Search results

This article is a theoretical investigation about the babyfied dog and the troubled relationship between dogs and parenting in contemporary consumerist culture.

In the frame of the special theme issue, the focus of the article is on theorising consumption and care in the context of new motherhood. The article analyses why the babyfied and fashionable dog has become so popular and what the human–dog/animal–transgression is about.

The anthropomorphised animal is an integral part of constructing and understanding the romantic ideal of childhood and childhood innocence. Simultaneously with the modern educational attitude towards pets and animals in general, real animals, especially small lapdogs, have started to replace teddy bears and other plush animals as the dressed-up childlike animal. The tamed and designed animal is not completely an animal anymore and occupies the space between the human and the animal, becoming central to the reconfiguration of the family, childhood, leisure and identity. Currently, as the number of children in families decreases, the babyfied dog is taking the place traditionally reserved for the child.

Even though the findings cannot be generalised, they suggest that more research on the relationship between humans and dogs is needed.

The article makes an original contribution to the theme issue by focusing on the still unusual, yet strongly emerging form of parenting and care of dogs. Doing this, the article challenges ideas about “natural parenting” by arguing that dogs are the latest babies and fashionable co-consumers.

This study aims to examine the following issues: whether consumers use a dog’s facial expressions and gaze on a product’s packaging to interpret the emotions of a dog and evaluate product quality and how owner identification with the dog moderates the effect of a dog’s facial expressions on product evaluations.

A field study and three lab experiments were conducted to examine the moderating roles of a dog’s gaze on the product package (Study 1) and owner–dog identification (Study 2) in the effect of facial expressions of a dog on product evaluations.

Results showed that the facial expressions of a dog presented on the product package influenced the perceived mood of a dog and product quality evaluation. The effects of the facial expressions were strengthened when the dog looked at the front. Furthermore, those who were more likely to identify with their dog tended to be more responsive to the dog with a smiling face and evaluated the product quality more positively than those who were less likely to identify with their dog.

Marketing practitioners in the pet industry can use the findings of this study to select and place an appropriate pet image on the product package. Happy facial expressions and the direct gaze of a pet can influence positive evaluations of a product and, as a result, increase the purchase intention. Product managers also can place words, phrases or images on the product package that highlight a dog as an inseparable part of the owner’s everyday life and as a representation of his/her identity. Emphasizing the owner’s dog as an extension of him/herself or a part of his/her identities can encourage the active processing of a dog’s facial expressions on the product package and the positive evaluation of a product.

The present work adds valuable empirical findings to the limited marketing literature for the pet-related industry. The results of the experiments showed how consumers process the facial expressions and gaze of a dog and use them to infer the quality of a product. Furthermore, the findings extend prior literature reporting that dog owners with a greater identification are more likely to humanize their pet dogs and develop empathetic abilities.

A Joint Committee representing both Houses of Parliament, on July 4th, considered, under the chairmanship of Lord Muir‐Mackenzie, the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Bill, which embodies in consolidated form the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. The Bill is the first consolidation of these Acts, which date from 1875. Sir Frederick Liddell, Parliamentary counsel, who was accompanied by Mr. J. N. Beckett, of the Ministry of Health, was examined. He said the language of the sections had been harmonised. It was pointed out by members of the Committee that several things were not included in the consolidating Bill. The Chairman said it was a matter for consideration whether it was not for the Minister to say what were the limits of the proposed consolidations. The Minister was entitled to bring in whatever Bill he thought he would. The witness said he thought the Minister would accept the views of the Committee. Sir Henry Slesser, K.C., said, if there was any difficulty about these things, he would rather have the Bill in its present form. It was pointed out that the matters dealt with in a consolidated form did not include, for instance, horseflesh.—The Chairman said there was an unfortunate ambiguity in some of the old Acts. One or two of these matters were left alone for fear of introducing further ambiguity as to intention when they were being considered by the Courts. “Butter fat” and “milk fat” were considered the same thing, so the Committee adopted the phrase “Butter fat derived from milk.” Bread, tea, coffee, chicory, as well as horseflesh, are not mentioned specifically in the Bill, as these were left over for further consideration. It was suggested that all obsolete statutes should be included in a separate clause of the Bill. It was decided to obtain the views of the Minister on this and other points. Provisions are included in the Bill placing restrictions on mixing food and drugs with other ingredients, and giving protection from liability where articles are properly labelled, and there are restrictions on the importation of agricultural and other produce. One of the schedules makes special provisions as to milk. It is laid down that where a sample of milk is procured from a purveyor of milk, he shall, on being required to do so by the person by whom the sample is taken, state the name and address of the seller or consignor from whom he received the milk.