An advertisement for a virtual dog-training program is circulating online currently and it’s gaining a lot of attention. I hope that attention will serve to open some eyes about the advertiser, which appears to be a for-profit entity eager to ridicule what they perceive as their ‘competition’—trainers who are certified by one or more of the independent certifying organization for the dog-training profession.
This particular advertisement includes a photo of an unidentified person with a dog on a leash, with these words superimposed on the photo: “CPDT-KA certified Dog Trainer Shows Why You Should Never Give Your Dog Treats.” The advertising copy that accompanies the photo reads: “How to have a loyal, obedient, and intelligent dog without using treats in 15 days or less. Get your ebook now. Tap into the 30,000 year old ‘hormonal bond’ between dogs and humans to build instant connection, respect and trust—so you can have the obedient, smart, and well-behaved dog of your dreams … without the need of treats.”
The advertising copy continues: “Make your pup’s behavioral problems disappear naturally … not by force—your dog would WANT to obey you through a connection first training so you can enjoy a stress-free home. Have your dog do tricks and simple household chores—leave your friends and family in awe with having the smartest dog on the block. A non-forceful, fun, and science used approach to dog training—based on the latest discoveries of human-dog connection from Harvard University. Use simple games and environmental adjustments to train your dog … no need for treats, punishments, or any complicated methods.”
Why did this advertiser choose to diss the competition? To gain customers, I’d guess.
Would you buy a product because advertising for that product is all about saying that the product’s competition for your business is wrong? For example, do you buy an X because X’s ads tell you that its competitors, Y and Z, do this and that, specifically, which X’s ads state are bad choices?
Also, wow. So many words, so little information! Do you suspect it’s written by AI (Artificial Intelligence)?
I’m guessing that the advertiser did not pay for AI to compose their Learn More information.
Here’s the advertiser’s “answer” to a “question” in their Learn More FAQs:
Q: “Why doesn’t you have a phone number?”
A: “We does not have a call center because we’re not set up to handle high volumes of phone calls. Our brand is built online, including our customer support. Though you may receive an automated response every once in a while, all channels are ran by human staff who are eager to help you out, quickly and efficiently.”
You and I are supposed to trust what these people tell us when even their FAQs aren’t edited? Why should we believe anything they say?
I’d like to suggest: We should not believe a word.
What has the advertising of this particular entity shown us? They post a photo and a “quote” from an individual whom they say is certified by the Karen Pryor Academy—without using his name.
They are trying to sell us an ebook!
We see so many posts online from individuals and from businesses who are trying to persuade readers to choose the product or services they offer because they don’t “depend on” treats to train dogs, as if treats are the sure sign of ineffective training … as if everybody knows that.
It’s not true!
I asked dog trainers and dog guardians on my Friends’ list to help clear up the confusion:
“When a business or individual ridicules their competition for using treats to train, what do you think their own choice of training tools or methods might be? Trainers who ridicule treats—how do you think they train instead?” I added: “When you answer about how you think the anti-treat trainers train, address your response to relatively inexperienced dog guardians. I mean, explain how no-treats training might work and what tools and methods might be used. Don’t hold back!”
They answered:
Jackie Pritchard (Ontario) With force and punishment.
Cynthia Gordon (Florida) They don’t train; they manage behaviors by shutting them down.
Neil Rubenstein (Florida) They utilize aversive tools; i.e., shock, prong, and choke collars.
Kimberly Kelly (California) Often with a “yank and crank” or a foot.
Harald Groenen (Washington) Well, if you don’t have a carrot, all you are left with is the stick.
Kathy Smith (North Carolina) They’re easy to spot at obedience trials. They are the ones angrily commanding their dogs who have shut down on them.
So, if you’re ridiculing the competition to promote your own training, you may be inspiring potential clients to wonder what kind of training you have to offer, since you talk about that so infrequently.
Photo by Jill Gibbs
Here’s an important question that other commenters on my post offered to answer:
“Is training with treats not an efficient method? Is there any reason to ridicule it?”
Eileen Anderson (Arkansas) Years ago, I read in Jean Donaldson’s Culture Clash that trainers who claim that their dogs work “to please them” are the ones who are typically using pain to train. When I first read that, I thought that it was probably fairly true, but I took it as slightly rhetorical. When I learned more about how all species learned, I realized that she meant it as literally true, and it IS literally true. If you aren’t employing in your training things dogs love, like food and toy play, you are using something else to motivate them. And it isn’t something as vague and mythical as a dog’s so-called desire to please. Such trainers are using pain, discomfort, nagging, and/or body pressure. There are great positive-reinforcement–based trainers who are highly skilled at using reinforcers other than food. I’m thinking of some of the agility greats who use a preponderance of play. But you know what? Those people aren’t so silly as to ridicule the use of food. Because they understand how positive reinforcement works and how animals learn best. And you can bet they use food to train certain behaviors.
Lauren Fetterman (California) I’ve seen quite a few effective methods that don’t involve treats. I like teaching a fun behavior, all sorts of “life rewards” like being silly together, bursts of running, sniffing, massage, scratching an itchy spot, drinking water, training in drive, tugging, flirt pole, play with other dogs, etc. Refusing to use treats altogether, though, is a red flag to me and seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Summer Storm Kingery DVM (North Carolina) I remember reading a study a while back (decade or so ago) that the most effective trainers, regardless of preferences, deliver a greater than 5 to 1 ratio of positive reinforcement to any correction or absence of feedback.
Ruth L. Heller DVM (Pennsylvania) There are positive ways to train that utilize toys, etc., and will work well for play-motivated dogs. But refusing to use or acknowledge the benefits of treats in training is honestly a horrible red flag to me. For example, the “trainer” who told me I would HAVE to use a prong collar to train my then ten-week-old Great Dane puppy. (Spoiler: I didn’t.) Food is an excellent motivator; so is praise, so are toys. Use the tools available.
Jeanne Brennan (California) People need to choose if they want to use food, play, and other things as rewards for dogs in training, or if they want to use intimidation, fear, and physical punishment to “train” (shut down behavior). Essentially, what kind of person are you? I have NEVER heard someone training with rewards say that they had some gut-wrenching feelings about what they were told to do in a rewards-based class. I have heard MANY that have talked about doubts, regrets, and gut-wrenching pain because of what they were told to do to their dogs in the no-rewards classes—most often related to collar pops on a prong collar, or hanging the dog (to show them who is the boss). Most often, people who truly loved their dog were pained by the look in their dog’s eyes, often accompanied by physical cowering. Weirdly, I’ve seen people point at their dog physically cowering and lying down in front of them showing fear responses (submissive eyes, tongue flicks, even submissively urinating), and the owner is proud of their dog “knowing who the leader is” or is “trying to please the owner” (I want to ask if they mean “appease”). As for the “balanced” group, my guess has always been that they train with fear and intimidation, then maybe throw some treats out once the dog figures out that the best way to avoid pain is often to just sit still (choose ‘nothing’ behavior). Throwing treats at it now doesn’t eliminate the fear. All of it, as I said earlier, seems to come down to choosing what kind of person you are, or want to be. What do you want to model for your kids and others? Sadly, there will always be people who want to be mean, feel empowered by being mean, so I think this debate will go on forever.
Risë VanFleet (Pennsylvania) Trainers who ridicule other trainers or people in general, for whatever reason, display a need to learn more about how to influence human behavior, which is primarily what training involves. As for food, I use it for some training, but I think we get to know our animals even better when we watch their natural behaviors and learn a variety of reinforcers beyond food—play, scratches, excitement, fun together, going for a ride, opening the door, running. And I am a big fan of applying the Premack principle when I can. I am also eager to build agency and relationship, which greatly influence motivation and cooperation. I avoid aversives in lieu of better ways. But putting down other trainers in order to boost one’s own business is a punishment-oriented marketing strategy that turns me off.
Advertisers: Dissing your competition while offering few facts about your own qualifications? That may not work out well for you, especially if your disses are transparently bogus. Be better, do better. Please!
