Download
1 / 47
470 likes | 550 Views
Marketing Research Study. The Inhumane Treatment of Animals. By: Patrick Malone Jay Brown Brynne Gaffney Lindsey Black Bethany Critchley. Introduction. Background:.
E N D
Marketing Research Study The Inhumane Treatment of Animals By:Patrick MaloneJay BrownBrynne GaffneyLindsey BlackBethany Critchley
Introduction Background: Franklin Pierce University is a small, private regionally accredited University grounded in the liberal arts, with a focus on personal attention and high-quality instruction. The college at Rindge consists of 1,400 undergraduate students.
Problem Statement We are conducting research to determine whether students at Franklin Pierce consider the inhumane treatment of animals when purchasing consumer products and services.
Research Objectives Access the literature related to using inhumane practices on animals when developing products. Determine the awareness level of the inhumane treatment of animals. Determine student opinions and attitudes related to inhumane treatment of animals.
Definitions Animal welfare- the avoidance of abuse and exploitation of animals by humans by maintaining appropriate standards of accommodation, feeding and general care, the prevention and treatment of disease, and the assurance of freedom of harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain Animal cruelty- the crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering, or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline Inhumane treatment- a cruel act; a deliberate infliction of pain and suffering Animal testing- the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, especially for purposes determining the safety of substances such as food or drugs Animal Feedlot Operations- agricultural operations where animals are kept and raised in confined situations
Literature Review • Inhumane Animal Treatment for Biomedical Research • 1937- “Elixir Sulfanilamide” was put on the market- over 100 deaths occurred. • Due to this incident and many others, animal experimentation was developed in the biomedical industry.(4) • In the US alone, millions of animals are tested per year. • Only 5% of the drugs that show potential in animals ever get licensed for human use. ()
Literature Review, cont’d • Inhumane Animal Treatment in the Fashion Industry • In recent years, the influence of animal welfare groups has played a major role in swaying customer values. • The use of technologies such as television and internet has allowed these groups to reach a larger group of people. • One 2008 study found that a growing population (19%) of the sample, were motivated to purchase clothing based on an animal welfare designation.()
Literature Review, cont’d • Inhumane Animal Treatment in Entertainment • Examples: horse racing, dog racing, dog fighting, circuses, zoo’s, etc.. • Often times these forms of entertainment stay out of the public eye. • Ex: “Hog Dog Rodeo.” (2)
Literature Review, cont’d • Inhumane Animal Treatment in the Food Industry • Pilgrims Pride plant in Moorefield, West Virginia. • Supplies to KFC • Video Released by an undercover animal rights activist said to “contain some of the worst scenes of animal cruelty ever witnessed.” (7)
Literature Review, cont’d • Inhumane Animal Treatment in the Food Industry, cont’d • Heather McLeod-Kilmurray created a study titled “Commoditizing Non-human Animals and their Consumers: Industrial livestock production, animal welfare, and ecological justice.”(6) • Looks into the effects of Factory Farming
Literature Review, cont’d • Inhumane Animal Treatment in the Cosmetics Industry. • Animals such as rabbits, pigs, mice, rats, and dogs are used in cosmetic product testing. • Many products today are labeled “cruelty free,” although often times this is only referring to the finished product. (5)
Methodology • Problem Identification • The problem that the research group identified was that students of Franklin Pierce University may not be aware of the treatment and overall welfare of animals used for the production of consumer products and services. • Development of Survey • Group determined topics most crucial to research • Conducted a literature review • Used Literature review and research objectives to create 14 questions to future our research
Methodology cont’d • Definition of Population • Student body at Franklin Pierce University on the Rindge campus • Current student body is approximately 1,400 undergraduate • Sample Size • 160 students • 20 male and 20 females from each class
Methodology cont’d • Data Collection Method • Group used non-probability convenience sampling method • Self-administered survey approach • The 5 members attempted to hand out 40 surveys each • Over sampling ensured that we had needed number of responses for each gender and class
Methodology cont’d • Assumptions • We feel that all respondents answered completely, truthfully, and accurately. • Limitations • The amount of time it took to get freshman and sophomore respondents to answer our survey. • A probability sampling method would have been more desirable as we would have been able to directly choose who we wanted to take our survey. • Lack of interest of the respondents. • Some respondents did not fill out the back of the survey.
Cross-Tabulations #1: Do you consider the inhumane treatment of animals when purchasing consumer products (ie: food, cosmetics, entertainment, medicine, clothing etc.)? vs. What is your gender?
Cross-Tabulations #2: If you became aware that an everyday product you use is inhumanely tested on animals would you continue further purchases of this product? vs. Do you own a pet?
Cross-Tabulations #3: Are you aware of inhumane treatment of animals in the fashion and cosmetics industries? vs. What is your gender?
Discussion • The student body shows an overall low awareness level in regards to the inhumane treatment of animals when purchasing consumer products and services. • 73.75 % of the students surveyed said that they did not consider the inhumane treatment of animals when purchasing consumer goods and services. • The student body shows a higher awareness level in regards to the different types of animal cruelty we face today. • ex; increased level in awareness of animal cruelty in the fashion, cosmetic, medical, and food industries.
Conclusion • Research objective # 1: • Our group accessed literature pertaining to the related topic of using inhumane practices on animals when developing products and services for consumers. Our group researched and assessed industries in which such practices take place such as biomedical research, fashion, entertainment, cosmetic, and food industries.
Conclusion, cont’d • Research objective 2- student awareness levels of inhumane treatment of animals: • Medical- 69.83 % yes • Fashion- 56.25% yes • Cosmetics- 67.5% yes • Food- 69.38% yes • Entertainment- 62.5% no • Recreation- 72.5% no • Heard of factory farming- 59.4% yes • Patronizing factory farming- 58.8 % not sure/ 23.1% no
Conclusion, cont’d • Research objective 3- student opinions and attitudes in regards to the inhumane treatment of animals: • Continued purchases- 71.9% no • How important- roughly 60 % yes • Support medical testing- 61.9% no
Recommendations • We recommend that a club rooted around the inhumane treatment of animals should be created on campus. • We also recommend that FPTV take into consideration our own version of an inhumane treatment of animals awareness commercial to be aired on their station. • Through these actions, we can hope to not only increase awareness in the student body, but influence them to consider the inhumane treatment of animals when purchasing consumer products and services.
References About FDA. (n.d.). The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/ProductRegulation/ucm132818.htm. Barry, E. (2004, Dec 21). The nation; 7 arrested in hog and dog competitions. Los Angeles Times, pp. 15-A. 15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/421958302?accountid=37705 Biomedical Research | Animal Use in Research. (2012). Biomedical Research | Animal Use in Research. Retrieved from http://www.neavs.org/research/biomedical Bowmar, R. (2009). ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO ANIMAL WELFARE ADVOCACY: A CASE STUDY OF MERINO WOOL AND MULESING (Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 2009). UMI Dissertations Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.proquest.com Dawn, K. (2008). Thanking the monkey: Rethinking the way we treat animals. New York: Harper. Hajar, Rachel. "Formats:." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 01 July 0005. Web. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/>. Hustvedt, G., Peterson, H. H., & Chen, Y. (2008). Labelling wool products for animal welfare and environmental impact. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5), 427-437. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00705.x Katrinak, V. (2007). Blinded For Beauty: Rabbits Used In Product Testing. AV Magazine, CXV(1), 2-14. Mcleod-Kilmurray, H. (2012). Commoditizing Nonhuman Animals and their Consumers: Industrial Livestock Production, Animal Welfare, and Ecological Justice. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 72-81. Retrieved October 4, 2012. McNEIL, D. G., J. (2004, Jul 20). KFC supplier accused of animal cruelty. New York Times, pp. 2-C.2. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/432801726?accountid=37705 Schaeffer, C. (2010). Product Testing: Beginning to an End? AV Magazine, (2), 4-28. Swami, V., Furnham, A., & Christopher, A. N. (2008). Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 269-276. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 9450.2008.00636.x Take the Leap to Cruelty-Free Products : LeapingBunny.org. (n.d.). Take the Leap to Cruelty-Free Products : LeapingBunny.org. Retrieved from http://www.leapingbunnypledge.org/pledge.aspx
