Guest guest Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 Thanks, , for the excellent points made. While it is true that some people will turn away from photos depicting cruelty, showing people what is actually going on is often the only way to get it to stop. Trying to effect social or legislative change is one thing, while fundraising from animal protection donors is quite another. In producing ANIMAL PEOPLE Newspaper, we avoid using photographs that depict suffering animals to illustrate articles, because our readers are already sensitized to cruelty and seeing photos of miserable animals only gives them additional pain. But if I could put shocking photos in front of the general public, I would not hesitate to do it. As says, there is no precise formula for fundraising. It is more an art than a science. Different people respond differently to different styles of getting the message across, and that's why it is a good thing that the animal movement is so diverse. Kim Bartlett >Dear Ms Gibbon and AAPN colleagues, > Working >in the mainstream media myself, I would like to make a few points. > Personally I feel what will or will not work in advertisements to solicit >funds is a matter of subjective value judgements. I know of several animal >welfare campaigns that have used grisly pictures extremely effectively. >Especially, the ones that deal with baby seals in Canada. In India, the >television programme 'HEADS AND TAILS' was enormously popular, precisely >because it aired gory footage of animals being slaughtered, amongst other >reasons of course. I know many people who turned to vegetarianism and >started supporting animal welfare after seeing footage of cruelty on HEADS >AND TAILS on TV. I also recall the enormous impact a video on the live >skinning of karakul lambs had on people. Many people stopped wearing karakul >after watching that footage and started supporting the group that aired it. >Indeed, one of the most stringent criticisms of David Attenborough >documentaries is that they paint an idyllic picture of the world where >animals live in peace, free from human interference whereas the reality is >that they have people breathing down their necks. The noted Guardian >columnist George Monbiot has written on this. Sir David in his last series, >Blue Planet I think it was, took a rather unusual didactic position, >possibly to rectify his fairytale wilderness image. > Interestingly, Sir David Attenborough himself has spoken on the effect of >blood and gore. He mentioned that he has been accused of showing too much >gore on television, ie., hunting scenes and predators killing prey. He >points out that he has only portrayed reality and if his critics actually >saw what was on the cutting floor, they would be even more surprised and >appalled. He has said that it would be patently dishonest not to portray >reality just for the sake of feeling good. > The point is: do Attenborough documentaries encourage people to donate >money for conservation and protection of wild habitats? I am sure they do >but whether they do for the shots of the Serengeti savannah or for the >footage of chimpanzees killing and eating live baboons in Tanzania I do not >know. I suspect we could get arguments either way. > For human welfare programmes, for decades, footage of starving children on >the verge of death has raked in money, most definitely in Kolkata which was >portrayed as a city of slums by Dominique Lapierre in his book entitled >'CITY OF JOY' and the subsequent film of the same name. This is widely >acknowledged as exploitation of poverty and the noted British journalist >Christopher Hitchens has written extensively on the incredible success of >Christian missionary organisations to rake in money by showing pictures of >children with bloated bellies and people dying on the streets in Kolkata. >Bob Geldof has used footage of starving children to great effect in the two >Live Aid concerts. > I personally think, both cruelty and poverty sell well if they suit vested >interests. If you want to tickle people's sentiments, it is much better to >show beggars in Kolkata than to portray it as the intellectual capital of >India that has produced several Nobel laureates. In other words, if you want >to raise money for India, show the slums rather than the computer labs. > I would argue much the same would stand right for animal campaigns. There >are several successful animal rights campaigns(principally anti hunting >campaigns in UK) that have used gory footage that have brought in donations >in cash and kind. Cruelty can repel, but cruelty can also attract. > I think the before and after kind of presentation is a rational way to >depict things when seeking funds and indeed many organisations take this >approach. There is no Holy Grail for setting a fixed parameter for what >campaigns work and what don't. I am sure that statistics exist to suport >cases both for and against using images depicting cruelty. In a newspaper, >we regularly have to consider probable reactions of people to photos and >messages. In subjective moral issues, there is no fixed formula like E=mc2 >that would guarantee success and I would venture that it is dishonest to >claim that the solution in this advertising dilemma lies in black and white >when there are many shades of grey in between. > It was enlightening to learn the different views. Best wishes and kind >regards, > > >Sincerely yours, > > > > > >On 8/1/06, Sonia Gibbon <sonia.gibbon wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> Sorry if I wasnt completely clear - I didnt expect this to turn into a big >> discussion. The reason I want the photos is for a sponsorship proposal to >> 2 >> investors who particularly want to be able to see the difference they'll >> make. We planned to have a page of slight shock photos followed by >> pictures >> of healthy happy bears from another organisation who have been well >> rehabilitated (yes, of course with their permission and citing them as an >> example organisation). >> >> I hope this clears things up >> >> Thanks to those who have sent me pictures. >> >> On 8/2/06, Edwin Wiek <edwin.wiek wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > At our facilities' educational center we do use the pictures of badly >> > injured or treated animals, however only with the before/after pictures. >> > It >> > seems to work well if people see there is a way to help out the animals. >> > Just a picture of dying or dead animals doesn't work in my opinion. It >> > disgusts and scares a lot of people and some people even feel some kind >> of >> > guilt for what others have done to these animals. Most people will run >> > away >> > from real problems. >> > >> > Using pictures of other organizations for fundraising might be >> > questionable. >> > >> > Edwin Wiek >> > >> > Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand >> > >> > 108 moo 6, Tambon Thamairuak >> > >> > Amphoe Thayang >> > >> > 76130 Petchaburi THAILAND >> > >> > Tel/Fax: +66-32-458135 >> > >> > Mobile +66-90600906 >> > >> > Web: <http://www.wfft.org> www.wfft.org >> > >> > _____ >> > >> > aapn <aapn%40> [ >> > aapn <aapn%40>] On Behalf Of Nika >> > Maria >> > Monday, 31 July, 2006 19:03 >> > Merritt Clifton >> > Cc: aapn <aapn%40> >> > Re: Sun Bear photos / articles >> > >> > >> > Good day, animal friends >> > >> > I am an animal lover from Greece and I would like to say just one >> > thing concerning the " sad-or-happy pictures " question. >> > I love animals very much- possibly more than people and my heart is >> > bleeding every time I see an animal suffering even if it is only in a >> > picture. Of course I would prefer to see happy photos of happy bears and >> > dogs lying ang playing under the sun. But this is only half or less of >> > the truth. We are living in a world where humanity causes the most >> > appaling and unspeakable tortures to animals. By closing our eyes to >> > this reality, we cant't help our four-legged friends who suffer. So, in >> > my opinion, the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, people need >> > to see happy dogs playing under the sun as a motive to do something > > > against animal abuse. But they sometimes, just sometimes, need a shock >> > as well. Sometimes people need to see what is REALLY happening so to >> > stand up and fight for those who can't fight or speak. Reality has two > > > sides and both must be showed. Unfortunately, for the time being reality >> > for animals has no beatiful and sweet face. Let's do the best we can to >> > change it. >> > >> > A big thanks to all animal lovers and advocates for their efforts. >> > With best regards, >> > Maria Nika, >> > Greece >> > >> > Merritt Clifton wrote: >> > >> > >>Can anyone help me with photos or articles on Sun Bears? Sorry to >> > >>sound morbid but I really need those relating to abuse. Its easy for >> > >>me to find pictures of fluffy happy Sun Bears, but for me to approach >> > >>sponsors and donor I really need to show how bad it can be. >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > You are about to repeat the #1 most repeated dimwitted >> > >mistake made by animal advocates. >> > > >> > > Study after study after study by the big-bucks people in the >> > >advertising industry has affirmed right across the spectrum of issues >> > >that graphic ads showing cruelty are usually hugely ineffective in >> > >conveying anything beyond the simplest message, because most people >> > >don't want to look at them and change the channel or turn the page or >> > >leave the room when exposed to them. >> > > >> > > For example, in seeking funds to fight hunger, a photo of >> > >an appealing but thin child brings back much more money than a photo >> > >of a walking skeleton with a distended belly. >> > > >> > > In the animal rescue field, humane societies do infinitely >> > >better publicizing happy animals in " after adoption " photos than >> > >showing unhappy animals in the condition in which they arrived. >> > > >> > > Animal advocates tend themselves to have an exaggerated and >> > >abnormal response to graphic photos, and therefore tend to presume >> > >that everyone will, if only they are shown enough blood and guts. >> > > >> > > Not so. The person who unflinchingly hacks apart a chicken >> > >carcass for supper is not going to care much about a gross image of >> > >either butchery or vivisection. The way to get to that person is to >> > >develop in him or her a sense of empathy that circumvents his/her >> > >protective coverings of denial and distancing. Direct confrontation >> > >won't do it. >> > > >> > > Here is the whole story in statistics. >> > > >> > > Of all the major U.S. animal advocacy groups, PETA is the >> > >most closely associated with use of photos showing " how bad it can >> > >be. " >> > > >> > > Best Friends is the organization most known for publishing >> > >only happy photos and happy news. >> > > >> > > PETA Annual budget >> > > >> > > 1995 $13.4 million >> > > 2004 $25.1 million >> > > >> > > Best Friends >> > > >> > > 1995 $ 2.6 million >> > > 2004 $19.9 million >> > > >> > > Adjusted for inflation, PETA grew at 5.7% per year. >> > > >> > > Best Friends grew at 53.6% per year. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > In order to get the opportunity to tell people about the bad >> > >things that are done to sun bears--and get them to donate--you need >> > >to show the fluffy, happy bears. Show the bears who are miserable, >> > > & most folks will just look away. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > __________ NOD32 1.1684 (20060729) Information __________ >> > >> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >> > http://www.eset.com >> > >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 This discussion is basically demonstrating that many activists are more interested in sharing their feelings of revulsion and anger with the public than in enlisting public support. The hard evidence, meanwhile, is overwhelming that while horrifying photos and other negative material may reach and influence some people, they don't have even a fraction as much value in building an organization or cause as positive imagery. PETA, as the leading exponent of shocking material, has enjoyed a growth rate of 5.7% over the past 10 years. This would be considered excellent performance for a for-profit business of comparable size, but it would not be considered changing-the-world success. It would be basically holding a strong slice of market share in a specialized niche. Best Friends, going completely the opposite way in their campaign imagery and promotional material, enjoyed a 53.6% growth rate over the same 10 years, as an organization that came out of nowhere to rival PETA in size (and in several respects is actually larger, with more staff and volunteers.) That is change-the-world level performance: growth at the speed of the computer industry, leaping beyond competition within the niche, to expand the market So, why do so many activists choose to emulate PETA, with a campaign approach whose appeal and efficacy is limited to the niche? Apparently PETA expresses those activists' negative feelings. They identify with the " negative rebel " approach, as the late sociologist Bill Moyers put it, rather than with successfully relating to mainstream people. That's fine if all you want is a nice comfortable church within which you perpetually preach to the choir. Thousands of such churches do quite well for themselves and their congregations--but they are not moving the world. To do that, you need to practice the sort of evangelism that moves others who are not already like yourselves, and are not moved or influenced by what moved you--which they too probably saw. In this regard, activists are particularly blind to the evidence. There is a pervasive belief that people who are not motivated on behalf of animals just haven't seen the literature about whatever is going on. This is dead wrong. Currently, in the U.S., one household in four actively supports animal causes. That household receives, on average, about 80 solicitations from more than 20 pro-animal organizations per year. The other three households, who don't donate, hear from only 6-7 pro-animal organizations per year, about 21 times. That's a lot of junk mail to be junking. That it is all being junked indicates what whatever most of it is doing is not working with those particular people. They are seeing enough of it to be moved, if it is going to move them, but for whatever reason, the approach doesn't succeed. Instead of assuming that people just haven't seen what goes on, activists need to start considering that maybe a lot of them have seen, and are just turned off by the style and format of the pitch. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2006 Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 It must be noted that while Best Friends Animal Sanctuary is an excellent organization, they only campaign on companion animal issues and keep their publication strongly focused on the " Good News About Animals and the Earth. " They do not present upsetting photos to their supporters, but neither do they present upsetting topics. It's a feel good organization, which is lovely, but they aren't trying to turn people into vegetarians or stop hunting, the use of fur, or vivisection. I love Best Friends, but theirs is not " changing-the-world success " either. It seems to me very head-in-the-sand to claim that PETA isn't having any positive effect. Kim Bartlett > This discussion is basically demonstrating that many >activists are more interested in sharing their feelings of revulsion >and anger with the public than in enlisting public support. > > The hard evidence, meanwhile, is overwhelming that while >horrifying photos and other negative material may reach and influence >some people, they don't have even a fraction as much value in >building an organization or cause as positive imagery. > > PETA, as the leading exponent of shocking material, has >enjoyed a growth rate of 5.7% over the past 10 years. This would be >considered excellent performance for a for-profit business of >comparable size, but it would not be considered changing-the-world >success. It would be basically holding a strong slice of market >share in a specialized niche. > > Best Friends, going completely the opposite way in their >campaign imagery and promotional material, enjoyed a 53.6% growth >rate over the same 10 years, as an organization that came out of >nowhere to rival PETA in size (and in several respects is actually >larger, with more staff and volunteers.) > > That is change-the-world level performance: growth at the >speed of the computer industry, leaping beyond competition within >the niche, to expand the market > > So, why do so many activists choose to emulate PETA, with a >campaign approach whose appeal and efficacy is limited to the niche? > > Apparently PETA expresses those activists' negative feelings. >They identify with the " negative rebel " approach, as the late >sociologist Bill Moyers put it, rather than with successfully >relating to mainstream people. > > That's fine if all you want is a nice comfortable church >within which you perpetually preach to the choir. Thousands of such >churches do quite well for themselves and their congregations--but >they are not moving the world. > > To do that, you need to practice the sort of evangelism that >moves others who are not already like yourselves, and are not moved >or influenced by what moved you--which they too probably saw. > > In this regard, activists are particularly blind to the >evidence. There is a pervasive belief that people who are not >motivated on behalf of animals just haven't seen the literature about >whatever is going on. > > This is dead wrong. Currently, in the U.S., one household >in four actively supports animal causes. That household receives, >on average, about 80 solicitations from more than 20 pro-animal >organizations per year. > > The other three households, who don't donate, hear from >only 6-7 pro-animal organizations per year, about 21 times. > > That's a lot of junk mail to be junking. That it is all >being junked indicates what whatever most of it is doing is not >working with those particular people. They are seeing enough of it >to be moved, if it is going to move them, but for whatever reason, >the approach doesn't succeed. > > Instead of assuming that people just haven't seen what goes >on, activists need to start considering that maybe a lot of them >have seen, and are just turned off by the style and format of the >pitch. > > >Merritt Clifton >Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE >E-mail: anmlpepl -- Kim Bartlett, Publisher of ANIMAL PEOPLE Newspaper Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A. CORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS IS: <ANPEOPLE Website: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/ with French and Spanish language subsections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.