I was reading Branding Strategy Insider today, when I saw a post by Mark RItson about the need for PETA to re-invent its brand strategy. I found the post to be incredibly timely as I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to provide my opinion to PETA about how I thought their marketing strategy has to change for the brand to remain relevant and the organization to make a difference in the future. Here is what I wrote to PETA:
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
Susan Gunelius
Susan Gunelius is President & CEO of KeySplash Creative, Inc. and Founder & Editor in Chief of an award-winning blog, WomenOnBusiness.com. She is a 25-year veteran of the marketing field and has authored 10 books about marketing, branding, and social media, including the highly popular 30-Minute Social Media Marketing, Content Marketing for Dummies, Blogging All-in-One for Dummies and Kick-ass Copywriting in 10 Easy Steps. Susan’s marketing-related content can be found on Entrepreneur.com, Forbes.com, MSNBC.com, BusinessWeek.com, and more. Susan is President & CEO of KeySplash Creative, Inc., a marketing communications company. She has worked in corporate marketing roles and through client relationships with AT&T, HSBC, Citibank, Intuit, The New York Times, Cox Communications, and many more large and small companies around the world. Susan also speaks about marketing, branding and social media at events around the world and is frequently interviewed by television, online, radio, and print media organizations about these topics. She holds an MBA in Management and Strategy and a Bachelor of Science degree in Marketing.
Follow Me:
I never realized how exclusive an organization PETA was until reading your post and PETA should know that this isn’t a compliment. I would think that fostering any involvement would be important to the organization and find their intolerance a bit disturbing. Sure they’ll take my donation, but not my direct assistance because I’m not a vegan??? That seems idiotic to me.
Scott, you make a good point. The brand promise should carry through all business activities – donations, advertising, etc. That doesn’t seem to be the case in your experience. Thanks for sharing.
This is a really good piece, thanks so much for it! I’ve worked with PETA in the past and am vegan and while I can confirm that they support veganism across the board, they do not turn away donations or volunteers just because they aren’t vegan. They’re very welcoming and I first started working with them before going vegan.
That said, as an activist, I’ve definitely run into people who “hate PETA”, without really knowing anything about them. People are largely unaware of their less controversial campaigns, such as spaying and neutering, providing dogs with dog houses, working on anti-chaining ordinances, banning bullhooks in circuses, and so forth. After talking to people about some of PETA’s work, they admit they thought all PETA does is naked protests and were unaware of such efforts and that they are glad PETA is working on those issues.
Unfortunately, most people won’t have a conversation with an activist who is educated in may animal rights issues who can explain PETA’s many campaigns, thus most people will be left with only their (negative) initial reaction to shocking campaigns. That said, I have also seen many passersby at animal rights protests (some PETA, some not), who are definitely shocked by the tactics, but are happy to finally learn how animals are being treated and admit that they probably wouldn’t have learned about PETA’s message were it not for the shocking demonstration.
Cassandra, Thank you so much for sharing your experience with PETA!
I just ran across this and found it interesting…I am a college student and am not a vegan or vegetarian of any sort BUT have always supported PETA members and their beliefs-college campuses have their share of differences so I’ve pretty much learned to accept everything. However, I do agree that the only thing anyone my age has seen about PETA has been very one-sided in terms of the kind of people that PETA may be looking for. As mentioned, we young-ins see celebrities such as Pam Anderson constantly speaking out about PETA, but she probably doesn’t represent your typical member.
There are plenty young vegetarians/vegans that may be interested in the organization but may be turned off because of it’s lack of marketing towards their age group and speaking to that particular generation. If they want to get everyone interested involved and let people know that they aren’t so exclusive they should target towards a younger audience who can create develop a passion for the organization early on.
PETA are bunch of idiots and numbskulls aalways getting a bunch of hollyweirdos to do stupid ads for them even while PETA kills up to 95% of the animals they have adpoted while blabbering about COMPASSION in their stupid ads and protests
Agree with Flu-Bird!
Your recommendation to PETA was very sound and measured, Susan… so it’s unlikely that anyone associated with that organization would take a word of it to heart.
Eve, thanks for making me laugh! I think you’re right. 😉