Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore strategic differences in marketing communication tactics for vegan and humane meat brands.

Content analysis was used to categorize the types of persuasive appeals used on the packaging of vegan and humane meat brands.

Humane meat brands use animal welfare and environmental appeals more often whereas vegan brands use taste appeals more frequently.

Marketers’ communication strategies for alternatives to traditional meat consumption are different from those of activists and non-profit organizations. By targeting middle of the road consumers, both vegan and humane brands can support widespread efficient and curtailment behaviors and in the process benefit consumers, the brands and society.

Anti-consumption and/or reduction of meat and animal by-products are arguably the most impactful ways in which consumers can alter their diets to positively impact individual and societal well-being. Consumers seeking alternatives to traditional meat consumption may either chose more sustainable meat products (efficient behaviors) or reduce/eliminate meat consumption (curtailment behaviors). Existing research suggests that such consumers can be divided into two segments – those driven by personal motives (health and/or taste) and those motivated by prosocial concern (environmental sustainability and/or animal welfare) and brands should match persuasive appeals to consumer motives, i.e. curtailment-focused vegan brands should use environmental or animal justice appeals and efficiency-focused humane meat brands should use taste or health appeals. However, the present research assumes marketers’ perspective and demonstrates that both vegan and humane brands target middle of the road consumers striving to balance multiple personal and prosocial goals, being socially responsible without compromising taste.

Pregnant employees experience considerable interpersonal discrimination. This study explores the range of possible reactions of observers to pregnancy self-disclosure, interpersonal discrimination and various allyship interventions, and the attentional processes that lead to those reactions. Consequently, it uncovers socio-cognitive processes underlying support for and backlash toward pregnancy in the workplace.

This study used a thought-listing technique to explore observers’ spontaneous thoughts related to pregnancy. Working adults were randomly assigned to read through one of the six scenarios depicting pregnancy self-disclosure, interpersonal discrimination and male allyship interventions (i.e. stating the organization’s anti-discrimination policy, confronting the transgressor by calling out sexism, pivoting the conversation to highlight the strengths of the pregnant employee and a hybrid intervention combining highlighting strengths and confrontation) after which participants listed the top three thoughts that came to their mind (1,668 responses). Responses were thematically analyzed to explore spontaneous reactions toward the pregnant employee, transgressor and ally in the scenario.

Surprisingly, across all scenarios, the most sexist thoughts emerged during pregnancy self-disclosure, even in the absence of any transgression. After a transgression occurred, any allyship intervention was better than none in eliciting lesser sexist backlash against the pregnant employee. Stating the organization’s anti-discrimination policy was most beneficial for the pregnant employee in eliciting the least sexist backlash but at the cost of generating unfavorable impressions of the ally. Calling out the transgressor’s bias elicited the most sexist backlash toward the pregnant employee, yet it created favorable impressions of the ally. In contrast, highlighting the strengths of the pregnant employee created the most favorable impression of the ally while eliciting a few sexist thoughts about the pregnant employee. Overall, the hybrid intervention was the most effective at balancing the competing goals of generating support for the pregnant employee, creating favorable impressions of the ally, as well as holding the transgressor accountable.

This study demonstrates that the type of allyship intervention critically redirects the attentional focus of observers to certain aspects of a discrimination episode and relevant schemas which can generate support or backlash toward targets, transgressors and allies, thereby advancing or obstructing equity and inclusion in organizations.