Sometimes when politicians, political groups and
other public figures take aim at particular individuals or companies the
motivation is obvious. Other times, however,
it appears more random. Dig a little
deeper in some instances though, and you might find the motivation is anything
but arbitrary.
When viewers watch Keith Olbermann attack Bill O’Reilly,
most are aware that O’Reilly’s popular show on Fox News regularly clobbers rival
Olbermann’s Countdown show on MSNBC. In
addition to Olbermann’s personal dislike for O’Reilly, he stands to gain if his
attacks have any impact on the ratings of The O’Reilly Factor. There is no secret there – it is all very
public knowledge.
Whether or not Olbermann’s rants against O’Reilly
are motivated by anything other than his loathing for O’Reilly and Fox News,
there is at least the possibility of financial gain if those attacks ever
resulted in an increase in Olbermann’s ratings.
But as I already noted, it is widespread knowledge that the two men are
cable news competitors.
Everything is not so out in the open though when it
comes to politicians or special interest groups targeting specific individuals
or industries. A recent story about the way PETA chooses some of its targets
shows their activism is not entirely devoted to promoting the issue of the
ethical treatment of animals. It appears they have some specific financial
motivation as well.
Ken
Blackwell recently wrote about the way PETA’s original stated mission, the
prevention of cruelty to animals, is now overshadowed by their role as a
“highly-profitable multi-million dollar fundraising and ‘anything goes’
publicity marketing machine.”
He pointed out that PETA has been very successful at drawing media
attention, but that according to PETAKillsAnimals.com
they “found homes for less than one out of every three hundred animals in 2008,
and they killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in their care last year.”
Regardless of the success or failure they have had
in regard to their stated mission, they continue to enjoy enormous financial
success, partially due to arrangements they have with various companies which
allow them to share in their profits.
PETA not only benefits financially from
relationships with various companies, but they appear to have targeted business
competitors of those companies. Blackwell points to a couple of examples of
this. The first involves IAMS pet food
in his home state of Ohio.
“PETA has targeted IAMS pet food… through their ‘IamsCruelty’ campaign. PETA
accuses IAMS of practicing inhumane animal studies, even though they have been
an industry leader in research procedures and animal welfare advocacy.
Interestingly, PETA has entered into a partnership with a ‘holistic’
clearinghouse, which sells pet food. While it is logical they would recommend
an alternative to IAMS, it is also of note that PETA, itself, gets 8 percent of
the proceeds generated when people purchase this food instead IAMS.”
Another example of one of their special relationships is with VISA. PETA has an arrangement with VISA that allows
them to receive a royalty of 1 percent of purchases made with a special PETA
Platinum Credit Card offered by VISA. Recently PETA targeted competitor
MasterCard, referring to them as “NastyCard” due to their sponsorship of
Ringling Brother’s circus.
Dwayne
Horner had questions regarding other companies PETA has targeted. “Maybe it
makes sense that they've gone
after McDonalds and KFC -- until you wonder: Why McDonald's and not
Wendy's, and why KFC and not Popeye's? ... And why go after MasterCard
instead of Visa or American Express -- or the Gap instead of ... whoever else
sells Gap-ish stuff?”
He concludes the answer is money saying, “PETA took in more than $34 million in
2008. Much of the money comes through legal kickbacks and grants, via
their ‘partners.’ Much of their money comes from selling PETA's ‘seal of
approval.’ And interestingly, many of PETA's ‘recommended products’ also
happen to directly compete with the companies they attack.”
Until I read about PETA’s special partnerships and the way they appear to
play a role in determining who the group decides to place in their crosshairs,
I had never considered what their motivation might be for focusing on a
particular company (whether it be KFC or McDonalds or MasterCard), rather than
an entire industry or list of companies that all engage in the same practices.
It makes me wonder about the motivations of other powerful interest groups
that go after specific companies with boycotts or media campaigns. Those in the
news media frequently point out the connections between politicians and those
who contribute money to them. It would be interesting to see more reports on
the connections some interest groups have made through “partnerships” with
various companies and whether or not they are making decisions based on the
stated goals of the group or rather on how much money they stand to make.
Having more of that kind of information would make it easier for those
contributing to these groups to decide where they want to put their money.
Originally posted at American Issues Project.
