Are our messages as persuasive as we think?

We’re testing the UK’s most commonly used animal freedom messages to see how people respond

As a movement, do we really know the effect our messages have on different audiences? Do some spark curiosity, evoke empathy, or influence action? Or do some land differently to how we expect?

At Animal Think Tank, we’ve launched our most ambitious public opinion study so far, testing 60+ of the most commonly used messages from our movement – from Be kind to every kind to Go vegan to Someone not something – with over 3,000 participants. We’re then diving deeper, through focus groups, to understand the why behind the numbers.

Two weeks ago, we ran the pilot focus group with five female non-vegans. None of the messages included a call to action, yet participants immediately filled in the blanks, assuming it was 'go vegan', causing negative reaction in some.

They also read the design as a cue: a black-white-red colour palette was quickly tagged as “animals rights” and “harsh”.

Tested message, interpreted as ‘go vegan’ despite no call to action.

Participants’ pre-existing assumptions about the messenger (i.e. the animal freedom movement) and its intentions and agenda shaped their interpretation of the messages.

"I thought it was a vegan or vegetarian campaign. I don't like it. I think it's trying to instigate guilt... to be honest, it would actually turn me anti-vegan."

These initial reactions paved the way for deeper insights as we tested three distinct message approaches.

Message concept 1: Who animals really are

The first message concept highlighted the emotions, interests and experiences of animals who are farmed, like comfort, affection and friendship.

This concept is part of what we call the Animal Abilities narrative, exploring who animals really are.

What worked:

• Curiosity-sparking: Participants enjoyed learning new facts, like chickens purring when they're content and turkeys enjoying hugs.

• Connection-building: The messages helped them relate the interests and needs of farmed animals to those of humans and animal companions, creating familiarity with animals who are less familiar to most people.

• Potential for lasting impact: One participant said they would remember these facts when deciding whether to buy chicken or turkey.

  "To me, the messaging says: ‘Animals are just like you’... they need the same things we need."

The pushback: However, for three of the five participants, the word 'killed' immediately flagged these messages as coming from the animal freedom movement.

As a result, attention shifted from the animals featured to the messenger. Participants described the messages as manipulative and shock-driven, drowning out initial curiosity and connection.

"The middle one, I don’t know if that's a nice message. I don't like being manipulated."

One participant said the chicken and cow messages could nudge them toward the same realisation as the turkey one – but they’d be far more open to it if they reached that conclusion themselves, not because they were pushed there.

Message concept 2: Animals’ voice

The second message concept highlighted animals’ perspectives from their own point of view. The aim was to show what it’s like to be trapped in the food system, and convey their fear, distress, and desire to live.

What worked:

• Perspective-taking: Participants connected deeply with the animals’ emotions, noticing fear, defeat, and being “scared to death”, reflecting on how the animals must really feel.

• Making the connection: Participants connected the dots between the animals’ suffering and the food people eat, sparking disgust, with comments like: “You are what you eat."

• Focus on slaughter: One participant was struck by the reality of animals being killed for food, questioning whether 'high welfare' really matters. Describing herself as already close to going vegan, she found the messages powerful and convincing.

  "... you can definitely see the fear... The pig looks depressed, just completely defeated, and the chicken completely lost."

The limitations: These messages created a connection, but did they go far enough? Most of the discussion focused on respect, welfare, and the scale of suffering, from a consumer perspective rather than focusing on animals' right to live.

"These images will definitely make me question... where is this coming from? Is it free range... what is the treatment that the animals are having so that I can make better-informed purchases."

There was also clear pushback: Some participants challenged the messenger, questioned the images’ credibility, criticised “humanising” animals, and resisted the implied vegan call to action.

Message concept 3: A hopeful vegan future

The final concept we tested painted a hopeful vegan future, where action brings positive change for animals, humans, the planet, and society as a whole.

This was the only message concept in the focus group where the word vegan was explicitly used.

What worked:

• Aspirational vibe: Participants liked the friendly, inclusive scene at the dinner table, describing it as something they would want to be part of.

• Honesty and personal benefit: For the participant most resistant to animal-focused messages, these felt honest. They saw the messages as speaking directly to them, showing how choosing veganism could benefit them personally and sparking curiosity about how.

  "It's honest. It says what it's trying to convey. It makes me curious... so I'm questioning: 'Why would going vegan create a better future?'... The positive advertising, rather than the negative, gets a better reaction [from me]."

The pushback: Most participants pushed back, questioning whether veganism was the only way to create a kinder world. The messages drew them into nostalgia (remembering a time when animals were farmed 'better') and reflections on animal welfare.

Others flagged the imagery as manipulative – especially the granddad and granddaughter scene – and felt all three messages were trying to dictate personal choice, which triggered immediate resistance.

Many struggled to picture a vegan future. Seeing the man with a lamb, they assumed he must be a farmer. They couldn't see what a vegan world might look like or what benefits it could bring.

"The second one with the guy, who's obviously a farmer, is it better? Because I also grew up in the countryside, I've got two views on this."

What this could mean for our communications

These early insights suggest four shifts for more effective messaging:

1. Let people get there themselves
   Through various research studies and public testing, Animal Think Tank have consistently found that people are more open when they feel invited to consider something, not pushed to change their mind. This was reflected again in the pilot focus group: subtle messages spark curiosity and give space for the audience to connect the dots, making conclusions more likely to stick.

2. One size doesn’t fit all
   Resistance and pushback varied between participants. Different approaches will reach different people at different stages of their journey to supporting animal freedom, from curious newcomers to those already considering dietary change.

3. Beyond 'better welfare'
   Many people default to 'better welfare' as the only realistic change. Showing how animals farmed for food once lived freely, sharing examples of co-existence, and illustrating what a new kind of human–animal relationship could look like has the potential to help people move beyond limited thinking and imagine a future worth striving for.

4. Be bold and keep evolving
   People already have strong assumptions about animal rights messaging. Experimenting with unexpected formats, messengers and contexts could sidestep these preconceptions and invite people to engage in new ways.

What’s next?

We’re really excited by these early focus group findings – they give us a glimpse of the kinds of insights we’ll see as the full study unfolds.

We're testing an ambitious 60+ of the most commonly used messages for persuasiveness.

Working in collaboration with others in the movement, we'll select key messages to explore in more depth through follow-up focus groups to understand why some connect more than others, giving us a much deeper understanding of which messages truly resonate – and which don't.