Why Pets Wonderland's IG response leaves public trust unsettled

Pets Wonderland found itself under public scrutiny last week after a viral video posted by a netizen showed several dogs at its Mid Valley outlet allegedly appearing malnourished and underweight. The footage quickly gained traction and was picked up by My Forever Doggo (MFD), a well-followed Malaysian social media platform focused on animal welfare.

In response to mounting concern from the public, Pets Wonderland issued a statement titled "Committed to listening, staying concerned, and taking action." According to MFD’s summary of the incident, the pet chain said the Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) had inspected the outlet on 22 July 2025 and confirmed that all dogs were healthy, with body condition scores within required standards.

Don't miss: 1Fit Malaysia closure: Why marketing without a margin puts brands at risk

The brand added that it would take "meaningful action" to improve animal welfare at its outlets and reaffirmed its commitment to following all DVS guidelines to meet "the highest standards". However, the statement was only shared via Instagram stories on 25 July and displayed as a printed notice at its Mid Valley outlet. It was not posted on Pets Wonderland’s main social media pages or website.

MFD said it had reached out to Pets Wonderland for further clarification on its animal welfare practices, but was redirected to speak with DVS instead. A+M has also attempted reaching out to Pets Wonderland, but did not receive a response. Additionally, the news was also picked up by local Chinese language paper, Sin Chew Daily.

Dwindling public sentiment towards Pets Wonderland

According to checks by A+M, Pets Wonderland Mid Valley, which holds a 2.7-star rating on Google Maps, has received ongoing negative reviews, with repeated concerns raised by the public about the condition of animals at the store. Pets Wonderland currently operates 23 outlets across Malaysia, primarily in the Klang Valley and Johor, and markets itself as the "#1 pet shop" in the country.

Social listening by DATAXET Nama Malaysia showed overwhelmingly negative sentiment (92%), with netizens criticising the pet retailer for poor animal welfare practices, demanding boycotts and stronger enforcement. "Despite scattered calls for action and empathy-driven reactions, the dominant conversation painted a picture of systemic neglect and regulatory failure," the media monitoring firm said.

According to its findings, 48% of online comments focused on poor animal welfare, with complaints about malnourished pets, dirty cages, and cramped enclosures, particularly at the Mid Valley Megamall outlet. Another 25% called for boycotts or a ban on pet sales, using hashtags like #AdoptDontShop to push for ethical adoption.

Other themes included emotional appeals (15%), criticism of DVS enforcement (8%), and concerns over Pets Wonderland’s business ethics (3%). Only 1% of comments offered constructive suggestions such as reporting to DVS or involving NGOs. 

_{A snapshot of the word cloud highlighted public outrage over animal cruelty, deep distrust in regulatory oversight, and a strong push for ethical alternatives like adoption and shelter support.}

Disappearing statements and damaged trust

Meanwhile, its statement on Instagram didn't help garner much trust. Using Instagram stories to issue a statement, a format that disappears after 24 hours, was widely seen by PR professionals as a misstep. In a situation as emotionally charged and public-facing as this, disappearing content can be interpreted as a brand trying to limit visibility rather than own the narrative, said industry players A+M spoke to.

While IG stories may serve as a quick reaction, it lacks the permanence, traceability, and seriousness needed in such situations. Some experts suggested that if IG stories were used to convey the message, they should have at least been saved as highlights or accompanied by a formal post on the brand’s feed or website. The absence of such follow-ups further tainted the brand's reputation.

When it comes to the actual messaging, some communications professionals shared that by leaning heavily on a DVS inspection to validate animal conditions without disclosing details or the report itself, the statement felt like a minimal, compliance-based response that didn’t address public emotion.

"A disappearing or under-distributed statement feels like a brand is trying to contain damage rather than build back trust," said Eugenie Chan, co-founder of Suppagood and managing partner of Access Communications Malaysia. She added that: 

If people can’t access it, or if it feels like it sidesteps emotional accountability, it often deepens suspicion.

Aisya Hashim, managing director of Ariff Communications, added that disappearing statements may also cast doubt on whether an inspection even occurred, especially when there’s no follow-up from DVS. She also said: 

This lack of permanence may create the impression that the brand is concealing information.

"Ephemeral communication undermines credibility and signals a reluctance to stand by the message," added Aisya, concurring with Chan that the limited accessibility will leave stakeholders such as concerned animal advocates and media, unable to verify the brand's stance.

Meanwhile, Alina Morais, country manager for Malaysia at H/Advisors Klareco said that since some companies may treat Instagram as an aesthetic platform, there's still the workaround of saving the story as a highlight to avoid ruining their feeds. 

Does that commitment last for only 24 hours?

"I don't believe disappearing statements can ever truly have real impact in demonstrating commitment. Nonetheless, some brands still do it, and in some instances, it can still work if done right," she added. Alina also shared that since the issue has made it to mainstream media, the company should have been prepared to issue a reactive media statement.

In today’s climate of digital transparency, a vanishing message is no substitute for a formal stance. "Crises demand permanence, visibility, and accountability," said Syed Mohammed Idid, deputy chairman of the Public Relations Practitioners Society of Malaysia (PRactitioners). "Vanishing statements may keep the brand visible for 24 hours, but reputations are judged over decades."

What could Pets Wonderland have done differently?

Most players agreed that the response should have gone beyond a generic, short-lived statement. Rather than simply affirming that animals were “within acceptable guidelines,” the brand needed to demonstrate empathy, outline clear next steps, and take ownership of public sentiment.

"After issuing the initial statement, it is equally critical for Pets Wonderland to maintain momentum through consistent follow-up updates," said Syed. This could be done on social media, or whichever platform the brand can use to speak to the public fast. Other steps, Syed said, can include the transparent sharing of inspection results, reports on improvements, involvement in welfare initiatives, or even to invite the media and NGOs for a behind-the-scenes visit. He added:

Turning critics into partners is not just damage control — it’s brand elevation.

The backlash wasn't just about legality, it was about values and ethics. "Safe is not enough when the issue is emotionally charged and viral," said Chan, who also noted that the statement lacked any visible compassion for the animals shown in distress. "Also, relying purely on regulatory clearance doesn’t move hearts. Audiences today expect brands to not just meet standards, but hold themselves to a higher one," she added.

The brand’s handling also failed to recognise the long-standing nature of complaints, which have circulated for years. Experts suggested Pets Wonderland should have acknowledged the recurring concerns, issued a permanent, accessible statement, and engaged a credible third party such as an animal welfare NGO for assessment and reform. A human spokesperson or ambassador could also have lent the message greater relatability and sincerity.

“If Pets Wonderland is truly taking meaningful action, it should have listed out specific actions being taken, instead of putting out empty statements saying that they take feedback seriously,” said Alina. "As this seems to be an ongoing issue, it should be addressed properly if it doesn't want longer-term reputational damage which could ultimately impact its business," she added. 

Moving forward, a long-term strategy was seen as essential. Suggestions included publishing an Animal Welfare Commitment Charter, implementing transparent audits, and inviting media or NGOs for behind-the-scenes visits.

Aisya proposed establishing an internal task force, launching public-facing welfare initiatives, and introducing staff retraining. She said: "As a concerned citizen myself, I can’t help but wonder how the company treats its staff."

The expectation is not just communication but meaningful change.

Ultimately, experts agreed that this wasn’t just a crisis to contain, it was an opportunity to transform. A more proactive, transparent and emotionally resonant approach could not only have stemmed the backlash, but positioned Pets Wonderland as a leader in animal welfare.

Join us on 13 August at PR Asia Malaysia where trust gets rebuilt, spin gets called out, and PR pros get real. Crack the scepticism, keep your influence clean, and outsmart policy curveballs before they hit. Be ready, be bold, be heard. 

Related articles: 
Why Jetstar Asia’s closure announcement failed to land with consumers
Is Astronomer's 'high-risk' strategy with Gwyneth Paltrow a PR win?
Crisis comms or copy-paste? Air India draws scrutiny for CEO’s mirrored statement