tip off

Deceptive pink bits

Promoting awareness about breast cancer is nothing to sniff at. Neither is raising millions of dollars for much needed research into a disease that has affected at least one person we know.

But this week we’re giving the Wankley to products that pinkefy themselves with all sorts of glowing promises about their commitment to breast cancer research.

Of course, corporate generosity doesn’t come free, and in most cases, if you care to track down the fine print (providing you have the inclination and a giant Magnifying glass that is, and who does?) it’s only then that your warm inner glow is snuffed by the companies’ commitment to deliver much less than they make out.

It means companies like Mount Franklin tint their label a rosey hue, wrap themselves in the pink ribbon and top it off with a pink cap on bottles of water that fill the fridges of milk bars everywhere, but if consumers care to read the fine print while sucking down their filtered water, they’ll see that it says:

Mount Franklin is donating $250,000 to the National Breast Cancer Foundation for 2009.

That’s nice and all, but it’s not much to pay for the goodwill and brand love that Coca Cola Amatil gets from buying a slice of pink.

Sure, some products give you more bang for your pink buck, but in the spirit of reading the fine print, Crikey asked readers to keep a look out for the most egregious examples of pink washing.

We asked you to name the companies and brands that you considered to be shamelessly attaching their name to the cause by painting themselves pink and promising token donations in exchange for a far larger slice of the (other) pink dollar.

Crikey reader Margaret Bozik writes:

OK, it wasn’t for real but the Chasers’ skit earlier this year of the Ku Klux Klan members wearing pink hoods to raise funds for breast cancer highlighted the obvious analogy that just because someone donates money to a good cause, doesn’t mean they are good.

I also find the Platinum Sponsorship by Macquarie Group Foundation worth of note. I have no idea how much goes to the breast cancer people but according to their website, they donate $26m to 900+ community groups worldwide per year.

This sounds quite worthy until you look at their profit (after tax) and executive remuneration.

In 2009  — their worst performance for many years  — the group made $871m profit after tax and executive remuneration of key management personnel (excluding earnings on restricted profit share) totalled $29.77m. The tax deductible community donations represented less than 3% of after tax profit.

In 2008, the group made $1803m after tax and executive remuneration of key management personnel (excluding earnings on restricted profit share) totalled $110.56m. The tax deductible community donations represented 1.44% of after tax profit.

Jenny Morris writes:

Less than 20 min after reading your invitation to send in examples of pinkwashing, I came across the following. It’s from the States, but is worthy of comment, I think, because of the indeterminate “portion of the proceeds” going to breast cancer research. I wonder what portion?

Vivien Banks writes:

The McGrath pink Visa card. Now you can spend irresponsibly and stop cancer at the same time?!?

But the winner of the promised “selection of deep, dark, black Crikey merchandise” (that’d be a pair of sinister black socks with Kevin’s Rudd’s pets on them and a T-Shirt of her choosing), goes to Rhea Thrift:

The most outrageous pinkwashing has to go to Dunlop Volleys. They’re selling pink volleys at rrp $40, of which a whole generous dollar goes to breast cancer.

I still bought the shoes because they are still bright pink volleys (i.e. pretty swish). However it does kind of suck that they’re going to be making money out of this. Having gone through breast cancer with my mum (who was diagnosed last October) it’s a bit galling.

Especially considering how amazing some of the medical professionals (especially the nurses) were and the sh-t money they make. Surely they could do with a pay rise instead?

I have included pictures of the shoes for you:

View our complete Wankley winners’ archive

18
  • 1
    meski
    Posted Friday, 30 October 2009 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    I really tried to find James Hardie Industries in the pinkwash, but failed.

  • 2
    Heathdon McGregor
    Posted Friday, 30 October 2009 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    What about connex cure cancer day. One dollar from every ticket sold on a Saturday to go to cancer charities. How much does the continuous advertising cost really?

  • 3
    Bullmore's Ghost
    Posted Saturday, 31 October 2009 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    When will cigarette packets turn pink?

  • 4
    Doctor Whom
    Posted Sunday, 1 November 2009 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    Would it be a bit cheeky to suggest that the Breast Cancer research is not all that short of a bob or two compared to other cancers.

    A bit more $$ thrown into Bowel C ancer screening would save lives right NOW through early intervention. No iffs- no butts ;) Save real lives.

    But bowels and shit aren’t pretty pink.

  • 5
    gef05
    Posted Monday, 2 November 2009 at 5:28 am | Permalink

    Well, to avoid offending you all the answer is simple: let’s tell big business not to donate.

  • 6
    meski
    Posted Monday, 2 November 2009 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    @Whom: Perhaps the Zune could contribute to bowel cancer then, they are the right colour.
    http://www.amazon.com/Zune-Digital-Media-Player-Brown/dp/B000H0QDCC

  • 7
    nicoled2806
    Posted Monday, 2 November 2009 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    Why is the McGrath pink Visa card being criticised? They donate half of the card’s annual fee to the McGrath Foundation. If I’m not mistaken, 50% is a pretty generous amount compared to what all the other big businesses donate. Plus it’s not like people are going to decide to get a credit card and rack up huge amounts of debt just because it’s associated with breast cancer support.

  • 8
    meski
    Posted Monday, 2 November 2009 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    Like we need more credit cards. They’d need to get more than 12,500 people in to equal what Franklin’s water contribute. FAQ on the site doesn’t show how many.

  • 9
    Dotty Daphon
    Posted Monday, 2 November 2009 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Men need to get off their bums and get a similar thing going for prostate cancer research because as many men die from this in Australia each year as do women of breast cancer.

    http://www.prostate.org.au/articleLive/pages/Prostate-Cancer-Statistics.html

  • 10
    gef05
    Posted Monday, 2 November 2009 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    @Meski

    Like we need more credit cards. They’d need to get more than 12,500 people in to equal what Franklin’s water contribute.”

    Yes, how dare they offer a product and charge money for it.

    Let’s force them to create an entirely different product and service and then force them to charge a set fee for it so that they can donate more money to medical research.

  • 11
    Heathdon McGregor
    Posted Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Dear GEF05

    The way they could stop offending me is to donate for the good and not the PR. If the donation is formiddable enough then the PR will come. I believe the cynicism comes because the main aim of some of the passengers of the breast cancer initiative is to get good PR for their companies and not for the benefit of breast cancer.

    In regards to the credit cards I would reply “how dare they use breast cancer to entrap people into using credit.” They are not simply offering a product but are using a charity to market their product.

  • 12
    meski
    Posted Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    @GEF05 - so it would be ok in your opinion to have a pink pokie machine promotion for this? Not a great deal of social difference between a pokie and a credit card, in the wrong hands.

  • 13
    gef05
    Posted Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    Dear Heathdon,

    If the donation is formiddable enough then the PR will come.”

    *slam dunk*

    Thanks,

    gef05

  • 14
    gef05
    Posted Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    @ Meski

    So, you want poker machines and credit cards banned from all use for everyone?

    Interesting.

  • 15
    Joal
    Posted Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    The way they could stop offending me is to donate for the good and not the PR.”

    Got a magical device for measuring the motives of CEOs, have you?

  • 16
    Heathdon McGregor
    Posted Friday, 6 November 2009 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    not magical just called common sense, if the advertising budget outstrips the donation.

  • 17
    meski
    Posted Friday, 6 November 2009 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    @GEF … where did I say that? Or even imply it? I could equally say that you agree with advertising for tobacco to be brought back, it’s just as much a straw man argument as you are presenting.

  • 18
    Posted Friday, 6 November 2009 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    @Dotty Daphon, the prostate foundation could help themselves by not encouraging barbecues and focusing on campaigns that aren’t associated with increased cancer risks http://network.nature.com/people/cobi/blog/2009/11/05/cancer-awareness-organisations-promoting-barbecues-are-irresponsible

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...