before You Pink campaign, the Komen Foundation actually tried to "patent the pink ribbon for its exclusive use" (though I bet the writer means trademark, not patent).
Posted by carrie on 04/05/2005 | Permalink
Comments
Another thing about the 'pink' ribbon campaign is that all the funding goes towards breast cancer research not treatment of any kind. It might seem obvious, but I'm not sure a lot of people think about it beyond "I'm helping people with breast cancer". So all the money goes towards labs and funds that are looking for a cure for cancer. Ppersonally I'm not holding my breath on the cure for cancer - I'm hopeful, but not counting on it. None of the money goes toward healthcare, prevention, exams, support for women recovering from mastectomy surgery, etc. Real, day to day issues that women with breast cancer have to deal with. While there's all these pink nic nacs and public support for breast cancer out in the stores. Oh, the irony! Oh, it's terrible.
I think part of the problem is that the pink campaign has so many ties with big business. On the one hand, it generates a lot of money and good will. Simultaneiously, it prevents the campaign from funding any work that might be risky to those companies public image. Research isn't controversial or complicated. Funding prevention and treatment is way, way more messy... and unfortunately, probably more neccessary.
Posted by: Steve Lambert | Apr 6, 2005 12:05:35 AM
I just received a request to fill out a survey from a mutual fund company, through my job in the financial services industry. As an incentive, they said they'd make a small donation to one of the following charities of my choice:
- The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
- The American Red Cross
- The National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship (helping young people from low-income communities improve their business, academic and life skills)
My initial reaction was to give to Komen, but after reading the above, I'm not so sure. Anyone know anything about the NFfTE?
Posted by: Jon | Apr 6, 2005 9:20:06 AM
Based on what I've read about Komen, I'd say that most any charity would be better. Then again, there's a reason that these are the charities Wall Street recommends. (They're no Ruckus Society, yknow?)
Posted by: carrie | Apr 6, 2005 10:47:28 AM
It's true that breast cancer is the best cancer for marketing because the taboos around breast cancer have been substantially broken. That's not the case with prostate cancer, which mainly affects older men from a generation that's most unlikely to discuss problems in that area. On top of that older men aren't as well organised as the younger women breast cancer concerns and they don't spend as much money as younger women. Consequently, marketing linked to breast cancer is likely to reap a greater return on investment.
Here in the UK, testicular cancer is rapidly gaining popularity among marketers even though it's far rarer than breast or prostate cancer. That's because it afflicts younger men, who spend more than older men.
You can argue that marketers should work to break down the prostate cancer taboo, but nobody's paying them to that. In truth it's foolish to expect or demand marketers formulate sensible and proportionate programmes to fund health care. That's not their skill set. Consequently, research programmes and awareness campaigns will be skewed by market forces unrelated to the health need.
Reading Steve Lambert's comment, the problem is obviously more severe in the USA. In the UK nobody relies on charity for cancer treatment or has to pay for it. State provision of healthcare ensures that resources are delivered according to need, not marketing priorities. (Charities and marketers only pay for research and awareness campaigns.)
Posted by: Stephen Newton | Apr 7, 2005 7:15:35 AM
I seem to recall a fair amount of activism in the 1980s that focused on the inequity in funding for cancer research, explaining that prostate cancer got way more gov't funding than breast cancer. One reason for that, it was argued, was that congress was even more exclusively male then than it is now.
So there has been a huge growth in breast cancer funding, partly because of the advocacy and activism efforts of people connected with large corporations. And it seems that now breast cancer research funding is more generous than prostate research funding, especially with regard to the frequency of those two diseases. But instead of an ironic historical trend, this is supposed to be evidence of corporate malice? I mean... really?
Posted by: thunk | Apr 7, 2005 11:47:52 PM
I'd like to donate to the Bc cancer foundation, life styles lottery. Is there any way to find the most benificial foundationfor donation?
My husband's mom did not survive cancer when he was 18, and I've never known any one (close relation) who has had cancer. I think it's time we both start helping out in this battle.
Can anyone help me find a foundaation that supports those with colon cancer.
Posted by: Veronica | Aug 18, 2005 1:34:21 AM
Wow, you guys really don't know what your talking about. While Komen doesn't fund treatment directly, it gives millions in grants to clinics, medical centers, health departments, etc. all over the country to fund mammography and treatment for uninsured or underinsured women including a program to provide screening and treatment for homeless women in Colorado Springs, a program to provide education and screening for Amish women, numerous programs to address the increased breast cancer mortality rate in African American populations. 75% of the funds it raises through races and community events stay in that community to address that area's breast health care needs. 25% goes to national research. Get your facts straight.
Posted by: Elizabeth | Sep 23, 2005 3:04:02 PM
Well, looks like cancer is a tool of making money for some people and nothing else. That's terrible. I knew a woman who died because she didn't have money to pay hospital bills and she couldn't afford good therapy. I think more money should be spent on treatment, not propaganda.
Posted by: John Glennon | Oct 27, 2005 2:32:29 PM
