In light of the Iggy disaster, PetHobbyist.com is hosting a moderated chat with several representatives of rescue groups. Topics to be covered include contracts, adoption guidelines, and general advice on adopting rescue dogs. You can register at the above link.
I'm not sure if I'll be participating. Tomorrow is an important five-year anniversary for me so I'll probably be a tad busy tomorrow night.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Why Rescue is Like Harvard
Well, I'm ashamed to say that a large puppy mill has been busted in my home state. Why, oh why, do puppy mills still exist? Remember my earlier posting about pet shop puppies? I still wonder why consumers continue to purchase puppies from pet shops. Now, I'm wondering if maybe ignorant B-list celebrities are contributing to the trend...
To me this resurgence in pet store puppies (remember the good 'ol days when celebrities were hot about rescue dogs...some still are but the Paris Hiltons garner the most attention) means that rescue needs to focus on marketing.
I hate to say it but we have to think like our animals are products. What makes our "used" animals better than the competition? I can think of many reasons off the top of my head: adoption fees cover the cost of extensive veterinary care, most animals are already housetrained, the glut of adult dogs means not having to deal with puppy phase, etc.
And as part of marketing I was thinking about how this could relate to how our strict guidelines are perceived. And that got me thinking about Harvard.
Harvard also has strict guidelines. Many applicants apply and few get in (for the most part, I know this is simplified). The same could be said for some of the pets we offer for adoption. But J.Q. Public is more accepting of Harvard's strict admittance guidelines than those of their local rescue group.
(Granted, Harvard's admittance policies have been under intense debate but not to the level of vitiol that's often directed at rescue groups.)
So maybe there's a way our strict adoption guidelines could be marketable. Use this as an opportunity to show that your animals have value and prestige, like a Harvard education.
Your animals may already be house-trained, socialized, etc, unlike those puppy mill pets at the local strip shopping center pet store. And because you've invested your time, money, and heart, these animals will not go to just any home. Just like not every high school senior can get into Harvard.
Now, granted, I am of the opinion a good enough home is better than a perfect home. And I can see the argument that strict adoption policies drive adopters away, to pet stores even. But, going back to my Harvard analogy, the school does occasionally accept rather mediocre (by Harvard standards, anyway) students from time to time. So even though your group generally doesn't adopt to families with children younger than ten, you may run into a family that is an exception.
I guess to sum up my point, we should view rescue pets as having more value than store-bought puppy mill genetic time bombs. In fact, having a rescue pet is more prestigious than a Harvard education, after all...
To me this resurgence in pet store puppies (remember the good 'ol days when celebrities were hot about rescue dogs...some still are but the Paris Hiltons garner the most attention) means that rescue needs to focus on marketing.
I hate to say it but we have to think like our animals are products. What makes our "used" animals better than the competition? I can think of many reasons off the top of my head: adoption fees cover the cost of extensive veterinary care, most animals are already housetrained, the glut of adult dogs means not having to deal with puppy phase, etc.
And as part of marketing I was thinking about how this could relate to how our strict guidelines are perceived. And that got me thinking about Harvard.
Harvard also has strict guidelines. Many applicants apply and few get in (for the most part, I know this is simplified). The same could be said for some of the pets we offer for adoption. But J.Q. Public is more accepting of Harvard's strict admittance guidelines than those of their local rescue group.
(Granted, Harvard's admittance policies have been under intense debate but not to the level of vitiol that's often directed at rescue groups.)
So maybe there's a way our strict adoption guidelines could be marketable. Use this as an opportunity to show that your animals have value and prestige, like a Harvard education.
Your animals may already be house-trained, socialized, etc, unlike those puppy mill pets at the local strip shopping center pet store. And because you've invested your time, money, and heart, these animals will not go to just any home. Just like not every high school senior can get into Harvard.
Now, granted, I am of the opinion a good enough home is better than a perfect home. And I can see the argument that strict adoption policies drive adopters away, to pet stores even. But, going back to my Harvard analogy, the school does occasionally accept rather mediocre (by Harvard standards, anyway) students from time to time. So even though your group generally doesn't adopt to families with children younger than ten, you may run into a family that is an exception.
I guess to sum up my point, we should view rescue pets as having more value than store-bought puppy mill genetic time bombs. In fact, having a rescue pet is more prestigious than a Harvard education, after all...
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Some Thoughts on the Iggy Fiasco
Well, earlier this week Ellen talked to Petfinder co-founder Betsy Saul and Jo Sullivan of the ASPCA. To her credit, Ellen continues to promote adoption (hopefully next time she'll actually read the adoption contract she signs), though this incident may hurt the rescue movement for quite awhile.
In fact, I'm fairly confidant that the managers of every Puppy Mill Dogs 'r' Us are telling all their customers, "Oh no, we would never come back and take that dog away from you" as they swipe the credit cards of unsuspecting families.
(Of course, don't expect said manager to be of much help when that cute puppy turns into a genetic timebomb due to poor breeding.)
I still fear that this Iggy fiasco has hurt the reputations of rescue groups across the country. And to clarify my statement from earlier posts, my main fear about legislators stepping into regulate rescues has to do with the fact that your average local lawmaker probably hasn't spent too much time getting into the nitty-gritty of animal rescue other than sitting on the board of the local Humane Society. Again, I have to reiterate that if legislators hear more news about "those picky rescues" laws could be passed that could hurt the rescue movement.
What if based on flimsy evidence area residents accuse the rescues in your area of "cherry picking the nice dogs and leaving only the pit bulls"? Some legislator might then be able to pass a law that restricts rescues from pulling certain animals from the shelter.
And this is why I think the rescue movement needs to stress positive PR to counter the negative press. Look at the rescues helping find lost pets left behind in the California wildfires. And within the past 48 hours rescue groups were given the go ahead to start placing the dogs rescued from Michael Vick.
It's these actions that may help our community overcome the negative portrayals from the Iggy debacle. Now I know that not every rescue has the means to save Vick's dogs or head out to California but there might be some ways to help your community. Maybe start a fundraising campaign for low-cost spaying and neutering or contacting your local TV station about the abused dog you just took in as a foster?
Look around and I'm sure you'll find plenty of opportunities for highlighting the good that rescue does.
In fact, I'm fairly confidant that the managers of every Puppy Mill Dogs 'r' Us are telling all their customers, "Oh no, we would never come back and take that dog away from you" as they swipe the credit cards of unsuspecting families.
(Of course, don't expect said manager to be of much help when that cute puppy turns into a genetic timebomb due to poor breeding.)
I still fear that this Iggy fiasco has hurt the reputations of rescue groups across the country. And to clarify my statement from earlier posts, my main fear about legislators stepping into regulate rescues has to do with the fact that your average local lawmaker probably hasn't spent too much time getting into the nitty-gritty of animal rescue other than sitting on the board of the local Humane Society. Again, I have to reiterate that if legislators hear more news about "those picky rescues" laws could be passed that could hurt the rescue movement.
What if based on flimsy evidence area residents accuse the rescues in your area of "cherry picking the nice dogs and leaving only the pit bulls"? Some legislator might then be able to pass a law that restricts rescues from pulling certain animals from the shelter.
And this is why I think the rescue movement needs to stress positive PR to counter the negative press. Look at the rescues helping find lost pets left behind in the California wildfires. And within the past 48 hours rescue groups were given the go ahead to start placing the dogs rescued from Michael Vick.
It's these actions that may help our community overcome the negative portrayals from the Iggy debacle. Now I know that not every rescue has the means to save Vick's dogs or head out to California but there might be some ways to help your community. Maybe start a fundraising campaign for low-cost spaying and neutering or contacting your local TV station about the abused dog you just took in as a foster?
Look around and I'm sure you'll find plenty of opportunities for highlighting the good that rescue does.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Let's Hope Things Will Settle Down Now...
Well, Ellen has pledged not to talk about Iggy anymore. I hope for the sake of the thousands of animals that may be euthanized across the country that this does not put a bad stain on the rescue community.
Still, I'm not so certain that we've avoided a backlash. Already I've come across several news reports about the "difficulty of adopting pets" (here, here, and here).
I especially love the headline in the Globe and Mail, "Pet adoption rules, 'like the Spanish Inquisition.'"
If you're involved in rescue anywhere in the country pay attention to your local papers; your local reporters may try to localize the story. Let's use this as an opportunity to stress the positives of rescue as well as explain the reasoning behind our "Inquisition-like rules." (Though in my opinion, more rescues should practice flexibility and restraint, not to mention superb customer service skills. Comes in handy during situations like this).
Amd keep hoping rescue isn't set back several years.
Still, I'm not so certain that we've avoided a backlash. Already I've come across several news reports about the "difficulty of adopting pets" (here, here, and here).
I especially love the headline in the Globe and Mail, "Pet adoption rules, 'like the Spanish Inquisition.'"
If you're involved in rescue anywhere in the country pay attention to your local papers; your local reporters may try to localize the story. Let's use this as an opportunity to stress the positives of rescue as well as explain the reasoning behind our "Inquisition-like rules." (Though in my opinion, more rescues should practice flexibility and restraint, not to mention superb customer service skills. Comes in handy during situations like this).
Amd keep hoping rescue isn't set back several years.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Ellen DeGeneres Debacle
Well by now we've probably heard about Ellen DeGeneres and the controversy over Iggy. It seems Ellen adopted a Brussels Griffon mix from a rescue group. The dog, named Iggy, apparently did not get along well with her cats and after spending a large amount of money on training, Ellen gave the dog to her hairdresser and her family.
Now at this point I'm sure there is a collective groan coming from all members of the rescue community: almost all of us have contracts that state that if an adoption does not work out, the animal must be returned to the adoption agency/rescue.
The rescue group found out and took the dog back from the family on Sunday. When the family balked at returning the dog, the cops were called.
But the group failed to take into account they were dealing with a high profile celebrity with a television show. Now, when I was studying journalism as an undergrad, Dad would always joke that "you should never piss anyone off who buys ink by the barrel." In today's current climate make that "never piss anyone off who has a nationally syndicated talk show."
So, Ellen goes on television and explains her side of the story. In an emotional monologue, she claimed she did not read the entire contract and implored the group to return Iggy to her hairdresser whose two daughters had become attached to the dog.
Not surprisingly the press has taken the story and run with it along with most of the celebrity blogosphere.
PR-wise, I would have done things a lot differently. Instead of antagonizing the family and Ellen, I would have worked with the family. Now, by working with the family I don't mean necessarily letting them keep the dog. I would have let them keep the dog but apply for it through normal channels. If, for whatever reason, I felt the family and the dog would not mesh, I would have worked with them closely to acquire another dog, by networking with other rescuers/shelters, even reputable breeders. Be the family's personal pet locater, if you will.
You say that the group has the legal right to take the dog? I will admit that's true. Going back to Robin Cohn's PR Crisis Bible, she points out that just because an organization has the legal right to do something, doesn't mean it's a good PR move. Look at the RIAA: it's perfectly legal to sue individuals for downloading music but this has given the recording industry a lot of bad press.
Unfortunately, this situation may give the rescue movement a black eye, which I wrote about on Sunday. A lot of the comments on this story on TMZ include the usual I-tried-to-adopt-but-was-turned-down-so-I-went-to-a-breeder. Someone reading the story and the following negative rescue comments may start to think "I better stay away from rescue groups...they sound mean." And, who knows, that reader may be a great candidate for rescue.
My other fear is that if there is enough negative press about rescues, there might be a push to pass crippling regulations on rescues. For example, someone might go to their legislator and say "Those rescue groups won't let me adopt a Chihuahua because I have young children under five. I want you to pass a law that requires requires rescues and shelters to give animals to anyone who applies."
Sounds impossible? It could happen.
So how do we prevent this from happening? I think by practicing positive PR and educating the public. Also, as much as we love animals, we should not hesitate to work with those humans who want to adopt our animals.
They're not all bad, I promise.
Now at this point I'm sure there is a collective groan coming from all members of the rescue community: almost all of us have contracts that state that if an adoption does not work out, the animal must be returned to the adoption agency/rescue.
The rescue group found out and took the dog back from the family on Sunday. When the family balked at returning the dog, the cops were called.
But the group failed to take into account they were dealing with a high profile celebrity with a television show. Now, when I was studying journalism as an undergrad, Dad would always joke that "you should never piss anyone off who buys ink by the barrel." In today's current climate make that "never piss anyone off who has a nationally syndicated talk show."
So, Ellen goes on television and explains her side of the story. In an emotional monologue, she claimed she did not read the entire contract and implored the group to return Iggy to her hairdresser whose two daughters had become attached to the dog.
Not surprisingly the press has taken the story and run with it along with most of the celebrity blogosphere.
PR-wise, I would have done things a lot differently. Instead of antagonizing the family and Ellen, I would have worked with the family. Now, by working with the family I don't mean necessarily letting them keep the dog. I would have let them keep the dog but apply for it through normal channels. If, for whatever reason, I felt the family and the dog would not mesh, I would have worked with them closely to acquire another dog, by networking with other rescuers/shelters, even reputable breeders. Be the family's personal pet locater, if you will.
You say that the group has the legal right to take the dog? I will admit that's true. Going back to Robin Cohn's PR Crisis Bible, she points out that just because an organization has the legal right to do something, doesn't mean it's a good PR move. Look at the RIAA: it's perfectly legal to sue individuals for downloading music but this has given the recording industry a lot of bad press.
Unfortunately, this situation may give the rescue movement a black eye, which I wrote about on Sunday. A lot of the comments on this story on TMZ include the usual I-tried-to-adopt-but-was-turned-down-so-I-went-to-a-breeder. Someone reading the story and the following negative rescue comments may start to think "I better stay away from rescue groups...they sound mean." And, who knows, that reader may be a great candidate for rescue.
My other fear is that if there is enough negative press about rescues, there might be a push to pass crippling regulations on rescues. For example, someone might go to their legislator and say "Those rescue groups won't let me adopt a Chihuahua because I have young children under five. I want you to pass a law that requires requires rescues and shelters to give animals to anyone who applies."
Sounds impossible? It could happen.
So how do we prevent this from happening? I think by practicing positive PR and educating the public. Also, as much as we love animals, we should not hesitate to work with those humans who want to adopt our animals.
They're not all bad, I promise.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Yet another "rescue takes family's dog" story
Yesterday, the Akron Beacon Journal reported that a family spent $568 to cover vet bills for the time their missing dog spent in a rescue group. Apparently, the dog escaped (or was wandering loose) and picked up by animal control, which released the dog to the rescue group. When the family finally located the dog and contacted the rescue group, a representative of the group expressed concern about the care of the dog and initially refused to return the dog. The group only released the dog after the family paid $568 to cover vet bills incurred while the dog was in the group's care.
Now, I'm certainly not defending the owners (who apparently failed to neuter the dog...terribly irresponsible, in my opnion) and if I was a member of the group, I would have my concerns about the dog's care as well. I do think that if this group was trying to educate the owners about proper pet care, it will not go over well in the end. More likely, the owners are thinking "those crazy animal people forced us to pay over $500 to get our dog back" not "we really need to rethink how we care for A.J."
Interestingly, if you read the reader comments following the story, you'll find a few comments supporting the group as well as many comments along the lines of "this group is crazy." Also, one of the posts is from an individual whose adoption application for this group was denied. With more newspapers offering online forums and reader comments, anyone with a grudge against a particular group can come out of the woodwork...not a good situation for maintaining positive community relations.
Also, check out this post on the Best Friends forum. Kat Albrecht, a detective who specializes in lost pets, points out that for every lost pet held by a rescue, an owner surrender or other animal slated to die at the local shelter, is losing out. Returning a pet, even to a "substandard" home, allows groups to have room to save another in its place.
Being from Virginia, rescue groups and missing pets are a sore spot for me. Back in 2002, a similar situation led to state regulations that among other things, required rescue groups to post hours of operation, meaning that any member of the public could show up at a foster home and demand to see the facilities. Under the law, such individuals could not be turned away.
I believe the law was eventually repealed but the fact remains that if enough such situations occur, other lawmakers might propose similar laws that restrict rescue groups. And, sadly, I fear that the volunteer spirit of rescue could be curtailed due to restrictive regulations. Rescue operations in Virginia are still recovering from the after affects of this bad law.
So I can't help but worry that some of the best intentions of my fellow rescuers could lead to other bad laws and regulations, which could potentially wipe out the rescue movement as we know it.
Just something to consider...
Now, I'm certainly not defending the owners (who apparently failed to neuter the dog...terribly irresponsible, in my opnion) and if I was a member of the group, I would have my concerns about the dog's care as well. I do think that if this group was trying to educate the owners about proper pet care, it will not go over well in the end. More likely, the owners are thinking "those crazy animal people forced us to pay over $500 to get our dog back" not "we really need to rethink how we care for A.J."
Interestingly, if you read the reader comments following the story, you'll find a few comments supporting the group as well as many comments along the lines of "this group is crazy." Also, one of the posts is from an individual whose adoption application for this group was denied. With more newspapers offering online forums and reader comments, anyone with a grudge against a particular group can come out of the woodwork...not a good situation for maintaining positive community relations.
Also, check out this post on the Best Friends forum. Kat Albrecht, a detective who specializes in lost pets, points out that for every lost pet held by a rescue, an owner surrender or other animal slated to die at the local shelter, is losing out. Returning a pet, even to a "substandard" home, allows groups to have room to save another in its place.
Being from Virginia, rescue groups and missing pets are a sore spot for me. Back in 2002, a similar situation led to state regulations that among other things, required rescue groups to post hours of operation, meaning that any member of the public could show up at a foster home and demand to see the facilities. Under the law, such individuals could not be turned away.
I believe the law was eventually repealed but the fact remains that if enough such situations occur, other lawmakers might propose similar laws that restrict rescue groups. And, sadly, I fear that the volunteer spirit of rescue could be curtailed due to restrictive regulations. Rescue operations in Virginia are still recovering from the after affects of this bad law.
So I can't help but worry that some of the best intentions of my fellow rescuers could lead to other bad laws and regulations, which could potentially wipe out the rescue movement as we know it.
Just something to consider...
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
It's October...Let the Black Cat Debate Begin!
Let's see, it is now October 3 and it's the time of year when the leaves are falling, the temperature is dropping (or not!), the pumpkins are coming out, and shelters and rescue groups cease adopting out black cats.
Like many in the animal community, it's been drummed in my head countless times that satanic cults cease animals, particularly black cats, to sacrifice on Halloween. Lately, I've started to question this as well as the common practice of restricting black cat adoptions around this time. This Snopes article questions the claim.
(Most of those unfortunate cats that are discovered disemboweled All Saints morning undoubtedly had their lives cut short by nothing more mundane than coyotes, aggressive dogs, foxes, etc. rather than Satanic cults. People, let's keep our cats inside now...)
Now I'm sure crazy stuff like this happens. On Halloween 2004 some messed up freak apparently crucified a black cat at the Iowa City/Coralville Animal Care & Adoption Center. Then again, this particular shelter also refuses to adopt out black cats just before and after Halloween. It's not clear from the article if someone broke in and killed a cat or just left a stray outside.
I'm rather skeptical about the policy of not adopting out black cats during Halloween season. I mean, that's why shelters and rescues have (or should have) strict adoption guidelines and procedures. Somehow I doubt the mom and dad with two kids in tow will be sacrificing Fluffy to the devil on Halloween.
I think most of the "black cats get sacrificed on Halloween" myth is mostly overblown . Most of the "satanic" sacrifices involve small groups of alienated youth dabbling in the occult. These youth usually sacrifice whatever animal they can find, no matter the color. And these can occur throughout the year. Again, proper adoption procedures will prevent these sick individuals from obtaining sacrificial animals from shelters. The fact that practically all shelters and rescues will not adopt to individuals under 18 without a parent's permission, means such individuals more than likely do not turn to shelters for animals.
(Not to minimize animal cruelty at all; in fact, any youth discovered to be involved in such activity needs an immediate intervention by the authorities.)
In fact this looks to be a remnant of the satanic panic of the early 1980s where overnight Geraldo Rivera and Sally Jesse Rafael became "experts" in satanic ritual abuse. Remember the McMartin fiasco?
All in all, I think normal adoption procedures should weed out the weirdos.
(And FYI in Britain it's white cats that are bad luck. Well, this site says so at least!)
Like many in the animal community, it's been drummed in my head countless times that satanic cults cease animals, particularly black cats, to sacrifice on Halloween. Lately, I've started to question this as well as the common practice of restricting black cat adoptions around this time. This Snopes article questions the claim.
(Most of those unfortunate cats that are discovered disemboweled All Saints morning undoubtedly had their lives cut short by nothing more mundane than coyotes, aggressive dogs, foxes, etc. rather than Satanic cults. People, let's keep our cats inside now...)
Now I'm sure crazy stuff like this happens. On Halloween 2004 some messed up freak apparently crucified a black cat at the Iowa City/Coralville Animal Care & Adoption Center. Then again, this particular shelter also refuses to adopt out black cats just before and after Halloween. It's not clear from the article if someone broke in and killed a cat or just left a stray outside.
I'm rather skeptical about the policy of not adopting out black cats during Halloween season. I mean, that's why shelters and rescues have (or should have) strict adoption guidelines and procedures. Somehow I doubt the mom and dad with two kids in tow will be sacrificing Fluffy to the devil on Halloween.
I think most of the "black cats get sacrificed on Halloween" myth is mostly overblown . Most of the "satanic" sacrifices involve small groups of alienated youth dabbling in the occult. These youth usually sacrifice whatever animal they can find, no matter the color. And these can occur throughout the year. Again, proper adoption procedures will prevent these sick individuals from obtaining sacrificial animals from shelters. The fact that practically all shelters and rescues will not adopt to individuals under 18 without a parent's permission, means such individuals more than likely do not turn to shelters for animals.
(Not to minimize animal cruelty at all; in fact, any youth discovered to be involved in such activity needs an immediate intervention by the authorities.)
In fact this looks to be a remnant of the satanic panic of the early 1980s where overnight Geraldo Rivera and Sally Jesse Rafael became "experts" in satanic ritual abuse. Remember the McMartin fiasco?
All in all, I think normal adoption procedures should weed out the weirdos.
(And FYI in Britain it's white cats that are bad luck. Well, this site says so at least!)
Friday, September 21, 2007
Help! The Reporters are Calling!
I don't know if anyone has caught the story about the
vet that refused to return a client's dog when said client refused to finish paying the bill. I'm not going to comment on this particular piece of news except to say I think mistakes were made by both parties, particularly in the talking-to-the-media department.
Although a rescue group was not involved with this story, I think it should serve as a warning to rescue groups. The vet, in my opinion, mishandled this situation media-wise. If there's one thing to take from this, it's to have a solid crisis communications plan.
Stories about pets draw readers. Stories involving owners desperately trying to save their pets draw more readers. And I don't fault the reporters because all too often when reporting on a dispute between two parties (here I'm talking in general, not necessarily about rescue) one party will lack the media savvy to effectively communicate their position and the reporter can only report facts that have been ineffectively communicated.
And I'm seeing it happen more and more with rescues. Here's an example from Arizona. And here's another case in North Carolina. I don't want to go into the specifics of these cases as I think the articles speak for themselves. And let's not forget all those ownership disputes involving Katrina pets.
And to be fair to rescue, I think a lot of us never expect to have any involvement with the media other than sending out press releases on fund-raising events or the latest adoptable pets we have. That is, until something happens and the reporters start calling.
How to start with developing a crisis communications strategy? I highly recommend reading The PR Crisis Bible by Robin Cohn. She writes more from a corporate perspective but I think she has excellent points rescues can use. In her book she details the seven deadly sins of poor crisis communication. Sin#1 is the "It Will Never Happen Here," a mantra that can ensnare even the most kindhearted of rescuers.
What happens if you adopt out a dog and the dog's original owners return and claim the dog was stolen and now you're the front page headline in your local newspaper? Or you reject an adoption application because the adopter is dead-set on declawing and the adopter calls the editor of the local paper alleging discrimination?
You can see now why a crisis communications strategy is important. A PR crisis can happen to any rescue. And mishandling a PR crisis can leave a lasting mark that could hurt a rescue's standing in the community, ultimately hurting animals in need.
So this weekend if your rescue doesn't have a crisis communications strategy, please try to get all your members together to develop one. It could mean everything to preserving the reputation of your group in a time of crisis.
vet that refused to return a client's dog when said client refused to finish paying the bill. I'm not going to comment on this particular piece of news except to say I think mistakes were made by both parties, particularly in the talking-to-the-media department.
Although a rescue group was not involved with this story, I think it should serve as a warning to rescue groups. The vet, in my opinion, mishandled this situation media-wise. If there's one thing to take from this, it's to have a solid crisis communications plan.
Stories about pets draw readers. Stories involving owners desperately trying to save their pets draw more readers. And I don't fault the reporters because all too often when reporting on a dispute between two parties (here I'm talking in general, not necessarily about rescue) one party will lack the media savvy to effectively communicate their position and the reporter can only report facts that have been ineffectively communicated.
And I'm seeing it happen more and more with rescues. Here's an example from Arizona. And here's another case in North Carolina. I don't want to go into the specifics of these cases as I think the articles speak for themselves. And let's not forget all those ownership disputes involving Katrina pets.
And to be fair to rescue, I think a lot of us never expect to have any involvement with the media other than sending out press releases on fund-raising events or the latest adoptable pets we have. That is, until something happens and the reporters start calling.
How to start with developing a crisis communications strategy? I highly recommend reading The PR Crisis Bible by Robin Cohn. She writes more from a corporate perspective but I think she has excellent points rescues can use. In her book she details the seven deadly sins of poor crisis communication. Sin#1 is the "It Will Never Happen Here," a mantra that can ensnare even the most kindhearted of rescuers.
What happens if you adopt out a dog and the dog's original owners return and claim the dog was stolen and now you're the front page headline in your local newspaper? Or you reject an adoption application because the adopter is dead-set on declawing and the adopter calls the editor of the local paper alleging discrimination?
You can see now why a crisis communications strategy is important. A PR crisis can happen to any rescue. And mishandling a PR crisis can leave a lasting mark that could hurt a rescue's standing in the community, ultimately hurting animals in need.
So this weekend if your rescue doesn't have a crisis communications strategy, please try to get all your members together to develop one. It could mean everything to preserving the reputation of your group in a time of crisis.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Pet Store and Puppy Mill Ramblings....The Tragic Story of Beau
Some background: way back in the early '80s my grandparents were realing from the death of their Collie, Princess, who they had picked up as a stray wandering in their neighborhood. Not knowing any better (remember: early '80s) they went to a pet store in a mall and purchased a gorgeous purebread (and registered) sheltie that my mom named Beau, after a favorite soap opera character.
Beau was a nightmare.
He could not be housetrained. He snapped at me if I got too close. Everytime someone came to the door he jumped and barked.
My grandparents and parents could never train him to behave. And my dad has trained a Norwegian Elkhound (this one another stray they found), a breed notorious for being stubborn and strong-willed.
Later, my mom would tell me not to buy pet store dogs because they were "inbred."
Ever since I've always avoided pet store dogs and I somehow figured that most people knew to avoid these deplorable dogs as well. So it was quite a surprise to me in this age of consumer awareness and puppy-less retail chains, that puppy mills and pet store puppies continue to be a growing problem.
What amazes me is that with greater consumer awareness and outrages over defective products (like the pet food recalls) is that puppy purchasers continue to buy "inferior products" (again, let me reiterate my point from an earlier post that I do not consider animals as products, I am only repeating how the law in general views pets).
It seems like we can accept inferior dogs but not inferior dog food!
In fact, this weekend I overheard a discussion between two women. One had purchased a pet store poodle and was happy with her pet, despite her vet telling her it would need surgery for luxating patellas. The other lady had apparently tried to talk her out of purchasing a pet store puppy and expressed displeasure.
The poodle purchaser replied: "If pet store puppies have so many problems and come from such bad places, then how come the industry is still around. Why aren't there campaigns and complaints on the Internet?"
Granted, she may have been in denial but what she said intrigued me. Type "pet store puppies" or "puppy mills" in Google and you can pull up all sorts of links about the deplorable conditions of puppy mills and plenty of consumer complaints about problems with pet store puppies.
But then a person will only look for these if they are aware of the problem. I wonder if our years of campaigning to "adopt not buy" have somehow never reached a large segment of the population. Look at me, I thought everyone knew pet store puppies were poor pets and apparently, I was wrong.
Ultimately, we need to freshen our pro-adoption campaigns. Maybe our campaings are only reaching the people who would have adopted anyway. I think we need to spread the word about our individual rescues to more people. The next time you meet someone knew, in whatever setting, talk about what you do and encourage their next pet to be a rescue. Word-of-mouth can be a great way to encourage others to avoid pet stores.
As for Beau, my grandparents never considered dumping him at a shelter. But by the early '90s my grandfather had passed and my grandmother was in poor health. So my parents helped her find a nice lady who took Beau in. About two years later, we heard he had died.
I hope he found the peace that he could never have in life.
Beau was a nightmare.
He could not be housetrained. He snapped at me if I got too close. Everytime someone came to the door he jumped and barked.
My grandparents and parents could never train him to behave. And my dad has trained a Norwegian Elkhound (this one another stray they found), a breed notorious for being stubborn and strong-willed.
Later, my mom would tell me not to buy pet store dogs because they were "inbred."
Ever since I've always avoided pet store dogs and I somehow figured that most people knew to avoid these deplorable dogs as well. So it was quite a surprise to me in this age of consumer awareness and puppy-less retail chains, that puppy mills and pet store puppies continue to be a growing problem.
What amazes me is that with greater consumer awareness and outrages over defective products (like the pet food recalls) is that puppy purchasers continue to buy "inferior products" (again, let me reiterate my point from an earlier post that I do not consider animals as products, I am only repeating how the law in general views pets).
It seems like we can accept inferior dogs but not inferior dog food!
In fact, this weekend I overheard a discussion between two women. One had purchased a pet store poodle and was happy with her pet, despite her vet telling her it would need surgery for luxating patellas. The other lady had apparently tried to talk her out of purchasing a pet store puppy and expressed displeasure.
The poodle purchaser replied: "If pet store puppies have so many problems and come from such bad places, then how come the industry is still around. Why aren't there campaigns and complaints on the Internet?"
Granted, she may have been in denial but what she said intrigued me. Type "pet store puppies" or "puppy mills" in Google and you can pull up all sorts of links about the deplorable conditions of puppy mills and plenty of consumer complaints about problems with pet store puppies.
But then a person will only look for these if they are aware of the problem. I wonder if our years of campaigning to "adopt not buy" have somehow never reached a large segment of the population. Look at me, I thought everyone knew pet store puppies were poor pets and apparently, I was wrong.
Ultimately, we need to freshen our pro-adoption campaigns. Maybe our campaings are only reaching the people who would have adopted anyway. I think we need to spread the word about our individual rescues to more people. The next time you meet someone knew, in whatever setting, talk about what you do and encourage their next pet to be a rescue. Word-of-mouth can be a great way to encourage others to avoid pet stores.
As for Beau, my grandparents never considered dumping him at a shelter. But by the early '90s my grandfather had passed and my grandmother was in poor health. So my parents helped her find a nice lady who took Beau in. About two years later, we heard he had died.
I hope he found the peace that he could never have in life.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Creative Ads
Going back to being "sticky" as I discussed on August 19. I want to point out an ad I thought was original for the Washington Humane Society that appeared in the classifieds section of the Washington City Paper.
And here's another humorous one.
I like these ads because they are original, brief, and funny. They run every week in the City Paper, which comes out every Thursday. I would most certainly describe them as sticky.
Even though these ads are not for specific animals, I think we can learn from them. I'm not suggesting we blatantly copy them but rather make our Petfinder listings and other listings for specific animals more interesting, compelling, and eye-catching. Doing so can increase awareness amongst the general public. Here, an adopter in San Francisco responded to an ad because it sounded like a personal ad.
In fact, I'm seeing more listings take the personal ad approach, which may mean it's time to choose a different advertising style. What that it is I can't tell you. Maybe it's time to gather all your volunteers and come up with some creative ads. Especially for those big brown (or black) mutts that have so much trouble finding homes.
I have heard that some potential adopters can be put off by an ad that goes on and on about the suffering of an animal. I think that's possible and I would generally try to keep my ads positive. This being said, I think there are times when this can't be avoided, such as when it's a difficult to place or special needs animal. In this case, it pays to be upfront about an animal's condition and background to limit possible rejections.
I'll continue to link to some interesting and eye-catching ads as I stumble across them.
And here's another humorous one.
I like these ads because they are original, brief, and funny. They run every week in the City Paper, which comes out every Thursday. I would most certainly describe them as sticky.
Even though these ads are not for specific animals, I think we can learn from them. I'm not suggesting we blatantly copy them but rather make our Petfinder listings and other listings for specific animals more interesting, compelling, and eye-catching. Doing so can increase awareness amongst the general public. Here, an adopter in San Francisco responded to an ad because it sounded like a personal ad.
In fact, I'm seeing more listings take the personal ad approach, which may mean it's time to choose a different advertising style. What that it is I can't tell you. Maybe it's time to gather all your volunteers and come up with some creative ads. Especially for those big brown (or black) mutts that have so much trouble finding homes.
I have heard that some potential adopters can be put off by an ad that goes on and on about the suffering of an animal. I think that's possible and I would generally try to keep my ads positive. This being said, I think there are times when this can't be avoided, such as when it's a difficult to place or special needs animal. In this case, it pays to be upfront about an animal's condition and background to limit possible rejections.
I'll continue to link to some interesting and eye-catching ads as I stumble across them.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Turning Down Adopters...Nicely
Yesterday at work (my office is part of the customer service industry) we had a seminar on how to "agreeably disagree," or techniques for politely offering a differing opinion.
It got me thinking about how rescuers can politely turn down adopters, especially the ones who don't fit certain requirements, e.g. plan to declaw cats, keep a dog outside on a chain, and so forth. In these situations, if we say to the adopter why we are denying them the pet (and I know some rescuers who refuse to give a reason...more on this later) this is an opportunity for the potential adopter to lose face and become defensive.
"What do you mean, I have to spay/neuter my cat/dog/whatever?! It's not natural!" (And I'm sure we've all heard that one!)
And instead of "attacking" the adopter, a good response might be:
"We appreciate your interest in Rex and are pleased that you are looking to adopt your next pet from rescue. We think Rex would fit better in a home where he would not be left outside alone all day, per the policy of our organization. In fact, our organization believes that dogs live healthier lives and have better relationships with their owners when allowed to live inside the home. Dogs left chained outside can become aggressive as well...."
Notice that words like "but," "however," "yet," etc. were not used. These words are actually quite powerful and can make the other person involved in the discussion (or argument) more defensive. Also, I give reasons for denying the dog.
And yes, there will be times when you can't be Mr. (or Ms.) Nice Rescuer. You will always have those potential adopters who've set their sites on a certain animal and become angry and/or verbally abusive. Communications consultant Sam Horn says that no one should have to put up with any sort of abuse or bully. This is the point at which you simply walk away and warn other groups to stay away from the adopter.
(And I highly recommend reading her book "Tongue Fu". It's a nifty little guide on conflict resolution and dealing with difficult people.)
With this all being said, I am aware that many rescuers prefer not to give reasons for rejecting a potential adopter on the grounds that the adopter in question will simply lie on the next rescue application. I think this is a valid concern. At the same time, I personally like to educate people whenever possible and dealing with a potential adopter is a great opportunity for educating.
Who knows? Even if they walk away angry they can't have that dog, that may plant a spark that leads them to question the necessity of leaving a chained up dog outside. It could happen.
As for the possibility that an adopter may simply lie to the next group, this is where you make a few call to other rescues in your area and simply give a little forewarning, maybe even call the local shelters even.
(And if you do so, don't forget my points below regarding defamation and all that good legal stuff!)
It got me thinking about how rescuers can politely turn down adopters, especially the ones who don't fit certain requirements, e.g. plan to declaw cats, keep a dog outside on a chain, and so forth. In these situations, if we say to the adopter why we are denying them the pet (and I know some rescuers who refuse to give a reason...more on this later) this is an opportunity for the potential adopter to lose face and become defensive.
"What do you mean, I have to spay/neuter my cat/dog/whatever?! It's not natural!" (And I'm sure we've all heard that one!)
And instead of "attacking" the adopter, a good response might be:
"We appreciate your interest in Rex and are pleased that you are looking to adopt your next pet from rescue. We think Rex would fit better in a home where he would not be left outside alone all day, per the policy of our organization. In fact, our organization believes that dogs live healthier lives and have better relationships with their owners when allowed to live inside the home. Dogs left chained outside can become aggressive as well...."
Notice that words like "but," "however," "yet," etc. were not used. These words are actually quite powerful and can make the other person involved in the discussion (or argument) more defensive. Also, I give reasons for denying the dog.
And yes, there will be times when you can't be Mr. (or Ms.) Nice Rescuer. You will always have those potential adopters who've set their sites on a certain animal and become angry and/or verbally abusive. Communications consultant Sam Horn says that no one should have to put up with any sort of abuse or bully. This is the point at which you simply walk away and warn other groups to stay away from the adopter.
(And I highly recommend reading her book "Tongue Fu". It's a nifty little guide on conflict resolution and dealing with difficult people.)
With this all being said, I am aware that many rescuers prefer not to give reasons for rejecting a potential adopter on the grounds that the adopter in question will simply lie on the next rescue application. I think this is a valid concern. At the same time, I personally like to educate people whenever possible and dealing with a potential adopter is a great opportunity for educating.
Who knows? Even if they walk away angry they can't have that dog, that may plant a spark that leads them to question the necessity of leaving a chained up dog outside. It could happen.
As for the possibility that an adopter may simply lie to the next group, this is where you make a few call to other rescues in your area and simply give a little forewarning, maybe even call the local shelters even.
(And if you do so, don't forget my points below regarding defamation and all that good legal stuff!)
Defamation Explained
I realize that not everyone is familiar with defamation law (I'm not, outside of a class I took for one semester as an undergrad on free speech and ethics), so I think I should explain the basic terms in relation to the post below.
Defamation, as a legal term, (based on The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook, available on Amazon) covers both libel and slander. Libel refers to defamatory speech in a fixed medium, such as in writing, in an electronic broadcast, on the Internet, or in pictatorial form. Slander refers to defamatory speech in a less durable form such as speech or sign language.
A defamatory statement is any communication of a false claim that may bring harm to a living individual. Generally, name-calling (known as "rhetorical hyperbole" in lawyerspeak) is considered an opinion. Opinions by themselves are not libelous. If you post on your group's website that a potential adopter is a "jerk" (which I don't recommend at all!) that by itself is not libelous as this would be considered too vague to be defamation. But if you write that "potential adopter John Doe is a jerk because..." the statement may be libelous depending on what you say following "because."
For example, let's say your organization believes dogs should not be kept entirely outdoors and you learn a potential adopter keeps his dogs outside 24/7. If you then posted online that "potential adopter John Doe is a monster and animal abuser" this could be considered libelous speech. Even if you explain that it's because he keeps his dogs outside, the statement could still be considered defamatory. After all, the argument could be made in court that merely keeping dogs outside all the time does not necessarily constitute animal abuse.
(I personally disagree though I think it constitutes neglect as opposed to outright animal abuse, but then, in the words of my copyright professor referring to legal issues, "it depends.")
Also, be careful posting or publishing what are known as "red flag" statements. These are statements that accuse a person of committing a crime, acting immorally, committing professional malpractice, is financially irresponsible, and is involved with a disreputable organization.
Ultimately, it's a good idea to go over these issues with a good lawyer. In my opinion, every rescue, even an informal group of five friends, should have access to a lawyer. Even if your group is pressed for money, you can always look for an animal-loving attorney who can volunteer to help your group with legal questions and concerns.
In fact, I recommend running your adoption contract past a good attorney specializing in contract law.
And here's a list of attorneys specializing in animal-related law across the country.
Defamation, as a legal term, (based on The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook, available on Amazon) covers both libel and slander. Libel refers to defamatory speech in a fixed medium, such as in writing, in an electronic broadcast, on the Internet, or in pictatorial form. Slander refers to defamatory speech in a less durable form such as speech or sign language.
A defamatory statement is any communication of a false claim that may bring harm to a living individual. Generally, name-calling (known as "rhetorical hyperbole" in lawyerspeak) is considered an opinion. Opinions by themselves are not libelous. If you post on your group's website that a potential adopter is a "jerk" (which I don't recommend at all!) that by itself is not libelous as this would be considered too vague to be defamation. But if you write that "potential adopter John Doe is a jerk because..." the statement may be libelous depending on what you say following "because."
For example, let's say your organization believes dogs should not be kept entirely outdoors and you learn a potential adopter keeps his dogs outside 24/7. If you then posted online that "potential adopter John Doe is a monster and animal abuser" this could be considered libelous speech. Even if you explain that it's because he keeps his dogs outside, the statement could still be considered defamatory. After all, the argument could be made in court that merely keeping dogs outside all the time does not necessarily constitute animal abuse.
(I personally disagree though I think it constitutes neglect as opposed to outright animal abuse, but then, in the words of my copyright professor referring to legal issues, "it depends.")
Also, be careful posting or publishing what are known as "red flag" statements. These are statements that accuse a person of committing a crime, acting immorally, committing professional malpractice, is financially irresponsible, and is involved with a disreputable organization.
Ultimately, it's a good idea to go over these issues with a good lawyer. In my opinion, every rescue, even an informal group of five friends, should have access to a lawyer. Even if your group is pressed for money, you can always look for an animal-loving attorney who can volunteer to help your group with legal questions and concerns.
In fact, I recommend running your adoption contract past a good attorney specializing in contract law.
And here's a list of attorneys specializing in animal-related law across the country.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Do Not Adopt lists
Note: the following mainly applies only to animal shelters.
Here's an interesting post at ExpertLaw relating to a Do Not Adopt (DNA) list at an animal shelter. I'm a little suspicious about this individual's claim that he'd taken in an abused dog then decided to give it away to the shelter. Depending on how long the person had the dog (a few hours versus several months) I'd say this person certainly had other options instead of going to the shelter. And I'm not sure what to think about the poster's claims of poor treatment by the shelter workers.
Still, I think it's interesting that this individual is posting on a legal forum, specifically a forum dedicated to "defamation, slander & libel." Ever since I've heard about shelters and rescues maintaining DNA lists and sharing these with other entities, I've often wondered how long before we're faced with a deluge of defamation suits from angry adopters.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for shelters and rescues keeping a list of known animal abusers and hoarders as well as sharing information about potential adoptees who've lied on their applications. I just think the animal rescue community needs to keep this in mind when sharing or posting DNA information. Even if a shelter or group fights off a defamation suit that's money going to lawyers' fees and not animals.
In fact, I'm glad Petfinder specifically prohibits DNA posts on their message board. After all, posting any DNA information online leaves a trail that can be used in court. And don't even think that you're ever truly anonymous on the Internet.
And shelters (and rescues) should be responsible with their DNA lists. In my personal opinion, a person should only go on these lists if they are known animal abusers, have knowingly lied to a rescue or shelter, and have been forbidden by the courts from owning animals. I would also like to see animal shelters institute an appeals process regarding the DNA list.
And I certainly find nothing wrong with how many rescues I know handle similar situations: a quick call to the rescue down the road to let them know that an adopter lied on their application and to be aware if they come trying to adopt from other groups.
Just be prudent with DNA information, is all I'm asking.
And I think Pet-Abuse.com is a great resource for anyone involved in animal adoption. This site uses primarily news reports and court documents. And the site's name search focuses only on convicted animal abusers.
Here's an interesting post at ExpertLaw relating to a Do Not Adopt (DNA) list at an animal shelter. I'm a little suspicious about this individual's claim that he'd taken in an abused dog then decided to give it away to the shelter. Depending on how long the person had the dog (a few hours versus several months) I'd say this person certainly had other options instead of going to the shelter. And I'm not sure what to think about the poster's claims of poor treatment by the shelter workers.
Still, I think it's interesting that this individual is posting on a legal forum, specifically a forum dedicated to "defamation, slander & libel." Ever since I've heard about shelters and rescues maintaining DNA lists and sharing these with other entities, I've often wondered how long before we're faced with a deluge of defamation suits from angry adopters.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for shelters and rescues keeping a list of known animal abusers and hoarders as well as sharing information about potential adoptees who've lied on their applications. I just think the animal rescue community needs to keep this in mind when sharing or posting DNA information. Even if a shelter or group fights off a defamation suit that's money going to lawyers' fees and not animals.
In fact, I'm glad Petfinder specifically prohibits DNA posts on their message board. After all, posting any DNA information online leaves a trail that can be used in court. And don't even think that you're ever truly anonymous on the Internet.
And shelters (and rescues) should be responsible with their DNA lists. In my personal opinion, a person should only go on these lists if they are known animal abusers, have knowingly lied to a rescue or shelter, and have been forbidden by the courts from owning animals. I would also like to see animal shelters institute an appeals process regarding the DNA list.
And I certainly find nothing wrong with how many rescues I know handle similar situations: a quick call to the rescue down the road to let them know that an adopter lied on their application and to be aware if they come trying to adopt from other groups.
Just be prudent with DNA information, is all I'm asking.
And I think Pet-Abuse.com is a great resource for anyone involved in animal adoption. This site uses primarily news reports and court documents. And the site's name search focuses only on convicted animal abusers.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The Psychology of Petfinder
Don't get me wrong. I think Petfinder has been a boon to the animal rescue community. I think it's an excellent resource for getting folks to adopt rather than buy a pet, particularly those dead set on a specific breed of animal.
I have heard, however, the complaint shared by many in the rescue community that some prospective adopters can become so enamored with pictures and listings for certain animals that they then become disappointed when they are rejected for the pet and/or told the animal has been adopted to someone else. "It's as if they thought they were shopping for an animal," I've heard.
Well, it is rather similar.
Even though I'm nowhere ready to adopt a dog, I will occasionally peruse the listings for specific breeds in my area that I'm interested in. Just to see how common these breeds are in shelters and rescues. And, I'll tell you, from a psychological perspective, looking at all the pet listings does feel as though I am shopping online.
I know. I know. There are rather distinct differences. Instead of plunking down my credit card information and ordering the pet I want, I have to contact the group directly. And I am aware that any money going toward a Petfinder pet is for adoption fees. And I do not consider pets to be commodities like shoes and handbags.
But I think that, psychologically, looking at the Petfinder listings resembles the online shopping process a lot. So I can understand why a lot of regular folk, who are used to shopping through eBay and Amazon can feel befuddled by the Petfinder process.
So what can rescue groups do about this "Petfinder effect"?
I think it boils down to understanding this psychological mindset and reminding all prospective adopters that of the thousands of pets in shelters and rescue, only a fraction appear on Petfinder, as well as referring responsible adopters to other groups if they do not qualify for a pet from your group.
Also, continue to encourage interested applicants to check the local shelters. Yes, even little fluffy lapdogs wind up in the area kill-shelter.
Petfinder is great but it doesn't beat a visit to the local shelter!
I have heard, however, the complaint shared by many in the rescue community that some prospective adopters can become so enamored with pictures and listings for certain animals that they then become disappointed when they are rejected for the pet and/or told the animal has been adopted to someone else. "It's as if they thought they were shopping for an animal," I've heard.
Well, it is rather similar.
Even though I'm nowhere ready to adopt a dog, I will occasionally peruse the listings for specific breeds in my area that I'm interested in. Just to see how common these breeds are in shelters and rescues. And, I'll tell you, from a psychological perspective, looking at all the pet listings does feel as though I am shopping online.
I know. I know. There are rather distinct differences. Instead of plunking down my credit card information and ordering the pet I want, I have to contact the group directly. And I am aware that any money going toward a Petfinder pet is for adoption fees. And I do not consider pets to be commodities like shoes and handbags.
But I think that, psychologically, looking at the Petfinder listings resembles the online shopping process a lot. So I can understand why a lot of regular folk, who are used to shopping through eBay and Amazon can feel befuddled by the Petfinder process.
So what can rescue groups do about this "Petfinder effect"?
I think it boils down to understanding this psychological mindset and reminding all prospective adopters that of the thousands of pets in shelters and rescue, only a fraction appear on Petfinder, as well as referring responsible adopters to other groups if they do not qualify for a pet from your group.
Also, continue to encourage interested applicants to check the local shelters. Yes, even little fluffy lapdogs wind up in the area kill-shelter.
Petfinder is great but it doesn't beat a visit to the local shelter!
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
How Available Is Your Rescue Group?
I presume that most of us involved in rescue are in it for the love of the specific animals we rescue, right?
(This is where all of us shake our heads "Yes.")
And we've all had our share of experiences where we deny an animal to a very insistent adopter. In fact, let's pretend we're in charge of adoption placements for Teensy Tiney Toy Dog Rescue (no dig at small dogs; I actually happen to like them and feel they've gotten a bad rap), and we're dealing with a Paris Hilton wannabe whose insistent on a Chihuahua despite having three kids under the age of five.
Now Chihuahuas are not recommended for families with young children. So your organization's policy is to deny adoptions to families with children under the age of seven. This way, ideally, one less Chihuahua will wind up in the local shelter for snapping at 'lil Jimmie.
So what happens when our little Paris wannabe simply buys one from a "breeder" listed in the newspaper? Well, wouldn't you know it, Pancho starts snapping at 'lil Jimmie. And naturally, instead of calling up your organization to learn about proper Chihuahua training, she drops Pancho off at the local shelter.
Does it have to be this way?
The sad reality is that thanks to pet stores and unscrupulous breeders pets can be pretty easy to come by. So even when we deny adopters for a good reason, they can still find what they want, animal-wise. And, unfortunately, the pet stores and bad breeders won't be there to help them for the inevitable problems arising from poorly bred and trained dogs.
This is where we can come in. I know of one rescue organization that supplies general information about the breeds it adopts to all potential adopters. This way even if they are denied and acquire the animal somewhere else they have basic information about caring for that particular pet.
To me this makes a lot of sense. Another option would be to give your contact information to a denied adopter. Going back to our theoretical situation with the Paris wannabe, by giving her our contact information she could come to us for advice about how to train her children and Pancho on living harmoniously together. Or if things are really bad, we could step in and rescue Pancho.
Now this doesn't have to apply for every adopter. If it's an adopter with a history of animal abuse or becomes verbally abusive after being denied a pet, no rescue should ever feel obligated to reach out as I described above.
It's just that sometimes it's not our animals that are our biggest problems, it's working with the human species where we run into the most trouble...
(This is where all of us shake our heads "Yes.")
And we've all had our share of experiences where we deny an animal to a very insistent adopter. In fact, let's pretend we're in charge of adoption placements for Teensy Tiney Toy Dog Rescue (no dig at small dogs; I actually happen to like them and feel they've gotten a bad rap), and we're dealing with a Paris Hilton wannabe whose insistent on a Chihuahua despite having three kids under the age of five.
Now Chihuahuas are not recommended for families with young children. So your organization's policy is to deny adoptions to families with children under the age of seven. This way, ideally, one less Chihuahua will wind up in the local shelter for snapping at 'lil Jimmie.
So what happens when our little Paris wannabe simply buys one from a "breeder" listed in the newspaper? Well, wouldn't you know it, Pancho starts snapping at 'lil Jimmie. And naturally, instead of calling up your organization to learn about proper Chihuahua training, she drops Pancho off at the local shelter.
Does it have to be this way?
The sad reality is that thanks to pet stores and unscrupulous breeders pets can be pretty easy to come by. So even when we deny adopters for a good reason, they can still find what they want, animal-wise. And, unfortunately, the pet stores and bad breeders won't be there to help them for the inevitable problems arising from poorly bred and trained dogs.
This is where we can come in. I know of one rescue organization that supplies general information about the breeds it adopts to all potential adopters. This way even if they are denied and acquire the animal somewhere else they have basic information about caring for that particular pet.
To me this makes a lot of sense. Another option would be to give your contact information to a denied adopter. Going back to our theoretical situation with the Paris wannabe, by giving her our contact information she could come to us for advice about how to train her children and Pancho on living harmoniously together. Or if things are really bad, we could step in and rescue Pancho.
Now this doesn't have to apply for every adopter. If it's an adopter with a history of animal abuse or becomes verbally abusive after being denied a pet, no rescue should ever feel obligated to reach out as I described above.
It's just that sometimes it's not our animals that are our biggest problems, it's working with the human species where we run into the most trouble...
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Michael Vick and the Link
So far I've tried to avoid saying anything about the Michael Vick dogfighting issue. I'm not sure I can add too much to public discourse about him and the problem of dogfighting in general. I am glad, however, that he will be facing a judge tomorrow and hope he receives the maximum sentence possible.
I really wasn't going to comment too much on Vick. Then, this morning I read an editorial at Women's eNews with the rather bold title "Beat a Woman? Play On; Beat a Dog? You're Gone." In this editorial, WeNews Commentator Sandra Kobrin agrees that Vick is guilty but wonders why more outrage isn't directed toward athletes abusing their wives and girlfriends.
My initial response? Yes, more athletes should be taken off the field for committing acts of violence toward others, especially women. Some of the cases involving athletes continue to shock me. Rae Carruth comes to mind. But I'm going to hazard a very educated guess that the majority of athletes committing these acts of violence have also abused animals, if not currently, then as children. American Humane has an entire section of their website devoted to the link between domestic violence and animal abuse.
In my personal experience I've met members of the public who think animal lovers don't care at all for the well-being of humans. Granted, there may be a few who feel that way, but I think these individuals may be the minority.
Now for the PR aspect. (bet you didn't think I was going to bring to the topic of this blog!)
I'm sure that as members of the rescue community we've all had our share of cases that involved an individual abusing people as well as animals. Maybe the next time when someone says "But it's just a dog!" we can talk about these situations and educate others on the link between animal cruelty and acts of violence toward people. I wish more organizations, rescue groups, and other members of the animal community would raise this issue with regard to the Vick case.
It's just a dog. But tomorrow it might be a child or a spouse.
I really wasn't going to comment too much on Vick. Then, this morning I read an editorial at Women's eNews with the rather bold title "Beat a Woman? Play On; Beat a Dog? You're Gone." In this editorial, WeNews Commentator Sandra Kobrin agrees that Vick is guilty but wonders why more outrage isn't directed toward athletes abusing their wives and girlfriends.
My initial response? Yes, more athletes should be taken off the field for committing acts of violence toward others, especially women. Some of the cases involving athletes continue to shock me. Rae Carruth comes to mind. But I'm going to hazard a very educated guess that the majority of athletes committing these acts of violence have also abused animals, if not currently, then as children. American Humane has an entire section of their website devoted to the link between domestic violence and animal abuse.
In my personal experience I've met members of the public who think animal lovers don't care at all for the well-being of humans. Granted, there may be a few who feel that way, but I think these individuals may be the minority.
Now for the PR aspect. (bet you didn't think I was going to bring to the topic of this blog!)
I'm sure that as members of the rescue community we've all had our share of cases that involved an individual abusing people as well as animals. Maybe the next time when someone says "But it's just a dog!" we can talk about these situations and educate others on the link between animal cruelty and acts of violence toward people. I wish more organizations, rescue groups, and other members of the animal community would raise this issue with regard to the Vick case.
It's just a dog. But tomorrow it might be a child or a spouse.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Navigating Your Local Newspaper
So, you've written a press release for your group's fundraising event and you're ready to send it off. But wait! Do you know how to get it through to your local newspaper, as well as read. I've worked for a national news organization as an intern and as a copy editor for a community paper; a lot of press releases go unread and wind up in the circular file. If you're lucky, your event is buried in that week's listing of special events in the area.
How do you make certain your press release is read by the right people? For starters, make sure it reaches the right editor or reporter. You do NOT want to send your release to the editor in chief; he or she will be too busy overseeing that week's news cycle to care about your press release. Unless your event is somehow sports related, you don't want it to wind up on the desk of the sports editor. Again, it will most likely wind up in the circular file.
So, what to do?
Research the staff at your local paper. Find out who the appropriate editor is for your release. Look at their website. You might also ask the PR person at your local shelter who they send their releases to (although, it's possible their press releases are going to the wrong people as well).
And don't simply pick a name and e-mail from the paper's website. It's quite common for reporters to leave or switch beats before the contact list is updated. Call your local paper and speak with the receptionist. Tell them who your organization is, who you are and what your release is about. More than likely they'll be able to point you in the right direction. And they may even get you in contact with a specific reporter or editor. If you're really lucky they may even know someone on the staff who loves animals or even works in rescue.
While technology has given us many advances, I think it's too easy to simply shoot off an e-mail without actually speaking to a human being. The action of contacting your local paper by phone will speak volumes about your organization.
Once your release is in the right hands, stay in contact with the reporter. Always respond as soon as humanly possible to any questions; reporters often have tight deadlines.
And keep in touch with your contacts even after the press release is run. You want to maintain a positive relationship with the newspaper. After all, it's free publicity and sometimes we in the rescue community need all the free help we can get!
How do you make certain your press release is read by the right people? For starters, make sure it reaches the right editor or reporter. You do NOT want to send your release to the editor in chief; he or she will be too busy overseeing that week's news cycle to care about your press release. Unless your event is somehow sports related, you don't want it to wind up on the desk of the sports editor. Again, it will most likely wind up in the circular file.
So, what to do?
Research the staff at your local paper. Find out who the appropriate editor is for your release. Look at their website. You might also ask the PR person at your local shelter who they send their releases to (although, it's possible their press releases are going to the wrong people as well).
And don't simply pick a name and e-mail from the paper's website. It's quite common for reporters to leave or switch beats before the contact list is updated. Call your local paper and speak with the receptionist. Tell them who your organization is, who you are and what your release is about. More than likely they'll be able to point you in the right direction. And they may even get you in contact with a specific reporter or editor. If you're really lucky they may even know someone on the staff who loves animals or even works in rescue.
While technology has given us many advances, I think it's too easy to simply shoot off an e-mail without actually speaking to a human being. The action of contacting your local paper by phone will speak volumes about your organization.
Once your release is in the right hands, stay in contact with the reporter. Always respond as soon as humanly possible to any questions; reporters often have tight deadlines.
And keep in touch with your contacts even after the press release is run. You want to maintain a positive relationship with the newspaper. After all, it's free publicity and sometimes we in the rescue community need all the free help we can get!
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Labradoodles, Puggles, Cockapoos...Oh My!
I recently finished reading Malcolm Gladwell's 2000 book, The Tipping Point for a marketing class. If you're involved with animal rescue, I highly recommend this book. Even if you have to borrow it from the library and share it between everyone in your group, read it. Gladwell basically shows how little things can set off great trends. Take the popularity of Airwalk shoes in the 1990s: by tapping into a narrow market of teenage individualists, the brand soared beyond that one market.
But one point, that I feel has had the most impact on rescue, is what Gladwell refers to as the "Stickiness Factor."
Stickiness refers to the content in a message. In order for something to become a trend it must have a sticky message. "Where's the Beef?" is an example of a sticky message. As are the recently coined portmanteaus Labradoodles, Puggles, Cockapoos...the bane of rescues everywhere.
Think about it. We keep warning people of the dangers of throwing two different types of dog together for breeding. We continue to shake our heads at Hollywood starlets shelling out thousands of dollars for mixed breed pups. We continue to see mixed breeds languishing in our shelters. And yet people continue to buy so-called cross-breeds.
I hate to admit it but I admire whoever came up with the concept of using these cutesy portmanteaus. Which sounds better a "Lab-poodle mix" or "Labradoodle?" "Labradoodle" is sticky.
So these terms are sticky, now what? Well it's time to use stickiness to our advantage. I know a lot of shelters and rescues are hesitent about using terms like Labradoodle for fear of continuing the trend. Now, I personally think we can come up with better names. That Australian Shepherd you're fostering that's got a bit of retriever and rottweiler in her background could be referred to as an "Aussie Rottriever." Whatever. Just think stickiness and have fun with it.
Also, stickiness doesn't just mean creating cutesy names for mixed breed dogs. A shelter worker in Georgia created "papers" for the mixed breeds in her facility, listing their histories. For the histories, she found an opportunity to educate the public on spaying and neutering. Animal Sheltering magazine covered this campaign in 2005.
I would like to see more stickiness in the rescue community. For too long I've seen the same tiring campaigns. I propose that at the next group meeting for your rescue that everyone sit around, eating home-baked cookies, and create sticky campaigns for your group.
Nothing you come up with should be elaborate but you never know, you might just develop a national trend.
P.S. Gladwell wrote a very enlightening article in the New Yorker on breed-specific legislation, comparing it to racial profiling.
But one point, that I feel has had the most impact on rescue, is what Gladwell refers to as the "Stickiness Factor."
Stickiness refers to the content in a message. In order for something to become a trend it must have a sticky message. "Where's the Beef?" is an example of a sticky message. As are the recently coined portmanteaus Labradoodles, Puggles, Cockapoos...the bane of rescues everywhere.
Think about it. We keep warning people of the dangers of throwing two different types of dog together for breeding. We continue to shake our heads at Hollywood starlets shelling out thousands of dollars for mixed breed pups. We continue to see mixed breeds languishing in our shelters. And yet people continue to buy so-called cross-breeds.
I hate to admit it but I admire whoever came up with the concept of using these cutesy portmanteaus. Which sounds better a "Lab-poodle mix" or "Labradoodle?" "Labradoodle" is sticky.
So these terms are sticky, now what? Well it's time to use stickiness to our advantage. I know a lot of shelters and rescues are hesitent about using terms like Labradoodle for fear of continuing the trend. Now, I personally think we can come up with better names. That Australian Shepherd you're fostering that's got a bit of retriever and rottweiler in her background could be referred to as an "Aussie Rottriever." Whatever. Just think stickiness and have fun with it.
Also, stickiness doesn't just mean creating cutesy names for mixed breed dogs. A shelter worker in Georgia created "papers" for the mixed breeds in her facility, listing their histories. For the histories, she found an opportunity to educate the public on spaying and neutering. Animal Sheltering magazine covered this campaign in 2005.
I would like to see more stickiness in the rescue community. For too long I've seen the same tiring campaigns. I propose that at the next group meeting for your rescue that everyone sit around, eating home-baked cookies, and create sticky campaigns for your group.
Nothing you come up with should be elaborate but you never know, you might just develop a national trend.
P.S. Gladwell wrote a very enlightening article in the New Yorker on breed-specific legislation, comparing it to racial profiling.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Welcome to PR for Animals
So, why "PR for Animals?" After all, millions of shelters and animal rescue groups all have the best interests of animals in mind. Or do they?
Yes, they do. Before I write anything else, let me be clear that there are many volunteers and severerly underpaid workers who are committed to helping animals in need. My goal is not to undermine their efforts. I intend to use this blog as a forum for providing tips and effective public relations techniques for animal rescue volunteers, and to some extent, shelter workers and volunteers.
Why rescue groups? Well, rescue groups are staffed entirely by volunteers who more than likely do not have the resources to take public relations classes. And why should they, you may be asking.
Effective public relations equals more animals in loving homes. It's that simple. PR is a way to get the word out about your rescue group. It's also having an effective media relations strategy when things go wrong. What if that potential adopter you denied last week (you know the one who lets all of her cats outside and keeps the family dog chained in the backyard) calls the editor of your local newspaper complaining that "it's easier to adopt a child" than a dog from your organization? Do you know how you would respond?
In an ideal world this will never happen. Through my posts, however, you will learn how to navigate your local newspaper and see your press release (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) in print. I may even offer advice that leads you to change your rescue group's practices. Ultimately, I hope this blog provides a way for the rescue community (and other animal advocates) to discuss ways to interact with the media and to get the word out about adopting through rescue.
What is this blog not?
This blog is not a forum about veganism, vegetarianism, animal testing, etc. While I have close friends that are vegetarian, I choose to eat meat (albeit rarely) and I want this blog to focus primarily on animal rescue groups who work to save homeless pets and dogs and to spread the word to "adopt not buy" (except from an extremely well-researched and reputable breeder).
Nor is this blog intended to bash specific groups. If I hear about a rescue group in the news, I may respectfully comment on their practices but I generally try to leave a little benefit of doubt as I believe that at heart we are all good people. So, let's be respectful, commentators...
Now, let the blogging begin!
Yes, they do. Before I write anything else, let me be clear that there are many volunteers and severerly underpaid workers who are committed to helping animals in need. My goal is not to undermine their efforts. I intend to use this blog as a forum for providing tips and effective public relations techniques for animal rescue volunteers, and to some extent, shelter workers and volunteers.
Why rescue groups? Well, rescue groups are staffed entirely by volunteers who more than likely do not have the resources to take public relations classes. And why should they, you may be asking.
Effective public relations equals more animals in loving homes. It's that simple. PR is a way to get the word out about your rescue group. It's also having an effective media relations strategy when things go wrong. What if that potential adopter you denied last week (you know the one who lets all of her cats outside and keeps the family dog chained in the backyard) calls the editor of your local newspaper complaining that "it's easier to adopt a child" than a dog from your organization? Do you know how you would respond?
In an ideal world this will never happen. Through my posts, however, you will learn how to navigate your local newspaper and see your press release (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) in print. I may even offer advice that leads you to change your rescue group's practices. Ultimately, I hope this blog provides a way for the rescue community (and other animal advocates) to discuss ways to interact with the media and to get the word out about adopting through rescue.
What is this blog not?
This blog is not a forum about veganism, vegetarianism, animal testing, etc. While I have close friends that are vegetarian, I choose to eat meat (albeit rarely) and I want this blog to focus primarily on animal rescue groups who work to save homeless pets and dogs and to spread the word to "adopt not buy" (except from an extremely well-researched and reputable breeder).
Nor is this blog intended to bash specific groups. If I hear about a rescue group in the news, I may respectfully comment on their practices but I generally try to leave a little benefit of doubt as I believe that at heart we are all good people. So, let's be respectful, commentators...
Now, let the blogging begin!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)