Animal health is profitable for the pharma business in many ways, not just on the bottom line. The financial impact of animal health divisions may be small -- usually just a few percent of total revenues -- but the divisions offer synergies and maximize investments in R&D; they sell products and have good PR potential.

So why have some companies chosen to keep the animal and human identities separate, while others place them under the same corporate brand?

Pfizer is openly committed to the close bond between its animal and human divisions. CEO Hank McKinnell points to Pfizer animal health as part of the company’s commitment to a healthcare continuum, with both the largest human and animal health R&D investments.

“The animal health R&D is much smaller, but it leverages the range of research on the human side,” says Fauteux. He believes that his division benefits from the corporate Pfizer brand too. “Anecdotal evidence suggests that people have become more aware of Pfizer because of our human operations. Familiarity with Pfizer Inc certainly helps to support people’s perception of Pfizer Animal Health. We’ve never heard a comment to the opposite, where people are confused by the human and animal aspects having the same brand. We’re absolutely committed to staying under the same corporate identity. It’s a decision we made without any hesitation.”

Those companies using the same corporate brand for both human and animal operations may start to see some brand synergy in years to come. The area of companion animals is perhaps where the branding has its strongest overlap. “There’s real room for growth in the pets business. People expect the same treatment for Fluffy and Fido as for Freddie and Jennifer,” comments Helena Spedding, Deputy Editor of Animal Pharm Newsletter. “Consumers widely understand that if animals can get the same bugs as us, it’s pretty obvious that they will need a similar form of treatment. I wouldn’t think they would have a problem with the same company selling both.”

The wider recognition of pharmaceutical companies stems from direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of human pharmaceutical products. “Before we had DTC advertising there was probably not much to say on this subject at all,” Spedding continues. “You went to the vet and the vet picked the drug. There was little relationship. But since DTC there is a relationship been drug firms and the end consumer. For example, if you take Bayer’s aspirin, you may notice Bayer makes your dog’s pills too. There’s a transfer of trust, some kind of halo effect. You do get some knock-on effect, but only in companion animals where there’s an influence. If someone has a dog with osteoarthritis and the drugs don’t work, if the doctor prescribes them a drug from the same company for their own osteoarthritis they may refuse it.

“Pfizer, for instance have done a lot to build their corporate image, and there must be some carry over into animal health,” Spedding explains.

Not everyone believes that these crossover brands will have any real advantage, though. Tim Evans, head of animal health consultancy at Wood Mackenzie, says that the important thing is for companies to find synergies between their operations. He doubts that the corporate brand plays much of a role. “After all, in DTC the corporate brand is very small. What is important is the product brand, not who makes it.”

Edwin Colyer is a science and technology writer based in Manchester, UK.