You’ve got your hands full with this topic (no pun intended); we face a similar educational and participatory dilemma in tackling benign water polluters…who can negotiate with a cow? how cruel is it to even suggest keeping them from stream water?

But addressing animal waste pollution at the source does improve water quality — in fact, that’s the primary reason our ogranization came to be (Watershed Agricultural Council). Keeping animals (and their back-end party favors) out of water courses impacts drinking water quality for the better (as does water run-off diversions, nutrient management plans, etc.) Fencing animals out seems like a weak stab at a larger problem, but it works. And in our case, offering to pay for the best practices set in place certainly allows the landowner to particpate at no cost…a huge plus in getting buy-in.

Getting people to understand the poop problem, accept responsibility for it and then engage/do something about it, that’s the trick. We’re not directly saving lives here, but really, we are saving lives…clean drinking water is a public health issue. Making the full circle connection — from the animal’s back end BACK AROUND to the direct benefit to the audience — is where we’re finding our PooPollution Solution.

Different messages connect with different audiences — creativity (and sick humor) work to get messages out across various audiences on squishy, uncomfortable topics like this.

Keep up your hard work and thanks for providing pro bono work. Nonprofits like us depend on PR guys like you…to cut through the bullsh*t and get to the point.

This topic/dialogue/blog has spiked my interest enough to visit your website and maybe even follow your blog — Now, isn’t that what all this sh*t is really about?

Great. Like I wrote – we can’t be all things to all people. You are exactly right – this effort is aimed directly at the savvy social media user, not your farm owner constituents. And, those constituents couldn’t care less about our efforts. Fair enough.

I’ll leave it at that…Tough to debate via blog comments. Good luck with ALL of your efforts. We’re all trying to do good things. That’s what should be celebrated.

This message (& humor) probably works with Twitter savvy 20-somethings, but our one audience/constituent base of farm owners, well, they’ve probably had their fill of hands-on/hands-in/knee-deep potty humor today.

Come to think of it, I doubt many of our farm constituents tweet…or give a sheet…

Trying to sugarcoat the global sanitation issue hasn’t been effective (at all). Sanitation isn’t sexy. No doubt about it. Nobody wants to talk about it.

Together with Wherever the Need, the decision was made to be direct, bold and see if people would talk. They have. In blogs. Via tweets. And, in media coverage. Awareness is half the battle – not just funds. (All of which are critical, by the way: Whether its $1255 or $125.)

In Rose George’s important book, The Big Necessity: The Unmentionable World of Human Waste and Why it Matters, she quotes leading Nepali sanitation activist, Umesh Panday, “Just as HIV/AIDS cannot be discussed without talking frankly about sex, so the problem of sanitation cannot be discussed without talking frankly about shit.”

Is that crude? We certainly don’t think so. We’re going to move forward with our efforts to talk directly about this problem (which is basically the premise of Rose George’s book). We’re truly sorry that some people are offended, but that’s the nature of sanitation.

Finally, for the record – and to your point that “the PR agency probably costs a lot more (than the money raised),” the agency not only hasn’t taken any money from Wherever the Need, but (sorry to offend) because we believe in this sh-t, we’ve actually paid for these efforts out of our own pockets (and will continue to do so).

Again – we love the conversation and welcome it. ANY consideration of the global sanitation crisis is good. No organization can be all things to all people. And, there are zillions of worthy causes. We don’t expect everyone to jump on our bandwagon. Donate somewhere else. Just pay attention and donate somewhere.

I think a few oblique references now and then are OK, but should be limited.

City of Tacoma Public Works found a couple of sanitation workers who were kind of hams. They did some spots with these guys “trash talking” as a way to do communications around the recycling program. Trash talking meant talking about trash, of course. This is a good example. Note how mild it is.