Thereâs no way to tell you this story without acknowledging that I, a human being who does not have a dog, downloaded a television channel onto my Roku called Woof World, a 24-hour streaming app for dogs.Â
Thereâs also no hiding the fact that on one late summer afternoon, with seven streaming channels at my fingertips, two bookshelves looming behind my head, and the beautiful weather outside, I had nothing better to do than to check out TV for dogs.Â
I want to be absolutely clear about this: Although Woof World may advertise itself as âfor dogs and dog lovers,â it is definitely not for people. Over a bed of somber, ambient music that rarely changes, dogs run in a âcontinuous stream of high-quality, engaging dog-related videosâ lasting no more than 40 seconds each. They sit and pant and stick their heads out of car windows. They stand in kiddie pools and on trampolines. They lick puppies so aggressively that the puppies fall over. Mostly they sleep; sometimes in piles, sometimes alone, nestled in improvised beds of folded fabric.
Woof World says it promotes âtranquility,â which means itâs probably meant for owners to soothe anxious dogs while theyâre away at work and running errands, but, in my opinion, this content insults the intelligence of dogs, which some scientists believe to be smarter than human toddlers. (On TikTok, dogs stamp out basic sentences with buttons affixed to the floor.) Clearly, our understanding of what they can and canât do is limited. But thereâs one thing I know dogs canât do.Â
Dogs cannot vote.Â
Or apply makeup from Ulta. Or attend online colleges. Or buy cars. Inexplicably, Woof World advertises all of these things, presumably to dogs lulled into a state of tranquility (i.e., drooling on the couch), in a small, silent pop-up window situated in the right-hand corner of the screen.Â
For example, as a puppy buried its nose into a pillow, US Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal reminded dogs about whatâs at stake this November. Then, the Secretary of State instructed dogs how to mail in their ballots. Finally, the Democratic Governors Associationâs Evergreen Values PAC informed dogs of Republican gubernatorial candidate Dave Reichertâs miserable record on abortion.
There is no question that dogs are low-information voters, but I couldnât imagine that these ads had reached their intended audience. My first thought was, âSo, so funny.â My second thought was, âWhat the fuck?â My third thought was, âThis has to be a huge waste of money.â Iâm also going to take a wild guess that anyone watching a calming stream of well-shot but contextless dog videos is not in the mood for political ads.
Political consultant Ben Anderstone spit out his off-brand Cascade Ice when I asked how this could happen.
He explained that these days campaigns are spending a lot on digital ads because they have the ânarrative powerâ of a TV ad with the benefit of being highly targeted to the individual. If done right, campaigns can âsurgically pickâ which households get a digital video ad to a degree thatâs impossible by selecting a handful of cable channels. Streaming ads usually go out to video sites that arenât on a blacklist. Blacklisted sites usually include gambling sites, porn sites, and (if you restrict an ad to 18+) programming for children, who, like dogs, cannot vote.Â
âItâs definitely a lesson for candidates to make sure their consultants are carefully targeting their ads, even if this is a pretty strange example of it going wrong,â Anderstone said in a text.
âNow I need to check my Roku ads,â says Eileen Pollet of Ravenna Strategies, a boutique digital consulting firm.Â
Pollet says Washington State prohibits state and local candidates (not federal ones) from running ads on Meta or Google, so campaign consultants are forced to spend more cash on programmatic ads that run on smart TVs and websites. Conventional consulting wisdom dictates that campaigns should buy up as many unskippable ads on reputable platforms as possible. She says Rokuâs easy-to-use ad-buying platform works great for those goals, even if youâre selecting just for demographic features like gender and age instead of for particular channels or apps.
âNow Iâm asking around, and everyone in the political ad-buying world thinks this is hilarious and wasnât aware of the problem. I think this is just a lack of transparency from Roku on what inventory we are actually buying and lazy consultants (myself included) not asking the right questions,â Pollet said.
Michael Fertakis, principal consultant at Upper Left Strategies, also guessed the ads aired on Woof World for demographic reasons.
âI highly doubt any channel was the majority of their spendâprobably less than a percent,â he said. âPart of this is a factor of competitionâif thereâs very few people purchasing ads on a channel, itâs going to be cheaper to run them there.â
I reminded him it was a television channel for dogs, and kind of useless if only dogs saw it.
âI canât speak to that specific one,â he says with a laugh. âIf I had that option, I probably would not advertise on that. It all depends on how the buy information was presented to the buyer.â
I asked the Washington State Democrats if they could tell me anything about these advertisements for dogs. Spokesperson Stephen Reed said he didnât know much because candidates typically handle their own ad campaigns. Washington Democrats had some digital advertisements, though none aimed at dog-owners, âbut we do think Kamala Harris and Tim Walz would be better for the dogs and cats across America than the alternative," he says.Â
The Jayapal campaign didnât respond to my two emails. Boo.Â
At least the Secretary of Stateâs Office had a sense of humor. The office confirmed that it did not âtarget dogs on Woof World for the 'Mark the Ballot' adsâ and explained that they were part of a media ad-buy with YouTube, which includes the Google TV network. Hence, it showed up on Roku.
âI get your joke about dogs not voting, but you are a voter in WA and you saw it, which is great,â said spokesperson Greg Tito. âMaybe the system is working?â
Touché? YouTube and Roku did not answer my emails, either, but I wanted to see if any ads were still running on Woof World, particularly from Jayapal and the Secretary of State. So I sat down in front of my TV for 30 minutes and tallied off ads on a notepad. For eight of those minutes, none played, and at one point the stream stuttered and then cut to black, but I still noted 31 spots.
I didnât see a single ad from Jayapal, but ads paid for by Friends of Maria Cantwell ran three times. Four times, an ad cautioned Washingtonians (dogs) against voting for I-2124, a ballot measure that would allow Washington workers to opt-out of the stateâs long-term care program and ultimately destroy it, according to all five scenarios gamed out by the Office of the State Actuary. Woof World also advertised the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser, King County Metro, Personal injury firm Bernard Law Group, the Kia EV9, Mattress Firm, the Mayo Clinic, and Dawn dish soap. As I wondered whether Republicans were advertising on Woof World, a final ad flashed across the screen before my time was up.Â
It was the same spot from the Secretary of Stateâs Office.Â
If I mark my ballot with a paw print this year, do you think theyâll certify my signature?Â
[Eds note: The answer the question above is yes, but only if you also marked your state ID or driverâs license with that same paw print and then drew that same paw print in the same way every time you signed your ballot.]