An animal in a brand film can make the picture appealing, or it can have something of its own to do. The difference is not necessarily how much it moves. A dog quietly looking elsewhere can feel more like a character than a sequence of cute expressions, provided viewers understand what it is watching and why it has not gone over.
Giving an animal a specific desire does not require human dialogue. Desire can grow from position: others are taking part while it remains outside; an opportunity arrives and it acts. The creative task is to design that relationship, not merely an attractive appearance.
Desire needs a visible object
John Lewis’s 2016 Christmas advertisement, Buster the Boxer, offers a historical example. LBB’s project introduction, dated November 10, 2016, describes parents buying a trampoline for their daughter, other animals playing on it at night, and Buster running ahead of the girl to bounce the next morning. This article discusses relationships described in public text, not a shot-by-shot viewing of the complete film.
One character-writing approach can be inferred from that arrangement: the attraction is an activity, not simply an object’s appearance. The animal wants an opportunity to participate. Its eventual action can then be understood as a change in the earlier relationship, rather than an animal abruptly doing something amusing.
That desire is more specific than happiness. Happiness is an emotional state; wanting to join something has an object and a direction. A writer can ask why the character remains on this side, and what would allow it to move across. Without those conditions, repeatedly asking for an expectant look may simply demand that post-production extract meaning from a face.
The lesson is not that every brand should let an animal use a product first. That belongs to this particular story. The transferable proposition is to establish something a character does not yet have, then provide a moment in which it can act. A new brand and situation must determine the activity and whether participation makes sense.
The observer’s position changes who knows what
Watching others and already participating give the same animal different dramatic tasks. A participant might show enjoyment, hesitation or awkwardness. An observer introduces a desire still unmet. That offers room for waiting without immediately adding more movement.
Waiting, however, is not merely a longer shot. Viewers need a way to connect two places: the character here and the activity attracting it elsewhere. Both can appear together, or the film can establish the direction of attention before revealing its object. The first approach can foreground distance; the second leaves a small question about what the animal is watching.
These are creative options, not descriptions of Buster’s actual shot order or fixed editing rules. If the spaces do not connect, a raised head may be interpreted arbitrarily. Editing can invite an inference, but an isolated expression should not have to carry every cause and consequence.
The human position matters too. Does someone notice that the animal wants to participate? Are people occupied with their own activity, or do they make room? These choices change the relationship. One can introduce a small mismatch of awareness; the other can express consideration. A warm ending does not make them the same idea.
A lifelike appearance does not require a human face
In a production report published by STASH on November 10, 2016, MPC creative director Diarmid Harrison-Murray explains that the team carefully avoided human characteristics and used real animal behavior and expression as reference. This describes a choice on that production, not a universal rule for animal advertising.
It suggests a division of work: make the relationship clear enough for viewers to understand an emotion, rather than requiring a frown, knowing smile or explanatory gesture. A character can look lifelike and act imaginatively. The creator still needs to decide which expressions belong to that animal and which are convenient symbols borrowed from people.
Consider an explicitly fictional short-film proposal: a small dog looks at a ball on the lawn. If it then winks at the camera and spreads its front paws like a person, the tone moves toward a comic character that communicates with the audience. If it merely turns its body toward the ball, more of the storytelling must come from the ball’s location, the participants and the opportunity to join them. These are different narrative agreements, not a ranking of two expressions.
Stylized animation can, of course, give animals speech, upright posture or exaggerated faces. Human likeness is not inherently the problem. The question is whether the film establishes that world from the outset. An initially restrained, observational image may change its expressive language if human expressions suddenly replace a relationship. That shift should be intentional, not simply a response to a request for more emotion.
Let the setting perform, and give the product a role
D&AD’s John Lewis, Buster The Boxer archive entry identifies CG garden animals and a CG trampoline, describing the simulation of its movement around the animal animation. The archive year is 2017; the entry discusses the 2016 film. This CG work should not be relabeled as present-day generative AI, nor taken to establish how every animal shot was made.
Believable appearance and readable desire remain separate questions. Fur, materials and movement may be finely realized, yet a passage can still feel like a display if the audience does not know what the character is waiting for. Conversely, a relationship established by the setting need not receive a new facial close-up for every emotion.
For a new advertisement, first write an action passage without emotional adjectives: what attracts the character’s attention, where it currently stands, and what changes to let it act. Then consider which movements deserve footage and which reactions viewers can infer. The aim is not to remove performance, but to give objects and space some of its work.
The product also needs a specific function in that relationship. It might make an activity possible, or become the object of anticipated participation. The animal need not stop to endorse it at the end. Placing a product beside the character in the final shot does not automatically connect the preceding story to a brand. Even a category connection does not establish recognition of a particular brand; that requires separate consideration.
A character that wants to join can also decide otherwise
This approach need not always end with a rush into the activity. A person might notice the observer and change the arrangement. Or the character might approach and choose its own way to play. These are possibilities for new projects, not additions to the historical film’s ending. They place the emphasis differently: gaining access, being noticed, or retaining an individual habit.
Not every brand needs an animal character like this. If its desire has no relationship to the proposition, or the audience first needs an accurate product operation explained, the animal may simply occupy extra narrative space. A shoot involving real animals also needs appropriate professionals to assess behavior, care and production arrangements separately. A fictional image is not an instruction for the set.
When developing a brand film of this kind, bring the activity the character wants to join, the opportunity it lacks, and the product’s role to a discussion with ONCE. Give it something of its own to do before deciding how expressive its face must be. Appeal may earn a first glance; a character needs a reason to keep acting.
Sources checked October 17, 2026. The LBB and STASH articles were published November 10, 2016; D&AD’s entry belongs to its 2017 awards archive. Only public text is used here, without sales-effectiveness claims or any claim to have watched restricted films. The dog-and-ball example and original AI-generated cover are independent fictional concepts, not Buster footage or an ONCE client project.
