I was going to leave this as a comment on Katharine's post, but I run this joint, so why not take advantage?
I used to completely agree with Katharine (and commenter Mike) that tactics like PETA's are counter-productive. In fact, I once wrote a post on it. Why do they always make the most extreme statement (wearing fur is like being a Nazi) and champion the most obscure causes (fish have feelings)? Don't they have enough legitimate, mainstream issues -- like, say, the horrific conditions at huge mega-dairies -- to be a sober voice at the table with the grown-ups? Why the clowning?
I've started to come around to their POV, though.
We live in a postmodern media environment. There's a lot of information flying around and it's harder and harder to make sense of it, particularly since the mainstream media has virtually abandoned its role as arbiter. It used to be that the road to having your views accepted was to plug away in the trenches, slowly building up support and credibility. Eventually the gatekeepers of the media would take note and give you a hearing.
But we no longer have neutral arbiters, and everything happens at light speed. Every side has their partisans, and the partisans' job is simply to be heard, to get their view Out There. Consider the Swift Boat slime campaign against Kerry during the election. The charges were rebutted repeatedly, but it didn't matter. What mattered was that the charges were inflammatory, salacious, and repeated at high volume over and over again. They were out there, in the media ether, and it cost Kerry big.
This is what PETA understands. It doesn't matter that in a calm, reasoned discussion, there would be better issues to start with than a fish's feelings. What matters is making a claim that is sufficiently theatrical to get the media's attention -- getting the notion that animals have feelings out there. Even if it strikes most people as ridiculous at first, it has entered the media ether. It is something-people-are-talking-about. Eventually it starts to seem less ridiculous.
The right understands this dynamic very, very well, and use it to their advantage. Something starts as ridiculous and provocative; through sheer repetition, it becomes less so. Eventually something like cutting taxes during war time becomes no biggie.
PETA is one of the few progressive organizations that get it. They play the media better than most other progressive groups. Maybe we should be learning from them.
Free the fish!
Jonathan Safran Foer on his book “Eating Animals”
Ask Umbra on sex ... chicken sex, that is
Terrorism laws are wrongly being used to round up eco-activists, says author Dean Kuipers
Comments
View as Flat
MikeCapone Posted 9:55 am
07 Mar 2005
PETA is much ridiculed, but that's better than being unknown. And for the people that actually take the time to go read the FAQ on their website (as I did a few months ago when doing research before becoming vegetarian (one of the best decisions I've ever made, btw)) realize that they actually are making loads of well thought-out points very convincingly.
I guess it's the "get them through the door" tactic. Stores are ready to do almost anything and even sell a few hot items below cost to get you inside.
I guess that it could be the same with some of the things that Earth First! and Greenpeace (not so much anymore) do.
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
MikeCapone Posted 9:56 am
07 Mar 2005
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
whalesalive2005 Posted 11:11 am
07 Mar 2005
There is no business to be done on a dead planet.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 12:50 pm
07 Mar 2005
www.grist.org
Permalink
MikeCapone Posted 1:34 pm
07 Mar 2005
When they start slaughtering and eating women to prove their point I'll be worried ;P
But to be serious, I'd suggest that any woman that cooperates with PETA does it on her own free will, and that any woman who has silicon implants also did it on her own. I don't buy that "show a beautiful woman and you are automatically EXPLOITING her" thing too much except in cases where there's real exploitation.
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
jaclyn Posted 6:43 am
08 Mar 2005
For example, they may not agree that meat is murder, but they may start to realize that people shouldn't beat their pets. I don't agree with all of PETA's points, but I appreciate that some of their work has made my work with animal welfare (adoption, spay/neuter) easier.
And yes, it works the other way. "Well, no I don't think Senator Kerry is a traitor to this country, but there's got to be something fishy about those medals..."
My one disagreement with Dave is that this is a new phenomenon. I really don't think it is. I personally think that you could see some of this in the civil rights movement -- Malcolm X, Black Panthers, etc. were so outside the mainstream that it made Dr. King seem more moderate and reasonable to the average white guy. Of course, that's just supposition on my part since I'm too young to remember. :-) But perhaps the media can/will help the center move more quickly.
Permalink
Emily Cunningham Posted 7:24 am
08 Mar 2005
Permalink
greenvegan Posted 7:27 am
08 Mar 2005
Permalink
Aimee Christensen Posted 10:49 am
08 Mar 2005
As the election approached, and nationally the environment was not getting the coverage it was due, the organization chose to take a risk to convey information it felt the public should know about - even though there was a chance this would be controversial and lead to backlash. In that political context, with the clock ticking, the risk was assessed worth it. The organization put up billboards in Florida that said "Global Warming = Worse Hurricanes, George Bush Just Doesn't Get It" with a picture of doppler radar showing a hurricane bearing down on the Florida coastline. These billboards merely encapsulated a recently released NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) study showing that global warming is leading to worse hurricanes, and that Bush is doing nothing to reduce this danger - all true. To draw further attention to this issue, a press conference was held in partnership with a science-focused political campaign, with world-renowned climate change and coral reef scientists and local business leaders talking about the future and growing impacts on Florida. The event generated state wide and even national print coverage, as well as some local TV coverage. The reporting was on the science and impacts on Florida, and that the Bush administration was not addressing global warming. This important message got out, albeit primarily locally, but that had been our strategy: to impact a handful of key states, Florida being one of them.
Within two days, however, opportunity for national influence arrived: FOX News called asking for a debate on the billboards against the head of the far right "Club for Growth". There is an argument to be made against going on FOX, no question. FOX frames the debate, they use progressives to fire up their base viewers, they put descriptors about you at the bottom of the screen like "crazy enviro" (okay, not that bad), and some claim that their viewers are so locked into their world view that you can't influence them - but in this case I thought going on FOX might lead to bigger and better things.
Prior to the live broadcast, FOX's lead-ins showed the billboards over and over, saying how crazy these wacky people were for blaming Bush for the hurricanes (which is of course not what the billboards were doing), but FOX was trying to frame the message for their viewers before we had a chance to do so. While I felt our side outperformed the opponent (fortunately the facts were on our side), the FOX viewer machine went into action and we were attacked by phone and email. The FOX appearance had, however, created an opportunity, to potentially leverage this controversy (that FOX was accusing us of blaming Bush for hurricanes) with the mainstream media, providing a foot in the door to talk about the real story: Bush's radical anti-environmental record.
I believe strongly that it would have worked, had it not been within a week of the election, when nothing but Osama Bin Laden and Vietnam were breaking through.
I share these as a few thoughts about tactics from the electoral battlefront. I believe that there are many ways to try to break through and inform the public. A caution, however: the Swift Boat ads are a model I would never advocate emulating -- they told outright lies, instead of just using an over-the-top approach to convey the truth.
(I became a Vegan after watching a disturbing and all too true video from Farm Sanctuary narrated by Mary Tyler Moore. The information was powerful, and built on years of learning about animal rights and abuses from many groups. Farm Sanctuary educates their members and supporters, but otherwise goes along doing their business of rescuing abused livestock, such as the famous cows who have jumped 10 foot fences and taken off down highways to avoid the slaughter they knew was coming. Farm Sanctuary cares for these animals and files lawsuits and works with legislators to pass laws to increase animal protections. We all have our way of making a difference).
Ever hopeful!
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 12:54 pm
08 Mar 2005
First, PETA's statement that "[s]upporters of the animal rights movement believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation" shows a clear lack of critical thought. While experimenting on animals or using them for entertainment is immoral and only able to be done because of a might-makes-right mentality, we live on a planet where the animals eat each other, and fanatic vegetarians and vegans should just GET OVER IT and stop pestering the rest of us.
That said, animal husbandry (i.e., raising animals to be slaughtered for food) is both bad for the animals and ecologically harmful, as is overhunting or overfishing, which result from both human overpopulation and from overconsumption of meat. A perfect example of these harms is an unnatural animal called the cow, which was bred by humans to be unnaturally slow, stupid, and clumsy so that it is easier to kill. The cattle industry has caused more environmental harm to the western U.S. than any other industry.
However, eating a small amount of wild animals and using their skins for clothing where applicable (obviously not possible with fish) is completely natural and ecologically harmless if not overdone. If fanatic meat-eaters, Americans and Europeans being the main offenders, would greatly lower their meat consumption and humans in general would greatly lower their population, eaing wild meat would be neither unnatural nor a problem.
Second, PETA's claim that "[t]here is currently no reason to believe that plants experience pain because they are devoid of central nervous systems, nerve endings, and brains" is just plain wrong. Decades ago, there was an experiment that proved plants could recognize a human who earlier killed another plant in the same room, and that the remaing plants let out a plant version of a scream when the human re-entered the room. Merely because plants don't relate to life as humans do or "feel" things as we understand the meaning of the word does not mean that plants don't dislike pain as much as animals do.
As a Native American friend says, you will not find any indigenous vegetarians, because indigenous people do not discriminate against different forms of life (i.e., plants, humans, other animals, air, water, or land). If PETA and others who fight so hard for other life would think things through to a logical conclusion, they would realize that avoiding animal protein just discriminates against plants!
I firmly believe that PETA supporters' hearts are in the right place, and I love animals, too. However, to paraphrase Mr. Spock (I can't remember the exact quote), we all live on death, even vegetarians. PETA's efforts would be more helpful to ALL life if PETA would concentrate on animal experimentation and entertainment, while urging people to lower their meat consumption.
Permalink
MikeCapone Posted 1:42 pm
08 Mar 2005
Their point is that we are at a stage in our development where we don't need to eat animals anymore; industrial farming is incredibly inefficient in its allocation of resources, destructive to the planet, plain cruel and a health risk to the meat-eaters. Many people probably wouldn't even keep eating meat if there wasn't such a huge disconnect between it and where it comes from. A mandatory tour of a slaughterhouse and spending a few days with farm-animals, learning that they each have their personalities and interest in the continuation of their own life - just like any of the animals that we consider pets - would make things different I'm sure.
As for your "plants feel pain", I'll believe it when I see some credible scientific evidence of it and not just that "oh, I've heard that plants scream in pain!" thing that circulates around. Until then, I'll consider plants as sentient and pain-aware as bacteria and keep a healthy diet of 'em (the plants, not the bacteria).
I'll leave you with some quotes:
"If a group of beings from another planet were to land on Earth -- beings who considered themselves as superior to you as you feel yourself to be to other animals -- would you concede them the rights over you that you assume over other animals?"
George Bernard Shaw, playwright, Nobel Prize 1925
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated" - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
"I have come from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men"- Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519)
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel Prize 1921
"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men." --Alice Walker
"The worst sins towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them. That is the essence of inhumanity." - George Bernard Shaw
"A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral." --Leo Tolstoy
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
MikeCapone Posted 2:04 pm
08 Mar 2005
I think that 70% of the grain produced worldwide is used to feed the 10s of billions of animals raised to be eaten, not to mention all the water that is used for that grain and those animals.
This and this are good reads (if incomplete).
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 2:42 pm
08 Mar 2005
Re whether plants "feel" "pain," just because they don't experience life in the same manner as humans do doesn't mean they don't abhor death or dismemberment, just as animals do. For example, plants make chemicals toxic to animals in order to avoid being eaten. (BTW, I read the "plants feel pain" -- or whatever it's called -- study decades ago; it was an acutal scientific study, not something that "circulates around." I'm sure you could find it with a little effort.)
Re the meat industry, we agree, but I said as much in my first post. You haven't addressed what's wrong with hunting wild animals in small quantities. Quickly killing a wild animal does not cause any significant suffering.
Re consuming plants in addition to animals, what you said is factually incorrect on two counts. First, a person who eats some meat will eat less vegetable protein, because the meat will substitute for the vegetable protein. The vegetation consumed by wild ungulates does not have to be grown by humans, so nothing is wasted by eating the ungulates. (Your argument doesn't even apply to fish.) Second, people need vitamin B-12, which only comes from animal products as far as I know. Eating dairy products is unhealthy, unnatural, and ecologicially destructive (the only dairy a person should eat is his or her mother's milk until weaned), so that leaves meat as the sole source.
Most fundamentally, our basic difference is that you discriminate against plants, while I realize that all forms of life would rather survive to old age than become food. The problem with your point of view is that it gives people license to commit great harm to everything that's not an animal. Only by properly respecting all forms of life, including plants, can we live in harmony with nature and in a moral manner.
Permalink
MikeCapone Posted 3:35 pm
08 Mar 2005
Plants are not sentient. Anything else you say gets a bit to esoteric and "cosmic harmony" for the planning of my dietary habits. Sorry if I can't follow you on that path.
re: Hunting wild animals. What I think is wrong with it is that: first, it's killing sentient animals. Second, it's unecessary killing, as we don't need killing them to live. In the past we did. Now we don't.
You haven't read what I wrote. Eating meat is eating an animal that has eaten plants all it's life. Meat-eaters are destroying more plants than vegetarians, so if you really believe in the preservation of plants, you should be vegetarian. As for B12, you can get that in a supplements (that's what I do). No worry there.
re: Discriminating against plants. That's where you get too esoteric for me. I also discriminate against bacteria, fungus and most other non-sentient life, and I don't see a problem with it. I was talking of what I eat, because I gotta eat something. It doesn't mean that I'm for the destruction of forests or that I don't like plants. Duh.
If you understand the theory of evolution, you understand why plants produce toxins and have other survival mechanisms. It doesn't mean that they want to live, it's just random mutations that proved to have greater chances of reproducing themselves, not some vague plant consciousness actively sending signals... Same with bacteria that gets more and more robuts as generations move along.
I believe that our consciousness comes from that very complex thing that is our brain. Same with animals. There is nothing in a plant that could point to something similar.
Maybe you are religious and believe in souls and other such supernatural things, but I don't. That "scientific" article about plants that you talk about must've been discredited since because it is definitely not the actual scientific consensus. I've heard about such studies (everybody seems to have heard about it -- probably because it's one of those "unexpected finds" that make good conversation fodder and Reader's Digest material) but never positively.
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
brian Posted 11:37 pm
08 Mar 2005
"And what constitutes the climatic moment for an apple tree?
Having her fruit eaten by a mammal, that's what. The apple
contains seeds for the mother-tree's offspring. The mammal
enjoys the fruit of her labor by taking the perfumed fruit
containing seeds far from the mother tree. The animal then
becomes an important part the apple's reproductive cycle by
depositing the seed with a copious amount of organic
nitrogen-containing fertilizer to nurture that seed's growth.
Each summer I reserve a part of my garden for broccoli
seeds. The plant produces beautiful florettes which would
make for a wonderful dish when sauteed with a bulb or two of
my organically-grown garlic. However, I allow those plants
to flower and go to seed for two wonderful reasons. First,
few flowering plants are as stunning as the yellow sunburst
produced by the broccoli plant. Second, those flowers are
delicious in salads. To the broccoli plant, her be all and
end all is to produce seeds. These are her potential
children. The act of picking the plant must then be an
act of infinite pleasure. Premature seed-shedding still
provides some pleasure, even in non-plants, for that is
how living creatures have been programmed. In other words,
a broccoli plant lives to be eaten, for in life's final
act, she dies and exists for future generations.
Such is the nature of the broccoli, carrot, apple,
orange and strawberry. Give pleasure to a pear or a peach
or bunches of grapes as often as you can. The next time you,
as a vegetarian or vegan, are accused of being a plant killer,
let those who criticize be aware of nature's perfect plan."
Permalink
Kira Posted 11:55 pm
08 Mar 2005
Time for them to evolve and back up their "fish have feelings" message with real data to prove fish can feel pain in the way humans and other higher vertebrates can. (Maybe they've done this, but, again, it hasn't gotten through the background noise.) I did read recently (here on Grist?) that research has shown that lobsters do not feel pain when being dunked into boiling water.
And speaking of lobsters, maybe next time they'll just take a photo of the guy and throw him back. Poor Bubba.
Permalink
MikeCapone Posted 2:15 am
09 Mar 2005
Objectively it's good for them that their seeds are put into the earth and that they are helped in their reproduction, but thinking that it pleases them is just us humans projecting our reactions and emotions on them (the same way that it would be to think that bacteria experience pleasure by multiplying or whatever). We have a tendency to do that with pretty much everything.
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 6:13 am
09 Mar 2005
Looking objectively at ourselves and other living creatures, we know that when subjected to pain, we cry out and recoil; and we see that fish, worms, cows, lobsters, and all sorts of things do the same, according to their capacity. Decades ago it was shown that even plants do what they can to get away from suffering, though their ability to do that is insignificant. Nonetheless, everyone can understand the Sanskrit aphorism, "Jiva jivasya jivanam:" "One living entity is food for another." Yet for those who want to live an ethical life, we must do our best to reduce our harm in the world ("natihimsa"). We know that eating low on the food chain is one of the best ways to reduce our consumption of other life, and that should be one of our goals. Personally, I take the following additional steps to minimize my own harm in the world by following the following principle stated here:
http://www.asitis.com/9/26.html
http://www.asitis.com/9/27.html
http://www.asitis.com/9/28.html
Whether one takes those steps is obviously a personal choice, but at least we can each look at our own habits and try harder to live so that it at least looked like we cared about life regardless of the kind of body it inhabits. Rather than just speaking loudly and often (which is obnoxious), we should try to give our words potency by eliminating the misgivings from our hearts and shaping our own lives to reflect our love for all God's creatures. Then others will know that we mean what we say, and they'll take our words to heart.
Permalink
lindsaypost Posted 6:47 am
09 Mar 2005
Lindsay Pollard-Post
Permalink
brian Posted 1:33 pm
09 Mar 2005
Biblically, we appear to have been given carte blanche to eat plants, fruit and seeds. But what would we eat if we did forgo plants?
Permalink
patrickkwan Posted 9:24 pm
09 Mar 2005
Sales & Marketing Management; Jan2001, Vol. 153 Issue 1, p64, 6p, 5c
By Betsy Cummings
EXECUTIVE EDITOR
Abstract: Focuses on the marketing tactics of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Why the marketing approach works; Retail giants affected by the marketing move; Anti-milk campaign of PETA in 1999. INSET: PETA: WHY IT WORKS.
SHOCK TREATMENT
Why PETA's Radical Marketing Tactics Work
It's 55 degrees on this fall morning in Wichita, Kansas, and Karen Lybrand is wearing more goose bumps than clothing. Barely clad in a pleather (fake leather) minidress that plunges six inches down her chest, she teeters on the sidewalk in four-inch stiletto-heeled, black lace-up boots. She proudly hoists a poster aloft that reads "Good girls fake it," and explains, "Today is about letting people know how easy it is to find an alternative." No, not that alternative. Lybrand means ways to stop people from eating, wearing, and using animals. And she's willing to impersonate a dominatrix to prove it.
You call this marketing?
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) certainly does. Lybrand and fellow activist Ray Leanne Smith, who's planned PETA's latest anti-leather sweep across the heart of cattle country, smile warmly, wave vigorously to passersby, and hope at least one person hears their call to stop animal suffering.
One driver of a teal Corvette might just be listening. He slams his brakes for a better look, waves, smiles, then drives on. Across the street, a man in a Ford pickup does the same. Others ask questions, grab PETA pamphlets, and walk away reading. Even Coventry Leather store owner John Sheehan, who is PETA's target for the next two hours, pokes his head out the door, slightly curious. He's been handcrafting leather belts, wallets, and more for 20 years in his shop on Douglas Avenue, once Wichita's span of the Chisholm Trail--a longhorn herding path reaching from as far away as Texas.
"I don't like their aggrandizement of their cause," an annoyed Sheehan says, back in his shop before a pile of pelts. He's not alone. In its fight to speak up for the animals who can't, PETA has attacked the practices of corporations, Vegas showmen, scientists, pet owners, and others. Along the way, it has made plenty of enemies, not surprisingly. It's also scored major marketing coups, changing the behavior of retailing giants McDonald's, Gap, and General Motors, among others, with radical demonstrations, offensive handouts, and militant vigilantism. Think what you want, but PETA's approach is working. And marketers who look closely just might learn something from these unusual tactics.
Shock 'em if you have to
When parents pulled through McDonald's drive-thrus last summer, they were shocked to receive PETA's McCruelty Unhappy Meals, a gory parody of the restaurant's kid's meal, which was handed out by PETA volunteers at 400 McDonald's in 23 countries. The gruesome boxes and accompanying flyers contained an ax-wielding "Son of Ron," a plastic butchered pig and cow amid blood-stained hay, and photos of a skinned cow's head hung from a butcher's hook alongside the phrase, "Want fries with that?" The tactic was the result of a longstanding effort to make McDonald's change its suppliers' treatment of livestock and to make customers think about their own buying habits. An effective marketing ploy? Apparently. Shortly after the Unhappy Meals were passed out, McDonald's established an Animal Welfare Council, comprised of top academicians and agricultural experts, who look at how the company's suppliers can improve their guidelines in treating and killing chickens, along with other animals-improvements that McDonald's spokesperson Walt Riker admits the company needs.
The stunt gained the public's attention, but it also upset many, not the least of whom were parents, probably the most frequent buyers of Happy Meals, and McDonald's executives. "We've been involved in animal welfare long before PETA showed up," insists Riker, who is quick to distance the fast-food chain from the Norfolk, Virginia-based animal rights group.
PETA won't apologize for its shock marketing approach, mainly because it works. PETA's records show that for every person outraged by demonstrations like this, plenty more are piqued enough to check out the organization's Web site. Of those who do, many become PETA members, supporting or promoting the group's cause. Take last year's anti-milk campaign. When PETA asserted that drinking the wholesome beverage could be linked to cancer, they launched several attention-getting campaigns, one of which altered the "Got milk?" print ads to read, "Got beer?"--a beverage PETA says has more health benefits than milk. But the promotion met with much rancor.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), for one, blasted PETA for the campaign, which was widely promoted on college campuses. But negative publicity against PETA generated on morning talk programs, like NBC's Today show, did more to heighten the awareness of PETA's cause. "In one week, we had eleven thousand hits on our Web site for the vegetarian starter kit," says Lisa Lange, PETA's director of policy and communications.
"PETA works because we're creative, [outlandish], and we're willing to take things far," says Dawn Carr, the organization's overall campaign manager who focuses on battling commercial and recreational fishers.
Some analysts suggest that too many offensive stunts can alienate the public, not to mention companies, but others say such marketing tactics work, especially when they're used selectively, so as to surprise consumers.
For example, PETA marketers waited until talks with McDonald's reached an impasse after meeting for 11 months before it launched the McCruelty campaign.
In cases like these, such guerilla tactics can be the most effective way to influence consumers' attitudes, says Steve Diorio, president of IMT Strategies, a marketing consultancy in Stamford, Connecticut.
"We'd rather go a little too far," adds PETA campaign coordinator Jay Kelly, "than not far enough."
Go for the top dog
It's a perennial marketing tactic: Get the most highly-respected company in the industry to become your client and others will follow.
Nobody subscribes to this principle better than PETA. When the organization began attacking Gap's hugely marketed leather campaign last winter, it was with good reason: Gap is one of the country's leading retailers. It's one of PETA's favorite ploys: "We go after the biggest company first, because if we don't, [our efforts] won't have as big of a ripple effect," PETA's International Grassroots Campaign Coordinator Tracy Reiman explains. In the late 1980s, for example, after cosmetic giants Avon and Revlon promised to stop testing their products on animals, L'Oreal, Merle Norman, and Estee Lauder followed suit within the next few years after consumers realized that they could opt for a "kinder" brand, Lange says.
"If PETA gets The Limited and Gap to change their ways," then it's taken a huge step to changing the industry standard, says Julie Irwin, a marketing professor at the University of Texas at Austin. It's also why targeting a local merchant in Manhattan's West Village, for example, is a pointless strategy. "It's not going to get anyone's attention. But so many Americans identify with Gap's all-American clothes and brand image," Irwin says. Learning that the company allegedly buys skins of abused animals, however, might be enough to distance some shoppers from the retailer.
So when PETA sent letters to Gap asking decision makers to stop buying Indian and Chinese hides, it took executives, concerned with brand identity, less than a few months to respond to PETA's letters and agree to meet with negotiators. Activists offered pictures and other evidence and claimed that India's traditionally sacred cows were being illegally killed and sold. Cows were supposedly herded for miles, smuggled across borders, and, PETA alleges, had their tails broken or eyes rubbed with chili peppers when they collapsed from exhaustion.
"When Gap realized that it wasn't going to be able to cover up that cruelty, it wanted to take a stand," claims Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's president and founder.
"Only ten percent of our leather comes from India and China," Gap Corporate Spokeswoman Kellie Leonard says. That may have had a hand in the company's quick reversal of policy. But PETA's history of success with changing the behavior of industry giants might have played a role as well. Indeed, in the short time PETA targeted Gap with demonstrations, Leonard says PETA caused significant concern among consumers, who sent letters to the company asking Gap executives about their policies on animal treatment.
Ultimately, competition forces other retailers to take note of Gap's actions and institute similar policies, experts say.
Persistence pays
Almost 15 years ago, animal trainer and entertainer Bobby Berosini was a Las Vegas hero, charming visitors nightly with orangutans that would puff on cigarettes, kiss him, and otherwise perform goofy antics to the delight of crowds. Behind the scenes, PETA's undercover videos hinted that Berosini's relationship with the apes was less convivial: The organization charges that he controlled them with punches and whacks from metal bars, and confined them to small steel boxes with few air holes at the top. The beatings, PETA alleges on its Web site, took place three times a night, once before each performance. Since they first targeted him in the late 1980s, PETA has filed lawsuits against Berosini, effectively banning him from performing in Las Vegas, Branson, Missouri, and other cities where he allegedly fled to escape animal cruelty charges. Berosini could not be located for comment. "I mean, the man's not allowed to move" without PETA taking notice and then taking legal action, Newkirk says.
Perseverance: It's one of PETA's greatest strengths. "We are tenacious as pit bulls," Newkirk says. "And once we declare a target, we never, ever, ever back off."
In fact, in the group's 20-year existence, PETA activists have never walked away from a marketing campaign. In 1986, for example, PETA began an 11-year battle against Gillette, asking the grooming-products manufacturer to halt animal tests conducted for the company's product development. Through advertisements, protests, and a celebrity stunt in which ex-Beatle and PETA supporter Paul McCartney returned his razor to the company, PETA succeeded in stopping tests, first at a Gillette subsidiary, then later company-wide.
In time, PETA's record for endurance has helped the organization develop brand awareness--and a formidable presence--say nonprofit analysts.
Spread the word
PETA wants all consumers to view their hidden camera research tapes alleging animal abuse on pig farms, in medical labs, and elsewhere. And it makes it easy for anyone to do so by offering the tapes for free through its Web site. With immediate broadcast capabilities via the Internet, PETA is able to raise its numbers of supporters exponentially, which is a vital marketing strategy, says Mary Beth Sweetland, PETA's director of research, investigations, and rescue.
Fervent followers who speak on PETA's behalf in communities worldwide are a powerful marketing tool because they're crucial in increasing the organization's presence among consumers and corporations. (Since Newkirk and six friends started the animal-fights group 20 years ago, it's grown to 700,000 members worldwide with more than 7,000 volunteers who will protest, write letters, and otherwise show support at a moment's notice.)
In that sense, technology, particularly the Internet, has been a godsend. On any given day, PETA's Web site includes information about which companies, organizations, or individuals are being targeted, upcoming demonstrations, and how to get in contact with local organizers, for example. The Web's accessibility balloons PETA's circle of communications, consultants say. What's more, for every campaign, PETA designs a separate Web site within its main Web page, so that visitors can click on http://www.circus.com, for instance, and read why the organization thinks that General Mills' sponsorship of the UniverSoul circus perpetuates animal cruelty, or http://www.meatstinks.com to learn more about veganism.
And with e-mail, PETA has been able to vastly widen its scope to both inform and organize volunteers. "We can hit forty thousand members with the click of one button," Friedrich says.
Technology works well for PETA's marketing agenda, says Marvin Goldberg, chairman of Pennsylvania State University's Smeal College of Business marketing department, because generally "educated people are more likely to be hooked into clever Web sites and e-mail correspondence," which is specifically the type of audience PETA organizers say they're trying to reach: informed individuals who are likely conscientious about activism, animal rights, and making socially responsible choices.
Celebrities sell
Celebrities are a staple in many marketing and advertising campaigns, but nobody exploits them quite like PETA does.
"Movie stars are the best thing that can happen to a cause," Irwin says, because when you associate your group's message with a star, people stop and listen. Luckily for PETA, it has no shortage of celebs--Joaquin Phoenix, Alicia Silverstone, Drew Barrymore, and others--to champion its issues.
But these stars don't just lend their faces or names to the PETA cause. They get seriously involved. Last winter Chrissie Hynde, lead singer of The Pretenders, tore into Gap's flagship store at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan and blasted the company's use of Indian cow hides. Hynde's fame alone brought significant attention to the incident, while her arrest made banner headlines on local news and within international papers like The New York Times, which did much to inform the public of PETA's anti-leather campaign.
Celebrities like Hynde are a particularly potent weapon for PETA because they help to counter popular trends that other famous faces perpetuate. While one celebrity dons a fur coat and consequently boosts sales, another counters the effect by announcing her veganism. Many, like Pamela Anderson, once proud wearers of leather and fur, have ditched animal skins to join PETA's battle. Anderson recently narrated an anti-leather video. Others, like 3rd Rock From the Sun star Kristen Johnston, have pelted NASA for experiments on lab rats. (NASA has since canceled its planned Neurolab experiments.)
The technique works because "people are endlessly fascinated with stars," Irwin says. And in such a media-cluttered world, Goldberg adds, celebrities can be critical to grabbing the public's attention. But there's another reason PETA's celebrities work: They're appropriately matched to the cause. "Studies show that where a celebrity has some degree of expertise or a natural relationship with a product [or cause], it's more convincing," Goldberg says, adding that PETA's use of supermodels to fight fur sales, for example, was a well-executed campaign. Photographing naked supermodels who declared they'd rather "go naked than wear fur," he says, went a long way in attracting attention--certainly because they were naked, but also because models who once strolled the catwalk cloaked in furs were now rejecting them for morality's sake.
Not all experts agree that PETA's marketing tactics are stellar. Certainly, the companies it targets criticize the group for being too much of a bully. And one analyst says that its strategies are too negative. "They look stupid because they're trying to put good enterprises out of business," says the marketing expert, who recommends that PETA ditch its shock tactics and work more as a partner with companies, rather than as an enemy.
Still, there's no question that its efforts are making an impact. Besides changing the business practices of major corporations, statistics show PETA is making a difference in the consumer sector as well. Studies by The Vegetarian Resource Group, which tracks vegetarian trends, estimates the numbers of Americans each year who stop eating meat is growing, albeit in small increments of one to two percent a year. The total currently stands at around 4.8 million. Fur sales, which should be up in today's robust economy, have shown decreasing profit margins since 1994 and altogether dropped between 1997 and 1998, the latest year for which the Fur Information Council of America has figures. Beef production levels have declined by as much as 61 percent since 1980.
While those figures can't be attributed entirely to PETA's efforts (Americans searching for a healthier diet and a change in fashion trends have had an effect as well), PETA can take credit for urging executives and consumers to at least think about their choices and consider the alternatives.
PETA has managed to push forth this agenda with only 132 staff members and a budget of just $17 million. Still, employees admit their cause has a long way to go. "It's hard to change lifestyles [and corporate behavior]," PETA's Smith admits. But, Newkirk adds, "We're not going anywhere."
PETA: WHY IT WORKS
ITS TACTICS MAY BE UNUSUAL, but there's a reason PETA has been successful for the pest 20 years. The group's marketing tactics are forceful, persistent, pointed, and attention-getting. Below, a glimpse at PETA's marketing mantras:
START WITH THE TOP: "When large corporations listen to what a group like PETA has to say, it gets people's attention," University of Texas Marketing Professor Julie Irwin says. It also gets the attention of other companies, prompting them to think about the consequences in image, sales, and hassles they might endure if they don't follow suit.
DON'T GIVE UP: Years of pushing forth a marketing agenda isn't always the best approach, but by not giving up, PETA has presented itself as a daunting group with significant power and presence.
TELL ANYONE AND EVERYONE: It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the more people you have on your side, the better. Luckily technology is available via e-mail newsletters, Web sites, and other online tools that not only reach a wider audience than conventional print materials, but offer the ability to distribute information more quickly.
USE A FAMOUS FACE: Associating celebrities with a product or cause not only grabs people's attention, but encourages them to associate ail the positive feelings they have for a celebrity with the product, Irwin says, and that goes far in establishing brand loyalty.
SHOCK FACTOR: They may be offensive, but outlandish marketing tactics work. With the inundation of media outlets and advertisements streamed into people's lives each day, shock tactics are sometimes an effective way to reach an audience, Irwin says.
Permalink
brian Posted 12:25 am
10 Mar 2005
Obviously it's impossible to gauge in real terms just how 'successful' they have or haven't been, though some would claim they've had successes in specific areas & campaigns and in generally raising awareness levels. On the other hand, has meat eating been reduced or the numbers of animal experiments decreased significantly? Has animal welfare in general improved? Have any significant inroads been made with regard to animal rights? I suppose you could argue that without Peta's efforts, the situation for animals would have been generally a lot worse by now and far fewer people would have become vegetarian or clued up on animal matters. But you could also argue that animal rights/welfare is still pretty low on the average person's agenda, that meat eating, for example, has increased because animals have improved conditions resulting from campaigns, or even that there's a backlash in some quarters as a result of what some may perceive as bullying and in-your-face tactics. Some may argue that unless there's a significant or general overall perception by significant numbers of people that animals are sentient beings who have the right not to be eaten or exploited or harmed, then Peta in particular and the animal rights movement in general, has so far failed. Thoughts anyone?
Permalink
Pandu Posted 11:17 pm
13 Mar 2005
As a Hare Krishna, our philosophy is that we offer milk to Krishna, as He desires, and we take the remnants which Ayurveda says nourishes the finer tissues of the brain that aid spiritual understanding; and because of this relationship of taking the cow's milk, we treat the cow as our mother. Cows are natural mothers, and the best treatment of cows means to nurture this relationship. Only the lowest of mankind would ever kill his mother. Does PETA envision that everyone would stop drinking milk, and cows would wander around happily in a vegan society? PETA's solution is neither practical nor ideal.
It's nice that they have a goal of protecting cows, but their promotion of veganism is not ultimately consistent with this goal. Their promotion of beer in its place is immature and irresponsible.
Permalink
brian Posted 7:57 pm
20 Mar 2005
I don't understand how you can know that Krishna desires milk and what exactly are these 'remnants' of milk you refer to ?
In India, reverence for the cow has resulted in so much suffering as sick & injured ones are just left by the roadside to die.
Any benefits from milk we can get from a plant- based diet, and dairy products are rare in many societies.Those societies which have increased milk consumption now have increased incidence, or karma, of heart disease, obesity, cancer and diabetes.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 8:19 am
21 Mar 2005
Re the "Got Beer" campaign, get over yourselves and get a sense of humor! Well-made beer most likely is less harmful than milk or milk products, and MADD is a bunch of overly serious people whose main goal in life is to make things miserable for everyone who drinks. (I realize that MADD consists of people who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers, but they should attack driving, not drinking.) I support a group called DAMM: Drunks Against Mad Mothers. As an old friend used to say, serious people are a plague upon the Earth.
Permalink
brian Posted 4:47 pm
21 Mar 2005
Apart from the obvious negative aspects of drinking - drunk drivers, alcoholism & negative health aspects, in over five and a half decades on this Earth I've seen first hand, the fallout of a culture of drinking and the devastating effects it can have on people and society:
Drunken fathers, husbands, brothers who spend money on drink intended for shelter, food and clothes
Drink- induced violence towards children, women, other men & society
Emergency rooms full to capacity, especially on weekend nights, overworked from treating casualties of drink fuelled brawls
People afraid to walk the streets after closing time because of threatening drunken brawling louts spoiling for a fight
Streets full of young intimidating binge drinkers throwing up, behaving obscenely and violently
Gangs of drunken holidaymaking Brits making life hell for tourists and locals in Spain, Greece, etc
Football hooliganism -directly related to drinking - ensuring that this is no longer the source of family entertainment it was once was
People made to feel like pariahs socially because they don't drink alcohol.....
Drinking in moderation is fine, but I am against promoting a drinking culture or underscoring it as a 'good thing'.I've also spent half my life in Islamic countries where alcohol is frowned upon or forbidden and found that this can really have its merits. Like myself, millions of muslims around the world would not find the ads particularly amusing, not from lack of a sense of humour, but because of a different mind set.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 1:28 am
22 Mar 2005
In India today the whole system of varnashrama dharma has declined to a shell of its ideal. In states where cow killing is illegal, cows are cruelly herded to other states for slaughter.
However, that does not mean that there the ideal cannot be lived. Our communities strive for high standards of cow protection, which can be reviewed here: http://www.iscowp.org/
We know that Krishna desires for us to offer Him milk and milk products because of knowledge derived from scriptures, saintly persons, and our disciplic succession. The principle is that we offer Him foodstuffs with love, according to His desire, and that He tastes the foods by His merciful glance and transforms them to spiritual foods by this contact. The 'remnants' are thus known as 'prasad,' mercy. In this way the cow is directly engaged in God's service, as are we, and if done properly the whole system is perfect.
Permalink
MikeCapone Posted 2:35 am
22 Mar 2005
Not to mention this...
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 6:25 am
22 Mar 2005
That said, I have no illusions about alcohol. It is the most medically harmful drug one can ingest (though beer & wine in moderation are nowhere near as harmful as more processed liquor), and can cause serious lack of control in some people. However, the problems you identify are not caused by drinking, just brought out by it. Most relevant to an environmental discussion, the problem of drunk driving is a problem of DRIVING, which causes ecological harm, and those problems far exceed any caused by drunks behind the wheel. Violent people are not caused by drinking, though alcohol can bring out their violence. We should be looking for root causes of these problems, not finding a scapegoat in a beverage that is one of the very few positive results of civilization (I'm referring specifically to beer), which just exacerbates already existing problems.
Permalink
brian Posted 4:24 pm
22 Mar 2005
lighten up, we're both on the same side! :)
Permalink
brian Posted 6:38 pm
22 Mar 2005
Yet,it seems paradoxical that you criticise Peta's vision of a vegan -based world as being 'utopian' and 'impractical' when this 'perfect system' you speak about seems highly impractical & utopian in increasingly urban societies. Maybe it worked in the past or possibly in idyllic pastoral, rural enclaves, but is unfeasible today. What happens to the resulting male calves in this system?
Here in the Middle East increased milk consumption has meant that dairy cows are imported from Europe and require stringent conditions which have their toll on the environment, especially re increased water consumption ( water is provided mainly by desalination plants).
Permalink
Pandu Posted 1:24 am
23 Mar 2005
Your point about the idealism of cow protection is fairly made, but it is still more practical than giving up milk entirely (which would also be precarious for cows as a species). The challenge is that modern society is so different from the Vedic conception of ideal, which would be a vegetarian, primarily agrarian society, with spiritual life as the central goal.
In the Vedic system (not to be confused with modern practice in India), male calves are slightly more valued than the female ones because of their use in doing work such as plowing fields. All the cow products are valued, especially their dung and urine, and the milk is secondary, a treat. Herd growth must be carefully planned because protected cows often live to twelve years. Milk from protected cows can be sustainably sold at about $10-15 per gallon, about twice the cost of organic milk here in the USA, but free of bad karma.
Permalink
brian Posted 9:08 pm
23 Mar 2005
If this sort of society were feasible globally, then it would probably be acceptable to animal welfarists/protectionists, but not to rightists.
However, Peta's campaigns are aimed primarily at societies where the commercialisation of dairy products is rife, posing problems for animals, humans and the environment.
They may never reach their ideal, but will achieve much if their campaigns can persuade the average man in the street to cut down on milk consumption or give it up altogether.
Permalink
TRfan Posted 8:51 am
25 Mar 2005
Why is it o.k. for PETA to tell me what to do, not to do, what to eat, what not to eat. People who prefer to eat meat do not force PETA members to eat meat but PETA seems to think this is for them to say.
NO it is not o.k. for them to have this kind of say/ control/ influence over me, my family or anyone. Who do they think they are? They are infringing on the foundation of what this country is about. Remember the Declaration of Independence? Look at the second paragraph.
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I guess PETA thinks this doesn't apply any longer to people who have different views from theirs. Where is tolerance, where is acceptance of diversity?
Permalink
brian Posted 1:31 am
03 Apr 2005
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet" Albert Einstein ,1921
More importantly, those who claim that the lives of animals are of little
or no importance reflect deep-seated speciesism. They defend the status quo
of human supremacy as strongly as the supporters of slavery and white
supremacy used to claim that the lives of slaves were of little
value.Europeans called native Americans beasts and Africans sold into
slavery were treated like domesticated animals.During WW2 Americans
described the Japanese as vermin to be exterminated. Victims of the Nazis
were killed in assembly-line fashion as animals are killed in
slaughterhouses.The vilification of people as animals made it much easier to
kill them because most humans have been brainwashed to have little or no
regard for the lives of most animals.
The grim truth is our 'civilisation' is built on the exploitation of animals
and it is from this cancer that all other atrocities flow.Those who advocate
for animals are attacking the roots of human oppression. We must become
aware of dualistic, divisive thinking as it becomes the basis for the
discrimination that causes oppression and suffering. Instead we must see the
interconnections and the interrelatedness of all beings, instead of a
separation into higher or lower or good or evil.
Permalink