It was kinda nice when it started. As I understand it, it started with Matty Hayden, Roy Symonds and a few others, striding out to bat a few summers ago with bright pink grips adorning the handles of their Grey-Nicolls bats, with some sort of understanding that runs scored would equal funds donated to the cause of breast cancer. A lovely gesture, with teammate Glenn McGrath having lost (or possibly at the time in the process of losing) a wife to cancer. That segued into the SCG Test of 2008/09, which saw the SCG turned a particularly virulent shade of pink in support of the McGrath Foundation - and if it all became a bit obvious and self-congratulatory on behalf of Channel 9 by the end, particularly when only a mildly disappointing $500K was scraped together, somehow it didn't really matter in light of just about the greatest ending in Test history where largely-hated South African captain Graeme Smith crawled out of the first aid tent and padded up at last drop to try and save his team from defeat, singlehandledly (literally - the other was quite comprehensively borked) - and almost won the day.
Since then we've had pink NRL refs, pink V8 Supercars, the Dragons in the Big Pink V, union's Western Farts playing a match in a colour best associated with the hindquarters of an aroused baboon, and entire pink-washed rounds of most of the major footy codes in Australia. And yeah, it's all nice. But at what point does this go from being heartwarming charity to cynical PR bandwagon-jumping? Particularly for men's professional sports leagues, which almost without exception have major PR dramas re Women's Issues - in particular endemic attitudinal and behavioural issues related to their players' interactions with women - and could use the halo effect of being associated with something that might stop the ladies from hating on their misogynist testosteronal arses, and (more to the point) start buying more of the Sponsors' Product.
Well, that point was reached whenever the Seppo NFL, a code with more Women's Issues than a AFL roster full of Milo-fuelled Spida Everetts, decided to make every player wear pink gloves and cleats, every sideline coach and bench-warmer wear pink-fringed caps, and basically swathe the entire field and personnel regiment with more pink frills than an explosion in Strawberry Shortcake's boudoir. I realise the Septics as a constitutionally-enshrined SOP genuinely believe that if something's worth doing it's worth overdoing, but seriously. That. Is. Crap. It's cynical, cretinous marketing-led tokeneering of the highest, lamest and most blatant order. Not just because the NFL, like most footy codes, is full of ego-inflated misogynist tossers who think sending PXTs of their dodger is an agreeable courting ritual. Not just because about as many US men are stricken by prostrate cancer as there are women who suffer breast cancer, and in terms of mortality, a much higher proportion of both sexes are killed by lung cancer (figures from Wiki) - so the Push for Pink looks more and more like a marketing decision rather than a genuine response to an unmet need in cancer awareness and surveillance. It's because of the gobsmacking hypocrisy by a league wanting to make a big show-and-dance about how much they care about women's health, while (until very recently) trying to deny or cover up the medical evidence, Big Tobacco style, that the high rate of concussions in their sport - caused by the repeated helmet-on-helmet and helmet-on-turf contacts quasi-legitimized by NFL football - were killing and psychologically maiming their players in later life.
Now I take Beeso's point (from Twunter) that when it comes to cash for cancer, all money is good money - with the caveat that as the husband of a cancer epidemiologist he was always going to say that! - and on reflection it's not necessarily a zero-sum game. And despite my own recent medical misadventures I'm not pushing the barrow for ball cancer - I don't want to know what they'd have on their jerseys instead of a pink ribbon. (Perhaps a phlegm-coloured ribbon for lung cancer awareness?) But the money is trivial, really, compared to the publicity. When you think about what it would cost a paying sponsor to get the same level of exposure from a league like the NFL (much more averse to slathering logos over jerseys and across fields than say the Australian NRL or AFL), the dollar value there in terms of publicity for the cause far far exceeds the actual dollar amounts donated to the charity through gate receipts, corporate donations or whatever. For the charities, this is always going to be much more about generating awareness rather than dollars. And while you could make some sort of case that targeting a national sport with heavy male-biased demography in order to broaden the awareness base of breast cancer beyond the gender who actually suffer from it, it's hard to convincingly argue this is going to be more effective in generating positive medical outcomes than a similarly heavy investment in, say, prostrate cancer - something that kills NFL fans and players, but something which (like ball cancer) seems to remain something to be embarrassed about, mainly because of the, erm, somewhat invasive surveillance regime.
And if it's not about generating positive medical outcomes what's it about? Surely not just cynically trying to appear sensitive to womens' needs and interests. Because that would be making commercial advantage out of cancer. And that would be an act of venal, unconscionable bastardry you might expect out of Big Pharma - not Big Football.
The Doctor is OUT.
17 comments:
I guess the problem with raising funds for lung cancer is that its mostly self cause. And yes, i am happy for every overpaid sportsman to contribute the smallest cent for cancer research.
True about lung cancer, it's certainly perceived as a self-inflicted injury. And usually through the misuse of products which have always had strong corporate backing behind them. As to who's paying for this I doubt any of the actual sports pros have donated a cent from their pay as part of their teams and leagues getting behind this (or any other) cause.
Actually one point I wanted to make but forgot (and won't bother re-editing it into the above to make it look like it was always there) - if these leagues really wanted to show they cared about womens' health how about going with the white ribbon rather than the pink one, as a statement against violence against women. But presumably there's less money in that or something.
Yes self-inflicted "injuries" don't tend ot attract research fundimng, true,. Except it is the biggest cancer killer, and the cases of mesothelioma and non-smoking related lung cancers is increasing.
I worked in thnehospice and there were so many people there with lung cancer who had never smoked.
In fact osophygeal and throat cancers are often caused by years of drinking and smoking, yet lung cancer is theone we instantly think of as a smoker's disease; clearly the rising number of cases against fewer smokers should tell them to throw some more $$$ there.
Prostate cancer , I've heard tell, is an inevitable diafnossi on elderly men. A dr/pathologist friend was telling me that when they do autopsies on old men they'll most likely find prostate cancer. Abigail.
Oh! damn those typos!! I didn't even see them, I was too speedy.
Just forgot to say, DocY,look, agreed on the marketing value in those traditionally masculine sports. Call me cynical but...
I mean can't you just see their spin boys in closed door meetings coming up with this stuff. Ah, no congratulations to them from me for their supposed benevolence-- aside for Glenn McGrath's instance--I think Jane McGrath came up with it --or her best friend. Abigail.
OK, this is an obvious point (and one you hinted at Doc), but the proctological nature of prostrate cancer checks means we're highly unlikely to see it done via colour association...
Much as I'd love to see a footy team wearing brown-fingered gloves to raise money for prostate cancer, or a team decked out in poo brown (Roy and HG would have a field day) it's not gonna happen.
It would need to be something less direct, perhaps like Lance's LiveStrong campaign or whatever.
On a similar topic, I heard an interview on the radio yesterday with a woman who had an interesting POV on what she called something like 'an epidemic of positive thinking'. She was basically talking against the idea that you need to have positive thinking to get you through cancer, and arguing for her right to be cranky about having had cancer, rather than having to be 'endlessly positive'. The corollary (or implication) being that it's somehow your own fault and negative thinking that has caused the cancer. Interesting thoughts anyway...
Hope all is going well with your treatment, Doc. Best wishes mate.
Abs - certainly, that's why I was careful to say 'perceived as a self-inflicted injury' - there's a huge problem current and looming with mesothelioma (eg baby boomer generation exposure to asbestos)
Timmo - cheers, going well I think - noone can be endlessly positive. Being bitter and angry can be helpful I think, if you direct it in useful ways (ie as motivation.)
DocY ,
Oh yeah, I totally dug what you meant and you were choosing your words carefully. I was agreeing with you wholeheartedly. The industry that now surrounds Cancer, Reg Trademark, is sort of numbing because it normalises it *too* much and has a paradoxical effect: "well, never mind, cancer sufferer, one in three will get it; you're Just Not That Special".
That doesn't tally with the emotions the person is going through.
Anyway, I'm veering off topic, sorry.
Timmo, I heard the same interview you heard - Smile or Die is the name of her book.
Take care of yourself , Doc, be with the people who love you and don't be afraid to lean :)
I love reading your blog, it's very clever and funny.Abigail
I generally agree with all your points. It is clearly a cynical ploy, no question about it. But cynical from which end?
Sure the professional sports bodies are reaping the rewards of the colour association, but I'm curious as to who got the ball rolling with that deal? If it was the fund-raising body, then I wonder if your line of argument was used to sway the sports bodies towards using the pink brand?
I work on the fringes of trade marketing in my business, and I can tell you that the various cancer fund-raising campaigns are setting the bench-mark for cross-media marketing techinques. It's funny to watch young marketing mavens get sick with envy when they think of the pink campaign... back in the day, it'd be the likes of Coke and McDonalds which would dominate the product marketing/PR case studies.
Yeah I can imagine. They'd have excellent cut-through (if that's the right marketing wankword) with it because there's no possible barrier you can put in front of it and not look like a complete cunt, vs if you don't want to give marketing space to Coke or Maccas you'll cop less hassles from the market. It's for charity, and as Alexei Sayle observed you can do what the fuck you want if it's for charity (that line of his I've used before about Hitler invading Poland for spina bifida comes to mind). I'm sure both parties get their pound of flesh out of the mutuality of it all.
I doubt the players care all that much about the significance of the pink ribbon. They just put on the uniform that's hanging in their locker. Then they'll go out to hit the strip clubs the other six nights of the week.
Breast Cancer awareness-definitely not a bad thing. Using the disease as a marketing ploy-bad thing.
" And if it's not about generating positive medical outcomes what's it about?
I fear that as you hinted its more about some sought out marketing than realy trying to improve outcomes for Cancer research.
It still a travesty when you compare how much we spend on entertainment/sponsorship in comparison to medical research.
But then we don't have society where learning about working with stem cells is as popular as follwoign your local team to the grand final.
YDog and Barnes - am in agreeance on those points absolutely.
You are right, to begin with it was a nice gesture. Now it has turned into a publicity stunt.
A bit sad really.
Doc, you're absolutely right. I think I mentioned at my place quite soon after my diagnosis, that I actually felt a little guilty that the kind of cancer I have seems to generate so much more publicity and support than other cancers. I'm not sure why that is, maybe because so many women get breast cancer that there is bound to be a relatively high percentage of high profile sufferers?
OTOH, I think it would be a shame if we allowed cynicism about marketing/brand awareness and/or hypocisy, to disadvantage the organisations that do their level best to provide support and services to cancer patients.
It shouldn't really matter HOW these organisations generate the publicity that generates the money, just that they DO, and they use it to benefit patients via research, financial assistance, counselling, practical advice (how to make it look like you really DO have eyebrows ;))It's also worth remembering that ALL cancer patients can receive SOME sort of support through the various cancer councils. A lot of additional breast cancer support is provided by organisations like McGrath Foundation, Chicks in Pink and Breast Cancer Network Australia.
Are there organisations like these providing support for other types of cancer? Probably not... and what will we do about it? Well I would think that if we're going to go with a significant colour for a specific cancer, then Testicular Cancer is a no-brainer. How many of you boys have suffered "blue balls" since you hit puberty????
Okay, Prostate Cancer is a bit trickier, but I'm sure we can come up with something?
As far as positivity aiding recovery, I believe in it, but not to the exclusion of normal human emotion. I get tired, sick, cranky and feel sorry for myself on a regular basis, but I count myself one of the lucky ones. My surgeon couldn't have been happier with the outcome of my surgery, which gives me a great starting point for full remission. I'm not a terrified 5 year old with Leukaemia or someone who is terminal with an end date in sight, so I'm lucky!
Now that I've thoroughly hijacked your blog, (apologies for that), I will just mention that these campaigns for me personally through the years, have served as a reminder to contribute to my own pet causes - Breast Cancer (in memory of my Grandma)and SIDS (though I seem to have missed that one this year)and though not the same sort of campaign, ANZAC and Remembrance Days (just 'cos I'm a Military Brat).
*beats the drum for organ donation*
Doc, most professional athletes here in the US are quite charitable, donating money to all sorts of causes. Some of them medical, but also to educational charities as well. Many athletes from the inner city often give back to after school programs. Quite a few athletes, as per the statistical norms, have children with birth defects (one famous quarterback has a son with Cystic Fibrosis, while another has an autistic son), and their teammates often give heavily to the charities that are inevitably set up by the athlete. Not only that, but many of these football players have mothers and aunts, also per the statistical norm, that are fighting breast cancer (or in Brett Favre's case....yes, the guy that allegedly sent pics of his doogan to a woman....his wife).
Most of our professional sports here have serious image problems with off-the-field behavior, so to counter that the athletes are encouraged to be very charitable both with time and money. Yes, it's cynical, would they do this without encouragement or the tax benefit? Many would not. But the ends justify the means.
Personally, since our NFL season goes from the end of August until early January, I think all NFL'ers should participate in Movember.
Post a Comment