Business Decisons Case-Study: "Why did Brand X ...?"
Illustrative Business-Decisions-Case-Study: Why Did Brand X …?
Accepted Mutts but not Deaf Dogs?
SUMMARY
When events happen that puzzle bystanders, a business decisions study can usefully to study the question: “Why did that happen? Were decisions arbitrary and capricious or understandable rational decisions based on business economics factors, public “good-will” with public relations aspects and perhaps other features?
An interesting case-study for US dog owners were the AKC’s recent decisions about the participation in some AKC activities of owners of non-AKC-registered dogs and their dogs. In contrast roughly at the same time, they apparently decided to continue excluding participation by those dogs without useful hearing (deaf[i]).
This study suggested (but did not “prove”) that the events were consistent with rational business economic factors and plausible public good will objectives, although other factors might have had influences. Simply stated, even apparently rough estimates suggested that accepting participation of non-AKC-registered dogs (here called, without intended prejudice or disdain, “mutts”) offered far larger financial potential net gains and potential large scale gains of public good will, with benefits to the “Brand”, as compared to accepting participation by deaf dogs. This informal study speculated about AKC decisions and objectives, based on public information in books, and on the Internet from the AKC, other organizations and various persons.
Discussions of a Hypothetical Business Decisions Case Study
Looking back to 2009 - 2010, three main decision criteria were surmised, plus “other factors”:
1. Cash Flow prospects Favored Mutts over Deaf Dogs
Because of the 2009-2010 recession, the Club’s assets and annual cash flow were probably depressed. New income sources were presumably desired to sustain activities.
Mutts: US dog population in 2010 was reportedly about 77.5 millions[iii]. Per the “US PET Ownership and Demographics SourceBook,”1997, the Club registered percentage of the total US total dogs population was probably in the vicinity of about 20 percent. Thus, assuming that the 2010 level of registries remained unchanged, they could plausibly expect (for illustration) at $15 per dog annually:
$15x 77.5 x 0.8 = $930 million per year from participation by owners of mutts and their dogs.
Deaf Dogs: Dr Strain of LSU published estimates of the US deaf dogs population, about an average of 4.5[iv] per ten thousand. With an estimated US dog population of 77.5 million in 2010, and the prior estimates of $15 cash per year per dog, the Club could expect roughly:
$15x77,500,000 x (4.5/10,000) = $0.52 million per year from participation of owners of deaf dogs and their dogs.
Conclusion: Financial advantage of mutts versus deaf dogs participation was about 930/0.52 = 1,800:1 for what was probably about the same investment to change rules books, retrain judges, etc.
2. "Good Will" of Mutss Owners Could Exceed that from Owners of Deaf DogsMutts
US population of mutts estimated as previously at 80 percent of the total US dogs population in 2010 was about 7.5x.8 = 62 millions
Deaf Dogs: Population of deaf dogs estimated at 4.5 per ten thousand of the total US dogs population in 2010: 77.5x0.04% = 35 thousands
Conclusion: “Good Will” advantage from mutts’ owners versus deaf dogs’ owners was potentially nearly 1,800:1, for what was possibly about the same investment for changing the rules books, retraining judges, etc.
[ii]
3. "Brand" : "Breed-Puirty, Conspicuous consumptio, Displays of Valuable [ii]
The brand value of “pure-breed purity”: US commodity prices of individual registered pure-breed dogs could according to news reports reach into several thousands of dollars. Mutts were inexpensive in pet shops serviced by puppy mills, perhaps upwards from a few tens of dollars.
In contrast, deaf dogs were often “throw-aways,” euthanized (killed) in compliance with breed club policy or dropped at rescues and shelters in thousands every year. A social stigma in some portions of US society attached to deafness of dogs - it’s a sexually transmitted genetic social “defect” allegedly warranting death or disposal; e.g. the DCA policy published in the Internet, despite the DCA recently in apparent conflict with its Board's policy, encouraged adoption of their dogs who had partial (uni-ear) hearing, who as carriers of a deafness gene the DCA board and Dr Strain recommended killing. Stories published in some books and on the Internet about the hazard of trained socialized deaf dogs to their domestic owners, themselves and other dogs weren’t verifiable by reputable scientific information. However the DCA Board's Red Book, 1994-2011, described quite clearly how the abuse of untrained unsocialized hearing and-or deaf Dalmatians created the dangers that the Board and Dr Strain later misrepresented as exclusively dangerous flaws of the deaf dogs of ALL breeds.
4. Other factors: “Who possibly benefited by BAER tests cash-flow and unverifiable scare stories about deaf dogs?” Sherlock Holmes, lawyers and detectives in novels allegedly to find motives asked: “Cui bono” –translated as “Who benefits?” [v]
Approving AKC participation of deaf dogs would please a few owners of deaf dogs and when BAER Tests became un-needed would potentially reduce the profits of any members who invested in or gained from cash-flow of BAER facilities. Interlocking BAER testing business interests among members and breed clubs details were nearly non-existent. Widespread proliferation of deaf dog scare-stories happened soon after invention of BAER testing for humans[vi], and the later publicized "discovery" of significant deafness among some breeds, in 1979 to the early 1980s. By about 2004 technical information about alternative modes of dogs to perceive mechanical vibrations (sound) became available [[vii] [viii] ] to some of the public. A notable sociological and scientific “oddity” was the absence of “scare-stories” about geriatric-blind (old) dogs, blind dogs, and geriatric-arthritic dogs who on technical grounds were also vulnerable to any of the adverse stories about deaf dogs. [See page: BAER business opportunities].
Background
According to McCaig [[ix]] and others, the AKC probably came into existence in large part as an opportunity for prosperous people to “show-off” expensive properties [e.g. pure-breed dogs], and enjoy gala social balls and parties, etc. A “conspicuous consumption” economics text by Thorstein Veblen [x]offered observations of that era. Membership by billionaires as late as 2010 was said to be a matter of pride among some people.
Until roughly 2010, the AKC excluded mutts and deaf dogs from participating in organized events. That supported their brand-prestige as a rich powerful organization of the US dedicated to the preservation of the “best quality” dog genes, as discerned at least by its standards such as conformation to approved breed physical appearances but possibly with little apparent publicized regard [ix] to inheritable major physical flaws. An ordinary sociological phenomenon was the selection by organized groups of other “weaker” groups or persons that the organized group claimed to be “inferior.” Sometimes “acting out” of moral, ethical or economic superiority became ugly with the “inferiors” seen as “enemies” or “demonized.” AKC public relations [PR] about 2009-2010 according to their Internet posted reports were depressed, in part because of a general US public impression of elitism and perceived disdain for ordinary people and dogs– actually the crash losses of AKC cash flow likely began by 1995 according to the Veterinarian News web site.
[i] For permitting participation, neither “useful hearing” nor “deaf” were defined in measurable technical terms in readily accessible public sources that we found.
[ii] Thorstein Bunde Veblen, (July 30, 1857 – August 3, 1929) an American economist and sociologist, leader of the so-called institutional economics movement. Besides his technical work he was a popular and witty critic of capitalism, shown by his best known book The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899): Wikipedia
[iii] http://www.ohmidog.com/2009/08/11/american-dog-population-rises-to-77-5-million/ Aug 11, 2009 ... American dog population rises to 77.5 million ... [iv] [iv] http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/genetics.htm; {…… reported to be 2.56 to 6.5 cases per 10,000 dogs seen at veterinary school teaching hospitals,…} Actual values might probably be less because of absences from the baseline totals, of healthy dogs not brought to veterinary hospitals, - "selection bias" of the baseline group of dogs of the US. The data were slightly old, but useful for estimates.
[v] “The State of the Animals 2001,” Humane Society Press, edt D.J. Salem, A.N. Rowan; The book commented on the AKC actions (and lack of them), of “puppy mills”, not inspecting or regulating such breeders.
[vi] Galambos R and Hecox KE: Clinical applications of the auditory brain stem response. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 11: 709, 1978.
[vii] Dr Strain; Presentation to Australian Cattle Dog Club, 2004
[viii] Dr Stanley Coren, “How Dogs Think”; 2004; Free Press
[ix] Donald McCaig, “The Dog Wars”, 2007, Outrun Press; McCaig described the AKC’s history, policies and activities. McCaig opposed the AKC’s acceptance of Border Collies as a registered Breed: AKC “won.” AKC was said by some geneticists to have separated BCs into two distinct genetic lines by 2010
[x] Thorstein Bunde Veblen, (July 30, 1857 – August 3, 1929); American economist and sociologist, leader of the so-called institutional economics movement. A popular and witty critic of capitalism; well known book The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899): Wikipedia
Click on the link to return to the TOP of the page.
Accepted Mutts but not Deaf Dogs?
SUMMARY
When events happen that puzzle bystanders, a business decisions study can usefully to study the question: “Why did that happen? Were decisions arbitrary and capricious or understandable rational decisions based on business economics factors, public “good-will” with public relations aspects and perhaps other features?
An interesting case-study for US dog owners were the AKC’s recent decisions about the participation in some AKC activities of owners of non-AKC-registered dogs and their dogs. In contrast roughly at the same time, they apparently decided to continue excluding participation by those dogs without useful hearing (deaf[i]).
This study suggested (but did not “prove”) that the events were consistent with rational business economic factors and plausible public good will objectives, although other factors might have had influences. Simply stated, even apparently rough estimates suggested that accepting participation of non-AKC-registered dogs (here called, without intended prejudice or disdain, “mutts”) offered far larger financial potential net gains and potential large scale gains of public good will, with benefits to the “Brand”, as compared to accepting participation by deaf dogs. This informal study speculated about AKC decisions and objectives, based on public information in books, and on the Internet from the AKC, other organizations and various persons.
Discussions of a Hypothetical Business Decisions Case Study
Looking back to 2009 - 2010, three main decision criteria were surmised, plus “other factors”:
- Financial: Cash-flows and Returns on Investments
- “Good Will”: public approval of the actions; Which choice or choices would please more people?
- Brand: External and Internal self-image[ii] prestige and values
- “Other factors”
1. Cash Flow prospects Favored Mutts over Deaf Dogs
Because of the 2009-2010 recession, the Club’s assets and annual cash flow were probably depressed. New income sources were presumably desired to sustain activities.
Mutts: US dog population in 2010 was reportedly about 77.5 millions[iii]. Per the “US PET Ownership and Demographics SourceBook,”1997, the Club registered percentage of the total US total dogs population was probably in the vicinity of about 20 percent. Thus, assuming that the 2010 level of registries remained unchanged, they could plausibly expect (for illustration) at $15 per dog annually:
$15x 77.5 x 0.8 = $930 million per year from participation by owners of mutts and their dogs.
Deaf Dogs: Dr Strain of LSU published estimates of the US deaf dogs population, about an average of 4.5[iv] per ten thousand. With an estimated US dog population of 77.5 million in 2010, and the prior estimates of $15 cash per year per dog, the Club could expect roughly:
$15x77,500,000 x (4.5/10,000) = $0.52 million per year from participation of owners of deaf dogs and their dogs.
Conclusion: Financial advantage of mutts versus deaf dogs participation was about 930/0.52 = 1,800:1 for what was probably about the same investment to change rules books, retrain judges, etc.
2. "Good Will" of Mutss Owners Could Exceed that from Owners of Deaf DogsMutts
US population of mutts estimated as previously at 80 percent of the total US dogs population in 2010 was about 7.5x.8 = 62 millions
Deaf Dogs: Population of deaf dogs estimated at 4.5 per ten thousand of the total US dogs population in 2010: 77.5x0.04% = 35 thousands
Conclusion: “Good Will” advantage from mutts’ owners versus deaf dogs’ owners was potentially nearly 1,800:1, for what was possibly about the same investment for changing the rules books, retraining judges, etc.
[ii]
3. "Brand" : "Breed-Puirty, Conspicuous consumptio, Displays of Valuable [ii]
The brand value of “pure-breed purity”: US commodity prices of individual registered pure-breed dogs could according to news reports reach into several thousands of dollars. Mutts were inexpensive in pet shops serviced by puppy mills, perhaps upwards from a few tens of dollars.
In contrast, deaf dogs were often “throw-aways,” euthanized (killed) in compliance with breed club policy or dropped at rescues and shelters in thousands every year. A social stigma in some portions of US society attached to deafness of dogs - it’s a sexually transmitted genetic social “defect” allegedly warranting death or disposal; e.g. the DCA policy published in the Internet, despite the DCA recently in apparent conflict with its Board's policy, encouraged adoption of their dogs who had partial (uni-ear) hearing, who as carriers of a deafness gene the DCA board and Dr Strain recommended killing. Stories published in some books and on the Internet about the hazard of trained socialized deaf dogs to their domestic owners, themselves and other dogs weren’t verifiable by reputable scientific information. However the DCA Board's Red Book, 1994-2011, described quite clearly how the abuse of untrained unsocialized hearing and-or deaf Dalmatians created the dangers that the Board and Dr Strain later misrepresented as exclusively dangerous flaws of the deaf dogs of ALL breeds.
4. Other factors: “Who possibly benefited by BAER tests cash-flow and unverifiable scare stories about deaf dogs?” Sherlock Holmes, lawyers and detectives in novels allegedly to find motives asked: “Cui bono” –translated as “Who benefits?” [v]
Approving AKC participation of deaf dogs would please a few owners of deaf dogs and when BAER Tests became un-needed would potentially reduce the profits of any members who invested in or gained from cash-flow of BAER facilities. Interlocking BAER testing business interests among members and breed clubs details were nearly non-existent. Widespread proliferation of deaf dog scare-stories happened soon after invention of BAER testing for humans[vi], and the later publicized "discovery" of significant deafness among some breeds, in 1979 to the early 1980s. By about 2004 technical information about alternative modes of dogs to perceive mechanical vibrations (sound) became available [[vii] [viii] ] to some of the public. A notable sociological and scientific “oddity” was the absence of “scare-stories” about geriatric-blind (old) dogs, blind dogs, and geriatric-arthritic dogs who on technical grounds were also vulnerable to any of the adverse stories about deaf dogs. [See page: BAER business opportunities].
Background
According to McCaig [[ix]] and others, the AKC probably came into existence in large part as an opportunity for prosperous people to “show-off” expensive properties [e.g. pure-breed dogs], and enjoy gala social balls and parties, etc. A “conspicuous consumption” economics text by Thorstein Veblen [x]offered observations of that era. Membership by billionaires as late as 2010 was said to be a matter of pride among some people.
Until roughly 2010, the AKC excluded mutts and deaf dogs from participating in organized events. That supported their brand-prestige as a rich powerful organization of the US dedicated to the preservation of the “best quality” dog genes, as discerned at least by its standards such as conformation to approved breed physical appearances but possibly with little apparent publicized regard [ix] to inheritable major physical flaws. An ordinary sociological phenomenon was the selection by organized groups of other “weaker” groups or persons that the organized group claimed to be “inferior.” Sometimes “acting out” of moral, ethical or economic superiority became ugly with the “inferiors” seen as “enemies” or “demonized.” AKC public relations [PR] about 2009-2010 according to their Internet posted reports were depressed, in part because of a general US public impression of elitism and perceived disdain for ordinary people and dogs– actually the crash losses of AKC cash flow likely began by 1995 according to the Veterinarian News web site.
[i] For permitting participation, neither “useful hearing” nor “deaf” were defined in measurable technical terms in readily accessible public sources that we found.
[ii] Thorstein Bunde Veblen, (July 30, 1857 – August 3, 1929) an American economist and sociologist, leader of the so-called institutional economics movement. Besides his technical work he was a popular and witty critic of capitalism, shown by his best known book The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899): Wikipedia
[iii] http://www.ohmidog.com/2009/08/11/american-dog-population-rises-to-77-5-million/ Aug 11, 2009 ... American dog population rises to 77.5 million ... [iv] [iv] http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/genetics.htm; {…… reported to be 2.56 to 6.5 cases per 10,000 dogs seen at veterinary school teaching hospitals,…} Actual values might probably be less because of absences from the baseline totals, of healthy dogs not brought to veterinary hospitals, - "selection bias" of the baseline group of dogs of the US. The data were slightly old, but useful for estimates.
[v] “The State of the Animals 2001,” Humane Society Press, edt D.J. Salem, A.N. Rowan; The book commented on the AKC actions (and lack of them), of “puppy mills”, not inspecting or regulating such breeders.
[vi] Galambos R and Hecox KE: Clinical applications of the auditory brain stem response. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 11: 709, 1978.
[vii] Dr Strain; Presentation to Australian Cattle Dog Club, 2004
[viii] Dr Stanley Coren, “How Dogs Think”; 2004; Free Press
[ix] Donald McCaig, “The Dog Wars”, 2007, Outrun Press; McCaig described the AKC’s history, policies and activities. McCaig opposed the AKC’s acceptance of Border Collies as a registered Breed: AKC “won.” AKC was said by some geneticists to have separated BCs into two distinct genetic lines by 2010
[x] Thorstein Bunde Veblen, (July 30, 1857 – August 3, 1929); American economist and sociologist, leader of the so-called institutional economics movement. A popular and witty critic of capitalism; well known book The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899): Wikipedia
Click on the link to return to the TOP of the page.