a new era

Quote
Anonymous said:
Peelers? Explain please.

And you're right, just checked and to my surprise, Trifexis is now on PetMeds. The price is much higher than I sell it for. Obviously not an easy product for them to acquire. I bet they're going to have a spotty inventory at best.

And Vectra is nowhere to be found. Looks like the bloodhound tracking is very effective when a company wants to enforce its stated distribution channels. Apparently cutting off diverters is adequate though the first company that actually sues a diverter for punitive damages will immediately reap some goodwill among the veterinary community - but I digress.

BTW my client retention is excellent. Thanks for the concern.
Click to expand...

Once a diverter sues these companies for restriction of trade they will reap some $$$$ from these companies. You talk the talk go do your homework. I will give you a head start google the Sherman Act its restition of trade. The FDA products have some protection from this but the EPA products fall right in the target of this law. Another good thing to google is the online contact company owend by 1 800 pet meds. They sued the contact companies and guess what the won now all the optical companies have to sell to them direct. and you need a script for them do your homework before you run your mouth by the way whats your vet clinics name and city
 






Of course I don't and yes I know Vectra has tiny market share. Maybe their efforts to enforce their stated distribution channels will pay off; maybe they're destined to always be a tiny bit player. Pretty confident they found their way into many more clinics last year when Bayer decided to sell directly to the pet supply retailers.

I do believe that Comfortis has a much larger market share...correct? Elanco seems to be trying much harder to keep that product out of the internet shops than Bayer or Merial ever did. Not with total success apparently but at least enough to support the price that will make it attractive for clinics to carry and promote it.

I'm grateful for that.

But I needn't look to the veterinary pharmaceutical industry to make my point that exclusivity is often strongly protected by manufacturers: Mercedes makes a highly coveted, very popular line of cars with overwhelming consumer demand. Mercedes could sell more cars and the average price would drop appreciably if they decided to sell through every dinky used car lot in the nation. The consumer would benefit, the used car lots would benefit and the only short term loser would be the dealers that built the brand. The used car lot dealers could then post on dealership forums that consumer demand was responsible for the corporate change and that they're upholding their civic responsibility by providing a badly needed product to the masses and that the only ones that the dealerships have to blame is their antiquated business model.

Not a perfect analogy, I admit. But the hypocrisy of the 2 bit car dealers claiming that they were noble in providing a product to the masses at a smaller profit than the traditional route would be equally absurd.
 






Anonymous said:
Once a diverter sues these companies for restriction of trade they will reap some $$$$ from these companies. You talk the talk go do your homework. I will give you a head start google the Sherman Act its restition of trade. The FDA products have some protection from this but the EPA products fall right in the target of this law. Another good thing to google is the online contact company owend by 1 800 pet meds. They sued the contact companies and guess what the won now all the optical companies have to sell to them direct. and you need a script for them do your homework before you run your mouth by the way whats your vet clinics name and city
Click to expand...

Summit made their clinics sign agreements stating product would not be diverted and that clinics would be held accountable if found guilty of violating the contract.

Pretty sure the only application the Sherman Act would have towards veterinarians is that we cannot collude in setting prices. But I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on the internet. Guessing you're not an attorney either.

Are you telling me that a manufacturer is legally incapable of dictating who can carry its products? Maybe government really is too big and intrusive. Armed with that sentiment, maybe I'll get a lobotomy and join the Tea Party.

Tried to find the contact lens company you spoke of... to no avail. Name please?

My clinic's name and city? After all the hostility in this thread? Are you serious? It's tough to tell the anonymous contrarians and trolls from genuine nut jobs. You'll just have to deal with my continued anonymity. If that costs me credibility, so be it.
 






Anonymous said:
Another good thing to google is the online contact company owend by 1 800 pet meds. They sued the contact companies and guess what the won now all the optical companies have to sell to them direct. and you need a script for them do your homework before you run your mouth
Click to expand...

Despite the snide comments, I am trying to learn something from this dialogue. On this topic, I find it a bit more stimulating than VIN where I can read dozens of bright and educated people that all agree with me. Gets a bit redundant after a while. This is stimulating.

Perhaps this is what you were referring to:
http://www.iowa.gov/government/ag/consumer/press_releases/2001/contact_lens_J_J.html

Doesn't seem to apply though since in this case, the alleged agreement was between a manufacturer and a professional organization... the American Optometric Association. That's not the same as what you are alleging is illegal.

Then again, neither of us are attorneys.
 












Anonymous said:
Of course I don't and yes I know Vectra has tiny market share. Maybe their efforts to enforce their stated distribution channels will pay off; maybe they're destined to always be a tiny bit player. Pretty confident they found their way into many more clinics last year when Bayer decided to sell directly to the pet supply retailers.

I do believe that Comfortis has a much larger market share...correct? Elanco seems to be trying much harder to keep that product out of the internet shops than Bayer or Merial ever did. Not with total success apparently but at least enough to support the price that will make it attractive for clinics to carry and promote it.

I'm grateful for that.

But I needn't look to the veterinary pharmaceutical industry to make my point that exclusivity is often strongly protected by manufacturers: Mercedes makes a highly coveted, very popular line of cars with overwhelming consumer demand. Mercedes could sell more cars and the average price would drop appreciably if they decided to sell through every dinky used car lot in the nation. The consumer would benefit, the used car lots would benefit and the only short term loser would be the dealers that built the brand. The used car lot dealers could then post on dealership forums that consumer demand was responsible for the corporate change and that they're upholding their civic responsibility by providing a badly needed product to the masses and that the only ones that the dealerships have to blame is their antiquated business model.

Not a perfect analogy, I admit. But the hypocrisy of the 2 bit car dealers claiming that they were noble in providing a product to the masses at a smaller profit than the traditional route would be equally absurd.
Click to expand...

1800 contacts is the company and I would not give my name or clinic name either that was a stupid question that person asked. as for the used car lot they can sell mercedes they just cant get it from mercedes just like frontline and the bayer products (before they went otc) as far as the sherman act goes lets use this example if coke decided they would just sell there product to walmart do you think target, grocery stores, gas stations would say ok no big deal or would they go to court. This whole thing is a big mess. companies can say all they want its simple some could do a better job of making it harder to get the product but bottom line if someone wants the product they will get it. it goes back to demand. even if vectra or elanco say the prodcut will never make it out there they are not telling the truth. they can make it hard to get but if the demand is there so will product. its up to us and the docs to so value in the clinics the days of 150% markup are gone as they should be thats a very large markup charge for service and sell product at a realistic price
 






Anonymous said:
Summit made their clinics sign agreements stating product would not be diverted and that clinics would be held accountable if found guilty of violating the contract.

Pretty sure the only application the Sherman Act would have towards veterinarians is that we cannot collude in setting prices. But I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on the internet. Guessing you're not an attorney either.

Are you telling me that a manufacturer is legally incapable of dictating who can carry its products? Maybe government really is too big and intrusive. Armed with that sentiment, maybe I'll get a lobotomy and join the Tea Party.

Tried to find the contact lens company you spoke of... to no avail. Name please?

My clinic's name and city? After all the hostility in this thread? Are you serious? It's tough to tell the anonymous contrarians and trolls from genuine nut jobs. You'll just have to deal with my continued anonymity. If that costs me credibility, so be it.
Click to expand...

collude in setting prices is part of it but there is another section that deals with restitriction of trade and there lies the problem with the contracts they are trying to enforce
 












How are we still in walmart, costco, and target? I thought we figured out how to control the grey market? I am not going to call on a single account until I can give them good news or news of my resignation. we have been lied to too long. I am over this game. It will be great to see how long I can milk a paycheck. BTW, our margins are shrinking faster than any other brand out there even on the pet specialty or grey market channel. has anyone priced us online lately or at the big box stores or pet specialty. Most vets do not even have our products on display anymore. The clock is starting to tick quickly now
 






I do not know how much of this thread is real or not, what I know is real is that Bayer reps are not happy, some vets are not happy with Bayer, maybe make that many vets, reps are looking for any other company to work for, Bayer's leadership is not leadership, Peter Ryan does not care about anyone at Bayer but himself and how he is perceived in Germany. The good old days are over, long live the future of Bayer, if it has one. When will Bayer's veterinary division be dismantled and sold off piecemeal to the highest bidder, if anyone dears bid?

Say good night Gracie.
 






Anonymous said:
Spot on again. I work with Ken Allen and the OTC team here is the standard contract pricing to Pet Specialty. Peter Ryan has authorized us to offer the following. 5% off list, 2% early pay, 2.5% carrying and displaying all 4 epa sku's, 5% trade/co-op funds. As far as returns we can accept up to 2% of what has been purchased per quarter, no questions asked, nor do they have to ship them back. The reason why I am coming forward is that I, as a Bayer team member see the division that is being fostered between not only our pet specialty and vet accounts but reps as well. We are being incentivized to take business away from our peers on the vet side and being given tools that by far surpass what Peter is giving Kirk and his team. The long term effect of this is clear as far our relationships with vets. I truly believe Peter knows this but does not care as he obviously is comfortable that even with the alienation of vets he will grow the brands with the pet specialty. So he clearly has no hope or nead for Multi and the other vet only brands we have as well.
Click to expand...

Why would a Bayer rep make a posting like this, it just confuses me. Who is Ken Allen? We are isolated here on the vet side and anyone can get a name to use if they want to.
 






Anonymous said:
ok. I am new here. I own a pet store, or chain of stores in the South East. I am trying to understand all of the frustration while building my own business. I have watched Vets double the price of Advantage and Frontline for the past 10yrs. you all have made plenty of dollars off of the consumer and should relax. First of all we do have a contract to buy your product very similar if not a little better to the one mentioned above. We are committed to growing this brand at our locations. We will beat the online prices and the local vets ridiculous prices and give the customer the fair price and value she is looking for. Bayer is committed as always to growing the product it has created. We are excited about using it as a draw to bring customers back to our retail locations. I am willing to sell it at 5% above what we buy it for to capture the market in our area. Can any of you vets give the same pledge?
Click to expand...

Nobody can stay in business with a 5% profit, if you use it as a lost leader you are not helping yourself or Bayer. The goal is not for you to sell cheap but to be able to compete, so compete, make a profit and shut the fuck up.
 






Obviously you are not in business nor do you lack the know how to have a business of your own. That is why you are working for the man and do not have your own business. Trust me, profit is profit whether it is 2% or 50%. In this case it is not a loss leader because we at pet stores get it for about 5-10% below vet list and we do have to sell it at 5% above vet list to compete because we are competing with other pet stores, web sites and big box stores who have similar prices. You should go shop the brands out there and see for yourself. The goal is to sell cheap when the clock is ticking and margins are shrinking daily.
 












Anonymous said:
Why would a Bayer rep make a posting like this, it just confuses me. Who is Ken Allen? We are isolated here on the vet side and anyone can get a name to use if they want to.
Click to expand...

What is confusing? Do you find it hard to believe we are offering better discounts to pet specialty than to our vets who have been loyal to us for the past 12 years+?
 






Anonymous said:
What is confusing? Do you find it hard to believe we are offering better discounts to pet specialty than to our vets who have been loyal to us for the past 12 years+?
Click to expand...

This is not a Bayer rep posting this, it may be a competitive rep or distributor that does not carry the line. No Bayer rep would be this stupid. Sheer lunacy to post something like this about the company that pays your salary whether true or not. This person either has their brains up their ass or they are just trying to shrink Bayer's already shrinking hold on out veterinary customers.
 












Anonymous said:
this is taken from a recent posting on the Merial board.....

Originally Posted by Anonymous
I'm a veterinarian and in my more than 30 years in practice I have watched the flea control market evolve. Most of my clients use Frontline Plus, and most of those purchase it from me. But that is changing and is getting ready to turn upside down. I can compete with the pet stores, they charge $20 per dose. We price ours a little below PetMeds both in hospital and through our web store. Costco is problematic, they are satisfied with a 4% margin, difficult to compete with that. But most clients understand that we can't compete with Costco. The real nail in the coffin will be a generic equivalent available in stores at a lower cost than I can purchase the brand name from the manufacturer.

Unlike some of my colleagues I don't blame Merial. As long as it isn't illegal, EPA products are going to go otc. No way to stop it. No amount of tracking will stop it. It's the nature of the beast. It doesn't really matter to me if it is diverted or sold directly to the store. The effect on my practice is the same. The only company that has been disingenuous about it was Bayer. I called them a few weeks before they went public about selling their products direct to the pet stores and was told it was to "get a handle on the diversion problem." That's like screwing someone to get a handle on the pregnancy problem.

In the short term I think veterinarians need to stick with FDA products and let the pet stores fight over the EPA market. Would I be interested in yet another EPA product like Vectra? No thanks. Reminds me of Hill's who has brought out several "veterinary exclusive" wellness pet foods. If sales don't boom they discontinue it, if we successfully build a market for the product they take it otc and sell it to pet stores at a price not available to veterinarians. I'm not interested in playing that game.

Ultimately I think dispensing will be taken away from veterinarians altogether. I remember when many MD's had their own little pharmacy in their office, one stop shopping. The auto shop that did state inspections also did the repairs. No more, gone because of the perceived conflict of interest. Reminds me of a comment made to me by a retiring veterinarian on my first day on the job, only half in jest, "If you don't have the drugs to treat what you've diagnosed, diagnose something you do have the drugs to treat."
Click to expand...

funny. none of you blame merial, but when it comes to bayer, you throw us under the bus. what a joke. i have lost alot of faith in vets.
 






Anonymous said:
funny. none of you blame merial, but when it comes to bayer, you throw us under the bus. what a joke. i have lost alot of faith in vets.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that Vets take the time to post here or even know this place exists? These are reps from other companies, just as the OTC store owner is a rep from another company. And BTW, did you know that as of Jan 1 Merial began quietly selling OTC like we did, they just told their reps but that is it....if you know a merial rep that was with them for their National Meeting but now gone ask, they will tell you.
 












Top Bottom
Back
Quote