No more homeless pets and other exercises in messaging
By Christie Keith
October 22, 2009
I’m off to Best Friends’ “No More Homeless Pets” conference this weekend — tragically being held in Las Vegas. Why are so many animal welfare organizations holding their events in Las Vegas these days? (I actually know the answer — it’s cheap. I was just whining.)
Best Friends is the no-kill group that virtually never utters that phrase. Don’t get me wrong, though, I love “no more homeless pets.” It’s great messaging, and if you’re now thinking I’m a little on the word-obsessed side, well, yes. I am.
That’s why I’m also head over heels in love with the Oregon Humane Society’s campaign to “end petlessness.” (Click to view image in full size.)
I commented on their Facebook page how much I admired them for coming up with that one, and they said it had been developed for them by ad agency Leopold Ketel & Partners. Talk about turning the usual messaging upside down!
I’ll definitely check in from the conference this weekend. I might try liveblogging, if I can hook up to the Interwebz… it’s always iffy. And if you’ll be there, shout out in the comments!
But what’s their attitude towards potential adopters when they come in? Their website has a discouraging amount of information to go through, much of which could be presented more positively and usefully in person than online. They say they have a scaled fee structure, but don’t give any information about where the fees start. They discourage people with children under six from getting pets—my sister was six months when we got our first dog (and I was ten years.) With small children in the house, you need to think about what’s the right pet, for sure—and if you have four under the age of five, you may not have time for a pet quite yet, but OHS just discourages people with kids under six from getting pets at all.
Maybe for the person who comes in the door or calls on the phone, they’re warm, encouraging, and helpful. But if that’s the case, they may want to ask the same ad agency that came up with “End Petlessness” to work over the messaging on their website.
Comment by Lis — October 22, 2009 @ 6:30 am
But if that’s the case, they may want to ask the same ad agency that came up with “End Petlessness” to work over the messaging on their website.
Comment by Lis — October 22, 2009
I would bet they’re aware of this. I can tell you from my “day job” work that getting consistent messaging across all media platforms is a real challenge. Even more so for small non-profits!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 22, 2009 @ 6:49 am
Oh, and by the way … you have NO IDEA how much Christie hates Las Vegas. Her hatred of the place even tops her hatred for non-fashionable footwear. (Although, seriously, Christie, if you wore Crocs in Vegas you’d fit in and be more comfortable. Just sayin’ … LOL!)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 22, 2009 @ 6:51 am
Gina…Technically, Crocs are fashionable in that they are popular, but that does not make them attractive! :)
Love that “End Petlessness” slogan.
Comment by Katie Bruesewitz — October 22, 2009 @ 10:21 am
I loved their ad campaign ever since I saw one of their commercials on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSo5eApMYZ4
Too cute!
Comment by Pai — October 22, 2009 @ 11:21 am
I agree it’s a great ad. I’m a wee bit far from Oregon to know much about the rest of their operations, so I’ll take your word on that. Pity.
Comment by Susan — October 22, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
Lis, I see your point - I grew up with a dog, too - but I also understand why shelters and rescues today are so much more nervous about adopting to families with small kids. Parents today aren’t like our parents were. If our psychotic fox terrier bit me, my parents asked me what I did to the DOG. (Answer: nothing. He was a biter.) Today, if widdle Johnnie whacks the dog with a 2 x 4 every 15 minutes and eventually the dog loses its patience and snaps or growls, blammo, the dog is back to the shelter with a report of being aggressive, or worse, put down by the owner.
One of the positive things I can say about my dad is that he probably would have re-homed one of us before killing the dog. If nothing else, he taught me to love and respect animals.
Comment by Susan — October 22, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
There’s the unfortunate side to the “ending petlessness” slogan, and that is adopting pets out to families that should not have them. It’s easy for that phrase to sound virtuous until you work for a facility that sees the endless strays and dumped animals from shelter adoptions gone wrong (microchips and tags tell that tale). Not every family should have a dog or a cat and that’s OK.
Comment by B. Badger — November 6, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
B. Bagder, that’s a very different story than I hear from shelter directors all over the country. They still screen, but in a friendly, positive way, designed to make people feel like they’re having a good experience instead of undergoing the Spanish inquisition.
And wonder of wonders, their bounceback rates have either stayed flat or gone up only a tiny fraction of their new, increased adoption rate.
Which saves animal lives, and does not result in animals in bad homes or bouncing back to shelters. What results in high bounce backs and bad placements is BAD ADOPTION POLICIES, not aggressive adoption programs. The fear of seeing “endless strays and dumped animals” is an excuse made by crappy shelters that don’t want to change, or shelters that don’t know how to do effective adoption matchmaking in the first place.
The key to ending pet homelessness is doing a good job at sheltering and rehoming animals. And that means being fast, being high volume, and being good. A challenge for sure, but one shelters all over America, in all kinds of communities, are meeting.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 6, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
“What results in high bounce backs and bad placements is BAD ADOPTION POLICIES, not aggressive adoption programs. The fear of seeing “endless strays and dumped animals” is an excuse made by crappy shelters that don’t want to change, or shelters that don’t know how to do effective adoption matchmaking in the first place.”
I’m not debating this part, but rather the rate of pets from OHS’s aggressive adoption policies ending up as strays in other county shelters when people don’t return them to OHS. Alternately, you also get people encouraging others to NOT adopt from OHS when they have a bad experience with animals that should not have been adopted out. I love OHS, don’t get me wrong, but the slogan is misfired marketing. Also, how does one deal with the numerous pets that OHS refuses? The less adoptable ones? Right now, the county shelters take what OHS won’t. Limited intake means lower kill numbers too.
Comment by B. Badger — November 24, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
how does one deal with the numerous pets that OHS refuses? The less adoptable ones? Right now, the county shelters take what OHS won’t. Limited intake means lower kill numbers too.
Comment by B. Badger — November 24, 2009
Which is why, once again, the no kill movement is about collaborative, community-wide efforts, not individual shelters.
No kill isn’t about “limited intake” shelters. That’s the PETA lie, and the PETA excuse why the “solution” is kill kill kill.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 24, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
“No kill isn’t about “limited intake” shelters. That’s the PETA lie, and the PETA excuse why the “solution” is kill kill kill.”
Do you have any examples of no kill shelters with completely open intake? I don’t pay attention to PETA, so my statement is based off of what is available where I live. We have no kill groups in/near Portland, Oregon. For instance, Cat Adoption Team of Sherwood, but they are certainly not open to everyone who needs to rehome their cat. OHS is low kill and limited intake. A complete overhaul of shelters is definitely needed. In the mean time, where should we funnel all these less adoptable animals?
Comment by B. Badger — November 24, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
The Berkeley CA community achieved no kill status in 2002. http://www.maddiesfund.org/Doc.....cation.pdf
Comment by LauraS — November 24, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
But the catch is, you can’t solve your community’s problem by “funnel[ing] all these less adoptable animals” elsewhere. You have to solve it at home, in your own community.
Another place to look at is Calgary.
Comment by Lis — November 24, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
“B. Badger,” you completely missed the point: It’s not about what a single shelter does. It’s about what all stakeholders (public, private shelters, small rescuer groups, etc.) and animal lovers do as a community that is what no kill is about. And THAT’S what gets homes for those pets.
Read up: Go to Maddie’s Fund site, pick up a copy of “Redemption” and open your mind. For a person who’s trying to get into vet school, you seem to believe you already “know it all.” Not a great characteristic. You know the saying: “Minds are like parachutes. They only work when they’re open.”
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 24, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Tompkins County, New York has been no kill since 2000 — not just one shelter, the whole county.
Charlottseville and Albermarle County, VA. Not single shelters — the city and county respectively.
The city of Berkeley in California. Not a single shelter, the whole city.
Washoe County, NV, is almost there — saving 90+ percent of dogs and 88 percent of cats, in the face of some of the worst economic and foreclosure stats in the country. Again, not a single shelter in Washoe County, but the whole county.
No-kill is not about a single shelter’s policies. It’s about coalitions of animal control agencies, shelters, rescue groups, veterinarians, politicians and animal lovers in communities coming together to find a new way of handling that community’s homeless pets. And while some shelters and rescue groups in those coalitions are not “open door” facilities, every one of those communities has open door facilities as part of the successful system.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 24, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
Tompkins County has been No Kill since mid-2001, not 2000.
Comment by Valerie — November 25, 2009 @ 1:09 am
Gina, I absolutely acknowledged that a complete overhaul of our shelter/system is needed and that takes time, so clearly I’m open to that. Your need to hurl an backhanded insult is unfair and not needed when I’m trying to ask questions about what to do and examples of how various communities work. I know that’s your style when replying to comments, but I’m glad I’m not easily dissuaded from trying to work on a solution for my community by someone who wants to play the negative counterpoint. This attitude seems common in the community when you get those who are passionate about a cause, unfortunately, its hard to work them or learn from them. Currently, OHS *isn’t* working with the Portland community shelters, resuces, etc. as a whole and shelters are trying to stay afloat on their own. I’d love to help bridge those gaps but that takes TIME. Be my resource rather than my critic: what groups are you aware of in the Portland area who are trying to bridge that gap?
Comment by B. Badger — November 27, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
B. Badger, the TCSPCA is both No Kill and open admission, and has been since 2001. Their website is at
http://www.spcaonline.com/
The process by which the TCSPCA went from high-kill to No Kill is outlined in Redemption.
Comment by Valerie — November 27, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Dear “B. Badger,” Teh Googles are not your friend.
Suggestion: You not refer to an actual veterinarian — which you are not — as a “whore” elsewhere and make medical recommendations you are not in the least qualified to give. And follow that by showing up on that veterinarian’s Web site.
You have now been provided information on another subject about which you are misinformed. You can use it to correct your understanding of what “no kill” is about — and again, it’s NOT about what that single organization is doing.
What you do with that information is up to you.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 27, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
I didn’t even need “Teh Googles”. I just clicked on the link in his name.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 27, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
B. Badger. Opinions. He haz ‘em. Actual knowledge? Not much. The following is a content-free statement with no basis in reality. It reminds of me an old saying, “All Indians walk single-file, at least the one I saw did.”
“I know the world doesn’t need more kittens. I really do know this and acknowledge it every time we have to euthanize part or a whole litter because of URIs or various medical issues….. The truth? Too many pets are euthanized. There aren’t enough good homes that won’t return them to the shelter as soon as they tire of the cat.”
Comment by Susan Fox — November 28, 2009 @ 9:00 am