How ads with dogs and cats affect consumer behavior

I love dog and cat stories. But sometimes the researchers unintentionally come to findings that can seem odd, at least to this reader.

The researchers involved in this study examined how pet-related experiences affect people’s consumption-related decisions. You might say the woof and meow factors motivating purchases.

The study was published in the Journal of Marketing.

Pets play important roles in human consumers’ daily lives. For example, there is a pet in 68 percent of U.S. households. Dogs and cats are the most popular pets, with 48 percent of U.S. households (60 million homes) owning at least one dog and 37 percent of U.S. households (47 million homes) housing at least one cat. 100 percent of the households have at least one human.

Pets frequently appear in popular (human) culture, mass media, and marketing communications. For example, Target chose a dog as its brand mascot, Microsoft featured dogs in its 2020 holiday commercial to inspire people to find joy, and Wells Fargo used a cat in its commercial to advertise its suspicious card activity alert services.

Specifically, this new research examines the effects of pet exposure (e.g., recalling an experience of interacting with dogs or cats or viewing ads featuring a dog or a cat as the spokesperson) on consumers’ subsequent judgments and decision making, even in pets-unrelated domains.

The researchers set out to demonstrate that exposure to dogs makes consumers more promotion focused, meaning that consumers will become more eager in pursuing a goal and more risk-seeking when making decisions. With cats it’s the reverse. Felines’ companions and admirers (cats really don’t have owners) are more cautious and risk-averse.

What the researchers say: “These effects occur because pet exposure experiences remind consumers of the stereotypical temperaments and behaviors of the pet species,” said the lead researcher (who, I understand, was human).

These results are supported across multiple product and service contexts. For example, exposure to dogs led research participants to choose a riskier stock investment option as opposed to cat assistants who chose a less risky mutual fund investment. This is hard to understand since dogs are far more social than cats and their owners should therefore be more attracted to the mutual funds.

Pooch owners were also more willing to risk losing an immediate monetary reward for a chance to win an even a bigger payment later. Again, strange, since when was the last time you saw a dog turn down an immediate food reward?

In addition, exposure to dogs led participants to prefer ad messages that are framed with a promotion focus or messages featuring eagerness appeals. Cats’ assistants are far more sensible and way more cautious.

Furthermore, secondary data results show that humans in US states with a higher percentage of dog ownership are more interested in searching promotion focused pandemic messages online (you know: everything’s OK, no need for precautions, it’s all a myth anyway) and are more likely to get COVID-19.

Well, of course that makes sense since dogs enthusiastically bound around outside without any masks on whereas cats are more likely to stay indoors and wait for the pandemic to pass.

The proposed effects are moderated by pet stereotypicality, say the researchers (who were all primates, I am assured). The effects of pet exposure on consumer behavior, they assure us, only persists when consumers are reminded of the stereotypical temperaments and behaviors of the pet species. Humans are prone to stereotyping each other as well, assuming that there are behavioral differences based on skin tone, for example which, in scientific terms is ridiculous. Stereotyping humans on the basis of pet co-habitation or habituation is probably just as silly.

The lead author describes the implications of the study for marketers thus: “First, marketers should consider crafting their advertising messages differently or recommending different products and services when they target consumers depending on their pet exposure situations. For example, to enhance the effectiveness of advertising appeals or communication messages, marketers should emphasize promotion-focused goals such as gains if they are targeting dog owners or after consumers are exposed to dogs or dog-featuring stimuli such as in an advertisement. Conversely, they should focus on prevention-focused goals such as losses if they are pursuing cat owners or after consumers who are exposed to cats or cat-featuring stimuli. Importantly, our findings show that this advice holds even when the advertised product or service has nothing to do with pets or pet products.”

The researchers claim that their study offers important insights into how to incorporate pets into marketing communications. One consideration is the type of product or service being advertised. For products or services mainly perceived as promotion-focused (e.g., stock investments, sports cars), featuring dogs in the ad is likely to increase the ad’s persuasiveness—though, I would imagine, featuring Chihuahuas in automobile ads might not work too well since when they’re in the driving seat they can’t get to the brakes. Though, come to think of it, it takes a rather large dog to be able to reach all the controls.

Doberman Pinchers, I suppose, might be chosen to pitch BMWs, and Retrievers excellent at sniffing out good investments. However, since neither live very long (about 10-12 years apiece) their time horizon, particularly for investments, is probably rather short.

For products or services deemed more prevention-focused (e.g., mutual fund investment, insurance), featuring cats may, the researchers claim, increase the ad’s appeal. The researchers caution that “Marketers should ensure that stereotypical pet temperaments are made salient in the message. For example, the eagerness aspect of the dog or the cautiousness aspect of the cat should be highlighted. Otherwise, the intended effects of featuring pets in the ad may not be achieved.”

Typical primate thinking!

Lastly, the finding that pets and pet ownership (guardianship) are potentially related to COVID-19 transmission rates and prevention behaviors could shed new light on policies related to the prevention of COVID-19 and potentially other infectious diseases.

For example, policymakers in states with more dog owners could design more customized educational programs and materials related to the diseases (again, their words—the how-to of getting the virus I assume). Alternatively, when designing ads to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, cats could be incorporated as a spokesperson and/or the cat temperament can be referenced in the message to enhance the effectiveness of the ad.

So, what? Human primates are so easily led, and so narrow in their thinking. The researchers seem oblivious to the fact that there are cautious dogs and adventurous cats. Just like homo sapiens individuals.

No wonder they’re ruining the planet. We felines are so much more sensible. We certainly wouldn’t fall for the obvious stereotypes and “dog whistles” that humans do.