Intertext Volume 22 Issue 1 2014 Article 22 2014 Cashing in on the Pink Ribbon Soleil Young Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/intertext Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Young, Soleil (2014) "Cashing in on the Pink Ribbon," Intertext: Vol. 22 : Iss. 1 , Article 22. Available at: https://surface.syr.edu/intertext/vol22/iss1/22 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Intertext by an authorized editor of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Young: Cashing in on the Pink Ribbon Cashing in on the Pink Ribbon Soleil Young r. Olufunmilayo Olopade, director and touting its support of breast cancer re- of the Cancer Risk Clinic at the search. The topic of breast cancer, an issue DUniversity of Chicago, commented over which women took to the streets in the on Breast Cancer Awareness Month: “It’s a 1990s, has become comfortably entrenched great thing that women are more aware, but in the culture of corporations and the main- awareness is different from actually doing stream media. Corporations have taken con- something about it.” There is perhaps no trol of the public discourse on breast cancer more accurate quote to describe the over- and have become an essential part of the all publicity surrounding breast cancer. It is news abuse that focuses the conversation on hard to turn anywhere during October with- the harmless, “feminine” side of the disease. out seeing some kind of commercial product This in turn promotes misogynistic ideals or organization sporting a pretty pink ribbon and channels women’s anger into consum- 56 Published by SURFACE, 2014 1 MasterPinkRibbon4-3-14.indd 2 11/04/14 16:11 Intertext, Vol. 22 [2014], Iss. 1, Art. 22 erism. The media and corporations can eas- what kind of research it’s going to pay for, ily twist breast cancer awareness to support or what organization will receive the funds. post-feminist ideas and “hipster sexism,” According to the Think Before You Pink while enlarging their profits. organization, any company can put a pink Since its inception, the pink ribbon has ribbon on its products, “as the pink ribbon been a corporate symbol. It was first used to is not regulated by any agency.” The organi- stand for breast cancer awareness and pre- zation cites as an example the Dansko Shoe vention by the makeup conglomerate Estée Company, which in 2010 promoted the sale Lauder in the 1990s. Charlotte Haley, who of “pink ribbon” clogs. Dansko’s implication worked for the National Cancer Institute that it would donate money from the sale of and had begun a peach ribbon campaign to the clogs to breast cancer research was in fact raise awareness about how little research was false, as it had already set aside a $25,000 do- being done on cancer prevention, was ap- nation for the Susan G. Komen Foundation proached by the Estée Lauder Corporation, for the Cure that did not rely upon the sale which wanted to use her ribbon on its prod- of the shoes. Even if a company does do- ucts. She refused, and the company decided nate part of the proceeds from the sale of to use a ribbon of a different color instead a product to breast cancer research, the dol- to get around the issue of legal ownership. lar amount might be very small (for instance, After Estée Lauder carried out focus group Yoplait encouraged consumers to send in testing, the company found that pink was the the cap from a Yoplait yogurt cup and then color to which women responded most, as donated five cents for each cap received), or they found it to be thee most comforting, re- there might be a limit on the proceeds donat- assuring, and nonthreatening color (Pink Rib- ed. Many breast cancer activists and feminists bons, Inc.). The campaign worked, and accord- have been particularly critical of companies ing to the film Pink Ribbons, Inc., this was the using consumers’ purchases to fund breast first instance of a corporation’s engaging in cancer–related donations, claiming that it is the kind of product-related “philanthropy” easier and more worthwhile to have people wherein partial donations from the sale of a simply send in a $10 check to an organiza- product go to support some cause. Since this tion (Pink Ribbons, Inc.). Instead, companies first pink ribbon campaign, many other com- use the cause of breast cancer awareness as panies have begun to do the same thing, most a way to convince people to buy their prod- also using the pink ribbon. The fact that the uct as opposed to that of a competitor. It’s a issue of breast cancer “awareness” became classic oligopoly marketing strategy in which popularized in this way reflects how well the a brand creates an image or promotes itself topic was manipulated by corporations and in order to lure buyers. the media to serve their own interests. An offshoot issue arising from this cor- The use of breast cancer as “cause mar- poratization is the misuse of research funds. keting”—partnering between profit business Most Americans think of “research” as a and non-profit organizations—is most obvi- blanket term and assume the money dedicat- ous in the shady dealings involving research ed to it is being put to good use. As Barbara money that is raised in relation to breast can- A. Brenner, executive director of Breast Can- cer. When you buy a “pink ribbon” product, cer Action of San Francisco, noted in Pink there is often no guarantee of how much Ribbons, Inc., the notion that throwing money Layout by Tevion Johnson. “Breast Cancer Awareness Month” by Flickr user khrawlings, CC user Flickr BY 2.0: http://www.flickr.com/photos/khrawlings/5121278274/ khrawlings, by Month” Awareness Cancer “Breast Johnson. Tevion by Layout money (if any) is being given to “research,” at a problem will fix it is a very capitalistic INTERTEXT 2013| 23 INTERTEXT 2014 | 57 https://surface.syr.edu/intertext/vol22/iss1/22 2 MasterPinkRibbon4-11-14.indd 3 16/04/14 01:11 Young: Cashing in on the Pink Ribbon approach, a “quick fix we have come to ex- scientists understood the pathology and eti- pect,” and it contributes to our expectation ology of the disease. By attempting to sim- that we will “win” by donating as much mon- ply “slash, burn and poison” cancer instead ey as possible. Most foundations like to tout of understanding it, researchers are misus- the amount of money they have donated/ ing funds. This may benefit pharmaceutical raised (e.g., “The Susan G. Komen Founda- companies, though, and as long as there are tion has raised more than $1.9 billion in the no real strides in treating breast cancer and fight against breast cancer,” as the organiza- nobody asks what is being gained through tion’s Web page says). It’s odd if one consid- the use of research funds, the companies can ers the fact that these companies are not pub- continue to exploit breast cancer for profit. licizing what has Ironically enough, been accomplished companies that sup- with the research Ironically enough, port breast cancer money. “awareness” and “re- In truth, most search” may well be research is done companies that contributing to the rise on pharmaceuti- in prevalence of the cal products (Pink disease. “Pinkwash- Ribbons, Inc.), drugs ing” (a term coined aimed at prolong- support breast by cancer advocacy ing the lives of group Breast Cancer patients (some- Action, an organiza- times just by a few cancer “awareness” tion dedicated to sup- weeks), and only porting those with 3% of research breast cancer and em- funds are put to- and “research” may phasizing breast can- wards prevention cer as a public health and the study of problem) refers to a causation. We well be contributing phenomenon in which know very little companies like Avon about breast can- (and even, in one in- cer except that to the rise in stance, the Susan G. there are five or six Komen Foundation) (or maybe more) that claim to support different types, breast cancer aware- and each behaves prevalence of ness actually use car- differently. This cinogens or suspected makes treating the carcinogens in their disease very diffi- the disease. products. Instances cult, and no treat- include such use in ment works for everyone. As Dr. Susan Love, Yoplait products (Yoplait eventually stopped who has done extensive research on breast using it after Think Before You Pink started a cancer, pointed out in Pink Ribbons, Inc., many letter and email campaign against its use). The HIV/AIDS drug advances came about after number of companies that do something simi- 58 Published by SURFACE, 2014 3 MasterPinkRibbon4-11-14.indd 4 16/04/14 01:11 Intertext, Vol. 22 [2014], Iss. 1, Art. 22 lar is astounding, but as long as they control (“Why I Do Not Heart Boobies”). Similar how breast cancer is discussed, the public will “awareness” campaigns such as “Save the Ta- never realize the extent of the problem. Pink- Tas” T-shirts, a commercial featuring bounc- washing, the misuse of research funds, and the ing bikini-clad breasts, and a website called corporatization of breast cancer are all forms the “Booby Wall” that collects pictures of of news abuse that companies use to create the breasts in an effort to raise awareness (Clark- prevalent “pink ribbon culture” (Pink Ribbon, Flory, “Boobs to Cure Cancer?”) are all prob- Inc.) we associate with breast cancer and con- lematic for the same reason.