Here we have a greyhound racing scenario, and a French bulldog wearing two pairs of red Skechers beats them all and then moonwalks across the finish line backwards just to rub it in. And then he’s torn to shreds by the other dogs, both because he’s a jerk about hot-dogging the finish, and also because the greyhounds are so underfed they’re ravenous. (And Mr. Quiggly is too pooped to run away.) I’m kidding. Mr. Quiggly wins and demands a new contract with Mark Cuban, who then has him roughed up by toughs for being too big for his dog breeches, and all four of his legs are broken to teach him a lesson, which is then applauded by all the greyhounds because he embarrassed them. I’m kidding again. But isn’t animal cruelty so funny? That’s why animal rights activists loved this ad so much! (Actually, that’s another issue that’s not really visible in the commercial: allegations of behind-the-scenes cruelty to the greyhounds.)
So this ad is really fun and cute. But somehow, it seems to me they would have done better to use horseracing: after all, horses already wear “shoes”, so to simply make one set of shoes a quad of Skechers, and make that horse win by a lot, would seem a bit more natural and convincing to me. But this commercial’s concept is really fun and attention-getting. It’s cute, etc., and people will definitely remember it. The thing is, since it’s only got one dog with shoes on, will it help sell Skechers? I don’t know the answer, and my idea for the horse race might not be any better on that account. But horses already wear “shoes”, so one horse having the Skechers winning might have made more sense, although again it doesn’t show it to be better than other brands of athletic shoes. But since there are other horse “shoes”, that might mitigate that issue somewhat. They could also have a pony beat a bunch of thoroughbred horses, which would do the same thing as having a French bulldog beat a bunch of greyhounds. But even if the horseracing idea worked better than the dog racing (which is debatable), it would still only be possible because of this concept created by this ad agency, and it’s a really fun idea. Kudos!
But you know, if it’s the shoes that won the race, why doesn’t Mark Cuban just buy a new set of those shoes for another dog? Wouldn’t that be cheaper? And how come everyone always worships Michael Jordan for being so great at basketball when those Nike ads from the ‘80s made it clear that it was just the shoes that allowed him to play well? Any basketball legend (or player) who has Nike make shoes for them could be just as good, right? No? And that’s the problem with these athletic shoes commercials that make these claims: Michael Jordan would have been just as great with another pair of shoes, and he’d still be better than everyone else barefoot, so it puts the lie to this type of ad. But they’re fun ads nonetheless.
Okay, so this commercial has kicked up quite a kerfuffle with the animal rights people, apparently. This spot is really a fun concept, and as such I wish it would be viewed simply as the fun, silly entertainment it is, rather than have it be picked apart for something that is not the ad agency’s fault. Rather than bashing the ad, and demanding that Skechers pull the ad, and threatening to boycott Skechers, I really feel the animal rights activists should have done this instead: They could have said that this is a fun and cool ad, and that in addition to being a cute commercial, it also raises another issue people ought to know about: cruelty to greyhounds in the sport (or at that track, or whatever the specific allegations are). Because after all, this product and this ad agency are not responsible for the treatment of the dogs, they don’t run the dog track, and they didn’t know about the allegations of mistreatment until after they had already made the commercial. So rather than bash the commercial, the animal rights people could have piggybacked their message onto this spot in a positive way. That way, they could have ridden a wave rather than fighting it: See what I mean?
Plus, then they would have targeted the appropriate people for the alleged abuse, rather than blaming the innocent. And targeting the wrong people is really bad for the cause, let me tell you! It’s kind of like throwing red paint on someone with faux fur on: They will hate you and fight you afterwards forever. Remember: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar! (Even if it is really mean to trap flies, man!)
Sometimes the animal rights people just shoot themselves in the foot. That’s why I make fun of them a lot on this blog. It’s certainly not because I love to see animals suffer, as nothing could be further from the truth. But it’s the way the activists sometimes behave, and how silly and counter-productive some of their strategies are, that I have a problem with. This ad is a great example of that: It’s a great commercial, and it should be celebrated for its fun, whimsical quality, and not accused of torturing animals and threatened with boycotts of Skechers’s shoes. If anything, people should boycott Skechers because they’re ugly; but because a commercial of theirs has dog racing in it? Honestly: Grow up!
Here’s the canine careening competition commercial:
