Pink is just red mixed with white.

In literature and art, colors are used to convey certain feelings believed to be universal. Everybody – no matter where they come from – is said to experience the same energies when consuming color in a given work or piece.

This phenomenon is called symbolism and the feelings or energies themselves are referred to as archetypes.

Some archetypes associated with red are violence, excitement and danger, while white is commonly used to convey purity, rebirth and wholeness.

Pink’s archetypes are a combination of the two … caring, tenderness and healing (particularly in times of grief or sadness). Pink conveys feelings of overcoming red to a state of white. Spring and rebirth are almost always connected to pink.

Red mixed with white.

“Uh, so let’s get going, there’s no other choice. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural… fluids.”

Pink archetypes are everywhere in modern society.

The primary color of Easter (which occurs during the spring and is a literal celebration of rebirth) is pink. Pink is often associated with femininity and the archetypical origins of this probably come from the fact that women give birth.

This same association of pink to femininity is evident in consumerism as well; we market to archetypical effects on our consciousness. Victoria Secret and Mary Kay, two of the largest producers of female focused products, both use pink as their primary color.

It’s not just for women though. In the hyper-masculine film Reservoir Dogs, which is a cinematic clinic on symbolism, Mr. Pink is the only character with any sort of compassion for others but is still a hard-nosed criminal. Pepto-Bismol, which heals nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach and diarrhea (I did that all off of memory from that stupid jingle by the way), is pink in color. Pepto heals both men and women.

Pink’s archetypes are everywhere and reinforced all of the time.

Considering this, it then makes total sense for pink to be the primary color of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (or simply, “Komen”).

I mean, just look at the other examples above. It fits right in.

Caring, tenderness, healing … It’s perfect for an organization like Komen; one that is fighting breast cancer.

But, that doesn’t exactly mean it’s perfect for an organization looking to end breast cancer.

“…In the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines.”

Whether their colors make sense or not, there is another huge difference between fighting cancer and ending it …There’s a lot more money in fighting cancer. And Komen knows this.

Consider one of the fundamental aspects of business:

Organizations make money by easing pain.

If there is no pain (such as inefficiencies, overspending, lack of visibility, etc.), then there is no money to be made. A product that does not ease any pain just will not sell, at least not for very long.

This is why money for research towards ending pains or problems has to be donated and raised.

While goods and services (that temporarily mitigate pains or problems) generate revenue and sales.

The key distinction here is that entities selling the goods and services that mitigate, never really want the pain or problem to go away; because then they would go out of business.

No one wants the problem to go away in a capitalistic economy, they just want to keep easing the pain.

Eventually, though, most big problems are solved either through research or even enterprise. However, enterprise tends to only completely eliminate them when the market dries up or the solution market is more profitable.

This is why we have the phrase, “They can put a man on the moon but they can’t _____.”

During the Cold War there was money to be made in launching stuff into space and going to the moon; we had to be able to hit Russia with a missile from our own backyard. Now that there is no more Cold War pain and Russia is (sort of) our ally, we don’t really go to space anymore.

Keeping the peace is much more profitable than ending conflict.

There is a lot more money in fighting cancer than there is in curing it.

“Peace is our profession”

Beyond the theoretical arguments, the actual numbers associated with Komen are simply shocking.

Keeping the peace – instead of ending the conflict – is their business.

And business is good…

Their CEO makes more than the President of the United States at over $550,000 a year.

Their executives also average around $200,000 a year on travel expenses. Which doesn’t seem crazy at first, but remember … this is only a part-time job for these people. Their full-time employment is elsewhere; in the public or private sectors.

As a percentage of total spend, Komen throws about the same amount of money at salaries as they do at cancer research. They typically divvy up around 15% towards research and around 13% to their employees. This is from an annual revenue of well over $300 million…

What do they do with the remaining $200,000,000+?

An additional 10% of their annual spend goes towards fundraising (sales but not marketing).

And the remaining 62% all goes towards fighting cancer: health screenings, treatment and their highest spend item at 38% public education (marketing).

Their organization set up and spend is not reflective of an organization looking to end cancer. Just one that wants to ease the pain.

“…You can’t fight in here! This is the war room.”

Can the we criticize Komen for this, though?

I mean, it’s perfectly justifiable to take the stance of, “help is help and it may not be perfect but at least they are doing something.”

Well … There are such things as misguided good intentions. Even worse, there are disingenuous good intentions.

With something like cancer, misguiding people (whether it’s disingenuous or not) can be deadly.

Let’s first revisit those spend items above. We’ve already pointed out that their budget is not indicative of an organization looking to end cancer, but that doesn’t exactly mean they are being disingenuous. It just shows that their mission is to support those fighting cancer.

But, what about all that “Race for the Cure” stuff?

It’s their whole marketing platform and one of the largest components of their revenue stream.

If Komen’s business is not set up to be a conduit for cancer research then plastering “cure” on everything certainly seems disingenuous.

What makes your skin crawl, though, is that Komen sues other foundations for using the word “cure”…

Remember, with no more pain there is no more revenue.

If others (organizations that are really looking to end cancer) are able to use “cure” in their messaging, then they may able to use the momentum of Komen’s marketing. This would effectively end Komen’s control over the “cure” message.

By suing other cancer foundations for using the word “cure”, it’s clear that Komen recognizes the market opportunity associated with people contracting cancer and that they can’t afford to lose it.

They’ve monopolized the word itself, and thus Komen has established their organization as “cure” leaders; despite not really working towards one at all.

They have blocked their “cure” competition, which in turn protects the cancer fighting market they operate in.

It’s not acceptable then to just say “help is help”. Komen is not immune to scrutiny, just like we aren’t immune to cancer.

We can fight in the war room.

“Ice cream … Ice cream, Mandrake, children’s ice cream.”

As I write this, I am drinking ice water out of a cup that says “Race for the Cure” in a bright pink font.

When I turn on my television to watch a football game in a few months, all of the players will be draped in pink shoes, wristbands, towels and socks.

Just last week, I saw an army of pink covered walkers and joggers coming down the road I live on.

Marketing is marketing, though.

No matter how tired we may be of certain marketing campaigns in America, it is every organizations right to put their product or service out in the public eye. We can’t fault Komen for marketing.

We can criticize where and how they are marketing, however.

By putting their colors and slogans on everything they possibly can, it seems they are more concerned with marketing the Komen brand rather than cancer awareness.

Emily Michele, a health and nutrition journalist for the publication AlterNet, recently looked into Komen’s marketing practices and posited:

… the pink-ribbon-plastered “awareness” and “education” campaigns are often little more than a highly effective form of advertising — which in turn, brings in Komen’s millions. In other words, a way to raise funds for itself, while getting a pat on the back for its efforts to “save lives.”

The term “pinkwashing” has been coined to describe this deceptive trend, with sponsoring companies claiming they have joined the fight while still engaging in practices that contribute to the disease. All the while Komen receives millions in sponsorship dollars from these same corporations.

Cups, football players and t-shirts are one thing, but when an organization like Komen (that is supposedly against breast cancer) pinkwashes buckets of fried chicken, cosmetics filled with cancer causing chemicals, and oil drilling bits, it raises questions about what they are really pitching.

Michele later added:

Komen receives over $55 million in annual revenue from corporate sponsorships, from such health-minded companies as Coca Cola, General Mills, and KFC — …Buy a bucket of junk food, and pretend as though you’re helping to save lives while you slowly take your own.

There are no mentions of eating healthy foods, getting proper levels of cancer-preventing Vitamin D, or cutting out sugar — the substance that feeds cancer cells — in any of Komen’s marketing or “public education” efforts. Even though these are scientifically proven ways to prevent cancer.

What is mentioned, often, is the importance of screening for early detection of breast cancer. Which, along with a pink ribbon to bring awareness about the disease’s existence, is not “curing” breast cancer. Becoming aware that you could get it or finding out that you already have it, isn’t much help.

We can’t claim “sinister” yet, though. Sure, they are marketing on products that lead to cancer, but that could just mean they are mismanaged or ignorant. We can’t implicate them in anything more just because of that.

Well … there is a smoking gun.

Komen’s assets (of around $400mm) are in several drug and technology companies that are directly profiting from cancer.

It’s been reported that the Komen Foundation owns stock in pharmaceutical corps, like AstraZeneca (the maker of Tamoxifen, a cancer drug that has been found to actually increase the risk of contracting other types of cancer when using it). They own stock in General Electric, which is one of the largest manufacturers of mammogram machines. Recent studies have shown that mammogram machines can increase the rate of growth in cancer cells. And finally, Komen is financially connected to such pesticide and biotech corporations as Monsanto, Du Pont and Bayer.

Komen is built around the existence of cancer. They make money off of marketing cancer awareness and a huge chunk of their financial assets are tied to organizations that treat the disease.

They would be totally crushed if people stopped getting cancer.

So keep eating that pink ice cream, kids.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

They are either one of the most mismanaged organizations around or the worst people on the planet.

Yet, we blindly trust their judgment.

They are either totally ignorant to the issue they want to prevent or they don’t really want to prevent it at all.

And logic doesn’t allow for another explanation.

These were a couple of the conclusions filmmaker Stanley Kubrick made about political leaders during the Cold War arms race in his 1964 satire, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

The premise of this comedy classic is rather dark…

A high ranking military official goes rogue and sends dozens of aircraft to drop atomic bombs on various targets in Soviet Russia. The bulk of the film tracks the actions taken by American and Soviet governments as they try to corral the bombers before reaching their targets. The conflict is magnified by the fact that – residing at one of the target sites – is a world destroying “Doomsday Device”. If this site is hit, it would set off the entire Soviet nuclear arsenal; effectively ending the world.

…but Kubrick uses this darkness to make a point about the fundamental ridiculousness of the arms race.

Sending bombers to Russia could only be due to total mismanagement or the worst people on the planet.

Those who did it are either completely ignorant to the concept of retaliation or they never actually wanted to prevent war at all.

That’s the brilliance of Kubrick; he finds the root of something and creates a hypothetical juxtaposition that forces the viewer to reconsider what they have always been told about it. He did it in all of his films.

Unfortunately, we didn’t learn very much from Kubrick’s brilliance or his conclusions in Dr. Strangelove.

Well … we may have learned something about nuclear armament, but certainly not about trust and problem solving.

We still blindly trust organizations simply because they claim to be protecting us. We give them money hand over fist and we still point to ignorance before questioning their intent. We even think they love us.

When Kubrick got to the core of what this protection actually looked like during the Cold War, it was clear that it didn’t align with what we were told. The “love” the government had for us was just strange…

In Komen’s case it seems that the love is just pink.

Red mixed with white.