~Anne~

The word pedigree doesn't say enough in the current market. We're looking for a message in a word. To you in and me it speaks volumes but not to everyone. On the other hand it may be a way of 'promoting' the key word. We want a way to describe the benefit of a pedigree I guess is what I am thinking. A word that's says predetermined qualities shown with parentage as evidence.

So how do we say that 'the characteristics are known because we can view parentage' in a simple way? How do we capture in a word or two that we have a choice and can find what we want because we have evidence of parentage?

Sorry, I don't mean the actual focus of the point, just the way I worded it. I don't think I've captured the importance of the point with my word.

It's handy for medical history/genetic illnesses or diseases. But in a word or two as per the list?

I am so sorry Pers. RIP Bernie. *cyber hugs to you Pers*

The last one is weak. I can't think of how to say that you see a predetermined and forward known quality.

Quality Predictability Rich history Type specific (not sure if this is translated effectively) Reliability Recognised/identified parentage

Predictability! The reason for breeds in the first place. We choose purebreds because we have a far greater certainty of getting desired features and characteristics - size, coat, temperament, bite inhibition, bite threshold etc etc I agree. If predictability includes reliability. I have found they aren't the same. Quality Predictability Rich history Type specific (not sure if this is translated effectively) Reliability

Including Diva's reasons; Quality Predictability Rich history Type specific (not sure if this is translated effectively)

The list; Quality Predictability and I'll add; a rich history

Ok sorry, yes I think we are on the same page but different chapters. Why they (the public and purebred dog owners) prefer the purebred is most definitely important. Even why they don't is important. When developing a strategy that is precisely what would be looked at. The research in to why and why not. From that research a picture would be built of the perceptions and we would develop our objectives or what we want the perceptions to be from this. The point I was trying to inadequately make throughout this thread, after the concept was raised, is that we don't need perfection. Sure, we need to be working towards being as good as we can but to market and promote, and to return the purebred dog to the highs of where it should be, we need to start promoting.

Yes, you personally chose purebreds due to reasons that were important to you. Currently there is no marketing or promotion being undertaken though so your perception is what it is for reasons that only you know which you've said. None of which are due to any promotion or marketing. When creating a strategy we would look at the positive reason about why you(and thousands of others) chose purebred over crossbreed. We would highlight these positives. You personally don't go to McDonald's for your own personal reasons and perceptions, however massive numbers of people do. More than any other fast food chain. That's because of marketing and promotion.

Corvus, you are looking at marketing in a narrow focus. I don't eat McDonald's either however as a marketing example they are world leaders. More people eat that crap across the world than any other fast food. Why? Because of their very clever marketing campaigns, originally primarily targeted at children and now weighed to teens and children. They are also now heading into the busy white collar worker. Marketing and promotion is messages. It is communicating messages. I work creating strategies to combat negative perceptions about a service. The service has a lot of positive points and it is only these positive points I focus on. I research and survey to find what people think and then I create objectives and targets. I create the messages that will alter negative perceptions. As an example - someone earlier mentioned that that breeders won't just sell their pups to anyone. The negative of that is that it can make the purchasing process difficult however I would be creating messages about the positive. The positive is that the breeder cares about these puppies. They've been lovingly reared. They've been a part of a family. Love, blood, sweat and tears have gone into the planning, mating, rearing of these cute little puppies. The message: purebred breeders care enough to choose the perfect new family.

I agree with the fact that some people who are not geneticists are uneasy about line breeding, personally am more concerned about selection than line breeding. Basic fact of life is that line breeding is what we as pedigreed purebred breeders do - without it there would be no individual breeds and it can be used as a great tool to eliminate or avoid genes that make dogs sick. If you have dogs which cant breath its about what you have been selecting for not how closely they are related. From a marketing perspective - some people who are not nutritionists are concerned about the lack of nutrients in McDonalds but that hasnt impacted too much on their ability to sell their product. If we are still talking about marketing what some people who are not geneticists think shouldnt stop us from promoting the great things we do or the joy our product can bring to a human life. Great example ad it shows the power of marketing and promoting regardless of the product.

Great outcome from a sensible approach!

What makes me uncomfortable about this argument is that we can say exactly the same about puppy farm dogs. They know no different, they aren't committing suicide etc therefore this is "normal" for them. Wow, this is making me think.

I'm not content to be fat, far from it. What makes you think, from the people who have posted about being overweight, that they are content to be fat? Edited for detail. Haven't read the entire thread! I'm not saying that people are necessarily 'content' to be overweight, but the fact that their dog's health is of import but their own isn't strikes me as odd. Have you ever considered that controlling the diet and weight of a dog might be a lot easier than controlling your own diet and weight? Obesity is a complex problem. Good grief. Talk about assumptions and judgements. This thread is filled with them. :laugh: Of course. I was at one point quite overweight. I'm aware of the mental hurdles that come along with human weight problems. :) But that's how I feel on the matter. I'm not speaking for anyone else here except me, and I would not let myself get overweight again, nor my dogs. You statement was: It boggles me a bit that people are content to be overweight themselves (despite knowing the health risks that obesity carries) but their dogs are kept fit? Maybe it's just me. You are making assumptions and judgements on those who are overweight. You have assumed they are content to be overweight but not have overweight dogs. The fact that you were fat before has no relevance.

I'm not content to be fat, far from it. What makes you think, from the people who have posted about being overweight, that they are content to be fat? Edited for detail. Haven't read the entire thread! I'm not saying that people are necessarily 'content' to be overweight, but the fact that their dog's health is of import but their own isn't strikes me as odd. Have you ever considered that controlling the diet and weight of a dog might be a lot easier than controlling your own diet and weight? Obesity is a complex problem. Good grief. Talk about assumptions and judgements. This thread is filled with them. :laugh:

Lesley Leach.

Look at those eyes! What a story they seem to tell. Beautiful pics.

There are some videos of her moving... or wriggling is more precise. She wagged her tail and she played with some soft toys. I don't palm on forming any judgement. I'm not sure there is enough info given to determine the quality of life. I would assume it would be a short life anyway.

Righto. So what's your timeframe for 'implementation of quality control' ? 12 months? 5 years? 10 years? And while you're creating this utopia of quality control, what's happening to the perception of the purebred dog in the community? Is it improving? How will the public know what you are doing if you believe that you have to achieve success before you promote it? Ideally you would promote the concept that breeders are wanting to achieve quality control which sends a message. However, you don't think we should promote until we've achieved this quality control. How good will your quality control be? Will you ever have complete control over breeding practices? Do we keep waiting to promote until we achieve a 100% success rate?

I disagree. You can promote rubbish as gold if you choose. It's all only perceptions. Sure, you need a good product and if you think your product is not good, then I guess the concept is pointless. Perception is precisely what has happened in the marketing of cross bred dogs. They are not superior but they are more popular now than purebreds. Lets repeat that - they are not superior but they are more popular than purebreds. Why? Because the purebred dog world fails to promote itself. There is no plan. There are unwritten ethical considerations and rules that see the purebred dog becoming more out of reach of the average puppy buyer and discussions that border on being hysterical about hat makes a good breeder and what makes a good pup. As I said you all missed the point of the article. The outcome of this thread and the line of discussion would be different if this article was posted in a forum of marketers and communicators though I would think. Perhaps that is where the fault lies.

The message is clearly missed. The message was about marketing the purebred dog and now the discussion is about breeding practices. I guess it sums up the intention of the written article in the opening post.

:laugh: There is a LOT of truth in what they are saying. I think it's great. A comical tact to get people to understand the basics of canines.