Every October, Facebook fills up with cryptic statuses. A few years ago it was single colors — “Melissa, black,” “Rebecca, red” — the color of the bra each woman was wearing. Then came the purse locations: “I like it on the floor,” “I like it behind the couch.” Then numbers followed by the word “inches” and how long it takes to do your hair. Men logged on confused, women kept them guessing on purpose, and thousands of people shared.
It was all for breast cancer awareness. And it worked — at least at getting shared. But why did so many people want in? The case study I read this week breaks down the psychology, and it’s worth understanding.
The Ingredients of Viral
These memes had everything content needs to spread. First, curiosity: a mysterious status makes people stop scrolling, and friends asking questions in the comments pulls even more people in. Keeping men confused on purpose turned the whole thing into an inside joke people wanted to join.
Second, personalization. Everyone got their own answer — their color, their spot, their number. It felt like yours, not a forwarded flyer.
Third, the effort was basically zero. Copy, paste, done. No money, no leaving home, no real commitment. The case study puts it plainly: humans want to do the right thing, and if the call is simply to push a button to “like” a status, most people will oblige.
Fourth, the emotional reward. Participants felt they were supporting people affected by breast cancer. Sharing it also said something about who they are — people like the idea of others associating them with a good cause.
That’s a powerful recipe. Simple to do, fun to share, feels good. The problem is what the recipe leaves out.
The Komen Bump — and the Catch
The Susan G. Komen Foundation reported an increase in interest and contributions following the viral memes. That sounds like a win — until you look closer. The memes circulated during the opening days of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, when interest spikes anyway, so it’s difficult to say the memes caused the donations.
Many people also found the sexualizing of breast cancer problematic. Others wished the messages had linked to prevention information or donation options instead of arriving as a private message with no next step. Going viral and doing good turned out to be two different things.
Who Got Left Out
The secrecy was the point — keep men guessing. But keeping men out of the conversation meant keeping out potential supporters and people affected by the disease. The Centers for Disease Control notes that one of the biggest misunderstandings about breast cancer is that women are the only ones who are susceptible. Over 2,000 men were diagnosed and more than 400 died from the disease in the United States in 2012 alone.
It seems counterintuitive to brand awareness campaigns in pink while purposefully keeping the message out of men’s hands. An awareness campaign should make useful information easier to access, not harder.
So Is It Actually Activism?
This is the question the case study keeps circling: these calls for awareness spread quickly but make little difference in the world when they aren’t linked to real-life action. Is a secret message really going to mobilize real action to help cure breast cancer?
The case argues that organizations benefit more from messages tied to practical mobilization — volunteering, donating money, signing a petition, writing a letter. Often that takes just one click. And it asks readers to imagine the difference: spending an entire afternoon volunteering at a chemotherapy treatment center versus stating the color of your bra on a Facebook status.
One creates a memory. The other creates a notification.
The memes understood people. The next step is pointing all that energy somewhere it can actually land.
What would it take for you to move from sharing to showing up? Tell me in the comments below — I’d love to hear it.
Leave a Reply