We've mentioned transumers before—consumers who value experiences more than ownership—with examples like shared ownership of cars, yachts and second homes, or leasing concepts for handbags, jewellery and other luxury goods. What we didn't see coming, is for that line-up of material goods to be joined by man's best friend. People who love spending time with dogs but can't manage full-time ownership can now join a flexible pet ownership program.
Flexpetz recently launched in Los Angeles and San Diego, and offers consumers the option of having a dog for just a few hours or days a week. Which is a good solution for people who'd love to have a dog, but are too busy, travel frequently, or live in buildings that don't allow dog ownership. The dogs come from breed rescue shelters, who take in specific breeds and help pick animals that are well-suited to life as Flexpetz. When they're not spending time with members, the dogs live in a cage-free facility that provides a safe and steady base. The company's founder, Marlena Cervantes, views Flexpetz like an extended family: "When our dogs spend time with their extended family members, they are lavished with love and undivided attention. We feel our this concept allows our dogs more love and attention than single ownership can often provide."
Membership is limited, and each dog generally spends time with a small group of people. Monthly membership costs USD 39.95 plus a daily fee, and members can reserve their pooch of choice online. Before being allowed to rent a dog, members go through a mandatory training session with a certified Flexpetz dog trainer. The service aims to expand to New York, San Francisco and Boston soon, followed by other cities in the United States and abroad. One to set up locally? Or how about starting a website that matches two or three owners, facilitating fractional dog ownership based on location, availability and personality? For more examples of transumerism, check out the trend briefing.
Website: www.flexpetz.com
Contact: info@flexpetz.com
Email to friendPrevious: Send an email to post a letter «
Next: Free snail mail, sponsored by advertisers »
I know what you mean Michelle, and it is true to a certain extent - but when you consider that something like 3 to 4 million unwanted cats and dogs have to be put to sleep each year in the US because of a lack of homes for them, this seems like a win-win situation for everyone.
While the ideal situation for a dog is in a stable, loving home, lack of owner responsibility and failure to sterilise pets means that there are just too many of them to find homes for. Given that, I think that this sounds like a brilliant idea. What homeless animals really need is a way for people to make money out of improving their situations, which is what this idea provides.
As a dog-lover with a miniscule apartment, I would love the chance to 'rent' a pet at times. Would someone set this up in the Netherlands please? ;-)
This creates a whole new industry:
I'm sorry... it just sounds funny in that regard. Good idea. But these jokes are irresistable:
"Pet Escort Service"
"Pet Prostitution"
"Dog Whore"
"A Dog of the Night"
Next we'll find out some of the dogs end up getting abused and addicted to crack.
And remember.....Never share needles with a dog.
Wow..... as an owner of two dogs, i cannot believe people/pet owners would actually condone such an idea. Yes, it would be great for the dog/cat to be pampered and love for a couple of hours, but then where do these dogs go when the hour is up? Do they go back into their kennels and wait there until someone else wants to rent them? That just seems a little cruel to me. If you want to spend time with dogs or cats but can't commit, how about volunteer at your local shelther? There's no monthly fee and you help hundreds of dogs and cats. Just and idea...I don't think pimping dogs and cats is a good idea.
a very interesting take on our need for belonging and affection in the contemporary urban world. So now even pet ownership goes post-modern. How is this going to change the way we imagine relationships, this time with pets?
well, Cesar and I are not in an exclusive relationship...
Although this post doesn't go into a lot of detail, there are a lot of hidden fees associated with this program. Some that I saw on the site:
- monthly Membership Fee = $39.95
- Annual Account Maintenance charge = $99.95
- Daily Doggy Time charge: weekend = $29.95; weekday = $19.95
- Registration fee = $150.00
- Flexpetz shuttle service = $17.50 each way
Total due at registration = $289.90
Member agrees to use at least two Doggy Times per month and agrees to a charge of a minimum of two days per month at the prevailing standard Week Day rate regardless of whether the Member has actually had Doggy Time with a FLEXPETZ dog.
Member agrees to pay an Inconvenience Fee of $75.00 per day, in addition to any Doggy Time Charges, if the FLEXPETZ dog is not returned on the last day of the reservation period.
Just a few things I thought should be brought to light. Don't get me wrong, I love my time with dogs. But those prices just seem too high.
Visit our blog post on this subject, "Fear of Commitment? Try Flexpetz", and vote on the name Flexpetz!
http://www.namedevelopment.com/blog/archives/2007/05/company_naming_2.html
Thanks.
"Yes, it would be great for the dog/cat to be pampered and love for a couple of hours, but then where do these dogs go when the hour is up?"
The website states that you commit for a certain amount of time each month - so it's not that the dog sits around waiting to be 'rented' like a car would ;-) The dog has a full schedule of regular people to visit.
As far as the high costs go, that sounds appropriate to me. An animal is a living thing and can't just be turned on and off when you want it - there are things like vet fees and transport costs. If you want to spend time with a dog without the ongoing responsibility, then you need to be prepared to contribute to the financial costs associated with maintaining a pet in good health.
Surrogate pets? This doesn't feel right, somehow.
While it's very nice that they may be rescuing animals that might otherwise be destroyed, it seems like it might be a fairly distressing and confusing existence for the rented animals. And what happens to the dogs that prove to be less popular--and don't pay for themselves? What happens when they get old and begin to lose their health or look scraggly? Will Flexpets act like a pet-owner would, or as a cold-hearted enterprise?
For me, all of those questions would probably poison the experience and focus my attention on the transparency of the cheap emotional fix and underlying business model.
Further, much of the psychological benefit of pet ownership comes of having an ongoing relationship with your pet (including your imprint upon its personality), of which this provides a rather pale imitation if any.
An analogy by way of hyperbole might be renting an infant to busy young professionals who want to experience the joy of parenthood without all the muss and fuss. And, hey, foster programs are overflowing! Lets just send the kid home with a different couple every night? (Inconvenience fees if you keep him too long--people are waiting!)
I'm not surprised that this is an L.A. business--it might survive here, but it won't make it anywhere else.
So well written, DAF, thank you.
I find this whole concept depressing. Our society has become so allergic to responsibility...a disposable culture with no respect for life.
As a biologist, it's horrifying. Obviously this "entrepreneur" has no animal behavior expertise or experience. This is so counter to a dog's natural behavioral needs. Dogs are pack animals that need a stable environment with ONE alpha, not a different one each week. The shelters are full of dogs with behavioral problems due to being abandoned. And here they want you to abandon them over and over again. Nice.
Once again animals are relegated to "things" to be owned. Timeshare pets. Accessory pets. It's a one-way relationship - it's all about the human, never what's best for the animal.
I have been considering adding Pets as a category on my website (www.yours2share.com) for some time. yours2share matches like-minded people to share any valuable assets (property, boats etc), and pets has been suggested many times. The site allows you to match on location, asset, usage and personality.
I have a dog (Tilly) and have thought many times that I would love to find someone nearby that could “share” her with us. The main downside of owning a pet is finding someone to look after them when you want to go on holiday or go out for the day. We take Tilly wherever we can, but there are occasions when we just can’t do this. She’s a nervy lurcher and I know kennels would really upset her. Similarly although I love walking her every day, sometimes this is difficult. And I’m quite sure she would love either having double the walkies, or being walked by two people; she loves company. Having another committed “owner” nearby that she knew well would be great for us, Tilly and the other owner.
However, I’m aware that actually making this work needs some thought, particularly as I would never want to cause any problems for pets. There has to be a clear single owner, who takes overall responsibility for the dog. Maybe the other “owners” simply agree to walk and look after the dog at agreed times, perhaps paying for the food when the dog stays. More complicated are the other costs such as vets bills and insurance. I think these would have to be the responsibility of the owner, whether the other owner contributes probably depends where the dog spends its time. If it is a fifty:fifty split, then perhaps they share it equally. If one owner actually has the dog 90% of the time, then perhaps this owner pays for it all. The same also applies to the initial purchase cost.
I have template agreements available for many sharing arrangement and I would need to create one for pets if I do this.
I'd be very interested in any other views or ideas on this subject?
This business seems to be moving forward: it just got press in several local papers here in the Bay Area as positioning for its announced launch next month in San Francisco.
This reminds me of something in Hana, Maui, Hawaii: there's been a local place there (I forget whether it's a store or hotel) that had an informal dog-for-a-day "program" for years. The owner had a number of dogs hanging around his place, many of whom were happy to jump into a rental car with visiting tourists and go along for the day -- walking on the beach, hiking, etc. No money changed hands, and at least some of the dogs did this regularly and seemed to like it.
Per other posters who are complaining: you might want to read a little deeper about this specific company's actual approach. They do seem to have put some thought into how this might work, given both canine and human psychology. It seems to be more co-ownership of a dog, not rent-a-pet like you rent a car. Of course you would need dogs with the personality for this (one-person breeds would likely not handle this arrangement well).
Personally, I'm more concerned by the standard American practice of having dogs at home alone/no human contact for most of the day.
Truly a nasty little idea from a 'man' with a looong history of abuse/misuse of animals. Deserving of success? You decide. DO people deserve £££££ at any cost?
I cannot seem to post a link but I feel sure that in the circs itchmo.com (the guys who blew this story open) would not mind me cutting and pasting as follows....
ITCHMO EXCLUSIVE: Simon Brodie, the controversial founder with a criminal past behind the Allerca hypoallergenic cats, is the CEO of a company that owns Flexpetz, the pet sharing service. Brodie was convicted in the UK of multiple counts of accounting fraud. Ever since his move to the United States, he has been linked to pets or animals in his ventures and is shadowed by a history of failed ventures, lawsuits, unpaid bills, and fraud allegations. He characterized his past by saying “I’ve had some hits, some misses.”
How is Simon Brodie linked to Flexpetz?
Brodie was appointed the CEO of Tetros, Inc. — a firm purchased by ColdStar Capital — on April 4, 2007. Flexpetz issued a press release on April 10 which described itself as a wholly owned subsidiary of Tetros, who are both owned by ColdStar Capital. ColdStar, who lists its president as Jonathon Nicholson, is based out of the Cayman Islands.
When we talked with Brodie, he flatly denied having any knowledge about ColdStar Capital. When asked about the SEC filing that lists him as CEO of Tetros, Brodie retracted his statement, but would not provide a phone number for Nicholson.
The reference to ColdStar Capital was removed from the Flexpetz website on Thursday, the same day we spoke with Simon Brodie.
Add $22,000 exotic “Ashera” cats that haven’t been seen.
Simon Brodie is also the founder of Allerca (which is selling hypoallergenic cats for thousands of dollars) and also the man behind the supposedly unique “Ashera” cats.
Brodie is seeking to set up franchises to sell these “Ashera” cats. However, the cat breeder community says that the cats are not new. They say that the cat depicted on Brodie’s site is the Savannah breed already in existence. In fact Brodie’s company web site does not identify the cat as a Savannah and refused to show pictures of the actual breed until the franchises have been launched.
Mainstream media such as the New York Times and Time magazine have picked up the hypoallergenic cat story and Time went as far as to call it one of the best inventions of 2006.
Even murkier past
A Boston Globe article sheds more light into Brodie’s past.
Former associates have cast doubts about Simon Brodie’s new venture based on the past of its founder.
His latest legal troubles include a $285,000 federal tax lien placed on him last February by the Internal Revenue Service — about the same time Allerca was evicted from its headquarters in downtown San Diego, which was also Brodie’s home, for failing to pay rent.
A ColdStar Capital press release describes Brodie in a more favorable light:
Mr. Simon Brodie, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer has over 20 years of international management, sales, marketing and trouble-shooting experience. He has managed divisions of multinational corporations and has guided startup companies from start-up through acquisition.
Mr. Brodie has worked with organizations including United Kingdom’s National Health Service, Barclays Bank, HSBC, National Freight, Computer Sciences Corporation and JP Morgan. In 2004, he established companies to operate the new concept of high-priced domestic “lifestyle pets” which has resulted in worldwide acclaim for this new sector of the multi-billion dollar pet industry.
Its sounds nice but who takes care of the dogs while there are away?? even for a few hours.... I dont trust people sorry.... but dogs can´t talk after someone its been mean with them.... and what about dog´s felings???? and what its next... rent a son??? just because im too busy to look after him.... Anyway-.... new ideas are great but in this case it think this kind of "busy people" should spend time with the dogs in dog´s enviroment I mean where they live like Dog Trust in London where you can sponsor a Dog and visit him.....
This has got to be the silliest, irrealistic and selfish idea I've ever heard in my life regarding animals!!!
The brain behind this should be studied in order to find a cure for next generations don't have this condition!
i think it's not very fair to treat animals like that. I think i agree with rui andrade this is a big cat (leopard) and you cross it with a small cat (normal house kitty) and you get a mutated kitty that acts like a doggy.
I have to admit when I first read about this I thought that it sounded unfair on the animals, however as I read in more depth it does sound like a lot of thought has been into this. I hope it is a success for both pets and "owners".
Michelle | April 26, 2007 4:43 PM