Lastest Study: How Americans Spend Money On Pets During The Covid-19 Pandemic (2020 Data)

• Less than half (45.3%) of the consumers who earn less than $5,000 per month own a dog, while the majority (52.9%) of consumers who make more than $5,000 per month own a dog.
• Fewer people who live in the Northeast (42.3%) own a dog compared to those who live elsewhere in the country (48.3%).
• 50% of the people who responded that their pet was “member of the family” own a dog, while only 22.2% of those who consider their pet to be “just a pet” are dog owners.
• Of consumers who believe their finances will be better off after the pandemic, the majority (52.2%) were dog owners, while only 45.1% of people who believed their finances would be worse off own a dog.
• Cat owners represent 32.7% of consumers who earn less than $5,000 a month and only 25.7% of consumers who earn over $5,000 a month.
• Of owners who consider their pets family, cat owners make up about a third (30.7%) while they are more represented in the group that responded that their pet “is just a pet” (40.7%).
• In terms of financial projections, 32.6% of consumers who believe their finances would be worse off after the pandemic own cats while only 23.4% who believe their finances would improve are cat owners.

• Consumers with a monthly income under $5,000 tend to reduce their spending more than those who earn more money (46.7% verse 42.5%).
• Younger consumers (under 45) tend to reduce pet spending more than older demographics (48.7% verse 36.5%).
• Of consumers who are unemployed about half (51%) reduced their pet expenditures compared to 44.1% of consumers who are still employed.
• Surprisingly, those who said their pet is a member of the family tend to reduce their pet spending more than those who consider their pets to just be pets (46.7% vs 37%).
• Less surprisingly, those who said they believed their finances would be worse off after the pandemic were more likely to reduce pet spending (53.1%) compared to those who thought their finances would improve (33.6%).

• Consumers who are unemployed tend to stock up less than those currently employed (76.2% verse 83.7%).
• While those with a four-year college degree or higher tend to stock up more (84.9%) compared to those with less education (74.8%).
• Interestingly, those who believe their finances will be better off, stock up more (90.2%) than those who believe they will stay the same or get worse (75.4%).

• Women were more likely to choose to reduce their own expenses more often than men (46.6% verse 35.4%). While men were more likely to reduce expenses on their pets than women (16.6% verse 7.6%).
• Over a third (39.3%) of married consumers would reduce their spending on themselves to keep spending money on their pets, while 12.3% would reduce their spending on their pets. For unmarried consumers, 45.3% would reduce spending on themselves while only 9.8% would reduce spending on their pets.
• Both employed (39.9%) and unemployed (49%) workers said they were more likely to reduce spending on themselves. While only 13.4% of employed consumers and 3.8% of unemployed consumers said they would reduce spending on their pets.
• Consumers with a bachelor’s degree or higher were more likely to reduce spending on their pets (13.2%) than those with a lower education level (6.2%).
• As you might expect, those who answered that their pets were a member of the family were more likely to say they would reduce spending on themselves (51%) while only 22.2% of those who said pets were just pets would.
• Interestingly, those who thought their finances would be better off after the pandemic were more likely to reduce spending on themselves (32.2%) than to reduce spending on their pet (22.4%). Those who thought their finances would be worse off were even more likely to reduce spending on themselves (44%) than on their pet (10%).

Those who said they are likely to reduce expense on Pet Food:

• Men were more likely to reduce spending on pet food (17.1%) than women (8.7%).
• Interestingly, the employed were more likely to reduce pet food spending (13.5%) compared to those without employment (7.5%).
• While those with higher education were more likely to spend less on pet food (13.3%) than those with less than a four-year degree (9.2%).

Those who said they are likely to reduce expense on Vet care, Health care & Insurance:

• 38% of those who saw themselves being better off financially after the pandemic was likely to reduce spending on vet care, health care, and insurance. While only 28.3% of those who thought they would be worse off would limit these types of services.

Those who said they are likely to reduce expense on Toy & Accessory:

• When it comes to limiting toy and accessory purchases, more women (75.8%) than men (63.9%) would do this
• While consumers living in the Northeast were less likely to limit these purchases (64.4%) than those living elsewhere (72.9%).
• Surprisingly, those who said they see their pet as a member of the family were more likely to limit spending on toys (70.3%) than those who said their pets were just pets (59.3%).
• Less surprisingly, those who thought they would be financially better off after the pandemic were less likely to limit this kind of spending (62.9%) than those who thought they would be worse off (73.8%).

Those who said they are likely to reduce expense on Other Items:

• In terms of reducing spending on “other” items, 40.5% of consumers who said their pets were part of the family would reduce this kind of spending, while only 33.3% of people who said their pets were just pets would do the same.

Those who said they are likely to reduce expense on Food:

• 24% of those who thought they would be better off financially after the pandemic, while only 17.4% of those who thought they would be worse off would cut down on this important expense.

Those who said they are likely to reduce expense on Health & Fitness:

• Women were more likely to cut down on health and fitness expenses (48.4%) than men (39.7%)
• 51.3% of those living in the Northeast would trim this type of expense, compared to only 43.3% of those living elsewhere.
• Those who thought they would be better off after the pandemic were more likely to cut down on this expense (50.2%) than those who thought they’d be worse off (43.2%).

Those who said they are likely to reduce expense on Household Good:

• In terms of cutting down on household good expenditures, 52.6% of those living in the Northeast would while only 44% of those living elsewhere would.
• People who said their pet was a member of the family were more likely to reduce spending on these items (47.8%) than those who said their pet was just a pet (33.3%).
• About half (50.2%) of consumers who thought they would be better off after the pandemic said they would cut down on these types of goods while only 43.2% of those who thought they’d be worse off would.

Those who said they are likely to reduce expense on Entertainment:

• Not surprisingly, those making less money per month were more likely to cut down on entertainment (71.6%) than those making more (64.7%).
• Older consumers (over 45) were also more likely to cut down on this kind of spending (76.4%) than younger consumers (67.9%).
• There was also a noticeable difference in the number of men who would cut spending on entertainment (60.7%) compared to women (76.2%).
• Married consumers were less likely to cut entertainment spending (69.7%) than unmarried consumers (70.4%).
• Only 66.8% of employed consumers would cut this expense compared to 80.3% of unemployed consumers.
• Those with less education are also more likely to lower entertainment expenses (75.5%) than those with a four-year degree or higher (67.7%).
• Interestingly, 73.1% of consumers who said their pets were family would cut entertainment spending while only 33.3% of those who said their pets were just pets would.
• Less surprisingly, those who thought they would be financially worse off after the pandemic were more likely to cut this expense (71.1%) than those who thought they’d be better off (51.2%).

Those who said they are likely to reduce expense on Luxury Items:

• Consumers of all income levels were highly likely to cut spending on luxury items (78.2% of those making above $5,000 a month and 70.5% of those making below $5,000 a month)
• While older consumers (over 45) were more likely to lower this expense (76.4%) compared to younger consumers (67.9%).
• Women were also more likely to cut these items (81.1%) compared to men (69.2%).
• 84% of unemployed consumers were likely to cut expenses on luxury items compared to just 74.1% of employed consumers.
• Those living in the Northeast were more likely to cut these costs (82.4%) compared to those living elsewhere (74.8%).
• As were those with a lower education level (81.5%) compared to those with a bachelor’s degree or higher (74.3%).
• There was a considerable difference between how many of those who considered their pet family would cut luxury expenses (78.6%) compared to those who said their pets were just pets (44.4%).
• While 77.8% of those that thought they would be worse off after the pandemic would cut this cost compared to just 58.5% of those who thought they would be better off.

Those who said they are likely to reduce expense on Clothing:

• When it comes to cutting spending on clothing, women were more likely to cut this expense (83.4%) than men (67.6%) as were unemployed consumers (83.2%) compared to those with jobs (75.2%).
• 84% of consumers with lower education were likely to trim clothing spending while only 74.9% of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher would.
• Consumers who consider their pets to be family were more likely to cut clothing purchases (79.3%) than those who only see their pets as pets (59.3%).
• While those who thought they would be better off financially were less likely to cut this expense (60%) than those who thought they’d be worse off (77.6%).