National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Aaron Gordon writes, provides the perfect opportunity for the NFL to grow its female fan base.
On Monday night, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers hosted their first Monday Night Football game since 2003, the year after they won the Super Bowl. The sellout crowd—an increasing rarity at Raymond James Stadium—was understandably rowdy to face the Colts with the lights shining upon their young, promising roster.
The last time the Buccaneers hosted a Monday Night Football game, less than one in three NFL fans were women. But last Monday, the panning ESPN camera showed a group of fans that exemplified the NFL’s popularity explosion of the last decade: about five rows of young, energetic, cheering women wearing pink.
For the third consecutive year, the NFL is observing National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. During all October NFL games, players will use pink equipment—gloves, cleats, sweat bands, protective sleeves—and auction them off after the game, with the proceeds going to the American Cancer Society and team charities. For all my grievances with Roger Goodell and the NFL’s marketing arm, they have no contemporaries in the modern sports world. The NFL has grown at rates no league has ever dreamt of. Part of its genius has been tailoring the game to its viewership while simultaneously expanding to new markets. And yes, part of its genius is using cancer as a marketing tool.
No one is arguing with the NFL voluntarily donating the proceeds from auctioned equipment for charitable purposes. However, if you think the pink theme bludgeons fans with “awareness” for a specific type of cancer that hardly flies under the radar, then you’re right. The NFL didn’t choose Breast Cancer Awareness Month as its flagship charitable initiative by accident. National Breast Cancer Awareness Month existed long before the NFL publicized it—every October since 1984 has been National Breast Cancer Awareness Month—but the NFL took advantage of a decreasingly deadly type of cancer to cultivate a demographic they historically ignored: women.
♦◊♦
Just about a year ago, when the NFL was in the middle of its second year of “going pink”, Ryan O’Hanlon made a convincing case, at this very site, for the NFL to choose a disease that affects its fanbase more than breast cancer does, such as heart disease or prostate cancer. Ryan’s conclusion was based on sound data; research during the 2004-2005 NFL season found a whopping 69 percent of NFL fans were male, despite being a minority in the United States. But, increasing awareness for a deadly disease is an externality of the NFL’s efforts, not the goal. It has to be breast cancer precisely because women know about it.
In March of 2006, the NFL signed a new labor agreement with the Players Association, and by September of that year, many owners began grumbling that they might have conceded too much to the players. Roger Goodell was appointed commissioner and immediately made evident that, to assuage the owners’ concerns about stagnating revenue, he was going to create a rising tide to lift all boats.
One obvious path to increased revenue was to expand internationally, but that proved more difficult than Goodell anticipated. The Cardinals and 49ers played in Mexico City in 2005 but never returned. The Patriots and Seahawks cancelled a preseason game in China in 2007 so the NFL could focus on the International Series in London, which has been a minor success at best, but hardly the revenue boom the league hoped. When the international markets proved resistant to rapid growth, the NFL about-faced and returned its focus to the States, deciding women were the next-best option. They were right.
In 2004, 31 percent of NFL fans were women. Five years later, that number had exploded to 44 percent. It’s hard to imagine many men stopped being football fans, which means women who previously didn’t consider themselves fans became fans at an unfathomable pace.
In 2009, the NFL’s first “going pink” year, the league also debuted its first female clothing line, with jerseys, shirts, sweatshirts, and hats specifically designed for women. In fact, the ad campaign publicizing this new line was the most-liked TV spot of 2009 according to Neilson. Today, you can buy virtually any type of NFL clothing you desire in the “Fit for You” design. (In October, they also come in pink, of course.)
The NFL’s ability to grow its female fan base was a key element to the recent labor negotiations. Television contracts drove the league’s decision to take a smaller cut of the overall pie because they were so confident revenues would continue their astronomic increase. They were right; ESPN renewed their Monday Night Football contract for 73 percent more than the previous deal. ESPN—and surely NBC, FOX and CBS will follow—are willing to pay so much more for NFL rights because they’re reaching so many more eyes. With more women tuning in to football than ever before, new advertisers are considering Sunday time slots and bidding each other up. The league tried to expand in multiple areas, but women proved to be the next frontier. The best part? There’s still room for more growth; the proportion of female NFL fans still lags behind the national demographics.
♦◊♦
As Ryan pointed out a year ago, a vast majority of breast cancer patients are women—for every 100 breast cancer cases, less than one is male—but that’s not an argument against the NFL’s initiative regarding breast cancer, it’s the exact reason why the NFL chose breast cancer.
As for the actual color pink, the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month website has been using pink shades on the site for years, well before the NFL ever got involved. But, in 2007 Time reported a study that women are biologically programmed to prefer the color pink more than men. Your Sunday telecasts feature flashes of pink not to remind your wife to schedule her annual mammogram, but in the hope she finds the game more visually appealing.
As the rows of young, enthusiastic female football fans last Monday night demonstrated, the NFL isn’t going pink to make women aware of breast cancer. They’re going pink to make women aware of the NFL.
—Photo AP
i will kill u
“there hasn’t been any truly new or better testing or treatment for prostate cancer in decades – and there is virtually no mention of it at all anywhere.” Rubbish. From July 2011: “What’s new in prostate cancer research and treatment? Research into the causes, prevention, and treatment of prostate is under way in many medical centers throughout the world. Genetics New research on genes linked to prostate cancer is helping scientists better understand how prostate cancer develops. These studies are expected to provide answers about the genetic changes that lead to prostate cancer. This could make it possible to design… Read more »
@ Morgaine
You are right he should man up & keep quiet about prostate cancer like most other men, shame on him.
From the article referred to above (NFL needs to stop being pink):
“Heart disease is the number-one killer in the United States. It accounts for more than 615,000 deaths per year. It even kills more women than breast cancer.”
My wife had mentioned this to me yesterday. She thought it was odd the NFL picked breast cancer and not heart disease. I guess pink is easier to market.
Heart disease is just not as “sexy” right now, awkward as that word is to use with breast cancer. Breasts are external, hearts are not. Hearts don’t have catchy, taboo nicknames that can be unleashed. “Save the Tickers!” just doesn’t sound the same as “Save the Ta-Tas!” And, a lot of heart disease is connected to high-fat, high cholesterol diets and obesity, not something that a lot of NFL sponsors are comfortable drawing attention to. Domino’s Halftime Report, anyone? One more factor is that the causes of many forms of heart disease are somewhat well known, there are lots of… Read more »
Completely agree with you Anonymous Male. I think that this campaign gets so much press, not because the NFL is trying to expand it’s market so much as it enjoys, like the rest of the world, exploiting women’s breasts. Even when it is played off as doing it for women’s health.
Thanks for your comments, everyone. I think these are some important points. But, think of it this way: there is no mandate the NFL MUST care about cancer, of any type. It could have just continued as it did previously, with October just another month on the NFL calendar. But, the league decided it was in it’s best interest to start a massive cancer awareness campaign, which is raising a significant amount of money. That’s because many people care about cancer. We can (and do) get into debates about whether this was the cancer that deserves/needs the most attention or… Read more »
Hey I’ll wear a blue bracelet! Can I get one that says “Save the C**ks!” ? Or “I love dicks?” Or “PeeStrong” Our daughters can wear the bracelets to school and defy administrators who request they take them off. We can hold Testicle Festival fundraising Balls! And color every women and girl’s dance recital, fashion review, gymnastic event, etc. blue! We’ll be sure to shame anyone who doesn’t get on board with claims of sexism. It’s been proven to work for the breast, boob, titties, chi-chi, boobies, ta-ta, girls campaign. It could generate million$! Crystal Jones- I’m very sorry for… Read more »
“Hey I’ll wear a blue bracelet! Can I get one that says “Save the C**ks!” ? Or “I love dicks?” Or “PeeStrong”
Our daughters can wear the bracelets to school and defy administrators who request they take them off.”
If we created bracelets that said ”I love cocks” or something similar, it would probably have to be our daughters wearing them. I have nephews who think they look better with trendy hair styles that shave their heads for St. Baldric’s, but I can’t envision them wearing that.
I see that NFL is always supporting Breast Cancer awareness and donating to the cause in the month of October. Ihow in the hell can I get them to donate to the Prostate Cancer Cause in September for Prostate Cancer awareness? 1 in 6 men will develop this cancer and some doctors say that it’s a good chance that every man will get this cancer SOME time in their lifetime if they reach the age of 85. Every 18 minutes a man DIES of Prostate Cancer. But you don’t hear anything about Prostate Cancer. No. ALL you hear about is… Read more »
Hit it right on the mark!
I’m sorry for your loss. My father died before I turned 2 due to a brain tumor, which is probably another form of cancer.
You know, it might not just be about marketing or marketing to women.
Men care about breast cancer because they love women. They don’t want their sisters, mothers, wives, or daughters to die.
The fund-raising campaigns against breast cancer are monsters of revenue. This is about the NFL hooking up with one more revenue-generating brand, not about raising money for charity. The pink ribbon is the equivalent of the Nike swoosh. I often wonder how much of the money raised goes for actual cancer research and how much goes for “administrative” and other costs. I bet the percentages would be scandalous. Pink is a convenient color because 1) it’s eye-catching and 2) no teams have pink as a team color, so it’s very noticeable on all teams. It reminds me a lot of… Read more »
Actually men don’t like to go to the doctor to screen for prostate or colon cancer BUT if their wives uunderstood they could be widowed and their children orphaned if their man gets cancer, motivation could increase. Seems to me a creative campaign could accomplish that. I also know several couples who have lost their children to cancer…that is also one that affects many. When my kid got his SI Kids mag in pink this month, I wonder if he thinks that “women’s cancer” is the only one worth being aware of…after all, the messages are everywhere! We are aware… Read more »
Because of the lack of funding in prostate cancer (including government funding), there hasn’t been any truly new or better testing or treatment for prostate cancer in decades – and there is virtually no mention of it at all anywhere. Since it’s only a men’s disease, it’s evidently not worthy of public mention or much government funding.
It’s always a good thing to try to raise awareness and funding to help people suffering with any disease. Certainly breast cancer is a worthy candidate. However, it’s also very politically correct to support breast cancer, because it does affect so many women.
It would have been equally politically INcorrect to support prostate cancer since it only affects men. That is why you seldom if ever see any major organization coming out against prostate cancer. It would be considered sexist.
To prove how politically incorrect it is to address a disease that affects men only, even at a site called Good Men Project, breast cancer has been written about here more than twice as often as prostate cancer.
But, that’s still better than other feminist sites, such as Feministing.com, where it’s literally a 100-1 ratio. That shows what they really think of men.
I don’t know that discussing prostate cancer is not PC. I view not PC as things society frowns upon or considers wrong by definition like racism, sexist, or homophobia. There was a male prison that wanted all their guards to meet certain objective physical requirements like drag 180 pounds 100 yards. Their thinking was just because the guard was female it wouldn’t make the inmate any lighter. This line of reasoning didn’t hold up because it was thought to be sexist because it would result in a disproportionate number of women being disqualified for employment consideration. This is PC. I’m… Read more »
I’m not a fan of the pink campaign. Admitting that doesn’t make me very popular but for the last 20 years they’ve raised sick amounts of money and I’m not sure what breakthroughs they’ve funded. I’m plenty aware of cancer. I just lost my uncle to brain cancer. What color is that? I do care about the sick and/or dying or survivors but I don’t need pink crap to prove it. The afflicted would probably prefer a nice conversation or a hug more than anything. I also find it a bit offensive that someone would assume I like anything because… Read more »
Breast cancer as a marketing tool…you nailed it. It’s a disease, not a marketing tool. But this isn’t about trying to help stop a disease. It’s all about the money.