Animal Rebellion: public opinion polling

Why this matters

Understanding when and why protests fail to cut through is as important as studying their successes. This study offers a rare longitudinal look at a protest campaign that was derailed by external events, providing useful evidence on the role of timing, media competition, and luck in determining whether a campaign reaches the public.

What we found

Animal Rebellion’s dairy-focused protests received very little public attention. The protests coincided with the replacement of the Prime Minister, the cost-of-living crisis, and the death of Queen Elizabeth - all of which dominated the media cycle. Animal Rebellion also chose to suspend their campaign following the Queen’s death. As a result, there were no statistically significant changes in public attitudes towards animal agriculture, climate change, or policy priorities. When told about the protests and asked directly, 68% of respondents said they opposed the actions, compared to just 18% who supported them - though high disapproval does not necessarily mean a campaign is ineffective. Separately, the polling revealed a notable public misconception: respondents believed eating local animal products was the best way to reduce food-related emissions, which is at odds with the research showing that switching to plant-based food has far greater impact.

What it means for the movement

The findings reinforce the importance of protest timing and the degree to which luck can determine whether a campaign achieves its aims. Smaller campaigns without an established media profile face a high bar to break through in normal times, and an almost impossible one when competing with major national events. For animal and climate advocates, the polling also highlights an opportunity: public understanding of food-related emissions is poor, and communicating the relative importance of dietary change over local or organic sourcing could be a valuable focus.