Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Healthy dog food commercial

worrier
April 1st, 2007, 07:08 PM
I think it is horrible that only companies such as Purina and Iams advertise on television. For many people this is the only education they receive in terms of dog food knowledge.

What I suggest is some of us start contacting leading philanthropists (preferably dog loving ones), politicians, reporters, etc. There needs to be a commercial that advertises healthy dog food.

All this commercial needs to do is emphasize how important the first few ingredients in dog food are. Lets say a grandmotherly type character, among her dogs, talking about how companies such as Iams and Purina say that they are healthy and even "vet approved," yet use useless ingredients such as corn and "byproduct meal" as their main ingredients. Have the trustworthy grandmother character talk about how meats and meat meals are the best first ingredients and the people should be looking for things such as chicken, beef or better yet, bison as the #1 ingredient in their kibble.

Maybe some top healthier companies such as Canidae, Solid Gold and TO could throw a small percentage of money at this? Or give a percentage of any sudden increase in profits to the goodwill sponsors that pay for the commercial? Just some ideas.

A follow up commercial could maybe talk about supplementation of fish oils? I'm just brainstorming, but I think something like this needs to happen, and fast. I'm so outraged at this crappy food companies influencing veterinarians even, let alone the public. It has to end.

One Beagle Girl
April 1st, 2007, 07:45 PM
Companies such as Iams and Purina are owned by large parent companies (Proctor & Gamble and Nestle) who have huge advertising budgets. Their bottom line is $$.

Smaller companies TO, Solid Gold, and the like spend their money on R&D and what goes into the food. They don't have big budgets for advertising, let alone national ad campaigns. These companies rely on 'word of mouth' advertising - the kind that happens here. It's more important to them to produce a quality food than to sell a lot of it, and because of that, expect that sales will build over time.

People who really want to feed their pet good healthy food will always find it. People who believe what they see on tv commercials will buy other food.

It goes a lot further than educating the viewing public. Sadly, the relationship between the media and consumerism is a lot more complicated than that.

So basically, there is no one willing to pay for your commercial with grandma talking about the first however many ingredients. Sad but true. :frustrated:

Cram
April 1st, 2007, 07:47 PM
Actually, I believe Canidae is launching a national ad campaign. You can check out their website for more information.

worrier
April 1st, 2007, 08:40 PM
Companies such as Iams and Purina are owned by large parent companies (Proctor & Gamble and Nestle) who have huge advertising budgets. Their bottom line is $$.

Smaller companies TO, Solid Gold, and the like spend their money on R&D and what goes into the food. They don't have big budgets for advertising, let alone national ad campaigns. These companies rely on 'word of mouth' advertising - the kind that happens here. It's more important to them to produce a quality food than to sell a lot of it, and because of that, expect that sales will build over time.

People who really want to feed their pet good healthy food will always find it. People who believe what they see on tv commercials will buy other food.

It goes a lot further than educating the viewing public. Sadly, the relationship between the media and consumerism is a lot more complicated than that.

So basically, there is no one willing to pay for your commercial with grandma talking about the first however many ingredients. Sad but true. :frustrated:

I think you are missing my point completely. I realize everything you are saying is true, it is the reason I feel there needs to be better dog food education. It is very easy to say things like what I highlighted in your post and disregard these people. It is very easy to tell yourself "if they cared, they would educated themselves, etc." The bottom line is that people have jobs, kids, problems, etc. They need someone to tell them what to do sometimes. You can disregard them, but they still exist, and the pets suffer.

There are tons of people with lots of money. If we can get a few of them together, coupled with a small amount of money from some leading healthy food companies, we can get a national campaign going in Canada for example. This will lead to other rich people seeing these ads and joining in, media attention, political pressure on government sponsored ads maybe? We cannot just stand buy and say "it is not our problem, we are educated pet owners." As "educated" pet owners we need to fight for change, otherwise who will?

Edgewaters
April 1st, 2007, 09:14 PM
I have to say, I just don't think a TV spot would have much impact.

If it had been running at the outset of the scare, it might have. That would have been very fortunate indeed. But by the time one gets organized people will be tired of being scared, and they'll tune it out.

The other problem with it is that I think you'd be surprised how many people do know that Iams etc are not great, and don't trust the pet food industry - it's just that they don't have the time to look into alternatives. They want a list of good foods. There are all kinds of people swamping the search engines right now looking for answers. I think the net is the way to go - hit all the places where people are going to end up doing a quick net search for answers. Look here:

http://www.internetadsales.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9398

Find where people are ending up from the most popular searches, such as here:

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?q=pet+food+recall&hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=ATW&um=1&sa=X&oi=blogsearch&ct=title

And you get a chance to speak to thousands of people who are looking for answers

Prin
April 1st, 2007, 09:50 PM
When shows are sponsored by Iams, Eukanuba, Pedigree and Purina, it's unlikely that they will allow ads dissing them to ever run... I mean, how often do you see their names come up in whatever talk shows or sports things? They're everywhere.

People who really want to feed their pet good healthy food will always find it. People who believe what they see on tv commercials will buy other food.The problem is when you research, all you get in the beginning is Eukanuba and Proplan. Those are the top! Anybody who feeds those genuinely feels like they're feeding the best. That's the problem. :sad:

The only way for it to really get out is if Oprah said it. :laughing: :rolleyes:

erykah1310
April 1st, 2007, 09:53 PM
Theres a GENIOUS idea prin...
so , who's going to email Oprahs people and push for this .:D

Prin
April 1st, 2007, 09:58 PM
lol we'd all have to. And then we'd have to get our families to write in too. And our families' friends... And their friends... :laughing:

worrier
April 1st, 2007, 10:02 PM
When shows are sponsored by Iams, Eukanuba, Pedigree and Purina, it's unlikely that they will allow ads dissing them to ever run.

There's no way they could stop those ads from being run, all networks care about is the cheque they receive. There are tons of competing companies that refer to their competition by name even in assault ads.

It's my right to run any ad I want, as long as what I am saying about someone else is not untruthful. If I simply state that corn has little nutritional value and that chicken, turkey, beef or bison is more in line with what your dog needs, there is little Iams and Purina can do aside from changing their formula.

All we need is money, and if a lot of people pitch in with emails and small contributions, this can happen. Oprah is not going to care unless there is some sort of public outcry already. She will expand that outcry exponentially, but she won't start it IMHO.

Prin
April 1st, 2007, 10:05 PM
You can't say corn has little nutritional value because Purina and Iams have "studies" that say it's great. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

worrier
April 1st, 2007, 10:20 PM
You can't say corn has little nutritional value because Purina and Iams have "studies" that say it's great. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Of course I can. And they can sue me. Then in court they would have to provide independent studies (since the ones they paid for wouldn't be admitted) proving that corn has more nutritional value to dogs than meat. I wonder who would win? No, seriously, I wonder. But I think they would have a hard time proving that corn was better for dogs than meat without using their own studies.

Edgewaters
April 1st, 2007, 11:49 PM
It's my right to run any ad I want, as long as what I am saying about someone else is not untruthful.

In theory that's wonderful ...

But the companies that own the television stations also have the right to refuse to run your ad. There's no provision that says they are obligated to provide service to anyone willing to pay. They could refuse to run the ad simply by saying their audience wouldn't appreciate it, and they're not obligated to demonstrate that this is true.

If it was as simple as that, then media concentration into a tiny number of hands would never have been the big concern that it has always been.

Puppyluv
April 1st, 2007, 11:59 PM
I was at the gym the other day, and an ad on tv was for some pet store.In the ad they did a cost comparison of feeding TO to feeding purina, and also explained why TO w made of superior ingredients. It was such a great ad, they were really pushing TO and then mentioned that they carry a full line of holistic foods and why they're a better choice than discount foods.:thumbs up

worrier
April 2nd, 2007, 12:55 AM
I was at the gym the other day, and an ad on tv was for some pet store.In the ad they did a cost comparison of feeding TO to feeding purina, and also explained why TO w made of superior ingredients. It was such a great ad, they were really pushing TO and then mentioned that they carry a full line of holistic foods and why they're a better choice than discount foods.:thumbs up

This is wonderful, haven't seen such ads.


In theory that's wonderful ...

But the companies that own the television stations also have the right to refuse to run your ad. There's no provision that says they are obligated to provide service to anyone willing to pay. They could refuse to run the ad simply by saying their audience wouldn't appreciate it, and they're not obligated to demonstrate that this is true.

If it was as simple as that, then media concentration into a tiny number of hands would never have been the big concern that it has always been.

I see your point, but there's no way those companies have influence over every single network to that extent. Furthermore, if two stations that are backed by Purina refuse the ad, the 3rd station will not only run it, but will also do a 6 o'clock expose on the prior two refusals. I think you are going overboard with that type of paranoia, but then again, I haven't pitched the ad to anyone yet. ;)

Edgewaters
April 2nd, 2007, 07:06 AM
I see your point, but there's no way those companies have influence over every single network to that extent. Furthermore, if two stations that are backed by Purina refuse the ad, the 3rd station will not only run it, but will also do a 6 o'clock expose on the prior two refusals.

No, thats not how it works it all. Everything goes through a single industry clearinghouse; individual stations do not review and accept any material, they don't even look at it until it has passed the clearinghouse. More or less all advertising (and especially public service announcements) has to pass through an industry organization, the Telecaster service of the Television Bureau of Canada, and they do often reject lots of material despite a willingless to pay. See here for some examples:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2007/01/tv_censorship_i_1.html

http://www.connexions.org/CxDigest/Docs/CXDGT53BR.htm

(the Telecaster service of the TVB is the same organization as the Telecaster Committee, it's just been renamed since).

More about it:

The Telecaster Committee of Canada (now known as Telecaster services of TVB) was formed in 1973 by private broadcasters as a voluntary, self-governing, commercial, infomercial and public service announcement (PSA) clearance committee. ... In 1995, the Telecaster Committee began clearing infomercials for its member channels ... If Telecaster services did not exist, it is likely you would have to send your commercials for clearance to at least 45 different stations and networks who would each have their own rules and regulations, as well as submitting to the necessary regulatory bodies ... Telecaster may consult with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) and/or make reference to voluntary industry standards, e.g., codes regarding violence, gender portrayal and broadcast ethics. This consultation would be in areas of perceived public controversy, public service announcements and other matters of general industry concern.

http://www.tvb.ca/Buton1.htm

So, its not really necessary for this small group of corporations to directly control each and every individual television station - they own all the broadcasters and require all the stations to air only TVB-approved material, and they control the TVB. Membership is voluntary but no station would forego it; they wouldn't be carried by Rogers, Cogeco, Bell ExpressVu, etc etc.