As a marketing and branding professional, I am not a proponent of shock advertising, which I think PETA has a history of relying on.  I believe there are far more effective methods of communicating messages and shock advertising provides short-lived bursts of awareness but little for long-term ROI.  Additionally, I think the celebrities who endorse PETA aren’t always the best for the PETA brand [e.g., Pamela Anderson].  PETA has a reputation as an all or nothing brand.  In other words, people view PETA as a bit of a cult, “either you agree with us 100% or you’re out.”  I think with a more inclusive approach and message, more people would be supportive of PETA and animal rights would become a less trendy cause (sort of how supporting the environment was in the late 1980s/early 1990s) and more mainstream. 

For example, a person might feel strongly against wearing fur believing it’s senseless, but might not have a problem with eating meat citing Darwinism and survival of the fittest/the food chain, etc.  With PETA’s current brand image, that person would not be welcome in the club although they could certainly help in specific areas of animal rights activism.  From a marketing perspective, I would rather have as many people positively talking about the PETA brand and of the message rather than bad-mouthing the entire brand and message.  I think a less fanatical (as it’s currently viewed in the marketplace) and more inclusive message would do a lot to further PETA’s overall efforts.  Delivering a positive message of hope goes further than an all-or-nothing approach, as our current election has proven.  Hopefully, over time, more messages will get through to more people converting more people to support all of PETA’s causes. 

In the meantime, every single supporter of a single cause provides another voice to getting the message out rather than alienating thousands of voices who together could create a powerful buzz (think of the power of word-of-mouth marketing and an online buzz that catapulted the Harry Potter brand from a children’s fantasy book to an international phenomenon).  This is particularly true in a time when the social web is becoming stronger everyday.  The online buzz can make or break a brand.  The PETA brand, message, blog and everything related to the organization should support the same brand promise and create a positive image rather than a negative one.

I can also cite the recent Presidential election as another example of messages of inclusion becoming more accpeted than exclusive messages are.  John McCain’s campaign relied on speaking to his core supporters and trying to drum up a frenzy of support, while Barack Obama’s strategy relied on bringing a wider audience together to support a broader vision. 

Suffice it to say, PETA did not want to speak with me further after I provided this opinion.

In short, I whole-heartedly agree with Mark’s post on Branding Strategy Insider.  Will PETA figure it out though and make the changes that are necessary?  It’s not looking good. 

What do you think?

Image: Flickr