You might also like...
Check out some other posts from Villanova University
As Disney’s “Zootopia 2” barrels toward becoming the highest-grossing animated Disney movie of all-time, the box office isn’t the only place fans of the franchise are apparently flocking.
Recently, CNN reported that “Zootopia 2” fans in China—where the wildly popular movie has already been crowned it’s highest-grossing foreign animated film ever—have expressed increased interest in owning Indonesian pit vipers, a striking blue and highly venomous snake portrayed as an anthropomorphic protagonist named Gary De’Snake in the film. The outlet spoke to individuals who purchased the animal after seeing “Zootopia 2” and noted surges in searches and prices among exotic pet retailers.
The reported phenomenon prompts the question: can blockbuster movies really be drivers of the exotic pet trade?
“I think they can,” said Ryan Almeida, PhD, an assistant teaching professor of Geography and the Environment at Villanova University who studies the exotic pet trade. “There have been a lot of anecdotal reports of movies and TV shows influencing the pet trade, but the peer-reviewed evidence isn’t there.”
Causation or Correlation? Reasons for Pet Demand are Tricky to Single Out While the increased interest in the pit viper may be the latest pet trend influenced by the entertainment industry, it is certainly not the first, says Dr. Almeida, who has recently been conducting research at wildlife expos in an effort to understand more of the intricacies of various pet-related trends.
In the 1980-90s, red-eared slider turtles became massively popular pets, and it just so happened to coincide with a popular new show based off the animal.
“The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles craze, especially in the United Kingdom, probably helped drive demand for these turtles as pets,” Dr. Almeida said. “Turtle exports from the United States exploded in popularity during this time, there just is a not a peer-reviewed study demonstrating it was definitely caused by the show.”
In the 2000’s, Pixar’s “Finding Nemo” and its sequel, “Finding Dory,” reportedly bolstered purchases of clownfish and blue tangs—the fish for whom those characters were modeled. Interest in owning owls as pets was also said to have spiked among Harry Potter fans in certain parts of the world amid the height of the joint movie/book popularity.
Though much of the evidence of these trends is anecdotal, anecdotal doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t happen. For instance, it’s difficult to completely discredit an exotic pet retailer who reported a 500% sales increase of an animal featured in a recent, very popular movie.
But it’s also difficult to prove the causation, not to mention the scale. Dr. Almeida, who is interested in the qualities that make exotic pets desirous to consumers, says that even if sales of an animal from a movie did increase, the reasons are likely far more nuanced than just their appearance on screen.
“Rarity is one important factor. We have good evidence that that certain [consumers] care a lot about rarity, that prices rise as animals become rarer and that retailers sell more animals if they are rare.”
Another is morphology, or the physical structure of the animal.
“Animals with unique morphology or distinctive colorations and patterns are more susceptible for these spikes in demand,” he said. “If Gary De’Snake was a brown, common garter snake and not a striking blue colored viper, I doubt we would see this attention.
“I suspect that that's partially why this snake species, Trimeresurus insularis, was chosen for this movie, and why the fish representing Nemo and Dory are the ones they are, and not one of the millions of more boring looking fish species out there.”
Even the on-screen portrayal, he suspects, makes a difference.
“If the characters are protagonists, that could potentially either consciously or subconsciously, lead to more positive associations with the pet, especially for something like a pit viper, which probably has sort of a negative connotation to go with it in the first place. Also, the way these animals are anthropomorphized likely matters to some degree to people who report buying these animals because of the movie.”
Case in point, one purchaser of the highly venomous viper told CNN that the movie helped give “reptile pets a better image,” saying of Gary De’Snake “I love his enthusiastic attitude and his sense of responsibility,” which would not be qualities associated with or displayed by the actual living species.
“Attention to all of this falls in line with the same sort of things we are already know are drivers of demand in the pet trade,” Dr. Almeida said.
Blockbuster Movies Probably Don’t Make Blockbuster Pet Trends Yet, while Dr. Almeida cedes that there is likely some degree of real demand for exotic pets based on movies (as evidenced by the self-reporting of people doing so for that reason), he cautions that there is very little to suggest these types of trends typically occur on large scales, especially those large enough to make any ecological impacts.
He referenced a 2019 paper published by researchers at the University of Oxford, which looked at the purported increase of clownfish and blue tang sales after “Finding Nemo” and “Finding Dory.”
“They found that there was an increase in the amount of people searching for the animal online, but not any evidence that retailers were importing more blue tangs, consumers were buying more blue tangs, or even that people were going to an aquarium to see them.”
The findings, per the University of Oxford, suggested “that the impact of movies is limited when it comes to large scale buying of animals.” The authors also noted the role of viral media articles in suggesting this plausible causation was a hard-and-true phenomenon.
Similarly, a 2017 study concluded that, contrary to popular belief, the Harry Potter series was unlikely to have increased demand for pet owls in the United Kingdom.
Even if the demand was there at those larger scales, Dr. Almeida says meeting that demand could be a challenge, depending on the species.
“You’d potentially have to poach them in large numbers from the wild, and that's challenging in and of itself. Or they would have to be captive bred, which for some animals is relatively easy but others not so much.”
Not to mention the other roadblocks to mass exotic pet ownership.
“Some of them may be tough to obtain or even illegal to own in the first place. Also, many of the consumers of films like ‘Zootopia 2’ who might feel a strong emotional pull to an animal are children, and children aren’t the ones going out and buying pets. And, even if something like this did become a large-scale trend, trends are fleeting. The long-term impact, ecologically, would be hard to predict.”
But make no mistake. Pet trends certainly do happen on large scales, and whether they are caused by movies in part or not at all, they can have dire ecological consequences. Look at the case of the red eared slider.
“Regardless of any possible influence from the show, these turtles are relatively easy to captive breed, so therefore relatively easy to acquire,” Dr. Almeida said. “But they are tough pets. They live a really long time and are kind of hard to care for, and that leads to people releasing them into the wild. They are now among the most invasive reptile species on the planet.”
So much so, that the UK banned their sale in 1996.
“It ties back to the complications of assessing certain aspects of the wildlife trade. There are so many factors, how do we get the entire picture? It’s a wicked problem.”
Whether that problem includes movies with venomous, anthropomorphic snake protagonists appears unlikely, outside of a few highlighted cases.
“It certainly wouldn’t be supported by much hard evidence… yet,” Dr. Almeida said. “But this is very much an under-researched phenomenon. I know I’ll keep my eye out for blue insularis next time I attend a pet expo.”
In September, the Kraft Heinz Company revealed its intention to split into two smaller entities—one focused on in-demand products, like shelf-stable meals, spreads and sauces, and the other on slower-growth businesses, such as the Oscar Mayer, Kraft Singles and Lunchables brands.
The move is among the latest in a series of breakups and spinoffs announced by major "Big Food" conglomerates, including Kellogg's, Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. and Unilever, and experts speculate more divvying and downsizing are bound to follow.
Beth Vallen, PhD, a professor in the Villanova School of Business who studies consumer behavior and food marketing, contends these demergers and restructurings are the direct result of a recent yet significant shift in shoppers' spending habits.
"It is certainly a possibility that we are moving away from 'Big Food,'" says Dr. Vallen. "The companies are likely to be more agile as smaller entities, and the more targeted businesses will allow them to focus on their different market segments as we face increasingly complex consumer and macro trends in the food industry."
Among the more noteworthy factors the professor cites are changes in how shoppers evaluate products and how often they make purchases, particularly amid rising costs, economic pressures and increased competition in the marketplace. When it comes to groceries, a LendingTree survey from earlier this year found that nearly nine in 10 Americans are reassessing what items they cart to the checkout lane.
"Inflation and uncertainty have driven consumers to look for more value when they shop," says Dr. Vallen. "This might result in behaviors like switching to lower-cost alternatives, and along these lines, consumers are seeking out retailers with high-quality store brand offerings that might replace their typical, branded items.
"Consumers are also shopping less frequently. This could be due to reliance on technology, like online grocery purchases, which requires more planning, as well as a desire to make groceries stretch between purchases to save money."
Another development affecting the industry is a broader drive across the population toward health-conscious options and low-calorie meals, heightened to a degree by the rise of GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic. A recent KFF Health Tracking Poll evidences that these medications, which have been shown to promote weight loss, are taken by roughly one in eight American adults; and households with users are expected to account for more than a third of food and beverage sales by 2030.
According to Rebecca Shenkman, MPH, RDN, LDN, the director of the MacDonald Center for Nutrition Education and Research at Villanova's M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing, the impact of these drugs' usage on consumers' eating habits should not be underestimated.
"GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce appetite and food intake through multiple mechanisms, and evidence suggests both a reduction in snacking frequency and a shift toward healthier choices among users," shares Shenkman. "They report fewer cravings for sweet, salty and fatty snacks, particularly during the first 12 to 24 weeks of treatment. In addition, consumer surveys and clinical trials indicate increased intake of fruits, vegetables and water, and decreased consumption of processed foods and sugary beverages.
"With millions of users and average daily reductions of 700 to 900 calories, demand for calorie-dense snacks could decline significantly."
Among the brands and businesses at greatest risk, in Dr. Vallen and Shenkman's respective estimations, are "packaged and processed foods" as well as "sugary beverages and high-fat treats." In turn, with shoppers increasingly moving away from these "unhealthy" options and expressing an openness to dispensing with long-term staples, companies in the sector will need to emphasize adaptability in the coming years, making a conscious effort to understand customers' distinct preferences and needs.
"Altogether, there are numerous trends that are seemingly pulling consumers in different directions—between health, taste, value and convenience," concludes Dr. Vallen. "Looking ahead, it will be important for firms to understand how these trends impact different consumers—and in different categories. Health likely means something different to Gen X and Gen Z and may vary further based on whether we are talking about a family dinner or a late-night treat. Taking efforts to understand consumer motivations will be crucial for companies to appropriately respond to current trends."
A popular on-the-go sandwich is now the subject of a mega trademark lawsuit between two food industry giants.
The J.M. Smucker Company, more commonly known as Smucker's, recently filed a trademark lawsuit against grocery chain Trader Joe's over what it alleges is infringement upon its iconic billion-dollar investment: the Uncrustables sandwich. Smucker's seeks to obtain unspecified monetary damages from Trader Joe's, as well as profit from its similar product.
But beyond the novelty of the sandwich suit lies a complex case built around a lesser-known morsel of trademark law, says Waseem Moorad, Esq., assistant professor of Law at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and director of the school's Intellectual Property Clinic. Professor Moorad, a former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent (USPTO) examiner, recently discussed the actual claims of the lawsuit, and how both parties are preparing for a potential trial.
Q: Since this lawsuit was filed, it has been a popular topic of public discourse, much of which has centered on the product—a crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwich—itself. Is that what this is truly about? Professor Moorad: Much of the commentary has been focused on the argument of whether Smucker's is permitted to have a monopoly of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or if Trader Joe's can actually infringe upon the Uncrustables product without necessarily using the actual trademarked name. While both discussions are legitimate conversations folks could have while munching on the delicious snack products, they are not necessarily the relevant legal claims at the crux of this lawsuit.
Q: Before we get into what those relevant legal claims are, Smucker's has filed dozens of trademarks in its 128-year history. What sorts of intellectual property do these trademarks generally protect? PM: Most of their trademarks filed with the USPTO are registered to protect against competitors from using words, logos, slogans, symbols and other materials that are linked to the brand name of the company, its affiliates, or its respective products. Well-known examples include Smucker's, Folgers, Jif and, of course, Uncrustables. If a competing company has a brand or a product that has a similar sounding name or appearance, such as "Giff Peanut Butter," then Smucker's could sue that company for trademark infringement. That name is not only infringing upon a trademark that Smucker's has federal protection over, but also is in the same related industry (food products), within which Smucker's has protection.
Q: But Trader Joe's did not necessarily infringe on any trademarked words, symbols, slogans or the like. What, then, is the basis for the claims of infringement? PM: The issue is related to a deeper subset of trademark law, specifically the concept of "trade dress." Trade dress is the intellectual property associated with the visual and aesthetic characteristics of a product or its related packaging that allows a consumer to know with whom that product or packaging is associated. For example, Coca-Cola's name, which is federally protected, is well known as a registered trademark; however, the Coca-Cola bottle, with the curvy appearance where it gets slimmer in the middle, is an example of a registered trade dress belonging to Coca-Cola. If there was no logo or word mark on the bottle, the average consumer would still be able to recognize it as a Coke bottle.
There are several trademarks that Smucker's owns that are related to the trade dress of its products. Smucker's isn't alleging that Trader Joe's is copying any of the branding names of their products; they are accusing their competitor of mimicking the trade dress or aesthetic appearances, textures and characteristics of its Uncrustables products and packaging.
Q: What specific trade dress trademarks are they claiming have been infringed upon? PM: There are at least two registered trademarks that Smucker's is drawing legal attention to. In 2002, Smucker's had trademarked the image of an Uncrustables sandwich that has pie-crimping indentations or marks along the circumference of the sandwich, and in 2019, the company trademarked the image of an Uncrustables sandwich with a bite taken out of it. Smucker's argument is that the Trader Joe's packaging for a similar crustless peanut butter and jelly shows an image of a sandwich with a bite taken out of it, as well as the crimping along the outer edges.
Q: How does one make a legal case out of something like this? PM: In order to effectively file a trademark infringement lawsuit, the plaintiff must not only show that their federally-protected intellectual property rights are being infringed upon, but also demonstrate that as a result of this infringement, the customer or consumer is being confused.
Smucker's alleges that as result of Trader Joe's actions, customers are now confused over the product and are purchasing Trader Joe's peanut butter and jelly sandwiches thinking they are actually Smucker's Uncrustables sandwiches. Smucker's is of the belief that if the Trader Joe's packaging did not show pie-like crimped edges and the image of the sandwich with a bite taken out of it, confused consumers would not have purchased the Trader Joe's products and would have instead purchased Smucker's Uncrustables. It is this argument that will be the crux of the court cases to follow.
Q: Assuming this goes to trial, how will the two parties prepare and what are some of the challenges for Smucker's as plaintiff? PM: Part of the case on Smucker's end will be to gather customer feedback or testimony that demonstrates confusion in the marketplace as a result of the similar packaging and trade dress. Trader Joe's will focus on the fact that even though the packaging may be similar, there would be no reason or basis for a customer to be confused between a Trader Joe's-branded product and a Smucker's-branded product.
As the plaintiff in this case, the burden shall be on Smucker's to prove the confusion element necessary to have trademark infringement. The Trader Joe's product clearly says Trader Joe's, and the chain has a marketplace reputation for selling its own products rather than other-branded products. The challenge in such a scenario will be to prove, despite this, that customers purchasing this product would still have gotten confused and either assumed that they were purchasing Uncrustables, or mistakenly believed that Uncrustables may now have a commercial relationship with Trader Joe's.
