I think the biggest problem with Farmkindâs campaign is that it was fundamentally manipulative and insincere.
As I read it, the grand plan here was to pretend to trash Veganuary to âbaitâ (your words) a lot of media engagement around this kayfabe controversy, and parlay this into a marquee presentation where the harvested eyeballs discover âweâre actually all friends here, let us pitch you on different ways of helping animals!â
The wider world tends to have allergic reactions to âcontrolled oppositionâ, âaudience plantâ, and related stunts, and so should we. I confess the fact that this one backfired in large part because you tricked too many people (including your allies) too well strikes me as a fitting comeuppance.
I agree with your statement in its entirety (even the âfitting comeuppanceâ bit), but I donât like the tone because it feels a little vindictive and mean to me. FarmKind were genuinely trying to help animals here, maybe messed up and I think you could perhaps be a little nicer while making your well articulated, very good point.
I am also sure Farmkind was genuinely trying to do good. But I do think these sorts of schemes warrant calling out with some small degree of ire.
Although my vision may be jaundiced, this case fits a pattern of some folks in animal advocacy being willing to be somewhat-worse-than-spotless in terms of integrity or candour in the hopes of securing some tactical advantage (cf.).
I think heading in the direction of treating non-animal advocates (within or without EA) as âlegitimate targets for influence operationsâ rather than âfellow moral interlocutorsâ is unwise. Besides being unwise in the immediate âyou werenât as clever as you thought you were and it blew up in your faceâ, it also errs in terms of more insidious pollution of commons helpful for folks to coordinate on figuring out what is best to do, and cooperate in doing it.
Thus I hope the lesson learned is, âavoid kind-of manipulative or insincere advocacyâ, not, âget better at pulling it offâ. Unfortunately, if it has, it is not readily apparent in the OP, given its reflections focus on first-order consequences and better coordination with other EAAs.
I donât know that it is entirely manipulative or insincere, even if the founders of Farmkind are themselves vegan and support veganism. I think that they are trying to put forward a perspective and highlight a perspective that is also consistent with funding effective animal charities:
âI love consuming animal products and I am not giving that up. But I also think itâs fucked up and wrong how animals are treated in the factory farming system.â
And then they would initially use the interesting contrast between that and the vegan community to generate attention, while then emphasizing the commonality. That animals shouldnât be tortured and we can all do something to help make that stop.
I think that Farmkind is right that embracing people who have that perspective and validating that perspective may be part of growing the big tent, through not just funding but through engagement with the political process as well.
It seems like there were some execution issues here, but I hope that the appetite for creative and new ways to try to engage with the omnivorous supermajority continues growing.
I feel like your message implies that the central claim of Forget Veganuary (that focusing on veganism is unhelpful, and that donations are more promising) was not sincerely held by FarmKind /â animal advocates. I strongly disagree.
The view that diet change is not promising has been defended in animal advocacy since the early 90s, by a diversity of leading figures of the movement (Wayne Hsiung, Peter Singer, Yves Bonnardel, Nick Cooney).[1] It simply had never been made into a public campaign. So I donât resonate with the framing of the campaign as bait: on the contrary, it stated out loud a view that many advocates had. (Not saying that getting attention was not part of the campaignâthough itâs part of most campaigns).
âThe wider world tends to have allergic reactions to âcontrolled oppositionâââI am unsure. In Poland, one of the most popular marketing campaigns is when one grocery chain is trashing the otherâobviously this has been agreed, and Lidl is not suing Biedronka, or Biedronka Lidl, and people really love it :) BMW vs. Audi, Pepsi vs. Coca Colaâalso did well globally. So I am unsure if what you say is correct.
Regardless, the underlying competition in these adversarial advertising campaigns is genuine: Pepsi and Coke (e.g.) want each otherâs market share for themselves. Here things seem more like two parties A & B collude where B poses as a competitor to A, intending the subsequent playfight between them to be in both A & Bâs mutual advantage (at least that is what Farmkind intended, notwithstanding they flubbed both the âcollude with Aâ and âmutually advantageous playfightâ steps of the plan).
I think most countries antitrust regulators (etc.) would raise an eyebrow at this sort of thing. I am sure it is generally regarded as a dirty trick in the marketplace of ideas (cf. I pay a fellow vegan to build up a media presence as an anti-vegan advocate, only to sandbag in a public debate with me where I trounce them, and publicly convert (back) to veganism).
Good point to be cautious about manufactured opposition. On the other hand, isnât rage baiting a common way to garner attention in todayâs environment? Isnât that exactly what makes your comment so attractive to respond to/ârebuff?
Perhaps Iâm conflating rage baiting with manufactured opposition, but I do think FK is onto something here.
Misinformation and clickbait are also common ways to get attention. I wouldnât recommend those tactics, either.
The way that a lot of people get attention online is fundamentally destructive. It gets them clicks and ad revenue, but it doesnât help cause positive change in the world.
I donât think it makes sense to justify manipulative, dishonest, or deceptive tactics like ragebait on the basis that they are good at getting attention. This is taking a business model from social media, which in some cases is arguably like digital cigarettes, and inappropriately applying it to animal advocacy. If the goal is to get people to scroll a lot and show them a lot of ads, sure, copy the tactics used in social media. But that isnât the goal here.
One form of ragebait is when you generate rage at a target other than yourself, but another form is when you bait people into getting angry at you (e.g. by expressing an insincere opinion) because that drives engagement, and engagement gets you paid. Making people angry at you is especially not applicable to animal advocacy.
Iâm a meat eater but havenât yet donated to animal causes. So I believe I am the target of the campaign.
Iâm not offended by their approach. I recognize that stirring up controversy is a reality of the media game. I think itâs good that they through the stepping stones to achieving virality.
Yes, they are hiding the fact that they actually endorse veganism. I wouldnât call it âmanipulativeâ. They are appealing to my values. Iâd call that good salesmanship. If they find my diet morally abhorrent, Iâm not upset at them for neglecting to mention it.
Yes, they could frame themselves as vegans looking for donations. People have been doing this for a while. I donât think most meat eaters want to read another article about why you should become vegan and donate to animal causes. But if your telling me I can more good without changing my diet, thatâs something I want to read.
I think the biggest problem with Farmkindâs campaign is that it was fundamentally manipulative and insincere.
As I read it, the grand plan here was to pretend to trash Veganuary to âbaitâ (your words) a lot of media engagement around this kayfabe controversy, and parlay this into a marquee presentation where the harvested eyeballs discover âweâre actually all friends here, let us pitch you on different ways of helping animals!â
The wider world tends to have allergic reactions to âcontrolled oppositionâ, âaudience plantâ, and related stunts, and so should we. I confess the fact that this one backfired in large part because you tricked too many people (including your allies) too well strikes me as a fitting comeuppance.
I agree with your statement in its entirety (even the âfitting comeuppanceâ bit), but I donât like the tone because it feels a little vindictive and mean to me. FarmKind were genuinely trying to help animals here, maybe messed up and I think you could perhaps be a little nicer while making your well articulated, very good point.
I am also sure Farmkind was genuinely trying to do good. But I do think these sorts of schemes warrant calling out with some small degree of ire.
Although my vision may be jaundiced, this case fits a pattern of some folks in animal advocacy being willing to be somewhat-worse-than-spotless in terms of integrity or candour in the hopes of securing some tactical advantage (cf.).
I think heading in the direction of treating non-animal advocates (within or without EA) as âlegitimate targets for influence operationsâ rather than âfellow moral interlocutorsâ is unwise. Besides being unwise in the immediate âyou werenât as clever as you thought you were and it blew up in your faceâ, it also errs in terms of more insidious pollution of commons helpful for folks to coordinate on figuring out what is best to do, and cooperate in doing it.
Thus I hope the lesson learned is, âavoid kind-of manipulative or insincere advocacyâ, not, âget better at pulling it offâ. Unfortunately, if it has, it is not readily apparent in the OP, given its reflections focus on first-order consequences and better coordination with other EAAs.
I donât know that it is entirely manipulative or insincere, even if the founders of Farmkind are themselves vegan and support veganism. I think that they are trying to put forward a perspective and highlight a perspective that is also consistent with funding effective animal charities:
âI love consuming animal products and I am not giving that up. But I also think itâs fucked up and wrong how animals are treated in the factory farming system.â
And then they would initially use the interesting contrast between that and the vegan community to generate attention, while then emphasizing the commonality. That animals shouldnât be tortured and we can all do something to help make that stop.
I think that Farmkind is right that embracing people who have that perspective and validating that perspective may be part of growing the big tent, through not just funding but through engagement with the political process as well.
It seems like there were some execution issues here, but I hope that the appetite for creative and new ways to try to engage with the omnivorous supermajority continues growing.
I feel like your message implies that the central claim of Forget Veganuary (that focusing on veganism is unhelpful, and that donations are more promising) was not sincerely held by FarmKind /â animal advocates. I strongly disagree.
The view that diet change is not promising has been defended in animal advocacy since the early 90s, by a diversity of leading figures of the movement (Wayne Hsiung, Peter Singer, Yves Bonnardel, Nick Cooney).[1] It simply had never been made into a public campaign. So I donât resonate with the framing of the campaign as bait: on the contrary, it stated out loud a view that many advocates had. (Not saying that getting attention was not part of the campaignâthough itâs part of most campaigns).
To varying degrees, with caveats, etc.
âThe wider world tends to have allergic reactions to âcontrolled oppositionâââI am unsure. In Poland, one of the most popular marketing campaigns is when one grocery chain is trashing the otherâobviously this has been agreed, and Lidl is not suing Biedronka, or Biedronka Lidl, and people really love it :) BMW vs. Audi, Pepsi vs. Coca Colaâalso did well globally. So I am unsure if what you say is correct.
Given Lidl literally sued Biedronka to get bailiffs to seize advertising billboards by Beidronka against them in 2024, and the price war between the chains, I donât see many signs of agreement or kayfabe in this competition.
Regardless, the underlying competition in these adversarial advertising campaigns is genuine: Pepsi and Coke (e.g.) want each otherâs market share for themselves. Here things seem more like two parties A & B collude where B poses as a competitor to A, intending the subsequent playfight between them to be in both A & Bâs mutual advantage (at least that is what Farmkind intended, notwithstanding they flubbed both the âcollude with Aâ and âmutually advantageous playfightâ steps of the plan).
I think most countries antitrust regulators (etc.) would raise an eyebrow at this sort of thing. I am sure it is generally regarded as a dirty trick in the marketplace of ideas (cf. I pay a fellow vegan to build up a media presence as an anti-vegan advocate, only to sandbag in a public debate with me where I trounce them, and publicly convert (back) to veganism).
Good point to be cautious about manufactured opposition. On the other hand, isnât rage baiting a common way to garner attention in todayâs environment? Isnât that exactly what makes your comment so attractive to respond to/ârebuff?
Perhaps Iâm conflating rage baiting with manufactured opposition, but I do think FK is onto something here.
Misinformation and clickbait are also common ways to get attention. I wouldnât recommend those tactics, either.
The way that a lot of people get attention online is fundamentally destructive. It gets them clicks and ad revenue, but it doesnât help cause positive change in the world.
I donât think it makes sense to justify manipulative, dishonest, or deceptive tactics like ragebait on the basis that they are good at getting attention. This is taking a business model from social media, which in some cases is arguably like digital cigarettes, and inappropriately applying it to animal advocacy. If the goal is to get people to scroll a lot and show them a lot of ads, sure, copy the tactics used in social media. But that isnât the goal here.
One form of ragebait is when you generate rage at a target other than yourself, but another form is when you bait people into getting angry at you (e.g. by expressing an insincere opinion) because that drives engagement, and engagement gets you paid. Making people angry at you is especially not applicable to animal advocacy.
Iâm a meat eater but havenât yet donated to animal causes. So I believe I am the target of the campaign.
Iâm not offended by their approach. I recognize that stirring up controversy is a reality of the media game. I think itâs good that they through the stepping stones to achieving virality.
Yes, they are hiding the fact that they actually endorse veganism. I wouldnât call it âmanipulativeâ. They are appealing to my values. Iâd call that good salesmanship. If they find my diet morally abhorrent, Iâm not upset at them for neglecting to mention it.
Yes, they could frame themselves as vegans looking for donations. People have been doing this for a while. I donât think most meat eaters want to read another article about why you should become vegan and donate to animal causes. But if your telling me I can more good without changing my diet, thatâs something I want to read.