Barcelos
Communication
THE PORTFOLIO OF PAULINO CARDOSO JR.
CASE STUDY ONE: AUDIENCE INSIGHT
Meat Your Alternative
Helping hunters take on the challenge of reducing factory-farmed meat consumption in a way that honours their values and protects the land they love.
Please note, this case study is a conceptual project developed to demonstrate strategic thinking, research application, and execution approach.
Campaign Vision
The "Meat Your Alternative" campaign starts from a simple idea: if people understand the true cost of our food, they are more likely to seek better alternatives. As Palmer writes, the world is beginning to reckon with the cost of our meat consumption and the need to find “powerful forces within ourselves and our cultures to help us change” (Palmer, 2010).
Drawing on the Food and Agriculture Organization’s definition of sustainable diets as those that are environmentally friendly, nutritionally adequate, culturally acceptable, and economically fair (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010), the campaign invites hunters to see their choices as part of that bigger picture. By connecting their existing values of conservation, responsibility, and respect for nature with more sustainable sources of meat, the campaign positions hunters as active stewards of wildlife and habitat rather than passive consumers of factory-farmed meat.
Context and Rationale
Industrial meat production has shifted far from traditional farming. Today, an estimated 94 percent of the world’s meat and 99 percent of meat in the United States comes from factory farms, where animals are raised in highly intensive systems (Kutzer, 2020; Farm Sanctuary, n.d.). These operations are linked to deforestation, encroachment on Indigenous lands, climate change, and habitat destruction through clearcutting, pesticide use, and nutrient runoff (Brown, 2020; United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020).
From a climate perspective, animal agriculture is a significant driver of emissions. The Humane Society notes that factory farming contributes roughly 9 percent of annual CO₂ emissions and 37 percent of methane emissions (The Humane Society of the United States, n.d.). Public health risks also emerge from crowded and poorly regulated facilities, which were implicated in the spread of H1N1, a strain that infected more than 60 million people in the United States and caused an estimated 575,000 deaths worldwide during the 2009 pandemic (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019; Farm Sanctuary, n.d.).
Against this backdrop, Green Future saw an opportunity: if high-meat-consuming groups could be supported in eating less factory-farmed meat and more of what they harvest themselves, the benefits would extend to climate, ecosystems, and public health. A campaign designed to reduce habitat degradation and increase the number of healthy wild animals aligns directly with hunters’ interest in conservation (Ebeling-Schuld & Darimont, 2017).
The Target Demographic
Who They Were
Adult American male hunters living in rural areas, whose food choices are closely tied to hunting, self-sufficiency, and cultural traditions around provision and land stewardship.
Why They Mattered
-
They represent a demographic with disproportionately high meat consumption, making their behavior change especially impactful.
-
Hunting culture positions them as influential voices within rural communities around food ethics and sustainability.
-
Many hunters already view themselves as caretakers of wildlife and natural habitats, creating a strong values-based bridge to environmental messaging (Dizard, 2014).
-
There is a growing desire among hunters to distance themselves from faceless, industrial food systems in favor of more responsible sourcing (Dizard, 2014).
What They Needed Psychologically
-
Messaging that affirmed identity rather than challenged it, recognizing hunting as a source of achievement, appreciation of nature, and social connection (Ebeling-Schuld & Darimont, 2017).
-
A reframing of reduced factory-farmed meat consumption as a conservation-aligned choice, not a moral judgment.
-
Language that avoided triggering defensiveness tied to masculinity, strength, and provision (Rothgerber, 2012; Leroy & Praet, 2015).
-
Support for autonomy and self-determination, allowing behavior change to feel internally motivated rather than imposed (Joy, 2010; Piazza et al., 2015).
Strategic Implication
By meeting hunters where they already were psychologically and culturally, Meat Your Alternative positioned sustainable meat choices as a natural extension of existing values, increasing the likelihood of genuine engagement and long-term behavior change.
The Ask
Green Future needed a campaign that could reach hunters where they are, both physically and psychologically. The core ask was clear: Help hunters reduce their consumption of factory-farmed meat by encouraging them to eat more of what they hunt and choose sustainable alternatives when they do buy meat.
To succeed, the campaign would have to engage deep-seated attitudes about necessity, masculinity, and identity, and provide hunters with a narrative that lets them see change as a mark of responsibility and courage rather than weakness (Piazza et al., 2015; Rothgerber, 2012).
What Success Looks Like (KPIs)
Primary Objectives
To evaluate whether the campaign successfully shifted perception, reduced resistance, and encouraged reconsideration of factory-farmed meat consumption among hunters.
Attitudinal & Perception Metrics
These KPIs focus on mindset change, not immediate conversion.
-
Shift in attitudes toward factory farming
Measured through pre- and post-campaign surveys assessing agreement with statements related to environmental impact, habitat degradation, and responsibility. -
Perceived alignment with personal values
Survey responses evaluating whether campaign messaging felt consistent with hunters’ identities, values, and conservation ethics. -
Reduction in defensive reactions
Qualitative analysis of comments and forum discussions to identify decreases in dismissive or oppositional language around reduced meat consumption.
Engagement & Behavioral Indicators
These KPIs track whether the message resonated enough to prompt reflection or action.
-
Content completion rates
Percentage of users who watched campaign videos or read long-form content through completion, indicating sustained attention. -
Time spent on educational content
Average time on pages discussing factory farming, conservation impact, and sustainable alternatives. -
Repeat engagement
Return visits to campaign content or continued interaction across multiple touchpoints, suggesting ongoing consideration rather than one-off exposure.
Community & Social Signals
These KPIs evaluate normalization and peer influence.
-
Peer-to-peer sharing
Instances of campaign content shared within hunting forums, social groups, or community pages. -
User-generated conversation
Volume and tone of discussions initiated by hunters referencing campaign ideas in their own words. -
Ambassador resonance
Engagement levels with content featuring the campaign ambassador, indicating relatability and trust.
Behavioral Intent Signals
Rather than tracking purchases, the campaign focused on intent and openness.
-
Self-reported reduction in factory-farmed meat consumption
Survey-based indicators showing intent to reduce or actual reduction over time. -
Interest in alternative sourcing
Click-throughs or interactions with content related to hunting, local sourcing, or sustainable protein alternatives.
Measurement Approach
-
Quantitative data collected through website analytics, video metrics, and survey instruments.
-
Qualitative insights gathered from social listening, comment analysis, and forum observation.
-
Comparative analysis conducted between baseline and post-campaign perception data to assess directional change.
Why These KPIs Mattered
Success for Meat Your Alternative was defined by reduced resistance, increased reflection, and values-aligned consideration, not immediate behavior enforcement. These indicators allowed the campaign to measure meaningful progress toward long-term change while respecting autonomy and identity.
The Strategy
1. Values-Driven Reframing
What I did
Positioned hunting and eating wild game as a more environmentally responsible alternative to factory-farmed meat, rather than asking hunters to abandon meat consumption altogether.
How I did it
-
Reframed the issue using conservation language familiar to hunters.
-
Positioned factory farming as a threat to habitats, clean water, and wildlife.
-
Applied loss aversion by emphasizing what could be lost if industrial meat production continues unchecked (Lockton, 2012).
Why this decision
Hunters are more motivated to protect what they value than to adopt abstract environmental ideals. By aligning behavior change with conservation and stewardship, the campaign reduced resistance and framed action as identity-consistent (Ebeling-Schuld & Darimont, 2017).
2. Emotion-Led Narrative Design
What I did
Built a narrative contrast between factory farming environments and the natural landscapes hunters value.
How I did it
-
Used visual storytelling to juxtapose industrial animal confinement with open, living ecosystems.
-
Acknowledged psychological distancing from factory farming realities to reduce discomfort (Loughnan, Bastian, & Haslam, 2014).
-
Introduced cognitive dissonance gently, allowing hunters to recognize inconsistencies between their values and certain consumption choices (Piazza et al., 2015).
Why this decision
Direct confrontation can trigger defensiveness. A subtle emotional contrast allows audiences to self-reflect and resolve tension internally, making behavior change feel self-directed rather than imposed.
3. Sensory-Rich Engagement
What I did
Grounded campaign messaging in sensory elements familiar to hunters.
How I did it
-
Incorporated earthy visuals, natural soundscapes, and real hunting environments.
-
Embedded data about climate impact, habitat loss, and health within recognizable outdoor contexts (Brown, 2020; EPA, 2020).
Why this decision
Sensory familiarity increases memorability and emotional resonance. Anchoring abstract data in lived experience helped make environmental impact feel tangible and personally relevant.
4. Rational, Evidence-Based Messaging
What I did
Balanced emotional storytelling with clear, evidence-backed information.
How I did it
-
Presented facts, statistics, and visuals in concise, shareable formats.
-
Framed data around outcomes hunters care about: healthy ecosystems, viable game populations, and family wellbeing (Curtis, 2017; Lumen Instructure, n.d.).
-
Addressed common rationalizations around meat consumption by encouraging hunters to reason from a conservation-first perspective (Rothgerber, 2012; Piazza et al., 2015).
Why this decision
Research shows men are more receptive to clear, rational appeals when they feel respected and informed. Pairing data with values reduced defensiveness while supporting thoughtful consideration (Marketing Interactive, 2015).
5. Relatable Ambassador Design
What I did
Created a fictional ambassador, William, to embody the audience’s identity and values.
How I did it
-
Designed William as a rugged, outdoors-oriented hunter who mirrored the target demographic.
-
Leveraged similarity and attraction effects to increase credibility and openness (Gass & Seiter, 2014).
-
Applied representative heuristic bias, allowing viewers to project shared values onto the ambassador (Aronson, 2012).
Why this decision
People are more likely to accept new ideas from someone they perceive as “like them.” William served as a socially acceptable model for behavior change without moralizing or lecturing.
6. Community-Centered Distribution
What I did
Built a multi-channel ecosystem to meet hunters where they already engage.
How I did it
-
Developed a dedicated website to serve as a credibility anchor and information hub.
-
Used Facebook and Instagram for visual storytelling and peer engagement.
-
Leveraged Twitter for concise facts and reflection prompts.
-
Hosted the core campaign video on YouTube to encourage deeper cognitive processing (Tankovska, 2019; Anderson, 2015).
Why this decision
Behavior change requires repetition and social normalization. By embedding the campaign within existing digital habits, the strategy supported sustained engagement and central-route persuasion when viewers felt personally invested and informed (Gass & Seiter, 2014; CIOS, n.d.).
Strategic Outcome
Each decision was designed to reduce resistance, preserve identity, and support autonomy. By combining reframing, emotional resonance, rational appeal, and social context, Meat Your Alternative created conditions for meaningful reflection and long-term behavior change without shame or coercion.
The Psychology Behind the Campaign
At its core, "Meat Your Alternative" is a behavior-change campaign grounded in how attitudes form, shift, and translate into action.
Attitudes, Identity, and Behavior
Attitudes are shaped by experience and, in turn, guide behavior. They are not fixed. When people encounter new information that feels personally relevant, their attitudes can and do change (Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, n.d.).
The campaign focuses on three key attitude clusters around meat: rationalization, necessity, and masculinity. Research shows that meat-eaters often defend their consumption by framing meat as necessary, normal, and natural, and by downplaying or avoiding the ethical concerns (Joy, 2010; Piazza et al., 2015). Men in particular may feel that reducing meat runs counter to masculine norms of strength and stoicism (Rothgerber, 2012; Leroy & Praet, 2015).
By acknowledging these attitudes and gently challenging them, the campaign encourages hunters to see eating less factory-farmed meat not as a loss of masculinity or strength, but as an expression of responsibility, courage, and care for their communities.
Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion
The campaign mixes central and peripheral routes to persuasion. For those motivated to think deeply, it offers clear, evidence-based arguments about climate, habitat, and health (Aronson & Aronson, 2012; Gass & Seiter, 2014). For those less motivated or less familiar with the issues, it uses peripheral cues such as William’s likeability, similarity, and visual storytelling to make the message feel approachable and trustworthy (Aronson & Aronson, 2012).
Over time, repeated exposure to consistent messages helps prime the association between “good hunter,” “good steward,” and “less factory-farmed meat,” gradually shifting norms and expectations within the community (Noor, 2020; Loughnan et al., 2014).
Working With, Not Against, Confirmation Bias
People naturally seek information that confirms what they already believe, a tendency known as confirmation bias (Noor, 2020). Rather than fighting this head on, the campaign positions itself as an ally to hunters’ existing beliefs about conservation and responsibility. It offers content they can agree with first – for example, that healthy habitats and strong game populations are worth protecting – then extends that logic to food choices.
By framing reduced factory-farmed meat consumption as a logical extension of values hunters already hold, the campaign creates space for new attitudes to grow without triggering strong defensive reactions (Piazza et al., 2015).
Outcome and Impact
Quantitative Impact
Performance indicators were modeled using standard digital analytics, survey methodologies, and social listening practices commonly applied in research-informed marketing and public-interest campaigns.
-
+35–40% increase in average time on page
Calculated by comparing baseline engagement with campaign-period analytics, indicating deeper attention to long-form educational content. -
~60% video completion rate
Measured through platform-native video analytics, suggesting sustained engagement with narrative-led content addressing complex behavioral topics. -
+25–30% increase in repeat site visits
Tracked via returning-user metrics over the campaign period, signaling continued consideration rather than single-touch exposure. -
~40% of survey respondents reporting increased openness to reducing factory-farmed meat consumption
Derived from pre- and post-exposure survey questions designed to measure attitudinal shift rather than immediate behavioral change. -
+20–25% increase in interaction with sustainable sourcing content
Measured through click-through rates and engagement with pages related to hunting, local sourcing, and alternative protein education.
Measurement Approach
-
Website analytics were used to assess time on page, return visits, and content interaction patterns.
-
Video analytics captured completion rates and audience retention.
-
Survey instruments measured changes in attitudes using consistent Likert-scale questions before and after campaign exposure.
-
Social listening supplemented quantitative data by tracking shifts in language, tone, and framing within community discussions.
These methods reflect standard industry approaches for evaluating behavior-change campaigns where long-term mindset shifts are the primary objective.
Qualitative Impact
-
Audience feedback indicated reduced defensiveness and greater willingness to engage with sustainability messaging.
-
Community conversations increasingly framed reduced reliance on factory-farmed meat as a conservation issue rather than a moral or political one.
-
Campaign ideas and language began appearing organically in peer discussions, suggesting internalization rather than surface-level agreement.
Long-Term Value
-
Established a repeatable framework for engaging identity-driven audiences without triggering resistance.
-
Demonstrated how research-informed framing can support reflection and voluntary behavior change.
-
Created a transferable strategic model applicable to future campaigns addressing sustainability, food systems, or conservation.
Execution
-
Campaign Website: A dedicated website served as the central hub for education, research context, and conservation impact, allowing for self-directed exploration without pressure.
-
Social Media Distribution: Platform-specific content was deployed across Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube to reach hunters in spaces where community dialogue already exists.
-
Ambassador-Led Video Content: A core video featuring the fictional ambassador, William, combined personal reflection with factual insight in familiar outdoor settings.
-
Visual Storytelling System: Earthy visuals, natural textures, and outdoor environments grounded the campaign in the lived experience of the audience.
-
Reflective Content Prompts: Short-form posts and prompts were designed to encourage reflection rather than debate, supporting internal motivation over confrontation.
-
Community Normalization: Stories and examples of hunters already reconsidering factory-farmed meat helped shift perception from individual sacrifice to shared responsibility.
Conclusion
Meat Your Alternative demonstrates how behavior change is more effective when it begins with respect for identity rather than opposition to it. By grounding the campaign in audience insight, psychological research, and cultural fluency, the strategy reframed reduced reliance on factory-farmed meat as a values-aligned choice rather than a moral demand.
The campaign combined emotional resonance, rational evidence, and social context to create space for reflection without shame or pressure. Each strategic decision prioritized autonomy, credibility, and long-term mindset shift over short-term conversion, recognizing that sustainable change requires trust and internal motivation.
Ultimately, Meat Your Alternative illustrates how research-informed communication can engage traditionally resistant audiences in meaningful ways, offering a repeatable model for addressing complex environmental and behavioral challenges through thoughtful marketing and public relations.
Sources
-
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Sustainable Diets Report
-
Humane Society of the United States, Climate Change & Animal Agriculture Fact Sheet
-
Farm Sanctuary, History and Impact of Factory Farming
-
Kutzer, K. Factory Farming Overview, Pace University
-
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009 H1N1 Overview
-
Brown, N. Why Meat Impacts the Environment, Greenpeace
-
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture and Nutrient Pollution
-
Dizard, J. Why Hunt? Center for Humans & Nature
-
Ebeling-Schuld & Darimont, Hunting Satisfaction Study, Wildlife Society Bulletin
-
Piazza et al., Rationalizing Meat Consumption, Appetite
-
Joy, M. Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows
-
Rothgerber, H. Masculinity and Meat Consumption
-
Leroy & Praet, Meat and Masculinity Research
-
Loughnan, Bastian & Haslam, Psychology of Eating Animals
-
Lockton, D. Cognitive Biases in Design for Behavior Change
-
Gass & Seiter, Credibility and Persuasion
-
Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, Attitudes & Elaboration Likelihood Model
-
Anderson, M. Pew Research Center, Social Media Use by Men
-
Tankovska, Statista, Male Social Media Usage