Yes, that is very true. People love to hate, but hate to be hated. So, if you can get a large number of people to hate a “fur hag” then that can be an effective marketing tactic. But on the individual level, which is what I believe we were talking about here, the respectful approach is going to be more effective.

I think you and I and Eccentric Vegan essentially agree with each other.

To some extent I think you and Eccentric and I are talking about different things. You cite PETA as a group whose director of campaigns supports the “kind” approach. But a large number of PETA campaigns I would definitely NOT characterize as “kind.” For instance, “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” is relatively kind. But “fur hag” is NOT kind.

PETA mixes their campaigns up with regards to tone. Some campaigns come on soft, but others come on hard and can/will elicit strong, negative emotions. Indeed, I think this diversity of campaign tones is a part of what’s made PETA such an effective marketing machine.

Indeed, even Vegan Outreach has a spectrum of “tones” so to speak. Compare “Compassionate Choices” with “Even If You Like Meat…” some people will connect with CC but not EIYLM and vice versa.

Finally, there’s a big difference between personal and impersonal “meanness.” Walking up to someone and saying, “You’re an idiot for hitting your dog!” is VERY different from running a print ad campaign that says, “People who hit their dogs are idiots.”

However, if you check your anger and instead react with kindess and respect, you may be able to disarm the dog beater and get him or her to listen to what you have to say. By being respectful and courteous, you are more likely to win that person over. If you can win that person over, you can save the dog from being beaten in the future. And saving the dog from being beaten should be your goal.

Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s current Vice President of Campaigns, wrote a great piece about this a few years back: http://www.goveg.com/effectiveAdvocacy.asp

I think he is right in saying that the marketing techniques used to effectively sell products can be used to effectively sell veganism.

Clearly, different situations call for different tactics. Clearly, there may be people like Plump Vegan who need to be smacked upside the head before they admit they are wrong. But we aren’t talking about the rare people and instances. We are talking about most people, and most instances.

Let me know what you think of Bruce’s Effecive Advocacy article.

You ask: “Would you say it’s ineffective to guilt-trip a mother who doesn’t put her baby in a child seat?”

It depends on if you are being mean or disrespectful or not. You can play on someone’s conscience without being disrespectful or mean. For example, you could say: “I think you should put your baby in a carseat. I know how much you love your baby. You wouldn’t want her to get hurt, would you?” I think that would work much better than saying: “You stupid B*!@$! Put your goddam baby in a carseat!”

You ask: “Would you advocate “Never say, ‘You’re wrong’” to someone who is beating their dog and claims “it’s the only way”?

You seem to be missing the point. In this case, you could say something like this: “I understand where you are soming from, but I’ve found that being gentle with dogs (or people) is a better way to influence their behavior. Here, let me show you.”

You ask: “Do you think it makes sense to “win friends” if those ‘friends’ are white supremacists?”

Yes, if making friends with them can help change their minds. Your friends are a lot more likely to agree with you than your enemies.

I emailed Vegan Outreach and asked them personally if they’d done any marketing research when developing their pamphlets. They said they’d done none. That’s not to say other vegans haven’t done any research or that we can’t apply marketing research done for other things to vegan education…

BUT veganism is fundamentally different from selling a product. It’s an entire paradigm shift. It only makes sense that it requires different strategies than selling widgets, particularly if the type of veganism promoted is anti-capitalism/ anti-consumption.

Plump answered honestly that he needed to hear about veganism in a manner that confronted him and felt mean: I think it was from a Propagandhi album.

I needed the support and comfort of a loving relationship along with actual experience to recognize how difficult or not difficult veganism is. I wanted to go vegan nearly 20 years before I did, but one year of difficult experiences with nonvegans made it feel like a terrible burden. I stayed lacto-ovo vegetarian instead.

Neither of us *needed* a respectful conversation. And neither of us would have dismissed veganism simply because someone was rude to us about it. That’s like dismissing NYC because a few cab drivers are rude – ridiculous!

Be honest:
Would you say it’s ineffective to guilt-trip a mother who doesn’t put her baby in a child seat? Would you advocate “Never say, ‘You’re wrong’” to someone who is beating their dog and claims “it’s the only way”? Do you think it makes sense to “win friends” if those ‘friends’ are white supremacists?

Clearly, the “How to Win Friends and Influence People” method isn’t applicable in all situations. That book is a sales book and should be regarded as such. It’s not a book about major social change.

You can be honest (and should be honest) without being disrespectful or mean.

You say: “First, no one is talking about being “mean.” Being blunt and truthful is not being “mean,” though some people will have you believe that it is.”

You also said: “You may be a compassionate activist, but I’m not. I don’t give a flip whether I’m “dismissed” as angry or radical… It takes many ingredients to bake a vegan cake. You need the sugar, and you need the vinegar.”

I took your statement above (especially the sugar vs. vinegar analogy) to mean you are advocating being mean.

You say: “vegans haven’t done any serious studies into marketing and human behavior. No one actually knows which messages are more effective than which other messages.”
First of all, yes they have. Secondly, let’s do a little experiment. Tell me which of these two following approaches do you think is more likely to influence you? Be honest.

1. I could say: “You stupid idiot. There has been tons of marketing analysis done on how to best influence other people. Why don’t you look into these things before you open your stupid mouth and talk about things you obviously don’t know anything about? Haven’t you ever heard the old saying that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar? You jerk!”

2. Or, I could say: “I see where you are coming from and I agree that sometimes different styles of messaging are important. But, as a general rule, marketing analysts have established that being kind, respectful and likeable as a person is the best way to influence other people and to get them to listen to you and take what you are saying seriously.

For example:
http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html#three

1. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
2. Show respect for the other person’s opinions. Never say, “You’re wrong.”
3. If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
4. Begin in a friendly way.
5. Get the other person saying “yes, yes” immediately.
6. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
7. Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers.
8. Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view.
9. Be sympathetic with the other person’s ideas and desires.
10. Appeal to the nobler motives.
11. Dramatize your ideas.
12. Throw down a challenge.

Here are some more sites that reference being respectful to best influence people:

http://www.4hb.com/08iceinfuencepeople.html
http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/influencing_people.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_win_friends

Don’t you agree that, as people who care about helping animals, vegans should try their best to influence other people to stop needlessly hurting animals?”

Now, seriously, which tactic do you think will influence more people? 1 or 2? Notice how honest I was in both cases?

You say: “I think it’s pretty silly to argue that we’re “ruining” these people on veganism. How much damage can one person do? Really?”

Um… you did witness the disaster that was Sarah Palin, didn’t you?

You say: “Bottom line is that it’s going to take a lot more hard evidence than anyone seems to have on offer to convince me that every vegan should fall in line and be “kind and respectful” to omnis at all times.”

If you want more links to the numerous marketing analysis’s that have been done showing kindness and respect influence people better than anger, just let me know. If you can find anything that supports being mean (or vinegary) to people as a better method to influence people, I’d love to see it.
Eccentric Vegan wrote: “Do not blame vegans for nonvegans inaction.” And then: “The actual, direct result of telling vegans “not to be mean” is that vegans silence themselves.”
I say: Don’t blame vegans, like me, who say we should be respectful to omnis, for other vegan’s silence!

Being respectful does not mean being dishonest. I am always honest with people. I also try to be respectful. I;m nowhere near perfect and sometimes get angry. But I’ve found a lot of supporting evidence for the idea that being kind and respectful are more influential than being mean and angry.

Convenient Vegan, you ask: “Why is it the responsibility of vegans to convince non-vegans of the truth of their way of living?”

It’s not. But if you really want to be effective at helping reduce or eliminate cruelty to animals, then it is a good idea to try to convince other people to stop being cruel to animals, right? I think most vegans want to end cruelty to animals. Well, we aren’t going to be able to do that unless we can get people to stop being cruel to animals.

I am one of the so-called “nice” ones as a rule. Not because I have decided it’s the only way to be but simply because that’s the way my personality works. However, I do have thoughts about this topic that suggest that nice isn’t all we need:

* Sometimes we need the good-cop-bad-cop play. The mean ones call the knowledgable omnivores stupid and then the nice ones come along and listen compassionately. Some people will respond to the mean ones and some to the nice. Some need to hear both. And those in between, including the honest ones who simply answer the questions directly.
* I believe we have a responsibility to learn for ourselves. Why is it the responsibility of vegans to convince non-vegans of the truth of their way of living? Why don’t the omnivores take the time to find out for themselves? If we can’t be bothered to learn why recycling is a good idea what does that say about us? If we can’t be bothered to find out how animals are raised and killed and what that process does to them, to us, and the environment, what does that say?

Respect goes both ways. All ways. I am a big believer in having a civil discussion when possible. I suspect that all of the folks having this discussion feel the same way, whether they go for the “honey” approach or the “honest”.