The state of the economy is clearly going to crimp gift giving plans for most folks this year.  However, it appears our pets will continue to make out just fine.  A report recently published by MSNBC shows that while 84% of consumers say they are going to cut back on gift giving this year, only 23% are going to do so with their pets.  (You can read the full article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27582273/from/ET )

This finding certainly comes as no surprise to me.  Earlier this year we reported findings from a Trone consumer survey that showed pets to be the last place consumers planned to cut spending, faring better than even our children.  (Trone report here:  http://www.trone.com/index.php/category/consumer-snapshots/pets/ ).  What we know is that for a large percentage of “pet parents” their pets are much more than mere “animals,” they are part of the family.  In fact, we have identified 8 distinct segments of dog owners and 6 segments of cat owners.  Contained within these segments are 44% of dog owners and 33% of cat owner who are highly bonded with their pets.  For these consumers, their relationship with their pet drives spending, and is a much better predictor of how much they’ll spend caring for Fido than any socioeconomic variable. 

So, if you’re in the market for a Shark Attack Hoodie, you’d better hurry.  There are only 17 shopping days till Christmas and it looks like demand for doggie gifts will be at an all-time high!

Sadie lounges on the dog's bed. Not because she may, but because she can.

According to a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences, that would appear to be truth.

As any cat owner will attest, felines stoutly and proudly refuse to comply with household rules laid down for dogs: no sleeping on the sofa, no paws on the table, no chewing on the plants. We tolerate our cats’ bad behavior in ways we’d never accept from dogs or other humans. Cats own us, play us and mold us to do their bidding. We are putty in their paws.

The study suggests that generations ago, cats cunningly and deliberately domesticated themselves so we’d provide them with three squares and a roof over their heads. There’s considerable evidence for mankind’s reasons to domesticate wild dogs–hunting partner, protector, companion, extra blanket on those cold, cold nights. But what reasonably sane individual would have invited a wild cat to share the cave? And for what purpose?

The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior says cats win paws down over dogs when it comes to learning how to get exactly what they want from their owners, but we cat owners have known this since the first day. It’s an age-old conflict–squaring our need to care for a small, dependant animal with the challenge of feline independence.

So, who’s really been domesticated?

A recently-introduced bill proposed by Rep. Thaddeus McCotter R-Mich is seeking to ease the burden of healthcare costs, but not for the estimated 46 million people in America living without health insurance. The proposed Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years Act (HAPPY) would provide up to $3,500 in tax deductions for qualified companion pet care expenditures, namely veterinary care. Supporters of the bill believe it will help the majority of U.S. households who own pets to better provide them care, as the recession has created noticeable increases in pets being abandoned and decreases in pet adoptions. While it wouldn’t cover money spent to purchase a pet, it would provide relief on expenses ranging from spaying and neutering to preventive dental care. Opponents call the bill irresponsible while our nation has a budget deficit of more than a trillion dollars.  

For uninsured pets, veterinary treatment for common acute and chronic conditions can easily run several thousand dollars out of pocket. Additional efforts are underway to provide tax benefits for care. With many more pet owners expected to seek out pet insurance (currently only ~1% of pets are covered), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is supporting an amendment to employee pre-tax flexible spending account laws (FSAs or cafeteria plans) to allow non-taxed dollars to pay for pet health insurance.  

Regardless of your opinion of these efforts to provide tax relief, a growing panel of experts are realizing the significant benefits pets have on human health and well-being. The National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control alike point to studies indicating owning companion animals reduces high blood pressure and cholesterol and helps with stress and depression.  

I for one can attest to the magnitude of the aforementioned, having spent enough for a new car on my dog, Bella, for in-patient cancer therapy at a veterinary university hospital, then for a knee reconstruction surgery in the same year (this was before I wised up and got pet insurance). Those were voluntary purchases my wife and I decided to make without even knowing just how beneficial the decision to keep our dog alive would eventually become. When my wife was put on strict bed rest after a week in the hospital to prevent the pre-term labor of our son, we both credit the compassionate companionship of Bella for keeping my wife calm and positive while laying on her side for two months, allowing a full-term pregnancy and healthy delivery. The costs of our son being born two-months early, while exponentially greater in dollars than nearly any conceivable spectrum of veterinary care, could have been far more serious than any monetary scale could measure.  

Gauging the benefits of pets is the easy part of this debate. How to help the country best reap these benefits has now become a welcome discussion.

That’s what 50% of pet-owning Americans said in a recent poll conducted by the Associated Press and Petside.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31505216/ns/health-pet_health.  That’s devotion, huh?

A deeper dive into the survey tracks with what we’ve learned about pet owners through our online consumer panel, opinions@Trone.com: most of these self-identified pet parents are single women (66%). Interestingly, 52% of single men said they considered their pets a full member of the family as well.

Almost half of the respondants said they’ve taken the pet on a family vacation. Over one-third have included pets in holiday cards or family portraits. And as the parent of Marshall (the Doberman) and Sadie (the Tuxedo cat), I join the  nearly 50% of those surveyed whose pets have human names.

The survey reinforces that smart marketers will look for ways to tap into the emotional side of pet ownership. Sure, we can promote the rational benefits of a pet product or service, but consider how this would resonate deeply with the best potential customer–a pet parent: ”Your pet is a member of the family. Doesn’t he deserve the same care and consideration as any other member of the family?”

I’ve spent the last two years caring for an increased amount of pets for my friends and neighbors through our buddy system. There are no monitary exchanges of payment for the sitting, just a reward with baked goods or a night out to dinner. My reward also comes in the form of being an “aunt” to the pets and seeing the first hand examples of brand loyalty by pet owners.

What do I notice? The pet owners that buy only organic foods for themselves pass along the same eco-conscious decisions with their pets. They buy only items from their neighboring Whole Foods® or Fresh Market®.

For those that do not like change, they constantly buy the same brand and formula of both food and hygiene products (litter for cats and training pads for new puppies) for their loved ones. They are fearful that if they shift to a new formulation or brand, that their pet will be disheveled.

People often ask me about the brand of cat litter or food that my friends use. Here are my observations to how some of my friends and family made their decisions:

1) Sampling is good way for your pet to try and respond to new products. Try enough products until your pet responds positively. Some vets sell or give away samples and most pet stores or big boxes sell or give away samples. Even try visiting a company’s website to order free samples (e.g. Greenies® - http://www.greenies.com/en_US/FreeSample/).

2) Research! Use all of the online resources available that reference real veterinarians. Try news sources, professional publications, and websites by trusted branded manufacturers (e.g. Drs. Foster and Smith® – drsfostersmith.com).

3) Ask around other friends and neighbors- Go to online forums or face-to-face with others to see how they made their choices. Also, consider if you want to pass along your lifestyle choices to your pet (e.g. Facebook.com- search pet pages).

Choosing a brand as an “unofficial” pet sitter or as a new pet owner can be a daunting task, but it’s one that is rewarding when the right choice is made. Just like a child, a pet is a reflection of who you are and your brand loyalty.

My friend Jill told this story recently: a friend of a friend of her mother read on the Internet that pet owners shouldn’t clean floors with Swiffer wet products as they purportedly contain the same chemical as antifreeze.  When Jill asked her mom if she believed that, she said, “Jill, honey–it must be true. I Googled it and read for myself on the Internet.”

To paraphrase the cartoon caption: on the Internet, nobody knows you’re sharing a myth, a half-truth or a bold-faced lie. It’s on the Internet; lots of people are reading it as evidenced by its optimization on Google so therefore, it must be true. By the way, the Swiffer story is pure fabrication. What’s amazing is that it’s still out there after five years!

And therein lies the dilemma with relying on the Internet for the definitive word; anyone and everyone can speak with authority. And it seems the louder the voice, the greater the optimization, the more validity is given. Unfortunately, the Internet has created a whole new breed of muckrakers, many of whom seem more ill-informed than purposely untruthful.

In our work for pet clients, we’ve seen on the Internet a fair amount of ignorance if not out-right fabrication. One website in particular–which I won’t name because they’re already too nicely optimized–touts itself as a fair, unbiased source of information for pet owners. It’s far from being either fair or unbiased. It gets a lot of traffic so it’s easy to assume that visitors are reading and accepting what they read. Because the web is so convenient and pervasive, it’s not difficult to make this leap: most pet owners are turning to the Internet for information and advice.

That’s a scary thought, but here’s reassurance. While pet owners might read and research online, we know from Trone Brand Connections consumer studies that the overwhelming majority talk to their veterinarian and take his or her advice. That doesn’t suggest that we and our clients should ignore online information, especially attempting to correct misinformation, but must ensure that we’re engaged and communicating with most pet owners’ preferred source of information and education–the veterinary community.

Who knew there was so much pressure in naming a pet!  The last four legged friend I named was almost 19 yrs ago.  For the life of me I cannot remember how I came up with Miss Cinnamon’s name (1990 – 2008), but it really fit her.

So where to start?  At least with kids you have a tree full of family names to sort through.  Or if you are like most girls, you have names from years ago that you and your friends picked out – one if it were a boy and one for a girl.  You even have time on your side;  nine long months to work it out with your other half.

Well, I rescued a two year old mixed breed from the animal shelter two days ago, and she still has no name.  Imagine the stress when I took her to the vet today.  They were all smiles and friendly until I had no response for “what is her name?”  In that moment of silence, where the tech’s smile slightly fades, you instantly feel like a bad mother!

So what are the options and criteria I’ve been sorting through?

• Personality:  Two things come to mind this early in the game.  Velcro and Destructo.  The first because I can’t leave a room without her following.  The second because her first toy lost its wing in matter of seconds.
• Appearance:  She has beautiful colorations.  She could be a Ginger, Nutmeg, Amber, Topaz, Chestnut, Copper…..or something having to do with the mask on her face!
• Character from a novel:  This is a popular route.  However, most of the names in To Kill a Mockingbird are male and most of  Jane Austen’s heroines have such formal names that go beyond the suggested two syllables.
• Breed: She is a sweet mutt, but Heinz is so over used.  And she is a girl after all!  That whole male/female thing gets confusing with pets.
• Transference:  Using a name that is reflective of you and your interests.  Cameron’s out – too many friends from college have used that (even for their kids!)   She doesn’t seem like a Daisy or Iris.

One may say I’m over thinking this?  Shakespeare certainly would!  But your name is your brand!   Whatever “No Name” ends up being called, she will be loved.

What you don’t do for your dog says as much about you as what you do for them.

The new campaign for Alpo dog food capitalizes on this thought brilliantly. By showcasing the ridiculousness of pet owners dressing up dogs and paying for pet massages, it focuses on getting back to the basics of what it means to be a real dog and dog owner. It invites its target to laugh with the brand at other types of dog owners who go overboard with their dog pampering. It brings the realness back to dog ownership that these owners have never forgotten. Now I must admit, I wouldn’t buy Alpo even though I don’t dress up my dog. I am a very different type of pet owner that would never think of giving my dog anything but the best food and care possible. Said plainly, I see Alpo as a cheap and more importantly less healthy brand of dog food. Not good enough for my pup. But I am not their target. Their target buys dog food from a grocery store not a pet store. And they don’t let their dog eat better food than they do. But even though I am not their target, I find these ads amusing, honest and funny in a way that stories about peas and carrots could never be. After all, dogs were once wild animals forced to hunt for their food.

With everything from downloadable posters, stories about dogs lost to pampering that need to be “found” and even viral videos of people going into doggy spas to “rescue” the dogs by giving them Alpo, this campaign brings their headline “Quick, get that dog some Alpo” to life. The tagline “Real dogs eat meat” hits close to home for both the target’s way of thinking about feeding their dog as well as how they think about feeding themselves. Bravo to Alpo for truly understanding their target and how to talk to them.

Here is the campaign website.

Trone’s most recent economy study of over 3,300 consumers examined anticipated 2009 expenditures and interactions with brands across a number of key product categories including groceries, children’s, personal expenses and pets.

Given Trone’s extensive background in the pet category, the likelihood of pet owners switching products for their pets as well as the extent to which they were planning on spending less on their pets in the coming year were topics of special interest.  Overall, the news was very good for the pet industry.  A solid majority of pet owners indicated they were not planning on doing either.

Previous research had enabled Trone to identify pet owners who were more dependent on their veterinarians – those more likely than others to visit their vets often, consult with them on a variety of pet products and switch products based on their vets’ recommendations.  Interestingly, both dog and cat owners who were “vet dependent”  were significantly less likely to indicate they’d switch products or spend less on their pets in 2009. 

For example, while 38% of  less vet dependent dog owners indicated they’d switch products, only 29% of vet dependent dog owners were planning on doing so.  For cat owners, the percentages were 30% vs. 22%, respectively.  Regarding spending less in 2009, 29% of less vet dependent dog owners planned on doing so while only 20% of vet dependent dog owners were planning the same.  The same pattern was found for cat owners – 17% vs. 8%. 

Considering that vet dependent dog owners represent 44% of all dog owners and that vet dependent cat owners account for 34% of all cat owners, these findings should not be taken lightly.  Vet dependent pet owners comprise a group too large – and too valuable – to be overlooked.

Given the size of the constituency it serves, the veterinary channel is an indispensible link in connecting brands to pet owners as well as in maintaining brand loyalty.  Companies considering launching new products into the pet category would be well-advised to incorporate the veterinary channel into their overall brand strategy.