What We Can Learn About Impactful Communications From We Rate Dogs

A dog meme account just taught corporate America how to do strategic communications.

Well, the dogs were good again this week. I can’t say the same for Big Tech. 

When Ring's Super Bowl ad featured its new "Search Party" technology—using networked doorbell cameras to find a lost yellow lab named Milo—the backlash was swift. But the response that interested me the most came from Matt Nelson, the human behind the beloved Internet institution We Rate Dogs. Nelson’s rare video commenting on the ad went viral, Ring terminated its partnership with surveillance company Flock Safety within days, and Senator Ed Markey cited privacy concerns. A social media account dedicated to rating dogs on a 10-point scale forced a multi-billion dollar Amazon subsidiary to reverse course.

Here's what made it work, and what brands of all sizes can learn from it.

Photo taken from PR Daily. No information about the photographer provided.

It Was Never About Matt Nelson

I've followed We Rate Dogs for years. At the end of the week, my husband I like to watch the Top 10 Dogs of the Week recap video to celebrate. I’ve often remarked, “My favorite thing about the We Rate Dogs Guy is that I don’t know his name. I hope I never know his name.”  Unfortunately, I suspected that doing research for this blog post would probably break the magic spell. Sure enough, the first New York Times article I read spilled the beans. But the fact that Matt Nelson rarely puts his name out there is a strong strategic choice that reads as a young man with a healthy ego.  The account centers dogs, fundraising for dog welfare organizations, and a community of dog lovers. At a time when everyone wants to be an influencer, Matt Nelson the human knows to stay out of the frame. 

This restraint creates authority. When he does speak up, it carries weight precisely because it's rare and on-brand. He's not building a personal brand empire‌ — ‌he's built a trusted platform for a specific cause. The distinction matters. 

[Crucially, We Rate Dogs has the receipts to back this up. The 15/10 Foundation, the nonprofit arm of We Rate Dogs, has raised +$3 million dollars (as of 2024)to cover medical expenses and other costs for dogs in shelters.]

Many thought leaders get this backwards. They center themselves in the narrative, then wonder why their advocacy content falls flat. Nelson demonstrates that influence grows from consistent focus on something larger than your own ego.

He Chooses His Pitch

Nelson could comment on tariffs, immigration policy, or any number of political flashpoints. He doesn't. When he does wade into controversy, he ties it directly to dogs.

Ring's ad exploited dog owners' emotions to sell surveillance technology. Nelson called it out, connected it to broader privacy concerns, and noted that Ring's tech finds fewer than one dog per day—0.03% of lost dog reports filed annually.

When he's addressed ICE and Border Patrol, it's been about dogs killed during raids or abandoned after families are detained. This is strategic selectivity. Every intervention reinforces his positioning. He's not a general political commentator who happens to like dogs—he's a dog advocate who addresses political issues when they intersect with animal welfare.

For consultants and brands, the lesson is simple: you actually don't need to have opinions on everything. Strategic silence on off-brand topics makes your voice stronger when you do speak.

He Acknowledges the Problem and Offers Value

Lost dogs are a genuine problem for pet owners. Ring's ad exploited that anxiety. Nelson could have stopped at critiquing the surveillance implications. Instead, he pivoted to useful information: get your dog microchipped, keep registration current, use local lost pet networks.

This move‌ — ‌from critique to constructive alternative‌ — ‌is what separates effective advocacy from performative outrage. He met people where they were (worried about lost pets), validated their concerns, exposed the inadequate corporate solution, and provided a better path forward.

Most marketing communications fail here. They identify problems without offering meaningful solutions, or they critique competitors without articulating a distinct alternative. Nelson did both in under two minutes of video.

Photo by Michal Jakubowski via Unsplash

The Through Line

Nelson's response worked because all three elements aligned: credible voice (earned through years of focused content), strategic selectivity (speaking only when it directly served his mission), and genuine value (addressing real concerns with actionable solutions).

This isn't about having millions of followers or a viral moment. It's about consistent positioning that builds the authority to launch movements when it matters. Ring didn't reverse course because Nelson has reach; plenty of larger accounts criticized the ad. They reversed course because Nelson's critique was credible, focused, and impossible to dismiss as outside noise.

That’s the standard we all should pursue. Real “thought leadership” isn't measured by how often you post or how many impressions you rack up. It's measured by whether your voice, when you do use it, creates lasting impact.