Pink fatigue

The New York Times Well blog had an article today about the growing number of voices expressing "pink fatigue." October is breast cancer awareness month and pink is everywhere. but some fear that the emphasis on marketing and cutesy products misses the point. Others feels the money could be better spent on actual breast cancer research rather than "awareness."

I can appreciate that this can be a difficult balance to find. You do want to raise awareness of the disease, especially since early detection can be helpful in treatment. Creative fundraising can bring in a lot of money. And it's nice for people to feel like they are doing something, even if it is just saving yogurt lids. But are we missing the point? At least one group is suggesting we need more than pink, we need a deadline. The National Breast Cancer Coalition has taken the pink gloves off and set a deadline to find a cure: January 1, 2020.

Despite the frustration, it appears the sea of pink is here for now. But let's continue to highlight research efforts as much as we highlight baseball players with pink bats.

the trouble with creating campaigns

The New York Times published an interesting article today about Britain's struggles to create a nationwide anti-obesity campaign. The article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/business/media/11adco.html?ex=1360472400&en=f9a7f5ae40a339a3&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink.

Everyone agrees on the the problem, but few agree on the solution. Especially contentious is whether food marketers would be able to use the symbol on their products. Others are concerned than any advertising campaign would be a drop in the bucket compared to how much food advertisers will spend to counter the advertising and market their own products.

The British case shows all the considerations that have to go into the decision to create health awareness campaigns. What other factors need to be considered?

Update on Ransom Ads

The Wall Street Journal Health blog reports that the NYU Child Study Center is pulling the controversial "Ransom Notes" public awareness campaign. The intention of the campaign was to raise awareness of the problem of untreated mental health illnesses in children. But many protested that the campaign went too far.

The NYU Child Study Center says they will continue the dialogue on mental illness in the coming year. See the link to the study center statement here: http://www.aboutourkids.org/about_us/public_awareness##

Does this campaign go too far?

A campaign by the New York University Child Study Center to raise awareness of the silent public health epidemic of child mental health illness is getting people's attention and raising eyebrows. The campaign uses billboards and advertisements depict ominous threats about depression, autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, Asperger's syndrome and bulimia. For example, the autism ad reads: "We have your son. We will make sure he will no longer be able to care for himself or interact socially as long as he lives." The idea is to raise awareness of how mental health illness "kidnaps" millions of children. See an article in The New York Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/business/media/14adco.html?ex=1355374800&en=8bf0e7a608ccac2b&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

But some are concerned that these ads go too far. Some worry that these ads only further stigmatize these illnesses. Others are concerned the ads cast the young people who live with these illnesses in a negative light, that these young people are trapped, when families spend so much time trying to emphasize the things people with these illnesses can achieve.

But these ads are getting people's attention and they are getting people talking about mental illness. Isn't that the idea? Or is this the wrong way to get people talking?