By Prabhjot Minhas
Animal rights activists are celebrating a great victory over SeaWorld’s newest announcement. On March 17, 2016, SeaWorld declared that it would immediately end orca breeding programs and begin phasing out theatrical orca shows over the next three years. The historic announcement is a huge change for a company that has heavily branded itself with Shamu, the performing killer whale, and orca shows for nearly 50 years. In the announcement, SeaWorld also revealed a new partnership with the Humane Society of the U.S., previously one of SeaWorld’s greatest critics, as the company focuses on its mission to “protect oceans and marine animals.”
The policy change prevents future breeding, so the 29 orcas currently at the parks will be the last generation of killer whales for the company. These orcas will now be involved in what the company calls “new, inspiring natural orca encounters” as opposed to theatrical shows. The decision, which has been commended by animals rights groups and consumers, is in the best interests of orcas, as they have been shown to suffer psychological and health detriments in captivity.
What prompted the change of heart? For years, SeaWorld has drawn criticism for keeping orcas captive, and for years, SeaWorld has denied those criticisms. The current CEO, Joel Manby, in his official statement, seems to frame SeaWorld’s policy change as a moral one. He stated that SeaWorld’s changes were based on and “inspired” by “the attitudinal change” in society’s ideas about orca captivity. Notably, there was no mention of orca mistreatment or the detrimental effects of captivity.
In reality, the reasons for the change seem to be more entangled with economics and a desperate effort to save face.
The 2013 release of Blackfish, a critically acclaimed documentary, highlighted the cruel conditions and effects of captivity on orcas. The film focused on the life of Tilikum, the orca who killed several people, including a SeaWorld trainer in 2010, while in captivity.
The film gained popularity around the country and spawned waves of backlash against SeaWorld. Even with all the negative media publicity, SeaWorld rejected the claims in the movie, calling Blackfish “false and emotionally manipulative.” For months, SeaWorld denied any detrimental effects of the movie on their parks – at least until stocks fell. In August of 2014, company stocks dropped by a third in value and profits fell $34 million short of what investors had expected. That same month, the previous CEO, Jim Atchison, promised new investments and expansions in the orca program, and the company was forced to admit that decreased park attendance may have been influenced by “recent media attention.” Real change within SeaWorld’s policy only began once investors grew upset with the economic toll.
In October 2015, the company hit another roadblock with the California Coastal Commission, an organization that needed to approve the orca program expansions. The commission proposed legislation that would allow the expansions, but only if the park agreed to end orca breeding. SeaWorld responded with a law suit. The park argued that by imposing breeding restrictions on marine mammals, the commission was trying to rule on issues outside its jurisdiction. Legal issues aside, in December of last year, SeaWorld clearly was not ready to give up its breeding program or orca shows. What changed in these last few months?
The culmination of years of public and economic pressures seems to have been too much for the company. In short, the company finally fell to consumer sovereignty, or the power of consumers over production. Without the tarnished image from media, like Blackfish, and the resulting decreased customer attendance, SeaWorld would not have suffered an almost 50 percent plummet in stocks in 2014 or the 20 percent drop in net income in 2015. The consumer influence against SeaWorld was successful because the movement had both committed activists and conscious consumers: two factors that are vital to a successful consumer boycott, according to the The Harvard Business Review. Without both of these players, the change in SeaWorld’s policy would likely have not come to be, at least in this time frame.
The policy decision is definitely a step in the right direction for the orcas, and likely for the company as well. After losing customers, profits, and reputation, drawing back crowds will be a challenge. But, only a day after its announcements, the company’s shares had already increased by almost 6 percent. A bigger challenge will be SeaWorld’s new marketing model. For years the company’s biggest branding tool was Shamu and the other orcas. Kids and families would emerge from the park carrying armloads of killer whale plushies and shirts. Without Shamu, what is SeaWorld? The company states its new focus is on education and conservation, but will education sell in the same way? The future of SeaWorld as a theme park is shaky, and just like orcas in the wild, SeaWorld will need to adapt to survive.
While the intentions behind the new orca policy are murky, the case with SeaWorld is an example of how consumers can exercise their power in the marketplace. While companies may not always respond to calls for values and ethics, they will respond to what drives business – profits. This may not be the ideal approach to enact change within corporations, but it has been shown to be effective, especially with this recent SeaWorld decision. Consumers should be mindful of the economic implications of their purchases, particularly if they want to make a political statement. Because the markets can be moral – especially when they’re losing money.