Pink for the Masses?
We keep seeing more and more pink ribbons - Read more to find out how companies are using breast cancer to make a profit...
As the crowning operation of corporate Canada, breast cancer cause marketing has become a means for businesses to “serve communities and build relationships between institutions and strategic non profits.”[1] In 2005 alone, North American companies spent nearly $1.8 billion on sponsorships related to breast cancer cause-related marketing.[2]
In 1995, the Ford Motor Company entered into an alliance with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation in an attempt to “build credibility with women consumers.”[3] One method Ford currently uses to raise money for the Komen Foundation is by donating $500.00 from the sale of every 2009 Ford Mustang with Warriors in Pink Package.[4] This specially designed car comes in three different colours and is adorned with pink ribbon decal on the hood, fender, and floor mats as well as pink stitching on the seats. What Ford isn’t telling you is that their vehicles actually “produce 1,3 butadiene and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons”[5] both of which are human carcinogens linked to the development of breast cancer. There is an undeniable element of self-interest linked to breast cancer cause marketing whereby companies will partner themselves up with a cause in order to draw consumers to their product—and it works, doesn’t it?
There is an unequal distribution of power that exists between these wealthy, culpable businesses, and the consumers harangued into buying their products. The breast cancer awareness campaigns sponsored by Revlon, Estée Lauder, Mary Kay, Avon, and the Ford Motor Company “operate with conflicting goals of disseminating health information and maximizing profit…[while] advertising products that may be dangerous to health.”[6] Companies will align themselves with a cause because of the belief that if a buyer is making the choice between two relatively similar products that cost the same, they will purchase the one that is associated with a cause. A Cone national survey on consumer attitudes and corporate behaviour found that consumers “are willing to use their individual power to punish those companies that do not share their values.”[7] Therefore, by fashioning themselves as an ethical business, companies can increase their consumer base ten-fold. The problem with this scenario is that consumers are commanded to both indulge in endless consumption and employ self-control in denying desires. This is no easy task to take on when multi-million dollar companies are bombarding consumers with ‘pretty’ pink paraphernalia.
All the businesses previously mentioned attempt to coerce consumers into believing that increased breast cancer risk is the fault of their individual lifestyle choices, and all of them work to “reinforce[e] dominant ideologies of…personal responsibility.”[8] According to breast cancer cause marketing maxims, “if you stop smoking, stop drinking, if you have a baby before you are 25, and eat healthy”[9] you can prevent the onset of the disease. In reality though, many of the corporations that support breast cancer research are “double dealing”[10]—they are raising money to support breast cancer, however, they are themselves “contributors to breast cancer incidence”[11] through such practices as “adding unsafe chemicals to their products or the environment.”[12]
While women can make the conscious choice to eat well and refrain from acts like smoking and drinking, they cannot always make an informed choice about which products to use. If companies do not disclose information about possible carcinogenic ingredients, the consumer cannot be blamed for possible outcomes.
Pink-wielding companies use breast cancer and women’s bodies and health to profit from a disease that they may actually be contributing to. By selling pink-ribbon products, these companies are using breast cancer to convince consumers that if they do not purchase their product, they do not care about the disease. Selling something associated with breast cancer solely for monetary gain, not only undermines the seriousness of the disease and those suffering from it, but exploits women’s bodies for corporate profits.[13] Revlon, Estée Lauder, Mary Kay, Avon, the Ford Motor Company and many others use breast cancer cause marketing to form a relationship with their buyers, yet avoid making any real commitments to remove the harmful chemicals from their products.
[1]Kedrowski, Karen M and Marilyn Stone Sarow. Cancer Activism: Gender, Media, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2007. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Ford Vehicles. “Warriors in Pink.” 28 Nov. 2009 <http://www.fordvehicles.com/warriorsinpink/mustang/> [5] Bird, Madeleine. “Profits in Pink: Breast Cancer Cause Marketing in Canada.” 2004. 28 Nov. 2009 <http://www.bcam.qc.ca/news/13-2/pink.pdf> [6] Fosket, J.R., Karran, A., and LaFia, C. “Breast Cancer in Popular Women’s Magazines from 1913 to 1996.” In Breast Cancer: Society Shapes an Epidemic. 2000, 303-323 [7] Kedrowski, Karen M and Marilyn Stone Sarow. Cancer Activism: Gender, Media, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2007. [8] Fosket, J.R., Karran, A., and LaFia, C. “Breast Cancer in Popular Women’s Magazines from 1913 to 1996.” In Breast Cancer: Society Shapes an Epidemic. 2000, 303-323 [9] Bird, Madeleine. Personal Interview. 1 Dec. 2007. [10] Ibid. [11] Bird, Madeleine. “Profits in Pink: Breast Cancer Cause Marketing in Canada.” 2004. 28 Nov. 2009 <http://www.bcam.qc.ca/news/13-2/pink.pdf> [12] Ibid. [13] Kedrowski, Karen M and Marilyn Stone Sarow. Cancer Activism: Gender, Media, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2007.
