IF one had access to a crystal ball
in 1997, it would have been
fascinating to see how the two
burning issues of discussion then –
the feminisation of the profession
and what was referred to at that
stage as “vets in sheds” or joint-
venture corporate practice – have
turned out to be, some 15 or so
years later.
For those who might not recall,
Quo vadis? was a huge socio-economic
survey of the profession, examining
what veterinary surgeons and their
client base, whether small or large
animal, mixed practice or equine,
believed that the future would hold.
My, how things have changed!
Little would anyone have thought
then that such a huge percentage of
new graduates would be female and
that this phenomenon would be
almost world-wide in application.
Neither would we have believed
that the impact of corporate practice
would be so great in the UK or that JV
practice would have been such an
attractive model for younger vets to
embrace.
Perhaps we would have struggled to
see how much small animal practice
would become dependent on the
elective purchasing of preventive
healthcare products and services by a
shifting and economically promiscuous
client base or the extent to which herd
health would have affected the
workload of mixed and large animal
practitioners.
Commonplace
So many issues, which were the
topics for urgent discussion then, have
become commonplace and widely
accepted as the norm, just 15 years
later.
Few, if any of us, would have
foreseen that a survey of that scale
would have become far too costly to
repeat in today’s harsh new economy
or that, after such a tsunami of
mergers and acquisitions in the
marketplace, there would be just four
conglomerate pharmaceutical
companies even capable of supporting
such research in market.
At the time, the research was
supported by companies which either
no longer exist or have undergone
enormous change and where return on
investment has, necessarily, become a
watchword for corporate decision-
making.
Of course, the world is a far
different place now and the ravages of
so many national economies, brought about through governmental greed and
naivety together with some rather
scurrilous banking procedures, have
forced us all – whether as employees,
employers or supporters of the
profession – to rethink not just what
our objectives and goals might be but
also to rethink our carefully honed
plans and dreams for how we might
get there.
Is it a question too far to wonder to
what extent the profession has brought
some of this upon itself?
A snapshot of MAI data, appearing
in John Sheridan’s fascinating Veterinary
Business Briefing, shows that the rot has
not just set in but has taken up permanent residence.
Looking at how turnover per veterinarian has fared, the figures show
an increase of about 5% in value
terms, but client spend per animal over
the same period is down around 3%
and, in the marketing categories, pet
food sales for both life-stage and
therapeutic diets are down between
6.8% and 12.4% and vaccination of
puppies, older dogs and older cats is
down, although vaccination for kittens
is up by more than 3%.
The picture is mixed with some
success stories: very small increases in
numbers of pets insured and in sales of
wormers for cats and dogs but with a
big increase in sales of flea
preparations for cats.
Overall, however, the picture
hovers between a static market and
continuing volume sales decline for the
MAT period ending in October 2012.
Hands up those – be honest now! –
who have made a real effort to develop
the percentage of clients who have
proper insurance cover for their pets?
Hard to get
What the MAI data show us is that
preventive sales are hard to get and
even harder to hang on to and the
sudden and serious decline in
preventive sales in practices in the
Netherlands is a salutary example to us
all.
To compete with the pet retail or
the grocery channels, we need to have
a point of differentiation better than a
fervent belief that clients should come
to us because we know better.
Of course, there is every chance that, as vets, we may
know better but in a world
driven by a vast and
glittering array of
consumer choice
and a very British
belief in the
validity of a major
brand, why should
consumers
automatically come to
us when Tesco or Pets
at Home, to name but two examples,
have many of the same products either
in identical or visibly similar guise.
To enter into this marketplace, we
have to have a positive and clear view
of the advantages which we offer
consumers, whether they are “our”
consumers in the sense of signed-up
clients, or someone else’s.
Old data
Some may be tired of hearing that
more than 20% of pet owners who do
use a veterinary practice regularly use
more than one practice but those data
are now years old and nothing would
suggest that, in 2013,
that figure would be
anything other than
higher now.
So, unless we like
the idea of sharing all
our clients with other
practices, of educating
clients to better
understand preventive
care initiatives only to
lose them to the
grocery channel, or
only to see juvenile
animals in our practices when they are
sick or injured, we need to do
something about it.
In real terms, there are two very
positive things we can do and those
practices with rather more oil in their
lamps are already doing both.
Firstly, we need to engage with our
current client base and to form lasting
relationships with them – at least
longer lasting than waiting until they
have left the premises and we can then
move on to the next one.
While this may be the accustomed
way of working through the workload
of a busy clinic, it does nothing to
ensure that tomorrow’s clinic will be
here at all.
Making the model work
Business consultants learn very quickly
that they need to spend up to 30% of
their time marketing themselves if they
are to make their business model work in the
longer term.
As vets, we are
trained to believe in science and not magic so why do we think that our
business model is so very much more
guaranteed?
Secondly, the pet insurance model
is the small animal veterinary practice’s
golden goose.
As vets, we like to think that we
have rather more nutritional knowledge
than the girl in Tesco has, so why do
we insist on starving our golden goose
to death?
Unless we actively promote pet
insurance, every time, every day, to
every client, we stand the very real
chance of seeing it morph into something of an ugly
duckling with policies
determined and
underwritten by
organisations which
have no knowledge or
interest in the veterinary
practice model.
That is not the case
today – yet. It is,
however, what will
inevitably happen if
members of the
profession continue to disengage from pet insurance as if it
were something beneath them.
Why shy away?
In Gareth Cross’s excellent article,
Fees, referrals and pet insurance, in the
last issue of Veterinary Practice, he
makes the vital point that we need a
fair way of funding our business and
quality insurance is an essential part
of that business model. So why do
we continue to shy away from
engaging with it?
Veterinary practice does not
suffer from under-employment and
there are still graduates out there
unable to get a job even though we
now have more business premises
than at any time before.
Despite our fondly-held belief in
the sanctity of veterinary practice,
this business model cannot continue
unless someone talks to the natives
and feeds the goose.
