Comments on: Conventional and Non-Conventional Gender Symbolism in Breast Cancer PSAs

By: None

None — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:39:42 +0000

Thank you. That is exactly my point. In my family we’ve experienced ovarian cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer. All are very deserving of attention.

By: Boobies Against Breast Cancer » Sociological Images

Boobies Against Breast Cancer » Sociological Images — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 07:47:10 +0000

[...] breast cancer marketing posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and [...]

By: Emily

Emily — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:30:51 +0000

I find the first advertisement a little confusing. I can’t read the small text at the bottom, so the only real indicator I have that it’s about breast cancer is the pink ribbon. Personally I find it a little plain.
I have different feelings about the second one. The only thing that I’m willing to define as “sexual” is the underwear that she’s wearing. I feel that they are not making as large of a spectacle of the woman’s breasts as they could have; her hands are not only covering most of them, but the large pink ribbon is as well. I like this one.
I love the slogan for the third one, and it definitely gets its message across with clear and readable text (unlike the first two, which were much more image-oriented).
As for “bracelet activism,” I don’t see it as strictly “feminine.” I’ve seen plenty of Livestrong bracelets worn by guys and in an array of colors, not just stereotypically “feminine” ones.

I do agree though, more focus needs to be put on research for other cancers, as well as the fact that there should be at least a few breast cancer research advertisements about men. And thanks for posting this!

By: Sociological Images » Should Marketing Principles Be Applied to Disease?

Sociological Images » Should Marketing Principles Be Applied to Disease? — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:39:09 +0000

[...] I’m not trying to suggest that raising awareness of and funding research for breast cancer isn’t important, but I am interested in the strategies by which being “against” breast cancer is (literally) sold to us. And I’m curious about how this affects treatment and research funding, if at all, and the rationality of our resource distribution given the application of a marketing approach to (some) diseases (and not others). (Also in breast cancer marketing, see here, here, here, here, and here.) [...]

By: Le

Le — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:02:30 +0000

It’s cuz you can sexualize breasts. The second ad above proves that. But how do you sexualize internal organs? Unfortunate but true.

By: Tracy

Tracy — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:13:33 +0000

What’d I like to know is why breast cancer? Why not ovarian or uterine cancer? Why not colorectal cancer? I hate to complain because my own aunt died of breast cancer, but it seems that some cancers are more popular to advocate over than others. Breasts beat reproductive organs apparently.

By: Muriel Minnie Mae

Muriel Minnie Mae — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:10:32 +0000

There’s a Facebook group called “Save Second Base.” It’s a group dedicated to breast cancer research (or something along that line). I didn’t join.

By: Marcello

Marcello — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:46:46 +0000

The “lovely young woman” in the first ad is Marg Helgenberger of CSI’s fame. She was born in 1958. ;)

The contrast between the two groups is quite striking… I personally like the marathon approach, but i’m not sure which one could be more effective.

By: pharmacopaeia

pharmacopaeia — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:11:59 +0000

As part of a recent breast cancer awareness drive in New Zealand we have had ads that deal with ‘ordinary’ women (http://www.nzbcf.org.nz/downloads/BCAM%20Poster.pdf) andalso, admirably, a push to make men more aware of the disease, not necessarily as sufferers themselves but as the husbands, brothers, fathers and sons of sufferers (http://www.nzbcf.org.nz/downloads/BCAM_07_poster.pdf).