A copywriting and ethics review for a nonprofit campaign

Overview

A copywriting task for a nonprofit digital outreach client, written as an internal memo to the organisation. The brief was to review a live campaign and recommend changes that keep its message intact while reducing the legal and reputational risk it carries.

The SeaWorld of Hurt campaign had reached millions of people on the misuse of animals in amusement parks. The memo asks a narrower question: whether the strategies used to get that reach still meet the standards the organisation holds itself to.

Advocacy against the PRSA standard

The memo takes the Public Relations Society of America Code of Ethics as its measure, quoting the Advocacy value directly: serving the public interest as responsible advocates, providing a voice in the marketplace of ideas, and adhering to the highest standards of accuracy and truth on behalf of those represented.

Two specific exposures

The campaign title. “SeaWorld of Hurt, Where Happiness Tanks” is bold and direct, and that is the problem: framed as an accusation about SeaWorld’s character, it invites a defamation claim. The memo cites the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal on defamation as the “twin torts” of libel and slander, guarding against damage to reputation in business, trade, profession or office, and recommends a title that stays bold without being hateful.

The visual treatment. Featured videos placed nude figures in body paint in a tank to draw the parallel between humans and captive orcas. The memo argues the visual reads as promoting sexuality rather than opposing animal cruelty, which cuts against the Free Flow of Information provision and the organisation’s responsibility to lead with verifiable fact.

Recommendation

Revise the campaign message immediately rather than defend it, keep public figures whose involvement genuinely represents the organisation, and hold the visual message to the same accuracy standard as the written one.