Blue: from other sources
A year after closing the McDonald’s campaign, PETA started to target KFC (part of YUM brands) since KFC was behind its competition in protecting animal welfare. KFC made initial efforts to comply without providing specifics of how compliance is achieved, but it was not enough for PETA to give up its commitment towards animal welfare at KFC. Eventually, PETA launched a campaign called Kentucky Fried Cruelty.
Study Questions for “PETA's 'Kentucky Fried Cruelty, Inc.' Campaign” 1a. How important is the issue of farm animal abuse?
* Issue is very important to PETA.
* Farm animal treatment may affect the bottom line (quality control, cost of additional processes) for KFC as well as its suppliers. * Farm animal abuse speaks to people’s emotions
1b. How important is this issue to you?
* I generally don’t think about this issue unless presented with information that is very compelling. 1c. How important do you think the issue is to most Americans? * Most Americans don’t think about where their food comes from unless directly confronted. As with most issues, there is a tension between the emotional issue of animal abuse and the impact to their wallets. * Californians may care more than most Americans (e.g Passed Prop 2 in 2008. The law requires all eggs sold in the state as of Jan. 1, 2015, to come from hens able to stand up, fully extend their limbs, lie down and fully extend their wings without touching each other or the sides of cages.) 2a. Were PETA’s demands excessive?
(and to be included in progress reports in a timely fashion) Rather than being vague in terms of animal welfare, PETA provided exact demands for chicken welfare based on scientific studies done by poultry experts at various universities. In the letter to Novak the CEO of Tricon Global Restaurants, PETA mentioned that it is not expecting KFC to make monumental changes overnight but simply asking for a pledge that it will make the changes.
Thus even though the list of demands appear excessive, in reality it was PETA’s vision and hence should not be understood as excessive.
2b. What were the most important and effective of the tactics that PETA used against KFC? * Most effective: Concerted effort around “Kentucky fried cruelty.” Videos were posted (images are more compelling than words on paper). Included news and media organizations as well as celebrity endorsements * Leaflets, pamphlets and grass roots calling campaign (including calling CEO at home) * Teaming up with other like-minded organizations to place pressure * Sent letters to ad agencies noting that the negative publicity from the campaign would reflect poorly on the firm Do you think that PETA was out of line in using any of these? * Yes. It was not acceptable to dump blood and feathers on CEO Novak 3. Where in the issues life cycle would you place the issue PETA was pursuing with KFC? * Between interest group formation and legislation. An interest group was already formed (PETA). PETA’s aims to reduce animal cruelty through consumer campaigns (in the case of case of KFC). PETA in other cases is also involved in legislation In terms of the “framework for the analysis of Nonmarket Action” that Baron explains in chapter 6, would you say there will, or will not, be a sufficient “amount of nonmarket action” on this issue to continue to drive it through the issues life cycle? * There is sufficient action to move into next level (legislation) in certain areas. There is a high benefit to the interest (PETA) and they have the muscle and money on the supply side as supporting interest for adequate animal welfare. Will the media be an active player in KFC’s involvement with this Issue? * Yes. UK London Mirror sent an undercover journalist. Journalists will continue to dig as long as irregularities are found. 4. Is it important for KFC to respond adequately to the issue...