Dog Training Methods: How to Advocate for Dogs (and Why Bothsidesism Doesn't Help)
Zazie and Kristi chat about the importance of using reward-based methods--and of how we frame conversations about dog training methods.
By Zazie Todd, PhD
This page contains affiliate links which means I may earn a commission on qualifying purchases at no cost to you.
Listen to episode 65 of The Pawsitive Post in Conversation wherever you get your podcasts (Apple, Spotify) or below, watch on Youtube or below, or scroll down for the highlights and a transcript.
Dog training methods: How to advocate for dogs (and why bothsidesism doesn't help)
- The podcast Kristi heard by Rachel Gilmore and why it made her want to talk about this topic
- Why reward-based dog training methods are better for dogs and their people
- Bothsidesism, and how portraying the use of aversive methods as normal and just another side of the argument is potentially damaging
- How we can use a truth sandwich to counter myths about dog training
- What the Overton window is and how it relates to conversations about dog training methods
- Treviño's degrees of acceptance and how positive reinforcement dog training went from radical to sensible to popular
- By Strength We Are Still Here by Crystal Gail Fraser
- Pugs and Kisses by Farrah Rochon
The books are available from all good bookstores and my Amazon store.
The conversation about dog training methods and how to talk about them
Zazie: Dog training can be quite polarised because there's a clear consensus on the methods that we should be using to train dogs. But there are still some people who use an alternate approach.
Is it a good idea to consider both sides or is that actually bad for dogs? That's what Kristi and I are going to be talking about today.
Welcome to The Pawsitive Post in Conversation. I'm Zazie Todd and I'm here, as always with Kristi Benson. So, Kristi, do you want to tell me what triggered this or tell.
Tell our listeners as well about the conversation we had that triggered this?
Kristi: Yeah, so I was listening to a podcast from Rachel Gilmore.
I, I think it's actually been a couple podcasts where she's mentioned this, where she talked about how trying to have no bias as a journalist, trying to say, you know, I have no bias, I'm just presenting the facts, is, can actually be really problematic and, and all, you know,
but journalists who, who sort of like put that position out there, what they do is they open themselves up, up manipulated or they open themselves up to sort of not progressing the conversation in a beneficial way.
And I was, as I was listening to this, I was like, it was interesting as someone who listens to the news to be able to sort of have a view into how news is handled and how journalists think, you know, but also I was like, it triggered something in me and I was like,
whoa, this is dog training that. I mean, I'm sure that every discipline has this, you know,
this type of thing where they, where they can look at, you know, how their discipline is being talked about.
But I thought, oh, wow, in the last, you know, five years there's been a lot of conversations about,
you know, the big tent approach and bringing in dog trainers of different methods and how do we, you know, how do we approach them? And I thought that it just, it seems so relevant to our conversation and so in such an interesting sort of lens through which to look at the dog training conversation about methods and about aversives in the last few years.
So I started sending you voice notes,
but I couldn't quite remember what Rachel had said, so I was like, okay, no, no, I got it wrong. It's more like this. And I couldn't remember her last name.
So I was like, it's this really cool journalist, Rachel.
Zazie: So anyway, that.
Kristi: And you were like, yes, this is a great idea. So that's what triggered it, is really hearing about another discipline and, you know, an important one, how we learn about our world.
Um, and, and being able to sort of look at dog training and go, oh God, yes, this is us too.
Zazie: And it was so funny getting those notes and listening to them. Right from the beginning I was thinking, this must be Rachel Gilmore. And then I was like, no, this has to be Rachel Gilmore.
This must be Rachel Gilmore.
So that was really interesting and I think it is really relevant to conversations about dog training because we do a lot of work to encourage people to use reward based training methods because they are what is best for dogs.
Basically,
they provide dogs with positive experience, experiences which is really important for animal welfare. They avoid risks of things like increased fear, anxiety, aggression, a worse relationship with the guardian and pessimism.
And it's quite a long list of the potential kind of side effects of using aversive methods. And we have so many organizations now, including some that relatively recently changed their positions, who say you should use reward based methods to train dogs.
And to be clear, when I say reward based methods, this is one of the issues that we have is people kind of twist things, trainers who use aversive twist things.
So you end up making, you want to say only reward based methods because of course, that's what we're sticking to. So I think these conversations about how we talk about these things, they're actually really, really important.
And if you're looking at the news, you might be talking about, I don't know, climate change or wearing masks or something like that, but it's absolutely relevant to dog training as well and the way that we talk about these things.
So I'm really grateful to you for thinking of this topic and I think it's just such an important thing how we think about how frame things. It's so important.
Kristi: Yeah.
So, you know, we started when we started having the, the conversation about this conversation. I was doing some googling about how Rachel Gilmore talks about this and why. And, and you know, how, how media,
how journalists sort of are, are thinking about these things. And then what came up is this idea of both sidesism, which I'd heard of before,
but I'd never really put in a lot of effort into understanding. So how do you understand both sidesism from a sharing information perspective?
Zazie: I mean, I think it refers to this idea that you should reflect views from both sides of the argument when you are talking about an important topic. But the thing is, when those views are not, they don't have equal weight.
If you give them equal weight in your piece, then you're actually doing a disservice to their ideas. Because if there's a broad consensus on something and we can pick climate change as the example,
you know, because when you look at the research and stuff on this, it's, it's very often about climate change or kind of some bigger topic. It's not about dog training, much as I would love to see research on this in dog training.
And if, you know there is this huge consensus that climate change, man made climate change, human made climate change is happening.
And so, you know, for decades we have seen news items in which journalists have gone and they found people who don't believe that to,
to dispute it. And you know, to begin with that might be absolutely fair enough because, you know, there were times going back when there were doubts,
but these days there is no doubt. And that's very, very obvious, I think, to every single one of us. We can see the way in which things have changed, especially if you're a bit older like me and you think about what things were like a long time ago.
And I think it's the same with dog training because you could go back away. And it used to be that some organizations would say, well,
maybe as a last resort. But these days none of them say, ok, you could use aversives as the last resort. They've updated their positions because they recognize that there's no evidence it's ever needed as a last resort.
We know that reward based methods just work basically,
so there's no need to offer that, you know, that side of things because it's just not relevant.
So I think if we were to, you know, to start doing that, we would really be doing a disservice to dogs and to dog guardians because these methods are bad for dogs, they're bad for the guardian, they're bad for the relationship between the two.
And so why on earth will we start prioritizing that kind of viewpoint when it's not relevant and it's harmful?
Kristi: Yeah.
One line that I read somewhere that I thought was so useful was equal consideration, not equal treatment. And I thought, okay,
I like that because it means we should be able to say, yeah,
you can train dogs. Dogs will learn if you scare them or hurt them.
But if you scare and hurt dogs,
here's the fallout, right? And some people do say that we should be hurting and scaring dogs. We don't agree with that because of this. So that's giving it consideration in how we talk about training dogs, but it's not saying, oh,
dog trainer person, come here and talk about your methods and present your methods as though, you know, as though they're sort of on equal footing. So that the idea that we don't need to provide that kind of equality, it almost is a little bit of a relief,
you know, because I think we are sort of charged with,
with spreading good information and with being fair. And fairness sort of seems to feel like we should be offering a voice, but we shouldn't. We don't need to. Like you say,
at this point, the evidence is very much in about this topic.
Zazie: Yeah, it really is. And all of the position statements from all of the different organizations like American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior,
Pet Professional Guild and so on, Dogs Trust in the UK, RSPCA in the UK,
organizations in Australia. So this is a worldwide group of organizations with really strong position statements now, many of which have been tightened up in the last few years. And that's for a reason.
And so, you know, it's important, I think, that we reflect the fact that there is a strong consensus on this.
And, yeah, we don't. It's not our job to argue for people to do things that are harmful for dogs, basically.
I think that's one of the ways of looking at it.
Kristi: Yeah, And I think another. So if we take a little teeny step further, another point is that,
you know, if you,
if you try and stick to this idea of, of, of some sort of fairness, you know, in voice,
what you can do is you can open yourself up to bad actors. And I think that that's, you know, very clearly something that is happening. So when you have bad actors, they're not,
you know, people who say, want to be able to continue to train with aversives because for some reason they're oriented towards hurting and scaring dogs to change a dog's behavior.
So if we say, oh, well, we're going to be fair and, and give them a voice, give them, you know, say, bring them onto the podcast,
heaven forbid.
They're not, they're not going to do the same to us. They're not going to be like, you know what? I'm going to be fair to, you know, you know, so they're not acting in good faith.
We might be, but they,
they are not. So what's happening is they are sort of perhaps on purpose, perhaps not, you know, just this. How is it plays out. They want our legitimacy because at this point, like you said, all of these organizations and the public has really shifted, I think, in, in how they,
they understand the dog. Human relationship and how they want to interact with dogs.
So we have legitimacy and they want our legitimacy and they're, they're trying to take it through, through this, which is essentially a manipulation. And I, it just, it's so frustrating to see it play out, you know,
Zazie: and it gets very frustrating on social media. And for example, in some of the comments that are left on, on social media,
and you're right, they, they are, they come from a certain direction and they don't go in the opposite direction really.
And yeah, I have quite strict rules about what I let people comment on my socials sometimes though Facebook has learned that I don't like certain kinds of comments and it hides them from me because it knows I don't like those comments.
That's actually quite clever of the Facebook machine, really.
So I think there is no point in me sharing good quality information about how to care for dogs, how to train dogs, how to care for cats if I'm then going to let lots and lots of people undermine it in the comments.
So I don't allow that kind of comment because it's not really something that is up for debate. I mean, it isn't a debate. There is this broad consensus and we're doing a big disservice to people if we let people think that there is a debate when it just isn't a debate at all.
And I think it's really important that people know that. So it's important to have that viewpoint that is fair. I mean, being fair means recognizing the harm that aversive methods cause and the fact that there are so many people using reward based methods and it just, it works.
You know,
there aren't any cases where we're tearing our hair out and thinking, oh no, should I get a shock collar out? Because we know that there's no need for one. We don't end up in that situation.
So yeah, and I think it's very important, important to make sure that we reflect how things are.
Kristi: Yeah, yeah, for sure. I think so. Something else that came up and as I was poking around and reading is this,
is this idea of the loudest voice.
So in media, you know,
and I know Canadians sometimes feel like we're a little bit immune from this, but we are not.
Far right voices can start to shift the narrative to allow for. So I think the issue is that reasonable conversation, say, I feel like 10 years ago,
reasonable conversation wouldn't,
you know, around political topics wouldn't have included blatant racism and homophobia and transphobia as sort of acceptable speech. It would have been frowned upon, you know, would have been something that people would have kind of taken issue to in.
In some spaces at least.
And when we open ourselves up to being like, well, let's bring in this, the loudest voice to have this fairness, this, this unfair fairness,
then it can shift the narrative. And all of a sudden these words can start bubbling into.
To regular conversation, which we might have been like, well, we spent 50 years making sure that that word was considered super not okay. And now it's. Now it's bubbling back up.
And I think we see this in the media. Definitely not, you know, as much in Canada as maybe in other places.
But it's certainly, we are not immune. We definitely need to be aware of it in Canada.
But I think that's something that also happens in dog training, you know, so when, when we say, come and sit at the table with us and we'll have a conversation about your dog training methods and my dog training methods, all of a sudden we're bringing, we're allowing language to percolate into,
you know, how we think about dogs, how we, how we talk about dogs,
that we have done, I think, a really good job of putting those to rest, or we're. We had been doing a good job. So, you know,
what's your thoughts on that, on this sort of loudest voice issue?
Zazie: Yeah, and it's the kind of language that we don't want to use, and it's misinformation as well, a lot of it. So we don't want to be inviting that in. And over the years, I've done some talks for people about how to communicate about dog training methods.
And one of the things I always say in those talks is that we don't want other people to be setting our agenda, which is kind of. It is kind of that loudest voice idea.
You don't want to let those people set the agenda. You have your own agenda, and that's what you want to talk about. That's what you want to structure your social media about and things like that.
So it's very important that you stick to the things that, you know are important and that you want to talk about. And you don't have to let other people, just because they're loud, it doesn't mean that you have to let them join in.
And sometimes you actually have to stop them, basically. Because what is the point of letting yourself be used to share someone else's misinformation? Basically, you know, it's not a good idea.
And I think you're right. It is very sad to see some of the ways in which the world has shifted back in many different spheres. And I guess this isn't the place to go into why some of that has happened, but it is disappointing.
And I think it shows that we just need to remember how important it is that we keep talking about the things that we think are important and that we keep on being inclusive and that we keep on saying, you know,
this is the way to train dogs and this is what works and, you know, not get sidetracked by other, other voices that are spreading misinformation, whether from a well intentioned point of view or an ill intentioned point of view.
And that's the other thing, because people, if they want to learn, if people are dog trainers and they're currently using aversives and they want to switch over, there are so many places where they can go to learn and they can find many of those resources for free.
And I think those resources, they're all ones which just stick to reward based methods and that kind of information is worth sharing. And I think it's up to other people to kind of learn more about it.
Kristi: Yeah, I think something that I know you've talked about, maybe on the podcast or maybe just in webinars that I've attended, where you're talking about truth sandwiches or like, like even how, even saying some, how even bring something up, it can be problematic.
So how to handle, if you need to bring it up, if you need to talk about aversive training, how to handle it.
Zazie: Yes. And we actually have an earlier episode of this podcast. It's like it's not the very first, but it's one of our very, very early episodes because we're on like 60 episodes now, which is very cool.
We have one specifically about the idea of truth sandwiches. And we sat and we made some truth sandwiches about dog training and about cat behavior.
So the idea of a truth sandwich is that you want to make sure that you spend most of your time talking about the truth. So in a truth sandwich, the bread is the really important thing.
You start with stating what you know to be correct. So it could be talking about the fact that reward based training methods work and they're really good for dogs, and this is how we should be training dogs.
And then the filling is the thing that's not true. And you want to spend as little time on that as possible.
Like it's a horrible filling and it's only very thin and you don't want to spend time on it. And then when you've mentioned it, because you had to mention it,
then you get back to the truth again. So you want this big fat, chunky piece of bread saying something else positive about reward based training methods, how to train your dog, how to choose treats, something like that.
And the idea is really that we want people to be putting their cognitive efforts so they're thinking into the stuff that's important and the stuff that matters, not wasting that time or resources thinking about the stuff that's wrong because that makes it get stuck in your head somehow.
We don't want to get it stuck in our heads.
So we think about what's most important.
And the other thing as well is that if you are trying to debunk something,
if you have,
it's better really not to say the thing that you're debunking and you actually don't have to mention it in order to successfully debunk it.
And many people, however, feel like they want to and they want to go into all the arguments about why it's wrong.
So no, it's just that really thin layer in the sandwich. It's gotta be really short.
And at the same time, before you even introduce the idea, you want to say somehow that it's wrong. So some people say incorrectly or some people say but it's totally wrong, blah, blah, rather than just putting the idea out there so that as soon as someone hears the idea,
they already know that it's not right. And I think it's really important because otherwise we end up spending a lot of time talking about myths. Like, for example, we know that one of the outdated ideas about dogs that people used to talk about a lot was dominance.
And we know that's very wrong. So we could, you know, we don't want to spend ages talking about why it's wrong though. We want to focus on the stuff that people can do to train their dogs.
And what we say about what is wrong has to be kind of short and quick and get it over and done with and then get onto what's important and what matters again.
And that turns it into a truth sandwich. And I'll put a link in the show Notes because we had a really fun episode and I think I put you on the spot a bit with some of these things, like how should we talk about them?
So we just talked about four different ideas and the best ways to talk about it. So that is a good listen, that episode.
I know we enjoyed making it.
Kristi: So.
Zazie: Yeah. Cool.
Kristi: Something else that sort of percolated as I was thinking about this and reading about this was that this thought of the Overton Window, which is just like a way of describing the range of subjects that are sort of like what is acceptable to speak about politically and socially in the mainstream population.
This Overton Window. So it's like a journalist term, I think that, you know,
and then there's this discussion about moving the Overton Window, which it seems kind of technical, but something that Rachel said in one of her podcasts was that the far right in Canada actually uses Overton Window.
Like they talk about. We're moving the Overton Window in, in the direction that they want to see. So they're. They talk about it, they know that it's a thing and they want to manipulate it so that, that far right ideology can start to gain sort of credence and comfort in, in Canadian political conversations, which is terrifying.
Zazie: Right.
Kristi: So it's not as though people are. And I, I doubt that dog trainers are necessarily having this conversation as well. The dog trainers who are, who, who. Who are sort of stuck in the past and still want to use these methods that, that hurt dogs.
I doubt that they're talking in these terms. Maybe they are, though. You know, I don't think. I, I don't think we should give them a bunch of credit, but I don't think we should also assume that they're not aware.
Right.
So one of the, the, another way of thinking about this Overton Window idea, the window shifting of, of what it's acceptable to talk about publicly in mainstream media is this degrees of acceptance so that it goes.
So an idea can go from unthinkable to radical to acceptable to sensible, to popular to policy.
And I read this and it's.
I think it was an, an author or a scholar named Trevino who came up with this.
And I read this and I was like, oh, you know what? I, I see dog training,
positive reinforcement, dog training or welfare forward dog training that eschews the use of aversives that, that, that scare and hurt dogs. And it does. It seems to me like it was sort of unthinkable at some point.
You know, just the idea that you don't have to harm dogs. I don't think that that describes every person's approach to their own dog. I think there's been tons of people throughout history who have been very gentle and caring to their dogs.
But I think from a. How do we get dogs to do what we need them to do? You know,
I, I think it, it probably would have been somewhat unthinkable to be like, no, you can't. No, not even a stern word,
you know,
and then when was it radical? When did it feel radical? Maybe like the 1980s.
Yeah,
like culture clash, I'm thinking Gene's book, Culture Clash, I feel like it was kind of a radical book. I feel like it was accepted as a radical book, maybe, you know, and it,
I think it hit some people as a radical sort of idea and a radical set of processes.
Zazie: Right,
I think it did. But I also think there were people who were kind of ready for it and thinking, oh, thank goodness someone is saying all of this.
So I think that was a big shift, I think. And I also think you're right that there have always been people who are kind to dogs. So I don't think treating dogs well has ever been unthinkable, but there have clearly been times when people have thought dogs are there for our purposes,
for our gain and they should just do as they're told.
And,
and that is like a popular idea that really has changed as we see dogs as family.
And I think reward based dog training is definitely popular at the moment, but it's not.
Kristi: Yeah,
we've gone through acceptable, we've gone. I think we're well past sensible. I think it's popular now, unfortunately. I think the line between popular and policy is the line we are currently at.
Zazie: Right.
Yeah. And I think that line is probably harder to cross in some places than others.
But I know there are movements thinking about how to regulate dog trainers and in different places they're in different stages or looking better or worse, depending on the approaches being presented.
But I think we will end up at that point where reward based dog training is really the only acceptable professional approach and is needed if you want to work in dog training, because it's so important for dogs that we take this approach.
So. Yeah,
yeah. So interesting. I think that's very interesting and there's probably a whole lot more that could be said on this. But yeah, it's very.
I think it's very good to think about dog training in this respect. And as you say, you know, a lot of these ideas have come from other topics, but they just seem so relevant to dog training.
And when you left me that series of voicemail messages, I was getting more and more excited like, yeah, this is, this is so relevant, so interesting. So thank you.
Kristi: It, it feels like a bit of a relief, I think,
to say, you know what, we don't have to give a seat at the table to people who hurt dogs. You know, like, it,
that, that's not a thing.
It's acceptable to not do that. It's, it's acceptable to be honest and upfront and,
you know, about what's best for dogs. About what's best for people and dogs. Yeah. So I, I, I think as a way to structure how,
I think a lot of people in our position who are positive reinforcement,
you know, and care deeply about dog's welfare feel like, oh God, but shouldn't we,
shouldn't we give people a chance to say no, we, we should, we don't need to. And there's precedence from every discipline around the earth that, that talks to people and that shares information about people.
There's precedence that, that this is something that we can do. So I found it to be a bit of a relief and a bit of a, a relief to know that other people thought that way.
And I'm relieved to know that. Here's how I can structure my argument instead of just being like, no, it feels wrong to, to be able to structure my argument about it.
Zazie: Yeah,
yeah, yeah, I think so. And also looking at Trevino's degrees of acceptance that you just brought up, that move from sensible to popular,
I think is also a move in which a lot of people's emotions have shifted from being one in which you accept that some people think it's okay to hurt dogs to being absolutely horrified that some people think it's okay to hurt dogs.
Like, you just cannot understand why someone would want or choose to do that if they're taking people's money to train dogs. And I'm not talking about dog guardians here because I think sometimes they are misled by dog trainers.
And that's like, that's the dog trainers issue. That's a professional lack of professionalism issue perhaps.
But I think, you know, there has been a big cultural shift. So I think that change reflects a big cultural shift in reward based methods becoming much more popular. And even if I just look at dogs being walked in, you know, the city where I live, there's been a huge change in how many are on shock collars or prong collars.
They've really reduced and it's really good to See, and good to know such that it is now a shock if I see a dog on a prong collar.
And it's horrifying.
So, yeah, it's definitely good to think about these things in this way and in terms of how we frame the argument.
Kristi: Absolutely.
Zazie: Good. So shall we move on to the book section? What have you been reading?
Kristi: So I have a book from my colleague Crystal Gail Fraser. I'm gonna hold it up. It's called By Strength We Are Still Indigenous Peoples and Indian Residential schooling in Inuvik, Northwest Territories.
So it's an academic book.
It's from the University of Manitoba Press. But Crystal is a Gwichyà Gwich'in scholar and historian, and this is actually based on her PhD dissertation, which I was lucky enough to review when it was still a PhD dissertation.
And I read it and I wasn't that familiar with Crystal's work at that time. We hadn't worked together much at that point,
and I was just blown away. Blown away. Blown away by how beautifully she writes. And she actually wrote somewhere, and I believe it's retained in this book. She wrote somewhere saying,
I'm writing not for other scholars. I'm writing for my family members and my community, and, you know, these are the people who I want to understand. So she managed to carry off something which I think, you know, I believe academics is moving more in this direction.
But she is honestly, I think, the best I've ever read of somebody who can write about a very technical and also very emotional and very horrific and, you know, really emotional topic, but do it so well.
Her. So her. Her for prose is lovely. And the topic is something that I think all Canadians need to learn more about in their lives. So it's about a residential school in students at residential school in Inuvik.
And Inuvik had one of the latest residential schools in Canada. It was open into the 90s, which is when I was graduating high school. So it's very much part of.
This is part of our lives. It's not something that's deeply in the past, so. And as a historian, she also chose to platform survivor stories. So she did a lot of oral history and wrote it from that perspective.
So I think she really attacks sort of not attack. See, there I go. Using a war metaphor, she tries to dismantle sort of historical practice about talking about these things and instead using Indigenous methodologies to talk about it.
So it's a wonderful book in.
You can learn a lot about, you know, our history as Canadians and what we've, you know, what we've as a colonial state, what we've done.
But also I think as people who, if you just like writing, it's very worth reading. So, yeah,
sorry, I went on a little bit long, but it's a very good book.
Zazie: Yeah, no, it's really good to hear about it and it's good to know that it's so well written as well as being on such an important topic. So excellent. Thank you.
And I have been reading. I'm going to hold it up.
Pugs and Kisses by Farrah Rochon.
And this, this is so. This is totally different because this is a romance and.
Yeah, it is really. It's about a veterinary. Well, two veterinarians. There's a vet called Evie and at the very beginning of it, she is breaking up with her fiance who she has been engaged to be married to for four years, and she throws him out of the house.
And she's quite down about all of this. And then she gets a call, can she go and help out at a rescue where she used to volunteer, but she hasn't had time to volunteer lately and it turns out that the rescue is in trouble.
And as well, someone she used to know and really quite like at vet school has also been called in to ask if he could help because he also used to volunteer there.
And they never quite got together before, but maybe they will get together this time. I mean, I don't want to give anything away, but it's a romantic and it is set in New Orleans as well. I love a good romance.
It's got a really nice like, setting. I've never been to New Orleans, but I enjoyed reading about it and reading about the food. Like they go to an Ethiopian restaurant, for example.
There's lots of lovely food, foodie bits in here and obviously also a lot of stuff about the animal rescue. And are they going to be able to raise enough money to save the animal rescue?
Because it's actually the property it's in is actually going to be sold. So if you love pet and you like reading about vets,
it's a really good story. So I enjoyed that very much.
Zazie: Yeah.
Zazie: So wherever you're listening from, thank you so much for joining us today. We would like to give a special shout out to our listeners in Woodland Park, Colorado. And maybe I'll mention that I only mention places where we know there are multiple people.
So, you know, it's not just one person we're speaking to from this place. And thank you so much for being with us today.
And if you've enjoyed this show, please tell a friend about it so that they can enjoy it too and we will see. See you next time. Bye bye.
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
