Choosing the wrong supplier costs more than it looks like on the first order, because the problem usually only shows up later, once the product has already reached the end customer late, damaged, or below expected quality. Hugo Galvao de Franca Filho, founder and director of Enjoy Pets, treats supplier selection as a strategic decision, not just a price comparison between the options available in the pet market.
Competitive pricing still matters, but on its own it guarantees nothing about delivery consistency, product quality over time, or the capacity to sustain growing volume as the operation expands. Weighing these criteria together, before signing any contract, avoids most of the problems that only show up months after the first purchase from that partner.
Quality consistency matters more than the first purchase’s price
A supplier might deliver a good quality product in the first batch and lower the standard in following orders, especially once the operation’s purchase volume grows and the supplier can’t sustain the same control at a larger scale. This kind of variation is hard to predict without testing the supplier over a period before committing to a meaningful order volume.
Hugo Galvao de Franca Filho recommends requesting samples and testing small batches before signing a continuous supply contract, even when the initial price looks too good to pass up. This testing period reduces the risk of discovering a quality problem only after the product has already reached the end customer in significant volume.
Capacity to scale alongside the operation prevents future bottlenecks
A supplier that handles a small volume well may not sustain the same quality once the order grows, a problem that only surfaces once the operation already depends on that partner to sustain a meaningful part of the catalog. Asking about production capacity before scaling volume avoids a forced supplier change in the middle of ongoing growth.
Enjoy Pets, featured at www.enjoypets.com.br, evaluates this criterion before increasing an order with any specific supplier, prioritizing partners that have already shown the capacity to keep pace with growth without sacrificing delivery time. Hugo Galvao considers this point just as relevant as the product’s quality itself, since a supply bottleneck affects the entire operation directly.
A reliable delivery time matters more than a short delivery time
A supplier that promises a short delivery window but delays frequently creates more problems than a partner with a longer, but consistent, timeline. The end customer expects the date they were given, and a supplier’s recurring delays turn into direct complaints against the store, even when the source of the problem sits outside the pet operation’s direct control.
Hugo Galvao de Franca Filho reinforces that a track record of meeting deadlines should weigh more in the decision than an initial promise of fast delivery, especially because that track record tends to predict the supplier’s future behavior better than any verbal guarantee given before the partnership actually begins.
A long-term relationship pays off more than switching for price
Switching suppliers every time a cheaper offer appears looks advantageous in the short term, but it compromises the stability a consolidated relationship tends to provide, such as priority during high-demand periods and flexibility in negotiating payment terms. A supplier who knows the operation also makes fewer mistakes, since they already understand the particularities of the pet catalog being sold.
For Hugo Galvao, building a long-term relationship with a reliable supplier tends to pay off more than any one-off savings gained from switching partners frequently. That stability shows up directly in the end customer’s experience, who receives a consistent product without feeling the side effects of a poorly evaluated supplier switch made by the operation itself.