There have been several articles lately regarding the impact the economy has on purchase behavior and product brand loyalty.  Trone conducted a survey of their online Mom panel, and today’s lead story in Ad Age is about brands that are losing consumers.

I align with the majority of respondents in the Trone survey – I’m more aware of in-store promotions (66%) and I actively use coupons (54%)  But how else have my consumption and purchase patterns been altered by the economy?  And what does it mean to really be brand loyal?

There are over 825K results on Google for “brand loyalty“.  The first few definitions are:

• A situation when a consumer is reluctant to switch from buying and consuming the product from the brand he knows and trusts.
• A strongly motivated and long standing decision to purchase  a particular product or service
• The situation in which a consumer generally buys the same manufacturer-originated product or service repeatedly over time rather than buying from multiple suppliers within the category

I challenge some of these definitions.  Words such as “reluctant”, “strongly motivated” or “generally buys” indicate preference not loyalty.  To me true brand loyalty means I will go without if I cannot get the brand I most desire.

Being from the South, “coke” is a rather generic term for “carbonated beverage” (aka soda).  However, when I order in a restaurant and ask for Diet Coke™ I expect that is what I will receive.  It only took one unexpected sip of the competitor to now always clarify.  See, I would rather drink water than Pepsi™.  That’s brand loyalty!

In the past year, I think that my brand loyal list has shortened by a product or two, but my brand preference list has gotten much longer.  I would rather buy products from Kraft, Kodak, Nabisco, Neutrogena, Charmin…but if the price is right I will “temporarily make do” with another brand.

What would you rather go without?  So what brands are you truly loyal to?

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.