Veg Trends and Gender Differences

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?

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.

"The Health Argument" for veganism

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.

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

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.

5 for 5

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

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!

Encouraging Accomplishments

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

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.

"behaving respectfully in the face of disrespect"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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