Enrichment programs and public perception

[urbpan]

I have a couple questions which may seem terribly cynical, but they are on my mind and I'd like to get some opinions on them:

How important is public perception to an enrichment program: How much of the content of the enrichment program exists to improve public relations and increase the public image of the zoo (whether or not the enrichment method is an obvious one)? If some of the content of the enrichment program exists to increase the public image of the zoo, how forthright should the zoo be about this side-benefit of the enrichment program?

(cross-posted to the yahoo zookeeper groups)

Comments

[ankhanu.livejournal.com]

I'm a cynical man, so perhaps I'm a little biased in my reply.
I think the public image portion of an enrichment program is almost of more importance than the actual benefits of the program. Why? Because if the public doesn't care about the zoo, they're not going to invest in it so that improvements can be made. As a society, we're extremely apathetic about anything that doesn't immediately impact US, as such, it's important to show how it may impact them personally to get any kind of interest.

How forthright should a zoo be about it... as forthright as needed to get the result desired.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

It's a tricky balance: how to pander to people without them feeling pandered to.

[aslant.livejournal.com]

i think it is obvious to the public that all organizations must act in their own best interests...even non-profits benefit from providing services, etc. i think what will matter is whether the individuals conducting the enrichment program truly believe that the enrichment effort is good and worthwhile. if they believe in it, what does it matter if the communications arm of the organization takes that good-ness and uses it as a selling point in public relations campaigns or general advertising?

i don't think a zoo (or any organization) needs to disclose the side benefits, unless there is unethical behavior involved. and it is not unethical to provide a service and then advertise/educate the public about that service. the only important caveat i see here is that the public's perception of the organization will plummet when they take part in the enrichment program and are faced with members of the organization who have a poor opinion of its worth.

[sin-agua.livejournal.com]

I feel the same way, and I've now worked for three non-profits. Of course these organizations don't do these programs NOT to increase their meager revenues. It's a balancing act, I guess.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

That's a good point. The staff should definitely feel like what they are doing is worthwhile.

[ritaxis.livejournal.com]

I think some but not a lot of the program can easily be p.r. for the zoo, and it should be obvious and straightforward. It shouldn't be a great part of every presentation, but it should exist every time.

I'm basing this opinion on my experiences taking school kids to the Monterey Aquarium, which does a lot of educational stuff. There's a certain amount of aquarium-plugging most of the time, but how much depends on what the presentation is.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

So it's sort of a balancing act?

[ritaxis.livejournal.com]

It shouldn't havwe to be, consciously: it should flow. Like, if the subject of the day's program is more intimately connected with the specific mission of the institution, there should be more plugging, and if the subject of the day's program is more general then there should be less. And there should also be a certain amount of p.r. for related careers! Students always need to be hearing about things they can do for a living that aren't showcased on TV (and particularly they need to be hearing about things that take more and less amounts of post-secondary education)



What is that beast in your arms?

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

New England's most horrible animal, the woodchuck Marmota monax.

[ritaxis.livejournal.com]

I should have known. We call them marmots (http://www.naturalphotos.com/sekercioglu/sierra_nevada/pages/CAL17-YNP-Marmot.htm) when we see them in the Sierras.

They eat radiator hoses if they get a chance.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to get the name "northeastern marmot" to enter common usage.

They also like computer cables. Don't keep them in your office.

[stealthww.livejournal.com]

I've volunteered at zoos for a long time and usually it seems anytime you can incorporate increasing public relations you should. Usually the zoos I worked at accomplished this with displays and public shows. Although one time one of the zoo keepers put out little white rabbits in the tiger cage on Easter, people were not amused :)

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

Often people ask me why we don't feed out live mice. "Because half of you people would flip out and try to shut us down, that's why!!" (Well, no, we have other reasons, but that's part of it.)

[interfecta.livejournal.com]

I spent many summers volunteering at a nonprofit park/farm/nature center, so I'm a touch prejudiced in the area, but I'll have a crack at it anyway.

In the case of a nonprofit or not-for-profit, allowing enrichment to dovetail with PR is perfectly appropriate, since the assumption of a nonprofit organization is that it is filling a need which the public deserves implicitly to have filled. It's not inappropriate for a WIC clinic to tell uninsured mothers how they will benefit from coming to their next appointment; that's in the mothers' best interest. (I know this is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, since few babies have been saved from malnutrition by attending a zoo, but I'm making an extreme case for a not-for-profit organization.)

On the other hand, it's not appropriate to ask a patron to, in effect, pay for a commercial. If I went to Sea World and put down extra money to see a presentation I thought would center around protecting coral reefs, I would be offended if the last 20 minutes of the hour were spent telling me to come visit Sea World soon.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

That makes sense.

[bicoastal.livejournal.com]

As a member of the MSM, I'd have to say that promoting your enrichment project is quite important, if only because zoos are supported by donations and often by tax dollars, meaning that ultimately outsiders will take a role in the institution's fate. It's important that any promotion - outreach to the media, talks, etc. - accurately portray what the enrichment DOES, that it really works, and that anyone with thoughtful questions can receive real answers beyond whatever minimal presentation you make for groups or press releases. Examples are really great - "rooting is part of pig behavior, so in the autumn we move them to our un-raked oak grove to let them root for acorns, wanna see?" is better than "Our pigs receive seasonally appropriate enrichment." A not-obvious enrichment method can be a great selling point with a reporter, who might enjoy relaying it to the public.

As far as how public to make the PR benefits - You don't make announcements about it, but you don't hide that if a journalist asks. All the best PR people I know can happily talk about a question like that: "It's good for the animals, and it's also good for the zoo. We hope if people know about the great work we're doing they'll visit more, and perhaps become members or contribute to our X campaign -- which will help us do even more good work. With so many zoos facing serious issues, such the elephant deaths over the past few years, we think it's important for our community to know we're trying to do things right."

But be careful: if the enrichment only exists to provide PR, and does not ACTUALLY enrich the lives of the animals, an enterprising reporter might be able to figure it out (talking to outside animal behavior experts), and report on how taxpayers/donor money is being wasted in an effort to generate more money. That would make the zoo look like a money-grubbing greedyguts.

So - Honesty is best in PR.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

Excellent answers! Thanks very much.

[aplomada.livejournal.com]

I used to work as an aquarist at a public aquarium, and my experience was that the keepers providing enrichment did it with the animals' good at heart. In fact, much of the enrichment was not known to the public -- such as the toys in the parrots' off-exhibit cages or the legos in the tank of the octopus that was not on exhibit. (Yes, even the octopuses got enrichment!) The education staff and volunteers certainly educated the public about what they could see, but the motivating force behind it was from the bottom up, not the top down. The animal care staff drove the enrichment programs; they were not directed by marketing.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

Did the octopus play with the legos?

[aplomada.livejournal.com]

Yes, and with hollow balls too!

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

I don't suppose it built anything with the legos--just manipulated them? (Tentaculated them?)

enrichment= great chance to educate

[ssejooz.livejournal.com]

After all- the mission of most zoos is education and conservation. I spent many years working as a keeper at the Boston Zoos and a couple of years before that in Florida. I think that enrichment should be designed to 1st benefit the animal but also serve as a great way to educate the public. "zookeeper" talks would be a whole lot easier at most places if they had enrichment items to refer to in their daily tedious talks with the public (lets face it- we work at zoos to work with the animals- not the public--- unless ofcourse you are head of education).

Over 60% of the comments recorded by the public are in reference to a stereotypical behavior. Wouldn't it be nice to then tell that visitor that you are trying to alleviate the behavior? I think it is ok to tell the visitor that part of the reason zoos do enrichment is to alleviate the "side effects" of captivity. Doing nothing is far worse. If it comes up, be honest with the visitor. I have found that this has led to donations of 1) more phonebooks and papertowel rolls than we knew what to do with and 2) partnerships with companies that want to donate items.

An educated visitor= happy visitor= more money for the zoo= happier animals.

Also- to comment on the live feeding of mice issue: The answer is simple- it is dangerous to the animal. This also provides a good chance to educate.

I think it is easy to say "ugh- stupid visitors," and I often did, but they are there to see animals and hopefully they will learn something in the process. Maybe they will learn something about conservation and behavior and they will see something that will light a fire under their ass to do something for the planet.

Re: enrichment= great chance to educate

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

Good answer. The real reason I asked this question has to do with where I work--it's a wildlife sanctuary primarily, but it has a collection of unreleasable native animals. A lot of the visitors are people who don't like to see animals in captivity, so I take any chance I can get to tell them how good our animal care is.