Pets at Home claims ‘strong’ growth after refreshing brand strategy

Pets at Home continued to gain momentum following its brand relaunch in May, as it announced positive 2024 financial year first quarter results today (3 August).

The brand relaunch, which saw the business unify its brands under the ‘Pets’ master brand and cost £2m, has led to “encouraging” results for the business in the sixteen weeks to 2o July, said CEO Lyssa McGowan.

Consumer revenue is up 10.2% to £568.2m, while total group revenue at the business has grown 7.9% to £436.8m. Within this, its Vet Group division has witnessed revenue growth of 16.3%. While retail revenues grew at a lesser 7.11%. The business acknowledged its price position in aiding its food category growth across grocery and premium.

Pets at Home launched its VIP loyalty scheme more than a decade ago in 2012. The programme grew 4.4% in the last quarter to 7.7 million users.‘Refresh rather than rebrand’: Why Pets at Home is simplifying its brand portfolio“The quality of our growth has remained strong as we grew transaction volumes and continued to acquire new consumers at an impressive rate, as our compelling value, range and service continues to resonate with consumers,” says McGowan, who joined the business in June 2022 after 11 years at Sky, most recently as its chief consumer officer.

In May, Pets at Home refreshed its brands, and brought them all under the Pets umbrella. The change saw Vets4Pets rebrand to Vets for Pets, and The Groom Room, its grooming business, became Pets Grooming. The company’s marketing director, Madeline Shaw, told Marketing Week it was a “refresh rather than a rebrand”.

The last quarter has seen “steady delivery” against the strategic plan Pets at Home unveiled in May, said McGowan. “We have expanded and enhanced our physical estate, made good progress in the development of our digital platform, and continued the transition to our new distribution facility, as we execute on our ambition to build the world’s best pet care platform,” she added.

“It was never a conscious decision for it not to be one brand,” Shaw said at the time, adding that it was “super confusing” for customers to not have the brands unified. “It was a chance for us to do what we would have done if we were setting this business up from scratch,” she added.