Cute or Cruel? The Ethical Implications of Using Dogs in Advertising.

You have likely seen an advertisement featuring a dog, and it probably evoked a positive emotion in you. But have you ever considered the potential ethical issues behind these ads? Many brands use dogs in their campaigns intentionally to create emotional connections with consumers (Lancendorfer et al., 2006). However, the growing trend of featuring dogs with extreme physical features, such as breeds with short, flat skulls, raises serious ethical concerns. In this blog post, we explore how advertisers contribute to the popularity of these breeds and the moral responsibility that follows.

The Ethical Dilemma

Brachycephalic (“flat-faced”) dog breeds like French Bulldogs and Pugs are often perceived as “cute” by the public, but their features are closely linked to severe health issues, including breathing difficulties, anxiety, and genetic disorders (see for example Australian Veterinary Association, 2017; Ekenstedt et al., 2020; Menor-Campos, 2024). Despite these well- documented health concerns and expert recommendations against their promotion, these breeds remain popular and using them in advertising is fueling the demand. Animal welfare organizations and veterinarians all over the world are campaigning to stop this kind of advertising that indirectly encourages harmful breeding and normalizes the suffering of these animals.

The Moral Responsibility of Marketers

To assess the moral responsibility of marketers, we evaluated the case through the lens of various ethical theories. From a utilitarian perspective, using these dogs in marketing leads to more harm than good. While companies and the breeders of these dog breeds gain profit (Graham, 2024), the long-term consequences include animal suffering, financial burdens for pet owners (when they must take care of a chronically ill animal), and a distorted public perception of animal welfare (Australian Veterinary Association, 2017; Ekenstedt et al., 2020; Menor-Campos, 2024). From a deontological perspective, ethical principles dictate that animals should not be treated as mere commodities. Marketers have a duty to respect their intrinsic value rather than exploit them for commercial gain (Regan, 2004). This perspective directly challenges the use of extreme dog breeds in advertising, as it promotes selective breeding that prioritizes aesthetics over the well-being of the animals. Virtue ethics also supports the idea that ethical marketing should reflect compassion and responsibility. The main virtues in this context are compassion, integrity and justice. In particular, compassion is crucial in businesses’ ethical decision-making when considering animals as stakeholders (Tallberg et al., 2022). Marketers can set a positive example by prioritizing ethical considerations over short-term profit.

Why Ethical Advertising Matters

Advertising plays a key role in normalizing trends, and marketers have the power to shape consumer behavior. This is why choosing what kind of animals are portrayed is important, as choosing responsible imagery or video for advertising can influence societal attitudes toward pet ownership and animal welfare. Also, businesses that prioritize responsible marketing enhance their reputations and can gain consumer loyalty and long-term trust.

Using dogs in marketing can increase the warmth of an advertisement and make it more appealing to consumers, which makes it tempting for marketers. Our blog post demonstrated that using dogs with extreme physical features in marketing is an unethical practice that contributes to animal suffering. Companies have a responsibility to make ethical decisions in their marketing strategies. By choosing not to feature dogs with extreme physical features in their advertising, they can prevent harmful dog breeding and promote responsible dog ownership. It is time to put ethics before aesthetics.

This blog post is based on a case study co-created by the authors as part of a Business Ethics course in the Sustainable Marketing Master’s program at Oulu Business School, University of Oulu, Finland.

Authors: Siiri Saarela-Mäkinen, Matilda Moilanen, Eemi Soikkeli, Lotta Uusitorppa, Matilda Moilanen and Senja Vahtera.