Exploratory content analysis of direct-to-consumer pet genomics: What is being marketed and what are consumers saying?

Abstract

Mars Petcare introduced the first direct-to-consumer domestic dog genetic test in 2009 and Basepaws introduced the first direct-to-consumer cat genetic test in 2016. Social science research has evaluated numerous aspects of the human direct-to-consumer market, yet no such exploration has evaluated the occurrence of pet owners pursuing pet genetic tests. Using a mixed methods approach, we conducted an exploratory content analysis of direct-to-consumer pet genetic company webpages and consumer reviews shared on Amazon. Initial data reviews indicated some companies may be key industry players, relative to others. Our results present content frequency for each group (key industry players, all other companies), though the primary themes for each remained the same. Analysis showed genetic companies are primarily sharing product and purchasing information, along with trustworthiness to establish the merit of the company and their products. Companies also used statements directed towards pet owners that are suggestive of both pets and “pet parents” benefiting from the test results. The primary themes identified in consumer reviews involved consumers sharing their perception about the tests (e.g., accuracy), what aspects of the test results they focused on (e.g., breed information), and experiences with using the test (e.g., ease of use). Amazon reviews were primarily positive, though the companies with smaller review numbers had higher percentages of negative and ambiguous sentiments. Of interest, reviews most often indicated tests were being used to determine a pet’s breed identity, while companies most frequently promoted the health advantages of using their products. Reviews revealed some consumers respond to tests by sharing their pet’s results with someone or by altering their pet’s care. Considering these results in addition to the growing popularity of this industry and the advancements of genomic technology, further research is needed to determine the role pet genetic testing may have in society and on human-animal relationships.

A Study Evaluating Consumer Motivations, Perceptions, and Responses to Direct-to-Consumer Canine Genetic Test Results

“…Participants reporting their dog as a companion/family member implies a shared positive relationship and, as such, maintaining that animal’s health may be perceived as more beneficial considering the shortened lifespan of domestic dogs in comparison to humans. These findings are highly relevant to the DTC-GT market as the pet animal industry markets health results over other test uses [ 14 ]. For example, Bennett et al [ 14 ] reported companion animal genetic companies target “pet parents” by conveying the message that by using their services, “...pet owners... will know their pet better and pets will, in turn, live healthier and happier lives.” Despite company advertisement methods, consumers continue to be more focused on breed results.…”

“…From there, the following section assessed participant motivations to pursue a DNA test for their dog. These questions were adapted from Carere and colleague’s [ 19 ] study that surveyed 23andMe consumers and Bennett et al’s [ 14 ] qualitative study on the companion animal genetic industry. The next question set evaluated the participant’s perceptions about their dog’s genetic test results and were also created from Bennett et al’s [ 14 ] study in which consumers shared several themes related to the perceived utility of the genetic test.…”

“…These questions were adapted from Carere and colleague’s [ 19 ] study that surveyed 23andMe consumers and Bennett et al’s [ 14 ] qualitative study on the companion animal genetic industry. The next question set evaluated the participant’s perceptions about their dog’s genetic test results and were also created from Bennett et al’s [ 14 ] study in which consumers shared several themes related to the perceived utility of the genetic test. Both sections–motivations and perceptions–used a 5-point Likert scale for participants to rate their agreement with questionnaire items (Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Strongly Disagree).…”

“…Additional behavioral responses evaluated were related to consumers making care decisions after receiving their dog’s test results. Collectively, these questions were also adapted from Carere et al [ 19 ] and Bennett et al’s [ 14 ] study that detected DTC genetic test user patterns in which they respond to test results in various ways to include talking with someone about the results and altering their own or their animal’s care. The final section collected participant demographic information related to self-identified gender, ethnicity, income, and education.…”

“…Social science research into human self-use of DTC-GTs has been essential to improving the industry by providing insight into consumer motivations to use genetic services, their understandings of test results, and behavioral responses to their genetic test results (e.g., [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]). In a unique content exploration of the DTC-GT pet industry, Bennett et al [ 14 ] reported on company website and consumer review content. They found DTC pet animal genetic companies primarily advertised products and services, with themes related to the company’s credentials and trustworthiness to establish the merit of returned test results.…”