[trigger warning: allusions to pending US electoral candidate who identified as a Nazi and posted anti-trans content...]
Could you say more about why you think the challenges “largely stem from insufficient communication”? I don’t disagree that a better comms strategy would be helpful and probably a prudent use for some of the additional $100MM. But I’m struggling to see how it would be a game-changer for most of the challenges Henry describes.
E.g.,: companies and consumers resist things that cost them money, and they use the political system to seek relief from those things. And no communication strategy is going to convince agricultural industries that EA AW wouldn’t be at least a near-existential threat to many of their business lines if it achieved its hopes and dreams. Moreover, changing hearts and minds on such an emotionally laden topic as food would be a massive undertaking—to give a vaguely relevant data point, PepsiCo spent ~$2B on advertising in the US alone in 2022. And getting people to believe things they don’t want to believe on a mass scale is hard even when those things are scientifically true (yes the vaccines work, no they will not improve your 5G reception).
Also, the upside of an affirmative comms strategy is limited when you have provided a determined opponent a bunch of open goals to score on. For instance, right now there’s a major candidate for governor of a US state who made a bunch of disturbing comments on an adult entertainment discussion board (e.g., calling himself a Nazi). For a significant portion of the US population, some of the things that are said on this Forum register as more offensive than that (e.g., meat-eater problem, implications that a human life is morally worth less than giving a few thousand shrimps a more humane death).[1]
I don’t see how throwing money at developing and executing a better comms plan helps much with those kinds of vulnerabilities. I wouldn’t be interested in engaging any more with content about the Nazi-identifying governor; it just wouldn’t be worth my time on the very very slim chance further information would update my vote. I expect many people would have a similar reaction when opponents successfully tied EA AW to the meat-eater problem.
I am reporting, not endorsing, this view! I’m using it as an example because I think it’s easy for people in/adjacent to the EA bubble to not understand how certain positions may play in (e.g.) the deep South where I grew up.
I guess I would revise my comment to be more modest in its proposition.
One part of what the OP is saying is that increased funding for animal welfare by EA would result in greater pushback against EA in general for putting resources toward something it considers strange or weird or otherwise contrary to their values.
I’m saying that the effect of this “EA is weird for prioritizing Animal Welfare” would probably be less than the effect of the better messaging, communication, and marketing, that the money would enable. So the net effect of more money in animal welfare (assuming prudent communications and marketing spend in the deployment) would be better public perception of EA rather than worse.
You’re right that the underlying perceptions and views are unlikely to be adequately addressed even if all the $200 mil was going to marketing, but with a prudent portion of it going there, I would anticipate the net effect on public perception of EA to be positive rather than negative.
[trigger warning: allusions to pending US electoral candidate who identified as a Nazi and posted anti-trans content...]
Could you say more about why you think the challenges “largely stem from insufficient communication”? I don’t disagree that a better comms strategy would be helpful and probably a prudent use for some of the additional $100MM. But I’m struggling to see how it would be a game-changer for most of the challenges Henry describes.
E.g.,: companies and consumers resist things that cost them money, and they use the political system to seek relief from those things. And no communication strategy is going to convince agricultural industries that EA AW wouldn’t be at least a near-existential threat to many of their business lines if it achieved its hopes and dreams. Moreover, changing hearts and minds on such an emotionally laden topic as food would be a massive undertaking—to give a vaguely relevant data point, PepsiCo spent ~$2B on advertising in the US alone in 2022. And getting people to believe things they don’t want to believe on a mass scale is hard even when those things are scientifically true (yes the vaccines work, no they will not improve your 5G reception).
Also, the upside of an affirmative comms strategy is limited when you have provided a determined opponent a bunch of open goals to score on. For instance, right now there’s a major candidate for governor of a US state who made a bunch of disturbing comments on an adult entertainment discussion board (e.g., calling himself a Nazi). For a significant portion of the US population, some of the things that are said on this Forum register as more offensive than that (e.g., meat-eater problem, implications that a human life is morally worth less than giving a few thousand shrimps a more humane death).[1]
I don’t see how throwing money at developing and executing a better comms plan helps much with those kinds of vulnerabilities. I wouldn’t be interested in engaging any more with content about the Nazi-identifying governor; it just wouldn’t be worth my time on the very very slim chance further information would update my vote. I expect many people would have a similar reaction when opponents successfully tied EA AW to the meat-eater problem.
I am reporting, not endorsing, this view! I’m using it as an example because I think it’s easy for people in/adjacent to the EA bubble to not understand how certain positions may play in (e.g.) the deep South where I grew up.
I guess I would revise my comment to be more modest in its proposition.
One part of what the OP is saying is that increased funding for animal welfare by EA would result in greater pushback against EA in general for putting resources toward something it considers strange or weird or otherwise contrary to their values.
I’m saying that the effect of this “EA is weird for prioritizing Animal Welfare” would probably be less than the effect of the better messaging, communication, and marketing, that the money would enable. So the net effect of more money in animal welfare (assuming prudent communications and marketing spend in the deployment) would be better public perception of EA rather than worse.
You’re right that the underlying perceptions and views are unlikely to be adequately addressed even if all the $200 mil was going to marketing, but with a prudent portion of it going there, I would anticipate the net effect on public perception of EA to be positive rather than negative.