Mercy For Animals

How Mercy For Animals Performs on Our Criteria

Criterion #1: The Organization Has Concrete Room for More Funding and Plans for Growth

MFA has room for additional funding to support undercover investigations and education efforts.¹ They expect their own development efforts to lead to higher levels of funding this year than in past years,² but have room for additional funding beyond the planned increase.³ At the end of 2013, their assets were worth about 95% of their 2013 expenditures.⁴ This is an assets to expenditures ratio in the range we would expect from an organization that is able to spend funds as it receives them but is maintaining a responsible fiscal cushion.

Regarding undercover investigations, MFA conducted and publicized 6 investigations in 2013 in the U.S. and Canada.⁵ Investigations can be helpful because they prompt change in company policies,⁶ but a major impact is the publicity they receive and the attention they bring to the conditions farmed animals endure.⁷ Each investigation is newsworthy for a limited amount of time, which MFA tries to prolong by bringing pressure to bear on related companies and encouraging prosecutors to press animal cruelty charges.⁸ MFA estimated in early 2014 that if they had the funds, they could conduct significantly more undercover investigations; at least 6 more per year, and possibly beyond that.⁹ In fact, MFA has plans to release 13 to 14 investigations in 2014, which we believe signals that they are indeed capable of expanding this program.¹⁰ We aren’t sure at what point returns from investigations would start to diminish as news networks or viewers found them less interesting but expect that an increase to 12 per year would be within the range where additional investigations still have significant effects, especially because not every investigation is picked up by every network or in every area.¹¹ MFA’s experience this year appears to support this belief; they report steady viewership in the media and increased viewership online due to changes in how they are able to post videos.¹² Since each investigation costs a minimum of $30,000 to conduct¹³ (and our estimate for average cost, including administrative and legal needs, is around $85,000),¹⁴ there is substantial room for increased funding.

Regarding education, MFA has room for significantly increased funding in the budget for online ads alone.¹⁵ TThey expect to have spent around $300,000 on online ads by the end of 2014, and they claim they could use about 5 times this much effectively.¹⁶ While we find this claim somewhat optimistic, we think they could probably use substantial funding, up to double what they currently have budgeted, to expand this or other education programs.

If MFA does receive more funding, we are uncertain what they will use it for; however, it seems likely they would use it for investigations or education, both of which we believe are good uses for additional funding.

Criterion #2: A Back-of-the-Envelope Calculation Finds the Organization is Cost-Effective

MFA runs several programs; we estimate cost-effectiveness separately for each program, then combine our estimates to give a composite estimate of their overall impact. Note that all estimates factor in associated supporting costs including administrative and fundraising costs.

Undercover Investigations

We estimate that MFA will spend 39% of their budget in 2014, or around $1,103,847, on undercover investigations.¹⁷ This will result in 13 or 14 undercover investigations in the U.S. and Canada.¹⁸ Footage of these investigations will receive around 5,000,000 views online and around 20,000,000 views through media (eg. news) coverage.¹⁹ This works out to an average cost of $84,911 per investigation, but just 4 cents per view, counting both online and media views.²⁰ MFA estimates the marginal cost of additional investigations at around $30,000, since many legal and administrative costs do not scale directly as more investigations are performed.²¹

Online Outreach

We estimate that MFA will spend about 30% of their 2014 budget, or 839,990, on online materials and public outreach, including online ads.²² This will result in about 10,600,000 views of their pro-veg online video sites and 2,000,000 visits to their sites on how to reduce animal product consumption.²³ These two measures are not independent; one of the desired outcomes for viewers of the videos is that they will visit the corresponding site about reducing animal product consumption.²⁴ Therefore, our cost effectiveness estimate will assume all viewers of the instructional site navigated there from the video, although this is an oversimplification. Then each view of the videos cost about 8 cents.²⁵

Grassroots Outreach

We estimate that MFA will spend 15% of their 2014 budget, or around $419,995, on grassroots educational outreach.²⁶ This will include the distribution of around 1,300,000 pieces of literature, and 2,700 pay-per-view video views.²⁷ This is a cost of about 32 cents per leaflet distributed, with additional effects from other outreach.²⁸

Social Media

We estimate that MFA will spend about 7% of their 2014 budget, or $207,775, on social media outreach, including their blog, Facebook page, etc.²⁹ We think the most interesting measure of the success of this outreach is the number of shares their posts had; numbers of views can be confusing, since one follower who reads every post will count as many views. Shares are more likely to present the information to people who are not already involved in animal advocacy and present that information particularly credibly because it is being recommended by a friend.³⁰ In 2014, MFA’s social media posts and pages will receive about 3,200,000 shares, so one share costs on average 6 cents.³¹

Corporate Outreach

We estimate that MFA will spend about 6% of their 2014 budget, or $185,488, on corporate outreach.³² This results in some companies adopting new policies, and these policies result in reduced suffering for animals.³³ We estimate that MFA’s corporate outreach helped cause change at about 8 large companies in 2014.³⁴ However, we have not accounted for the work of other organizations on the same campaigns.

Legal Advocacy

Finally, we estimate that MFA will spend about 3% of their 2014 budget, or $95,472, on legal advocacy not directly related to investigations.³⁵ The main outcome of this work in 2013 was that MFA helped to defeat 11 ag-gag bills; their work in 2014 will likely be on a similar scale.³⁶ Again, this work is done cooperatively with other organizations, so the costs to MFA alone do not cover the full costs of this work.³⁷

All Activities Combined

To combine these estimates into one overall cost-effectiveness estimate, we need to translate them into comparable units. This will introduce several sources for errors and imprecision, so the resulting estimate should not be taken literally.³⁸ However, it will allow us to judge whether MFA’s efforts are comparable in efficiency to other groups’.³⁹

Many of MFA’s activities involve showing video footage of industrial agriculture; we use our Online Ad Impact Calculator to estimate the cost-efficiency of these activities, together with the number of views per dollar calculated above.⁴⁰ For the efficiency of undercover investigations, we assume that one view online is equivalent to a click on an online ad in ultimate effect, while media views have no direct impact, since viewers have less access to related resources and likely are paying less attention.⁴¹ Undercover investigations result in about 4.5 online views per dollar spent, which means about 6.4 animals are spared from life in industrial agriculture per dollar.⁴² We also consider views of the pro-veg online video site as equivalent to ad clicks; indeed many of these resulted from ad clicks.⁴³ This gives the online outreach a cost efficiency of about 18 animals spared per dollar spent.⁴⁴ The grassroots outreach efforts are measurable both through pay-per-view views and through leaflets and other literature distributed. From pay-per-view views, assuming each view is equivalent to an online ad click, we get an efficacy of .01 animals spared per dollar.⁴⁵ From literature distribution we get an efficacy of 2.0 animals spared per dollar using our Leafleting Impact Calculator.⁴⁶ Therefore the total efficacy is around 2 animals spared per dollar, taking into account both effects.⁴⁷

Other effects are more difficult to convert to comparable units. For the purpose of including it in our estimate, we’ll assume that on average each share of a social media post reaches one person about as persuasively as a leaflet;⁴⁸ this gives the social media outreach a cost-effectiveness of 10 animals spared per dollar.⁴⁹ Using an estimate from general principles that each corporate policy change spares suffering equivalent to the lives of 10,000 animals on factory farms, we find MFA’s corporate outreach spares an equivalent of .4 animals per dollar spent.⁵⁰ We won’t try to convert legal advocacy results into these units; we don’t know enough about its results and it is difficult to disentangle MFA’s effects from the total effects. Weighing the other effects by the proportion of the budget devoted to them, we get a total cost-effectiveness of about 8.8 animals spared per dollar,⁵¹ near the high end of the range we’ve seen with other groups we’ve reviewed at this depth.⁵²

Criterion #3: The Organization is Working on Things That Seem to Have High Mission Effectiveness

MFA’s programs overall appear to be highly effective because they focus on farmed animal advocacy, which we believe to be an exceptionally good opportunity to help animals given the present circumstances.⁵³

Legal Advocacy

MFA’s legal advocacy efforts, particularly those involved with defeating ag-gag bills, seem to have very high mission effectiveness. If ag-gag bills were to pass in many states, animal advocates would have a much harder time making the public aware of what happens in industrial agriculture.⁵⁴ By preventing the passage of such bills, MFA helps to empower many current and future activists and influencers.⁵⁵

Undercover Investigations

MFA works to expose the suffering of animals in factory farms through undercover investigations.⁵⁶ These investigations are then made public, and they make an effort to get as much exposure from these as possible.⁵⁷ Their work also sometimes results in criminal charges against workers who abuse animals.⁵⁸

We believe that there is great value in these efforts. These investigations generate a large amount of public discussion about the treatment of animals in farms.⁵⁹ It has been shown that meat consumption declines when these stories are in the media,⁶⁰ and social media now provides a platform for free widespread sharing of the footage. This means that an extremely large number of individuals are exposed to their work.⁶¹ Additionally, the evidence of abuses provides materials for leaflets and videos, which can also be promoted publicly and result in a larger exposure.⁶² Lastly, these efforts provide the background information on farms that is necessary for legal and corporate reform.⁶³

Online and Grassroots Outreach

Online and grassroots outreach to individuals seems highly effective because it is focused on changing the culture of animal use for food. This culture must ultimately be changed if conditions are to improve significantly for animals, as it is not possible that animal agriculture can continue to grow at its present rate in a way that is respectful of animals’ interests.⁶⁴ The effectiveness of this type of outreach is somewhat limited when compared to some other forms because viewers and readers are encouraged to make small-scale individual changes and may not influence others, the way a change in law or corporate policy influences many people.⁶⁵

Corporate Outreach

Corporate outreach seems to have high mission effectiveness because it involves convincing a few powerful people⁶⁶ to make decisions which influence the lives of millions of animals.⁶⁷ This seems likely to be easier than reaching and persuading millions of consumers in order to accomplish the same goal. However, corporate outreach often deals with small welfare improvements.⁶⁸ It’s not clear whether such improvements, even if very easy to achieve, are highly effective in the long term, since as well as changing conditions for animals, they may also influence public opinion, either towards concern for farmed animals or towards complacency with regard to industrial agriculture.⁶⁹

Criterion #4: The Organization Possesses A Robust and Agile Understanding of Success and Failure

MFA appears to have a strong understanding of success and failure and to be willing to significantly modify their programs in order to increase efficiency by allocating more resources to more successful programs.⁷⁰ The largest example of this is their shift, starting in late 2012, away from a local model of organizing and towards a more online-based model,⁷¹ where they found they could be more effective.⁷² They significantly restructured their organization and have been gradually moving resources away from grassroots organizing and local projects (e.g., tabling at festivals, advertising on billboards) and towards online outreach and more effective local projects (e.g., leafleting).⁷³

MFA also takes care to use testing to guide smaller design decisions as appropriate.⁷⁴ For instance, many of their online materials undergo split-testing to ensure that they are as effective as possible.⁷⁵

We find the shift towards online materials extremely persuasive in demonstrating that MFA is willing to make significant changes if they find an opportunity to become more effective by doing so. We do have some uncertainty about the criteria they use to determine when such an opportunity has been found, in part because the staff member we have primarily communicated with joined the organization after the current transition towards a more online-based model had already begun.⁷⁶ However, what we know of how MFA makes decisions suggests they consider reasonable sources of evidence (for instance, pilot testing materials for revisions of their Veg Starter Guide through Faunalytics)⁷⁷ and take multiple people’s viewpoints into consideration for large decisions,⁷⁸ which tends to help prevent important factors from being overlooked.

Criterion #5: The Organization Possesses a Strong Track Record of Success

Successfully carrying out planned programs

MFA has been conducting undercover investigations for over 10 years,⁷⁹ and investigations have had positive results including significant publicity,⁸⁰ changes in corporate policies,^81,82,83 and animal cruelty convictions.^84,85 This is a long and strong track record of success in their primary program, carrying out and publicizing undercover investigations.

As discussed above, MFA’s other activities have changed over time and are still undergoing significant changes as online outreach activities are receiving more focus and are being expanded to cover other countries (China, India, and Mexico).⁸⁶ Accordingly, their organizational record is less strong in some of these areas.⁸⁷ However, the current Director of Education, Nick Cooney, is responsible for many of these newer programs, and he personally has significant experience in these areas.⁸⁸

Programs leading to change for animals

Besides their track record in successfully carrying out their intended actions, we consider whether these actions give them a strong record of making a positive difference for animals. The undercover investigations do have a history of inspiring stronger state animal protection legislation⁸⁹ and better corporate policies,⁹⁰ both of which relieve some suffering for farmed animals.⁹¹ They have also been found to temporarily reduce overall demand for meat,⁹² which means they have probably reduced the overall number of animals raised on farms. Some advocates worry that promoting stronger animal welfare policies will make consumers more comfortable with industrial agriculture, but this research suggests that MFA’s use of undercover investigations to encourage stronger welfare policies may not have that effect.⁹³ Given the general difficulties of establishing how animal advocacy affects animals in both the short and long term, this is an extremely strong record.⁹⁴

Individual outreach activities, both locally and online, have less strongly documented effects on animals. However, there is some evidence that providing individuals with information about industrial agriculture and about going vegetarian or vegan does cause some changes in diet, whether the information is presented in a video or a leaflet.⁹⁵ These activities also have less potential to make the contacted individuals comfortable with higher-welfare products, because advocates control the entire message, instead of relying on the media to convey it.⁹⁶

We do not consider MFA’s direct corporate outreach or its legal advocacy not directly related to undercover investigations to have very strong track records. This is because the successful large-scale campaigns we know about have mainly been in concert with other organizations we expect to have significantly more sway, in particular the Humane Society of the United States.⁹⁷

Overall, we believe MFA’s track record of success to be exceptionally strong, based on their record with undercover investigations and on the personal record of their Director of Education.

Criterion #6: The Organization Has Strong Organizational Leadership and Structure

MFA has several Directors who have been with the organization for multiple years, including the President, who is also the organization’s founder.^98,99 MFA has 17 employees, of which 8 are in key leadership positions, and about 12 independent contractors.¹⁰⁰ Directors have frequent contact with one another, so that the organization is able to act as a whole.¹⁰¹ The organization has been recently restructured,¹⁰² so it is difficult to judge the stability of the current structure. However, the fact that many leaders have remained with the organization through that transition is encouraging.¹⁰³

Criterion #7: The Organization is Transparent

MFA has cooperated fully with our evaluation process. They cooperate often with other advocacy organizations,¹⁰⁴ and they have expressed a willingness to publish additional information from the studies they’ve done in developing new materials so that other advocates can learn from them.¹⁰⁵

Beyond the information non-profits are generally required to share,¹⁰⁶ MFA does not provide an exceptional amount of organizational information to the general public. (For instance, our cost effectiveness estimates would have looked very different working from publicly available information about MFA’s program spending, simply because there is not very much of it).¹⁰⁷ We believe this is in part due to concerns about confidentiality for ongoing investigations and corporate outreach projects, as MFA works in some sensitive areas.¹⁰⁸

1. “MFA’s budget for 2014 is $2.9 million; with an extra $50K or $100K, the Directors would look at the increase at their regular meetings and decide where to allocate additional resources. For 2014, they decided that the best place to put additional money was investigations, development, and education.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

2. “They expect their funding to increase this year. MFA has recently hired the former Farm Sanctuary Director of Development.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

3. “It’s hard to estimate how much more could be done with investigations. Nick thinks that another $500K would easily be put to good use. Impact/dollar would likely still be approximately the same. For education, the sky is the limit – they are investing $350K in online veg ads this year, and could easily scale that up dramatically. They will be investing resources in media outreach and working with local veg advocacy groups in other countries as well.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

4. Private communication. Tax returns for prior years are available through Guidestar and other services. 

5. “Even doubling their efforts will still result in a small number of investigations (from 6 to 12 in the United States and Canada), but it is worth noting that this overall number of investigations is very significant in the animal advocacy movement, and more than any other group.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

6. “They also point to the fact that some single investigations have caused significant policy changes, such as Tyson (the second largest pork producer in the U.S.) ending the practice of “thumping” piglets (slamming them headfirst into the ground to kill them), and pushing (not mandating) their suppliers to not castrate or tail dock without painkillers, or use gestation crates.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

7. “Media attention to animal welfare has statistically significant, but generally small effects in magnitude as compared with price and expenditure effects. While media attention elasticity estimates are small, it is important to not mistake this for evidence of demand being insensitive to animal welfare media attention.” – Tonsor, G. T., Olynk, N. J., and Wolf, C. (2009). Media Coverage of Animal Handling and Welfare: Influence on Meat Demand. Presented at American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings. 

8. “National Geographic Channel devoted an entire episode of its program “Inside Secret America” to MFA’s legal successes as a result of investigations, including the historic Butterball trial.” – MFA 2013 Year in Review. 

9. “MFA plans on doubling the number of their investigations from the previous year…. Even doubling their efforts will still result in a small number of investigations (from 6 to 12 in the United States and Canada), but it is worth noting that this overall number of investigations is very significant in the animal advocacy movement, and more than any other group.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

10. “As of early November, they have released 10 investigations this year and there are another 4 that are completed and are currently waiting to be released by the media outlets that have exclusive rights to them. Three will certainly be released by the end of the year, but the fourth might wait until January if they can get better media coverage that way.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (September 15, 2014). 

11. “Also magnifying the need is the fact that investigations are sometimes only picked up by select networks, thus also reducing overall public exposure.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

12. “Even with the increase in investigations, the viewership for each video has remained consistent, but whether that continues to hold true in the future remains to be seen. Online views have actually increased because Facebook now allows video posts to contain embedded videos, instead of links to YouTube.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (September 15, 2014). 

13. “If they had an extra $30K for investigations, it would help fund an additional investigation[.]” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

14. MFA cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by MFA. 

15. “For education, the sky is the limit – they are investing $350K in online veg ads this year, and could easily scale that up dramatically.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

16. “They’re doing online ads, but could just as easily be doing five times as many.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

17. MFA cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by MFA. 

18. “As of early November, they have released 10 investigations this year and there are another 4 that are completed and are currently waiting to be released by the media outlets that have exclusive rights to them. Three will certainly be released by the end of the year, but the fourth might wait until January if they can get better media coverage that way.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (September 15, 2014). 

19. ACE extrapolated these figures based on MFA’s Online Data Collection which they shared with us. Some key totals from this sheet are available publicly. – Mercy For Animals 10 Month Key Data. 

20. MFA cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by MFA. 

21. “If they had an extra $30K for investigations, it would help fund an additional investigation[.]” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

22. MFA cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by MFA. 

23. ACE extrapolated these figures based on MFA’s Online Data Collection which they shared with us. Some key totals from this sheet are available publicly. – Mercy For Animals 10 Month Key Data. 

24. At the end of the video at MeatVideo.com, the logo and url for the other site, ChooseVeg.com, are shown. Additionally, the video site has two ways for the viewer to request a vegetarian starter guide, and requesting one takes the viewer to ChooseVeg.com. – MeatVideo.com, accessed July 22, 2014. 

25. MFA cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by MFA. 

26. MFA cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by MFA. 

27. “The total number of printed vegetarian material distributed is expected to be 1.3 million for the year, and they anticipate in excess of 100,000 people signing up for their email series by year’s end.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (September 15, 2014).

    ACE extrapolated the figure for pay per view based on MFA’s Online Data Collection which they shared with us. Some key totals from this sheet are available publicly. – Mercy For Animals 10 Month Key Data. 

28. MFA cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by MFA. 

29. MFA cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by MFA. 

30. Shared information retains the MFA branding and credibility and adds to it the recommendation of the individual who shared the post. Additionally, MFA’s direct connections on social media are by definition at least sufficiently involved in animal advocacy to have connected to an animal advocacy group on the network, their connections, though likely overlapping animal advocacy circles, likely include some people who would not seek out animal advocacy content on their own. 

31. MFA cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by MFA. 

32. MFA cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by MFA. 

33. “They also point to the fact that some single investigations have caused significant policy changes, such as Tyson (the second largest pork producer in the U.S.) ending the practice of “thumping” piglets (slamming them headfirst into the ground to kill them), and pushing (not mandating) their suppliers to not castrate or tail dock without painkillers, or use gestation crates. Further examples are 1) Kraft’s decision to eliminate tail docking of dairy cattle, 2) Costco, IGA, Sobeys, Metro, and other retail outlets eliminating gestation crates, and 3) Safeway, Costco, and Kmart publishing anti-gestation crate statements, all of which occurred as a result of MFA investigations.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

34. In MFA’s 2013 Annual Review they cited 8 companies (all Canadian grocery chains) that had changed specific policies based on MFA’s corporate outreach. So far in 2014, we know they claim to have influenced policy changes at Tyson and Nestle. In terms of animals directly affected, the number of companies is not as important as their size; however it is generally very difficult to find out how many animals a particular company uses. 

35. MFA cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by MFA. 

36. “This year, eleven states introduced so-called ag-gag legislation—bills aimed at criminalizing undercover investigations and preventing people from learning how animals are treated on factory farms. Every single one of those bills was rejected, due in large part to the efforts of a large coalition of food safety, environmental, civil liberties, and animal protection groups, including MFA.” – MFA 2013 Year in Review. 

37. ” Every single one of those [ag-gag] bills was rejected, due in large part to the efforts of a large coalition of food safety, environmental, civil liberties, and animal protection groups, including MFA.” – MFA 2013 Year in Review. 

38. In fact, there are already sources of error and imprecision in our estimates to this point, most notably in uncertainties about how much time MFA employees spend on each activity we have described and about how administrative and fundraising costs should be assigned to the various areas, but also for corporate outreach in uncertainty about the number of animals affected by changes in corporate policy. However, the amount of error in our following estimates can be expected to be considerably greater. 

39. We use similar assumptions for each of the groups for which we perform such a calculation. (In addition to MFA: Animal Equality, The Humane League, HSUS Farm Animal Protection Campaign, Farm Animal Rights Movement, Vegan Outreach, Compassion Over Killing, Albert Schweitzer Foundation, and Anonymous.) This means all our results should be comparable to each other. Other estimates of the cost-effectiveness of charities may use different assumptions and may therefore not be comparable to ours. 

40. The Online Ad Impact Calculator synthesizes information about the effects of online ads leading to videos about factory farming from a variety of sources, including a survey of viewers, studies on vegetarians and former vegetarians, US animal product consumption averages, and elasticity estimates for various foods. The calculator contains links to all sources used. 

41. This is a simplified interpretation of the situation used solely for the purpose of calculating an estimate. We are confident that views in the media have some impact. We would expect views on Youtube to have less impact than views due to online ads, since undercover investigation videos are not edited with the same focus on promoting overall dietary change as the videos shown with the ads. Also, Youtube viewers are more likely to be concerned about factory farming than those who click on ads, as they sought out the material and understood what they would be viewing. 

42. From our cost-effectiveness estimate, $419,995 spent on grassroots outreach resulted in 2,700 video views, or about .006 views per dollar. In the middle (best estimate) column of the calculator, 742.26/526.32 ~ 1.4 animals are spared per click (equivalent to a video viewer). .006 views /dollar * 1.4 animals/view ~ .01 animals/dollar. – Online Ad Impact Calculator.– Online Ad Impact Calculator. 

43. “Ads on Facebook, Hulu, Google, and other online hot spots directed millions of teens to MeatVideo.com[.]” – MFA 2013 Year in Review. 

44. As discussed above, these views cost about 8 cents each, so MFA can get about 13 views per dollar. In the middle (best estimate) column of the calculator, 742.26/526.32 ~ 1.4 animals are spared per click (equivalent to a video viewer). 13 views /dollar * 1.4 animals/view ~18 animals/dollar. – Online Ad Impact Calculator. 

45. From our cost-effectiveness estimate, $419,995 spent on grassroots outreach resulted in 2,700 video views, or about .006 views per dollar. In the middle (best estimate) column of the calculator, 742.26/526.32 ~ 1.4 animals are spared per click (equivalent to a video viewer). .006 views /dollar * 1.4 animals/view ~ .01 animals/dollar. – Online Ad Impact Calculator. 

46. From our cost-effectiveness estimate, $419,995 spent on grassroots outreach resulted in 1,300,000 leaflets distributed, or about 3.1 leaflets per dollar. In the middle (best estimate) column of the Leafleting Impact Calculator, 599.63/909.09 ~ .66 animals are spared per leaflet. 3.1 leaflets /dollar * .66 animals/leaflet ~ 2.0 animals/dollar. – Leafleting Impact Calculator. 

47. Since the same money produced both effects, we would add together both rates, getting 2.0 + .01 = 2.01 animals spared per dollar. We’d rounded each estimate to reflect the imprecision of our estimates, so we also round the combined estimate, getting 2.0 animals/dollar again. 

48. We acknowledge that this is a particularly rough estimate. 

49. From our cost effectiveness estimate, each share cost about 6 cents, so MFA got about 15 shares per dollar. In the middle (best estimate) column of the Leafleting Impact Calculator, 599.63/909.09 ~ .66 animals are spared per leaflet. 15 shares/dollar * .66 animals/leaflet ~ 10 animals per dollar. – Leafleting Impact Calculator. 

50. This estimate is based on our corporate outreach evaluation. We use the same estimate on other reviews involving corporate outreach. 

51. MFA cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by MFA. 

52. Note that these estimates contain many uncertainties, and therefore these numbers have limited value. Our rough estimates, which should not be used to give a firm ranking for the groups, are:

    • Animal Equality, 10.9 animals spared/dollar
    • The Humane League, 3.4 animals spared/dollar
    • Albert Schweitzer Foundation, 1.4 animals spared/dollar
    • Farm Animal Rights Movement, 1.1 animals spared/dollar
    • HSUS Farm Animal Protection Campaign, 1.1 animals spared/dollar
    • Vegan Outreach, 1.9 animals spared/dollar
    • Anonymous for Animal Rights, 3.2 animals spared/dollar
    • Compassion over Killing, .5-2 animals spared/dollar

     

53. Farmed animal advocacy is underfunded compared to some other animal causes, and individuals have the opportunity to affect relatively large numbers of farmed animals through their own actions. For more see our page on farmed animal advocacy. 

54. For instance, “Utah’s law [Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112]… makes it illegal to apply for a job at a factory farm with the intent to conduct an unauthorized undercover investigation and to document abuses.” This means that even if an advocate is qualified for and offered a job at a factory farm, they could not legally take the job knowing they meant to carry out an investigation. – Wells, S. Landmark ‘Ag-Gag’ Lawsuit Fights Threat to Freedom of Speech. 

55. “This year, eleven states introduced so-called ag-gag legislation—bills aimed at criminalizing undercover investigations and preventing people from learning how animals are treated on factory farms. Every single one of those bills was rejected, due in large part to the efforts of a large coalition of food safety, environmental, civil liberties, and animal protection groups, including MFA.” – MFA 2013 Year in Review. 

56. “Over the last 12 months, MFA’s groundbreaking undercover investigations have been shining a bright spotlight on the culture of cruelty that runs rampant in the meat, dairy and egg industries. Media exposure for these investigations has been reaching millions of Americans and opening the eyes of consumers around the world to the nightmare animals face at the hands of factory farming.” – MFA 2013 Year in Review. 

57. Tactics MFA uses to promote the footage from their investigations include “creating websites to share footage,” “communicating with media outlets, securing coverage, conducting interviews, carrying out press conferences,” and “pressing for criminal charges against farm workers after investigations in order to garner ongoing media attention to footage.” – MFA Time Allocations and Accomplishments. 

58. For instance, “Three factory farm employees were convicted of criminal cruelty to animals this year as a result of MFA’s 2011 undercover investigation of a Butterball turkey facility in Hoke County, North Carolina.” – MFA 2013 Year in Review. 

59. “In recognition of MFA as a leader in undercover investigations, our hidden-camera exposés and the resulting industry pushback were featured as a cover story in “The New York Times” and also covered by thousands of other media outlets including CNN’s “Headline News,” ABC’s “Nightline,” and “RT”–Russia’s largest news outlet.” – MFA 2013 Year in Review. 

60. “Media attention to animal welfare has statistically significant, but generally small effects in magnitude as compared with price and expenditure effects. While media attention elasticity estimates are small, it is important to not mistake this for evidence of demand being insensitive to animal welfare media attention.” – Tonsor, G. T., Olynk, N. J., and Wolf, C. (2009). Media Coverage of Animal Handling and Welfare: Influence on Meat Demand. Presented at American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings. 

61. “[MFA’s investigations] directly brought video and pictures of the cruelty of factory farming to over ten million people through media coverage…. Second, the videos captured on these facilities received over 1,000,000 views on youtube alone[.]” – MFA Time Allocations and Accomplishments. 

62. “MFA’s investigations provide crucial cruelty footage and photos used by MFA and many other organizations in online ad campaigns, printed materials, websites, etc. to promote vegan eating.” – MFA Time Allocations and Accomplishments. 

63. “[T]hese investigations helped generate corporate animal welfare victories and add pressure to corporate and legislative animal welfare campaigns.” – MFA Time Allocations and Accomplishments. 

64. We found only one study which considered both animal welfare and global food production needs at a whole system level. It concluded that the current style of industrial agriculture is not sustainable on a global level: “Global food security for all in 2050 is not feasible with a scenario of livestock intensification and a Western-style diet for all, even with unrealistically high yield scenarios.” The study proposed dealing with this reality by encouraging humans in developed nations to eat more plant-based foods, and found no reason that producers could not better attend to animal welfare and meet production needs in such a scenario: “The additional feed required for livestock to be more active and the space needed for them to roam and perform natural behaviours is relatively small and does not affect the food security option space.” We note that there are likely additional options involving further decreases in animal and environmental welfare as technologies are developed to provide more animal-derived foods with fewer resources, and that market structures may make such unpredictable developments more likely than the outcomes proposed by the study. – Compassion in World Farming. (2012). Food Security and Farm Animal Welfare. 

65. Materials including Mercy For Animals’s leaflet Fresh call on readers to stop eating meat or all animal products, without necessarily advocating further steps that readers could take to create social change. 

66. “The vast majority of the victories HSUS has gotten in corporate outreach have been the results of friendly negotiation with executives, shareholder resolutions, and working with investors.” While campaigns by other organizations may involve public pressure more often than the HSUS campaigns do, they ultimately seek to persuade the same corporate decision makers. – Conversation with Josh Balk (June 24, 2014). 

67. “Our corporate outreach initiatives… have without a doubt positively impacted the lives of tens of millions of animals.” – MFA 2013 Year in Review. 

68. For instance: “They also point to the fact that some single investigations have caused significant policy changes, such as Tyson (the second largest pork producer in the U.S.) ending the practice of “thumping” piglets (slamming them headfirst into the ground to kill them), and pushing (not mandating) their suppliers to not castrate or tail dock without painkillers, or use gestation crates.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014).

    But pigs in industrial agriculture are subject to many other stresses, including “poorly ventilated confines [that] have resulted in frequent lung damage and pneumonia among factory farmed pigs, with 40–80% of pigs showing lesions in the lungs at slaughter.” – Grace Communications Foundation. Animal Welfare. 

69. Animal welfare improvements on factory farms may, if publicized, promote a norm of caring for the welfare of animals, because people see that mainstream companies are concerned about the treatment of farmed animals. On the other hand, people who object to industrial agriculture only because of the worst abuses might become more supportive of it if the worst abuses cease, leading fewer people to be actively engaged in promoting animal welfare. 

70. Examples include shifting educational resources from grassroots to online programs, shifting resources from US to international outreach, and developing new educational materials based on focus groups and theories about what will create the most change. – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

71. “[F]or years the main MFA model was very local; they had paid staff organizers in respective areas. While that may work well for certain organizations, it wasn’t the case for MFA. They decided to shut down those local offices, stop paying people to do direct tabling/leafleting/etc (though they still have volunteers doing those things), and in late 2012 switched to more of an online focus.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

72. We do not have the evidence they used to determine that they were having stronger effects with online outreach than with grassroots programs, but note that our own calculations also suggest this. See Criterion 2. 

73. “They decided to shut down those local offices, stop paying people to do direct tabling/leafleting/etc (though they still have volunteers doing those things), and in late 2012 switched to more of an online focus.” This change is ongoing; “[f]or example, they had two national coordinators last year, whereas they’ve condensed those responsibilities into a single position. They’ve also reviewed their tabling efforts at places like pride festivals, and decided to be more selective in where they table; however they plan on leafleting at more events in 2014 than 2013.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

74. These include online materials and leaflets and other print materials produced by MFA. – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

75. “They are testing variations of meatvideo.com, chooseveg.org, a forthcoming blog site, and email series.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

76. The transition to a more online-based model began in 2012: “They decided to shut down those local offices, stop paying people to do direct tabling/leafleting/etc (though they still have volunteers doing those things), and in late 2012 switched to more of an online focus.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014).

    Most of our communication with MFA has been with Nick Cooney, who joined the organization as Director of Education in December 2013. 

77. “To further explore the individual preferences of the young female demographic, Mercy For Animals commissioned Faunalytics to conduct a survey on the topic in February 2013…. The results of the survey were helpful in informing the design of Mercy For Animals’ new Vegetarian Starter Guide.” – Asher, K. Mercy For Animals’ Preliminary Study of a Key Demographic. 

78. Many decisions are made with input from MFA’s President and 6 departmental Directors: “MFA’s budget for 2014 is $2.9 million; with an extra $50K or $100K, the Directors would look at the increase at their regular meetings and decide where to allocate additional resources.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

79. The earliest investigation on MFA’s Investigations page is of the Weaver Brothers Egg Farm, conducted in 2002. 

80. “[MFA’s investigations] directly brought video and pictures of the cruelty of factory farming to over ten million people through media coverage…. Second, the videos captured on these facilities received over 1,000,000 views on youtube alone[.]” – MFA Time Allocations and Accomplishments. 

81. “One day after the investigation aired, Costco Wholesale, the third largest grocery retailer in the U.S., banned the sale of veal from farms that use a crate-and-chain production method.” – MFA Blog. 2010: A Landmark Year for Mercy For Animals. 

82. “They also point to the fact that some single investigations have caused significant policy changes, such as Tyson (the second largest pork producer in the U.S.) ending the practice of “thumping” piglets (slamming them headfirst into the ground to kill them), and pushing (not mandating) their suppliers to not castrate or tail dock without painkillers, or use gestation crates. Further examples are 1) Kraft’s decision to eliminate tail docking of dairy cattle, 2) Costco, IGA, Sobeys, Metro, and other retail outlets eliminating gestation crates, and 3) Safeway, Costco, and Kmart publishing anti-gestation crate statements, all of which occurred as a result of MFA investigations.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

83. “For cows, Nestlé is doing away with dehorning, tail docking, veal crates, and will end castration without anesthesia. For pigs, they will be moving away from gestation crates, tail docking, and surgical castration. With respect to eggs, the company will be phasing out battery cages and may be getting rid of the cage system in general. In addition, they intend to do away with ‘fast-growing’ poultry, which is the first time that MFA is aware of that a large company will do this. Finally, they also intend to make some changes related to antibiotics, including phasing out growth hormones.” –Conversation with Nick Cooney (September 15, 2014). 

84. “Stemming from our 2009 Maine investigation, the owner of Quality Egg of New England, one of the largest egg producers in the nation, pleaded guilty to 10 civil counts of cruelty to animals. The factory farm also agreed to pay over $130,000 in fines and restitution, as well as hand over authority to the state of Maine to conduct unannounced inspections of the factory farm for the next five years. The settlement marked perhaps the largest fine ever levied against a factory farm on grounds of cruelty to animals.” – MFA Blog. 2010: A Landmark Year for Mercy For Animals. 

85. For instance, “Three factory farm employees were convicted of criminal cruelty to animals this year as a result of MFA’s 2011 undercover investigation of a Butterball turkey facility in Hoke County, North Carolina.” – MFA 2013 Year in Review. 

86. “They decided to shut down those local offices, stop paying people to do direct tabling/leafleting/etc (though they still have volunteers doing those things), and in late 2012 switched to more of an online focus. This change has also made more resources available, with which they have now begun working in international markets.” This change is ongoing; “[f]or example, they had two national coordinators last year, whereas they’ve condensed those responsibilities into a single position. They’ve also reviewed their tabling efforts at places like pride festivals, and decided to be more selective in where they table; however they plan on leafleting at more events in 2014 than 2013.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

87. Specifically, they don’t have enough history working internationally to present evidence of their effectiveness there; their programs were in development at the time of this review. “They are going to replicate these efforts in Latin America (mostly Mexico), China, India, with the sites in each country’s respective language. There is very little information in these countries about the how and why of eating veg. They anticipate these resources will be online by the end of June.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

88. According to his biography page at MFA, “Nick [Cooney] is the author of Change Of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach Us About Spreading Social Change (Lantern, 2011) and Veganomics: The Surprising Science on What Motivates Vegetarians, from the Breakfast Table to the Bedroom (Lantern, 2014). He has lectured across the U.S. and Europe on effective animal advocacy, and his work for farmed animals has been featured by hundreds of media outlets, including Time magazine, The Wall Street Journal, and National Public Radio.” Cooney also founded The Humane League and served as Compassionate Communities Manager at Farm Sanctuary, both roles with responsibilities similar to his responsibilities at MFA. 

89. For instance, about four weeks before California’s Proposition 2 was passed banning battery cages in the state, MFA released “footage… intended to boost support for Proposition 2” shot on a California egg farm. – Blume, H. (October 14, 2008). Group Alleges Cruelty to Hens. LA Times.

    An MFA video also directly inspired the introduction of an unsuccessful bill to ban tail docking in New York State. – Runkle, N. (February 3, 2010). Dairy Cruelty Footage Prompts NY Lawmaker to Propose Tail Docking Ban. The MFA Blog.

    Legislation banning cruel treatment of farmed animals is unusual in the US, and with any legislation and especially a referendum like Proposition 2, it is hard to attribute causality to any particular action. Therefore a record of some involvement with a successful campaign and a clear relationship of causality in inspiring even unsuccessful legislation is fairly strong in context. There’s other legislation that MFA investigations may have played some role in inspiring, though without as much evidence, including the UEP/HSUS bill to ban battery cages at a federal level (never passed) and Rhode Island’s ban on gestation crates (passed in 2013). 

90. “They also point to the fact that some single investigations have caused significant policy changes, such as Tyson (the second largest pork producer in the U.S.) ending the practice of “thumping” piglets (slamming them headfirst into the ground to kill them), and pushing (not mandating) their suppliers to not castrate or tail dock without painkillers, or use gestation crates.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014).

    This is a prominent and recent example; for more see MFA’s 2009 and 2010 annual reviews. 

91. California Proposition 2, when it takes effect in 2015, will prevent farmers from using the most extreme confinement practices, in particular for laying hens. – Institute of Governmental Studies. Proposition 2.

    Corporate policies prevent some confinement practices and other practices; a recent example is MFA’s campaign against Tyson Foods, which led to Tyson “ending the practice of “thumping” piglets (slamming them headfirst into the ground to kill them), and pushing (not mandating) their suppliers to not castrate or tail dock without painkillers, or use gestation crates.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

92. “Media attention to animal welfare has statistically significant, but generally small effects in magnitude as compared with price and expenditure effects…. [I]n most cases media attention to animal welfare is found to have impacts for up to 6 months. However, when only articles mentioning consumer groups are included in indices, demand impacts are found to last only 3 months.” – Tonsor, G. T., Olynk, N. J., and Wolf, C. (2009). Media Coverage of Animal Handling and Welfare: Influence on Meat Demand. Presented at American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings. 

93. However, this may only be true in the short term, as the effects Researchers found only lasted six months from the time of the investigation. “[I]n most cases media attention to animal welfare is found to have impacts for up to 6 months. However, when only articles mentioning consumer groups are included in indices, demand impacts are found to last only 3 months.” – Tonsor, G. T., Olynk, N. J., and Wolf, C. (2009). Media Coverage of Animal Handling and Welfare: Influence on Meat Demand. Presented at American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings. 

94. We believe that some groups would be able to produce more rigorous evidence of their impact on animals if this played a larger role in donor behavior. However, efforts to establish impact of many advocacy efforts are hampered by the difficulties of measuring behavior change in general and the lack of academic research on behavior change related to vegetarian advocacy in particular. While it is sometimes difficult to establish exactly why changes in law or corporate policy has occurred, the changes themselves are easy to document, and MFA has been involved in a respectable number of such changes. 

95. For instance, our own study on leafleting showed some effects, as did a study carried out by The Humane League and Farm Sanctuary. The Humane League and FARM have each found some effects of showing videos. However, we emphasize that this evidence is not conclusive and in fact there is some evidence in the other direction, as with a study from The Humane League that was designed to compare the effectiveness of various leaflets and found that of the nine groups compared in their study, the group which received no leaflet experienced the most dietary change. 

96. For instance, while activists generally frame footage from undercover investigations as “suggest[ing] industrywide issues”, industry sources often claim “that animal mistreatment violated company policy and that the undercover worker should have come forward immediately to report problems;” media coverage can fall anywhere in this spectrum, blaming individual workers, companies, or the industry. Quotes from Blume, H. (October 14, 2008). Group Alleges Cruelty to Hens. LA Times. 

97. These include both campaigns where MFA likely played a substantial role by performing undercover investigations, as in the case of Tyson Foods, and campaigns where MFA’s level of importance is not clear to us, as with the defeat of ag-gag bills. For MFA’s involvement with Tyson Foods, see our Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). For HSUS’s involvement, see this HSUS press release.
    MFA’s 2013 Year in Review states about ag-gag bills that “Every single one of those [ag-gag] bills was rejected, due in large part to the efforts of a large coalition of food safety, environmental, civil liberties, and animal protection groups, including MFA.” 

98. “Many of the Directors have held their positions for many years, but since they have restructured and created some new positions, they have new people.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

99. “Nathan Runkle is the founder and President of Mercy For Animals.” – MFA. Nathan Runkle.  

100. “MFA now has 17 employees, of whom 8 are in key leadership positions, plus approximately 12 independent contractors.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (September 15, 2014). 

101. “They also have lots of regular contact between Directors, including weekly meetings[.]” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

102. “Many of the Directors have held their positions for many years, but since they have restructured and created some new positions, they have new people. They have eliminated some positions in the past few years which has led to some turnover[.]” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

103. That leaders have stayed with the organization suggests that it has retained institutional knowledge through the transition, and also that the transition was not due to a crisis which prevented key staff from having confidence that they could continue to work together productively. 

104. “They share their investigations, photos and videos, to anyone who wants to use them. This includes letting other organizations use their work in booklets….They have worked to connect volunteers around the country with groups like The Humane League, Compassionate Action for Animals, and Vegan Outreach.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014).

     In our interviews with animal advocates, we’ve heard from representatives of several groups that Mercy For Animals works cooperatively with them. Because of the sensitive nature of corporate and legal advocacy in particular, we are not able to disclose a complete list of such groups. 

105. “They have conducted studies to help them design their FRESH flyer and Vegetarian Starter Guide. Some are unique to MFA and might not be useful to others, but they are willing to share everything that they’ve conducted.” – Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

106. Tax-exempt groups in the United States must make public and available for copying certain documents, such as their application for exemption and their tax return (though not all associated schedules). – Internal Revenue Service. Documents Subject to Public Disclosure. 

107. MFA’s 2013 tax documents divide program spending into the areas of “Education”, “Cruelty Investigations,” “Legal Advocacy,” and “Other;” with MFA’s cooperation, we were able to use more finely-grained categories. 

108. Specifically, revealing information about the progress of undercover investigations or about corporate or legal advocacy strategies might compromise efforts in those areas if investigators are detected before they finish gathering footage or if agricultural interests develop more informed counter-strategies regarding corporate and legal efforts. MFA also expressed concerns about making financial data public before the relevant year’s tax returns had been completed, as accounting categories might change. – Cooney, N. Private Communication. 

Research Documents

• 2014 Time Allocation and Accomplishments
• 2013 Annual Review

• 2014 Ten Month Key Data Totals
• December 2014 Cost Effectiveness Calculation Spreadsheet
• September 2014 Conversation with Nick Cooney
• March 2014 Conversation with Nick Cooney