Aleksan Shanoyan, Ph.D., professor of agricultural economics at Kansas State University (KSU), began his presentation during Pet Food Collab on September 9, 2025, with a basic equation for customer value: perceived benefits divided by price. Yet, as those who follow the pet food market know — and as data from a study Shanoyan conducted show — the perception of value is often much more complex and nuanced than that. Especially in a category like pet food where the purchasing customers (pet owners) are so emotionally involved.
Organized and hosted by the Pet Food Program at KSU, Pet Food Collab was a two-day seminar designed to highlight the university’s pet food research (by both faculty and students) as well as to generate discussion and networking for industry professionals. As an attendee, I would say it succeeded on both counts.
I found Shanoyan’s data particularly interesting. Titled “From wish list to shopping cart: Understanding pet food buyers’ preferences and purchasing behavior,” his presentation revealed a distinct gap between those two things (preferences and purchases). While Shanoyan didn’t fully explain the gap, stressing that his study is ongoing, the data pointed to potential avenues for pet food and treat brands to explore.
Health and ingredients: Purchases don’t match important attributes
Conducted among 5,000 U.S. dog owners, the study asked which pet food and treat attributes respondents considered most important in their buying decisions. The types of attributes surveyed ranged from health benefits to ingredients to processing (format) to supply chain. The study then compared those to the attributes in the dog foods and treats respondents actually purchased, and the differences were fairly stark, in some cases.
For example, among health attributes, digestive tract was ranked highest for most important, at 28% of respondents, yet it appeared in only 16% of respondents’ food purchases. Skin and coat care was the most common attribute in dog food purchases by far, at 41% (the next most purchased, joint health/mobility, was at 23%), but only 7% of respondents said skin and coat care was the most important factor in their buying decisions. (Joint health/mobility was consistent, at least, with 22% rating it as most important.)
The results for ingredient attributes were eye opening: None were rated higher than 26% as most important in buying decisions — that was “natural” — yet many of the attributes showed up in large portions in dog foods purchased. Thirty-nine percent of purchases had natural ingredients, according to the data; the most purchased attribute was limited ingredient, at 55%, even though only 8% of respondents chose it as most important.
Grain-free appeared in 45% of dog food purchases while being chosen as most important by 18% of respondents (second behind natural). Human grade and non-GMO appeared in 42% and 41% of purchases, respectively, despite being rated as most important by only 6% and 7%, respectively.
I wonder if this health benefits and ingredient attribute data, especially in foods purchased, is a reflection of their prevalence on the market today?
Fresh dog food, made in the USA rank as important
Processing attributes were even more topsy turvy. For instance, dry kibble didn’t even appear on the list of most important attributes considered by these dog owners — perhaps because, with its dominance on the market, they considered that the default and didn’t even bother mentioning it? Also, the respondents named both wet and canned, apparently considering them different types of formats, though not high on their importance lists.
Instead, most important were fresh (also not defined, at 45%) and minimally processed (at 35%); not surprisingly, neither appeared high on the list of foods purchased. Fresh treats did come in at 18% but fresh dog food, only 5%, while minimally processed was an attribute among only 1% of both foods and treats purchased. Meanwhile, wet appeared in 50% of dog foods purchased and canned in 26%.
Only in the supply chain area did importance match up with purchases — at least with made in USA, which was ranked as most important by 44% and appeared in 57% of dog foods purchased and 49% of treats. Eco-friendly and sustainable were rated as most important by 18% and 16% of dog owners, respectively, yet were in only 1% of purchases. (Shanoyan’s colleague, Lonnie Hobbs Jr., Ph.D., assistant professor in KSU’s Department of Agricultural Economics, followed with his own presentation on pet owner perceptions of sustainability claims, based on surveys he has conducted.)
Help find out why consumers don’t always do what they say they want
Why the gaps between what pet owners say is important to them in making pet food buying decisions and what they actually buy? Shanoyan listed several possible answers, such as affordability and accessibility of products, which he hopes to explore further as his study continues. I believe perceptions of what their dogs like and do well on, plus brand loyalty and habit, probably also play a role.
Shanoyan and Hobbs both said they’re seeking partners in the pet food industry to collaborate on their future studies. Such research may provide more clues to why consumers’ purchasing doesn’t always follow what they say they want.
