Think Crowdfunding Stinks? Maybe Not for Animal Health.

Think crowdfunding stinks and is mostly for companies that could not raise money from “real” investors?

A lot of VCs and institutional investors seem to think so. And, frankly, crowdfunding has done plenty to earn that poor reputation. Over the past decade, too many companies raised money and then communicated poorly, failed to provide meaningful follow-up, or simply failed. Broad crowdfunding platforms have not helped. Put a pizza franchise, a consumer gadget and a potential cancer therapy next to each other, and it is hard to argue that investors are looking at a carefully curated investment marketplace.

But I increasingly believe we may be dismissing a useful financing tool because of how it has been used. Animal health is different.

Many innovative companies in our industry need $500,000 to $5 million to reach the next meaningful clinical, regulatory or commercial milestone. That can be too much for founders and traditional angels, but too small to attract efficient attention from many venture funds. Reg CF (the regulation that defines the rules for the crowdfunding space) happens to operate right in that gap.

And animal health has something else: millions of veterinarians, industry professionals and pet owners who already care deeply about the problems these companies are trying to solve.

The model I find compelling is not “crowd first.” It is good science → expert diligence → specialist investors → broader, educated participation. Some recent success stories in our space show that sophisticated capital and community capital can coexist.

Crowdfunding will not replace professional investors, nor should it. But for an industry that has complained for years about the shortage of early-stage capital, perhaps it deserves another look.

Read the full opinion paper here

Brakke Consulting Viewpoint
Great Resignation, Great Stay. Now Great Pause. What in the world?

Candidates are stepping away from the job market altogether. Zogby’s recent survey of over 1500 US adults for Employ* confirms media reports that not only is it taking longer for candidates to secure a job, but it’s also getting harder. 2025’s results show that 41% indicated securing a job would take 1-3 months, with 30% responding 4-6 months. We’ve slipped. This year, the 1-3-month percentage dropped to 37%, while the 4-6-month tally was 33%. Those estimating 7-9 months rose from 7% to 9%.

It gets gloomier. In 2025, 44% said getting a job was “Somewhat” or “Very” easy,” with 55% indicating “Somewhat” to “Very” difficult. This year’s tallies: 35%, and 64%, respectively.

So now what? Employ suggests employers take actions to stem that discouraging tide:

• Be specific about stability, growth, and team culture
• Reduce uncertainty; clarify timelines and expectations
• Move faster, share conclusive decisions and actions
• Target well-qualified candidates vs a shotgun approach
• Look inward; cultivate your team

Amazing how quickly things changed from candidate-friendly to candidate-unfriendly. Plenty of fine candidates seek new roles. A clear, streamlined approach stands out. Brakke can help.

Jeff Santosuosso
Senior Consultant

* 2026 Job Seeker Nation Report, Employ

I couldn’t help but read the many tributes to Dolly Parton this week. I do not have any stories to tell about her other than she owned a small cottage in Solvang, California, which is in the Santa Ynez Valley where I grew up and where most of my family still lives. But the story of her life is amazing and something that we can learn from.

We learned from these tributes how kind, considerate and generous she was to everyone, not just her fellow music and movie stars and not just at the end of her very successful career. She was that way her entire life. Dolly had what I consider to be the two keys to success: she was self-aware and was authentic. She was not born into wealth, her education stopped after finishing high school, maybe she was lucky, but she seemed to work hard, built wonderful relationships with people, and she clearly was able to recognize opportunities in the entertainment industry.

But at the end of the day, Dolly Parton was a talented and genuine person – she knew who she was and never strayed from it. She was able to build trust and was as authentic as it gets. Her life is a reminder that knowing who you are, staying true to it, and treating people well may be among the most enduring foundations of success—in life and in business.

Bob Jones, CEO

AI is becoming ubiquitous in animal health, from diagnostics and market analysis to due diligence and fundraising. But its value—and its risk—depend heavily on who is using it. Experts rarely accept the first AI-generated answer. They challenge assumptions, test conclusions and iterate. Without that expertise, a polished output can too easily be mistaken for a reliable answer.

A recent lawsuit involving an Oregon veterinary hospital and an alleged misdiagnosis by an AI diagnostic tool illustrates the issue. Whatever the eventual outcome of the case, it raises an important question: when AI contributes to a recommendation, who is responsible for validating it? That answer applies whether interpreting diagnostics or advising on strategy, the professional remains responsible for the recommendation.

At Brakke, we are applying that principle to a program helping animal health startups and growth companies prepare for fundraising. AI can organize diligence materials, build checklists, identify documentation gaps and manage much of the preparation process. That can significantly reduce the number of expensive consulting hours required. But it does not eliminate the need for expertise. It allows experienced advisors to spend their time where judgment creates the most value: positioning, priorities, investor expectations and identifying the questions management may not know to ask.

AI may reduce the cost of expertise; however, it should not reduce the standards of expertise.

Alexis Nahama, Senior Consultant

As major segments in our industry get crowded and new players with analog molecules or generics enter the market, there is risk of price erosion and segment value reduction.

Prescription/purchase decisions based on lowest price carry no brand loyalty. Decisions based on unique product benefits generate brand loyalty, thus creating and promoting unique marketing claims really pays off. The parasiticide market is one example where those unique claims give a brand a competitive advantage. Zoetis has been differentiating the moxidectin-based products as the heartworm preventives that perform best in the face of resistant worms, leveraging work initiated when I was supporting Advantage® Multi (Bayer-Elanco). Finding out the unique features of the product/molecule, performing surveys or clinical studies to support this differentiating feature, and generating advocacy by customers and experts is critical. The marketing and sales teams can then leverage these claims and gain consistent market share.

I recently led the work on differentiating EASOTIC® (Virbac) as the otitis treatment that provides fast relief of otitis signs. When first launched EASOTIC® was positioned as “easy to dose”. Since then, Osurnia and Claro took that position from it. This repositioning allowed an older product to grow sales >20% for several years in a row.

Are you entering a competitive market, or have a mature product that is facing intense competition? Maybe price cuts aren’t the best option to gain/maintain share. You may want to consider a technical/market analysis to reveal alternative strategies to gain share at a profitable price.

Cristiano von Simson
Senior Consultant

Recently at an internal company event, I had the opportunity to hear a keynote speech from Sarah Furness, a former combat helicopter pilot for the British army.

Her presentation was very impressive, and there were a lot of takeaways to think about. One that resonated with me especially was in a crisis in the pilot’s seat, she talked about “…just flying the plane…” which was a message around in times of stress and anxiety- focusing on the most basic important operation you can do, and are trained to do.

While there is a lot to unpack personally around this concept, I believe that applying that in our industry, it means with all the noise of channel management, digital, consolidation and so on, it still comes down to the relationship between a veterinarian and a company, and more specifically the salesperson managing that relationship to its best outcome.

Our research at Brakke on sales force effectiveness demonstrates that ‘trust’ is the most important aspect when choosing a supplier.

In my view, ‘just fly the plane” means just manage the basic relationship with veterinarians in a good way, and good things will happen.

Paul Casady, Senior Consultant

The veterinary clinic pharmacy has gained a new competitor with the announcement that CVS pharmacies are getting into the pet medication business. CVS stores will begin filling prescriptions for many pet products, including parasiticides, dermatology products, pain management, cardio-vascular and several other categories.

There are nearly 35,000 veterinary clinics and only 9,000 CVS stores, so why is this such a big deal? Traffic. A pet owner typically visits her veterinary practice once or a few times a year. She visits her drug store multiple times a month. Plus, at CVS, the pet medications are subject to the same auto-fill and home delivery services that customers get with their own prescriptions. One more thing. Many human drugs are prescribed for pets and those prescriptions are already being filled at the local pharmacy. So, it won’t be the first time many pet owners are picking up scripts at CVS. (I stopped at a large CVS in downtown Chicago this week. The pharmacist was aware of the program but had no training or information about a start date.)

Of course, not everyone shops at CVS. But it will be interesting to see how aggressively CVS pushes its pet medicine initiative. If it’s successful, you can bet real money that Walgreens will follow suit with its 8,000 stores.

No doubt CVS is searching for as many ways as possible to serve customers and bond them to the store. After all, their visits are down, too. Last year Walgreens closed 1,200 stores, CVS about 300. Are pet meds the business boost that will get them back on track?

John Volk, Senior Consultant, Chicago, IL

In last week’s Viewpoint, I reviewed the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) reforms for the veterinary sector and ended with a comment about trust — it’s not a vague sentiment made on my part. The CMA found that fewer than 50% of clients at large veterinary groups (CVS, IVC, Linnaeus, Medivet, VetPartners) knew their practice was part of a chain, and those veterinary groups averaged prices 18.3% above independents while scoring worse on client satisfaction with cost. That looks like erosion of the very thing that used to substitute for regulation in professional-service markets: personal/localized reputation.

Historically, “trust the vet” worked as an informal market mechanism because the vet was a known individual in your town whose livelihood depended on local reputation over a career. Word travels fast in a small market, and the vet bore the reputational cost personally — a strong incentive against overcharging or overtreating. When ownership shifts to a private-equity-backed chain, that mechanism breaks down: prices aren’t always set locally, the trusted local clinic brand now sits inside a different ownership and incentive structure, and personal reputation is diffused across a corporation.

This isn’t “markets work-versus-markets fail”, and it isn’t that “corporate vets are untrustworthy” — trust in individual vet professionalism remains high across the board according to the report. It’s that the mechanism that made this market self-regulating for decades was itself a market feature- localized reputation. Consolidation dismantled it faster than any replacement emerged. The CMA is betting mandated disclosure can rebuild enough information for price competition to work again. Whether that bet pays off is an open question.

Bob Jones

Like a lot of our readers, I consider myself a free-market guy. Let the market decide, keep the government out of markets, and that free and open competition for consumers is good. So, when I read recent articles written about the United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) reforms or rules for the veterinary sector, my free-market radar went off.

The CMA’s investigation started almost three years ago and brought 56,000 responses, 45,000 from the public, 11,000 from those working in the veterinary industry. That’s massive. You can find the full report here.

What set the radar off for me was the price cap on prescriptions fees, which drove me to learn about the other ten reforms the CMA has imposed on the veterinary industry. I was sure that these reforms were all going to be bad, but after thinking about the reforms, I am not so sure. It seemed to me that most of the reforms were focused almost entirely on disclosure: price lists, written estimates, ownership transparency, comparison tools. A hardline free marketeer would tend to support most of those.

The report looked at the differences in pricing, satisfaction, and other things between large veterinary groups (LVGs, or corporate groups) and independent veterinarians, some of the differences are eye-opening. One of my observations here was about trust and how this has been impacted by the formation of LVGs, which I will address in the Viewpoint next week.

Bob Jones

In this week’s newsletter- BI announced the approval of a therapy for the treatment of insulin dysregulation in horses and ponies in Great Britain. A few weeks ago, we noted the publication of a peer-reviewed controlled trial in equine regenerative medicine for an allogenic equine umbilical cord connective tissue matrix. Could this be a sign of renewed interest in Equine product offerings?    As a horse woman for 30+ years l sure hope so.  Equine has long struggled finding a business unit home – should they be part of companion animal, reside with livestock or be a dedicated team of their own? From an R and D perspective the relatively low number of horse owning households (The American Pet Products Association 2025 survey lists it as 2 million households) and lack of recent and reliable number of horses make it extremely difficult to create financially justifiable market potential assumptions.  So for a long time, the equine health market has been seen somewhat of the wild west- with little need for traditional FDA product approvals or investments in solutions.  However there seems to be a bit of a shift, the American Horse Council’s 2023 Economic Impact of the Horse Industry gave us some insights – 6.6 million horses, segmenting them into sectors such as racing, recreation and competition and more recently the legitimizing of the regenerative medicine (PRP) and pain management modalities (Laser, Chiropractic, Massage) for humans.  While it will always be dwarfed to the broader markets of cats and dogs and livestock, equine shouldn’t be overlooked. Don’t let their numbers define the whole story.

Dr. Christine Merle, Editor