近年來因為人與寵物關係的改變，由原本的功能性轉換到情感性居多，進而帶動台灣整體寵物消費市場的蓬勃發展。寵物食品作為其中最大占比的消費品項，在這樣持續成長的市場環境下，投入的競爭廠商自然不少。但是，主要的市場競爭者只有4-5家，其他小型的廠商目前都還不具規模。本論文所研究之個案公司Hill's®原本是市場領先者，面對競爭對手投入和新世代族群對客戶以及消費行為改變，使得經營出現挑戰而面臨危機。因此，瞭解個案公司之現有經營策略對於整體產業的競爭力發展提升別具意義。 本研究首先以Porter(1980)提出的五力分析方法，針對寵物食品業的獸醫通路經營環境進行分析，以瞭解其產業特性和競爭力。然後針對目標市場和顧客 - 獸醫通路和新世代獸醫和消費者，採取邱志聖4C的策略行銷分析方法，解讀個案公司過往成功的行銷策略以發掘問題，再根據新世代的特質，發展出適當的新策略及可採取的行動，借以改善個案公司現狀和獲利提升，對於整體產業也有幫助。

本研究觀察臺灣的狗食市場，並且選擇兩家動物醫院與三間的寵物商店進行深入訪談，從訪談過程中發現在專業市場通路裡的動物醫院和寵物店之間明顯存在經營邏輯與對狗食商品定位截然不同的期待，這種對於狗食的期待不同，形成狗食品牌經營者在產品定位、包裝規格、定價策略與促銷安排上，對不同的通路型態，必須制訂不同的行銷策略，以避免不理性的通路衝突，而造成行銷資源的浪費與消費者對品牌認同的干擾。 依照深度訪談的整理結果，發展出寵物食品通路量表，此量表主要可分為販售狗食的目的、選擇販售狗食品牌的考量因素以及選擇往來經銷商之考量因素三部分，並以郵寄的方式施測於艾汾公司全省13家經銷商所掌握的467家寵物店和297家動物醫院。 從回收的問卷中發現：在銷售寵物食品的目的上，寵物商店較動物醫院更重視增加營業收入以及增加其他商品的銷售目的，但在追求經營利潤、提供飼主一次購足的便利以及創造衍生性服務的目的上，兩通路間並無顯著差異；在選擇銷售的狗食品牌的考量因素上寵物店比動物醫院更在乎該品牌廠商是否有消費者促銷活動、消費者是否對該品牌指名購買和試吃包與餵養手冊的提供；而動物醫院則相對較重視特殊功效、與來源國形象；寵物店與動物醫院在選擇與哪家經銷商往來時，二者的考量因素並無明顯差異，並不因本身專業知識的多寡，而對前來拜訪的業務員或所提供的配送服務，有不同的期盼或要求。 多重通路衝突現象在寵物食品業確實存在，寵物店或動物醫院都不希望本身所販賣的狗食在其他通路也有販售，深怕其他通路因為販售目的的不一致，而造成促銷價格難以掌控的困擾，尤其是其他通路開啟價格戰時，可能進而被消費者貼上黑店記號，或是有利潤減損與存貨滯銷的風險。利潤是影響專業市場通路業者是否推薦某一品牌狗食的主要考量，而價格的限定與依通路別區隔產品，是通路利潤能否確保的主要關鍵，因此本研究提供作為企業在面對多重通路型態時，價格訂定與行銷策略制訂之參考。 / From the study of Taiwan Dog food market and the in-depth interviews with 2 Vet Clinics and 3 Pet Shops, it was identified that significant difference existed in the business model and role of Dog food in their overall product portfolio between Vet clinics and Pet Shops in Taiwan, although these two store types were both classified as the “Specialty Trade” channel for Petcare products. Given this different expectation for selling Dog food, it was inevitable for Dog food suppliers to provide different product offerings and marketing mix for different trade customers, in order to avoid the irrational trade conflicts, wastage in brand investment and consumers’confusion about brand image. From the results of those in-depth interviews, we also developed questionnaire to conduct quantitative research on 467 Pet Shops and 297 animal hospitals that had business with the 13 regional distributors under Mars Foods Taiwan. The questionnaire composed of three major sections, which were: Purposes for selling Dog food, Major factors in brand selection and choices of distributors. Based on those responded questionnaires, it showed that, in terms of selling objectives, both Pet shops and Vet clinics were quite similar in the pursuit of profit, providing one-stop shopping for pet owners and generating additional demand for other services items, although Pet shops were also keen to drive incremental sales of other products. In the selection of Dog food brands, Pet shops cared more about consumer promotion, consumers’ preference for the brands and the offering of sample packs and feeding booklets, while animal hospitals concerned more with origins of country and functional benefits. As to the selecting criteria for local Petfood distributors, there was no major variance in their expectation/request on the salesmen or logistics service between these two store types. “Multiple channel conflicts” truly existed in Petfood market, as both Pet shops and Vet clinics did not want to see the same products also available in the other grocery channels with the fear of consumers’ complaints caused by other channel’s inconsistent pricing and different selling strategy on Dog food. In particular, the price war on Petfood among major retailers may get consumers mad about the Pet shops or Vet clinics and cause negative impact on their margin and inventory of the same dog food brands. It was crucial for suppliers to provide stable trade margin to earn the recommendation from Pet shops and vet clinics by strict cross-channel pricing control and channel-specific products offering, as profit was the most important motivator for “Specialty Trade” customers. This study provided a couple of initial thoughts for marketers to better deal with the pricing management and marketing strategy across multiple trade channels.