Impact Evaluation of a Landing
Page Used in Mercy For Animals’
Facebook Advertising Campaign
Results from an Experimental Design
January 20, 2015
Table of Contents
Background & Objectives
3
Survey Methodology
4
Sample Consideration & Analysis
5
Summary of Findings
6
Reported Changes in Dietary Habits
7
Reported Consumption of Animal Products
10
Attitudes
11
2
Background & Objectives
One tactic employed by Mercy For Animals (MFA) towards its overarching goal of preventing
animal cruelty is funding Facebook ads that link to landing pages with videos designed to
convince viewers to reduce or eliminate eating animal products.
The idea is that reducing
demand for animal products will reduce the number of animals raised in the meat, dairy, and egg
industries. MFA focuses its Facebook ad buys on females ages 13-24 because they are viewed as
a demographic sympathetic to preventing animal cruelty and are more likely to change their
behavior than other groups.
The Facebook ads are viewed by MFA, and by many in the animal cruelty prevention community,
as a cost-effective method for increasing awareness and educating target demographics about the
conditions endured by farmed animals.
The purpose of this study is to understand the extent to which the landing page used in the
Facebook ad intervention has an impact on changing meat, dairy, and egg consumption behavior,
as well as attitudes and diet intentions, among the target audience.
3
Survey Methodology
Pro-vegetarian ads were run on Facebook targeting women ages 13 to 24. Of those who clicked
on the ad, half were assigned to the experimental group and directed to a landing page where
they were shown a video on cruelty to farm animals called Farm To Fridge. The other half were
assigned to the control group and taken to a landing page with a video focused on combatting
tropical diseases. Both landing pages had links to additional resources on their respective topics.
Facebook re-targeting pixels were used so that experimental and control groups could be targeted
separately with follow-up surveys in the future.
Two to four months after the program intervention, the retargeting pixels were used to promote a
survey to the two groups. A Facebook page called “Nonprofit Research” advertised the survey, so
viewers would not know the survey was connected to the intervention. The ads offered the ability
to win an Amazon gift card for participating in an academic survey. Control and experimental
group participants who clicked on the ad were taken to separate (but identical) survey pages,
where they completed the follow-up survey.
Timeframe
Experimental
Control
February 2015
Watch MFA video
Directed to neutral video
May-July 2015
Take survey (post-exposure)
Take survey (no exposure to
video)
4
Sample Considerations and Analysis
Results are reported among 1,433 females age 13-25. MFA’s Facebook ads target females in this
age group, and therefore, this demographic is the focus of this survey and analysis. A small
number of males and individuals of other ages who completed the survey were excluded from
analysis. Survey data was also weighted to control for age and nationality.
Age 13-16
Age 17-20
Age 21-25
44%
31%
25%
Female
Other
Male
99%
1%
--
United States
United Kingdom
Canada
Australia
Other
No response
59%
17%
15%
8%
1%
0%
As with any sample frame, the sample size allows a certain degree of precision. To detect small
effect sizes with confidence (i.e., power), very large sample sizes are needed. Many of the effect
sizes found in this study are small, and may fall outside the study’s margin of error due to the
study’s sample size. Specifically, although no statistically significant difference was found in
animal product consumption between Experimental and Control, due to the low power it is unclear
whether the landing page with factory farming video had a positive, neutral or negative impact on
animal product consumption.
Statistically significant differences between Experimental and Control samples are noted in this
report at the 95% confidence interval where applicable.
5
Summary of Findings
The experimental design did not uncover a difference in the number of servings of animal
products that participants reported as having eaten in the previous two days. Viewing the landing
page with factory farming video did not appear to alter the amount of animal products being eaten
two to four months later.
The Experimental group was more likely than the Control group to report that they intended to eat
less meat or to eat no meat four months in the future. Self-identification as vegetarian was also
higher among the Experimental group than the Control group, even though the actual incidence of
vegetarianism/veganism - as measured by reported consumption of animal products over the past
two days - was the same.
6
Reported Changes in Dietary Habits (1 of 3)
One fourth report a decrease in meat consumption – however, both experimental and control samples
show the same decreased consumption, suggesting that the reported decline is not a result of viewing
the landing page with factory farm video.
Self-reported vegetarianism is higher among the Experimental group than Control group.
Changes During Ad Deployment
At any time in the past four months, have you increased or decreased the total amount of
meat, chicken and fish you ate? This may be a choice you made for a few days or for more
than a few days.
55%
58%
24%
16%
26%
17%
10%
Increased in last 4
months
 higher at the 95% CI for that age category
No change

7%
Decreased in last 4 Did not eat meat
months
then, do not eat
meat now
Experimental
Control
7
Reported Changes in Dietary Habits (2 of 3)
A small proportion report they are eating more meat now than four months ago, with the Experimental
group slightly more likely to report eating more today (statistically significant at the 80% level).
Are Changes in Meat Consumption
Sustained?
Compared to four months ago, are you eating more, less, or about
the same amount of meat, chicken and fish (in total)?
53%
55%
32%
15%
32%
13%
I am eating more meat, I am eating about the I am eating less meat,
chicken and fish (in
same amount of meat,
chicken and fish (in
total) than I was four
chicken and fish (in
total) than I was four
months ago
total) as I was four
month ago
months ago
8
Experimental
Control
Reported Changes in Dietary Habits (3 of 3)
Self-reported intent to reduce or exclude meat, chicken, and fish from the diet four months from now is
higher among the Experimental group than the Control group.
Intended Future Meat Consumption
Four months from now, how much meat, chicken and fish
(in total) do you think you will be eating?
61%
55%
Exp:
Cont:
31% 26%
20%
14%
14%
I will probably be
eating more (in
total) than I was
four months ago
 higher at the 95% CI for that age category
17%
11%
9%
I will probably be
I will probably be I will probably not
eating about the eating less (in total)
be eating any
same amount (in
than I was four
total) as I was four
month ago
months ago
9
Experimental
Control
Reported Consumption of Animal Products
There is no observed and statistically significant difference in reported consumption of animal
products between the Control and Experimental groups overall or by age groups.
Total
Control
Experimental
Base
(n=684)
(n=749)
Pork
1.115
1.225
Beef
1.595
1.580
Dairy
3.297
3.416
Eggs
1.389
1.447
Chicken
1.811
1.941
Fish
0.835
0.829
Reported Servings in Past Two Days
10
Attitudes
% “Strongly + Somewhat Agree”
Cows, pigs and chickens are
intelligent, emotional individuals
with unique personalities
I know how to replace meat,
chicken and fish dishes with
appealing non-meat options
Eating less meat, chicken and
fish (in total) is the right thing to
do
Experimental 37%
33%
Control
24%
20%
16%
14%
26%
26%
23%
27%
59%
47%
47%
20%
36%
21%
35%
Strongly agree
62%
Somewhat agree
11
For additional information, please contact:
Gayle Vogel | 703-842-0204 | vogel@edgeresearch.com
Matthew Maher | 703-842-0210 | maher@edgeresearch.com
Edge Research
1560 Wilson Blvd, Suite 475
Arlington, VA 22209
www.edgeresearch.com