Print versus online media

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.

Doing Research, Having Good Sources

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.

PETA's Nudity

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 Graphic Content Effective?

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.