Earlier in the week, I put up a post about the Budweiser Super Bowl ad called "Puppy Love".
In that post I noted that:
I have several problems with this ad. The first is the "puppy adoptions" sign.
That's an expensive and permanent sign, and those dogs are NOT being "adopted" -- they are pure bred dogs being SOLD. Nothing wrong with that, but do not piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
When you are selling pure breed retrievers... you are not in the ADOPTION business, but in the cash-and-carry business.
The word "adoption" here is cynical marketing malarkey designed to "dog wash" this ad from the stigma that is now attached to breeding pedigree dogs.
Shortly after posting, someone sent me a link to a rescue in Illinois that was promoting the fact that two of their rescue dogs were being used in the Budweiser commercial.
So was I wrong that these Budweiser dogs came from a high-end pedigree dog breeder?
Hmmmm.
A quick Google search found the likely source of the two dogs in that rescue: a puppy mill breeder in or near Hillsboro, Missouri who advertises on ebay classifieds. That breeder is within a half hour's drive of Budweiser's world headquarters in St. Louis, and not very far from the rescue in Illinois.
The puppy mill advertiser noted that two of her dogs had "just filmed a Budweiser Super Bowl commercial" that was to be part of a "Twitter" Super Bowl promotion featuring her dogs and a Budweiser Clydesdale in St. Louis. Below, are a few screen shots of the ad taken from my iPhone.
If you google the phone number, as I did, you will discover that this is a "pump and dump" breeder selling her dogs through "Next Day Pets" and any, and every, other outlet she can find. Do you want AKC papers with your dial-up-pup? No problem -- just pay $50 more.
The two dogs the puppy miller brags about being "her" dogs in the ad appear be the same ones at Southern Paws rescue in Illinois where they are (or were) also being promoted as dogs used as part of a Budweiser "Twitter" campaign. Same number of dogs, same reference to Twitter, same geographical area.
So, was I wrong in my initial post that said the dogs we see in the Budweiser "Puppy Love" ad were not rescue dogs put up for "adoption," but were, in fact, high-end puppies sourced from a commercial breeder?
No. On that point I appear to be right. Following up on a tip, I emailed a Labrador breeder in Oregon. She was very circumspect about whether the dogs in the "Puppy Love" ad were her dogs, but she was also firm that they were not Missouri dogs, and she also suggested that she might have had to sign confidentiality papers with Budweiser.
Right. That would be the case if Budweiser wanted the Super Bowl ad to run its course without having to admit that they had started their big Super Bowl ad with a very visible lie (the Puppy Adoption sign). A confidentiality agreement is how you would keep the lid on that until after the Super Bowl advertising hit had passed on by.
From news accounts sent to me this morning, it now appears eight puppies from an Oregon breeder (I believe it is the same one I communicated with) were used to film the "Puppy Love" spot.
To be clear, there is is no harm in intelligent and ethical, purpose-bred commercial dog breeding, as I noted in my original post. That said, let's not claim these dogs are being "adopted" from a rescue. If Budweiser wants to wrap itself in the mantle of standing up for REAL puppy love, they do not have to go far to prove their worth, as Missouri is the puppy mill capital of America. The campaign to end puppy milling in that state is always looking for more money, more political muscle, and more publicity. Anheuser Busch, I would venture to say, has plenty of all three if they will lend it to the cause (and yes, I am sure there is a heart-rending ad to be found in there too).
So was I wrong that at least some of the dogs being used in the Budweiser ad campaign originated from a commercial Puppy Mill?
No, it appears I was right about that too. The Southern Paws rescue says two of the dogs used by Budweiser in a Twitter-based promotion in St. Louis were rescued from a horrible situation on December 26. I believe these dogs are, in fact, the same two dogs the puppy miller said came from her breeding.
But did I get it all right?
No!
It appears the two Missouri dogs were in rescue before they were used in the Budweiser ad campaign, and never mind that the puppy mill breeder apparently knew all about the Budweiser promotion before it was announced on The Today Show on January 29th.
To be clear, Budweiser has put together very good dog and beer ads in the past, including those that have featured, and promoted, both rescue and pedigree dogs.
But is "Puppy Love" a well thought-out ad, either as a promotion vehicle for beer, or as an ethics-based message about dogs or animals?
No and no.
Budweiser knew, from the beginning, that the "Puppy Adoption" sign was a misrepresentation, but they were stuck because the script they green-lighted needed a lot of "puppy clones" for this ad to work, since very young dogs can only learn a few tricks in a short amount of time. The solution was to hang a sign that said "puppy adoption" at the front of the ad, while leasing a large litter of puppies from a high-end commercial breeder, and crossing their fingers that no one would raise a question about veracity. "Hey, it's advertising; it;'s all a lie," would be the water-cooler defense.
But here's a question: Why not produce this exact same spot with a real adult rescue dog?
Simple: people melt at the sight of fat, awkward puppies.
A lot more people want a puppy than want a DOG, and never mind if the cute puppy they buy ends up being a very inconvenient, expensive, and destructive animal that is abandoned to a shelter six or nine months down the road .
Because a puppy is not a dog, two million canines a year end up dying at kill shelters in this country every year -- 60 million pounds of dead dogs every 12 months.
Will this ad help reduce that number, or increase it? Or is that even the question?
Perhaps the only real question is whether this ad, which has nothing to do with beer at all, will help sell more bottles of stale, pale, ale. Budweiser is counting that it will.
- Related Links:
** Budweiser's Super Bowl Ad FAIL
** Two GOOD Budweiser Ads With Dogs
** AKC Loves Puppy Mills ... and the Naïve
** The AKC Embraces the "Big Wink" of Misery Pups
** AKC Depends on Puppy Mills to Subsidize Shows
** The AKC Helps Sell Puppy Mill Dogs for Petland
14 comments:
Do you know if the AKC registers this woman's pups?
First, you have to realize that folks (and that means anyone) will try and make money off of the ad any way that they can. I happen to know this is false. The Budweiser puppies came from a breeder in Oregon and HAVE NOTHING TO DO with this kennel. Please don't be so naive as to post information without getting the facts first, did you contact Budweiser or the AKC? This is a disservice to the dog fancy to leave this information up on your blog.
I have emailed the breeder I believe you reference, and we are in communication.
In fact, not all of the dogs used in this Super Bowl campaign were her dogs, and it appears some WERE sourced in Missouri, and as I note in the addendum the puppy mill breeder clearly had inside information three days before Budweiser did their morning talk show reveal (the puppy miller ad was posted 1-26, the retriever reveal was done on the Today show on 1-29).
The puppy miller talks about two dogs -- the exact number now at the rescue in Illinois.
It appears Budweiser was poorly served by staff and/or the ad firm.
The dogs in the first commercial were, it appears, breeder dogs for sale (not rescues for "adoption"), while some of the dogs in subsequent spots and promotions appear to have been sourced from a puppy mill (perhaps indirectly). The breeder I believe you reference has shied away from saying more than the dogs in the first commercial are not Missouri dogs -- she will not even say they are all hers, or that any of them are hers. So far the Budweiser PR department -- who the breeder punts to for answers -- has said nothing. And if it is as I think it is, they may not.
You can read the ad Michael -- she appears to register dogs with the AKC, but maybe not all of them. The AKC, of course, will register almost anything as they have said in court before. They also give discounts to puppy millers and even created a special computer program to help them sell their dogs in pet shops. See the screen shot of the computer program and the manual for the software here >> http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/10/akc-returns-to-petland-to-sell-puppy.html
She is a liar, she can't even spell puppies correctly, for pete's sake. The puppy or puppies used in this commercial are from a reputable breeder in California.
The dog in this ad IS a purebred and born at Blackfork Labradors and owned by Gretchen Hyde. The video was taken at Warm Springs Ranch and is owned by Budweiser that makes it very clear on their website that they too are a breeding farm. Much of this was on the press release that many of the media outlets have failed to share. Google it.
https://www.facebook.com/blackforklab
Blackfork Labradors
Fox Red Labradors ~ We breed English Labrador Retrievers in all 3 Black, Chocola...See More
Local Business: 877 like this
I read the rescue's posts, and read the posts from a trainer…. It seems two puppies were borrowed from the rescue for a one-day photo shoot for twitter, and two were borrowed from breeders. How you are stretching that into "proof" that the dogs in the commercial were purchased from a puppy mill and dumped into a rescue I do not follow.
According to Budweiser, the puppies came from a local shelter. So if you, in fact, know they came from Oregon, please show the proof.
Did you ever think that the lady you mention above may be saying this so SHE can get more money? How can you be that irresponsible to post a blog like this with out any actual facts except for screenshots of someone saying it is her dogs in the commercials? As near as I can tell by looking through pics on the rescue site the only 2 labs that are on there are males and dated Jan.10th. I want to say so much more but I will refrain because I think in your case anything I may try to say will be moot point. I do wonder if starting controversy is your way of adding money to your own coffers.
So far we are told by various people that: 1) all the dogs came from a breeder in Oregon (so these are not dogs up for adoption, and that part of the ad was a bit of a lie?); 2) the dogs came from a puppy breeder that advertises on ebay in Missouri (see ad); 3) that the dogs came from "a breeder in Cali" (no name), and; 3) that the dogs came from a rescue after they were horribly treated, but they were very quickly model-perfect for a Budweiser commercial.
When the breeder in Oregon was contacted, she would not say where all the dogs came from or even whether they were her dogs, and punted to the Budweiser PR department which has, so far, issued no press release or clarification. The puppy miller seems to have had specific knowledge of this commercial shoot before anyone else, which is rather odd, and the source of the puppies at the rescue has not been named.
I think if you read the post you will see that it is framed as what "seems" to have happened, and until Budweiser puts its corporate name on the story (they have a massive PR department to help in that regard), the conflicting post-hoc stories cannot be sorted.
If Budweiser does issue a statement, they will hopefully explain why they decided to start their ad with the word "adoption" while using breeder puppies.
Adding more confusion to the mix, we are being told that the multi-million dollar ad buy with a massive crew and paid actors somehow ended up needing post-production stills or film for a twitter feed and print ads, and that is why Missouri (or is it now Illinois?) dogs were used.
For the record, Budweiser has done very good beer ads in the past with rescue dogs (the "Weego" ad in 2012 was outstanding) and with
pedigree dogs as well (see the Bud Lite border collie and border terrier ad from some years earlier).
This ad, however, starts with a lie (if we are now to believe that all these "adoption" dogs featured in the first promo clip were actually sourced from an Oregon breeder) and the source of the dogs seems to be a confusion that remains to be illuminated. If some of the dogs (apparently not the ones used in the film clip released on the Today show?) were sourced from the Illinois rescue, and those dogs came from some horrible puppy farm situation with dead frozen dogs, as claimed and we assume is true, it would help to know the name of the place, as at least one claimed breeder seems rather proud that their dogs were used by Budweiser (that would be the puppy miller).
Thanks for taking the time to do this. People are still going to doubt, disagree, and hate before they either face facts or look in the mirror and realize how much our society is contributing too this problem through apathy, particiaption, and weak, meaningless legislation. This is disgusting, but I applaud your efforts to bring it to light.
Good stuff, all the websites are talking about puppy bowl, but your article is awesome, good stuff
It could be possible that some of the people claiming that these puppies were theirs are using it as a marketing technique. If Budweiser wanted Lab puppies specifically, they could have contacted breed clubs and breeders which would explain the Missouri breeder's early knowledge (even if she declined or heard it second hand). I don't think her having prior knowledge is necessarily proof of her puppies' involvement.
The St Louis dog trainers' (Casey Ray) FB page that was involved in the commercial made a post on Jan 24th looking for yellow Lab puppies for a shoot. A follow up ost was made on Jan 26th still looking for puppies. They are tagged in all of the rescue's posts about their puppies involvement.
The trainer in Budweisers "Behind the Scenes" video, Sue Chipperton, has a blog about the comemrcial. She said they: "We trained 8 puppies to play the part of one puppy in this fabulous new commercial". The blog is called "The City Farm".
I want to see ALL dogs, cats and rabbits adopted and not 'sold', and to me that means due process. However pets (or animals) change hands has to be regulated with care standards, mandatory spay/neuters, return requirements, health and destination scrutiny, education, tracking methods like chips or tattoos and ongoing monitoring. (Just like with human kids). Whether it's a pet store, a breeder, a shelter or a rescue, 'adoption' is and should be a process. I have no issue with the adoption sign if they are meeting that criteria.
I cannot understand why I've seen no mainstream discussion of this. So tired to breeders for profit hijacking the word adoption. Thank you!
Post a Comment