Comment 2: Breaking The Brand has not produced the desired results
Since launching our first campaign in September 2013 BTB has spent the total of $58,000 Australian Dollars on our two campaigns in Viet Nam. This is 100% of the donations received (we are all volunteers who cover our own costs for research, administration etc). So let’s revisit that sum of money AU$58,000 converts to US$40,762 (today’s exchange rate) which is pocket change when you consider the hundreds of millions spent on anti-poaching and conservation measures. This ~US$41,000 has:
- Triggered chatter in our target group in Viet Nam and beyond this group
- Triggered chatter in range countries about do we really understand the nature of the demand
- Triggered thinking, conversation and collaboration in the conservation space about how to correctly define demand reduction.
The full results of BTB ~US$41,000 spent to-date can be found in the Breaking The Brand Project Second Annual Report.
So from a Return On Investment perspective we believe we have ‘punched above our weight’.
Comment 3: Breaking The Brand wants donations
Yes, we do want more donations. If we can achieve what we have on ~US$41,000 we certainly believe that if we had US$2 Million to spend on demand reduction campaigns in Viet Nam, targeting the primary users in a way that resonates with them, we could make inroads into their desire for rhino horn.
So let’s come back to the blog and pose the questions highlighted in the blog to the pro-trade lobby and the people set to make billions of dollars from a legalised trade.
Let’s not let them get away with trying to divert people from that fact that they are not responding to these basic, business questions. Don’t let them use their standard ‘lobbying 101 techniques’ of deflection and counter-attack.
The questions I posed in the blog are not only valid, they are the starting points of any business analysis and business case. Again maybe they can’t answer the questions because they haven’t done the user analysis (and by this I mean the analysis of the people who can afford to by genuine, wild rhino horn, not the 90% of people in Viet Nam duped in to buying fake product).
If they can’t answer the basic questions underpinning their so-called business case and simply go into attack mode, which I have noticed tends to be the standard response to anyone who questions them, maybe we can let them know that they are being overly emotional!
Obviously the lack of any useful response means that there is neither the willingness nor the ability on the pro-trade side to engage with the real aspects of the debate. Similarly, if the response is silence this is also be very telling!
These are the views of the author: Dr. Lynn Johnson, Founder, Breaking the Brand