News

This year's Calgary Stampede has been awash in pink.

Rodeo cowboys, beauty queens, politicians, glitterati and spectators have donned all manner of pink items: boots, shirts, bandanas and, of course, the ubiquitous cowboy hat.

It's all part of the Tough Enough to Wear Pink campaign. Last month, Stampede organizers announced that, for the first time, the self-proclaimed "greatest outdoor show on Earth" would use its public profile to raise money for charity.

George Brookman, president and CEO of the Calgary Stampede, vowed to raise at least $1-million for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation's Prairies and Northwest Territories chapter, a goal that has been well surpassed.

The money was raised in a number of ways: the sale of $3 pink bandanas, the gate proceeds from $3 sneak-a-peek shows before the official Stampede opening, a $1,000-per-ticket concert by songstress Diana Krall, an auction, a party at the mega-bar Cowboys where anyone not wearing pink was fined $100, and other makeshift events.

But the launching point of the Tough Enough to Wear Pink campaign was the sale of 30,000 pink Wrangler shirts, a percentage of which went to the breast-cancer charity, and which provided discounted admission. (Wrangler, a leading Stampede sponsor, has supported similar campaigns at other rodeos.)

Raising money for breast-cancer research, and raising awareness along the way, is not a bad thing.

But the involvement of Wrangler and other businesses, big and small, in the "30 Hours of Tough" campaign should serve as a sobering reminder that, above all else, this is a marketing campaign.

Corporations such as Wrangler are looking for ways to reach consumers - women consumers in particular - and what better way than wrapping themselves in feel-good breast-cancer pastel pink?

That's why there is a plethora of pink-themed products: Not just shirts, but lipstick, yogurt, bracelets, Tic Tacs and even vacuum cleaners.

It is rarely clear what percentage of the cost of these products is going to breast-cancer charities, but it can vary from 2 to 50 per cent.

Well-intentioned consumers think they are helping women with breast cancer, but in many cases they are supporting little beside the corporate bottom line.

At the end of the day, many companies are exploiting people's empathy for breast-cancer survivors to boost their sales and burnish their image. (Even the pink ribbon began as an initiative by cosmetics giant Estée Lauder after it failed to reach a deal with a grassroots breast-cancer group in the United States that had created a peach-coloured ribbon. )

If the Calgary Stampede - an enormously profitable endeavour, year after year - wanted to donate $1-million to the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, why didn't it just cut a cheque?

The answer to that question is twofold.

The success of the Tough Enough to Wear Pink campaign, Mr. Brookman said, demonstrates the "power of the brand" - meaning the Calgary Stampede brand. This flexing of marketing muscle will have corporate partners scrambling to be a part of future fundraising ventures related to the Stampede.

Second, having people wear pink - even macho cowboys who, presumably, are sheepish about doing so - is supposed to raise awareness about breast cancer.

But does it really?

Does sticking a pink hat on your head or wrapping a pink bandana around your neck while you watch bull riding or chuckwagon racing really make you more knowledgeable about breast cancer?

Does hectoring the public into making a lemming-like fashion statement make them more empathetic to breast-cancer sufferers? Or, are these merely glib superficial gestures?

If you're interested in supporting breast-cancer research, won't you get more bang for your buck by donating the money directly to a legitimate charity than by buying a Wrangler shirt or attending a concert?

If an iconic institution like the Calgary Stampede truly wants to raise awareness about breast cancer, why not use its massive marketing muscle to urge women to get mammograms? Or, better still, why not help educate women and men about some of the factors that increase the risk of breast cancer - poor diet, lack of exercise, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, exposure to carcinogenic chemicals such as those in some cosmetics, poverty?

But perhaps that would be a bit too uncomfortable in an atmosphere of non-stop partying, where flapjacks and corn dogs are the culinary choices, and where the money flows more freely than the drinks.

You don't have to be tough to wear pink.

You have to be a lot tougher to actually think and act about the root causes of breast cancer.

*****

Essential pink questions

Breast Cancer Action, an activist consumer group based in San Francisco, stages an annual Think Before You Pink campaign to help consumers navigate the ever-expanding sea of pink-themed breast-cancer promotions.

BCA urges consumers to ask a number of critical questions before purchasing pink-themed products. Some of the questions include:

How much money from each product sold actually goes toward breast cancer? It can range from a few pennies to hundreds of dollars.

What percentage of the purchase price does this represent? The amount going to charity can range from as little as 2 per cent to more than 50 per cent of the purchase price.

What is the maximum amount that will be donated? Campaigns that promise to donate a portion of the sale price often cap the total amount.

To what breast-cancer organization does the money go, and what types of programs does it support? What is the company doing to ensure that its products are not contributing to the breast-cancer epidemic?Is the promotion a golf tournament on a course sprayed with pesticides?

For more info: http://www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org

apicard@globeandmail.com