Meat Reduction Advocacy more effective than Vegan Advocacy?

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.

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.

Why Meatless Monday Works

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

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.

Book Review: Change Of Heart

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

Reading Change of Heart

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?

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.

Related:

• Guide to Analyzing PETA’s Nude Activism
• Regarding the website “PETA Kills Animals”
• Everyone Deserves Mercy
• Not Just Skin Deep
  
• Another PETA Success & Covance Out Of Business

Originally posted at Vegan Soapbox.

the one and only true way?

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!

Readability Results In Rights

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.)

Use Metaphors!

"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.

Virgil's Virtue

Direct, honest, compelling.

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

YOU ARE THE SOLUTION

Compelling?
Why?

"vastly more persuasive" ???

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 >> )

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.

How to Win Friends and Influence People?

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.

Using Popularity To "Sell" Compassion

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.

Effective Written Animal Advocacy

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?

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

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

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.