[93-5G20]

I have got a puppy where I am looking at foods heavily right now.

With the merger-acquisition of Innova lines by P&G, the postings and sites are going crazy. Some sites say they are removing Innova from their recommended lists, one site doing that has 3 of their top 10 as Innova lines. And all of this because of a deal that is not even completed.

Yes a large company can screw up a purchased company, but it is not a fact, as some dog food experts are claiming. For self assuming experts to say that Innova products are now not worthy of consideration because something could happen in the future is ignorant.

Innova has a factory that is built, and a market that fills the factory. Innova makes money. P&G can make money just by using their supply-chain and buying power to an already profitable business. In other words the bastard big company can make money just by doing the same thing.

From what I can see about Iams and other P&G acquisitions, is that the foods never developed much more than when they were bought. Which may be the same for Innova. Its called a cash cow in the business world. All they need to do is churn it out.

But it does piss me off to read how Innova products can no longer be recommended.

To say this we must assume:
1. P&G hates animals and will screw with customers by hiding what they are doing.
2. That the ingredient list will be changed.
3. That the ingredients will not be listed accurately.
4. That the guaranteed analysis will be fraudulent.
5. That P&G will screw with a product that has people hyper focused on it.

If changes happen they will be seen and will be reported, but it has not happened.

Am I missing seeing the giant corporate evil destroying a dog food line, with "experts" claiming history predicts the future, and they can see it all. These experts say these changes will happen, and because of their egos, they think they can not be wrong, thus we must all abandon ship.

Do we all pack up an abandon the Innova products, because of theories of demise of quality. Yes I liked it better to have a Merrick and Orijen like owned company and manufacturing, like Innova is now, but does a larger owner NECESSARILY screw that up? As a given?

Seriously won't we see the changes, if they occur.....we can abandon ship then right, or do we just assume that every cruise-liner sailing in cold waters will strike an ice block and sink.

Am I crazy to still be considering feeding Innova Puppy after the merger, with bags with dates made after they are P and G line.

 

[PUNKem733]

Historically anytime a boutique food has been bought by a larger company this has always happened.

There WILL be changes made to the foods. Only time will tell, but it will happen.

 

[kevin bradley]

I have got a puppy where I am looking at foods heavily right now.

With the merger-acquisition of Innova lines by P&G, the postings and sites are going crazy. Some sites say they are removing Innova from their recommended lists, one site doing that has 3 of their top 10 as Innova lines. And all of this because of a deal that is not even completed.

Yes a large company can screw up a purchased company, but it is not a fact, as some dog food experts are claiming. For self assuming experts to say that Innova products are now not worthy of consideration because something could happen in the future is ignorant.

Innova has a factory that is built, and a market that fills the factory. Innova makes money. P&G can make money just by using their supply-chain and buying power to an already profitable business. In other words the bastard big company can make money just by doing the same thing.

From what I can see about Iams and other P&G acquisitions, is that the foods never developed much more than when they were bought. Which may be the same for Innova. Its called a cash cow in the business world. All they need to do is churn it out.

But it does piss me off to read how Innova products can no longer be recommended.

To say this we must assume:
1. P&G hates animals and will screw with customers by hiding what they are doing.
2. That the ingredient list will be changed.
3. That the ingredients will not be listed accurately.
4. That the guaranteed analysis will be fraudulent.
5. That P&G will screw with a product that has people hyper focused on it.

If changes happen they will be seen and will be reported, but it has not happened.

Am I missing seeing the giant corporate evil destroying a dog food line, with "experts" claiming history predicts the future, and they can see it all. These experts say these changes will happen, and because of their egos, they think they can not be wrong, thus we must all abandon ship.

Do we all pack up an abandon the Innova products, because of theories of demise of quality. Yes I liked it better to have a Merrick and Orijen like owned company and manufacturing, like Innova is now, but does a larger owner NECESSARILY screw that up? As a given?

Seriously won't we see the changes, if they occur.....we can abandon ship then right, or do we just assume that every cruise-liner sailing in cold waters will strike an ice block and sink.

Am I crazy to still be considering feeding Innova Puppy after the merger, with bags with dates made after they are P and G line.

One aspect I do agree with is this......

Many people use the example of Iams and Eukanuba as profiles of what happens when a large company "screws" up a "GREAT" food.

Nonsense I say. I found old ingredient lists for Iams...they were NEVER a GREAT food. Ever. In fact, the older ingredient lists I saw didn't even differ that much. People run around online claiming that Iams used to be like EVO. Laughable.

All that being said...I don't like PG taking over Natura. It isn't good. Decisions will center more around the bottom line and cost savings measures will take hold at some point.

Can I PROVE this will happen? Certainly not.

The only way PG will leave things alone is if it is profitable. They don't care about the nutrition of our pets. They care about quarterly Analyst calls and hitting earning numbers. I'm not saying Natura didn't care about profits...but we're talking about the difference between the NBA and your kids Saturday morning hoops league in terms of the how important profitability is now. Just wait til Wal Mart decides they want a couple Natura products on their shelves...and their demand for a $25 price point.

All in all...why bother with Natura? We have other options with less uncertainty.

 

[kevin bradley]

To say this we must assume:
1. P&G hates animals and will screw with customers by hiding what they are doing.

one additional thing you must understand. PG "hating" animals is completely irrelevant and would be akin to saying "the big Oak Tree in your front yard 'hates your Dog." PG is completely neutral in their feelings towards anything but money.

PG doesn't like Dogs. They don't dislike Dogs. They don't really give a rip about Dogs. They care about profits. Period. Anything they do that remotely smells of ethical behavior isn't because they WANT to be ethical. It will only occur because their public relations experts deem ethical behavior to be more PROFITABLE.

Practically speaking, our ONLY hope is that EVO is deemed to be a very profitable line of food for PG. If they discover they can pillage the ingredients, rape the brand but keep the label and make more money....we're screwed.

 

[ziggy29]

I'm simply playing the odds here based on history.

 

[RawFedDogs]

Historically anytime a boutique food has been bought by a larger company this has always happened.

What do you mean by "this" and can you give us some examples?

 

[RawFedDogs]

I'm simply playing the odds here based on history.

What is the history and can you give examples?

 

[whiteleo]

So the animal testing that P&G does has no affect on anyone here buying their products? That surprises me......................

 

[Doc]

I could be wrong, as I often am in here, but I think if one were to go back to the original Royal Canine German Shepherd food - back when it was in it's infancy, you will find that the food was created based upon scientific data collected from the studies of German shepherds. It is a fascinating study and example of a company trying it's best to actually make a food - in the kibble form - that would be beneficial to the dog. Remember this was back in the 60s or 70s, I can't recall dates very well anymore. Just some ancient history for you guys, but it is a case where when bought out, the formula changed and the product went to crap.

P&G is a toothpaste company. What do they know about dog food? All they know is that Nutra makes a lot of money every year - and could make tons more by substituting cheaper raw ingredients. I hope they prove me and everyone else wrong - but it's all about money now.

 

[steve]

I totally agree with the original poster. Yes assumptions can and will be made but, i feel that time should tell the final answer whether they have changed.
There is way too much for them to lose by altering or changing ingredients with the power of the internet to keep them honest.

 

[1605]

One aspect I do agree with is this......

Many people use the example of Iams and Eukanuba as profiles of what happens when a large company "screws" up a "GREAT" food.

Nonsense I say. I found old ingredient lists for Iams...they were NEVER a GREAT food. Ever. In fact, the older ingredient lists I saw didn't even differ that much. People run around online claiming that Iams used to be like EVO. Laughable.

All that being said...I don't like PG taking over Natura. It isn't good. Decisions will center more around the bottom line and cost savings measures will take hold at some point.

Can I PROVE this will happen? Certainly not.

The only way PG will leave things alone is if it is profitable. They don't care about the nutrition of our pets. They care about quarterly Analyst calls and hitting earning numbers. I'm not saying Natura didn't care about profits...but we're talking about the difference between the NBA and your kids Saturday morning hoops league in terms of the how important profitability is now. Just wait til Wal Mart decides they want a couple Natura products on their shelves...and their demand for a $25 price point.

All in all...why bother with Natura? We have other options with less uncertainty.

The primary reason large companies buy smaller companies to increase customer base/market share and profitability. If the acquired company already has everything in place to be profitable, no purchasing entity in their right mind will do anything to endanger that.

In the past I worked for a large international company that took over several smaller ones while I was there. One instance was purely a move to acquire more customers. However, the kicker was that their product was definitely cheaper and of inferior quality than ours. Today I doubt if any of those "original" lines remain. And no one is worse off for it.

Meanwhile, other companies were acquired because they were offering totally different lines in areas we had never been in. Other than get rid of duplicate background staff (payroll, ap/ar, etc.) they were basically left alone. But they benefited from the resources we offered, not the least of which was a larger client base.

Also, not every distributor carried every product line. There was no use trying to get the Pricepoint Boys to buy something that the GoldStandard Stores carried (and vice versa). Business just doesn't work that way.

There are pros & cons to EVERY acquisition. And each one must be taken on its own merits. P&G is no exception. They do not have a large pet food presence, least of all in the market segment Innova occupies. THAT'S WHY THEY WERE BOUGHT. They weren't "taking out" competition to Iams & Eukanuba, they were ADDING ANOTHER TIER TO THEIR MIX.

 

[RawFedDogs]

So the animal testing that P&G does has no affect on anyone here buying their products? That surprises me......................

Exactly what tests do they run and why is it bad? Animal testing of medical products and maybe some food products is a good thing. Better than testing on humans. I own a good bit of stock in P&G and buy their products A LOT. So obviously it doesn't bother me unless you can come up with some reason why it should. MANY food and drug companies run animal tests on their products and in research for future products. In some cases, its probably required.

 

[BabyHusky]

There are definitely people panicking a bit too much over this "not-yet-finished" deal and of course many over-exaggerate.

At this point, I really feel like i KNOW there will be changes to Natura products and i WILL be disappointed and WILL discontinue feeding any furkids Natura products once those changes occur. Do i hope there won't be changes? Of course. I like EVO and my pups have always done well on it.

To me, it seems almost common sense that the food won't be as great after this merger happens. Why? Because as someone said, profits. I'm not saying that EVO will eventually be on the same level as Iams, of course not! P&G is not that retarded. They know about all the crazy animal lovers out there that are pissed off and they don't want to lose existing customers. So when there are changes, it will be gradual.

In my opinion, in order for them to make more profits, P&G will market more, put Natura products in Petsmart, Petco, etc. Then they'll realize "hey, we don't need to put high quality meat in the kibble. let's save a few bucks and downgrade it a little"

Has nothing to do with their feelings towards animals. Its 100% business and its life. The bigger guy bought the little guy. What can we do? Absolutely nothing. There will always be smaller companies that create the premium kibbles we love.

 

[cochon]

Just because it's required doesn't make it OK. I think animals deserve more rights and consideration than to just be used as test subjects. I don't see what gives us the right to take an animal like a dog, that's highly intelligent, has real emotions, and feels pain and put it through a painful experience. It may be legal, but I don't see how it's ethical, especially in cases where it's not a life and death situation (i.e. cancer research). And to me that doesn't just apply to dogs. All animals I have come across have pretty unique personalities and understand a lot more than people give them credit for. So no, I don't think testing on rats or guinea pigs is OK either just because they can't talk.

 

[BabyHusky]

I agree Cochon but how we feel towards the testing of animals is just that, how we feel. Not everyone agrees nor do I push anyone to feel the way I do. But to get into it is opening up a huge can of worms. Once we get to animal activist territory, the claws come out of all parties haha. Sooo...moving on! :tongue:

 

[whiteleo]

Should of figured RFD........... I don't have time to answer, I have to go make a living.

 

[ziggy29]

In my opinion, in order for them to make more profits, P&G will market more, put Natura products in Petsmart, Petco, etc. Then they'll realize "hey, we don't need to put high quality meat in the kibble. let's save a few bucks and downgrade it a little"

Has nothing to do with their feelings towards animals. Its 100% business and its life. The bigger guy bought the little guy. What can we do? Absolutely nothing. There will always be smaller companies that create the premium kibbles we love.

Agreed. If P&G thinks it could extract the most money out of the Natura line by changing nothing, it would change nothing. But larger companies can have deeper pockets to market the product, to rapidly ramp up production (hard to do without compromising quality or consistency). Sometimes they may have to cut corners to meet price targets from large retailers (Wal-Mart is notorious for this). And if the company thinks that Wal-Martizing the product to make it cheaper will pay off in terms of higher sales, if they think it's best for the bottom line, they will do it. They have that fiduciary duty to shareholders that a privately-held business does not have.

And no, RFD, I don't have "evidence" or a "link" handy to support this, though I'm sure I could find some. This is just an observation based on common corporate behavior. I don't blame them -- their job is to maximize shareholder profits. But often that means cheapening the quality or offshoring production. I've owned enough large company stocks before to have seen this. And as a result, I tend not to give these acquisitive megacorps the benefit of the doubt.

--
ETA: This is rather timely...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aumt9p5CaCEU&pos=12]

Why stop at Wal-Mart wanting to control the supplier's shipping? Why not production? Why not demand they produce in China? This is the danger of marketing a "niche" high-quality, high-cost product to the big box retailers. The tendency is an emphasis on wringing costs out of production rather than on maintaining highest quality standards.

 

[RawFedDogs]

What no one seems to have thought about is ... if P & G wanted a medium to low grade kibble company they could have bought one. Why would they buy a high end company if they want to produce med to low end? If I were in business and I wanted to produce high end dog food, I would buy a high end producer. Same with other grades.

 

[RawFedDogs]

Just because it's required doesn't make it OK. I think animals deserve more rights and consideration than to just be used as test subjects. I don't see what gives us the right to take an animal like a dog, that's highly intelligent, has real emotions, and feels pain and put it through a painful experience.

So you think we should immediately test all new drugs on humans and bypass animal testing all together? What about palability tests for dog food? How do we test for that? What about longivity tests for dog food or feeding protocols or vaccination protocols? Just assume and don't bother testing?

 

[RCTRIPLEFRESH5]

What no one seems to have thought about is ... if P & G wanted a medium to low grade kibble company they could have bought one. Why would they buy a high end company if they want to produce med to low end? If I were in business and I wanted to produce high end dog food, I would buy a high end producer. Same with other grades.

cause its well known and has word of mouth. rffd, you have stock in proctor and gamble,so you have a biased opinion...i am biased as well, as i really am pissed that icant feed evo herring now.

but im not as biased as you since im happy with canidae grain free...and since you claim all kibbles are the same might as well feed canidae instead of evo for 20 dollars morel