Should we be thanking Purina?

I disagree. It is not generosity, it is advertising, plain and simple. It's fine that they're doing it, whatever

 
So, if a company like Timberwolf Organics, which cannot or will not afford its own factory and has to time-share at a Diamond facility, were to all of a sudden, be very popular, can we then expect them to step up and take over the national dog show? You know, the one usually paid for by Eukanuba? If they did, would it then be considered generosity rather than expensive advertising? A number of people I have known could care less about the dog shows and they just feed their dogs whatever they feed, regardless of who hosts the show. Or would TO be "guilty" of insidious advertising by spending millions on space rental, t.v. production, prize money, judges salaries, whatever else are in the costs of a satellite broadcast? I don't know of a anyone who switched to Eukanuba because the dog show was on.

To be simple, and answer your question, Ron, yes it would be the exact same thing.
 
As for if Purina were to suddenly vanish, yes, someone else will take their place. It doesn't mean it'll be a holistic company... heck, you never know, Selson Blue just might. But, if there's an opening, someone will take it because that name and banner will reach a good deal of people. I'm not going to thank a company for sponsering and event anymore than I'll thank one for sponsering  a movie. It's all about advertising; their not doing it out of the pure goodness of their heart (although that might be *some* of the motivation, I don't know). If they did do for that, they wouldn't be plastering their name every where (but that's in a perfect world that doesn't exist and I don't expect any company to ever do that, really).
 
I do think it's great that they do it, otherwise where would X event be (doesn't have to be a dog event mind you)? And it certainly helps X sport as a whole. I'm glad companies do it. I'm also glad that Nabisco makes graham crackers, but I'm not about to thank them for it.

As much as I dislike the products from Purina and Pedigree, both companies DO give back to the animal community.  If you collect the POP's from Pedigree for example, they can be turned into shelters for either cash or product.  Jaime mentioned a number of ways that Purina gives back to the dog world.  And, this is as it should be.  I've noticed lately that Pedigree is promoting adopting from shelters in their ads.  And yes, it's all about advertising and exposure, but gosh darn it, if it's ok for Hooters to do the spay/nueter thing, why isn't it ok for the big dog food companies to give back as well?

Pedigree is promoting adopting from shelters in their ads.

 
Yes, and good for them for doing that.  I've seen the commercials and they are nicely done, cute.  But (and there's always a "but", isn't there), I heard that they were spending waaaaayyyyy more in doing the advertising of donating $$ than the actual donating of $.  [&:]

That wouldn't surprise me in the least.  I've worked in advertising and I know the enormous budgets agencies have for say, a regional Coke buy......now a national buy, which is clearly what Pedigree has placed.....we're talking millions of dollars for this campaign.  It's all about image.  Just as the Walmart print ads focus on their employees, or at least include their employees.....yes, it's cheaper than models BUT it puts a face on a giant corporation.  Brilliant advertising move. AND it saves the fees for the models........I just wish ALLLLLL of them, including Geico would quite showing dogs with their heads hanging out the car windows!

I do think it's great that they do it, otherwise where would X event be (doesn't have to be a dog event mind you)? And it certainly helps X sport as a whole. I'm glad companies do it.

 
That is pretty much how I feel.  I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling thinking that Purina or Pedigree is doing the sponsorship out of the goodness of their heart.  I know they see it as a way to increase brand recognition.  However I am glad that dog sports has these sponsors even if I don't necessarily use their products.  Same way I feel about show jumping.  Budweiser sponsors a lot of the big classes in show jumping.  Personally, I don't drink Budweiser, but I am happy they provide the sponsorship that allows these classes to exist.  

 
ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

I think selling Beneful to the ignorant public is criminal. I can't believe that stuff is legal.

 
I feed Beneful, and my dog is doing great on it. I am trying to get her on a 'higher quality' food but if I cant I will not lose sleep at night knowing shes eating Beneful. Enough said.
 
Well back on topic. I think its great that the big companies sponsor lots of events even if its strictly for Benefit. It really helps us out and anyone who doesnt feed the food doesnt have to feel bad!
 
On the other hand it kind of suck because they have such an influence on dog owners. I was talking to the companies graphic designer and casually asked her what she was feeding her dog because I was thinking of getting Lizzie off Beneful. Well she quickly launched into campaign mode (like some people who immediatly tell you 'this food is awsome, feed it') telling me how Pedigree was awsome because its what vets recommend and its cheap and has lots of protein and what not.
 
When I told her I was going this weekend to get a 15 dollar 7 pound bag of Exclusive she almost had a heart attack.

We all have to feed what works for our dogs.  Ron has said that his dog does well on Nutro but I know that my dogs don't.  Same breed but different dogs.  They are all different.  If they did do well on it I probably would have stayed with it when I tried it.  Right now they seem to do best on a mix of something I get at Walmart (cant remember the name) and Innova.  Fed only Innova they don't do as well. 

That said, a few people have pointed out that if the big name companies were to step down one of the smaller companies would gain the spotlight.  That may be true but if it did happen the quality of their food would surely go down.  Iams used to be a small company with a good quality food.  Then they got popular and advertising went up, marketing and demand went up, and the quality went down.  It doesn't just happen with dog food.  Everything goes that way.  Norco bikes are not what they used to be because they became the in bike to have.  Bum Equipment and George do not have the quality that they had before they were bought out by Walmart.  You simply cannot keep up the quality when you are the top dog.  The two are just not condusive to each other.  I hope to never see Innova in Walmart.  To me it would just mean a drop in quality.  Not to say anything bad about Wally World, I worked there for many years and don't really have anything bad to say about the place, but it is a fact that cannot be dismissed.  Once you get a contract with Walmart to sell your product, your demand goes up long before your profit does, and your quality has to suffer.  It would be the same if one of the premium dog food companies had the chance to sponser main events.  They wouldnt make the profit until the demand was already way up there.  By then the quality would have already dropped.

Dasher,
 
I feel the same way.  With Purina and Pedigree, it's all about the corporate dollar.  It's us, the consumer who has to do the homework and see if there are better foods out there for our animals.  Whether it's homecooked, higher quality canned or kibble,  the ultimate responsibility lies with us. 
 
I'm glad these companies sponsor events, they can afford to but that doesn't mean we have to buy their products.

ORIGINAL: ron2

I disagree. It is not generosity, it is advertising, plain and simple. It's fine that they're doing it, whatever

So, if a company like Timberwolf Organics, which cannot or will not afford its own factory and has to time-share at a Diamond facility, were to all of a sudden, be very popular, can we then expect them to step up and take over the national dog show? You know, the one usually paid for by Eukanuba? If they did, would it then be considered generosity rather than expensive advertising? A number of people I have known could care less about the dog shows and they just feed their dogs whatever they feed, regardless of who hosts the show. Or would TO be "guilty" of insidious advertising by spending millions on space rental, t.v. production, prize money, judges salaries, whatever else are in the costs of a satellite broadcast? I don't know of a anyone who switched to Eukanuba because the dog show was on.

 
Sorry ron, but if that were true they would not do it.  Everything a company does is calculated.  They would not sponser something that they did not think was going to help their name recognition and therefore bottom line.  I never said it was evil, but I'm not going to get all warm and fuzzy when I know that their not doing without some sort of return expected.
 
Look the the "Wrangler" brand.  It was known in the horse community for years, but when did it become a household name?  When they started sponsering the bullriding, rodeo, and country star events that were being telivised more and more.  Now the majority of people know what Wrangler it.
 
If name regognition didn't work, then comanpies would not spend so much money on advertising, but it does so they do.
 
Ever heard of US Cellular Field?  The Tweeter Center?  These are venues that the companies bought naming rights to in exchange for money to pay for renovations.  Do you think they did that for their health?

I think you may not have fully understood my question. It was rhetorical. Of course it would be advertising, whether it was the favorite of everyone here or the bane of it all. Would one of these premium companies actually have the money or leverage to buy the name of a show, such as any of the agility shows or just the pretty dog show. Remember, it is claimed that pretty much all the money they make goes back in to buying ingredients. So much so, that they cannot afford to build or even secure a loan to build their own dog food plant.

Ingredients:
GROUND YELLOW CORN, CORN GLUTEN MEAL, WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR, ANIMAL FAT PRESERVED WITH MIXED-TOCOPHEROLS (FORM OF VITAMIN E), SOY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, SOYBEAN MEAL, PEARLED BARLEY, BREWERS RICE, TRICALCIUM PHOSPHATE, SUGAR, WATER, ANIMAL DIGEST, SORBITOL, PHOSPHORIC ACID, SALT, POTASSIUM CHLORIDE, L-LYSINE MONOHYDROCHLORIDE, CALCIUM CARBONATE, SORBIC ACID (A PRESERVATIVE), DRIED SPINACH, DRIED SWEET POTATOES, DRIED APPLES, DICALCIUM PHOSPHATE, CHOLINE CHLORIDE, CALCIUM PROPIONATE (A PRESERVATIVE), DL-METHIONINE, ADDED COLOR (RED 40, YELLOW 5, BLUE 2, YELLOW 6), ZINC SULFATE, FERROUS SULFATE, VITAMIN E SUPPLEMENT, MANGANESE SULFATE, VITAMIN A SUPPLEMENT, NIACIN, VITAMIN B-12 SUPPLEMENT, CALCIUM PANTOTHENATE, RIBOFLAVIN SUPPLEMENT, COPPER SULFATE, BIOTIN, GARLIC OIL, THIAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE, THIAMINE MONONITRATE, FOLIC ACID, VITAMIN D-3 SUPPLEMENT, MENADIONE SODIUM BISULFITE COMPLEX (SOURCE OF VITAMIN K ACTIVITY), CALCIUM IODATE, SODIUM SELENITE. 

 

Guaranteed Analysis:





Crude Protein Min 
25 

Moisture Max 
14 

Crude Fat Min 
10 

Fiber Max 
4 

Linoleic Acid Min 
1.3 

Calcium Min 
1.1 

Phosphorus Min 
0.9 These are the ingredients of Purina Beneful. It costs around a $1 a pound, the same price as Iams. Iams is so much better than this garbage, and Iams is not good. It probably costs Purina around ten cents a pound to make this garbage, and another fifty cents a pound to make the pretty packages and advertise the stuff. I lie awake worrying about the dogs fed this stuff. Dogs fed on this utter crap are going to be getting sick and dying like flies five years from now-- and no one will blame the food for their diseases. Nothing Purina does to benefit the dog community can possibly counter-balance the damage they are doing by manufacturing and heavily promoting this so-called food. Even Kibble n bits is better than this stuff. At least it contains meat and bone meal.

ORIGINAL: ron2

I think you may not have fully understood my question. It was rhetorical. Of course it would be advertising, whether it was the favorite of everyone here or the bane of it all. Would one of these premium companies actually have the money or leverage to buy the name of a show, such as any of the agility shows or just the pretty dog show. Remember, it is claimed that pretty much all the money they make goes back in to buying ingredients. So much so, that they cannot afford to build or even secure a loan to build their own dog food plant.

 
I guess I don't see you point.  However, not all premium foods are owned by small companies.  Jojo the Pogo works for a dog food distributer and could give you more info on that.
 
As I said, if Purina and Pedigree wants to sponser something, fine.  However, I will not buy there prodects (even if I wanted to I couldn't because Sally is allergic to wheat), and I will not fall on bended knee to thank them for their own advertising campain.

 I work for pet food distributor that sells Purina and Royal Canin.  Actually Royal Canin is a bigger pet food company than Purina, because it's international.

Anyways, it's all about advertising.  Heck, if I need a company to fund a client event, the first company I call is Purina.  Purina will pay for the advertising as long as their name is listed first and biggest. 

Another reason Purina funds more events than anyother company, is because more top breeder's feed Pro Plan than anything else.  I think it's something like, out of the top 100 show dogs in the US, 60 of them are being fed Pro Plan.  Why? Well, Purina gives awesome deals.  Like $7.00 off each 37.5lb bag to licensed breeders.

Once again, it's all about advertising.  If the breeder feeds Pro Plan, than the puppies new owners will most likely feed Pro Plan.

If Purina is funding all of these dog events and giving to charity, and really doing such a nice job, even if it is for advertising, they obviously care for animals or they would not be in this business. If they do all of this why would they make such a bad dog food.  They should know what should be in a dog food, seeing that they have been in the business for how many years?
 
I believe it does not matter what you are feeding your dog. I'm sorry, but I don't believe it. What the heck were dogs eating 30 years ago? Yes times have changed. But I just don't see how it matters. Maybe because I have never seen anything happen to a dog that was not eating premium food. I don't know, I just think it's a scam. I feed my hampster a bowl of seeds. My ducks get pellets and crickets. My cat gets a bowl of dry cat food, the same brand I've used for cats since I was a kid.  We had a dog 6 years sgo and we fed her the best food. (she was a mutt, looked just like Sara) My husband said "Make sure you get her this brand" I found it stupid. Doesn't mean I don't love my dog. But how far are we going to take this?