Social Marketing

When fellow animal advocates ask me questions about research on animal protection issues, I typically ask them if they have looked at our research primers. In response, I usually hear "Research what? Where?" I am guessing that many advocates, even those of you who follow our work, are not aware of the full wealth of free data we have available. Here I want to highlight HRC's research primers, since they are a free resource that can help all advocates better understand the issues on which they are working. So let me tell you a little about them.

The internet significantly influences the tactics that animal protection organizations use and the ways in which those tactics are implemented. The internet is now a mainstream part of American life, with 71% of U.S. adults accessing it on a daily basis. Social networking sites like Facebook, online petitions that automatically generate letters for campaigns, and speedy access to a large number of people via email lists are all tools unique to the internet. For animal advocates who are typically working on a shoestring budget, the internet helps level the playing field.

Sometimes referred to as "shock advocacy," the tactic of using graphic and shocking images to sway opinion is controversial. Following the principle that "a picture is worth a thousands words," animal advocacy signs and literature often feature images of animals suffering in an attempt to make the general population aware of the cruelty that animals suffer on a daily basis in slaughterhouses, factory farms, fur farms, puppy mills and other locations of animal exploitation. The main objection to these images is that they may be perceived as "too graphic" and so turn people off of the message of animal rights. Nonetheless, this tactic is often used in animal protection campaigns.

Every year, the Humane Research Council conducts the Animal Tracker survey to determine attitudes and beliefs regarding issues of relevance to animal advocates. In Wave 1 of this study, conducted in 2008, we asked over 1,500 people the following question: "Social and political movements use a variety of tactics to create change for their issues. In general, how much do you support or oppose each of the following tactics?" We asked specifically about the following tactics: anti-cruelty investigations, using media to reach the public, speaking in schools, filling lawsuits to protect animals, state ballot initiatives lobbying government officials, calling for product boycotts, and demonstrating or protesting.

[Excerpt from the interview] As a movement, we can engage in self-expression, which is great, but if we want to achieve meaningful, lasting change for animals, we will need to reach out to people who don’t have this top of mind. What I mean is, it's hard when we have our heads in this 24/7 to put ourselves in the position of the person on the receiving end of the message. The only real way to know is to research that.

There is a lack of understanding as to the efficacy of different tactics available to animal advocates, as HRC has noted in the past. In this series, I present the available research in the hopes it can help animal advocates direct their campaigns. In this first post I define and discuss tactics in general. In Part 2 of the series I will examine public attitudes toward different types of tactics. Part 3 will review the efficacy of “shock advocacy” and Part 4 will look at the current use social media to effect change for animals.

Written by Diane Venberg, one of HRC's 2010 interns, this wonderful overview of HumaneSpot.org shows the breadth of our research database and highlights a number of important studies. Be sure to give this blog a read if you've been wanting a taste of what HumaneSpot.org has to offer before applying for access. And if you have any research that you think should be included in our database, be sure to let us know.

As those of us at HRC mention regularly, the purpose of conducting research is often to overcome (or validate) our own assumptions and biased viewpoints. It can be difficult for advocates who feel strongly about animal protection to understand the attitudes and behavior of those who are less moved by the suffering of animals. To really know what non-advocates think - and why - it is essential to ask them directly and then filter their responses through rigorous analysis. You may be surprised by the answers and how different they can be from the beliefs of animal advocates.