Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: People not cutting back on pet expenses  (Read 1007 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 31203
  • Reputation: +27122/-495
  • Gender: Male
People not cutting back on pet expenses
« on: October 30, 2008, 09:22:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ROSEMONT, Illinois (AP)  -- Emilie Wilson's menagerie includes 15 ferrets, two dogs and four cats, including a hefty gray feline named Tonie Stewart who rides in style inside a pet stroller during family outings.

    Wilson spent $300 on Christmas gifts for her brood last year and figures she'll exceed that sum this year. And despite the recession-like economy, the suburban Chicago woman has no plans to scale back pet presents anytime soon.

    "I couldn't care less if there's anything under the tree for us, as long as there's something for Tonie," she said.

    Retailers may be worrying about the possibility of the worst fourth quarter in generations, but those in the pet products industry are finding themselves in a veritable oasis among much of the gloom of American business. Companies that sell everything from organic dog treats to couture-inspired pet toys say business is up even as economic indicators show shoppers are pinching pennies during one of the worst downturns in decades. Video Watch $10 million cat that's saving town's economy »

    "I think they're buying nice dog collars instead of remodeling their kitchen," said Fiona Tavernier, whose Lollypadoodle business near San Francisco sells wool stuffed dog toys and is going strong.

    It may sound counterintuitive -- even to some in the pet industry who say they're surprised business is robust -- but experts say many pet owners are as dedicated to their animals as parents are to children. And that means they're willing to sacrifice on themselves before trimming back on their four-legged friends.

    "You know, for some families, the pet comes first," said Carol Perkins, president and co-founder of Harry Barker, a Charleston, South Carolina-based pet toy company whose sales are up 40 percent this year.
    Don't Miss

        * Shop a shelter for new best friend
        * Do we care more about animals than humans?
        * Friendly cat changed lives, becomes subject of best-seller

    "The dog goes to the vet first and the dog gets organic food. Maybe some people will cut back on a dog bed, but they'll still buy dog treats, toys and collars and leashes."

    The American Pet Products Association estimates Americans will spend $43.4 billion this year on their pets -- a figure that includes everything from treats to training -- despite the dramatic slowdown in discretionary spending. That's 26 percent higher than what U.S. consumers spent in 2004, the group said.

    Market researcher Euromonitor International, which tracks sales of pet food and accessories but excludes the cost of animals, grooming, training and other expenses, puts this year's animal expenditures at $23.9 billion.

    But the group forecasts the segment's sales are still on pace to grow more than 13 percent by 2013.

    "It's definitely more resilient than most categories tied to discretionary spending," said Morningstar analyst R.J. Hottovy. "It's one of the last categories (people) cut out of their budget."

    Backing that up is a poll earlier this year in ShopSmart, a publication from Consumer Reports, which says female shoppers are more likely to buy cheaper brands of everything from medication to milk, but are digging in their heels when it comes to switching to less-expensive pet food and personal care items.

    Some parts of the pet food industry, particularly gourmet and organic pet food, will likely be even more insulated than the sellers of pet carriers, clothing and outdoor gear.

    That's because many pet owners, who upgraded their kibble after contaminated pet food killed or sickened thousands of animals last year are leery of switching back, a move that could cause digestive problems.

    "Once people have their pets on a certain pet food, there's health risks to switching over to another," Hottovy said. "As soon as they've moved up to the premium brands, they're kind of locked in, so it's hard to trade down."

    Still, there are signs that the most extravagant expenses -- such crystal bowls and custom-made pet beds -- may be sidelined amid growing economic uncertainty.

    "Gone are the days when people would buy $100 collars and fake fur," said Claire Chew, of Venice, California, who founded Luxepets, a line of pet keepsakes.

    American Pet Products Association spokeswoman Leah Nelson said the group doesn't release industry sales projections, but that it is "eyeing the future" with caution.

    That's why Paige Ormand, the owner of the Doggy Style Pet Shop in Chicago's Wicker Park neighborhood, is ordering more products that are less expensive -- for example, $5 toys instead of $20 models.
    advertisement

    But she's not removing expensive gifts from her store shelves, either.

    "This industry is way more insulated than other businesses," she said. "But I wouldn't say it's recession proof."
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline Dawn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2439
    • Reputation: +46/-1
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    People not cutting back on pet expenses
    « Reply #1 on: October 30, 2008, 05:52:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :rolleyes: I live in a town that is full of what used to be called Yuppees. Anyhow, many is the time I sit on the front porch and see a couple (still male and female so I should be happy) about 60ish with their Birkenstock shod feet push a baby buggy with a blasted cat or dog. Puke.


    Offline Alex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1407
    • Reputation: +265/-4
    • Gender: Female
    People not cutting back on pet expenses
    « Reply #2 on: October 31, 2008, 01:13:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I strongly believe that it is a sin for people who are financially struggling or living pay check to pay check to own pets - especially when they have kids.

    Offline Dawn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2439
    • Reputation: +46/-1
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    People not cutting back on pet expenses
    « Reply #3 on: October 31, 2008, 07:51:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This statement I understand. However, with 6 children at home, and a registered sex-offender four homes away (not withing 500 ft. you understand. That chalkline that the police drew to measure will keep him away from my children) I am glad that I have Misty the Rott/Husky to greet neighbors out on a "meet and greet." Heck, we are struggling as I have admitted before. But, I must do what I can so people do not enter my property uninvited. We live in a nice town well known for it's upscale shops and other materialst nonsense. But creeps come where children are.

    Offline Dawn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2439
    • Reputation: +46/-1
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    People not cutting back on pet expenses
    « Reply #4 on: October 31, 2008, 07:56:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My children know the "Dirty Harry" line by heart as they hear mommy quote it all the time when I hear the latest report of perverts. I wish I could manage a Magnum 44.


    Offline trent13

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 280
    • Reputation: +18/-2
    • Gender: Male
    People not cutting back on pet expenses
    « Reply #5 on: November 09, 2008, 08:15:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.


    it may seem harsh to vibrant dog lovers but to me if I am to the point where I have to choose between a meal for my dog and a meal for my family, I'm sorry but the dog is definitely going to get dropped off somewhere, hopefully where it can fend for itself, but I would leave that in the hands of God.  My first priority is my family, and considering that "all dogs go to heaven" anyway, I am not really too concerned if they croak.

    On another note, my dad made an interesting comment a while back talking about how so many women today have "savior syndrome" due to a guilt complex from either having an abortion themselves, partaking in the support of one, etc...  These are the same women who are so hyper concerned about the poor kitten that is stranded on the highway bridge that they think it's worthy of national news - the same people who will report other parents to Child Social Services for giving their child sips off their beer - the same ones who think its fine to suck the brains out of a baby, but think the Sarah Macouglin (I really have no idea how to spell her last name) commercial singing "In the arms of an angel" and showing all the saddest little puppy dog eyes in the world is just the most tragic thing and want to give half their paycheck to support.   Yeah.  Kill the baby, save the whale.   If this is not the most sick and perverted distortion of the moral order, I don't know what is.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31203
    • Reputation: +27122/-495
    • Gender: Male
    People not cutting back on pet expenses
    « Reply #6 on: November 09, 2008, 08:25:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A good example of how you can't judge by looking at a person's actions. Only God sees all.

    That woman who seems so "sweet" for wanting to save a stranded kitten, or seems to be so quick to "defend children" by calling the cops on their parents, might just be dealing with guilt for a past abortion.

    That's probably a good explanation for a lot of behavior out there.

    It's true that humans tend to over-compensate in other areas as you describe. I think that's a very good hypothesis.

    Matthew
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline trent13

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 280
    • Reputation: +18/-2
    • Gender: Male
    People not cutting back on pet expenses
    « Reply #7 on: November 10, 2008, 03:42:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Animals only have Souls while they are alive.  They do not have eternal Souls.  As soon as they die, the Soul is no more.  We should care very much if an animal 'croaks' or not.


    Considering that they don't have eternal souls, all the more reason why it wouldn't bother me if an animal dies.  Sure, I think it's sad when someone loses their puppy to a careless driver, and I think it is unethical to abuse, torture, or starve animals.  But I don't see why we "should care very much" if an animal dies.  It's an animal.  I think of them in the eternal scheme of things on the same level as trees, grass, etc... imminently useful and beautiful things, but subject.  That's not to say that I haven't been emotionally attached to an animal before (a dog), but the comparison of sorrow between my pet dying and finding out that my best friend's mother died is nil.