Pets+ published its first Retailer's Choice Awards after a six-week vote across 35 categories

Pets+ ran a six-week retailer vote in May and June across 35 product categories, then published the winners as the inaugural Retailer's Choice Awards in its current issue.

The trade publication has been aggregating retailer input since its 2017 launch through its Brain Squad panel, monthly reader surveys, and an annual Big Survey. The awards program extends that model to product endorsements: store owners and buyers voted, and the magazine published their picks alongside commentary the voters wrote explaining why each product earned the vote.

The validation model specialty brands now pitch with

A retailer-judged award gives a brand a talking point that names the judge's role rather than an editor's opinion. The winner can tell a buyer that other store owners in the channel picked the product, not that a publication's staff did. That is a different kind of third-party validation, and it answers a different question: not whether the product works, but whether someone like the buyer already decided to stock it.

Brands that entered but did not win told Pets+ that appearing in the May-June Voting Guide delivered exposure on its own. The list of nominees becomes a catalog retailers are reading with intent, which is worth more than an ad in a section they are skimming.

What the program tells us about where influence sits

Pets+ built this program because it concluded that independent retailers trust other retailers more than they trust editorial picks. Launching a formal awards structure around that idea signals the publication believes the gap is wide enough to organize content around. The Brain Squad, the Sample Box program, and now the awards all route decision-making authority to working store owners rather than keeping it on the editorial desk.

The pattern across those three programs: Pets+ is positioning itself as the aggregator of retailer opinion rather than the source of it. The value it is selling to brands is access to that aggregated voice, not the endorsement of its own editors.

If your pitch depends on trade coverage, subscribe to PetRetailNews.

Our read: the retailer-validated claim works only if the voter pool stays narrow

A retailer-judged award carries weight as long as the voter is someone the buyer being pitched actually considers a peer. If the pool widens to include any store that sells pet products, the claim flattens into "some retailers somewhere liked this," which is not materially different from "our research shows high satisfaction." Pets+ did not disclose how many retailers voted, which categories drew the most votes, or whether voters had to meet any threshold of experience or store type to participate.

The other risk: if winning becomes a function of how many voters a brand can mobilize rather than how many retailers genuinely stock and reorder the product, the award becomes a turnout contest and the validation it is supposed to confer disappears. We would watch whether future years publish voter counts and methodology, because transparency is what keeps a peer endorsement from reading like a popularity poll.

We will also watch whether brands that won start leading with "Pets+ Retailer's Choice Award" in their pitch decks and sell sheets when they walk into stores that did not vote. If they do, and if buyers respond to it, the model works and we will see other trade publications build similar programs. If the claim does not move reorders, it was a marketing exercise that generated content but did not change how products move.

← Back to the Newsdesk