The Campaign Company specialises in social research and behaviour change. This is your guide to what we’ve been reading. Here’s what’s coming up this week:
Hello and welcome to the TCC Weekly – the Friday bulletin for people who know their Black Tot Day from their ‘last call’.
What is the appeal of the American Bully XL dog? And what does this tell us about Behaviour Change? We ask these questions in today’s bulletin.
And of course, there’s Charlie’s Attic, where canine and asinine rule.
On the topic, incidentally, of our Charlie’s Attic’s link last week about odd laws, it’s worth noting that the Law Commission have a briefing on their website for the most frequently mentioned odd laws – and an assessment as to whether they are fact or fiction. So if you have viewed a naked mannequin or eaten chocolate on a bus and are now making for the hills then hold fire – you’re probably safe! But if you’re drunk on licensed premises, carrying a plank on the pavement or singing profane songs on the street then you’re not!
American bullies
An ‘extra-large’ species of fighting dog, named after a global super-power, whose title implies the intimidation and torment of others. Who would have thought that the ‘American Bully XL Pitbull’ would be an aggressive animal?
The debate about the species has intensified over the past year, thanks to a series of tragic, high-profile attacks, many of them involving children. The Mirror recently reported that American Bullies are 270 times more dangerous than all other dog breeds combined, in terms of human fatalities. They are launching a campaign to have the Dangerous Dogs Act reviewed.
Defenders of the American Bully XL argue that there are no bad dogs, just bad owners. It’s nurture, not nature. The argument is pretty flimsy – this article explains why in more detail.
So why do people continue to buy American Bully dogs, when evidence suggests that ownership could put theirs and their children’s lives in danger, and even see them end up in prison? In many ways this is a classic social marketing conundrum. By reducing the allure of the breed, policy-makers can go some way to solving the problem.
The question reminds us of a project we worked on many moons ago. Animal rights campaigners back in 2011 wanted to address the problem of status dogs owned by young men in urban areas – a group they had previously been unsuccessful in reaching. This was a concern both for public safety and from an animal rights perspective. TCC were asked by charities to research the issue.
We conducted insight with owners of status dogs in Lewisham and found that they were almost entirely Prospectors (to use our Values Modes segmentation). They were competitive and aspirational and were motivated by status and the respect of their peers. They also loved their pets and thus looked past the risks. This was an issue where image and leadership could be decisive, and we designed an intervention that involved channelling messages through role models.
The overlay with American Bullies is not exact, but we can make some educated guesses. Many owners will be drawn to the status which the dogs provide, which brings feelings of personal agency and individual pride. Mastering animals which others see as too frightening to handle may be a big part of this.
Emphasising the dangers of the breed could be ineffective – or even counter-productive – in this light. Campaigners would do better to develop narratives which diminish the status and cache of American Bullies. The argument, perhaps, should be that there is something cowardly or even embarrassing about owning this type of dog. They are less American Bullies than American Wimps.
And finally, Charlie’s Attic, the part of the Weekly that barks at the moon each Friday:
