Making a scene and making sense

Why this matters

Why would a climate activist throw soup at a painting? For critics, such tactics are self-defeating - they alienate the public and distract from the cause. But the question of whether ‘low action logic’ tactics actually harm movements has rarely been tested with real data. This study uses donation and media records from two UK protest groups to test empirically how different protest characteristics affect the outcomes movements care about most.

What we found

Analysing weekly protest, media, and donation data for Just Stop Oil and Animal Rising between 2021 and 2023, the study finds that both higher disruptiveness and lower action logic are associated with significantly more media coverage. That media attention in turn drives donations - each additional 1,000 media hits is associated with around 230 additional donations. The findings hold up in a Bayesian mediation analysis, confirming the causal chain: illogical and disruptive protests get covered, coverage reaches potential supporters, and some of those supporters donate. Disruptive protests also appear to drive donations through additional routes - likely social media - that operate independently of traditional media. The study notes important limits: it does not measure public opinion effects, and prior research suggests negative coverage of disruptive tactics may reduce broader public support even while energising committed supporters.

What it means for the movement

The findings suggest that the activists’ dilemma - the trade-off between actions that attract attention and actions that attract sympathy - is real but more complex than it first appears. Illogical and disruptive tactics appear to be effective at raising money and media profile, even when they are unpopular with the general public. This points to a possible division of labour within movements: radical groups using attention-grabbing tactics to raise their own profile and funds, while moderate groups benefit from the heightened attention through the radical flank effect. Funders and strategists should be cautious about dismissing controversial tactics on the basis of short-term opinion polling alone.