A Darker Shade of Pink

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Matt Purdue.

There’s been a fascinating public relations battle waging this month, one that bears watching by all PR  professionals.

As we all know, October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. For three weeks now, we’ve been swimming in a sea of pink, let loose by breast cancer advocates all over the country to remind us that this disease still affects far too many women and their families. NFL players have donned pink cleats. APG is marketing a pink Snuggie sleeved blanket. KFC is selling pink buckets of chicken.

But there’s another side to this pink PR crusade that has been quickly creeping up on the national agenda. Let’s call it a darker shade of pink. On blogs and social media networking sites, people are starting to question the appropriateness of this plethora of pink. Megan Casserly on Forbes.com called it, simply, “crap.” One blogger on the Washington Times site called it “sickening.” Another green blogger questioned the true intentions of companies that make pink products for the cure while simultaneously fostering environmental and human rights abuses.

The anti-pink tide is rising.

So how is the other side reacting? Susan G. Komen for the Cure (SGK), the 800-pound pink gorilla of breast cancer foundations, has gone on the offensive. SGK founder Nancy Brinker is taking on the critics. She recently blogged that there “still isn’t enough pink.” It’s an interesting PR tactic. Brinker acknowledges the messages from the detractors, but quickly discounts them. She tugs at our heartstrings, reminding us that we need more and more pink because a woman dies from breast cancer every 69 seconds.

But does this really explain why SGK lists nearly 200 for-profit “partners” on its website, from Microsoft and Deluxe Checks to Otis Spunkmeyer and Payless ShoeSource? How many pink products does it take to cure breast cancer?

Clearly, it’s not as simple as selling pink products to fund a cure. Breast cancer death rates have slowly decreased over the years, but, strangely, the number of women getting mammograms has also decreased, despite all the pink products. How effective all this awareness really is should be deliberated every October.

How this public relations battle will shake out is anyone’s guess. But one thing is for certain: when it comes to women’s health, healthy debate is a good thing.

Comments

[Peter Engel]

Brinker's response, while impassioned, doesn't really answer the question posed either by Megan Caserle or you. I do tend to think what we see every October has become "pinkwashing."

While the public relations battle is interesting to watch, the bigger question I'm curious about is why breast cancer death rates have decreased while the mammograms have also decreased? The simple answer is lack of health insurance, which opens up a whole other can of worms.

[Bubbles]

The anti-pink tide is, indeed rising. Komen now claims to own "for the cure" and has filed legal trademark oppositions against more than a hundred charities (i.e. Kites for a Cure, Par for The Cure) that are too small to fight this "charitable" behemoth. I have long thought that SGK Foundation had gotten too big for its britches, and this confirms it for me. To think that one charitable organization would do ANYTHING to hinder the fundraising efforts of another is horrific- almost too shameful for words. I have purchased my last pink toothbrush, teabag, telephone. I will only support charities that act, well, charitable.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-charities-cure_n_793176.html

[Michael]

Whoa. Bubbles, there is very big difference between protecting an organization's I/P, and keeping other organizations from raising funds. I would say SGK is proactive on the former, and innocent on the latter. For example, the National Breast Cancer Foundation uses the pink ribbon to secure partnerships and funding abound. They have many creative ideas on verbage and steer clear of "For The Cure." NBCF also has many partners and sources of income, inspires many pink products that support breast cancer research with now usage of "For A Cure," with no association to SGK, and appears to co-exist with SGK in a healthy manner. SGK has financial goals for the greater good and is using strict interpretation of trademark law to support its goals and protect its name. Kites For A Cure can find another name which is perhaps more creative and compelling. To not buy anything pink over SGK's business strategy would be contradictory to everything these organizations, and its fans, are trying to achieve.

[Bubbles]

"SGK has financial goals for the greater good..." No. They're only interested in themselves. They do not at all have the greater good in mind. If they did, then they would not put other charities in the position to spend money defending their programs. They should be thrilled that their efforts carry over and benefit other charities. Breast Cancer is BIG business, and SGK is backfiring big time.

[Bubbles]

SGK's 297 trademarks include SPIT FOR THE CURE and SOFT ROCK FOR THE CURE. They have also filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization to prohibit "RACE FOR THE CURE" to be used in Albania, Armenia, Australia, Belarus, China, Croatia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Georgia, Iceland, Kenya, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine. Less than 30% of donated funds are used for research "for the cure."
The anti SGK sentiment on the Web is both overwhelming and encouraging.