I chose to do
my artifact on the National Football League's A CRUCIAL CATCH campaign. The entire organization participates yearly
during the month of October in support for Breast Cancer and to spread
awareness to at risk women ages 40 and up. The main reason I wanted to look into
this campaign was because of the world of sports awareness that I believe
blinds us sometimes to the bigger picture. I explained one day in class how on
a college level, the University of Georgia Bulldogs received pink attire for
the month of October in support of breast cancer awareness but it really
baffled me that some of the guys on the team were not aware themselves of this
special month that is dedicated to Breast Cancer. I was upset at the fact that
no one had ever explained the reason for us wearing pink during our games; it
wasn’t something that the coaches, equipment staff, or television channels
explained to us as players. It pissed me off so bad that I decided as an
individual not to wear any of the pink apparel that was put out in our lockers
with our game day uniforms. When Dr. Hurt assigned this assignment I quickly
decided to do research on the Pink campaign. I specifically wanted to look into
college athletics and the use of Pink Ribbon products but because student
athletes don’t get paid, there really wasn’t any specific statistics in the
college athletics field. So I decided to look into professional sports,
specifically football and it’s NFL Pink campaign.
Before I dove
into criticizing the NFL for their participation in Pink washing I did research
to actually see where they might have been doing great things in support of
women battling breast cancer which they were. True, the NFL does spread
awareness from the players, the coaches and the referees wearing pink apparel
but were they really collecting a profit to give 100% to the American Cancer
Society like they advertise on the NFL Pink website? No. I began to research
the positive press about the profits earned for the ACS but the NFL doesn’t
even have statistics on how much they actually donate which led me to believe
that there might be a problem with this campaign. I looked through scholarly
articles and I found a lot of press and statistics that called the NFL out for
not doing enough to support the battle of breast cancer. They were only giving
under 10% of the earnings from pink ribbon products to the American Cancer
Society and they were keeping close to the majority of the profit for
themselves. As I continued to do research I found more evidence that this
campaign might be a cause marketing ploy to make money, gain fans, and get
great television ratings for the month of October.
1.
If
you gained more knowledge on the subject of cause marketing and how big
business gains profit from real life problems such as using cancer as a
marketing ploy, would you continue to support the NFL and purchase their pink
products?
2.
The
NFL is a league dominated by men, if they started a campaign for prostate
cancer, do you think they would have the same returns of profit as they do for
breast cancer?
3.
The
NFL uses photos of women who are low risk in their advertisements, if they
really wanted to make themselves seem closer to the cause shouldn’t they
advertise more older women who may be at high risk for breast cancer in their
ads?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCatches like this one really make me think harder about purchasing products that the NFL promotes as benefiting breast cancer or breast cancer awareness. If I looked into it and realized that big businesses profited rather than the cause itself, I would no longer consider purchasing those products.
ReplyDeleteThe second question is another tough one. I honestly don't think a campaign for prostate cancer would generate the same profits. It could, and it may take a while to set in, but breast cancer awareness is a month companies have used for many years to push products.
prostate awareness month starts in september. it is a nationally recognized month.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBefore this course, I thought it was great that the NFL was taking part in breast cancer awareness month and trying to raise money for the cause. It was not until we began talking about it in class that I was taken back at the fact that a good number of the players did not even know why they were wearing pink, or that a large portion was not really going to help the cause. I am a huge football fan and always will be, as reporting on football is what I want to do with my career, but I will no longer go out of my way to purchase pink items during breast cancer month until I know for sure a large amount of my purchase is going to the right place.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it would be the same. I think the reason that the NFL is taking in as many returns as they are is because it is men in pink. In society, many men think that pink is a very feminine color. The fact that these big, macho football players are wearing it during the month is very appealing to people and find it amazing that they would do this. Also, it is men doing something big for a large, mainly female based disease. I do not think they would get the same response if it were prostate cancer because nothing would catch the audiences attention.
I think it is wrong for companies who are supporting and funding breast cancer research to only use women of lower risk. Many people think that breast cancer is treatable and everyone is a survivor. This is because most advertisements only use women that are at low risk and bounce back. It is important for advertisers to use women of all extremes so that the audience sees just how intense the disease is and that not everyone is able to be resilient and survive it.
ReplyDeleteI looked into the NFL’s Crucial Catch Campaign as well. I completely agree with you that they are helping spread awareness about Breast Cancer. It helps the NFL improve their previous tarnished reputation due to problems with the players in the media.
To answer your first question, since I am knowledgable about the cause marketing and how the NFL employes cancer as an influential instrument I believe that consumers will still continue to support the NFL and buy their products. I believe that they will because the NFL has turned their pink merchandise into a brand that is “fashionable” for women to wear. The pink jerseys, shirts, hats, and other items that women and some men wear has become a trend in our culture. Even though consumers would still buy the products, once consumers know about cause marketing and profit there will be more debate toward the NFL. Hopefully, there will be enough debate about the strategies the NFL is using so that the debates will cause the NFL to advertise on nfl.com/pink truthfully.
To answer your second question, I don’t believe that prostate cancer is as “trendy” as breast cancer. The reason the Crucial Catch Campaign is so successful is that it take place during October, breast cancer awareness month. Also, men dominate the majority of the fans for football. The reason the women are targeting in this campaign is to gain fans, increase televisions ratings, and get more products sold.
To answer your third question, the NFL does use women who are at risk or have had breast cancer. If you check out my blog post you can learn more information into why the NFL uses certain women to create ethos and influence their audience. Also, how do you know that the women in the photos are at low risk? How do you know that older women have a higher risk? The cause of breast cancer is not know and doesn’t just occur at a certain age. Each person who is affected by breast cancer is different.
I think that it is wrong for large corporations such as the NFL to exploit breast cancer as well as those effected by it just so that they can improve their image and make money at the same time. I think if more of the NFL's audience knew about the motives behind this movement and the fact that only 8% of the proceeds are going towards finding a cure they would be upset and stop supporting this movement. I don't think most people are aware of what is going on with this in the NFL and every other company that takes part in the pink ribbon movement and I don't know if they ever will because news sources kind of look over this fact. I won't support the NFL's pink movement after reading all of this because I now know what the money is really going towards and why they are doing it in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to question 2, I feel that the NFL supporting prostate cancer would definitely give that foundation more light in the public eye. Breast Cancer is just popular due to all the publicity that surrounds it and all the advocating of Susan G. Komen. However, the reality of these diseases becoming means of profit is extremely unfortunate. If only 8% of the proceeds are going towards finding an actual cure for these diseases, then one has to think if these organizations are simply exploiting a cause or what is truly going on behind the scenes.
ReplyDelete1. I always struggle with these types of questions because I truly believe that spreading awareness about breast cancer (and other diseases) is so, so important. However, after reading your post, I was shocked to find that the NFL actually donates less than 10% of its earnings to the American Cancer Society! That is absurd! In response, then, I will definitely go with a no – I would not continue to support the NFL’s breast cancer campaign. This really seems like cause-marketing to the extreme... a HORRIBLE extreme, that is.
ReplyDelete2. Hm... good question. It’s hard to tell, honestly, but I think that in this situation, gender really wouldn’t make too much of a difference. There is probably such a small number of individuals who are ultimately responsible for choosing what percentage of profits they donate to these causes. If these individuals (who I’m assuming, perhaps wrongly, are men) have the audacity to only donate 10% of their profits to breast cancer awareness, I really can’t imagine that they’d have the morality to donate anymore to a cause that is so similar. This really speaks a lot to the danger of such marketing campaigns and the importance about being informed before contributing.
3. I think the NFL probably uses photographs of young women to grab the attention of the men who make up most of their audience. Although it would be more logical for them to user older, more susceptible women to advertise their campaign, this would probably not generate as much feedback or response. This relates back to the previous questions, then, in that it demonstrates the true nature of this campaign. It seems that “A Crucial Catch” was created more as a marketing scheme to benefit the NFL than it was to further the cause of breast cancer awareness.
1. I think that the issue is that the NFL is not clear about where the money for their pink products is going. For example, from this class and former COMM/ADPR classes I have learned about cause marketing. I believe it is wrong for a company, like the NFL, to mislead their target audience into thinking money for these pink products is going mainly towards breast cancer research, which as your research pointed out is not true. However, I went to a Falcons game in October and purchased a souvenir cup that was "pink. It's important to remember that even though it's just a percentage of the product that is going to research, it's better than nothing, especially for something like these souvenir cups which would have cost the same regardless of whether it was pink or not. I do realize, and hope more people do, that if I want money to go directly to research, it is better to give directly to a breast cancer group as it is mentioned in the video.
ReplyDelete2.I believe that a prostate cancer campaign in the NFL would not be as successful, because as someone mentioned before, it's just not as "trendy." Also it does sadly have a lot to do with marketing to certain gender roles, where men are persuaded to buy pink products in hopes of supporting a cause they don't know a lot about, while women are persuaded to buy these NFL pink products to support their fellow women in a market that is made up mainly of men.
3. I think this question is a bit presumptuous in us knowing what exactly causes breast cancer. Since so much research is still left to be done, we don't truly know if these women are being used in ads are low risk for breast cancer because these risks are still being assessed.