National Veterinary Associates
Testing a rebrand assumption before a national vet network committed to it
Testing a rebrand assumption before a national vet network committed to it
Role:
UX Researcher
Team size:
4
Timeline:
4 months
Core tools:
Miro · Sago · Figma
Overview
The problem
NVA owns veterinary hospitals across the country, but up to this point they stayed invisible to the public and each hospital kept its local branding. The company wanted to change that by moving hospitals to a new consumer brand called PetOne, while NVA stayed the entity that owns and manages them.
The open question was how far to take it. A full rebrand, or co-branding that kept the local name alongside PetOne. Internal stakeholders had a strong instinct that local names feel personable while a national brand might read as cold and corporate. That belief was driving a decision that affected hundreds of hospitals, and nobody had tested it.
NVA owns veterinary hospitals across the country, but up to this point they stayed invisible to the public and each hospital kept its local branding. The company wanted to change that by moving hospitals to a new consumer brand called PetOne, while NVA stayed the entity that owns and manages them.
The open question was how far to take it. A full rebrand, or co-branding that kept the local name alongside PetOne. Internal stakeholders had a strong instinct that local names feel personable while a national brand might read as cold and corporate. That belief was driving a decision that affected hundreds of hospitals, and nobody had tested it.
The solution
We tested it. Talking to pet owners showed that brand character wasn't what drove their choice of a vet, and the preference between local vs. national was genuinely split rather than leaning one way.
Based on that we recommended a mix of fully branded and co-branded hospitals depending on the market, instead of one strategy applied everywhere. I then set the design direction for a hub site built around what owners told us they needed, which was finding a location nearby, booking easily, and getting straight answers about cost.
We tested it. Talking to pet owners showed that brand character wasn't what drove their choice of a vet, and the preference between local vs. national was genuinely split rather than leaning one way.
Based on that we recommended a mix of fully branded and co-branded hospitals depending on the market, instead of one strategy applied everywhere. I then set the design direction for a hub site built around what owners told us they needed, which was finding a location nearby, booking easily, and getting straight answers about cost.
Key outcomes
16
16
stakeholders and pet owners interviewed
stakeholders and pet owners interviewed
2
2
brand strategies validated over one nationwide approach
brand strategies validated over one nationwide approach
1,000+
1,000+
locations supported by the new site
locations supported by the new site
16
stakeholders and pet owners interviewed
2
brand strategies validated over one nationwide approach
1,000+
locations supported by the new site
Research & discovery
Understanding the problem
I worked with another researcher on stakeholder interviews with six people across marketing, talent acquisition, e-commerce, and digital to understand the reasoning behind the transition and the assumptions underneath it. We then interviewed ten pet owners about how they actually choose and use a veterinary practice.
We synthesized both and presented back to stakeholders, where the gap between what the two groups said became the center of the conversation. After that I ran a competitor analysis on the brands owners had named, to turn the findings into something the design team could work from.
I worked with another researcher on stakeholder interviews with six people across marketing, talent acquisition, e-commerce, and digital to understand the reasoning behind the transition and the assumptions underneath it. We then interviewed ten pet owners about how they actually choose and use a veterinary practice.
We synthesized both and presented back to stakeholders, where the gap between what the two groups said became the center of the conversation. After that I ran a competitor analysis on the brands owners had named, to turn the findings into something the design team could work from.
Key findings
Stakeholders believed branding would drive where people take their pets, with local names signaling empathetic care and national brands feeling corporate. Pet owners described something else. Almost none of them led with brand character. What came up instead was a set of practical constraints around how vet visits actually happen, which is rarely, and usually either routine or urgent with very little in between.
Stakeholders believed branding would drive where people take their pets, with local names signaling empathetic care and national brands feeling corporate. Pet owners described something else. Almost none of them led with brand character. What came up instead was a set of practical constraints around how vet visits actually happen, which is rarely, and usually either routine or urgent with very little in between.
Cost and proximity decided it
Price and distance came up in every conversation. Owners were frustrated that pricing was almost never published and wished they could see it on the site instead of calling or finding out at the visit. Proximity mattered most in emergencies, when there was no time to compare options at all.
Local vs. national was a real split
Preference divided instead of pointing one direction. Some owners liked local practices because they felt more personable. Others preferred a recognizable national brand because information and benefit packages carry between locations. Neither instinct was strong enough to justify a single nationwide strategy.
Cost and proximity decided it
Price and distance came up in every conversation. Owners were frustrated that pricing was almost never published and wished they could see it on the site instead of calling or finding out at the visit. Proximity mattered most in emergencies, when there was no time to compare options at all.
Local vs. national was a real split
Preference divided instead of pointing one direction. Some owners liked local practices because they felt more personable. Others preferred a recognizable national brand because information and benefit packages carry between locations. Neither instinct was strong enough to justify a single nationwide strategy.
Design process
Starting off on the right foot
The findings changed the shape of the decision, so the direction had to follow the evidence instead of the original brief. I ran a competitor analysis focused on the specific brands owners mentioned, looking at how they handled location finding, booking, and cost. From there I set the initial design direction for the design team, with feature recommendations and examples, responsive views, what to prioritize, and the overall vibe the research supported. Two designers took that direction and built out the site.
The findings changed the shape of the decision, so the direction had to follow the evidence instead of the original brief. I ran a competitor analysis focused on the specific brands owners mentioned, looking at how they handled location finding, booking, and cost. From there I set the initial design direction for the design team, with feature recommendations and examples, responsive views, what to prioritize, and the overall vibe the research supported. Two designers took that direction and built out the site.
Design solutions
The team designed a PetOne hub site that routes visitors to individual hospital locations, supporting both fully branded and co-branded practices in the same system. That structure is what let the mixed strategy work.
Priority went to what owners asked for, which was finding a location nearby, booking without a phone call, and getting to contact information quickly. Since so much veterinary traffic is urgent, someone arriving mid-emergency can find and reach a location without navigating a brand experience first.
The team designed a PetOne hub site that routes visitors to individual hospital locations, supporting both fully branded and co-branded practices in the same system. That structure is what let the mixed strategy work.
Priority went to what owners asked for, which was finding a location nearby, booking without a phone call, and getting to contact information quickly. Since so much veterinary traffic is urgent, someone arriving mid-emergency can find and reach a location without navigating a brand experience first.
Impact
Reflection
The most useful thing we did here was catch an assumption before it turned into a hundred-hospital decision. Six stakeholders across four departments all believed brand character would drive where people took their pets, and ten pet owners barely brought it up. Finding that gap early was worth more than anything we could have designed after the fact.
Setting direction for other designers instead of executing it myself was the other shift. I had to be explicit about the reasoning behind each recommendation, because direction that only carries the conclusions falls apart the first time someone hits a decision I hadn't thought of.
The most useful thing we did here was catch an assumption before it turned into a hundred-hospital decision. Six stakeholders across four departments all believed brand character would drive where people took their pets, and ten pet owners barely brought it up. Finding that gap early was worth more than anything we could have designed after the fact.
Setting direction for other designers instead of executing it myself was the other shift. I had to be explicit about the reasoning behind each recommendation, because direction that only carries the conclusions falls apart the first time someone hits a decision I hadn't thought of.