The campaign doesn’t bother me and I am very glad that it works. The amount of money it raises greatly benefits those who suffer from breast cancer.
The pink thing was on the go long before I was diagnosed and I never at any time felt that it was a fluffy disease that would be a dawdle to deal with if you got it. Indeed the amount of concern and sympathy I got from my relatives and friends indicated to me that they did not think it was a trivial matter either.
If the campaign works, and it does, then they can all be as pink and fluffy as they like as far as I’m concerned.
It’s interesting to read others views, and I understand/respect how people object to what they see as the trivialisation of a horrible disease (and yes at times the BC lobby can look like party time with Barbie). But for me, there are basically two reasons that the positives of pink outweigh the negatives.
I think the pink thing draws people. I know Comic Relief are not a BC charity, but look at how successful they have become by jollying along the British public (and they raise funds for some fairly desperate situations).
The other thing is, that if we try and raise awareness by exposing the raw truth of how awful BC is for many of us (and as someone with stage 4, I know it’s horrible), I think we are in danger of portraying ourselves as victims / people to be pitied - and that is the last thing we want. In order to influence policy makers we have to be seen as a powerful, strong, organised group.
I think you make some really interesting points Lemongrove. On the Comic Relief thing, I have always found it a bit sad that people need to be entertained before they want to help others. This affirms the point made elsewhere that people do not want to hear doom and gloom before they donate, and of course we are all grateful for the research funds. As a political person I would prefer that the government, rather than Asda, or Tesco, gave me the means to survival but there you go, that is an idealogical matter. More relevant perhaps is your last point. Service user representation is important, and how we are represented should be down to us, not PR people. If Asda, or anyone else, consulted widely with groups like this, maybe that is fair enough. If they didn,t maybe they should be asked to. I am not against the campaigning. As someone says, without the funds there might not be forums like this, and this has been invaluable to me. But “pink and fluffY” does not really suit how I feel about this. And I have yet to see the irony in the term “fun run”
I agree that it’s sad that someone has to be entertained before they give to charity, but doesn’t that say more about society today. Bob Champion was on the news last week promoting prostrate cancer, and he pointed out how little money goes into research compared to bc, I don’t remember the extact figures but it was a lot.
As to men having it, I am not the only one in my family, my mum in laws partner has it and he has never been anti pink and fluffy cos he knows it will help us both.
Ruth x
I have posted my views on the pinkification of BC before, and whilst I am eternally grateful for fundraising, hate the trivialisation implied by the whole pink thing. I think we patronise the general public if we believe the only way of engaging them is to encourage them to dress up in tutus- thinking about comic relief, what struck me this year were the short films about where the money goes rather than the not very funny sketches, and lots of cancer charities run very successful campaigns whilst portraying the realities of living with cancer, such as Macmillan. What I find interesting in the whole adoption of the pink and fluffy approach is the way it almost unconsciously imposes expectations on women with BC,- to be cheerful, brave, non threatening and feminine. The marketing of pink products is also huge business- read Pink Ribbons Inc for an interesting analysis.
Thanks lemongrove for starting this read. It’s really good to read everyone’s views.
nicky
I find this a really tricky issue as without the money raised the research would not have been done and along with many others I’m benefitting from that research, although I have to say I’d like to see a higher percentage being spent on finding causes and prevention and how ever much I hate it, it has been a commercial success in raising money.
Anyway back to pink - I’ve never been into pink, not my colour so I find the whole commerialisation of women and pink really annoying and making the assumption that if something is pink I’ll want to buy it (pink laptops, cars, etc aimed at women). It’s also unclear in shops such as Asda etc what percentage of the cost of an item goes to bc - how many people will make the choice to buy something because of the bc link which in fact increases the profit margin for the supermarket far more than the benefit for cancer charities? One thing I think the fluffy pink link has been beneficial for, is how many young women and men associate pink with bc and for raising awareness this has to be a good thing. I do a lot of running and it’s only at the big events that I’ve seen people in pink tutus, feather and asociated fluffy gear. My OH and I recently did a bcc 5 mile challenge and I was not looking forward to wearing a pink hat and knew it would be a waste of money as neither my oh or myself would wear it ever again but in fact we were given a nice purple hat each which we have both worn since which advertises bcc so again increases awareness. However, I don’t want to be patronised or the whole of this business trivialised and I do find the phase tickled pink offensive. Maybe the media push that links bc with the fluffy campaign equally needs to push the realities of bc and get these annoying phases such as “cured, battling bc” etc taken out of the media use.
Agree with Nicky’s comments. The public are being patronised when it’s thought the only way to get them to part with their cash is the pink route. Surely large charities can come up with effective campaigns that are more thoughtful?
This is very interesting.
Out of the finite amount that the public will ultimately reach into their pockets for, charities have to make sure that their profile is high enough, so that they can compete. The comparison with Comic Relief is interesting because I think they were probably one of the first fund-raising projects to use an alternative approach. Charities have to employ increasingly sophisticated marketing campaigns to get their slice of the cake. And as someone mentioned, other causes (like prostate cancer), would love to have the high- profile success of BC campaigning/fundraising.
But the problem is, we don’t have the associations with the causes supported by Comic Relief, and laughter. BC is now synonymous with ‘pink and fluffy.’
On a slightly different point, I’m not sure that I agree with a lot of other charities strategies either, whether it is phoning me at home, sending my unsolicited mail, or bombarding me with TV and other media images of desperately ill children, starvation and suffering.
I had this whole issue rumbling through my head last night when I went to bed… and I still have no conclusions, other than to be sure that I do loathe it, sorry, Lemongrove… I’m still unconvinced.
Of course you can’t argue with fundraising results… but how much of the actual pink and fluffy bc fundraising goes to bc, and how much benefits Asda/Avon/Tesco…etc etc? I do agree also that Macmillan has always managed to portray cancer with dignity, but also humour - and without diminishing the severity of the disease.
What finally stuck in my head was this… can you imagine a campaign ‘let’s all wear fairy wings for Japan’. Yes, because that would treat the situation with just the respect it deserves, but hey ho, we’d all be having a lovely time.
Perhaps the fundamental issue is not between fundraising do’s and don’ts… but in education and media portrayal. The cynic in me feels that a male dominated media loves that bc can be pink and fluffy because once more it puts the little women back where they can be patted on the bum and praised for being pretty and witty, whilst they rake in the bucks. The cynic in me feels that if Asda really gave two stuffs about bc, they would be educating their staff and customers, rather than fleecing them. The cynic in me feels that there is something desperately wrong with the morality of this country, that demands to be amused before it can care… and that re-education and introduction of moral values needs to begin now… before you cannot distinguish the clowns from the fairies on the high street.
India, and everybody, I do honestly understand and respect the view of those who feel the pink thing trivialises, and feminises a serious issue, and I also recognise that pink products have become big business, but I think the pluses outweigh the minuses.
While Comic Relief are not specifically a BC Charity, they are to my mind superb at engaging and motivating the general public, while raising awareness at the same time - and they do that by interspersing serious information with fun. I doubt many would stay watching an entire evenings broadcasting if it only consisted of horror stories. I may be misjudging the British public, but in my experience they like information in bite sized chunks, and tend to lose their appetite altogether if fed too much.
The other plus, is that it portrays people with BC, as ordinary folk, doing something to improve their lives, rather than victims of a horrendous disease. In my view, the victim thing is one of the main reasons we have got such a raw deal in this Country, in terms of access to new medicines/treatments. I truly believe that policy makers have just seen us as sad helpless victims.
Just to say I’m eternally grateful to all the support from this site and also the tremendous fund-raising that goes on. No matter what the colour if people are trying to raise money to save our lives it seems a bit churlish to complain. I’m sure it’s all done out of the goodness of their hearts.
Polly x
Before this thread, I hadn’t thought about how far we’ve come in overcoming the fear of talking to/touching people with cancer… and it no longer being such a taboo subject - and yes, the pinkness may well have made it easier for other people to acknowledge. The ‘victim’ idea too, is very valid. Perhaps, though, we have just swung too far in the other direction? I know I am far from alone in feeling that breast cancer is somehow seen by jo public as a completely different sort of cancer to any other, in that it’s almost viewed as a cosmetic issue. And this, unfortunately, seems to be the view of some senior hospital managers who are trying to claim that recon after bc is purely cosmetic so not necessary to fund… it’s a dangerous slope, when you look at it this way.
Sadly, tho, I don’t think you are particularly misjudging the british public - as I said, something drastic needs to be done to shake up our society, as we get worse and worse.
The interspersing fundraising with serious info is extremely valid… and this would make the entire pink/fluffy thing easier to stomach - IF it actually happened. Comic Relief, yes, but people do not associate Comic Relief with bc, do they? It’s starving children in Africa… because that’s where the celebs go. Race for Life…to prevent this… Tickled Pink… so no other woman has to be… there are ways of keeping the fundraising lighthearted but adding in the serious reasons why - and this is where it fails at present.
This is a fascinating thread and I have spent quite a lot of time thinking about the different views put forward and like you Trip had it rumbling around in my head all night. Wasn’t sure if I wanted to get engaged and post but decided to put my two ‘penneth’ in this morning!
I have mixed views about the whole ‘pink and fluffy’ thing. I accept the points about the media trying to make it ‘benign’ and soft and girly and giggly which if you are going through it and suffering is a distressing image for the disease.
HOWEVER, HOWEVER…It has raised enormous awareness and therefore attracted the millions for funding the research which we and others to come, will benefit from. Prostate cancer,testicular cancer, lung cancer etc etc, do not get this sort of money.
It is a fact that the public, who of course one doesn’t want to patronise respond to the increased awareness that the ‘pink’ campaigns raise, the media coverage, the celebrity endorsement. Sadly (or not?..)it is part of our society to be fascinated by this approach. And guess what??! It works.
How many of us if not touched by a particular illness be it cancer or heart or stroke or anything else, pay attention to the tin rattlers or donate if not touched by the disease either through friends or family. As someone else pointed out the charities are fighting for an ever harder £pound to capture and have to become ever more sophisticated in their marketing and media savvy to get that.
I have run my own charitable fundraising consultancy for projects involving amongst others, terminally ill adolescents. They are not tiny, media appealing kiddies, but awkward difficult teenagers. VERY difficult to make a case for funds with so much else competing…
I am personally grateful for any friends and family who are doing 5k runs or pink parties to raise a few more pounds. Would I want to do that myself?, No. But I appreciate the love and thoughts that make them want to do it. Would they have done it at all if not for the high profile of the ‘pink’ campaign? I would not be so sure…
Do I wish we could highlight the horror of this disease but still get all the funding that we do? I don’t think thats possible.
Sorry for the ramble, but I guess after all my midnight musings I think that despite the possible ‘wrong’ impression the ‘pink’ campaign might give to the disease, the benefits outweigh the negatives…In my view!
Triphazard, yes I do concede the point that there is not enough of the serious stuff interspersed between the fun stuff - and actually as someone with stage 4, I think we need to take care that the awareness day, in focusing on living with advanced cancer, fails to recognise the realities of living with cancer (the day’s of depression, fear and dread). But that is just a case of adjusting the balance - not rejecting the whole concept.
Yes, Lemongrove, I do agree with that - and I suppose my heart really is in the education and awareness - and that, in my view, is shockingly overlooked. Something I’d felt before my own diagnosis, in all honesty.
‘If’ the pink, fluffiness of it didn’t make so many women desperately upset and angry, ‘if’ it didn’t skew the perceptions of many of those around us as to the harsh realities, ‘if’ it didn’t put bc on the same ‘irritation’ level of cystitis… then I’d have no issues. I know I sound terribly pedantic and weighty… but I do actually love having a giggle and a laugh, and if you can fund raise at the same time, all the better. I suppose, being mired within the swamp of bc, I just have a very different viewpoint on it.
I think I’d say: there’s nothing wrong with fun fund-raising, but there’s something wrong with the perception of bc as pink and fluffy. And the distinction between the fund raising, and the disease itself, is increasingly blurred in the public’s view - though whether that is the fault of the fund raising, or the media… is a different matter.
I nearly overlooked this thread because of the title. Nothing wrong with the subject title Lemmongrove so please do not be offended. It is just that Pink and Fluffy doesnt sit well with me either. I do appreciate all the fund raising done but I go away into my hole when the pink fluffy campaign starts. I particularly hated it when Jordan was “helping” Asda do her promotion. Her with the enormous false boobs. Just did not make any sense with me.
Another thinf that grates ( nothing to do with pink and fluffy] is when people to fantastic things to raise money. I would be much more inclined to hand over more money if they were doing something for the community that perhaps wasnt so much “fun” and got their hands dirty, like cleaning up the beaches of rubbish or hedgerows of litter. Raising money when you are only doing something you have always wanted to do seems like cheating to me. Anyone agree?
So let the pink and fluffy continue if that is what people want to do…but it does upset me…especially the bras worn over the T-shirts…just seems insensitive…More needs to be aired about the awfulness of BC and especiaaly Secondaries and what it is like to live with that. It doesnt go away…we are living with it every day. I nearly didnt post this but wanted to give my point of view too. I do not wish to offend anyone. Thanks Lemongrove for an interesting read. Val
Wandy, I have to agree with you from past personal experience. I’ve been a Trustee of charities involved with two “difficult to engage with” causes (autism, domestic violence). The domestic violence charity’s most regular donation from the public was soap. No, really, soap. The public saw it as a ‘dirty’ subject and assumed that these must be women straight off the streets whose greatest need in the refuge was scented soap. Not really.
With autism, a very large US charity tried portraying it as a disaster of epic proportions, something that inevitably destroyed families and devastated lives …and the political backlash against them from families who love their children very much (and from adults on the autism spectrum) was such that it almost sunk the charity’s reputation without trace.
The public are a strange thing to deal with. They like pink, and fluffy, and animals, and smiley children. If it’s not one of those things, they won’t give a bean. (Generalising).
This cancer thing ain’t fun, but personally I’m happy with them using whatever works to get max money in. We need every quid we can get.
I agree it’s very difficult to get it right in order to engage with the public. I did some voluntary work with a local charity dealing with homelessness and housing issues. When we had the severe snow prior to the end of 2009, we put out an appeal in the local press for donations of coats and other warm clothing. The stuff we received like woolly jumpers was quite frankly disgusting. People thought they were doing us a favour by donating stuff that was full of holes and dirty. After all, we were only dealing with homeless people, many of whom were substance and alcohol abusers - at least that was the impression the donations gave. Our storeroom actually stank of stale old clothes and we had to get rid of them. We also used to ask local supermarket branches if they would donate canned/ambient goods because some of the B and Bs and hostels we got people into only had access to a kettle or if lucky a microwave. If an emergency food parcel had to be put together it had to be things like tinned or instant soup and pot noodles. We always got letters of refusal back, yet think of the profits supermarket chains make. Much of the donated food we received came from church harvest festivals and kind members of the public.
I have found this a fascinating thread and like others given thought to it all day. As I stated I find the whole private company profits/pink and fluffy thing a bit of a turn off, but then I started to think that what should count is what is effective. On the morning I sat waiting in the clinic for my wire to be inserted prior to surgery, I saw a notice stating that in the last year 4000 women had failed to attend routine screening appointments. And this is despite the enormous coverage given to breast cancer. I live in a city, and that is a lot of women. And whilst not wishing to harp on about Comic Relief, I think there is a strong analogy. For one night a year people press their red button and feel good about giving a fiver, but they don’t actually change their lives and do anything - like lobby the government to give aid. Maybe it is the same with the pink and fluffy thing, now and again, people feel good coz they give a fiver (and don’t get me wrong I know many of these people do so as they have lost someone) but does it change their lives.
If those 4000 women went for screening, rather than wore a feather, ould it make a difference? I don’t know, but it was not the pink and fluffy campaign that sent me an appointment for a routine scan.
I have one of the pink ribbon lapel pins, which I bought not so much for the small contribution that went with it, but as a kind of announcement and reminder. In fact most of the people I know probably recognise pink ribbon-breast cancer, but there is a vague hope that someone might ask.
Of course the best way to support research for any or all cancer is with a standing order, not forgetting to Gift Aid it.