October: A Month to Think Before you Pink

As the month of October comes to an end, the leaves change color, children go out and buy fun Halloween costumes, and the holiday spirit begins to pervade the air. It is a month to celebrate life and also Breast Cancer Awareness. The Pink Ribbon campaign has invaded consumer culture. People buy these goods because they think that they are benefiting breast cancer research, and thus they want to do their part to help. What many people do not realize is that commercial support of Breast Cancer Awareness month and the pink ribbon are tactics that businesses construct to rally consumers around illness marking.

The pink ribbon began as the breast cancer symbol in 1990, inspired by AIDS activists who used to wear red ribbons. After a photograph was taken of an actor sporting the red ribbon at the Tony Awards, breast cancer foundations realized the marketing tool they had on their hands. In 1991, breast cancer survivors wore the pink ribbon in the New York City race, and since then the symbol has ignited national recognition.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month was actually started by AstraZeneca, "a pharmaceutical company that also manufactures an herbicide known to cause cancer. In 2003, the company settled for $355 million after illegally marketing a prostate cancer drug. The non-profit company Breast Cancer Action has labeled AstraZeneca and other companies like them "pinkwashers."

While all the publicity surrounding the Pink Ribbon campaign has undoubtedly raised awareness, it has also raised concern among women. And consequently with this concern, women are fearful that they may contract cancer or someone they love might. They want to do whatever they can to help the fight. However, corporations actually raise very little money for breast cancer foundations compared to the large-scale funding necessary for their research. What is even more important is that the companies who do support the Pink Ribbon Campaign are companies whose products may contain cancer-causing materials or may have a cancerous side effect in the future.
This month, Yoplait distributes their pink yogurt products tagged with the slogan, "Save Lids to Save Lives." For each pink lid mailed to the company, Yoplait donates ten cents to Susan Komen for the Cure. That would mean that a woman would have to consume 3 yogurts per day to donate $36 dollars for the month. Yoplait's cows are also treated with rBGH, which from recent studies has been linked to increasing the risk of breast cancer. "These pink ribbon campaigns often mean more to the corporate bottom line then they do to people living with breast cancer," said Barbara Brenner of Breast Cancer Action.

Several beauty companies have also created pink products. This month, Esteé Lauder is donating $500,000 from its Pink Ribbon Collection sales to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, yet its products still contain the chemical parabens, which has been linked to breast cancer. Revlon is also sponsored a breast cancer walk while its products contain cancer-causing chemicals. Karen Grant, a senior beauty analyst from NPD group asks, "Really and truly , is it really heightening awareness? Or is it just companies using this as a vehicle to promote their own sales?"

In one of my previous posts, I talked about "greenwashing." That phenomenon is not much different than "pinkwashing." Global warming and breast cancer are two topics of great concern among people today, and companies can play off of people's fears in order to sell products. People need to recognize what is happening around them instead of falling into to a popular culture trap. Critics of the movement for breast cancer research are asking whether money should be going towards finding a cure or eradicating the disease. The FDA and drug companies are focused on finding the right drug to cure the disease instead of stopping it in general. The FDA approves new drugs frequently. They pave the way for drug companies to make more money when really the FDA should focus more efforts on ending the disease. When it comes to preventing cancer, the cancer industry remains silent on prevention solutions. "All they have to do is keep their mouths shut about what causes cancer, and wait for new customers to fill the cancer centers."

At the close of the largest annual medical awareness campaign month, it is a time for us to stop, pause, and think about the ramifications and true intentions behind this and other awareness events. Breast cancer is the poster child disease for illness marketing. It does not kill as many women as lung or heart disease, but it directly affects the most visible symbol of our female sexuality. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) is an organization who just began a study to find the causes of breast cancer, but it is estimated to take ten years. We cannot stop breast cancer by shopping and eating. More funding needs to be awarded to eradicate breast cancer, not further drug company profits.

Chevron: Welcome to the American Greenwash

A two-minute television commercial debuted during CBS primetime's 60 Minutes last week, including shots of blue skies, loving families, cuddly animals, and amputees running sprints. No it is not an advertisement promoting non-profit donation or Pacific Life insurance. This $15 billion advertisement is the firepower of Chevron Oil for their "Power of Human Energy" campaign. The campaign began last Sunday in an effort to show the oil giant's dedication and recognition of the need to investigate future energy supplies. The mogul's campaign, which argues "humanity needs alternative energy sources, but it still needs fossil fuel," is being lambasted throughout the media for its hypocritical smoke screen. Shot in twenty-two locations in thirteen countries, the ads include actors as well as Chevron workers.

The "Power of Human Energy" campaign is an ambitious public relations move for the oil giant to recast itself as an environmentally responsible citizen. Although it touches on a topic the oil industry once hated to discuss, the ads never use the terms global warming or climate change. The more attention the public pays to alternative energy and the environment, the more important it becomes for oil companies to be seen taking an active role in the debate. Chevron's commercial plays off public emotion and tries to tug at viewer's heartstrings. Environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, have pinpointed Chevron's advertising techniques and called them "greenwashing," a term describing "actions of a company, government, or other organization which advertises positive environmental practices while acting in the opposite way." Recently many corporations producing harmful products have used advertisements to try and reshape their reputation. BP coined "beyond petroleum", Royal Dutch Shell attached a caring DVD to National Geographic magazines, and even President Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" is arguably making way for a more polluted sky. These corporations with busting bank accounts can pay their way through any public relations campaign to try and twist their image in the eyes of American consumers.

The problem is that Chevron's poor corporate citizen stretches worldwide, not to just American consumers. Last Tuesday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Chevron should be held responsible for Nigerian military attacks in the late nineties. International military entanglements do not end there. Due to a grandfather clause exempting Chevron from Clinton's legislation in 1997 stopping investments in Burma, the oil mogul's natural gas operations have continued to bring upwards of $2.16 billion in taxes to the military government the last few years. By doing so, they are supporting the human rights violations of the Texas-sized nation in the last few weeks and its military buildup of the last few years. The current government in Burma freely murders pro-Democracy protestors and Chevron should stand up for the political ideology that allowed it to become a multi-national corporation based in the United States.

It is no mystery that Chevron, like other oil companies, is trying to stay afloat in the changing eco-friendly "green" world. Clearly companies such as Chevron, BP, and Royal Dutch Oil are creating these emotionally-charged green campaigns to do what they can given their harmful industries. Chevron is arguing that the economy needs oil but perhaps there are other sources of energy that are not being explored. For instance, a proactive website "Will you Join Us," funded by Chevron, focuses on different forms of energy like renewables, nuclear power, and hydrogen. Yet Chevron needs to stretch itself farther than creating a website dedicated to energy reforms. They need to pressure the Burmese government to change their oppressive regime. Clearly Chevron is only willing to go so far and when profits could be damaged, human rights may be the opportunity cost.

Oil is not the only industry that faces this issue. The tobacco industry is notorious for funding initiatives and research to prevent smoking. The irony is almost too much to handle, but in today's world, everyone is generally more conscious of the environment and health so companies have to respond to that. Philip Morris USA's new campaign has been a multi-million dollar investment in Potentially Reduced Exposure Products (PREPS), a supposedly less carcinogenic cigarette. While global issues are of the utmost concern, companies like Philip Morris and Chevron can inch their way into the limelight to downplay their products' role in the global problems and instead promote a "globally conscious initiatives." Clearly, the environmental campaigns from Chevron and Philip Morris have been called cynical. The issue again comes down to profit. When companies are responding to shareholders and looking out for personal gain, human greed takes the drivers seat and ethics rides in the trunk. So will the people watching this commercial respond favorably to the advertisement or will they write Chevron off as hypocritical? Chevron Brand Manager Helen Clark says that "it doesn't matter what we say-they're going to feel that way. But there is a large faction in the middle that is really open." With hybrid car sales rising, peaking at an average growth of 81% in 2004, hopefully people will not depend on oil as much in the future.