Every 63 Seconds in California...

For the past several weeks I've had images of dead shelter animals on my mind.

I was asked to develop a billboard campaign for a special project in California.

Upon searching for images, I spent hours on stock photo sites, animal rights and cruelty sites - anything to find just the right images. I wanted the most beguiling, yet incensing images. With billboards (including digital), the visual is crucial, we only get one shot at grabbing people's attention. These spots needed to truly drive it home, and convey without any ambiguity -- that we have a grave, expensive, and sad problem.

An average $250 million of tax dollars are spent each year by Californians, to house and euthanize over 400,000 dogs and cats. Our state shelters take in over 800,000, more than half leave in body bags. Indeed, we love them to death.

Some photos were devastating. Haunting photos of tortured and tested-on dogs and cats, cages packed with live animals, their bodies literally stuffed into two feet-sized crates, and waiting to be purchased for meat. Photos of piles of euthanized animals on shelter floors, or in freezers, or in trash bags showed up continuously. Piles and piles of dead animals.

Is it possible to put that image in your head if you've never actually seen it?

Frankly I pride myself on removing emotion out of the equation in this realm, yet I could hardly keep from wimpering, as I sat at this very desk in my Hollywood office staring into the screen at those harrowing photos.

How else could anyone react?

Although I support the mission of many animal rights organizations, I generally have not understood the tactics used to promote their messages. Most of the campaigns I have worked on have solely intended to cause people to act, change, or become educated. Therefore, creative was formulated in such a way, and targeted in areas that statistically showed there was a lack of information and resources.

This time is different. This campaign will, or should, affect people.

For these brief moments, it seemed to make sense to me why some of PETA's campaigns used disturbing photos of animals in harm. Their mission may not have been to directly get people to change their behavior, rather, the images would shock and alarm, bringing instant attention to the issues. Therefore, over time, a true awareness and familiarity with the problem would be achieved.

In a way, it's difficult to evaluate the better benefit: getting people to slowly change their behavior, or increased recognition of the cause at hand.

Besides, we must give credit for their brave efforts. How often do you see ads, marketing or any promotions at all that include actual photos of animals that have died in shelters?

The question is - will we reach people in a new, effective way with images, or with statistics, or with educational information?

I dream about producing incredibly powerful ads that are so ubiquitous, that the issue of companion animal overpopulation evolves into being ordinary. Just an ordinary problem, that we are working on collectively. Like a director, I envision filmed spots from beginning to end. They even include powerful songs that will pull the viewer in, just like a soundtrack should...

And with repetition, our community will newly discover how to make an impact, how to be part of a solution. By then, maybe we wouldn't be euthanizing animals every 63 seconds in California, as we are now.