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.
Friday, September 21, 2007
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)