Advertising Cancer

I was watching TV the other night (I have to admit that it was the new show on LivingTV called 'Four Weddings' where four brides get to attend each others' weddings and then slag them off afterwards. It was HILARIOUS, mostly because of the narcissistic gay 'bride' who was the biggest bitch I've ever seen making snobbish value judgements about the other contestants)... I digress... and an advert came on for Cancer Research UK, or CRUK as we call them in the trade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUQo3m3tGB0

And I had few thoughts about it. Firstly, due to the seriousness of cancer and the impact it has on peoples' lives, I feel I should mention again that I work for a cancer charity and that my thoughts aren't a reflection of the devastating impact cancer has on people but how we should talk about and view people living with cancer.

The start of this advert is pretty good. I think it reflects the fact that cancer really can affect anyone - and it’s pretty positive too. My issue lies with the last 15 seconds when the whole tone of the advert changes and we're reminding that it’s not a battle everyone wins. Now, I am not suggesting we gloss over the fact that more people are diagnosed and that many, many people still die of cancer or its knock on effects, but there was a clear distinction between 'those who live' and 'those who die'. Those who live look healthy and empowered and hirsute. The two women at the end with bald heads or scarves were clearly meant to represent those people who die as a result of their cancer.

I did find it frustrating that the 'non survivors' were represented by the stereotypical bald cancer victim. No one else in the footage had hair loss, only those telling the audience that many people still die from cancer - with the clear message that this might apply to them. Of course this is harrowing and very likely true for these women - and I was deeply moved for them - but I felt almost patronised at the sharp contrast drawn between the two groups represented within the advert.

There are a number of issues with the way this is represented. Firstly, many people diagnosed with cancer do not suffer hair loss, including many who receive chemo as part of their treatment. Secondly, for me it equates hair loss with terminal illness, which hardly seems fair on those in remission and perpetuates the confusion that it's cancer which causes hair loss and not the treatment. Why are none of the 'survivors' depicted with hair loss? Thirdly, does it really 'do' these days to show a bald teenage girl representing the masses of people diagnosed with cancer, who may indeed not survive, but who are far more likely to be older and not necessarily bald?

Having a hard hitting message is necessary in direct marketing campaigns, but playing on the emotive nature of the young 'victim' is not something which I think does the battle for cancer equality (and fundraising) any favours. It is perfectly possible to hit home the significance of cancer and the need to research into it without resorting to this.

Perhaps I wouldn't have minded if one of the 'survivors' had been bald? Perhaps I wouldn't. It would make the whole thing seem less calculated somehow. I feel that we can't talk about empowering people living with cancer whilst continuing to represent them in this narrow minded and rather old fashioned way.

When is it ok to laugh about cancer?

Before we begin, I think it's best that I mention that I work for a cancer charity so I'm allowed to question these things. And, that for the majority of the time, it is not cool to laugh at cancer. Now that's out of the way we can begin.

One of the things I find perplexing about the internal structure of the third sector is that the people within it have a complete inability to laugh at themselves. Now, I am fully aware of the importance of taking what you do seriously, especially if you work with sick / disabled / homeless / otherwise disadvantaged people... BUT my thought on this subject is that we reach a point when this earnest-ness can become a disadvantage. A yoke of worthiness which limits our creativity and business savvy.

Working in corporate fundraising, specifically, means I am lucky to see how the big bad corporates make their money. It seems a healthy touch of cynicism goes a long way. Recognising that some ideas are just... shit... is also important, and something charities are appalling at when it comes to thinking of new ways to fundraise. Breakthrough Breast Cancers 'Strawberry Tea' anyone? I know I'm setting myself up for a lashing here, but its just so.... naff. and unoriginal. An for most of these things, the marketing materials are terrible!

Obviously we can't just run about taking the piss out of people with cancer, but for God's sake, sometimes I could just headbutt the table in meetings when we're all talking about the significance of a particular phrase or acronym rather than how to make our charity better at doing its job, or recognising that mascots are hilarious and a bit embarrassing.... or that getting up at 6am to talk to a bunch of employees at the local granny salon is a bit unrewarding but something that needs to be done...

I take another example in naming an event we're starting this year. It's being held on Brick Lane. Apparently 'Brickin It' was too risque for us. If it was for a bunch of pensioners to do some flower arranging then I do totally get it, but this is for 20 somethings to listen to music and get pissed. Taking ourselves too seriously means we run the risk of losing our credibility in a new field.

Brand messaging is MASSIVELY important, but I wonder at what point it is that you're so scared of your viewpoint standing out, that you end up standing for nothing? The most successful brands arent the ones who want to appeal to everyone. They want to appeal to the right people - take Pimm's. it's a really silly advertising campaign, but perfect for the sort of pompous Britishness certain groups secretly love to indulge in during the summer.Or Cheesestrings. We know they're not for kids, every adult I know loves them! The campaign is totally inpenetrable and alienating and, therefore, fabulous in my mind.

I know charities must reach all that need them, so with regards to information and services and campaigns, be as high minded as you like. But to make money, we must behave like a business. We must play to our strengths. And we really must remind ourselves not to sound like we're preaching, guilt tripping on standing on our soap box. Do you think Innocent sold as many pointless bottles of squished fruit as they have by making people feel bad? I don't think so.

I fear this is becoming a pointless post. I am posing more of a question than a viewpoint on this. So - I wonder whether the deep seated self-belief and earnestness with which charities operate actually causes them harm?

I certainly feel that the commercial savvy of third sector companies is compromised by a refusal to accept that to be a success amongst corporate brands, we must learn not to take ourselves so seriously.