Ever think about getting an unusual pet like a bison, a boar, an ostrich, or a rhino? See what happens to the pet owners in our Super Bowl ad, and then you’ll know why you should get a dog.”

And so, with those words in a press release, the Pedigree brand stepped back from its successful move to meaningful marketing and back to the traditional advertiser’s home sweet home of humorous and meaningless television commercials. Oh, how the Super Bowl ad fest and desperate advertising agencies continue to pull brands away from what counts in people’s lives today.

A few months ago, I lauded the Pedigree brand in this space for its brilliant move to champion the cause of dogs in need of adoption. The brand’s emotional, heart-tugging print ads showed cute dogs behind fences, waiting for people to bring them into their lives. Pedigree stayed true to its new cause by putting out full-page ads to ask President Obama to adopt a shelter dog as First Pet. Brilliant.

The campaign raised millions for the cause, and raised national awareness for this issue. The result was both a significant increase in dog adoptions, and a significant increase in the brand’s sales. I even praised Pedigree’s advertising agency, TBWA/Chiat/Day for donating a $100,000 advertising award prize to the cause.

I started to worry, though, a few months ago when I heard that Pedigree would be buying a Super Bowl ad in this year’s game. It smacked of waste for a business that seemed to have gotten the right new marketing religion. While wary, my hope was that the brand would bring another heart-wrenching call for dog adoptions, using its emotional connection to bring another needed message to millions of viewers.

Alas, we have the actual Pedigree ad, which was posted days ahead of time by the brand on YouTube and other sites. Here it is again in case you didn’t see it or forgot about it:

This ad misses the mark mainly because it has nothing to do with the core proposition of the Pedigree product (quality nutrition for dogs), nor what it claims as its cause-related purpose as a brand (to put unwanted dogs in loving homes). Instead, Pedigree and its agency have gone for the traditional, clever, 30-second diversion. This ad could have been done for any other brand in the category-well, for any brand that has no differentiated positioning. It’s also a big step back from its previous TV campaign, “Dogs Rule” (thanks Advergirl).

Meanwhile, with its move to a fairly obvious commercial cliche, the brand lost the chance to leverage the emotional pull of the brand and pet ownership. Imagine what could have been done if the brand and agency chose to pump up “man’s best friend” emotional bonding, rather than following the well-worn humor path? What if the brand made news by saying that it would skip advertising in the Super Bowl, and instead donate the equivalent of the cost of a spot ($3 million) to its pet adoption fund. In this time of economic and social responsibility, I guarantee this would have garnered more meaningful PR coverage. I guess they were afraid that love would not win first place in the USA Today ad contest, nor win in Cannes this summer. Pity.

The blame for this goes to both the brand and agency, and I’m surprised by neither. After some momentum in turning the brand around-through meaningful marketing, I might add-they got greedy. I guess both are just too mired in the historic measure of marketing success. I hope this is just a minor sidetrack in the evolving Pedigree story. Time will tell.