Selling Compassion

Veg Trends and Gender Differences

2012-01-08T08:37:00.000-08:00

There is a common assumption that women are more likely to be vegetarian or vegan, but is that really true? Let’s take a look at the data…

A 2010 random Gallup poll of 1029 adults found that American men are more tolerant of animal abuse and exploitation than women, in general. Take a look:

“The sharpest differences between men and women on these issues are not found on abortion or other reproductive matters, but on three issues that involve the ethical treatment of animals. Majorities of men, but less than half of women, consider the use of animal fur for clothing, and medical testing on animals to be morally acceptable. Also, there is a 24-point gap between men and women in their belief that cloning animals is acceptable.”
(emphasis added, source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/four-moral-issues-sharply-divide-americans.aspx )

If that’s the case then it seems that women might be more likely to be veg*n than men. But take a look at this study done by Harris Interactive of 1010 American adults:

“Seventeen percent of Americans stated they ‘don’t eat meat, fish, seafood, or poultry at many of my meals (but less than half the time),’ and 16 percent don’t eat these foods at more than half of their meals (but not all the time). Thus, one-third (33 percent) of the country is eating vegetarian meals a significant amount of the time. That’s in addition to vegetarians!
[...]
Approximately 5 percent of the country say that they never eat meat, fish, seafood, or poultry, which makes them vegetarian. Approximately half of these vegetarians are also vegan; that is, they also don’t eat dairy or eggs. Note that we had respondents select ‘I never eat meat, fish, seafood, or poultry’ or ‘I never eat meat, fish, seafood, poultry, dairy, or eggs.’ Because we use the word ‘never’ and give the definition rather than having respondents self-define, our numbers may be lower than other polls. We also did not ask about honey, which would most likely give a lower figure for the number of vegans.
[...]
There is a misconception that more women than men are vegetarian, but it appears that the split may be pretty even. A larger difference shows up when looking at who is eating vegetarian meals one day per week or at many meals.”
(emphasis added, study link is here: http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2011issue4/vj2011issue4poll.php )

So, it’s about even. There are likely equal numbers of male vegans as there are female vegans with no significant gender difference. And that seems to be true from my personal experience. I know lots of vegetarians and vegans and the gender split is about equal.

Vegans… read on…

However, from the standpoint of veg activism we might want to focus more on one gender than the other. The data from the Harris study suggests that nonvegetarian women eat more vegetarian meals than nonvegetarian men OR that nonvegetarian women think they eat more vegetarian meals than nonvegetarian men, and so these women may be a good audience for a vegan message.

Does that mean vegan adocates ought to spend more time encouraging women to go veg because they represent the “lower-hanging fruit” and will increase our total numbers of veg*ns more quickly? Or does that mean advocates should work harder at convincing men to choose plant-based diets because they face the most obstacles and need our support more?

There’s a group called the Humane Research Council that collects data about animal issues and makes suggestions for activists so that we can be most effective. Their website is here: http://www.humaneresearch.org/ A study done by the Council in 2007 (3200 adults) to determine the most effective strategies to reduce farmed animal suffering and death found that “Females are the majority of all key meat reduction segments“. That study is online at http://www.humanespot.org/system/files/HRC_Veg_Study_2007.pdf (You will need a HRC account in order to access the data yourself).

But that’s not the end of the story. HRC actually suggests tailoring the veg message depending on the audience. They do not suggest reaching out only to women, rather they suggest that some reasons for veg*nism (animal welfare, health, or the environment) are more compelling to certain segments of the population than other reasons. So we’re really back to square one: It’s best to take an individualized approach to animal advocacy depending on the specific situation.

Crossposted at Vegan Soapbox: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/veganism-and-gender/

Meat Reduction Advocacy more effective than Vegan Advocacy?

2012-01-07T11:51:00.000-08:00

From The Humane Research Council:

"One of the most important strategic decisions facing veg*n advocates is whether to emphasize meat reduction or the complete elimination of meat or other animal products. Veg*n advocates’ goals are, arguably, best served by seeking out and pursuing approaches that most quickly and sustainably lower U.S. adult demand for meat products. The survey results strongly suggest a meat reduction strategy would be effective, although even with this comprehensive research, it is impossible to pinpoint any one most effective strategy. There are about three times as many people willing to reduce their meat consumption by half as those who are willing to become vegetarians. Assuming each group is equally likely to change, if there are 1,000 adults in the target audience, advocates might be able to persuade 240 of them to reduce their meat consumption by half (24% of adults are potential semi-vegetarians), but only about 70 of them to eliminate meat from their diets (7% are potential vegetarians). In this example, advocating semi-vegetarianism would yield the largest reduction in meat consumed." (emphasis added)

Link: http://www.humanespot.org/system/files/HRC_Veg_Study_2007.pdf
(You will have to create a login to view the source directly)

There are obvious methodological issues with this study, namely that people who say they're willing to do something aren't always actually willing as well as the fact that people who "eat less meat" tend to eat less meat from large animals and still consume plenty of small animals (which means that the total number of animal lives saved is less significant). However, the central idea that people are more willing to make incremental change than large sweeping change is an important concept that's worth remembering whenever performing vegan education.

Vegan Paradox: unsupportive friends and family

2011-12-15T09:21:00.000-08:00

An interesting finding from a recent survey: People who felt the least supported when they went vegan were more likely to stay vegan than people who felt more supported. Take a look at "Do vegans thrive in adversity?":

"In 2011 pledgers were asked at the end of the pledge about how difficult various challenges had been including “other’s attitudes” rated from 1 (very easy) to 5 (very difficult). Those who found other’s attitudes more difficult were more likely to stay vegan. Out of 49 pledgers, 13 gave a rating of 4 or 5 on the difficulty of other’s attitudes and all but one of these (92%) chose to stay vegan.""Why might those who found friends and family least supportive be the most likely to stay vegan? One obvious reason might be a third variable. Those who were most passionate about being vegan were most likely to stay vegan and also to have disagrements with others. Another reason might be that those who had trouble with lack of support or others’ attitudes became more committed to being vegan to better integrate with a new social community."

Of course, the sample size is small. And there's the issue of self-reporting. But this is interesting nonetheless.

Link to survey discussion here: http://theveganoption.org/2011/12/04/vegan-pledge-statistics-adversity/

"The Health Argument" for veganism

2011-08-21T08:54:00.000-07:00

As a reminder...

Cultivate Research undertook a large, multi-phase research study including nine focus groups and a survey with 3,200 U.S. adults to investigate these segments and the motivations that affect their decisions to mitigate or halt their meat consumption. [...]

The research conducted during the course of this study clearly shows that increased health consciousness is one of the single most influential factors affecting the dietary choices and habits of the U.S. adult in today’s society. Cultivate Research has identified that a key reason for the growing importance of health is the aging of the U.S. population; and older consumers are more likely to be reducing meat as a component of moving toward a healthier diet. As the “baby boomer” population continues to age and these consumers become increasingly concerned about their personal health, we expect the population dynamics to shift even further in favor of meat reduction for the perceived health benefits. [...]

Cultivate Research conducted in-depth quantitative (the first phase phone survey) and qualitative (second phase focus groups) research to obtain a well-rounded understanding of the trends and motivations of consumers who limit their meat consumption. This project represents one of the most comprehensive research studies ever conducted about the attitudes and behaviors of U.S. adult consumers toward meat reduction and the consumption of meat and dairy alternative products.

Source: http://cultivateresearch.com/vol_1_VCT_Series_Overview.pdf

This, once again confirms, that "the health argument" for veganism is most appealing to older people whereas other arguments may be more appropriate for younger people.

Of course, it should be noted that the argument alone is not sufficient for veganism, as explained by Vegan Outreach and Ginny Messina. The health benefits traditionally associated with veganism can often be obtained through the consumption of small amounts of lowfat animal products and large amounts of whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables (a "flexitarian" diet). Likewise, small amounts of veggies meats are also an acceptable part of a healthy diet.

But what is important to note from the research cited above is this: Grocery stores, restaurants and other food-sellers selling vegan foods can probably profit most by emphasising the health benefits of the vegan foods.

Notes from AR 2011

2011-08-21T08:20:00.000-07:00

Here are some of our notes from the 2011 AR conference: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/topics/ar2011/.

Of particular interest to the readers of this blog are these posts:
Winning Hearts And Minds
Effective Speaking
Advertising Our Message
Printing Our Message
Writing The Animal Rights Message

Print versus online media

2011-03-12T13:02:00.000-08:00

A study was done a couple years ago that compared print and virtual advertisements. The researchers showed study participants two ads, one was on screen and the other was printed on paper. They did an MRI on the participants to see how their brains responded to the ads.

The study found that:

"Physical materials produced more brain responses connected with internal feelings, suggesting greater 'internalization'"
"Physical material involves more emotional processing"
physical presentation of information "may be generating more emotionally vivid
memories"
"Tangible materials leave a deeper footprint in the brain"
print materials have "a more personal effect, and therefore should aid motivation"
"While in no way denigrating virtual media, which clearly has specific benefits in terms of targeting and interactivity, the study does reveal that there is something special about the physical medium."

This study suggests that print marketing materials can be more effective than virtual ones.

Study link: http://www.millwardbrown.com/Libraries/MB_Case_Studies_Downloads/MillwardBrown_CaseStudy_Neuroscience.sflb.ashx

Animal advocacy is not exactly the same as marketing, but there are similarities. From this study, we can draw the conclusion that the act of physical leafleting is valuable work that likely has serious tangible benefits. Most likely, whenever someone receives a copy of Compassionate Choices from Vegan Outreach, and they look it over, they have an emotional memory with a significant personal effect.

Clearly, virtual media has enormous benefits due to ease of production, lower cost, less waste, interactivity, and more. However, this study shows an enormous benefit to print media as well.

Why Meatless Monday Works

2011-03-12T09:45:00.000-08:00

Civil Eats has an article about the success of the Meatless Monday campaign. Chris Elam, the Program Director of Meatless Monday, explains why he thinks there's been so much acceptance of the program:

"It’s merely a suggestion to go plant-based on Mondays. That’s it. We keep the message intentionally simple, to make it accessible to all, in the hopes of reaching as many people as possible."

"Meatless Monday is about choice. [...] we want to give people more options, not less. We’re all about getting people to try new healthy foods and veggie-based recipes. It’s not about taking away–it’s really about adding."

"we leave it up to our adopters to define Meatless Monday. We work with so many different groups–cities, schools, campuses, restaurants, worksites, chefs, dietitians–that it makes sense to allow each one to shape its message to its specific audience. This flexibility allows people to feel personally invested in our campaign (which is vital in building a national movement)."

"There’s a lot of worry out there over large, looming crises: climate change, the obesity epidemic, food safety, environmental degradation, animal rights, budgetary woes, etc. Meatless Monday is a direct, personal response to these global fears, something we can all do that positively impacts these issues. In this way, we can tap into the energy and support of the many groups worldwide fighting these causes, making their platforms our platforms."

"Ultimately, after all the elaborate justifications and cross-competing agendas, Meatless Monday is about one simple thing: eating more vegetables. Isn’t that something we can all get behind?"

Emphasis added.

Here are a few other reasons why I think it works:

People seem more interested in health on Mondays. Just visit a gym every day at the same time for one or two weeks and you'll notice that a lot more people workout on Mondays than on Fridays or Saturdays.

A fresh spin: This concept of eating vegetarian or vegan one day a week is not a new idea. But Meatless Monday puts a new spin on it, complete with a catchy name and cool logo.

The timing is great for it. In an era where information is so accessible, sharing veg recipes and information that supports a plant-based diet is so much easier today than it was 20 years ago.

Crossposted at Vegan Soapobox.

The Payday Cycle

2011-02-26T11:03:00.000-08:00

I was reading a blog about marketing and I came across this:

University of Utah marketing professors Himanshu Mishra and Arul Mishra studied consumer behavior and attitudes, and found [...] if you are advertising new products or products geared toward improving lifestyle, those should be advertised in the time period shortly after payday. If you are advertising products intended more to maintain or prevent worsening of their lifestyle, target the period just before payday. They provide a simple example: whitening toothpaste would be an improvement-oriented product, while a cavity-prevention message would be geared to prevention.

The link is here:
http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/when-are-consumers-most-receptive.htm

For vegan advocates, this could be useful information. Although we're not technically selling a product, we're promoting a lifestyle. And much of what marketing is for products is the same as it is for lifestyles: ideas.

I think it's very possible that people are more likely to be persuaded to go veg by using different kinds of explanations at different times of the month. For example, they're probably more interested in hearing about celebrity vegans and indulgent vegan foods at the begining of the payday cycle whereas they're more likely to be interested in a budget and/or health-presevation rationale for veganism towards the end of the payday cycle.

It seems to make sense that people would be more willing to try new-to-them vegan foods at a free feed-in when they're broke but more willing to buy from a charity vegan bake sale when they're flush. And since there are other factors involved in how people rate the tastiness of foods (a variety of perceptual biases influence taste), vegan education campaign adjustments based on the payday cycle make a lot of sense.

The article reminds us that "Not everyone is on the same pay cycle, and it seems that more affluent consumers who don’t live from paycheck to paycheck would be less influenced by payday issues." But when dealing with college students, who are typically living "paycheck-to-paycheck," I bet activists could organize a vegan education campaign on a college campus based on the payday cycle of the university and on the timing of financial aid dispersements. That campaign, if well organized, could result in tremendous long-term benefits for animals, the planet, and human health.

---
Crossposted at Vegan Soapbox.

Will the animal (rights) movement ever succeed?

2010-12-20T20:57:00.001-08:00

Social justice movements and answering the question, "Will the animal (rights) movement ever succeed?": presentation >>

This comes from the October 2010 animal law conference at Lewis and Clark Law School.

If I could have embeded it, I would have. So just follow the link...

Book Review: Change Of Heart

2010-12-16T08:00:00.000-08:00

A couple weeks ago I read Change of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach Us About Social Change, a book by animal advocate Nick Cooney about motivating people to act in ways that benefit animals, other humans, and the planet.

The praise already given to this book describes it accurately:

“If we want to create a more compassionate world, we need to understand what motivates people to make compassionate choices. Change of Heart provides fresh, research based insight into how non-profits and individuals can more effectively create social change through a better understanding of the human mind.” - Gene Baur, Director, Farm Sanctuary

The book is a well-written and well-researched piece that belongs in the animal advocate's canon alongside Striking At The Roots and The Animal Activist's Handbook. The book is packed with scientific evidence that suggests particular strategies are more effective than others at producing societal shifts in regards to animal rights, human rights, and environmentalism.

Here's a snippet from the book to give you a taste of what I mean. This comes from chapter four "Tools of Influence, Part I: Simple Tools":

"Seeing a running meter of something—for example, the cost of a cab ride rising and rising, or calories burning off one by one on a digital counter while we exercise—has more of an impact than simply hearing the final price or number of calories burned. The Wattson, a popular item in the U.K., is a small device that displays in real time the amount of energy being used by a household and how much that energy is costing. Similar devices for sale in the U.S. show the electricity use and cost of individual appliances in real time. Watching the cost rise minute by minute can be a powerful motivator to lower energy consumption; the Wattson’s creators claim the device cuts household energy usage by five to twenty-five percent simply by providing immediate feedback to home-owners."

"Providing positive feedback on behavioral change that’s already taken place can help increase that behavior. For example, signs posted on recycling containers that proudly mentioned how many cans had been collected the previous week increased subsequent recycling totals by sixty-five percent (Larson et al. 1995). In another study, households that were mailed letters about their reduced energy usage and financial savings subsequently decreased usage by another five percent, whereas a control group that didn’t receive a letter actually increased their usage (Seligman and Darley 1977). Similarly, households in one town that got feedback on the number of pounds of materials they were recycling each week subsequently increased the amount of material they recycled by twenty-six percent (DeLeon and Fuqua 1995)."

For animal advocates who promote veganism, a similar concept could be used. For example, Eric Markus talks about "becoming an animal millionaire" wherein he means sparing ONE MILLION animals from lives full of suffering and painful death by becoming a vegan and then helping others become vegan too:

"All you need to do is to get about 500 young people to switch to a vegetarian or vegan diet. Since each 20-year-old will likely eat another 2000 chickens and other farmed animals over the course of his or her life, that works out to about a million animals for every 500 young people who change their diets." - Eric Markus

Ideas like this one will spring into your head as you read Change of Heart. You'll nod in agreement when a passage you read confirms your intuition or your own behavior. You'll cringe at some of the sneaky salesman tricks marketers have used and wonder if there's a more honest use for that information. And you'll wonder how little is really known in the fields of psychology and sociology.

A couple caveats:

Psychological and sociological studies can identify trends among certain personality types or groups of people. For example, older people tend to confuse myths for facts when given a factsheet that identifies myths. Simply repeating myths often can make many people (of all ages) believe the myths are true, even when prefaced with the word "myth" and followed by the conflicting fact labeled "fact." (I learned this from the book.) However, that does not mean that human beings always produce predictible behavior. Human behavior is incredibly complex and difficult to predict or analyze.

Likewise, these studies are not necessarily conclusive. There is room for doubt and room for error. Human beings conducted these studies, afterall, and humans are fallible.

Very few of the studies cited in Change of Heart were conducted for the purpose of learning about effective animal advocacy. Most of the conclusions drawn are based on analogies between other types of advocacy or even from the field of marketing, which means that there's room for error here.

All of the above simply mean that people who are interested in effective animal advocacy ought to spend significantly more time and energy studying how to be effective. There's a lot to be learned in this area and if we're serious, we should take to the task as though we were doctoral candidates in the subject. That is, we should do more research!

If Change of Heart interests you, then you might also consider reading:

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion

The Tipping Point

Nudge

How We Decide

Have you read anything good lately?

---
Crossposted at Vegan Soapbox

Are Emails Effective?

2010-12-05T20:14:00.000-08:00

I was recently reminded of an article I read at Striking At The Roots a while ago. The article is about email activism. Here's a quote:

Do elected officials and other decision-makers even care about the mass emails they receive?

So I called the office of Dianne Feinstein in Washington, DC, figuring my state senator would be only too happy to answer my questions. (No, I am not thrilled she co-sponsored the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, but that’s another topic.) I spoke with David Hantman, an aide in Senator Feinstein’s office. “I would say those emails are very effective,” he says.

Read the rest here >>

the Transtheoretical Model

2010-12-04T08:15:00.000-08:00

A while ago I wrote about The Stages of Change (aka the Transtheoretical Model) in an explanation of how many vegans experience some "relapse." I said:

Most vegans get to a point where they "gave in" and ate the cheese (or the sausage or whatever). They feel guilty and wonder if they can be vegan again. These people need encouragement. Of course they can get right back up on the wagon and be vegan again! Relapses "are an inevitable part of the process," remember?

Moreover, the presence of a few ex-vegans is not necessarily a sign of our movement reversing course, as some might say, but rather is simply a normal, natural process of change wherein some relapses occur.

All of that is true, however, the Stages of Change may not be a good model for influencing people to become more compassionate and empathetic towards animals. In Change of Heart, author Nick Cooney writes:

From the late 1970s through the present, researcher James Prochaska and colleagues created and developed what they call the Transtheoretical Model, a system that analyzes how ready a person is to adopt a healthy new behavior and that provides suggestions on how to direct that person from one stage to the next. The Transtheoretical Model (TM) is used by many public-health organizations in the U.S. and abroad, particularly for providing guidance in getting patients to stop smoking, drinking, using drugs, or having unsafe sex. Despite TM’s widespread popularity, meta-analytic studies of its research have shown it to be of little use in creating behavioral change (Riemsma et al. 2003; Horowitz 2003; Bridle et al. 2005; Aveyard et al. 2006; 2009). Unfortunately, many books and non-profits continue to promote TM as an effective approach for changing behavior.

Luckily, Cooney also says that "Although the Model itself seems to be of no use, the specific stages that Prochaska identified are worth looking at as a reminder of the stages most people go through in adopting new behaviors." Therefore, my original analysis was correct. These are stages that people tend to go through when adopting a new behavior, however these stages should not be used as a guide as to how to influence change.

"Animal Tracker," an AR Data Gaphing Tool

2010-11-28T15:31:00.000-08:00

I think I'd forgotten to blog about this when it first came out. I remember staying up late at night trying all the options and being surprised by some of the results, talking to my husband about this or that bit of research data and showing him on the graph how different demographics compared to each other on various animal rights issues.

Well, I've finally remembered to share it here. Mark Middleton at Animal Visuals created a graphing tool for the Humane Research Council. The tool lets you visualize data from HRC's Animal Tracker Survey, which is a survey that measures public opinions about animal issues.

Take a look here: http://www.animalvisuals.org/data/animaltracker/

Reading Change of Heart

2010-11-28T10:26:00.000-08:00

I am reading Change of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach Us About Spreading Social Change by Nick Cooney. This book promises to change my activism. Here's part of the official book description:

"Scientific research has generated a wealth of information on how people can be persuaded to alter their behaviors, yet this body of knowledge has been largely ignored by those working to improve society. Change of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach Us About Spreading Social Change brings this information to light so that non-profits, community organizers and others can make science-driven decisions in their advocacy work. The book examines over 80 years of empirical research in areas including social psychology, communication studies, diffusion studies, network systems and social marketing, distilling the highlights into easy-to-use advice and serving as a psychology primer for anyone wanting to spread progressive social change."

I expect that much of what I learn from this book will be useful to readers of this blog. Expect to see the review soon.

Is PETA Effective?

2010-11-18T10:23:00.000-08:00

PETA is one of the most controversial organizations in existence. People love them, hate them, tolerate them, question them. If nothing else, PETA is effective at getting attention and inspiring debate.

Even in Animal Rights communities, this question comes up over and over again:

“Does PETA help or harm the movement?“

It’s a difficult question to answer since PETA does so much and is involved in all kinds of campaigns. Moreover, few people or organizations take the time to measure efficacy. But one organization, The Humane Research Council, whose website is Humane Spot dot org, compiles and analyzes all kinds of information relating to effective strategies of the animal movement.

In their own words,

The Humane Research Council empowers fellow animal advocates with access to the research, analysis, strategies, and messages that maximize their effectiveness to reduce animal suffering.

When it comes to PETA’s efficacy, The Humane Research Council has some information that can help us answer the question above. There are two studies that indicate PETA is effective, at least in some areas.

Take a look:

1. “The U.S. Pork Checkoff (managed by the National Pork Board) conducted four focus groups of children ages 9 to 14 throughout the United States and surveyed an additional 350 children online. More than half of those surveyed had heard of “animal rights” organizations and almost one fourth of these children reported that these organizations have impacted their meat consumption in some way. There was low awareness of PETA among the children, but it had a high impact on their meat consumption. One-third of respondents had heard of or visited the PETA website, petakids.com; of those who were familiar with PETA, one-third had seen a video about animal care or meat consumption. 53% said the web site/video impacted their meat eating habits.” (source)

2. “[Another] study examined the impact of a graphic animal rights campaign launched by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) against alleged abuses on a corporate farm. It considered the impact of the campaign upon the credibility of the target of the campaign as well as the producer of the campaign.
Results indicated that PETA’s attack message against abuses at corporate pig farms was effective in eroding the credibility of the corporate food-industry raising animals for consumption. At the same time, PETA’s credibility rose overall after participants viewed the PETA attack message.” (source)

(Emphasis added)

Neither of those studies indicates that the other PETA programs are effective. It’s even possible that certain campaigns are counter-productive. But the evidence against PETA – on the basis of ineffectiveness – simply doesn’t exist yet. So be wary of “experts” who claim that PETA “doesn’t work” or is “counter-productive.” They are likely basing their opinions on personal bias rather than actual science.

Originally posted at Vegan Soapbox.

5 for 5

2010-08-28T11:04:00.000-07:00

A new campaign to offer free vegan starter kits online through Craigslist is based on solid research. They offered the kits online and then followed up with a survey of those who requested the kits. The survey found that most kit receivers changed their consumption of animal products, with a net result of fewer animal products consumed.

The campaign organizers say:

we found that 5 minutes spent posting ads on internet sites lead to about 5 Vegetarian Starter Pack orders. Although the percentages quoted in the paragraph above are likely inflated a bit due to response bias (despite our attempts to minimize it, people who adopted changes were still probably more likely to answer the survey than those who didn't, and respondents may have over-represented the extent of change), consider the following: even if we completely ignore the huge number of animals spared by all of those who partially or significantly reduced their meat consumption, and just look at those who had gone vegetarian, simple math for five minutes of work indicates: 5 (Veg Starter Pack orders) x .03 (a very low end estimate of the percentage of people who went vegetarian; based on the data above it seems more like 5-7% than 3%) x 40 (approximate number of animals spared per year for each person who goes vegetarian) = about six animals per year spared a lifetime of suffering with just five minutes of work!

Here's the link: http://www.eleafleting.com/take5save5/documentation.htm

nonvegans think differently than vegans

2010-05-31T17:37:00.000-07:00

Some vegans watch Earthlings or Meet Your Meat and go vegan overnight, but most vegans went vegan slowly. I've long believed that the path most vegans arrive at veganism - the path that begins with reducing or eliminated consumption of mammals and then extends to birds and then to sea creatures and then extends beyond flesh to milk and eggs - is a path that follows a natural or logical progression of empathy extending out from our own kind to those who are similar to us.

That is, it is common for humans to feel some empathy for cats, dogs, dolphins, horses, rabbits and other mammals like cows and pigs. Some people act on that empathy by eating only certain types of animals that they think of as dissimilar to humans (such as chickens or fishes). Some people act on that empathy by eating only animals who have been treated according to certain "humane" standards. Vegetarians extend the empathy and choose not to eat animal flesh. Vegans extend that empathy to reach all sentient species and refrain from intentional and unnecessary harm to them.

But what gets someone who cares about animal suffering to make the leap into veganism?

A recent study on empathy compared omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans. The study looked at the brains of vegans and nonvegans while showing them images of human and animal suffering. Among other findings, they discovered "a distinctive pattern of empathic response and emotional control in vegans."

"while omnivores are characterized by a greater activation of the bilateral posterior MTG during both human and animal negative valence scenes, vegetarians and vegans have constantly an higher engagement of empathy related areas while observing negative scenes, independently of the species of the individuals involved" [...]

"Collectively, our results reveal that distinct brain responses are evoked by emotionally significant pictures of humans and animals in people with vegetarian and vegan feeding habits, as well as between vegetarians and vegans, suggesting that different motivational factors might underlie their preferences and moral attitudes."

What can a vegan advocate learn from this? The take-away, as I see it, is that nonvegans think differently than vegans. We don't just have different beliefs, habits, education, resources, etc. though we may have those, too; we literally process the knowledge of others' suffering differently. We literally think about animal suffering differently than omnivores.

Hence, if we want to effectively advocate for animals, we can't rely solely on the reasoning that is most compelling to us. Nonvegans don't think like us. So we must include discussions that appeal to nonvegans. We must find ways to encourage animal rights that fit into nonvegans' paradigms.

---
Crossposted at Vegan Soapbox

the one and only true way?

2009-12-05T12:01:00.000-08:00

From an article called "Promoting Veganism":

"We don’t have any real data on what works. So I continue with my informal surveying, asking individuals what they were reading or looking at or to whom they were talking at the moment that they began thinking about veganism." [...]

"Until we have that research, we have to be humble enough to know that we’re all stumbling around to some extent. We shouldn’t be dismissive of any (non-offensive) campaign or message or book just because we don’t like the way the message is presented. Nobody knows the one and only true way to promote veganism and animal liberation. And we are likely to end up being surprised by some of the things that work."

Well said!

10 Animal Activist Tips

2009-10-10T06:12:00.000-07:00

From The Vegan Dietitian, my thoughts interspersed in italics:

1. Try to understand the public’s current thinking and where it could be encouraged to go tomorrow. Above all, keep in touch with reality. Activists sometimes lose their feel for what the average person in the street might think, and this impacts their ability to know what is possible right now.

I think that's true. But I think a better suggestion is to simply ask people what they think and start from there because it can be insulting to assume someone knows nothing about the issues. If you treat everyone the same and relate to them like they all have the same ideas, it's extremely easy to be insulting or offensive.

I am constantly annoyed by activists who try to have the conversation with me - preaching to choir - without even asking what I think first.

2. Select a target on the basis of vulnerabilities to public opinion, the intensity of suffering, and the opportunities for change.

3. Set goals that are achievable. Bring about meaningful change one step at a time. Raising awareness is not enough. When Henry took on his first campaign, the anti-vivisection movement had no goal other than raising awareness in the hopes that this would bring about total abolition of animal experimentation. Henry noted “I want to abolish the use of animals as much as anybody else, but I say, let’s do what we can do today and then do more tomorrow.” He looked at successes as stepping stones toward bigger targets and more significant victories.

Realistic goals are HUGE! If you try to do too much too soon, you'll burn out.

4. Establish credible sources of information and documentation. Never assume anything.

Credible sources are great, but we all have different ideas of what that means. It's not so simple.
A better idea, IMO, is to stick to one subject at a time. Become an expert on the topic and use all kinds of sources. Be careful about your language and don't claim something as fact if you can't back it up with a source that others would perceive as credible, but don't ignore the effective sources just because some people don't think they're credible. For example, celebrity.

5. Don’t divide the world into saints and sinners. Henry said “People can change. I used to eat animals and I never considered myself a cannibal.”

You can divide between the sin and the sinner.
People are good. Their actions sometimes aren't.

Another similar concept: Be quick to forgive.

6. Seek dialogue and attempt to work together to solve problems. Position issues as problems with solutions. Present realistic alternatives.

Remember that what you see as realistic won't be the same as what they consider realistic.

7. Be ready for confrontation if your target is unresponsive. If accepted channels don’t work, prepare an escalating public awareness campaign to place your adversary on the defensive.

Said another way: Have a plan B.

8. Avoid bureaucracy.

9. Don’t assume that only legislation or legal action can solve the problem.

Laws should work in tandem with other activism.

10. Ask yourself: “Will it work?”

Then be honest. And get input from others.

Encouraging Accomplishments

2009-10-10T05:56:00.000-07:00

PETA gets a lot of flack from vegans for handing out awards to people and organizations who haven't done much to help animals.

OK, so someone stopped wearing fur, that's great, but they're still wearing leather. Or a cosmetic company that stopped testing on animals but still contains animal ingredients. Or the restaurant that stops selling foie gras and veal but leaves chicken and steak on the menu. Or how about the fast food chain that adds one vegetarian item to the menu... big whoop!

The baby steps deserve recognition, but an award? Really?

The teeny tiny bits of progress here and there just don't seem worth acknowledging. In truth, I'm insulted whenever a nonvegan brags to me about how they only eat meat six days a week. Sure, meat-reduction is great, but don't tell me all about it, tell your friends who eat meat everyday! They're the ones who need to hear it.

In the past I've tried to ignore all of PETA's awards because of this. Even though I can rationally see these baby steps as progress, emotionally they bring me down. They remind me of how we're only moving inches at a time when we've got miles to go.

But yesterday I read something that helped me understand PETA's awards. It was Nobel Peace Prize myth-busting:

Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.

More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.

So, the Nobel Peace Prize, like many of PETA's awards, are not simply for an accomplishment; they're praise to encourage more, similar accomplishments. That puts them in a whole new light, something that's a lot easier to stomach.

(Crossposted at Vegan Soapbox.)

On Being Radical

2009-10-09T06:00:00.000-07:00

Noah Lewis explains why it's important for vegans to talk about honey:

If we think our ideas are too radical to be accepted, the solution is not to water them down to make them more appealing, but rather to present our ideas that are even more radical. [...]

Rather than retreating as society changes, social movements like veganism need to keep in front of it. [...]

Only by being "radical" animal rights activists can we actually create social change. Our movement need not to pander to what people already believe in order to succeed. By simply articulating and implementing our alternative vision its wild fullness, the radical becomes the mundane, and the world shifts by our presence.

Animal Activism Books

2009-06-11T18:24:00.000-07:00

"Here are a dozen titles that have (mostly) been published in the last few years, each one certain to enhance one’s effectiveness when putting compassion into action."

No, silly, not here here. The books are here >>

"behaving respectfully in the face of disrespect"

2009-05-21T13:43:00.000-07:00

I found this quote from a new animal advocacy book, Animal Activist’s Handbook by Matt Ball and Bruce Friedrich. The section was quoted by Erik Marcus at vegan.com. Here it is:

"Matt was once tabling in a crowded lobby at a large agricultural university when a dairy farmer stopped by and started yelling. Matt calmly responded to the farmer, catching the attention of a passing Joe Espinosa. Joe listened, was impressed, subsequently joined Vegan Outreach, became a vegetarian then vegan, convinced a number of friends and family to become vegetarian, and has been a leading leafletter and activist for Vegan Outreach ever since."

"Can you imagine if Matt had instead yelled at the dairy farmer and reacted defensively? Perhaps Joe wouldn’t have even stopped. Perhaps he wouldn’t have heard Matt’s argument. As of this writing, Joe’s handed booklets to more than 145,000 individuals. Think about the impact of this one instance of behaving respectfully in the face of disrespect: so many people have learned the truth of modern agribusiness. One instance of respect has made a tremendous difference in the world."

Well, that's great. I'm sure that being polite and calm while tabling is a good idea. Why? Because when you're tabling, you can't just walk away from a hostile dairy farmer. You're basically tied to the table. And then, once you're in a situation where:

you have to confront this person, and
this person isn't receptive to your message, and
this person probably isn't in your target audience (remember, the goal is to move the middle, not the extremists), and
you did not set out to confront this person,

well then, reacting in a manner that is outwardly calm and polite - for the benefit of passersby and for your own safety - is probably a smart move.

But think about what Ball and Friedrich are really saying here: they're assuming that calmness and politeness represent respect. Calm and polite behavior doesn't necessary represent respect. And respect isn't always best demonstrated by calm politeness. Sometimes strong emotions better represent respect. Sometimes politeness (strict adherence to etiquette) is actually disrespectful. It depends on the culture and on the individual.

They're also presenting a false dichotomy between:
a) calm politeness and
b) defensive rudeness.

There are, of course, shades of gray. There are other options:
c) pure calmness - ignore hostile people,
d) offense (not defense) - witty responses that reframe the conversation and assert control (not defensive reactions that cede power to the hostile person),
e) backhanded politeness - say it with a smile.

(Personally, I usually choose option C. I try to ignore hostile people. I don't always succeed, but I try.)

It's absolutely ludicrous to assume that 'calm and polite dialogue' is always the best, most effective method. There's more than one way to cut open a mango. Likewise, there's more than one way to effectively persuade people to become vegan.

Ask ten vegans how they went vegan and you'll get ten different answers. Some people needed gentle nudging in the form of 'calm and polite dialogue' and others needed a rude wake-up call or reality check. Some came to it on their own and others were influenced by a wide variety of people.

Lastly, it's absurd to give Matt the credit for Joe's hard work. Who's to say Joe wouldn't have created his own, better pamphlet one day and handed out twice as many because it was his own project? Who's to say another passerby, Joselle, wasn't turned away by Matt's response? What if a more aggressive (or rude) approach hadn't worked on Joe, but had worked on the dairy farmer instead, who subsequently turned his farm into a sanctuary?

There are too many what-ifs...? For example, what if...

Marcy was tabling in a crowded lobby at a large agricultural university when a dairy farmer stopped by and started yelling. Marcy responded to the farmer with a funny, yet rude comment, catching the attention of a passing Francis. Francis listened, was impressed, subsequently joined the Rude Vegan Comedy Troupe, became a vegan, then a comedian, convinced a number of friends and family to become vegan, and has been a leading comedian for Rude Vegan Comedy Troupe ever since.

Can you imagine if Marcy had instead been boring and polite? Perhaps Francis wouldn’t have even stopped. Perhaps he wouldn’t have heard Marcy's humorous quips. As of this writing, Francis has handed pamphlets to more than 145,000 individuals. Think about the impact of this one instance of behaving disrespectfully comical in the face of idiocy: so many people have been inspired to go vegan. One instance of rude comedic action has made a tremendous difference in the world.

My point is that anecdotal evidence like the story above with Matt and Joe serve only to reinforce a peacenik reader's worldview. If someone who isn't convinced that politeness is the one-and-only most effective method reads that passage, someone who is more skeptical reads the passage, they might think the book is worthless. Then again, maybe that kind of person isn't the kind of person who wants or needs this book.

However, even all that, I'm still interested in reading the book. Why? Because Matt Ball and Bruce Friedrich are deeply committed animal advocates and they've done a ton of activism. They're bound to have some thoughtful insights and interesting stories.

Readability Results In Rights

2009-05-05T15:04:00.001-07:00

The most basic task that the animal advocate must achieve is to be understood. The message should not be lost in big words, confusing symbols, or disorganized ideas. Animal advocates have a responsibility to make their messages clear.

With that in mind, I copied and pasted text from a handful of vegan fliers into a readability tool. The tool determines the amount of education required to understand the literature. It calculates the "Flesch Reading Ease." A score of 90–100 means the literature can be easily understandable by an average 11-year old student, a score between 60–70 can be easily understandable by 13- to 15-year old students, and a score 30 and under means the literature best understood only by college graduates.

Since most of the literature is to be handed out to high school and college students, not college graduates, it makes sense to craft a pamphlet that is easily understood by 13-15 year olds, that is, a pamphlet that has a Flesch Reading Ease score of 60 or higher.

The results of my little experiment? Poor.

I won't name names, but here's an idea:

An "abolitionist" flier scored a Flesch Reading Ease of 27.46. In comparison, Reader's Digest magazine is about 65, Time magazine scores about 52, and the Harvard Law Review has a general readability score in the low 30s. This one page flier was more difficult to read and understand than the Harvard Law Review. (source)
Another "abolitionist" pamphlet scored 36.36.
A "what's wrong with dairy" flier received a score of 39.48.
An animal emancipation style flier scored a respectable 45.79.
In contrast, a vegan education booklet scored 61.12.
And a "vegetarian starter kit" returned a result of 64.23.

Why does this happen? I think this happens because many of the people who write these hand-outs are smart, educated people who are very capable of understanding complex language. Many have studied philosophy or law and are very comfortable writing in an academic style. But there may be another explanation.

Regardless, we should all learn from this. We should make sure our fliers can be easily understood by most people. By making our message difficult to understand, we're not only failing the animals, we're also excluding a number of people who might very well have become vegan or vegetarian had they received a more readable pamphlet or had they stumbled across a more readable website.

To improve your writing's readability, try using shorter sentences and smaller words.

(By the way, this blog post received a score of 59.55. Not bad, but plenty of room for improvement.)

Veggie Pride Parades

2009-04-03T10:58:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles Veggie Pride Parade for vegans and vegetarians and veg-friendly folks:
http://veggiepridela.com/
Sunday, April 26, 11 am – 4 pm

New York City Veggie Pride Parade for vegans and vegetarians and veg-friendly folks:
http://www.veggieprideparade.org/
SUNDAY, MAY 17, 2009

A pride parade is to express and experience community. It's to participate in something fun. And it's to raise awareness.

When we march down the street with signs that say "go vegan" or "stop eating animals" or "proud vegan" or "eat like you give a damn" we're showing the world that:

we don't look like they imagined we did; we come in various sizes, shapes, colors, and age
we are joyous and fun-loving
we are organized and powerful
our numbers are growing; more and more people are going vegetarian or vegan every day

Not only are we showing the world, we're showing each other that we're a diverse community of people who care about three things: people, animals, and the planet. But more than just caring, we DO something about it. We LIVE our values. We're the vegetarians and vegans.

Having participated in last years NYC parade and planning to attend this year's LA parade, I can tell you that part of my reason for attending is to be a part of history. We WILL make a difference. These parades will grow and grow and so will our movement. Just watch.

Share Their Stories

2009-04-01T22:21:00.000-07:00

Two things:

1) By now we all know about foreclosure pets, the animals left behind when a family loses their home. But there's another tragic story behind some dogs' homelessness: suicide. A friend of a friend committed suicide recently. His weimaraner , Smokey, now needs a new home. She is spayed and has up-to-date vaccinations. She's a little older and she's a little overweight. If you or someone you know can adopt her, please comment here and I'll forward the info along. Thank you.

(Image above is NOT Smokey. I don't have a picture of her yet. But this is basically what she looks like. The image is Savannah, a weimaraner whose picture I found on DC Area Weimaraner Rescue.)

---
2) The above story, though it doesn't say much about Smokey, relays enough information for most people to feel sympathy for her. Some of those people will go out of their way to help find a home for her. Simply stated, the above TRUE story is an example of "selling compassion."

Nathan Winograd makes the point (in Redemption) that one of the most successful methods of finding homes for homeless animals is to personalize the animals: share their stories. If animal shelters share an animals' story, that animal is more likely to be adopted and thus spared euthanasia.

There's something about us that makes us care more about individuals whom we get to know than about strangers. Sharing an animals' personal story is one way of making that animal less of a stranger and more of a part of the family.

Whether we're trying to get people to care about dogs or care about cows, sharing the animals' story goes a LONG way:

Videos: Powerful Tools

2009-03-24T14:02:00.000-07:00

Even the meat industry groups know the truth:

"Video is one of the most powerful tools used by animal rights groups and other activist organizations, according to the Professional Dairy Producers of Wisconsin. Disturbing images, whether legitimate, staged or misleading, evoke strong emotions and are effective in using rare instances of abuse to defame an entire industry."

Quote source: Dairy Herd Management (link)

Critical Examination of Vegan Education Efficacy

2009-03-22T11:51:00.000-07:00

Vegan education is an important component of animal advocacy. We KNOW that vegan education helps convince people to respect animals and to go vegan. There are countless tales of vegans who decided to make a change in their consumption practices after viewing Meet Your Meat or after receiving a Why Vegan leaflet.

But when we do vegan education - such as leafletting, sharing videos, holding cooking classes, hosting vegan food fairs and the like - we ought to make sure we're doing the most effective kind of vegan education. We should choose the right words, the right images, the right food items, the right location, the right audience... the right pieces of the puzzle.
We want to make a difference, not just spin our wheels.

With this in mind, I've come up with a few ways to determine the efficacy of vegan education programs. These ideas are by no means the only ways to determine how effective specific vegan education campaigns are. Moreover, I don't want to imply that no one has done this in the past. I simply want to promote effective animal advocacy.

Ideas for how to critically examine the effectiveness of vegan education:

Conduct marketing surveys asking pamphlet recipients how persuasive the pamphlets are. For example, test out a few different pamphlets and ask people which ones are best.
Perform studies that analyze the behavior of people. For example, before receiving a pamphlet count how many people choose a food item labeled "vegan." After receiving a pamphlet, count how many people choose the vegan item.
Show various videos that promote the vegan message and take surveys afterwards to see which ones people react to most strongly.
Survey current vegans to ask what specific triggers inspired them to go vegan.

Small Steps Lead To Big Steps

2009-03-21T16:31:00.000-07:00

One concept of the step-by-step method of "selling compassion":

"while there is a deep philosophical gulf between animal welfare and animal rights, psychologically and politically there is a continuum. That means on the one hand that it is at least possible, if not probable, that a person develops psychologically from animal use via animal welfare to animal rights. And secondly it proves that it is at least possible – even if we haven’t provided data of its likelihood yet – that a society develops politically from animal usage via animal welfare to animal rights. [...]

"Can animal industries be made to completely disappear by step for step victories, which bring incremental reforms?
"From a purely theoretical point of view, the psychological-political continuity from animal use via animal welfare to animal rights suggests that indeed it is possible. A society without any restrictions on animal use sees non-human animals as commodities for the benefit of humankind without any ethical value. Such a society will not have any empathy and compassion for animals. The historic example of Austria before the first animal laws serves as a good example of such a society.

"Historically, from that starting point, slowly compassion, animal welfare and animal laws developed. At this stage, ethical vegetarianism could get a foothold at the end of the 19th century. Slowly, the first ideas of animal rights developed and from the 1980s onwards, there is a lively and thriving animal rights movement. The ideology of animal rights and the animal rights movement have their psychological and political roots in animal welfare.

"Similarly, the development of single people generally advances from compassion and animal welfare feelings, which might have led to less consumption of animal products (probably rather of the free range variety), to vegetarianism and eventually to the full animal rights vision and veganism. Psychologically, compassion and animal welfare form the basis for animal rights too."

from: Abolitionism versus Reformism

Meet your Meat on the Street

2009-03-21T12:34:00.000-07:00

This is a video of animal advocacy/ selling compassion.
They showed PETA's "Meet your Meat" and handed out Vegan Outreach literature.

Meet Your Meat: http://meat.org
Vegan Outreach: http://www.veganoutreach.org

The Power of Compassion

2009-03-20T08:46:00.000-07:00

Scene from Death on a Factory Farm:

Evidence that undercover videos about factory farming persuade the public to change their meat-consumption habits and go vegetarian or vegan: The manipulative responses from the meat industry to try to persuade the public in the opposite direction.

The industry acknowledges the power of natural, human empathy for animals evoked through video education. The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), recently published a report that stated:

"Public perceptions [...] of welfare issues have the potential to dramatically impact swine production if governments, the swine industry, or consumers react to these issues by outlawing housing systems or by boycotting pork. In determining whether or not the welfare of sows is compromised, individuals and lawmakers may act emotively [...]" [emphasis added]

Although the meat industry admits that factory farming methods are common (see their own video that shows factory farms) they are trying to manipulate their image by distorting the terminology. Here are some examples:

What normal people call "factory farms," they call "climate controlled buildings," "barns," "indoor facilities," "industrial farm animal production"
What normal people call "cages" or "crates," they call "individual accommodations," "housing systems"
What normal people call "antibiotics" or "hormones," they call "FDA approved medications"

Photo of sows confined in narrow crates unable to turn around as published, with description "sows resting and eating in individual gestation accommodations," in CAST report.
Image credit: Egebjerg International A/S.

Moreover, the meat industry is stalling.

Factory farms have existed for decades and even though there is clear evidence that factory farms are cruel, dangerous, and destructive:

"[Industrial farm animal production] systems are largely unregulated, and many practices common to this method of production threaten public health, the environment, animal health and well-being, and rural communities. The use of antibiotics in animals without a diagnosed illness, the mismanagement of the large volumes of farm waste, and the treatment of animals in intensive operations are all of deep concern." ~ The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production "Final Report: Putting Meat on The Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America" [emphasis added]

Despite this well-documented research that makes the specific recommendation to change the meat industry by increasing legal restrictions, the meat industry rebels against any such restrictions. For example, the CAST report cited at the beginning of this article states:

"[M]ore large-scale, on-farm, multidisciplinary, scientifically robust research and development is needed before rigid regulations—which would increase production costs [...]" [emphasis added]

The evident stalling and manipulation by the meat industry can easily be interpreted as a declaration that the meat industry cares more about profit than about animal welfare, public health, or environmental damage.

MEATOUT

2009-03-20T03:13:00.000-07:00

Today is Meatout...

Meatout is truly 'selling compassion.' Here's the description:

The occasion is Meatout, the world's largest and oldest annual grassroots diet education campaign. This year is the 25th annual observance! Every spring, thousands of caring Meatout supporters educate their communities and ask their friends, families, and neighbors to pledge to "kick the meat habit (at least for a day) and explore a wholesome, compassionate diet of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains."

This year's theme is "Change Your Diet - Change the World!"

So while plenty of people will be vegetarian or vegan FOR THE DAY... just how many full-time vegans are there?

“The available research puts the figure [of vegans] at around 1% of the USA population.”
source: http://www.imaner.net/panel/statistics.htm

That may not sound like a lot, but it translates into MILLIONS of vegans worldwide.

Moreover,
“Nearly one-quarter of Americans say that they sometimes go meatless at restaurants” … “10% of consumers say they largely follow vegetarian-inclined diets and 5% more are ‘definitely interested’ in shifting to vegetarian-based diets in the future.”
source: http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2008/12/03/325121/meat-moves-over-us-food-trends.html

And
“'Meat reducers,' 'semi-vegetarians,' vegetarians, and vegans are growing segments of consumers. [...] The USDA estimates show declines in red meat consumption. [and...] One in four U.S. adults (25%) is a ‘moderate’ meat consumer who currently consumes meat with ‘about half’ of his or her meals.”
source: http://cultivateresearch.com/vol_1_VCT_Series_Overview.pdf

Use Metaphors!

2009-03-17T14:33:00.000-07:00

"Researchers Pradeep Sopory and James P. Dillard (2002) conducted a meta-analytic review of the empirical research on metaphor and persuasion. They concluded that messages containing metaphors produce somewhat greater attitude change than do communications without metaphors."

Source: The Dynamics of Persuasion by Richard M. Perloff

A while ago I wrote an article at Vegan Soapbox. I felt that the piece was persuasive and compelling, but now I know why. Here is a bit from that piece:

My friend, showing me the cut he received on his face, said he thought they wanted his leather jacket. As he told me this, I thought about how the stitching on his leather jacket resembled the stitches on his face. Skin is skin.

Two Ways To Change

2009-03-15T08:00:00.000-07:00

There are two ways to change: quickly or slowly.

This goes for individuals as well as societies.

Some people go vegan quickly (a few) others do it slowly (the majority).
Social trends regarding animals tend to change slowly, then there's a tipping point (critical mass) where it changes quickly.

Gradual social change regarding animal testing:

Gradual social change regarding fur:

These images are from Gallup polls.
Here is the link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1681/Moral-Issues.aspx

Power Tools

2009-03-11T13:55:00.000-07:00

"One of the most powerful tools animal rights activists have is the video footage shot inside places like poorly run dog kennels, animal testing facilities and factory farms, used as grim evidence of the brutality that can take place."

Source: TIME

TIME is right, video footage changes minds and changes laws.
For example:

Consumer Trends: Veganism & Meat Reduction

2009-03-04T14:49:00.000-08:00

A new research report found that veganism is growing in popularity:

“Meat reducers,” “semi-vegetarians,” vegetarians, and vegans are growing segments of consumers.

The USDA estimates show declines in red meat consumption.

One in four U.S. adults (25%) is a “moderate” meat consumer who currently consumes meat with “about half” of his or her meals.

Roughly one in eight adults (13%) is a “semi-vegetarian” who currently eats meat with fewer than half of his or her meals.

Older consumers are more likely to be reducing meat as a component of moving toward a healthier diet.

Consumers are becoming increasingly conscious of ethical issues and skeptical of food safety.

However, there some bad news:

61% of survey respondents currently consume meat with “every” meal (14%) or with “most” meals (47%).

There have been increases in both chicken and fish consumption.

Overall, the trend is clear: meat is out, plants are in.

---

thanks go to: vegan.com

To be posted at Vegan Soapbox soon.)

Virgil's Virtue

2009-02-27T12:03:00.000-08:00

Direct, honest, compelling.

I think first-hand accounts are incredibly persuasive, don't you?

Love Animals, Don't Eat Them

2009-02-26T13:11:00.001-08:00

This cow is destined for slaughter. Here's why >>

Compelling?

The Six Principles of Persuasion

2009-02-26T09:11:00.000-08:00

In the book Influence by Robert B. Cialdini, six principles of persuasion are listed. Here they are:

Reciprocation
Commitment and Consistency
Social Proof
Liking
Authority
Scarcity

For a more in-depth review of the principles, read the book and also read the rest of this website :)

YOU ARE THE SOLUTION

2009-02-25T20:11:00.000-08:00

Compelling?
Why?

"vastly more persuasive" ???

2009-02-25T15:24:00.000-08:00

$P$	$Q$
F	F	F	F	F	T	T	T
F	T	F	T	T	F	T	F
T	F	F	T	T	F	F	T
T	T	T	T	F	T	T	T

Erik Marcus, undermining his own message, wrote:

"If every activist in the animal protection movement read and understood the Wikipedia link above [or here], we would collectively be vastly more persuasive and credible."

Sadly, Marcus doesn't seem to realize that persuasiveness isn't strongly correlated OR caused by an understanding of causal relationships.

Logicians are no more persuasive to the general human population than marketers. In fact, they're often less so.

Let's look up the Wikipedia entry for persuasion:

Persuasion is a form of social influence. It is the process of guiding people toward the adoption of an idea, attitude, or action by rational and symbolic (though not always logical) means. It is strategy of problem-solving relying on "appeals" rather than coercion. According to Aristotle, "Rhetoric is the art of discovering, in a particular case, the available means of persuasion."

Methods include appeals to reason as well as appeals to emotion, subliminal messages, seduction, peer pressure, etc.

McDonald's doesn't put toys in Happy Meals because it makes McDonald's appear more credible or reasonable, they do it to persuade children to desire Happy Meals.

(Read the updated version at Vegan Soapbox >> )

About People

2009-02-20T13:37:00.000-08:00

Truths about humans:

People care about their family
People care about the future
People want to be involved in something that makes a difference
People prefer to work for something rather than against something

These truths were listed in the video Understanding Our Audience. They can be used to shape our discussions about animal rights.

Stages of Change

2009-02-19T13:18:00.000-08:00

The Stages of Change were touched on briefly in Knowing Our Audience. Let's go more into depth on this subject...

Here's an overview of the stages:

Precontemplation is the stage at which there is no intention to change behavior in the foreseeable future. Many individuals in this stage are unaware or underaware of their problems.
Contemplation is the stage in which people are aware that a problem exists and are seriously thinking about overcoming it but have not yet made a commitment to take action.
Preparation is a stage that combines intention and behavioral criteria. Individuals in this stage are intending to take action in the next month and have unsuccessfully taken action in the past year.
Action is the stage in which individuals modify their behavior, experiences, or environment in order to overcome their problems. Action involves the most overt behavioral changes and requires considerable commitment of time and energy.
Maintenance is the stage in which people work to prevent relapse and consolidate the gains attained during action.

An article about sticking to New Year's resolutions describes the change process:

"In this model, change occurs gradually and relapses are an inevitable part of the process of making a lifelong change. People are often unwilling or resistant to change during the early stages, but eventually develop a proactive and committed approach to changing a behavior."

Most vegans get to a point where they "gave in" and ate the cheese (or the sausage or whatever). They feel guilty and wonder if they can be vegan again. These people need encouragement. Of course they can get right back up on the wagon and be vegan again! Relapses "are an inevitable part of the process," remember?

Moreover, the presence of a few ex-vegans is not necessarily a sign of our movement reversing course, as some might say, but rather is simply a normal, natural process of change wherein some relapses occur. Over all, we're making great progress. For example:

"Nearly one-quarter of Americans say that they sometimes go meatless at restaurants" ... "10% of consumers say they largely follow vegetarian-inclined diets and 5% more are “definitely interested” in shifting to vegetarian-based diets in the future." (source)
“2008 per capita [meat] consumption stands to be at the lowest point in seven years” (source)
“The [poultry] industry has never cut production to this degree before, but demand for chicken has never contracted to this degree either,” (source)
"Fishermen are hurting and quitting the business" (source)
"demand for dairy products is stalling amid a global economic slowdown and credit crisis, even as supplies have increased."(source)
"[Americans] have become less accepting of medical testing on animals, and the use of animal fur for clothing" (source)
"A quarter of Americans say animals deserve the same rights as humans, while almost all of the rest agree that animals should be given some protection from harm and exploitation."
"38% of Americans express support for the idea of banning horse and dog racing altogether" (source)

More to come on this topic of "Stages of Change"... stay tuned.

Knowing Our Audience

2009-02-18T12:44:00.000-08:00

This video is an excellent resource for learning how to sell compassion. I've watched it a couple of times already and I learn more each time I watch it:

Understanding Our Audience from Let Live Foundation on Vimeo.

Some take-away messages are:

We should create strong perceptions of credibility.
We are most effective at persuasion when we focus our message on a target audience.
10,40,40,10 Rule: The general population is composed of four groups: Two "extremist" type of groups, 10% who agrees with you and 10% who disagrees. The other two groups are larger and one leans towards agreement (40%) while the other leans away from agreement (40%).
The best use of our time is to try to move the middle. Don't waste time arguing with the extremist nay-sayers.
The Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can be relevant to crafting AR messages.
Shame is a powerful motivating factor.
Stages of change: for example, most vegans were vegetarians first.
Every movement has its moment: pay attention to the news and social climate because opportunities will present themselves.
Almost by definition, our audience is different from us.
We should do more research. Here's one resource: http://www.humanespot.org/

Doing Research, Having Good Sources

2009-02-18T12:41:00.000-08:00

Following up on the idea of using the animal exploiter's words, images, and research against them, here's a video describing how to research animal abuse:

How To: Researching Animal Abuse from Let Live Foundation on Vimeo.

How to Win Friends and Influence People?

2009-02-18T07:59:00.000-08:00

Food for thought...

Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People, written in 1936, is still widely used today as a basic sales manual. In it, he describes twelve methods of persuasion:

Win people to your way of thinking

1. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
2. Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say, "You're wrong."
3. If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
4. Begin in a friendly way.
5. Get the other person saying "yes, yes" immediately.
6. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
7. Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers.
8. Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.
9. Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires.
10. Appeal to the nobler motives.
11. Dramatize your ideas.
12. Throw down a challenge.

Things to consider:

Who are you trying to persuade? The person you're talking to or people listening to the conversation or both?
Is this the best method in ALL situations?
Are nobler motives really more effective? Is it so wrong to appeal to base motives?

I have this book and have read it. It offers some great advice, but be forewarned: some suggestions are NOT vegan. For example, he makes the same point I made in "Humans & Dogs: Not So Different" that positive dog training methods are effective with humans, too. Praise and treats work wonders. But in his example, he literally suggests giving people meat.

Authority

2009-02-17T18:28:00.000-08:00

CopyBlogger describes six principles of persuasion. I'm addressing each one here at Selling Compassion with practical ideas for activism. This is the fourth of the series. Part 1 was: The Power of Reciprocation, part 2 was: Commitment and Consistency, part 3 was: Attracting Allies, and part 4 was: Popularity.

Today: Authority

Authority — In this age of specialization, we are more prone to respond to authority than ever before. Regardless of an independent spirit, we look to experts or those we perceive to be experts to give us the answers and show us the way. Even the mere symbols of authority, such as titles and specialized clothing, are enough to trigger a response. Example: Note how seeing someone with a white smock and stethoscope instantly suggests “doctor” and makes anything that person says about medicine seem more authoritative.
Application: Provide signs and symbols of expertise. Establish your expertise by providing solid information. Show your credentials. Create trustworthiness by admitting flaws or shortcomings and demonstrating lack of bias. Show similarities between you and your prospect or customer. Cite awards, reviews, speaking engagements, and books you’ve authored.

Here are some basic things you can do (in your own animal advocacy) to increase your authority:

Use proper grammar and spelling.
Cite your sources.
Don't use the passive voice.
Educate yourself: knowledge is power.

Regarding vegan advocacy, Matt Ball makes this claim:

"it is imperative that we present information the public won’t regard as ludicrous and from sources that they won’t dismiss as partisan."

In fact, some organizations recommend using the animal exploiters' information against them. When we use their own photos and articles, the public can't claim it's biased or isolated.

Exposing Institutionalized Cruelty from Let Live Foundation on Vimeo.

For example, this video below comes from the pig farming industry and can't be called pro-vegan whatsoever, yet the video clearly demonstrates the inherent cruelty in the industry:

Mother pigs (sows) don’t have enough room to turn around
Pigs (hogs) are confined indoors without access to sunshine, grass, or mud
Ear tags: a form of mutilation
Runt piglets are separated from their mothers

Another way to use authority to "sell compassion" is to promote the works of authoritative figures within the animal rights movement, such as:

Literally Selling Compassion

2009-02-17T18:22:00.000-08:00

The newest Propagandhi album is out and as a promo they're releasing two singles that people can download. The cost: donate to one of three charities.

Using Popularity To "Sell" Compassion

2009-02-07T19:03:00.000-08:00

CopyBlogger describes six principles of persuasion. I'm addressing each one here at Selling Compassion with practical ideas for activism. This is the fourth of the series. Part 1 was: The Power of Reciprocation, part 2 was: Commitment and Consistency, and part 3 was:
Attracting Allies.

Today is about popularity.

Social Proof — Most of us are imitators in most of what we do. We look to others for guidance, especially when we are uncertain about something. We ask, “What do others think about this? What do others feel? What do others do?” Then we act accordingly, all thanks to the power of social proof.

Application: Show others using your services or buying your products. List testimonials of satisfied customers or clients. Feature stories of those who have been “converted” from another service. Show pictures of people using your product. Provide case histories of some of your best customers. When people see that what you offer is okay with other people, they are more likely to give it a try themselves.

A classic example of this method of persuasion is the list of famous vegetarians:

Some bloggers who "sell compassion" use this idea almost exclusively:

Ecorazzi - a blog about celebrities and their environmentally-friendly or unfriendly actions.
Vegetarian Star - a blog about, you guessed, vegetarian stars.

Then, of course, there are the celebrities themselves who sell compassion:

Daryl Hannah (check out her vid on vegan junk food or her vid on live food)
Woody Harrelson
Ed Begley, Jr.

One Video At A Time

2009-02-05T09:11:00.001-08:00

Sometimes it just takes a few conversations with real people:

Porolita22 says she went vegan as a result of watching a YouTube video. So she made this video of vegan YouTubers who make vlogging videos about veganism. She and her video are "selling compassion."

Attracting Allies

2009-02-03T08:58:00.000-08:00

CopyBlogger describes the six principles for getting to yes. I'll tackle each one here at Selling Compassion with practical ideas for activism.

This is the third of the series. Part 1 was: The Power of Reciprocation and part 2 was: Commitment and Consistency.

Today: Affection/ Attraction

Liking — No matter how reasonable we may think ourselves to be, we are always more likely to say “yes” to those we know and like. We readily comply with requests from those who are similar to us and for whom we have good feelings. It’s what makes refusing to buy Tupperware from a friend or relative next to impossible.

Application: Be personal and likable. This is one element of selling that most people know instinctively, but often fail to put into action. Getting people to like you in person is one thing. But how do you do it in print when people usually have no chance to meet you? Reveal yourself. Show your feelings. Tell a story that prospects can relate to. Use flattery and praise. Present your sales message in such a way that you are not just selling something but working with others as an ally with common problems, concerns, and goals.

Ani Phyo is a great example of exuding attraction:

Besides the above advice from CopyBlogger, here are some specific ways I believe can make anyone more likable online:

Spread goodwill - Spend some time everyday giving people written praise. If you like a blogger's post, leave a comment of praise. If you like someone's pictures of videos, tell them.
Return favors - If someone "friends" you on a social networking website like MySpace or FaceBook, friend them back. The same goes for blogging. If someone links to your blog, it's polite to link back.
Criticism in moderation - Sandwich criticism in praise: praise, criticize, praise. It's a general rule of thumb to give positive feedback with all negative feedback.
Use an alias when appropriate - The old rule is 'if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.' The new rule is 'if you can't be nice, be anonymous.' This can save your reputation. Just be careful because you're never completely anonymous.
Use images - If you want to invoke warm fuzzies in your readers, choose images that create that feeling: playful puppies, cute piglets, or baby chicks.
Choose your battles - Not every issue is worth losing a friendship or ruining your reputation. Choose your battles (and your enemies) wisely.
Humanize your words - Use the avatar, icon, image options to show your face and make your online self a REAL person. A nice smile is hard to hate :D

More Ani, because she's just so huggable!

Effective Written Animal Advocacy

2009-01-27T08:36:00.001-08:00

Mark Hawthorne suggests letter-writing as one means of 'selling compassion.' Here is his advice:

"Tips for Effective Animal-Rights Letters to Editors"

"Tell readers something they might not know – such as that most hens are confined in battery cages or how dairy cows are treated to produce milk – and suggest ways readers can make a difference (stop buying eggs and dairy products)."

I'm continually surprised by how little people seem to know about animal issues. For example, many people don't even realize that cows must be impregnated in order to produce milk.

L.O.V.E. has done an excellent job explaining this fact in their page on "Why Vegan":

"As with humans, dairy cows produce milk for their children and therefore only produce milk after giving birth. Impregnation is commonly done by shoving a hand into the cow’s anus to guide an insemination gun that is pushed into the cow’s vagina. This process is repeated every year so she will continue to produce milk. Her baby is taken away from her shortly after birth, destined either to become veal or another dairy cow. After 4 to 6 years of being used by us as a milk machine, her milk production declines and, being no longer of any economic value for us, she is sent to slaughter. Her flesh often ends up in fast food hamburgers. All dairy products, including organic and grass-fed, come from cows destined for the slaughterhouse."
says L.O.V.E., which stands for Living Opposed to Violence and Exploitation.

Hawthorne continues:

"Include information about the issue(s); do not assume that readers already know. For example, rather than writing 'Foie gras production is bad,' be specific: 'In order to create ‘fatty livers,’ foie gras producers subject ducks and geese to an invasive feeding technique that forces into their stomachs up to thirty percent of their body weight every day. That’s like a two-hundred-pound man being forced to swallow sixty pounds of food a day.'"

More tips from Hawthorne:

"Watch your language. Instead of referring to an animal with an inanimate pronoun ('that' or 'it'), use 'who,' 'she' or 'he.' Also, use 'animal advocates' rather than 'animal-rights groups,' 'farmed animals' rather than the friendly 'farm animals' and 'painkiller' rather than 'anesthesia.'"

Here are some podcasts on this subject:

Marks of Domination: The Branding of Human and Animal Slaves (28min14sec) - a podcast from Food for Thought
Why Don't You Care About Humans? (27min51sec) - a podcast from Food for Thought

"Use positive suggestions to help readers make a difference. For example, rather than simply writing “Boycott the circus,” you can suggest events that don’t use animals, such as Cirque du Soleil, or direct them to Web sites like circuses.com."

I whole-heartedly agree. Once people realize the horrific realities of animal exploitation, they see that the problem is enormous and they often feel powerless. They need suggestions for concrete action. This is an area where Mark Hawthorne has truly excelled. He's written a book purely on the topic of animal advocacy:

Striking at the Roots: A Practical Guide to Animal Activism

"Do not use overly dramatic language, which may turn some readers off. Let the facts speak for themselves."

I think it depends on the context. Dramatic language can incite controversy, which publishers seem to love because it tends to sell more, so they're sometimes more interested in publishing letters with dramatic language. The more controversial, the more attention you get. PETA proves that everyday.

" Use an affirmative voice. For example, rather than writing 'Vegans are not wimps,' write 'Vegans have a much healthier body-mass index than most meat-eaters, and they live years longer.'"

I think this is a good idea. Specific examples help, too. For example, you could cite Mac Danzig, a very non-wimpy vegan:

"Promote the friendly side of veganism/vegetarianism and animal advocacy, and refrain from insults, which will hurt your credibility and perpetuate a negative opinion of animal activists."

A good way to do this is to "sit" on the letter. Write a letter and then don't send it. Wait a day, reread, edit if necessary, and then send the letter.

Trust me, I've written a lot of things off-the-cuff and I've gotten myself into a lot of hot water. Sometimes the results are good, sometimes not. We're all human and we all make mistakes. And anger against animal exploitation and animal exploiters is often justified. But take it from me, cooling off before hitting the "send" button is usually a good idea.

"Like humans, animals have a wide range of emotions. Try to depict this in your letters and help people understand how similar animals are to us. For example, 'Like all animals, pigs feel pain and fear …'

Example: Everybody Hurts. Or this one:

Clearly, these tips can be used not just for newspaper opinion section letter-writing, but also for blogging, commenting on blogs, emails to friends and family, forum posts, and more."

Does Veganism Sell Itself?

2009-01-25T20:13:00.000-08:00

This video is basically a historical perspective of Vegan Outreach's attempts to "sell compassion." Jack Norris, co-founder of Vegan Outreach, comes to the conclusion that "exposing factory farms and advocating ethical eating is perhaps the most readily accessible option for reducing animal suffering."

Speaking of exposing factory farms...

Thus, effective vegan education/ compassion sales can take place in these kinds of situations:

Leafletting: handing out VO booklets that expose factory farming in images, statistics, and quotations.
Blogging: posting videos, photos, statistics, etc. that expose factory farming.
Letter-writing: sending letters to friends, family, and newspapers that expose the realities of factory farming.
Mobile Videos: tabling with a TV and videos of Meet Your Meat or other videos of factory farming.

Commitment and Consistency

2009-01-22T13:49:00.000-08:00

CopyBlogger describes the six principles for getting to yes. I'll tackle each one here at Selling Compassion with practical ideas for activism. This is the second of the series:

"Commitment and Consistency — We are driven to remain consistent in our attitudes, words, and actions. So, when we are led to make a commitment of some kind, to go on record or take a stand or make a decision, there is an urge to remain consistent with that original commitment later on. The key is to get the initial commitment, which can appear small, reasonable, and innocent. This commitment can not only lead to compliance via the principle of consistency, but also to further compliance for larger requests."
"Application: Ask for a little 'yes' first, then build on that."

For animal advocates, getting a yes can be easy. Here are some examples:

"You care about animals, right?"
"You wouldn't abuse your pet, would you?"

After that, one approach: imply hypocrisy if someone says they care about animals yet they aren't vegetarian or vegan.

This triggers their desire to be or to appear consistent. Either they'll agree and go veg or they'll find a loophole. Unfortunately, they'll usually find a loophole ("it's too expensive..." "I don't know how..." "but the Bible says..." "but animals eat animals..."). This is probably because going vegetarian or vegan is seen as a major life change. If were were selling magazine subscriptions it might be a little easier, but we're not, we're selling compassion.

A more effective strategy seems to be a series of small "yes"es that lead up to a larger "yes, I'll go vegan." This strategy takes time. It's not going to happen in one conversation. Animal advocates have to have patience and they have to be willing to put in the time. But I think we can do it. Here's how it might go:

Vegan: "You care about animals, right?"
Nonvegan: "Yes."
V: "Please consider eating one vegan meal. If everyone just ate one vegan meal, we'd save a ton of animals' lives. We're having a vegan food fair this weekend. Come on by and eat a vegan meal."
NV: "OK, sure."

V: "Thanks for coming. Now, would you please consider eating one vegan meal each week? It's a small sacrifice from you that means a whole lot to animals and to people who care about animals. Besides, it could help slow climate change. We have a recipe email newsletter. Can I sign you up?"
NV: "Yes"

V: "I hope you've enjoyed the recipes we've been emailing you. Thanks for committing to eating one vegan meal each week for the last few weeks. Now, would you please consider eating one vegan meal each day? Now you know some vegan recipes - and we'll keep sending you more - so it should be pretty easy for you by now. So what do you say, will you go vegan for one meal per day?"
NV: "OK, I will."

V: "Wow, you're 20-35% vegan now! Well done! Are you willing to up it to 50% or so? Will you make half of your meals vegan?"
NV: "Alright."

V: "You're almost vegan! Why not make things more complete and consistent? Are you ready to go vegan? You've got support here, remember, you've got me and an entire network of vegans backing you up. What do you say? Ready to go all the way?"
NV: "Yes, I'm want to live my values."

The Power of Reciprocation

2009-01-22T12:10:00.000-08:00

CopyBlogger considers the book I mentioned in the post about Objectivity, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion Robert B. Cialdini. He describes the six principles for getting to yes. I'll tackle each one here at Selling Compassion with practical ideas for activism:

"Reciprocation — There is an overwhelming urge to repay debts, to do something in return when something is done for us. This deep-seated urge is so strong, noted paleontologist Richard Leaky has said that it is the very essence of what it means to be human. Sociologist Alvin Gouldner points out that no society on Earth escapes the reciprocity principle."
"Application: Give people something for free."

For animal advocates promoting veganism this means:

give out substantial booklets (like the 8 pagers from VO),
give away or loan out books (like a vegan library),
give away free vegan food (like COK's feed-ins),
give away free vegan cookbooks (like a contest),
...can you think of other freebies?

What will we get in return?

Well, at the very least, people are less likely to trash the gift. Even if they don't find it useful for themselves, they seem more willing to pass it along simply because they view it as a gift. Thus, even if they don't reduce their meat consumption or go vegan, they might inspire someone else to by passing along the gift.

I've noticed a significant percentage of people thank me when I leaflet with substantial booklets. Leafletting with small brochures or postcards doesn't illicit the same response, they're not thankful because people don't seem to treat the smaller brochures as gifts. Hopefully, this thankful attitude will translate into a positive reception of the information and a willingness to change one's diet. But regardless, the thankfulness certainly makes leafletting easier. It's so much more rewarding to do activism where people thank you than activism where people are angry or mean.

For us, this idea of reciprocation is more difficult than for the average sales-person because:

animal advocates ask people to "pay back" someone else (the animals) rather than pay us back,
usually we're asking people to refrain from doing something (eat animals, wear animals, test on animals) rather than asking them to do something, which is always more difficult. (Convincing someone to say "yes" to you is easier than getting them to say "no" to someone else.)

But ultimately, evoking this thankful attitude in others can be a good idea because it makes them more receptive to animal rights and welfare concepts. When they come from a place of gratitude they're not coming from a place of anger or defensiveness.

Ten Rules of Effective Language for Veganism

2009-01-21T11:36:00.000-08:00

Mark Hawthorne describes some ways to sell compassion in "Framing the Animal Rights Message." I agree with most of these "Ten Rules":

Luntz provides readers with his Ten Rules of Effective Language:

1. Simplicity — Use small words. Avoid words that might force someone to reach for the dictionary (because most people won’t).
2. Brevity — Use short sentences. Never use a sentence when a phrase will do, and never use four words when three can say as much.
3. Credibility is as important as philosophy — People have to believe it to buy it.
4. Consistency matters — Repetition, repetition, repetition. Finding a good message and then sticking with it takes extraordinary discipline, but it pays off tenfold in the end. You may be making yourself sick saying something over and over, but many in your audience will be hearing it for the first time. (During the Prop 2 initiative battle in California, supporters of the measure to ban intensive confinement have constantly said Prop 2 would allow animals “to stand up, turn around, lie down and fully extend their limbs” — often several times in the same interview or debate).
5. Novelty — Offer something new. Words that work often involve a new definition of an old idea (such as when author Ruth Harrison used the term “factory farms” in 1964 to describe what the ag industry calls “concentrated animal feeding operations”).
6. Sound and texture matter — A string of words that have the same first letter, the same sound or the same syllabic cadence is more memorable than a random collection of sounds (see #5).
7. Speak Aspirationally — Messages need to say what people want to hear. Think of Martin Luther King, Jr., and his “I have a dream” speech. (This can be difficult when addressing the plight of animals. I often speak about rescued animals living on sanctuaries, free from pain and fear. Getting people to visit a sanctuary so they can meet these animals themselves is even better.)
8. Visualize — Plant a vivid image. There is one word in the English language that automatically triggers the process of visualization: imagine. (Asking people to imagine their dog or cat being forced to undergo painful medical tests or to be locked in a wire battery cage for two years and then slaughtered can be a way to help people see things differently.)
9. Ask a question. Luntz cites the dairy industry’s “Got Milk?” as perhaps the most memorable print-ad campaign of the past decade.
10. Provide Context and Explain Relevance. You must give people the “why” of your message before giving them the “therefore” and the “so that.” Some people call this framing, but Luntz prefers the word context.

Sadly, many activists don't use these "rules." In fact, they often speak in an abstract, noninspirational, long, academic way. We all do it sometimes, but we'll never get better unless we realize our mistakes.

Here are a few things I do in vegan blogs that seem to help "sell" veganism:

Visualize: I use images and videos often. If there is one single thing every vegan blogger could improve upon, it's the use of videos. We MUST use videos as much as possible, because they are extremely compelling.
Consistency: I link back to older blog posts and repeat the same message in a new post.
Credibility: I stay honest. If I make a mistake and someone calls me on it, I admit the mistake and then fix it.
Simplicity: I try to imagine a child or teenager reader. If I think it would make sense to them, then I've done a good job.
Brevity: There is a place for long blog posts, but I try to say the important stuff up front so if someone's attention span is short, they still get the gist.
Novelty: I scan the news for vegan and vegetarian tidbits. This keeps things fresh.

Humans & Dogs: Not So Different

2009-01-13T08:41:00.000-08:00

This is basically my dog training philosophy:
Make it easy for your dog to do the right thing.
Then praise and reward the right thing. Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat...
Ignore and/or prevent bad behaviors.

(It's not really mine, lots of people use it.)

So, for example, you need to train your dog not to urinate in the house, you give your dog LOTS of walks and/or outdoor time. When she goes outside, you praise her and give her a treat or toy. If she goes inside, you ignore her. Just clean it up really well and start over. (She needs INSTANT praise, by the way. You can't tell her 'good dog' for going potty outside when she pooped 20 minutes ago. She won't understand the praise is related to the behavior she did 20 minutes ago. She'll think the praise is related to something she did 1 minute ago.)

Repeat, repeat, repeat... This is where I think a lot of people screw up. As soon as their dog 'gets' it, they stop the rewards. They think dog training is about teaching the dog, not about creating habitual behavior. The point is to make a habit, not simply to communicate. So, when the dog understands, that's wonderful, but you still have to repeat, repeat, repeat, until it's second nature and the dog doesn't even think twice about it. Once it's a habit, doggy will do it without even expecting the treat. (However, NEVER stop the praise. Dogs can't get 'spoiled' by hearing "good dog" too much when they're being good.)

Anyway... I think these methods can be used on people, too. I think the key to creating a world with more compassion and justice is by making it easy for people to do the right thing. And then to reward them for doing the right thing.

For example, we don't just expect people not to litter, we make it easy for them not to litter by providing city trash cans. We don't just expect people to educate their children, we've made it easy by providing free public education for children. More examples: park-and-rides, carpool lanes, curbside recycling, anonymous child abuse reporting, low cost spay and neuter programs... the list goes on. Make it easy and people will do it.

The problem with getting people on board with many progressive, liberal, leftist ideas isn't ideology, it's ease.

For veganism, that means we should make it easy for people to choose veganism by:

Creating or expanding vegan social clubs (like NYC's Vegan Drinks, or our potlucks, etc.) so vegans don't feel isolated.
Creating or supporting vegan businesses that offer vegan alternatives to omni stuff, so people have a real choice.
Doing vegan outreach so people are better educated about what it really means to be vegan, so they have fewer excuses.
Making more cookbooks, cooking shows, food blogs that educate and entice people to go or stay vegan.
Being vocal vegans, so vegans are less on the fringe and more central in social discourse. We're easy to ignore if we're not heard, we're hard to ignore if we're loud and proud.

Got any more ideas of what we ought to be doing to make veganism easier for nonvegans?

(Crossposted at ElaineVigneault.com)

Best Selling Animal-Friendly Books

2009-01-08T07:52:00.000-08:00

The Amazon sales ranking is an indication of how many copies a book has sold. Let's compare the rankings for some animal rights books. Perhaps from there we can draw a conclusion about what kinds of books are more appealing, and thus what kinds of animal rights arguments are most persuasive, or at least what kinds of animal rights arguments are most well known:

Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World by Bob Torres & Jenna Torres
#22,225 in All Books, #1 in Animal Rights
Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America by Nathan J. Winograd
#23,881 in All Books, #2 in Animal Rights
Bottomfeeder: How to Eat Ethically in a World of Vanishing Seafood by Taras Grescoe
#25,531 in Books, #3 in Animal Rights
Animal Liberation by Peter Singer
#27,212 in All Books, #4 in Animal Rights
Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, and Money by Erik Marcus
#28,745 in All Books, #5 in Animal Rights
Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would Be Human by Elizabeth Hess
#32,209 in All Books, #6 in Animal Rights
Best Friends: The True Story of the World's Most Beloved Animal Sanctuary by Samantha Glen
#36,253 in Books, #8 in Animal Rights
Thanking the Monkey: Rethinking the Way We Treat Animals by Karen Dawn
#41,392 in All Books, #9 in Animal Rights
Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy by Matthew Scully
#54,405 in All Books, #14 in Animal Rights
Making A Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights by Bob Torres
#117,099 in All Books, #33 in Animal Rights
Striking at the Roots: A Practical Guide to Animal Activism by Mark Hawthorne
#264,227 in All Books, #72 in Animal Rights
The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan
#290,776 in Books, #80 in Animal Rights

Some basic "genres" of thought from the list above:

Theory: Animal Liberation, Making a Killing, The Case for Animal Rights, Dominion
Practical: Striking at the Roots, Bottomfeeder, Vegan Freak
Stories: Best Friends, Nim Chimpsky

But take a look at this:

Skinny Bitch by Kim Barnouin & Rory Freedman
#131 in All Books, not listed in Animal Rights section
The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Our World by John Robbins
#15,316 in All Books, not listed in Animal Rights section

Even though these 'diet' books are in the food section, they have a clear animal rights and environmental perspective. And they SELL BETTER.

Regardless of what is most compelling for us personally, we ought to be aware of the other perspectives, particularly if they're more popular. This way we can tailor our discussions and activism for the audience.

PETA's Nudity

2009-01-07T11:01:00.000-08:00

PETA receives a lot of criticism for their nude or nearly nude campaigns. They explain that they do nude campaigns because they are effective. Here's their rationale:

Our mission is to get the animal rights message to as many people as possible. Unfortunately, this is not always an easy task. Unlike our opposition, which is mostly composed of wealthy industries and corporations, PETA must rely on getting free "advertising" through media coverage. This can be especially difficult with our fur campaign, since newspapers are often reluctant to cover our activities for fear of losing furriers' advertising dollars. But, not surprisingly, colorful and "controversial" demonstrations and campaigns like activists stripping to "go naked instead of wearing fur" consistently grab headlines.

The "Naked" Campaign began several years ago when demonstrators - both male and female - marched behind a huge banner proclaiming that they would "rather go naked than wear fur." More "naked" demonstrations were held all over the world, the idea caught on, and we started receiving offers from celebrities, including Christy Turlington, Marcus Schenkenberg, Kim Basinger, Cindy Crawford, designer Todd Oldham, and Pamela Anderson to participate. Interestingly, we began receiving complaints about this campaign only after professional models and actors joined it, which we conclude to mean, among other things, that celebrity participation helps us reach more people.

The campaign has been hugely successful. It has been featured in nearly every major newspaper, including The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post. And major magazines and television shows such as Us, People, and Entertainment Tonight have been inspired by the campaign to do stories about the anti-fur movement.

History does not look back unkindly on Lady Godiva. It is our hope that people will come to see that our modern-day "Godivas" have motives that are just as honorable.

I've created a website that takes a closer look at these nude campaigns: http://nakedpeta.blogspot.com/

Is Objectivity Overrated?

2009-01-07T10:13:00.000-08:00

Matt Ball claims:

"There is a natural tendency for uncritical acceptance of claims we want to believe. In the long run, however, I believe that this causes more harm than good, because we lose support from people who have come to realize that we are not objective, and we miss chances to convince people who are inherently skeptical. Furthermore, most people are looking for some reason to dismiss us. Thus, it is imperative that we present information the public won’t regard as ludicrous and from sources that they won’t dismiss as partisan."

Is he right? Do studies support this?

There is a natural tendency for uncritical acceptance of claims we want to believe, yes, that seems to be true. But does that mean vegans should be more critical of our own beliefs or does it mean we should tailor our outreach and activism to suit the beliefs of the average person? Which is more effective in the long run?

It seems, in part, that he may be wrong. The staggering sales of Skinny Bitch by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin, a book that no one would call "objective," seems to disprove Ball's hypothesis. If "most people are looking for some reason to dismiss" vegans and animal righters, why would they continue to buy and read a book about veganism?

Moreover, life experience has shown me that strong logic and truth are not very persuasive to the average person. In fact, very few people are what I would call "inherently skeptical."

The book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion Robert B. Cialdini, suggests that people are more motivated by six principles of ethical persuasion: reciprocity, scarcity, liking, authority, social proof, and commitment/consistency. For the record, "social proof" is akin to the logical fallacy "appeal to popularity." According to Cialdini, we may be more effective animal advocates if we appeal to authority and popularity than if we appeal to truth and logic.

One has to wonder, is Ball right or wrong? Does it matter if we're more concerned with what's most effective?

I certainly agree with him from an ethical perspective. To me, it's immoral to promote information you know is false. Accurate information is always better. But from an efficacy perspective? I'm not so sure. I'd like to find or do marketing research to find out.

But go ahead and read Ball's piece. He makes some really great arguments >>

Is Graphic Content Effective?

2009-01-07T10:12:00.000-08:00

Rachel Becker's PWR 2 final animal advocacy photos:

Essentially, she seems to find that graphic content promotes more empathy and triggers the viewer's desire to contribute towards change. Thus, we shouldn't shy away from using disturbing images when promoting animal rights or veganism.

But, in my opinion, we should always offer a recourse. We shouldn't simply show the factory farm videos and let the viewers draw their own conclusion because the path to apathy is short. We ought to give concrete solutions, like: Go vegan for the animals, for your health, and for the planet.

Case Study: Feministe Blog & Crush Video Discussion

2009-01-07T09:41:00.000-08:00

My mother-in-law sent me a link about crush videos, small animal snuff films fetishized for sexual pleasure. I forwarded the link to Jill at Feministe, hoping the legal issues and pornography aspect would pique her interests (she's a feminist lawyer, after all). Sure enough, she posted about it.

I refrained from commenting much, given that my reputation (amongst meat-eaters) is in the toilet and people (who like to eat dead animals) tend to disregard what I have to say. So I left only one comment. Luckily, others picked up the slack and made the connections. For example:

preying mantis wrote: "On top of that, the few cases where the producers have been found, investigated, and reported on involved the women in the videos having been coerced into it, so you have that on top of the animal cruelty."

Alderson Warm-Fork says, " if your issue is the slow crushing of small animals - when egg-laying hens reproduce, half their young are male. these males are ‘useless’ for profit. thus, less than a day old, they are disposed of, often by ‘crushing’. "

Jessica says, "Where consent cannot be obtained, a fetish should not be indulged. Simple as that. An animal cannot consent to this and to do it anyway is a kind of rape/murder. These are snuff films, no doubt about it."

puerdixit hit the nail on the head with THE BEST (in my opinion) analysis of all:

"I’m certainly against humans harming other beings for pleasure–sexual, gustatory, aesthetic or other. However, as a queer person, I’m unnerved by sex panics. I personally don’t see crush porn as ethically far from leather fetish (as much as I appreciate leatherqueers as part of my culture) or, heck, even the whole 'fuck-me boots' thing when those boots are made of dead animals. So I’m intrigued by how people think and talk about crush fetish, and what these responses say about larger attitudes towards non-humans, sexuality, and gender."

My conclusions:

People are often shocked and angered by cruel uses of animals that do not result in their own personal pleasure. The more someone can 'other' the animal abuser, the easier it is for them to condemn the cruelty. But unfortunately, the more 'different' the cruelty, the easier it is for them to overlook their own complicity in similar forms of animal cruelty.
Opening up a discussion of animal cruelty, in circles of people concerned about justice, will often result in at least some discussion about the cruelty inherent in factory farming. For that reason alone, it's worthwhile to attempt to ignite these kinds of discussions in these kinds of groups.
In discussions of pornography, the notion of consent is virtually always present. It's crucial in feminist theory and also crucial in animal rights theory. Animals can not and do not consent to much of what humans do to them. Thus, when the door is opened to discussions of animals, consent becomes a topic. Animal righters ought to learn how to talk about consent to people who don't want to consider animal's interests.
Animal cruelty associated with sex (crushing) or violence (dog-fighting, bull-fighting) seems to be more interesting to media producers (of all kinds, bloggers included) than the more routine forms of animal cruelty, like factory farming. Because of this, these kinds of animal cruelty discussions can be gateways to discussions of other forms of animal cruelty. But those discussions must be shaped carefully by animal advocates, otherwise, they will devolve into hatred of the 'othered'.

(crossposted at ElaineVigneault.com)