I'm wondering whether organizations like VO and MFA don't spend their money in certain ways because they're afraid that their donors would view such spending as waste. If there are any areas that are neglected for this reason, a donor or group of donors could fund these activities separately from the organizations' other activities, reducing the likelihood of donor backlash.

The kind of neglected activity I had in mind was evaluations of programs' effectiveness. Charities that work in the developing world don't spend enough money to test whether their programs are working. Part of the reason is that they want to maximize the percentage of their donations devoted to "program expenses," even though that's a poor measure of its effectiveness (Holden at GiveWell has written extensively about this). MFA and VO might not worry about this measure (they're not listed in Charity Navigator), but maybe they do. I haven't heard about how they evaluate the effectiveness of their materials. Does anybody here know?

Here are a couple of ideas about how these groups could evaluate and improve their messages:

• Focus groups. Some people say that they're useless. But businesses and political campaigns use them, so maybe they provide valuable information.
• Directing readers of VO pamphlets to distinct Web addresses. VO has three editions of its pamphlets: "Compassionate Choices," "Why Vegan?," and "Even if You Eat Meat." The first two have cute, bright pictures on the front, while the last has an pictures of factory-farmed animals. Some people might worry that the use of the word "vegan" in one of the titles might scare off some readers. So which one is most effective—maybe one that doesn't exist yet? One way of testing this would be to include a different Web address in each pamphlet. (All the Web addresses would forward users to VO's home page.) The number of hits at each of the Web addresses would indicate how many people read enough to see the Web address and were motivated enough to look it up.

Do you have any ideas about how animal-welfare organizations could convince more people? Is this sort of evaluation worth the cost?

They could hire a marketing specialist that worked in a business industry. They could hire a consultant that's better at figuring this stuff out than some random guys on the internet.

Considering that businesses have marketing departments, I think they're worth while.

Nice question, Pat! The other area in which charities might be reluctant to spend for fear of the impact on their images is with fundraising, which Gaverick used to suggest could have 400% return on investment over a campaign.

Vegan Outreach leafletters have a fairly good pulse on public reactions, because they spend hours each day hearing people's comments. Nick Cooney, for example, prefers the Even If You Like Meat brochure over Why Vegan?, as do I, because people don't dismiss it so readily. ("Crazy vegans!" or "I could never be vegan.")

However, there are definitely areas in which leafletters may not have an intuitive sense of the numbers. For example, is it more efficient to hand out booklets or to promote factory-farming videos online? I don't know, and I don't know if they know, but it seems like a worthwhile question for study.

DanielLC wrote:They could hire a consultant that's better at figuring this stuff out than some random guys on the internet.

I think that hiring outsiders could be valuable. They might know different things than the activists, and maybe they could help combat groupthink. People have wondered why PETA's campaigns seem to use tactics that alienate people, and why the organization focuses on less important issues. It has enough money to hire consultants. I wonder whether it does.

Alan Dawrst wrote:The other area in which charities might be reluctant to spend for fear of the impact on their images is with fundraising, which Gaverick used to suggest could have 400% return on investment over a campaign.

I don't remember having received a solicitation from VO or from the SIAI (I give a set amount to each organization monthly). I recently received VO's fall newsletter, which is the first mailing I remember getting from them. If my experience is typical, fundraising is an area that's probably underfunded in these organizations.

Pat wrote:People have wondered why PETA's campaigns seem to use tactics that alienate people, and why the organization focuses on less important issues.

Some of it may be because a certain class of donors demands such things. For example, many HSUS donors really care about the pet causes, and I think many Vegan Outreach donors want to keep the word "vegan" in the organization's name and booklet title.

However, some (much) of it is also likely because of the ideological dispositions of the employees / activists, or because of group-think, as you suggest.

Alan Dawrst wrote:The other area in which charities might be reluctant to spend for fear of the impact on their images is with fundraising, which Gaverick used to suggest could have 400% return on investment over a campaign.

I should add that fundraising has a few downsides, so the 400%-return figure shouldn't be taken at face value. For one thing, potential donors get annoyed when they're asked for money too often, so even if a fundraising campaign brings money in the short term, it comes at some long-term reputation cost. Second, one organization's fundraising can detract from that of another organization, because people don't have unlimited charity budgets or unlimited generosity. To the extent that a better organization takes the funds of a suboptimal one, that's okay. But if it's Mercy for Animals competing with Vegan Outreach, it's a waste of effort.

Nick has a new blog post on Farm Sanctuary's Compassionate Communites Campaign: "Former vegetarians: Who they are and why we lost them." I found this snippet particularly interesting:

Are there simply fundamental differences between people who stay vegetarian and people who don’t? A new study published in the journal Appetite suggests there are. The study found four key differences:

Motivation – Both current and former vegetarians care about animal welfare, health, and the environment. But those who stick with veg eating care more about these issues, especially animal welfare. Concern for animals represents, by far, the biggest difference in beliefs between current and former vegetarians.

So not only is promoting concern for animal suffering best from the perspective of wild-animal future scenarios, but it may also have the longest-lasting conversion effects. (Yes, I'm assuming here that correlation implies causation at least to some degree.)

Came across this thread while searching for a quote from Nick Cooney for the social marketing course I'm developing for Humane Society University.

I'm working with Farm Sanctuary, as is Humane Research Council (HRC), to define and launch measurement for a variety of their programs. They are very committed to understanding what provides the best return on investment for animals and invest accordingly. HRC is also working on a project with VegFund and FARM to evaluate which type of videos achieve the best impact for use in Pay-Per-View events. So evaluation is continuing to take hold. I worked with HSUS to set goals maybe 5 years ago, so it's not totally new.

The companion animal field is farther along, in part because it's easier to count actual animals. The ASPCA has done a lot here. I worked with them to define a community dashboard for local humane organizations and to use it with their partnership cities. They also have their $100K Challenge annually that awards cash prizes to organizations that show the biggest gains in live release.

I've got a chapter on evaluation in my book Animal Impact: Secrets Proven to Achieve Results and Move the World (http://Animal-Impact.com). It's a very powerful tool, so I hope more organizations use it. I do come from a business strategy and marketing background, so had a lot of experience in measurement before I came it the animal protection field 12 years ago.

Best,
Caryn

Thanks so much, Caryn! Your book looks very interesting, and it has high praise from animal advocates.

"Many people spend their time deploring the awful things we do to animals, but don't know how to change the situation. If you want to make a positive difference for animals, Animal Impact is full of good ideas. It's the practical handbook every activist should read."
Peter Singer, author, Animal Liberation

"This book is so desperately needed in our movement. We need to blend passion with professionalism, and this book is going to help get us there."
Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO, The Humane Society of the United States

Do you have anything written up about the veg videos that you're helping to evaluate? I've written a little about The Humane League's veg ads, and I would love to learn more.

Just thought I'd share this relevant exchange with GiveWell:

Me:

Hi,

I'm an avid fan of GiveWell and supporter of current top charities. I know many folks at GiveWell do not share my personal view that nonhuman animal welfare is worth taking seriously. However, GiveWell has previously alluded to having preliminary information on animal welfare (http://blog.givewell.org/2010/12/27/ani ... charities/) and I was wondering if this preliminary information can be shared to potentially inform my giving.

Thanks!

Best,
Peter Hurford

GiveWell:

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your email and for your support of GiveWell's top charities! Unfortunately, we haven't prioritized any work on animal welfare organizations since that blog post, so we don't have any results to share.

In fact, I was about to direct you to Effective Animal Altruism, but it looks like you beat me to that one! Please don't hesitate to reach out in the future if you have any other questions or comments.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Best,
Alexander

Cool. I'm glad they think well enough of EAA to mention us.