A number of people have suggested that One Step take a different approach: praising and promoting veganism while emphasizing the importance of concern for chicken.
This advice makes a lot of sense. The most fundamental rule of fundraising is that people give when the organization makes them feel good.
Pointing out that per person consumption of animals is at an all-time high is depressing.
Pointing out that vegans are viewed more negatively than any group other than drug addicts is depressing.
Why would anyone give to One Step, when they could give to a group that will tell them vegans are awesome and veganism is “winning”?
Consider how certain politicians who are supported by Fox News maintain a minimum level of support, no matter what happens. People who watch Fox News only hear the most partisan spin - they never hear the actual facts.
It is a comfortable cocoon - constant praise and positive feedback.
But what drives One Step is not being popular or making potential donors feel good. What motivates us every day is reducing suffering as much as possible.
We believe that only by being honest and facing the facts can we actually have an impact in the real world.
Those of us who run One Step don't claim to have all the answers. For example, we believe that reform work and supply-side work is vitally important.
But we do believe that the only way to be effective is to give up on being "Liked" and instead be honest. That is One Step's fundamental core.
If you agree, please consider joining and expanding this work. Thanks!