To think this isn't a great idea in a petshop?

[Ninnier]

Went into Pets At Home and they were doing sign ups to the in store Vets.

I'm already registered elsewhere but was given a tote bag of goodies. Sticky note pad, pens, cards and these...

DS was in the kitchen unwrapping them, about to feed them to the dogs when I doubled checked.

They're for humans and they're chocolate.

I can't see very well without my glasses on and I could see

• a dog silhouette
• the word tasty treat (often associated with dog treats)

-the word nutravet

But the part that says 'for humans' is much smaller and white, so harder to read.

Ultimately it's the recipients duty and responsibility to check what it is they have recieved.

But AIBU to think it's not blindingly obvious these are not for dogs?

And it's a strange choice considering chocolate is toxic to dogs and PAH have a lot of 'pet safe' chocolate for easter/valentines etc

I just thought as a marketing thing it wasn't thought through very well!

I agree with you OP.

It does say fro humans - but the dog, the nutravet, the fact they are sold in a pet shop?

Very strange marketing and product imo.

They call their dog ones chocolate?

Not chocolate-substitute.

So why would the word chocolate make me think it was for humans when they have loads of items labeled chocolate in their store for dogs?

they look 100% human promotional chocolates.

Anyone who knows anything about graphic design, should know that white text on a pale background is a big no-no. It's much harder to read for people with most kinds of visual impairment and most people from middle age onwards when your sight changes.

They call their dog ones chocolate?

Not chocolate-substitute.

So why would the word chocolate make me think it was for humans when they have loads of items labeled chocolate in their store for dogs?

All the examples you gave include the phrase "dog treats" after the word chocolate though. Making it very clear they are for dogs. The freebie doesn't say dog treat, or pet treat. And does say "For humans".

This is the point I'm trying to make. It's poorly designed considering all the context.

I don't know how it got approval as many people on here can see how the graphics, font and setting (being handed out in a pet shop) may cause confusion to people with sight issues, the elderly or just people who wrongly made the assumption.

This.

Plus I would not want to eat anything that's come from a pet shop, it's disgusting. The smells in there alone would put me off even though it's sealed.

As a vet you should know that giving away anything chocolate as a promo is a dumb idea. You dog gets into that bag while you're distracted, it can't read.

And in general just dumping milk chocolate in goody bags for the general public is something we avoid as marketing people because so many people have milk intolerances, are vegan, are diabetic, are avoiding sweet things, ask if it's halal etc., plus the chocolate has an expiry date (so if promo is delayed or not successful then it's wasted) and can melt easily. Completely impractical.

I agree with you OP, very poorly designed and I'd have immediately thought pets, especially with the brand name at the bottom along with the pictures! And I'd have thought it was a dog treat so that you got the other freebies and your dog didn't miss out!

I could only see the white writing when I zoomed in. Just seems like a bad idea all round to include something in a pet shop goody bag that could be poisonous to some pets. Stick something else in to be on the safe side FFS.

From an accessibility perspective, white on beige is dreadful - very low contrast. The "for humans" bit should really be in bold in a darker colour!

The name of something you know is toxic to dogs should have put you on your gard enough to read the packet more closely, at which point you wouldhave seen the 'for humans'. Like if someone gave me something labeled 'poison bar' I'd be double checking if I was defiantly meant to eat it.

Although they do make 'dog chocolate' it is always labelled as for dogs, as that is the general 'rule' with substitutes. For instance, they make vegan bacon, but if you see something just labelled 'bacon' the assumption is that it's the original product, not the alternative.

I think this is questionable by PaH, I reckon some people will not see the text and have made a mental presumtion it is for a animal. "Humanising dogs and cats" as they do with several products already mentioned.

I'd like to think I would look twice but probably because Temple Spa give similiar shaped choc which I've received a few times and know they are for humans.

I think you are right OP, it is a poor design

YANBU
I would assume they were for dogs too. The picture of the dog, and Nutravet bit. It reminds of me of the Wainrights brand of dog food, which is also simple silhouettes and colours.

I remember Pets at Home selling big teddies that you would think were for dogs. It said on the label that they were not for animals.

Yep, they look like they're for dogs. There's a picture of a dog and the word Nutrivet and the fact they were being handed out in a pet store. Everything points to doggy chocs and I'd assume they were for dogs until I looked closely. Can't believe there are some posters who've never heard of dog chocolate. It's been around since at least the 1960's.

Yes, at first glance that does look like a dog treat.

Nobody makes "poison bars" though do they

They look so much like dog chocolates that I would be completely put off eating them myself or giving them to my kid, and thats saying something because I love chocolate

It’s bad branding (I work in this arena) - white text on a light background makes it very hard to read for people with any type of visual impairment, plus the font is chunky which makes it even harder to interpret. The use of a dog logo could very much imply it’s for dogs and for people who cant read at all/well or do not have English as their mother tongue, they are more likely to rely on an image to determine the purpose of the product.

So, as I said before, bad branding. I think I would probably provide this feedback to the vet as the last thing they want is to be a contributor thing factor in dogs becoming unwell. Cute marketing concept, poor execution.

Same.

I wouldn't eat them.

I agree with you, the word humans is in white which doesn’t really jump out at you, I would probably not of noticed it.

Op i agree with you i automatically would have assumed its dog chocolate. I dont even have dogs and know dog chocolate has been a thing for years. A picture of a dog on chocolate in a vet goody bag does not make me think human especially as the actual word human is in small white letters.

Also, thinking about it, them writing 'for humans' on it actually validates my point.

They expected confusion.

Cadbury don't need to specify that on their bars because they don't have pictures of dogs on or hand them out inside petshops.

They wrote 'for humans' on it because they recognised some people may mistake it for dog treats.

But they still didn't go far enough in their disclosure because it's smaller and lighter than the rest of the wording.

I agree with you OP, it's not great for a vet brand. "For human" has very little contrast, a lot of visually impaired people wouldn't even be able to see it. That's why there are accessibility guidelines and minimum contrast rules.

What next, a box of raisins?

Agree with you OP.

It's a small chocolate bar with a picture of a dog on it with the words, 'a little treat' it's got the name Nutravet on it and it's in a goody bag from a pet shop.

Given that Nutravet specialise in making supplements for dogs with pictures of dogs on them, I can't imagine why anyone would make the assumption that this product was meant for humans, which is probably why they felt the need to print it on the packet.

Very irresponsible of PAH to include this in their goody bag imo.