This week I noticed a lot of headlines, Twitter updates and even heard on the radio about a study and how its results may be negatively affect Breast Cancer research and awareness.

Here are some of the Headlines regarding this article:

• Could the colour PINK be harmful to breast cancer charities? – mix967.ca
• Breast cancer charities warned that pink is counterproductive – Marketing Week (UK)
• Pink not helping breast cancer fundraising? – 24 Hours Vancouver
• Pink not helping breast cancer fundraising? – CANOE – Lifewise Living
• Thinking ‘pink‘ may impede breast cancer support: study – National Post

Something about the headlines aroused my interest, so I decided to do some of my own research just to see what all the controversy was about and also to try to find the original source for the story. Since my university and currently in my job, I’ve had to read many journal articles and also non-academic material. The one thing I’ve learned is to read “news” headlines with a smidgen of skepticism. It turns out, as per usual, these headlines are not 100% true… This is, of course, my opinion on this specific story.

I was able to find an interview with the main author of this study, Stefano Puntoni on the Harvard Business Review site. You can actually read about his findings and hear an interview with him for the magazine as well; just go here. In this interview, Puntoni clearly states that the colour pink itself is not a bad thing. The main finding is this: Seeing the color pink makes women less likely to think they’ll get breast cancer and less likely to donate to cancer research. Female participants responded to gender cues, which include the colour pink along with female related symbols, etc. Puntoni states, “Nothing makes pink a feminine colour except what we think.” Pink used to be a male colour prior to the 20th century; thus, its association with all things feminine is still relatively modern. “But right now, pink is female and has this effect.” Puntoni suggests that acknowledging the fear of contracting cancer may offset these responses and thus, make women more aware of breast cancer risks. Puntoni and his colleagues have also noticed “that the negative effect on perceived risk can be eliminated by helping the audience build a buffer against the threat posed by breast cancer by, for example, boosting [women’s] self-esteem by asking them to think about times they helped others.” So there are ways to counter such negative responses; it’s not the end of the pink ribbon campaign by any means. However, it is important for research findings such as these be made public, so that consumers (male or female) can be better informed.

For those of you who like full links, I’m sorry to say the original source article is not available online yet. However, here is the full citation for Puntoni and colleagues’ published article:


Puntoni, S., Sweldens, S. & Tavassoli, N.T. (2011). Gender Identity Salience and Perceived Vulnerability to Breast Cancer. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(June), 413-424.

I am also including a full summary of the article, which I found on the Journal of Marketing Research website.

The Executive Summary From The Journal of Marketing Research
Breast cancer is a leading cause of death, and alerting women to their vulnerability to this disease is thus an important goal of governments and charities. Missed opportunities to obtain an accurate diagnosis continue to persist which is why those who have suffered because of this may wish to search Law Firm Atlanta for further consultation in this area. Breast cancer communications often underscore women’s gender identity through textual information (e.g., “If you are a woman, what you’re about to read could save your life…”), symbols (e.g., the pink ribbon), or images (e.g., a woman covering her removed breast). Moreover, independent of ad copy, women are often exposed to breast cancer communications in situations when their gender identity is especially salient because of targeted media contexts (e.g., websites or magazines).


A series of six experiments, however, demonstrate that heightened gender identity salience can trigger defense mechanisms that interfere with the goals of cancer awareness campaigns, which is counter-intuitive to marketing. If you have spent the time and money with online campaigns (including SEO that you can see here), why compromise this at the starting point of the brand? In three studies, an increase in gender identity salience lowered women’s perceived vulnerability to breast cancer. This finding is important because perceived vulnerability to cancer is a major antecedent of precautionary behavior. In addition to its effects on perceived risk, heightened gender identity salience also resulted in reduced donations to research against gender-specific cancers (ovarian cancer) and had deleterious consequences for the cognitive processing of breast cancer communications. Women perceived breast cancer communications featuring gender cues as more difficult to process. They also displayed lower memory for breast cancer communications when the ads were featured in websites devoted to feminine topics. The findings of these studies contradict the predictions of several prominent theories, as well as the expectations of a sample of advertising executives. In addition to drawing attention to the possible dangers associated to the use of common design elements in breast cancer campaigns, the studies offer suggestions on how to avoid defensive responses. The negative effect of gender identity salience on breast cancer risk perceptions can be eliminated by making women conscious of their fear of the disease or by boosting women’s sense of self-worth at the time of ad exposure.


Make your own judgments, add to the discussion and share with your friends…and of course, leave your comments. I’m always interested in reading and hearing what the rest of you have to say.