Take a moment to learn from the experiences of Nick and Hugs for Puppies. As the group’s name shows, you can use words to confront and potentially even reverse some perspectives (or stereotypes), while having a little fun at the same time. However, Nick suggests in his responses that there can be a downside to this approach, such as coming across as disingenuous. It is incredibly important to understand how your use of language is perceived by the members of your target audience, and this knowledge should be applied throughout your advocacy efforts.
If you read just one part of the interview, I recommend you look at Nick’s response to question #5 and his comments about focusing on the "bottom line" – excellent advice for animal advocates wanting to become more effective.
| 1. Why did you choose the name Hugs for Puppies for an animal rights group?
I didn't choose the name myself (it pre-dated my involvement with the organization), but I can tell you why it was chosen. The main focus of Hugs for Puppies at the time it was formed and names was to work on somewhat controversial protest-based campaigns against vivisection. As certain animal rights activists were (and still are) labeled "terrorists," "extremists," etc. simply for vociferously speaking out for animals and engaging in controversial protest, Philadelphia activists decided to name their group Hugs for Puppies to make light of those ridiculous labels. With a name like Hugs for Puppies, it would be harder for the media to paint activists as terrorists, radicals, menacing, etc. It's saccharine sweet, and the combination of the name with the aggressive campaigning was sort of an inside joke. 2. How does the media react to hearing your name? Phrases like "Despite its cuddly name..." are somewhat common in longer articles about us; shorter pieces usually don't address the name. We are frequently asked why we chose the name, both a) because it does sound rather funny and b) presently, most of our focus is towards farm animals as opposed to lab or companion animal issues, so in such cases the Hugs for Puppies is a bit of a misnomer. I do think the name helps us look more sweet and innocent; I think in general the media has found it somewhat cute and funny, and ironic (again due to the clash between sweet name and aggressive campaigning - our educational programs, though primary for us, rarely get any media coverage). 3. Who is your primary target audience and how do they react? Insofar as the name is concerned, our primary audience is the public who are either going to accept, reject, or have no opinion about the message we are giving (be it about foie gras, battery cages, vegetarianism, or animal testing). It's hard to know the public's reaction to the name when we or our work is covered in print, but I'd like to think the name helps get their attention and make a connection between loving your pet dog and respecting farmed animals (or lab animals). In person, women will often give an "Awwww!" reaction to the name (it helps me make a lot of friends at the bank, post office, etc, though I do always have to explain what we do). A lot of times people respond by saying how much they love or care about companion animals, and telling relevant anecdotes. 4. Of the 10 key points from Luntz's book (Words that Work), which do you think is most important and why? "Speak aspirationally." The organizations that I've always been attracted to - and, in being attracted to them, bought into their message - are those that spoke with great confidence and optimism. Nearly everyone wants to be part of the winning team, part of the majority, part of the cool gang. Speaking as if you are winning and poised to win further, speaking as if you represent the majority opinion on an issue, can be highly motivational for others. How does this play out for an animal rights activist? To my mind, it plays out in three arenas: 1) to other animal rights advocates in your area whose support you are seeking; 2) in speaking to those you are directly trying to sway, be it a member of the public or the head of a company whose policy you wish to change; and 3) in speaking to the media. Two extremely different organizations whom I think both spoke or speak aspirationally, and in doing so aquire(d) either very dedicated supporters or widespread public support, are SHAC-USA and HSUS. Though focused on very different audiences and seeking to motivate very different behavior on the part of the listener, both have been extremely successful in achieving their aim of motivating/influencing through rhetoric. However, for those of us who actually want to make a positive difference in the world (unlike Luntz), the thing for us to privately consider, re-consider, re-re-consider, and re-re-re-consider, is whether what we are seeking to have happen is the most effective thing that we can have happen for animals. For political candidates, salesmen, etc., it doesn't matter if what they're selling is bulls**t - if they sell it, that's all that matters because they are after power and money. However, if we are going to go about influencing people we better be darn sure (and constantly re-assessing) that what we are influencing other people to do is the most effective thing they can be doing/believing in terms of animals saved and suffering reduced. 5. Do you have any other words of wisdom for animal advocates? The business community is and for decades if not centuries has been dogged in its pursuit of making more money faster. They've developed lots of tools to be more and more effective and making money, and their corporate charters demand that they be 100% focused on the bottom line. I think we need to be similarly focused and dogged in the pursuit of our bottom line, only instead of money our bottom line is a reduction in suffering. I think everything else, including all philosophical beliefs, political beliefs, personality traits, areas of interest, and ethical purity, have to take a back seat to being completely focused on that bottom line. While there are other things to consider (like public influence, which can be hard to quantify), in assessing its effectiveness every animal rights organization should look at how many lives it saved and how much suffering it reduced that year. This sort of focus is what can allow a few friends with no or little money to save far, far more animals and reduce far, far more suffering than well-established animal shelters with six-figure budgets, or stagnant animal advocacy organizations that are not similarly focused on what issues, campaigns, and activities achieve the most change. But it takes a while to achieve this sort of mentality and craft your work around it. I've certainly wasted more than my fair share of time on activism that, though well-intentioned, was definitely not focused on this bottom line. To reiterate, focusing on numbers of lives saved and amount of suffering reduced on a per-dollar, per-hour, and per-volunteer basis will put us on the right track in terms of being as effective as possible for animals. And just to throw this out there, it's pretty clear to me that farm animal advocacy (both vegan outreach and campaigns and legislation for farmed animals) is the way to go in this regard. |
Our sincere thanks to Nick for his time and his very thoughtful responses. I humbly encourage all animal advocates to be as considered as Nick is in your approaches, whether it’s choosing a name for your organization, a key message for your campaign, or even a caption for your new leaflet. Just remember to keep your language simple, brief, memorable, "aspirational," and focused on your target audience, and you should do fine.
If you have questions, please ask them via the comments below (registered users only) or feel free to contact HRC at any time.