Have you ever wondered about the impact of One Step’s campaigns? At any moment, One Step is running many different campaigns, with both positive images and negative, as well as different wording and target audiences. We are constantly iterating, testing, and optimizing to make sure each one is being maximally effective. The above recent ad is a good example. In the last 30 days, this single ad was seen 312,947 times and clicked on 20,330 times. The total budget for this time was $2,306.05, meaning each click to the video was $0.11. To be highly conservative in our estimates of impact, we can assume each view of the ad and each view of the video had absolutely no impact. Assume that only the 626 people who saw the ad, and then clicked and watched the video, and then clicked to download the Guide actually made any change. Assume that they only stopped eating chickens, and only for five years on average. With all those conservative assumptions, in just one month, just one of our many campaigns saved 71,990 chickens from the brutality of factory farms. That works out to: $0.03 per chicken saved. You can change the assumptions all you like. Assume only half of the people who see the ad, watch the video, and click for the Guide stop eating chickens. And they only stay with this change for six months on average. This is still only $0.64 per chicken saved. Given that every dollar you donate is truly doubled, your actual cost of saving a chicken is half that, whatever assumptions you choose. We appreciate your support of this work more than we can say. You can know we will continue to do our best to give you the greatest return on your donations every day. Thank You So Much! Matt Ball, President
9 Comments
This year, the average person will eat more animals than ever before. It is time to consider the facts in our advocacy for animals. Matt Ball Co-founder and President, One Step for Animals You might have noticed the schism between advocates for veganism and advocates for animals. There is a significant divide between those for whom veganism is the end, and those who see veganism merely as one possible tool – a means to the end of reducing animal suffering. For the first group, the judgment (of news, advocacy, messaging) is: “Does this support my personal vegan worldview?” For many years, that was me. For the other, the question is: “What do the facts tell us is the best way to actually help animals here and now?” For this group, our personal views and the reactions of vegans don’t matter. All that matters is what will reach new people, create positive change, and reduce suffering. The Stark Facts about Suffering After many years in the vegan advocacy camp, the only metric I care about now is the amount of suffering in the world. Thus, I care first and foremost about the facts. Sadly, the facts are stark:
If you take away only one thing from this essay, please remember this: Per-capita consumption of animals is at an all-time high and heading higher. Even if you strongly disagree with everything below, keep in mind that after decades of effort and many hundreds of millions of dollars, animals are worse off today than ever before. Anything we do or say needs to take this into account. The Public’s View of “Vegan” The objective facts on the flip side are equally stark. In 2015, research at the University of Arizona's Eller School found that the general public thinks veganism is impossible and vegans are annoying (to put it mildly). This more recent survey found that vegans are viewed more negatively than atheists, immigrants, homosexuals, and asexuals. The only group viewed more negatively than vegans are drug addicts. Even the simple act of labeling a product “vegan” can cause its sales to drop by 70%. Of course, if all we care about is pushing our personal views – our “moral baseline” – regardless of consequences, then the public’s attitude toward veganism and vegans is irrelevant. We will continue pushing the pure vegan message knowing full well that the brand is seriously damaged and that the vast majority of the populace will reject our message without consideration. We can say how wrong the public is and how unfair it is to be judged based on the actions of a few, but our complaints and protestations won’t change the facts on the ground. I completely understand being frustrated when judged unfairly. I used to care deeply about people’s attitudes towards vegans and veganism – because I thought this attitude reflected on me! But how vegans are perceived is no longer my concern. For me, the only thing that matters is what will actually reduce suffering. As seen here, recognizing the above facts really pays off in actually reaching new people. Being Guided by the Numbers If we can let go of our desire for “Likes” and personal validation (a difficult prospect for me), we can reconsider our approach to advocacy and judge it in terms of real-world impacts for animals. We can set aside definitions and dogma and strive to reverse the trend of ever-increasing suffering. If we really want to reduce animal suffering, there are four more facts we should consider:
This last fact has direct and profound implications for our efforts. For example, most advocates see their vegan diet as best for water usage (or global warming, or heart disease). But almost everyone who actually cares about water usage (or climate change or heart disease) sees only that chicken is much much better than beef. This is true on just about every measure – chicken is noticeably less bad in terms of environmental impact or health consequences. This applies even to people’s ethical considerations. With our natural affinity for fellow mammals, most people think that eating chickens is morally “better.” Very few people realize just how wonderful chickens are, or that they are each unique individuals. All of the above has led to more animals suffering than ever before – both in absolute and even per-capita terms. That is the single fact we simply must recognize, accept, and address. I believe it is at best foolish, and quite probably immoral, to simply double down and continue to do the same things that have left the animals worse off than ever before. One Step’s Simple Mission Given these facts, One Step for Animals’ mission is two-fold:
The average person in the US is responsible for the factory farming and slaughtering of more than two dozen land animals per year. If we can convince someone simply to stop eating birds, that number would be less than one! Isn't that amazing? Beyond just numbers, though, we want our advocacy to be psychologically sound. We know a “big ask” is far less likely to lead to any change at all. (And we also know that people who go veg overnight are more likely to go back to eating animals.) Rather than trying to imagine leaping all the way to veganism, simply taking a break from eating chicken is a vastly more achievable and sustainable step. Regardless of your ultimate goal – from a world of improved treatment of animals to a world where all animals are granted rights – the One Step approach is for you. Our fact-based, numbers-focused, psychologically-sound harm reduction is a powerful way to boycott the worst cruelty and reduce suffering right now. It is also a realistic means of moving from our current world – where animals are worse off than ever before – to a world where animals are no longer viewed as food. If you agree, please join us today! In 2015, Joe Espinosa wrote the following about One Step's Director of Operations, Anne Green. How many people have altered the course of a major social movement, yet almost no one knows them? Back in the early 90s, the animal advocacy movement in the US focused almost exclusively on fur and vivisection (as noted by The Economist in 1995). FARM did Meatout once a year, and Farm Sanctuary had some rescued animals in upstate New York. But even though ~99% of animals killed each year are slaughtered to be eaten, relatively speaking, almost no time or resources went into advocating for farmed animals or promoting compassionate diets. In 1993, Anne Green and two others founded an organization dedicated to focusing on the greatest area of suffering with the greatest potential for advancement: working to expose and end factory farming. Although her co-founders went on to fame, few people realize none of their work would have been possible without Dr. Green’s financial underwriting and organizational efforts. As is far too often the case, the woman behind the scenes has been left out of the history books. No one knew that she bought the car used for the first college leafleting tour. No one knew that when one of her co-founders left activism to go to chiropractic school, Anne kept building the organization behind the scenes, so that when he changed his mind, he could come back and pursue personal projects while working for the organization. And when, after fourteen years, the group needed her to work full time, Dr. Green left her job in academia, despite the fact she had achieved the pinnacle of her profession: full professor, winner of Carnegie Mellon’s top teaching prize, and President of the national organization for her field. Carnegie Mellon offered to make her Dean if she stayed! But it was more important to her to focus directly on helping as many animals as possible. Her co-founders were inducted into the Animal Rights Hall of Fame a decade ago, honored for the organization’s work: having eloquently and powerfully made the case for focused, maximum-impact advocacy, and having altered the course of animal advocacy forever. As always, Anne stood in the background. No one knew her co-founders wouldn’t have been there without her. And few know that she has continued to work, all day, every day, behind the scenes, never seeking glory, never seeking power, never seeking popularity, but always striving to help animals as much as possible.
Noting that per-capita animal consumption is at an all-time high, one of your fellow One Step supporters offers this:
For the duration of this piece, I’ll put aside the question of what’s the single optimal message to the general public for reducing farm animal suffering. Instead, I’ll focus on “What is the best message I can promote right now, given the current state of groups doing work in this area?” That is, assume existing groups continue to promote meat reduction, vegetarian transitions, and vegan advocacy. Now what? Studies like Dr. Harish Sethu’s Counting Animals blog post show the average meat-eating American kills the most land animals with their chicken consumption: 23.7 chickens vs 1.3 for all other land animals combined. Chickens are one of the smallest animals on factory farms. Being smaller means many more individuals suffer and die for the same number of meals. In addition to quantity, broiler chickens on factory farms are subjected to immense cruelty. So what if Americans stopped eating chicken, as urged by One Step’s compelling message? If they substituted plant-based chik'n, they’d take their average from 25 to 1.3 land animals per year. (If they stopped eating all birds, they would be responsible for the death of fewer than one animal every year.) And even if they substituted with pork, the average would still be fewer than 2 land animals per year.
Dropping the average American’s land animal consumption to 1.3 per year is the equivalent of making all Americans vegan for 11+ months per year.
This angle, largely unprioritized by other groups, is why I support One Step For Animals. Another reason is that it is an incredibly efficient organization, run by 3 people with oodles of cred: Joe Espinsoa, the #1 volunteer leafletterof all time; Anne Green, one of the hardest workers I know; and Matt Ball, a father of our movement's focus on farm animals. So other groups out there, please continue doing the great work you’re known for. And supporters, please continue to support them. But if you would like to contribute to an important opportunity for farm animals, largely unprioritized by other groups, please click here. Do you ever wonder what are your donations are up to? Thanks to you, every single minute of every single day, dozens of people are seeing an actionable and sustainable message of compassion. These many hard-hitting ads are having an impact. You know why this is important – that is why you’re reading this! But if you know someone who argues we should not focus on chickens, please share this recent post: “The Truth We Should Dare to Speak.” “Basically every animal we kill in the US is killed as part of our ‘food’ system. This year, about nine billion animals will be born into and suffer on factory farms, their misery ended only by slaughter. “If we could convince every single person in the US to entirely give up beef, pork, lamb, and dairy – and replace every scrap of that with a plant-based food – the number of animals who will be brutalized on factory farms would be... “... about nine billion.” Please read the whole thing. Finally, One Step is now registered at Amazon. If you use this link: https://smile.amazon.com/ch/46-5536026, Amazon will donate a portion of your purchase to help #TeamChicken reach even more people! Thank You So Much! Anne Green, Director of Operations PS: Please be sure to check in with us on Facebook, including our new lead video! PPS: Is kale flavored beef really on the horizon? Bad News for Red Meat Remains Bad News for Chickens Basically every animal we kill in the US is killed as part of our “food” system. This year, about nine billion animals will be born into and suffer on factory farms, their misery ended only by slaughter. If we could convince every single person in the US to entirely give up beef, pork, lamb, and dairy – and replace every scrap of that with a plant-based food – the number of animals who will be brutalized on factory farms would be... ... about nine billion. The numbers are simple: if we care at all about suffering, the impact of our advocacy has to be measured by its impact on how many birds are being raised to be eaten. Of course, actually looking at the facts shown by decades of consumption patterns clearly indicates that people have replaced red meat with chicken, causing vastly more suffering. Studies have shown this clearly as well. What Ginny Messina wrote years ago is even more painfully true today: Bad News for Red Meat Is Bad News for Chickens. For decades, there have been several problems with our advocacy, not the least of which is our lack of understanding (or memory of) basic human nature. Perhaps the most important insight is what won Herb Simon his Nobel Prize in Economics: People don’t make optimal or “perfect” decisions. Rather, almost everyone makes choices based on what is a bit “better” or “good enough.” Yet just about every single argument we offer the general public – health, environmental, and even ethical – leads people to move from red meat to eating more chickens. Almost everything we say reinforces the trend that has led to the explosion in the amount of cruelty and suffering in this country. Of course, various smart advocates have created endless rationalizations for pursuing their personal preference for advocacy. The most common is the need to be “consistent.” But consistency is utterly irrelevant in the real world. People have a nearly infinite capacity for cognitive dissonance. They love their dog or cat and eat pigs and cows without a second thought. Other advocates create fantasies whereby getting people to question the ethics of eating red meat will lead them to adopt the full philosophy of animal liberation. But this could not possibly be more at odds with how people function in the real world. Having an entire class of meat widely vilified as immoral – veal – had no impact on overall meat consumption. More importantly, it did nothing to stop the continuing increase in the consumption of chickens. Of course, we applaud the attempts to think outside the box, given our failures to increase the percentage of vegetarians or slow the rise in chicken consumption. But we are horrified and appalled when people advance pet theories that we know with absolute certainty will vastly increase the amount of suffering on factory farms. It might seem like harmless to create stories where a quirky new message will create a magical moral awakening across the country. But this is not an intellectual exercise. This is real life – and death – for birds being brutalized by the modern chicken industry. The end of cruelty to farm animals won’t come from some mystical manipulation of the public’s thinking. It will come from an interplay of supply and demand driving and being driven by technological change. There is no cunning shortcut, no quick fix. The public won’t ever all become ethical eaters – we have to drive both demand for and supply of ethical, familiar foods that they will gladly eat. Given all of the above and more, it seems inevitable to conclude that those of us who truly care about suffering and are working on the demand side must follow two straightforward guiding principles:
These may not thrill the ideologues or the clever contrarians. But these are the principles that follow from the historical real-world facts. If you agree, please be a part of One Step for Animals work. Thanks! One Step’s message has reached Canada (direct link to audio)! “In 2017 the average person in the United States will eat more animals and cause more suffering than ever before in history … and that’s with all our efforts. We have failed on the one metric that we should guide ourselves by, and that just shows us … that we really need to re-evaluate, we just really need to take a new approach.” Do you agree that record levels of animal suffering require us to take a new approach? If you do, please make a donation today and help One Step reach even more people with our actionable and sustainable message. Thank You So Much! Anne Green, Director of Operations By the time you read this, it will likely be closing in on 800,000 views on Vox's YouTube Channel! Separately, it has well over 400,000 on Vox's Facebook page. Please note what Matt actually says about One Step, vs. what Vox chose for the title and B-roll. If you agree that record levels of animal suffering require us to rethink, please share this video and this email. Also, if you can, please make a donation today and help One Step reach even more people with our actionable and sustainable message. Thank You So Much! Anne Green, Director of Operations For many people, the “how” of helping animals is as important than the “why.” This is why we’ve created a new How video, which we are promoting in various inline campaigns. You can reach more people with this great new video! Your donation today will be doubled, and help One Step expand our online outreach.
Also, your generous and thoughtful support of One Step’s work will be doubled, dollar-for-dollar. So please click here to help hens like Goldie today! Thank You So Much! Reality hasn’t been kind to vegan advocacy in the past decades The numbers don’t lie – Americans are eating more animals than ever, despite all the outreach by vegans.
And the vast majority of those animals are chickens. The average person eats more chickens every six months than the number of cows they will eat in their entire life. You are reading this because you value results over ideology. You want fewer animals to suffer. This is what drives One Step. We adjust our advocacy to reality to reduce as much suffering as possible. You can promote your bottom-line values today by donating and creating more fact-based outreach. As always, your tax-deductible donation is doubled, dollar-for-dollar, by a fellow clear-eyed donor. No more spinning our wheels. Let's really help animals in the real world! Please click and give whatever you can to expand our work together! Thank You So Much! |
|