“Just because you are not hungry does not mean that you are free”, was a comment from a young female activist in the United Arab Emirates, reported in a British newspaper soon after the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.
Sitting safely here in Britain we have little understanding of the emotions and deep resentment caused by years of oppression and, by our standards, a deliberate repression of human rights and, as fuel prices rise across the world, the increasing pressure on food prices will climb inexorably, leading to an even wider swathe of dissent and dissatisfaction. Perhaps we will even see some civil unrest here too but nothing, one imagines, on the scale of that seen across the Middle East. Governments everywhere are concerned about recent events, ranging from Egypt to Iran and on a recent visit to Beijing, it was fascinating to watch the police working Tiananmen Square, insistent on quietly preventing any groups from gathering, just in case it led to any overt and demonstrable protest. In today’s digital world, spectators ten thousand miles away can be party to televised protest before the authorities even notice.
One thing links all these protests – whether they are against political oppression, racism, sexual inequality or even anti-austerity measures on the streets of Athens – and that is a contagious and shared passion exhibited for a worthwhile cause. While we can celebrate our pragmatism and inherent stiffness of upper lip, it is so very rare for the British people to rise up and take to the streets. Many of us have, perhaps, been thankful for this lack of public volatility in our desire to glide swan-like along the river of our own existence but, every now and then, a cause pops up which inflames the British people sufficiently for them to make their displeasure widely known. The Countryside March was just one of these and, even though the government of the time took remarkably little notice, Middle England rose as one, took to the streets of Mayfair and had a jolly good protest. It was well ordered, responsible and quietly seething with commitment but never once looked as if it might run amok. The issue of student’s educational fees might prove to be a bigger issue than the Government anticipated and, certainly, recent protests have been far less seemly with considerable damage done both to property and the students’ cause by a violent and uncontrolled minority. Both ways are so typically British and provide the two polarities of anticipated British dissent. Both involved huge numbers and both revolved around issues which touched the lives and possible livelihood of millions of people. Maybe that’s what it takes to stir the British lion into action.
One issue which, purportedly, involves millions of British people and has never really seen the daylight of focused public concern is that of breed deficiencies in our cats and dogs. To be fair, the public could be forgiven for not having known much about this before the BBC programme Pedigree Dogs Exposed which was shown on 19 August 2008, and which lifted the lid on the true extent of health and welfare problems in pedigree dogs in the UK. This in-depth investigation suggested that dogs are in serious trouble, plagued by genetic disease due to decades of inbreeding. The public did express concern but let’s not forget that in modern Britain, nothing much holds the headlines for very long and the tsunami of moral outrage soon receded. Despite the fact that almost half the households in the UK have a pet perhaps we should not be surprised when the public allowed this reprehensible issue to slide off its radar.
Should we be so forgiving of our own shortcomings as a caring profession and as an industry which depends entirely on a population of loved and cared-for pets for more than 70% of its existence? Deep down, which of us is unaware that cats and dogs are suffering acute problems because of the showring's emphasis on looks over and above function and health? Perhaps we should take a deep breath and look again at this issue for reasons of quite understandable moral outrage, for reasons of professional pragmatism and because the time for to take a professional stand is way, way overdue.
Let’s take the pragmatic view first. In the next few months and possibly for a decade to come, everyday pet owners will need to balance the family books and make a diminishing disposable income go further than it has ever done before. Already we see the signs of the pet owning public making these choices and the veterinary press is awash with data showing a progressive attrition in practice footfall, a commensurate increase in the purchase of pet commodities such as food, flea treatments and wormers from the pet and grocery channels and people drifting away from dog ownership . If we carry on doing what we always did, we’ll get what we always got and, without doubt, this is a critical time for veterinary practice to find a new way forward if it is to prevent being forced to engage reverse gear. We already see mounting competition between practices and, again without doubt, some practices seem to understand what consumers are looking for far better than others and this is reflected in a wide disparity of business performance across the whole spectrum of small animal practices.
What makes one practice more attractive to consumers than another? It isn’t the kit; having a digital-ray machine is exciting to veterinary surgeons but to most consumers it’s simply a tool of our trade and as ubiquitous an expectation to them as restaurants having a remote credit card machine. When it comes down to it, it’s the people who count. Concepts of loyalty and trust are quintessentially the currency of human relationships and while we may, in our working lives, have moved away from an agreement celebrated by spitting into one’s palm and sealed with a handshake, the human need to believe in one another and for deals to be honoured far exceeds the more superficial polish of more modern business methods. People stay with our practices because they like and trust us. They leave because, either no-one worked hard enough on that for the relationship to harden into something more lasting or because somewhere along the way, the consumer felt let down in some respect and the business may well have sailed on blithely completely unaware that there was a man overboard.
None of this is new news to most of us but it still doesn’t appear to have resonated with a substantial percentage of the profession which still believes that it behoves the mountain to come to them rather than the other way round. On an individual practice basis, this will inevitably end in tears for some small animal businesses unless they make fundamental changes to their approach to customer care.
Strange word that ‘care’ isn’t it? It means so many different things to many people but deep down it means a tangible demonstration of empathy which is pretty much aligned with the oath each member of the profession took on graduation. One of the more irritating phrases bandied about is that customers don’t care too much about what you know until they know how much you care. It’s a trifle saccharine for me but indisputable in its veracity. To the public, we should be the place where they come for all their pet owning information whether in the sickness or health of their animal and I am a passionate advocate of the small animal wing of the profession taking a leaf out of its farm animal colleagues’ book by maintaining the health of the animals under its care rather than dealing only with them when they’re sick. If we do not identify and maintain this role, making it our own and defending it against all-comers, how will we ever differentiate ourselves against the mighty brands of the pet shop chains and the supermarkets?
If we cannot see for ourselves that we need to demonstrate care as being the essential and demonstrable cornerstone of our relationship with the pet owning public and their animals, why would they see us as anything else that simply another retail option with a convenient A and E facility attached?
Actually, when it comes to the bigger moral issues such as the considered and wilful continuation of breed deficiencies in cats and dogs by the very organisations which regulate them, are our own professional organisations any less culpable than those of the breeders in failing to stand up in public to be counted. I could be wrong but I’d bet a year’s salary that there’s not a vet in the land who thinks this is right or should be allowed to continue but the big dog and cat shows continue to award prizes to more extreme examples of what they have decided represents a desirable breed quality and we, as a profession, remain silent in our passive encouragement of what we know to be wrong.
Our professional organisations may have entered into some dialogue with the breed associations but, to date, the results appear to be minimal and the public cannot see one iota of our professional concern because it is not visible. If we, as the caring profession patently don’t care, why will the public be motivated to do anything about it? In the longer term, why will the pubic continue to see us as the caring profession and why will they differentiate between us and Tesco?
The short answer is that they won’t.