The Scandal Of Marketing Purebred Dogs

[moosmum]

Its not marketing PEDIGREE dogs,addmittedly. But pedigree dogs should NOT be for everyone. Only for those who are dedicated to the goals of knowledge used for betterment.If they find they are,THEN they will have cause to sign up and reap maximum benefit from pedigree dogs.

Sorry, but you've lost me there. Why shouldn't pedigree dogs be for everyone?

Sorry, I'm making mistakes and not helping myself by them. I should have said their BREEDING should not be up to just anyone.They should understand and believe in goals to be effective.

Edited July 16, 2013 by moosmum

[moosmum]

So I believe we are, in general, against THOUGHTLESS or IGNORANT breeding, be it pure or cross. I think it is important to make this distinction, and to date, the purebred world in this country has NOT successfully got that message out to the general public. They seem to have the impression that ANKC registered breeders want everyone else to stop breeding so they have all the high prices to themselves. This is not helped by those ANKC registered breeders who are thoughtless or ignorant or, in common parlance, "greeders".

[DOL is, in and of itself, a place set up for the promotion of purebred dogs, so you are not going to get very many deliberate cross breeders in this group. [/size]

1st para, I recognise that,and respect it.I think part of the reason the public can't is because of the insistence that the word pedigree is automaticalyattached to those goals and ideals.

2nd para, the idea is not to get pedigree breeders breeding cross breds. More so as not to be seen as standing in the way or affecting the autonomy of others. Your influence is more than you realise.

I think being more aware of the publics concerns in "product" might have a flow on effect to give breeders more sense of autonomy in their choices.Decrease the perceived need to follow trends in the show ring.

Edited July 16, 2013 by moosmum

[moosmum]

Poodles X Labradors for example. Aren't they Cobba dogs now?

They proved popular before anyone considered making them a breed unto themselves.

Then again, would anyone have thought to make this a breed at all if cross breeding were not so frowned on? It could have been a temporary fad. Should legitimacy be a valid need in evolution?

The manager at the Royal Guide Dogs who originally got the idea to cross Labs with Poodles, is on record years later, regretting bitterly what he did... & what it started.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/labradoodle-pioneer-regrets-fashioning-designer-dog/story-e6frg6n6-1225860829155

Even tho' the 'Labradoodle' has since been picked up in breeding for pets, the Guide Dogs reverted to Labradors. The 'popularity' of the 'Labradoodle', like the other designed crosses that followed, rested on statements about 'combining best of both breeds' (massive over-simplification) & cutesy labels.

So the man who originated the Labradoodle is frowning on his 'mixing' experiment & others that followed, in retrospect.

And just a caution about invoking 'evolution'. That term is scientifically specific...it does not refer to man-made interventions.

Possibly a more accurate term for what you're trying to get across is 'development' (?)

I 'm not sure. As a whole species, they may still be evolving ,abeit with human interference.Its not always premeditated?

Edited July 16, 2013 by moosmum

[moosmum]

X Labradors for example. Aren't they Cobba dogs now?

They proved popular before anyone considered making them a breed unto themselves.

Then again, would anyone have thought to make this a breed at all if cross breeding were not so frowned on? It could have been a temporary fad. Should legitimacy be a valid need in evolution?

IMHO evolution needs room for spontainious (sp?) adaptation. The value of an adaptation is proven by its success over time.

No Poodle X Labradors are not cobberdogs now . Cobberdogs are the result of breeders who are attempting to develop a new breed by using several breeds of dogs to achieve a large group of dogs which will be able to be recognised as a breed in its own right with predictable characteristics. They did this by using a pedigree system. The stud book is still open and they have the ability to infuse the breed with dogs which have no relation to their stud stock to include in their breeding program but they don't. They dont because they have been testing for,watching for all diseases known to occur in any of the foundation breeds and eliminating them from the breeding program. They have been selecting for animals which have particular temperament and personality suitable for assistance work which will not shed and which wont require the level of grooming which is usually required for non shedding dogs. They have been testing for 27 different genetic diseases and havent seen any of them for 7 generations. Every time they go out and introduce a cross breed they have to start again with no real knowledge of what they may bring to the gene pool - no knowledge until it turns up - of what they will need to test for and work to eliminate into the future. There are hundreds of people world wide working toward being able to show this is a predictable recognisable breed and if they all decided tomorrow to chuck in a cross breed without having to justify why they wanted to do that it takes the work done back generations. Breed clubs of any breed are in the same position.

As a registry if the ANKC listened to individuals or splinter groups and simply stuck in new things into the breed standard or added to or took away registration requirements just because someone wanted to have it done a different way it would be anarchy and it's why they only listen to the breed club.

Surely you're not suggesting that breeders should be able to cross breed without a good story about why they want to, what they hope to achieve and how it will be managed or criteria to fit ? Any breed club can approach the ANKC and have permission granted for them to open their stud book ,I am aware of two breeds with open ANKC stud books right now. Currently in the UK every breed has had its stud book opened and dogs are able to be entered if they fit a certain criteria and that is probably the future for the ANKC too.

The ANKC allow stud books to be open, they allow crossbreeding, they accept new breeds into their registry but they dont allow you as an individual breeder to simply decide that you will take a different breed here or there and put it in the mix without having to tell them why and how. This is why the code of ethics is worded the way it is and why purebred breeders are against cross breeding in their breed unless it is sanctioned and goes through the system.

Now why the ANKC haven't come out and said this when it is being slammed for closed stud books is beyond me but for anyone including the RSPCA or a Uni professor could believe that it would work by just willy nilly allowing every body to chuck in the neighbours dog rather than having a system in place to ensure it doesnt do more harm than good and that we are still left with specific breeds rather than generic dogs makes no sense either.

Fact is the ANKC stud books are closed but the system is in place to allow the stud books to be open for any breed at any time.

They could simply say all of their stud books are open if the dogs being added fit the criteria - same thing just sounds different.

But thats not what I am suggesting at all. Only that the breeding of dogs that will not fall under the charter set for pedigree dogs, not be forbidden. To enable a bridge to public perceptions and their perceived needs and yours.A bridge that doesn't have to compromise your charter.

I think a bridge is badly needed for both "sides" to work together. To encourage new blood into the ranks of dedicated breeders and a means of keeping them interested in what you do best. A ready tool for educating people on practices that are proven to benefit dogs as a whole.To stand more simply, for responsible breeding practices based on facts, welfare, and outcomes. Wouldn't that Influence their practices with uncompromised truth? Give Cred.? Brand name through integrity? I believe the pedigree 1st for legitimacy stance is compromising the truth of your message,it seems contradictory.

You are to some extent governed by market and its the public that holds your success.If you refuse to aknowledge their their requirements at all, they will continue to turn away.

If they continue to turn away ,you can't sustain your numbers.

If your own numbers drop too low,your breeding lines do too.

Our breeds suffer.

Edited July 16, 2013 by moosmum

[moosmum]

I think the two are inexorably linked. You don't need to be a population geneticist to be uneasy about the pedigree dog world's love affair with line breeding and popular sires. How are you going to market purebred dogs without justifying common breeding practices?

Thank you Corvus. I also think they are inexorably linked.

[moosmum]

Pedigree dog registries created a thematic choice. With the introduction of those rules the division was underscored.

I think there needs to be an avenue left open for spontaneous,natural evolution in the way dog breeds 1st came about if societies are to take ownership of the results or stay connected to the proccess.

In baring your own membership from taking part in that,you pass judgement.

I believe a pedigree represents knowledge, so think marketing knowledge rather than pedigrees is the way to do it.The symbol isn't the product.

Otherwise its kind of like telling people they need a degree to practice medicine,so they sign up for the hypocratic oath, receive one and its up to them to study. Will that get rid of charlatans and witch doctors? Could such a society ever agree on what makes a good doctor?

If we want reliable quality meat on our tables, should we insist cattle breeders can't supply that by cross breeding? Or that a producer who doesn't use use pure lines only must have an inferior product,or lack integrity?

Edited July 16, 2013 by moosmum

[RuralPug]

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.

I don't see that as a problem.

To me, marketing the purebred dog per se will fail unless you first institute the equivalent of quality control otherwise you are only marketing a shoddy product (as the 'greeeders' do). (Ok, ok - we all know that our beloved dogs are family members first and foremost, please forgive me the businessspeak but it seems the clearest way to get my point across).

Quality control = breeding practices.

Ergo, any discussion re marketing of purebreds will always have to include breeding practices.

[Salukifan]

Breeding practices are what MAKE purebred dogs. Don't see how you can talk about one without the other.

[~Anne~]

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.

[Salukifan]

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.

I would respectfully disagree. The point of the article was the purebred dogs need to be marketed in the places that puppy buyers go to FIND pups. Ideas that people shouldn't advertise or that advertising in such places makes you a lesser breeder are rubbish. And I agree. We need to promote that pedigree dogs make great pets. And we need to promote it to pet dog buyers. That's how I see the point of the article and I totally support the assertion.

What and how we market is what people followed on with.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[RuralPug]

What Haredown said.

I, for one, simply do not want to assist in marketing a shoddy product. I want to assist in marketing a quality controlled product. That is what is important to me, and I hope, most (if not all) of us here.

Edited for typos.

Edited July 16, 2013 by RuralPug

[~Anne~]

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?

[moosmum]

Back to the thread on American Staffordshire terriers.

Chris001 came to DOL for information and guidance.He left with our disgust. For what? He started with enough to appreciate what pedigree breeders had to offer.

That information was selling pedigree breeders.

It changed out comes for an unknown number of dogs from a welfare perspective.

Thats 1 more person who is a little better informed. He learned that hes not ready to breed, That he needs to educate himself more before he considers it.He was going to desex his dog.

He might give the same knowledge to some of his mates.

I doubt he will recommend DOL or pedigree breeders to his mates.The message was tainted.

When people come to Dol for advise and guidance, your replies represent pedigree dog breeders. Like it or not,you ARE marketing pedigree dogs. Your sending messages on their behalf.

So if we are educating these people,collectively and with out judgement, They LEARN what makes a good breeder. We continue to learn from each other. We might not always agree,but facts are being shared so we can use our own judgement to make informed decisions.

Why would you need a program to step in and do quality control?

If people are discussing and debating, making informed decisions and pedigree breeders are guiding that, people have a far better idea of what a good breeder is. Based on facts given freely. You give your market the information. In the end, they will determine whos a good breeder for them. Its up to breeders to live up to the truths they promote. They can be judged on merit, not affiliation.

And hopefully,that brings quality control.

If a buyer is disapointed, he can't hold all pedigree breeders to blame. Its pedigree breeders telling him, all breeders are not the same.

Edited July 16, 2013 by moosmum

[Salukifan]

I doubt he will recommend DOL or pedigree breeders to his mates.The message was tainted.

When people come to Dol for advise and guidance, your replies represent pedigree dog breeders. Like it or not,you ARE marketing pedigree dogs. Your sending messages on their behalf.

The fact that a significant number of DOLers neither own nor breed pedigree dogs is somewhat ironic in that context.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[moosmum]

I doubt he will recommend DOL or pedigree breeders to his mates.The message was tainted.

When people come to Dol for advise and guidance, your replies represent pedigree dog breeders. Like it or not,you ARE marketing pedigree dogs. Your sending messages on their behalf.

The fact that a significant number of DOLers neither own nor breed pedigree dogs is somewhat ironic in that context.

Yes, it is. But I think thats how the public will see it.

[RuralPug]

I want to discuss quality control for exactly those reasons spoken about in this thread by other people. We have seen what happens in the past when a breed has become popular - it's quality drops because Ted and Harry and Martha and Alice all jump on the bandwagon and breed them willy-nilly.

We are seeing today what has happened when people try to get the message across that you are safer to get a puppy from a "registered breeder" - either people confuse registered with ANKC/GRA etc. with council, or the PIAA, or whatever, or 'greeders' get themselves an ANKC registration and dilute the brand.

What I want to see is a breeder's accreditation that is actually monitored and enforced so that it means something to your average man in the street and that means quality control first, marketing second. I know the MDBA are doing quality control and I support that. It is an excellent beginning.

And slightly OT, I think the message getting out there (via US memes largely) to 'adopt, not shop' has found that pounds and shelters ( and, yes, some rescues) sorely lacking in placing the right pets in the right homes. Hence the rebound surrenders, onsells etc. Plus the message ""don't buy from pet shops" has been warped into "don't buy from any breeder".

These are the reasons I worry about getting the message out before quality control - if a lot of people listen, try it and then get their fingers burnt, you will have damaged the brand badly.

[RuralPug]

Why would you need a program to step in and do quality control?

If people are discussing and debating, making informed decisions and pedigree breeders are guiding that, people have a far better idea of what a good breeder is. Based on facts given freely. You give your market the information. In the end, they will determine whos a good breeder for them. Its up to breeders to live up to the truths they promote. They can be judged on merit, not affiliation.

And hopefully,that brings quality control.

If a buyer is disapointed, he can't hold all pedigree breeders to blame. Its pedigree breeders telling him, all breeders are not the same.

But people do! If you get a wonky version or a bad deal or a lying salesman from an organisation most people will bad mouth the whole organisation and will not choose to use that organisation again.

Instead of a valid accreditation system, you say caveat emptor to the extreme. When you choose a car to buy do you research without reference to accreditation systems like ANCAP, road tests by motoring organisations etc. etc. and would you deny any sort of similar accreditation for dog breeders?

Imagine having to choose a car based ONLY on the advertisements of the car salespeople plus your own weighing of how well those salespeople "will live up to the truths they promote". Bear in mind that the average dog should last the family longer than the average car.

Moosmum you are telling people to do their research first but are against a system that would provide a ratings system or quality control measurement that they can use to make comparisons. By doing so you are actually giving the advantage to the non-ethical and irresponsible breeder.

I would prefer quality control - a way to measure levels of responsiblity and ethics. An accreditation system that gives the advantage to the ethical and responsible breeder.

Please don't confuse membership or affiliation with accreditation.

[Steve]

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.

I agree with this 100%.

[Steve]

Why would you need a program to step in and do quality control?

If people are discussing and debating, making informed decisions and pedigree breeders are guiding that, people have a far better idea of what a good breeder is. Based on facts given freely. You give your market the information. In the end, they will determine whos a good breeder for them. Its up to breeders to live up to the truths they promote. They can be judged on merit, not affiliation.

And hopefully,that brings quality control.

If a buyer is disapointed, he can't hold all pedigree breeders to blame. Its pedigree breeders telling him, all breeders are not the same.

But people do! If you get a wonky version or a bad deal or a lying salesman from an organisation most people will bad mouth the whole organisation and will not choose to use that organisation again.

Instead of a valid accreditation system, you say caveat emptor to the extreme. When you choose a car to buy do you research without reference to accreditation systems like ANCAP, road tests by motoring organisations etc. etc. and would you deny any sort of similar accreditation for dog breeders?

Imagine having to choose a car based ONLY on the advertisements of the car salespeople plus your own weighing of how well those salespeople "will live up to the truths they promote". Bear in mind that the average dog should last the family longer than the average car.

Moosmum you are telling people to do their research first but are against a system that would provide a ratings system or quality control measurement that they can use to make comparisons. By doing so you are actually giving the advantage to the non-ethical and irresponsible breeder.

I would prefer quality control - a way to measure levels of responsiblity and ethics. An accreditation system that gives the advantage to the ethical and responsible breeder.

Please don't confuse membership or affiliation with accreditation.

Part of the perceived problem is that the registering body cant and wont market each breed and they are not the ones best suited to do so. I also believe they have made some major marketing errors which have impacted poorly on the image on their breeders.

But the marketing of registered purebred breeders hasn't been too bad - go to any website including some of the most anti breeder ones and you find recommendations for people to go to a registered breeder. Some state and local governments give exemptions and exclusions for purebred breeders over any other breeder and even though there have been anti breeder and anti purebred marketing campaigns with a push toward saving dogs and greeders blah blah blah registered purebred breeders are still the ones most often recommended to go to to get a puppy . The marketing has in fact been so successful as Anne - via our meeting with Clover Moore's people when we were discussing proposed legislation in NSW - would remember that those considering changing legislation make assumptions about what ANKC breeders can do under their code of ethics which a miles off the reality. Right now in Victoria there is a change on the table which will make it very difficult for anyone who is not Vicdogs or who own more than 10 fertile dogs to live happily ever after.

The ANKC dont restrict where a breeder can advertise, or how they promote their kennel , their dogs or their breed.

We can talk around in circles and determine how it came about that purebred breeders in the main try not to advertise at all let alone in places where "those other breeders" advertise but the initial impact is the marketing of anti puppy farm propoganda. "Good breeders dont mate their dogs unless they already have homes for them all and good breeders dont need to advertise"

Heaven forbid if we advertise on Gumtree because we may be judged as being one of them. I know some purebred breeders who kill some of their litter or who sell their puppies to brokers or pet shops anonymously rather than be seen by loonies or their peers as being one of the bad ones who need to advertise their puppies anywhere other than dogz. We used to advertise our puppies in newspapers and other websites etc but then we got sucked in and stopped marketing in this way and letting people know where we were and how to find us.

Right now the big deal is don't buy off a breeder who wont let you come to their home - doesn't matter how many people say how great the breeder and their dogs are or the variables of each breeder ,its an instant strike "they must have something to hide" if they are not comfortable with having open house for anyone considering the breed or their puppies. A 75 year old woman who lives alone with no neighbours couldnt possibly not want strangers at her home because she is frightened and feels vulnerable - it must be because she is one of them. Doesn't count that she has been breeding her breed for 50 years and she has nothing but great reports on her dogs and her ability to build relationships with her puppy buyers because another group's marketing has determined this is the only way to be sure she isnt a puppy farmer.

Last 2 weeks it was school holidays, Im building new fencing so I have the sheep and the dogs in my house yard so they cant get out while the fences are down,fencers coming and going to collect materials etc. Ive got lambs dropping some have to be helped out, Ive got my youngest son home with a couple of his mates, Ive got two of my teenage grandkids staying for the holidays, Im working the MDBA awards and MDBA business from home, working my lavender farm mainly weeding this time of year but preparing the next acre for planting, manufacturing products for the farm gift shop and farm on line store, tending the plant nursery ,packing and posting items Ive sold, the usual attend meetings, shopping,paying bills,end of year business books, cooking, cleaning washing etc driving two to work and back twice a day, taking the 16 year old to footy training two nights a week and to the game one day on the week ends, oops almost forgot the two trips into Wagga to take one to the doctor - no appointments available at a closer doctor and to pick up the hay for the sheep. Im trying to work out when I will get time to go to the toilet and have a shower and I get a request from someone who is passing through to bring their 4 kids to visit while they were on holidays so they can meet me and my Maremmas. Of course this has to be a day and time which suits them because after all they are passing through and cant change their plans if it doesn't fit in with my plans. Now dont get me wrong Im not having a go at them for asking but when I said it wasnt possible as the timing wasnt right for me I felt like I was being seen to be one of the bad guys because I didnt shuffle my life to fit in with them so they could come and see my dogs and the conditions they live in and I worry that rather being seen to be in a position where it simply was bad timing for me that they felt I had something to hide.

Its not ANKC or purebred breeder marketing or pressure that says Im a bad breeder if I dont let you come to my home but its powerful enough to manipulate what we do even if sometimes it makes no sense including us allowing our breeding programs and methods to be altered to keep their marketed ideas of best practice when in fact it has no basis in science whatever. We get caught up in it all and take up these ideas of what makes a good breeder and that impacts on our ability to market ourselves and our product.

I think the OP was pretty much right on the money.

[moosmum]

Look, I agree with with most of what you guys are saying. I do agree with the o.p.

I'm not "against" accreditation systems or marketing plans.

I am saying they don't address the main, negative perceptions already out there,and that I firmly believe they are a direct result of those rules. That only changing those rules will remove those perceptions.

What benefits are they bringing to pedigree breeders?

Are they needed?

What are they doing FOR pedigree breeders?

They are causing a lot of harm. There are good people who refuse to have any part of pedigree registries because those rules are in place. Others who have given up because of the effects they have on the membership and,IMO how they try define themselves within within a flawed logic.

For example, it becomes more urgent to appease your peers than allow for differences in what people want.

I repeat:

The formation of the registries gave a thematic choice. The addition of those rules underlines the DIVISION.

You are with us,or against us.

I don't believe any thing you do other than removing the cause of the division will make enough difference.

People would still have a thematic choice,but its a lot simpler.

Its no longer pedigree.... or nothing.

It becomes knowledge used for purpose,with fore thought and organisation.....or take your chances.

IMO Pedigree or nothing is what those rules say to people. Thats the message you are sending,and your members are instructed in.If you don't agree, read that thread again on American Staffordshire Terriers.

You want your symbol, the pedigree, to stand for your values. It would. If only you could move past the symbol itself to what it represents. You are unable to do that because the symbol itself has defined your difference in the constitution.. Not the knowledge it represents.

Its become all or nothing. Introduces judgement. The criteria used to judge knowledge is the pedigree. There is the implication this knowledge doesn't exist out side of pedigrees. It restricts your knowledge to what can be learned within pedigrees and denies validity to any knowledge out side of pedigree dogs.It RESTRICTS your knowledge.IMO Its flawed logic that gives ammunition to anyone who takes offense to that stance,and will continue to do so.

I believe pedigree breeders have much more than any other sector to contribute to the human/dog relationship in all areas, but the division is the focus. It isolates them and prevents their other messages from being given credence.

Edited July 17, 2013 by moosmum