Public Perception

By Amy Fernandez

I’m probably not the only dog person watching Seaworld’s spiraling PR disaster and thinking “been there, done that.”  Obviously, they didn’t anticipate the backlash of negative publicity unleashed by Blackfish. They should have.

Like dog shows, marine parks are perennial Animal Rights targets.  Seaworld could have confronted that long before this situation put them on the defensive. It was set in motion by the horrific 2010 death of a trainer during a show. That, in turn, prompted the production of Blackfish. And it became the ideal platform for Animal Rights proponents to promote their ideology to Seaworld’s huge mainstream fan base.  Since the film’s release, entertainers and tourists have canceled Seaworld visits, citing ethical concerns.

Last Friday Seaworld fought back with an open letter published in several major newspapers and posted to their website. It’s very direct, but from the standpoint of damage control, it’s too little, too late. So far, they have made every mistake in the book, dismissing the accusations, attempting to counteract them with facts, and preaching to the choir instead of reaching out to the public. Their fatal error was underestimating the potential threat. After all, Seaworld has been a major tourist attraction for 50 years.

That’s precisely how the dog world became trapped in the quagmire that has undermined its credibility for decades. Right now, more Americans than ever own dogs while the reputation of purebreds plummets. The public now perceives them as nicely wrapped bundles of health, temperament, and structural problems. Breeders have become synonymous with puppy mills. Exhibitors are considered ruthless, unethical, competitors.  You can double that image for professional handlers, and judges fare even worse. AKC stands at the pinnacle of this heartless corporate empire.  Needless to say, shows are no longer the primary gateway to dog ownership.  To mainstream America, they are frivolous beauty contests.

These pervasive misperceptions didn’t take root overnight. It required years of effort to chip away the dog world’s respected image.  Thankfully, the internet wasn’t contributing to our woes until recently. As in the case of Seaworld, reputations can now be annihilated overnight.

Internet style evolved to maximize the impact the medium’s immediacy. Information is packaged to be blunt, abridged, and repetitious. It’s ideal for propagandizing. Misinformation can gain instant traction and transition seamlessly into global support. But this works both ways.  Internet audiences don’t hesitate to dismiss ideas that conflict with their beliefs. In other words, this isn’t the forum for thoughtful deliberation and debate.  Internet opinions form quickly, based on limited information. Regardless of their validity, it’s never easy to revise them when they take hold.  Therefore, prevention is the best strategy.  Transparency and ongoing mainstream communication are essential to reinforce a positive image and deflect inevitable assaults.

The dog world veered off that course decades ago. And like Seaworld, we can only blame ourselves. A few insightful critics foresaw the consequences of this misguided trajectory.  Back in August 1953  Mark Taynton’s  AKC Gazette feature, Let’s Tell the Public About Our Dog Shows, offered an early warning.. “A recent notice from a club mentioned everything necessary to make their show an outstanding success….but they failed to mention the requirement for a successful show of any kind-the audience…unfortunately, this is not unusual for the dog fraternity ….if they get an entry the show is a success.” Noting that public interest was the original barometer of the sport’s success, he emphasized that this prestige was the result of   “tremendous crowds of spectators and the glamour that goes with them.”

After WWII the sport really took off. That’s when the emphasis shifted from public support to entry size. Taynton called it “Playing to an empty house…a show presupposes an audience, without an audience it becomes mere competition.” The thriving dog world seemed self sufficient and became increasingly insular. Taynton was writing at the outset of this trend, but he warned that community involvement was a crucial source of validation.  “People have more interest if the show has a more useful purpose than simply competing for prizes.”

Back then, his argument was a hard sell. The overriding attitude was to cut them loose. “The visitor is forgotten once he pays his admission…he is just a nuisance from then on.” Spectators didn’t participate or contribute, but that never stopped them from enjoying the experience.   They didn’t possess the expertise to follow the competition or evaluate the dogs, but they learned to appreciate beautiful coats, pretty heads, stable temperaments, and effortless gait that defined well bred dogs. Spectators came for entertainment, but they also got an education.

When the dog world stopped vying for their attention, the Animal Rights movement stepped in to fill the void. As a result, the public no longer has a baseline concept of quality, and we face an uphill battle to revise ingrained misperceptions.  It’s a little late, but we finally woke up.  The overwhelming success of MTB events has begun to repair the damage.

Let’s see how Seaworld handles it.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=40373

Posted by chesliepickett on Dec 26 2013. Filed under Current Articles, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.