Direct Marketing Today

8/12/2019 Direct Marketing Today

1/69

Direct Marketing TodayChallenges and Opportunities

United States

Department ofAgriculture

AgriculturalMarketing

Service

February 2000


2/69

Direct Marketing Today:Challenges and Opportunities

United States Department of AgricultureAgricultural Marketing Service

Transportation and Marketing Programs

In cooperation with

Nelson BillsDepartment of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics

Cornell UniversityIthaca, NY

Monika RothCornell Cooperative ExtensionTompkins County

Ithaca, NY

Jane Maestro-SchererMaestro-Scherer Consulting, Inc.

Brooktondale, NY

February 2000

The project was conducted under a reimbursable cooperative agreement, administered by the U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Transportation and Marketing Programs (TMP), Eileen Stommes, DeputyAdministrator. Errol R. Bragg, agricultural marketing specialist, Wholesale and Alternative Markets (W&AM), TMP, wasproject leader, and Claire Klotz, economist, W&AM, TMP, provided significant input in accomplishing objectives of thisstudy.


3/69

ii

Acknowledgments

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited basesapply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille,large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th andIndependence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunityprovider and employer.

During the course of this project, many people have made invaluable contributions to the success of thisreport. Special recognition is due to the cooperators from the many industry sectors who contributed to this

project with their valuable time and expertise. Industry leaders throughout the United States from Extension,State departments of agriculture, and community-based and nongovernmental organizations, supplied invalu-able information and direction to this project. Special thanks also to the 25 marketers who participated in thefocus groups, sharing their expertise and providing important practical experiences for this project.


4/69

iii

Page

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... vii

Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 1Background .................................................................................................................................................... 1

Focus Group Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 2Focus Group Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 2Selecting Focus Group Participants.............................................................................................................. 2Location of Focus Group Meetings .............................................................................................................. 3Focus Group Organization ........................................................................................................................... 3

Focus Group Participant Profile ........................................................................................................................ 5Regional Differences ..................................................................................................................................... 5Focus Group Participant Experience in Direct Marketing .......................................................................... 5Facilitator Profile........................................................................................................................................... 6How Facilitators See Their Roles ................................................................................................................. 8Marketer Profile ............................................................................................................................................ 9How Marketers See Their Roles................................................................................................................. 10

Pre-Focus Group Survey Results .................................................................................................................... 11Challenges and Opportunities..................................................................................................................... 11Sources of Direct Marketing Information .................................................................................................. 13

Accessing Direct Market Information ........................................................................................................ 14Future USDA-AMS Efforts To Affect Direct Marketing Decisions ......................................................... 16

Focus Group Meeting Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 19Challenges and Barriers as Perceived by Marketers ................................................................................... 19

Labor ................................................................................................................................................... 19Competition ........................................................................................................................................ 19Income and Credit .............................................................................................................................. 19Regulations and Insurance .................................................................................................................. 19Technical Assistance and Grants......................................................................................................... 20Location............................................................................................................................................... 20

Challenges and Barriers as Perceived by Facilitators ................................................................................. 20Producer Marketing Skills .................................................................................................................. 20Technical Assistance and Grants......................................................................................................... 20Financial Capacity and Income........................................................................................................... 20Regulations .......................................................................................................................................... 21

Perspectives on the Future of Direct Marketing ........................................................................................ 21Consumer Perceptions and Demand .................................................................................................. 21Future Farmers.................................................................................................................................... 21Other ................................................................................................................................................... 21

Contents


5/69

iv

Page

Information Needs ...................................................................................................................................... 22Marketing Methods............................................................................................................................. 22Business Decision-Making Tools ........................................................................................................ 22Industry Data ....................................................................................................................................... 23Consumer Trend Information and Data ............................................................................................ 23Technical Assistance ............................................................................................................................ 23Consumer Education and Promotion ................................................................................................ 23Regulatory Clarification...................................................................................................................... 23

Implications for USDA-AMS Programs ............................................................................................................ 25Approaches to Enhanced Involvement of USDA-AMS in Direct Marketing ........................................... 25

Collaboration ...................................................................................................................................... 25Balanced Approach.............................................................................................................................. 25Using Existing Expertise ..................................................................................................................... 25

Possible Programmatic Responses to Identified Needs ............................................................................. 25Clearinghouse...................................................................................................................................... 25Grants .................................................................................................................................................. 25Broader Government Agency Support ............................................................................................... 25Regulatory Relevance.......................................................................................................................... 26Regulatory Compliance ...................................................................................................................... 26Key Contacts and Information Dissemination................................................................................... 26Association Development and Support .............................................................................................. 26

Research and Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 26Consumer and Market Research ........................................................................................................ 26Strengthening Producer and Consumer Linkages ............................................................................. 26Access to Quality Wholesale Produce ................................................................................................ 27Expanding Market Channels .............................................................................................................. 27Promotion ........................................................................................................................................... 27How-To Information .......................................................................................................................... 27Performance Standards ....................................................................................................................... 27

Perfect World Summary ................................................................................................................................... 29Direct Marketing Outlook .......................................................................................................................... 29


6/69

v

Page

Appendixes .......................................................................................................................................................... 37Appendix 1. Focus Group ParticipantsAppendix 2. Focus Group Materials

Maps and FiguresMapResidency of Focus Group Participants ............................................................................................ 4Figure 1. Years of Experience in Direct Marketing ..................................................................................... 6Figure 2. Direct Marketing Facilitator Affiliation by Sector ...................................................................... 7Figure 3. Support and Services Currently Provided by Direct Marketing

Facilitator to Focus Group Participants ....................................................................................... 7Figure 4. Facilitators Program Activities .................................................................................................... 8

Figure 5. Farm Products Produced by Marketer Focus Group Participants.............................................. 9Figure 6. Marketing Channels Used by Marketer Focus Group Participants.......................................... 10Figure 7. All Participants: Direct Marketing Problems ........................................................................... 11Figure 8. Facilitators: Direct Marketing Problems .................................................................................. 12Figure 9. Marketers: Direct Marketing Problems .................................................................................... 13Figure 10. All Participants: Importance of Direct Marketing Information Sources ............................... 14Figure 11. Marketers: Importance of Direct Marketing Information Sources........................................ 15Figure 12. Facilitators: Importance of Direct Marketing Information Sources ...................................... 15Figure 13. Methods Used To Access USDA Information ......................................................................... 16Figure 14. All Participants: Importance of USDA Involvement .............................................................. 17Figure 15. Marketers: Importance of USDA Involvement ...................................................................... 17

Figure 16. Facilitators: Importance of USDA Involvement..................................................................... 18

TablesTable 1. Marketers: Facilitating Direct Marketing in a Perfect World ................................................ 30Table 2. Facilitators: Facilitating Direct Marketing in a PerfectWorld ............................................... 31Table 3. Summary Challenges, Information Needs, and Potential Responses ......................................... 32Table 4. Implications for USDA-AMS Programs Summary ..................................................................... 34


7/69

vi


8/69

vii

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Agricultural Marketing Services (AMS) Farmer

Direct Marketing Action Plan (August 1998) identi-fied the need for public input on farmer directmarketing issues and opportunities. A goal of thisplan is to translate this participation into the devel-opment of an effective programmatic strategy forUSDA-AMS that reflects the needs of the directmarketing community, promotes direct marketingalternatives, and improves market access for smallfarmers. The first step toward gathering publiccomment was a farmers market forum in July 1998.The second step was to expand the collection of

information through focus group meetings withmarketers and individuals who work with smallfarmers or support direct marketing (facilitators).

Five focus group meetings were held with marketersand facilitators in three locations (Sturbridge, MA;Grand Rapids, MI; Memphis, TN). The diversity oflocations afforded balanced contributions from abroad constituency and an opportunity to investigateregional differences in production and marketingstrategies. Forty direct marketing facilitators and 27

direct marketers from 34 States participated.

Direct Marketing Challenges andOpportunitiesPressing issues are producer perceptions of cost andreturns, financial capacity of direct marketingbusinesses, availability of technical assistance andgrants, and the overall regulatory environment facedby direct marketing firms. Of lesser concern werethe status of producer marketing skills, availability of

insurance, and the status of information and net-working in the direct marketing community. Finally,relatively few focus group participants judgedconsumer interest to be a large problem for directmarketers.

Executive Summary

Market facilitators and marketers do not always holdsimilar opinions. A greater proportion of facilitators

consider direct marketing success to be problematic,while marketers have a more buoyant attitude.Marketers downgraded capacity issues related toproducer marketing skills, while more than 60percent of facilitators indicated that lack of theseskills is a major impediment to direct marketing.Both groups are wary of costs and returns associatedwith direct marketing but do not consider consumerinterest a big problem in the direct marketing offarm products. Facilitators assigned greater signifi-cance to problems stemming from lack of technical

assistance or grants and the regulatory environmentfaced by the direct marketing community.

Implications for USDA-AMS ProgramsParticipants placed substantial emphasis on persuad-ing USDA to expand data collection and appliedresearch. Facilitators seek information that enhancestheir efforts to assist marketers and documents thesignificance of direct marketing. Marketers arelooking for information that helps them make betterbusiness decisions and increase their income. An-other high priority for both groups is developinghow to manuals on a variety of direct marketingsubjects.

Information needs that focus groups identifiedpresent program opportunities for USDA-AMS andfor other USDA agencies. Although they agreed onthe need for information, participants (especiallymarketers) voiced caution about governmentinvolvement in direct marketing. They also voicedconcern that the Federal Government not duplicatewhat the private sector or State agencies are doing,but that it become a partner in enhancing directmarketing efforts. Facilitators, in particular, wereinterested in having USDA collaborate with orstimulate new initiatives through grants usingexisting expertise.


9/69

viii

Possible Programmatic Responses toIdentified Needs Establish an information and data clearinghouse Provide more funding authority for grants Enlist broader support from allied Federal

agencies Promote regulatory relevanceAssist with regulatory compliance Develop and utilize key contacts for information

dissemination Develop and support marketing associations Collect research and data Expand consumer and market research Strengthen producer and consumer linkages Improve access to quality wholesale produce Expand market channels Provide how-to information Develop performance standards for direct

marketing


10/69

1

Project Goals and Objectives

BackgroundThe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in its DirectMarketing Action Plan (August 1998) identified theneed for public input on farmer direct marketingissues and opportunities to develop an effective planthat reflects the needs of the direct marketingcommunity, promotes direct marketing alternatives,and improves market access for small farmers. Thefirst step toward gathering public input was takenduring a forum on July 1, 1998, for farmers marketmanagers and other experts working with farmersmarkets.

A second initiative identified in the Action Plan wasto conduct focus group meetings with direct market-ing facilitatorsindividuals representing organiza-tions that support small farmers and farmer directmarketing. A Cornell University team with priorfocus group experience convened and facilitated thefocus group meetings. To better meet project objec-tives, it was decided to expand the project to includedirect marketers and facilitators in the focus groupstudy.

The interest of USDA-AMS in direct marketingoriginates with its mission to facilitate efficient,dependable, and equitable marketing of agriculturalproducts. The impetus for this project stems from atrend toward more direct marketing, especiallyamong smaller farmers. This trend is fueled byconsumer interest, by producers desire for greaterreturns, and by growing community awareness ofthe contributions of farming and local food produc-tion.

Farmer direct marketing has become a successfulalternative marketing method, especially for smaller

producers who are uninterested in or unable toparticipate and compete effectively in larger whole-sale market channels. Although still a small percent-age of total agricultural sales, the number of directmarketers and the volume of direct sales are grow-ing. The number of channels also is becoming morediverse, as indicated by the growth in farmersmarkets and community-supported agriculture(CSA) farms and in such new methods as mail orderand Internet marketing.

Additional impetus for assessing the role USDA-AMS might play in support of small farmers andfarmer direct marketing comes from the January1998 USDA report,A Time to Act, provided by theNational Commission on Small Farms. The reportidentifies the need to increase the emphasis onmarketing opportunities for small farm businessesand to increase small farm income.

Input from focus groups will help to clarify andaffirm the role of USDA-AMS in support of the

direct marketing community and will provideguidance in developing an expanded programmaticstrategy for direct marketing. USDA-AMS seeksinsight from both farm marketers and facilitators onhigh-priority direct marketing issues and opportuni-ties and the role it might play in addressing them.


11/69

2

Focus Group Methodology

The focus group process as a data-gathering tooloffers the following advantages:

Participants are chosen based on their expertise,thereby enabling USDA-AMS to obtain anauthoritative assessment of issues and problems.

Participants can explore specific issues in depth. Focus group meetings are highly interactive and

provide a venue for useful brainstorming. The information resulting from focus group

discussion can provide valuable reference pointsand context for additional policy and planningdiscussions.

Alhough the focus group process is a useful tool forpercolating ideas and enhancing the understandingof issues, the team recognized that the informationgenerated may come from more dominant groupmembers and, though rich in detail, still is purelyanecdotal. To reduce this weakness, the team usedquestionnaires in addition to meetings to collectinformation more systematically.

Focus Group ObjectivesUSDA-AMS identified several interrelated objec-tives to guide the process of gathering informationfrom focus group participants:

to understand the roles facilitators play to supportfarmer direct marketing,

to understand how farm direct marketers viewtheir role and why they became and are involvedwith farmer direct marketing,

to learn about innovative strategies and tech-

niques facilitators use to support direct marketingor marketers use to expand direct marketingefforts,

to identify major challenges or constraints farmdirect marketers or facilitators face in their effortsto support direct marketing,

to gain information about issues and trends thathave implications for the future of farmer directmarketing,

to understand how marketers and facilitatorsaddress challenges,

to learn about needs and gaps in information, to identify current information sources and their

relative value to marketers and facilitators, to identify the means for accessing information, to identify key needs in a perfect world, and to identify the unique role USDA-AMS could

play in meeting key needs.

Selecting Focus Group ParticipantsThe project focused on two groups, facilitators andmarketers. Together, they represent the principal

clientele for USDA-AMS technical assistance andoutreach efforts (appendix 1).

Focusing on direct market facilitators conforms withthe USDA-AMS direct marketing program strategy.USDA-AMS intends to identify and collaborate withkey organizations working to support direct market-ing, including representatives from State agriculturedepartments, State and county Extension specialists,and nongovernmental groups with a variety ofrelevant agricultural interests.

Marketers were selected from two groups: thosewith substantial experience in direct marketing andconsidered to be industry leaders and limited-resource small farmers who may not have muchexperience with direct marketing but could benefitfrom additional marketing opportunities. To be cost-effective, marketer focus group meetings werescheduled around regional or national marketingconferences.

Focus group participants were selected by consultingkey individuals having regional or national contactswith direct market farmers and facilitators. TheUSDA-Cooperative State Research, Education, andExtension Services Small Farm Directory served asan additional reference for identifying potentialparticipants. Some participants were selected fromconference attendance lists and in consultation withindividuals having prior contact with attendees.


12/69

3

The researchers tried to have as many types oforganizations as possible represented at each loca-

tion and to have good representation from a largenumber of States. For marketer meetings, attentionwas paid to balancing representation by State oforigin, type and size of enterprise, marketing meth-ods, experience, race, and gender.

Location of Focus Group MeetingsFive focus group meetings were held in three loca-tions to gather input from a broad constituency ofagricultural interests and to recognize regionaldifferences in production and marketing strategies.

Each session attracted participants who covered abroad geographical region: Sturbridge, MANewEngland/Mid-Atlantic; Grand Rapids, MIMidwestand Far West; Memphis, TNSoutheast and SouthCentral. To be cost-effective, four of the five focusgroup meetings were scheduled around regional andnational marketing conferences.

Sturbridge, MA, Dec. 3, 1998Facilitator MeetingSturbridge is a central meeting location. Facilita-tors in the region have a history of workingtogether on direct marketing conferences andagricultural promotion efforts. The facilitatorsattending this focus group meeting probably havemore combined direct marketing experience thanfacilitators in any other region of the country.

Grand Rapids, MI, Jan. 20 and 22, 1999Marketerand Facilitator MeetingsIn Grand Rapids, the 1999 North AmericanFarmers Direct Marketing Conference joinedwith the Michigan Vegetable Conference. TheNorth American Farmers Direct MarketingConference, held for the past 14 years, attractsfrom 1,000 to 1,300 people. Two focus groupmeetings were convened during this conference,one for marketers and one for facilitators from theMidwest and Far West. This venue offered theopportunity to involve highly experienced directmarketers and a facilitator group with a strongfocus on direct marketing issues.

Memphis, TN, Mar. 24 and 25, 1999Marketerand Facilitator Meetings

In Memphis, a USDA-sponsored AgriculturalMarketing Outreach Workshop focused onopportunities for limited-resource farmers. Twofocus groups convened at this location, includingone with a group of farmers diverse in theirmarketing experience, enterprise type, and in-come. As a group, they had less experience indirect marketing. Facilitators, too, were morediverse in their experience and affiliations, includ-ing State agriculture departments, 1890 collegefaculty and Extension staff, and cooperative and

private organizations working on small farmproblems and community development issues.

Focus Group OrganizationA letter of invitation from USDA-AMS went topotential participants, followed by a second letter ofinvitation from Cornell University. Potential partici-pants were contacted by phone to determine theiravailability and interest in attending the focus groupmeeting. A letter of confirmation went to thoseresponding positively. Another mailing, whichincluded a pre-focus group questionnaire, followedsoon thereafter. The pre-focus group questionnaire(appendix 2) asked participants to indicate howmuch listed factors were problems for direct market-ing. They also were asked to describe their contactwith USDA and indicate the relative importance ofpossible sources of direct marketing information.Finally, they were asked to consider issues of addi-tional USDA-AMS involvement with direct market-ing assistance.

The pre-focus group questionnaire provided re-sponses unaffected by the dynamics of the focusgroup discussion. Results helped set the stage forfocus group discussion and for assessing and clarify-ing the role USDA-AMS might play in assistingdirect marketing clientele.

A few days before the focus group meeting, partici-pants received by fax a list of attendees and a meet-


13/69


14/69

5

Forty direct marketing facilitators and 27 directmarketers from 34 States participated (appendix 1)

in the USDA Direct Marketing Focus GroupProject (see map). Some States were not representedbecause individuals contacted were unable to attend.

Regional DifferencesSeveral unique differences emerged by region, basedon focus group meeting discussions.

Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Long tradition of direct marketing of all types Concern about local land-use regulations

High cost of land for farming Limited land available for farming Agricultural land preservation programs in several

States Public interest in preserving farms and open space High cost of doing business Good population access More people and consumers than farmers who

can supply them Strong consumer interest in purchasing from local

farms Many small, diverse family farms Strong competition from supermarket retailers

Midwest and Far West Concern about sprawl Population base spread out, opportunities good

near cities but challenging in rural locations Need to attract customers from farther distances,

more emphasis on becoming a farm destinationand tourist attraction and keeping people onfarms longer by offering a variety of services andamenities (restaurants, gift shops, attractions,festivals, etc.)

Linkages being forged with tourism and economicdevelopment community and direct marketers

Many farmer direct marketing operations emerg-ing out of wholesale sales

Growing and selling less farm produce, sellingmore farm entertainment

Focus Group Participant Profile

A need for high-quality produce from otherfarmers to sell at farm markets

Supermarket competition increasing

Southeast and South Central More emphasis on wholesale marketing, less on

direct marketing Stronger tradition of cooperatives by which small

farmers access markets Producers with less experience with direct mar-

keting, a need for more basic information andassistance

Interest in niche market opportunities

A need for more successful farmers markets A rural population base with limited urban access Transportation an issue for getting products from

farms to urban markets Limited-income consumers and producers A price barrier for direct-marketed produce posed

by low supermarket prices Supermarket competition less intense Competition among marketers intense in areas of

concentrated production

These regional differences, while not mutuallyexclusive, reflect the many challenges, barriers, andopportunities direct marketers face. Consideringprograms in support of farmer direct marketing, thepublic must recognize regional differences whilefocusing on common needs.

Focus Group Participant Experience inDirect MarketingOverall, marketers had more direct marketing

experience than the facilitators who provided themwith support and services (figure 1). Marketersaveraged 17 years, facilitators 13 years. Seventypercent of marketers had more than 10 yearsexperience in direct marketing. In contrast, only 54percent of facilitators had more than 10 yearsexperience.


15/69

6

Facilitator ProfileSixty percent of the direct marketing facilitatorswere affiliated with government or university-relatedorganizations (24 participants) (figure 2). Twenty-eight percent were affiliated with a university (11participants), either as Extension staff or havingresponsibility for direct marketing activities with auniversity program, and 33 percent were from Statedepartments of agriculture (13 participants). Withinthe other category of facilitators not affiliated witheither a government or university organization, 28

percent (11 participants) described their organiza-tions as nonprofit or listed their professionalaffiliation as either market managers (three partici-pants) or producers who operated their own directmarketing business (six participants). Producersparticipating in facilitator group meetings wereinvited because of their affiliation with grower ormarketer associations, such as the North AmericanFarmers Direct Marketing Association, organicfarming associations, etc.

Facilitators were asked about the direct marketingsupport and services offered by their organizations.Of 40 organizations represented in the focus groups,67 percent (27 participants) reported that theirorganizations concentrated major efforts on confer-ences and workshops (figure 3). They followed theseefforts closely with promotional activities (66 per-cent) and resource materials (64 percent). Researchactivities, such as case studies, research projects andsurveys, or data gathering, came last as a major focusof support or services provided (29 percent).

As a minor focus, tours and surveys and data gather-ing led as support or services provided by 41 percentof the organizations (figure 3). This response wasclosely followed by training and printed resources,such as publications, fact sheets, and newsletters.

When asked about their agencies ability to respondto requests for assistance and information on directmarketing issues, 86 percent of all facilitators rated

Years of Experience in Direct Marketing

More than 15 years

11 to 15 years

6 to 10 years

1 to 5 years

FIGURE 1

0 10 20 4030

Percent of participants

Facilitator

Marketer


16/69

7

Direct Marketing Facilitator Affiliation by Sector

Private

University

Government

FIGURE 2

0 10 20 4030


50

Support and Services Currently Provided byDirect Marketing Facilitator Focus Group Participants

Resource materials

Promotion

Conferences/workshops

Consultation

Market development

Publications/fact sheets

TrainingElectronic services (e.g. e-mail)

Case studies/research projects

Tours

Survey/data gather/assembly

Newsletters

FIGURE 3

0 10 20 4030


50 60 70 80

Major focus

Minor focus


17/69

8

organizational capability to respond to direct mar-keting requests as good to excellent. Commenting

on how direct marketing requests have changed inthe past 3 years, facilitators mentioned an increase inthe number and nature of requests and new clientsoverall. Requests ranged from general direct market-ing questions to starting a farmers market, agricul-tural tourism opportunities, farmers market managertraining, and website construction.

Facilitators also were asked about their individualinvolvement with various direct marketing issues.More than half (69 percent) of all facilitators report

that a major focus in their direct marketing workinvolves activities related to farmers markets. At leasthalf reported that they are active in activities relatedto roadside stands (53 percent), direct marketingassociations (53 percent), and specialty marketing(50 percent) as a major focus of individual involve-ment. The same percentage is involved in agricul-tural tourism but only as a minor focus. Facilitatorsare least active overall in international market

development and livestock marketing, with close tohalf (48 percent) reporting that they are not cur-

rently active in these areas. Figure 4 provides addi-tional details on other direct marketing programactivities.

How Facilitators See Their RolesFacilitators amplified on their activities in support offarmer direct marketing during focus group discus-sions. This involvement included special interestspertaining to agriculture and community (organic,sustainable, agricultural land preservation, foodsecurity and safety, youth education, grower/mar-

keter associations, etc.).

Facilitators indicated they work on various levels,including: advocacy or policy; market development;agricultural tourism promotion; general promotion;agricultural diversification; added-value/food pro-cessing strategies; Extension outreach; researchstudies; surveys; publications; conferences, work-shops, training; etc. Many expressed a desire for

Facilitators Program Activities

Pick-your-own

Roadside stands

Farmers markets

Organic foods

Specialty crops

Connecting farmers with rest./stores

CSAs subscription farms

Ag tourism; farm trails

Value-added processing

Cooperatives

Direct marketing associations

Specialty marketing

Livestock marketing

FIGURE 4

0 10 20 4030


50 60 70 80

Active, and a major focus Active, but a minor focus

International market development

90 100

Not active

Note: CSA is community-supported agriculture


18/69

9

more networking, collaboration, and support withothers engaged in similar work. They frequently

mentioned a need for funding and gaining commu-nity-political support for direct marketing efforts.Most expressed the belief that they could enhancetheir efforts if they had better data to document thesignificance of direct marketing.

Marketer ProfileVegetables in general (59 percent) and pumpkins inparticular (44 percent) were the two most popularcrops sold by marketers who participated in thefocus groups (figure 5). Orchard and berry crops

came in a close third (41 percent). Other crops orproducts mentioned included sweet corn, nuts,straw, flowers, sheep, cattle, soybeans, and processedproducts, such as corn meal, cider, and baked goods.

Most marketers reported that they sell farm prod-ucts through on-farm markets (70 percent) (figure

6). More than half (52 percent) have pick-your-ownoperations or sell products wholesale. Farmersmarkets (22 percent) and agricultural tourism (19percent) were not used as commonly by participatingmarketers. About one-quarter of marketer partici-pants indicated they also sell products throughcooperatives, forward contracting, and stockyards.

Close to 40 percent of participant marketers grossed$500,000 or more in 1998. Forty-five percentreported gross sales of less than $50,000. Of those

reporting less than $50,000 in gross sales, close to 63percent reported that more than half of their grossearnings came from direct marketing activities.Within this group, about 38 percent relied on directmarketing activities to get 75 percent of farm grosssales.

Farm Products Produced by MarketerFocus Group Participants

Other

Greenhouse crops

Christmas trees

Berry crops

Orchard

Livestock product

Vegetables

Pumpkins

FIGURE 5

0 10 20 4030


50 60


19/69

10

How Marketers See Their RolesFarm direct marketers identified two key roles in

group discussion: to provide fresh, safe, high-qualityfoods and to provide an opportunity for the public tointeract with farmers and learn about farming. Themore experienced marketers clearly were moreattuned to consumer interests and, hence, were moreconcerned with consumer trends. Because manyoperated on-farm markets or entertainment farms,their main concern was to offer quality products andexperiences for farm visitors. Many of the lessexperienced marketers expressed interest in reachingconsumers, identifying niche opportunities, and

learning how to market directly. Quality and pride inwhat they grow or offer was a consistent sentimentof both groups.

Marketing Channels Used by Marketers

Garden center

Greenhouse

Festivals

Farmers market

Ag tourism

Wholesale

Pick-your-own

FIGURE 6

0 10 20 4030


50 60 70 80

Farm market


20/69

11

Challenges and OpportunitiesAn underlying premise for this project is that the

Nations farm and food industries are not fullyexploiting opportunities to expand production andenhance incomes through direct marketing. Acentral line of discussion centers on defining prob-lems. What exactly are the challenges and barriersnow facing farm and food producers who want togrow their business through direct sales? To start,the group assembled a list of direct marketingproblems on this topic, drawing upon the experienceof individuals engaged in direct marketing. Theseproblems included concerns about the supply side

and the demand side of the direct marketing equa-tion.

Nine direct marketing problems are identified infigure 7. Focus group participants were asked toassign these marketing issues to one of four catego-ries, depending on the severity of the problem. Onthe demand side, participants were asked to evaluateoverall consumer interest in direct marketing. On

Pre-Focus Group Survey Results

the supply side, participants were asked to considerconstraints presented by climatic conditions and a

variety of institutional factors and the extent towhich they are problems for successful direct mar-keting.

On the demand side, relatively few participantsjudged consumer interest to be a large problem.About 34 percent of all focus group participantsindicated that, in fact, consumer interest was not aproblem at all. On the supply side, four factors wererated as problems with the same proximate intensity.These factors included the overall regulatory envi-

ronment faced by direct marketing firms (58 per-cent), financial capacity of direct marketing busi-nesses (55 percent), producer perceptions of cost andreturns from direct marketing (54 percent), andavailability of technical assistance or grants (52percent). Of lesser concern was availability of insur-ance and information and networking in the directmarketing community (figure 7).

All Participants: Direct Marketing Problems

Producer perceptions of costs

Insurance

Producer marketing skills

Information/networking

Financial capacity

Short seasons

Consumer interest

Technical assistance/grants

FIGURE 7

0 10 20 4030 6050 70 9080

A problem no one can solve

A big problem Not a problem

100

A slight problem

Percent

Regulations


21/69

12

Both important convergence and some sharplydiffering opinions notably emerge between facilita-

tors and marketers, as shown in figures 8 and 9.Facilitators and marketers disagreed the most aboutfive factors that may be problematic to their directmarketing activitiesproducer marketing skills,short seasons, financial capacity, regulations, andinformation and networking. For factors consideredproblematic, marketers downgraded capacity issuesrelated to producer marketing skills. More than 60percent of facilitators indicated that lack of producermarketing skills is a major impediment to directmarketing. In contrast, only 15 percent of marketers

rated producer marketing skills as a big problem.

The most evident unanimity between marketers andfacilitators related to producer perceptions of costsand returns and consumer interest in directly mar-keted products. Fifty-six percent of facilitators and58 percent of marketers regarded producer percep-

tions of costs and returns as a big problem (figures 8and 9). Conversely, respondents also evidently

agreed on costs and returns associated with directmarketing, with similar proportions in both groupsreporting that consumer interest did not constitute abig problem in their direct marketing activities (39percent for marketers, 31 percent for facilitators).On the other hand, facilitators were far more con-cerned about the seasonality of direct marketingenterprises, with nearly 30 percent rating this issueas a big problem or worse; none of the marketersreported this issue as a big problem. Facilitators alsoassigned more significance to problems stemming

from lack of technical assistance or grants and theregulatory environment faced by the direct market-ing community.

Issues facilitators ranked as unimportantconsumerinterest to regulationsranged from 30 percent toas little as 3 percent. Marketers exhibited a more

Facilitators: Direct Marketing Problems


Insurance


Financial capacity

Short seasons

Consumer interest


FIGURE 8

0 10 20 4030 6050 70 9080


A big problem Not a problem

100

A slight problem

Percent

Regulations



22/69

13

buoyant attitude, and a much larger percentage of allparticipants assigned issues to the not a problemcategory.

Marketers were asked to consider three additionalpotential problems: competition, labor, and productquality. Among these issues, labor ranked highestwith 80 percent of all marketer participants, indicat-ing that labor concerns represented at least a slightproblem for the direct marketing community.However, less than 40 percent rated labor as a majorproblem. More than 60 percent of all marketersrated the competitive position of direct marketersrelative to supermarkets and other food outlets to beat least a slight problem. On the other hand, while37 percent of marketers considered issues related toproduct quality to be at least slightly problematic,fewer than 4 percent considered this factor to be abig problem.

Sources of Direct Marketing InformationAll focus group participants put a high emphasis onnetworking and personal contacts as a source ofdirect marketing information (figure 10). Closelyrelated, more than 70 percent indicated that grow-ersdirect marketers themselveswere a veryimportant information source. As informationsources, few important differences emerged amongState departments of agriculture, Extension educa-tors, university academics, not-for-profit organiza-tions, and trade associations. The participants

assigned slightly more importance to trade journalsand other types of publications. About 30 percent ofall participants ranked USDA as a very importantinformation source. Only the information categoryof private consultants ranked lower.

A big problem

Marketers: Direct Marketing Problems


Insurance



Financial capacity

Short seasons

Consumer interest


FIGURE 9

0 10 20 4030 6050 70 9080


Not a problem

100

A slight problem

Percent

Regulations

Competition

Labor issues

Product quality


23/69

14

Four focus group meetings held during directmarketing conferences enhanced project operationbut probably introduced selection bias because manyfocus group participants are attuned to and favorconference attendance. In any event, nearly allparticipants indicated that conference attendancewas at least somewhat important as a source of directmarketing information.

Information sources ranked similarly betweenfacilitators and marketers (figures 11 and 12). Itmight be expected that facilitators would rely morethan marketers on USDA as an information source,but focus group data do not support this proposi-tion. In fact, a larger percentage of marketers indi-cated that USDA was an important informationsource. However, this response is not specific toUSDA-AMS, and marketers may contact severalUSDA agencies. Discussions at marketer focusgroup meetings revealed that many farmers useservices of the Farm Service Agency; Natural Re-

sources Conservation Service; and Cooperative StateResearch, Education, and Extension Service. Con-sultants were used least as an information source,perhaps because fewer of them specialized in thiswork.

Accessing Direct Market InformationRoughly half of the individuals who attended the fivefocus groups had recent contact with USDA, andtheir access methods are measured in figure 13.Some notable contrasts emerged between marketers

and facilitators. Given that marketers participatingin the focus groups were chosen from conferencedelegates, more of them indicated they gatheredinformation at conferences and trade shows, com-pared to facilitators. Facilitators, on the other hand,more often use direct mail and Internet technology(web or e-mail). One in 10 marketers participatingin the focus groups had used the USDA-AMSwebsite or had contact with USDA personnelthrough electronic mail.

All Participants: Importance of Direct Marketing Information Sources

Extension

State department of agriculture

USDA

Trade associations

Trade journals/publications

Nonprofit organizations

State university academia

Contacts/networking

FIGURE 10

0 10 20 4030 6050 70 9080

Very important Not at all important

100

Somewhat important

Percent

Conferences

Consultants

Market managers

Growers


24/69

15

Marketers: Importance of Direct Marketing Information Sources

Extension


USDA

Trade associations




Contacts/networking

FIGURE 11

0 10 20 4030 6050 70 9080


100

Somewhat important

Percent

Conferences

Consultants

Market managers

Growers

Facilitators: Importance of Direct Marketing Information Sources

Extension


USDA

Trade associations




Contacts/networking

FIGURE 12

0 10 20 4030 6050 70 9080


100

Somewhat important

Percent

Conferences

Consultants

Market managers

Growers


25/69

16

Future USDA-AMS Efforts To Affect DirectMarketing DecisionsFinally, participants in the survey judged the value ofUSDA-AMS involvement in a variety of directmarketing information products (figure 14). Everygroup tended to support more USDA-AMS involve-ment. Marketers reported that USDA involvementadvancing opportunities for small-scale producers tosell directly to schools and other local institutionswas very important (46 percent) (figure 15), whilefacilitators most emphasized data collection and the

conduct of applied research (81 percent) (figure 16).Both groups placed relatively high priority on thedevelopment of how to information manuals on avariety of direct marketing subjects. However, ahigher percentage of facilitators (more than 70percent) expressed the belief that the development ofhow-to manuals constituted a very important taskfor USDA involvement, compared to marketers (50percent). Facilitators seem more committed to theInternet now and view USDA involvement in

Internet marketing and Internet dissemination ofinformation to be very important (52 percent and 65percent, respectively). On the other hand, although30 percent of marketers felt that Internet dissemina-tion of information was a very important task forUSDA involvement, only 9 percent felt that USDAshould support Internet marketing.

Survey responses revealed that marketers wereslightly more ambivalent about the need for moreUSDA-AMS involvement in direct marketing thanfacilitators (figures 15 and 16). This conclusion wasfurther substantiated in facilitator meetings, whereparticipants encouraged USDA-AMS to collaborateand work in support of local and State efforts and todraw from current experience. On the other hand,marketers at meetings voiced concern about whatUSDA-AMS intended by assistance. Consideringthis difference, however, there were no obviousdifferences in weights assigned to various directmarketing efforts.

Methods Used to Access USDA Information*

Internet (Web, e-mail)

Direct mail

Trade show

Fax

Phone

Conference

FIGURE 13

0 10 20 4030

Percent of participants who have sought USDA information

50 60 70 80

*Percentages seeking information were 56% and 41%, respectively, for facilitators and marketers.

Facilitators

Marketers


26/69

17

All Participants: Importance of USDA Involvement

Roadside markets

Public markets

Farmers markets

Direct marketing to rest./inst.

Small producers selling to sch./ins.

Internet marketing

Community supported ag. (CSA)

Internet dissemination of info.

FIGURE 14

0 10 20 4030 6050 70 9080


100

Somewhat important

Percent

Development of how to manuals

Conferences

Market manager training/cert.

Data collection and applied res.

Marketers: Importance of USDA Involvement

Roadside markets

Public markets

Farmers markets


Small producers selling to sch./inst.

Internet marketing



FIGURE 15

0 10 20 4030 6050 70 9080


100

Somewhat important

Percent


Conferences




27/69

18

Facilitators: Importance of USDA Involvement

Roadside markets

Public markets

Farmers markets


Small producers selling to sch./inst.

Internet marketing



FIGURE 16

0 10 20 4030 6050 70 9080


100

Somewhat important

Percent


Conferences




28/69

19

Challenges and Barriers as Perceived byMarketersIssues of concern raised by direct farm marketers inthe discussion concurred with the pre-focus groupsurvey findings. Major concerns included: laborissuesavailability, wages, and regulations; increas-ing costslow returns, especially if competing withsupermarkets on price; financial capacity related tofarm viability and credit access; and regulatoryoverload, relevance, and compliance issues. Partici-pants identified the lack of technical assistance andgrants as barriers, especially those with limited directmarketing experience.

LaborMarketers mentioned that labor was not anew concern, but that the cost of labor was increas-ing because of regulations, competition for workers,and the need to offer competitive wage and benefitpackages. Larger growers hire migrant labor forfield work, and seasonal retail labor generally is amix of students and local residents. A positive workenvironment contributing to a positive work forcewas considered critical to the success of farmerdirect marketing. Employee training and benefitpackages are a management priority for experiencedmarketers.

CompetitionSurveyrespondents saw supermar-kets as a major external competitor to farm marketretailers. Price competition was a more significantconcern than competition for product quality.Competition from neighboring farms was of lesserconcern. Marketers solved this challenge cre-ativelythrough joint promotion to attract more

customers to the region or by creating a unique farmidentity.

Income and CreditGeneratinga livable wageconcerns all farmers, including direct marketingfarmers. The more experienced marketers reportedthat sales of farm products are a decreasing percent-age of total sales. More sales are generated throughentertainment, but with more effort required to

Focus Group Meeting Discussion

generate these dollars. Another income problemresults from the seasonal nature of direct marketing.

One challenge for direct marketers is to increaseincome through year-round sales and to encouragerepeat sales within a season and from one season tothe next. How to attract and retain customers andsecure their loyalty is a considerable challenge.

Related to income is the question of financial capac-ity. Some marketers were frustrated by the cumber-some process of obtaining credit through federallyfunded loan programs offered by the Farm ServiceAgency or Small Business Administration. Given

that no business plans or profiles are available ondirect marketing for lenders to know about theseoperations, both farm and traditional bankinginstitutions are reluctant to make loans for directmarketing or specialty enterprises.

Regulations and InsuranceBothmarketers andfacilitators expressed the need for regulations rel-evant to direct marketing operations. Regulations atall levels of government concerned them, includingFederal regulations pertaining to labor, the Occupa-

tional Safety and Health Administration, migrantworkers, pesticides, and food safety. Marketingregulations for meat and dairy products, mentionedat all focus group meetings, posed limitations fordirect marketing. Conformity between Federal andState laws also concerned respondents, and theycited a need for conformity between State and localhealth enforcement practices and procedures. At alocal level, land use regulation and how it affectsfarming have emerged as an issue. One challenge forfarm direct marketers is to be informed on all

regulations to ensure compliance. They expressedadditional concern about the cost of regulatorycompliance, which many were willing to bear if theyfelt confident that future regulations would notrender present efforts obsolete. Obtaining liabilityinsurance concerns marketers less, although they didtalk about the need to minimize exposure to risk andprotect themselves against claims.


29/69

20

Technical Assistance and GrantsThe experi-enced marketers generally were less concerned about

the availability of technical assistance than were lessexperienced marketers. Technical assistance needsvaried between the two groups. Marketers at bothMemphis and Grand Rapids needed business infor-mation, and they viewed grants as an opportunitybut were uncertain about the grants available andhow to obtain them.

For less experienced marketers, information needswere basic: how to get started, how and where to selldirect, what the niche market opportunities are,

what the potential return is, and where to get help.

The more experienced marketers needed moredetailed business decision-making information:performance standards, benchmark information,consumer trends information, facility layout anddesign details, and streamlined regulations. Theexperienced marketers also voiced more concern forliability issues, perhaps because of the size of theirbusinesses and because many are involved in enter-taining the public at their farms.

LocationThequestion of location was not identi-fied in the pre-focus group survey but was identifiedas a challenge in discussions. Marketers located nearurban areas were less concerned about attractingcustomers, but they were concerned about cost ofdoing business in an urban-influenced area andabout stricter land-use controls. Marketers in ruralareas were more concerned about how to reachconsumers. Lacking transportation for products tourban communities and lacking accessible urban

marketing outlets (farmers markets) presentedbarriers to direct marketing in the southern region.Lacking skills in selling directly to consumers wasanother barrier the less experienced marketersidentified. On the other hand, attracting customersto farms also was considered challenging becauseconsumers with limited resources may not have themeans or motivation to visit farms, and creating adestination farm involves much time, expense, anduncertainty.

Challenges and Barriers as Perceived byFacilitatorsFacilitators attributed more importance to thefollowing problems: producer marketing skills,technical assistance and grants, financial capacity,income and viability issues, consumer perceptionsand demand, and regulations. Although these issuesare similar to those rated as big problems by market-ers, there were some subtle differences.

Producer Marketing SkillsFacilitators identifiedthe following problems with producer marketingskills: producers lack time for marketing and areinexperienced in interacting directly with consum-ers, thus the need for technical assistance to improveproducer capacity for direct marketing. Althoughmarketers considered producer marketing skills lessof a problem than did facilitators, they were con-cerned about the impression that poorly run farmmarkets might make on consumers and how thisimpression affects the image of direct marketing.

Technical Assistance and GrantsMostfacilita-tors expressed the need for technical support andgrant funding. Facilitators also recognized the needfor more expertise and capacity to address theinterests and concerns of farm direct marketers. Thelack of good information about farmer direct mar-keting was a limiting factor in providing assistance toproducers. Marketing research receives low supportfrom academia, and data gathered on farmer directmarketing by State and Federal agencies are limitedor incomplete. To build a case for direct marketingsupport, data must demonstrate their significance to

academics, policy makers, and potential funders.

Financial Capacity and IncomeManyfacilitatorsexpressed concern that farmers would see farmerdirect marketing as the solution to agriculturesincome problems. Facilitators cautioned that costsand returns vary widely among direct market opera-tions. Small entrepreneurial farmers have difficultyobtaining credit because traditional lenders areunfamiliar with direct marketing operations and


30/69

21

their potential returns. The lack of information oncosts and returns from farmer direct marketing

affects both lending and technical assistance.

RegulationsConcerns facilitators raised weresimilar to those of marketers. Regulations must berelevant to farmer direct marketing. Of particularconcern is the sale of meats, poultry, fish, and dairyproducts at farm direct outlets. Institutional barriersimposed by regulations also were viewed as limitingdirect sales to schools, government, and institutionaloutlets.

Perspectives on the Future of DirectMarketingBoth facilitators and marketers raised the followingissues on the future of farmer direct marketing:

Consumer Perceptions and DemandAlthoughfacilitators and marketers considered consumerinterest in local food and farm products to be rea-sonably strong, both expressed concern aboutconsumer perceptions of direct marketing and aboutfuture consumer demand. They mentioned numer-ous changes in consumer demographics (e.g., agingpopulation, more food consumed away from home,more health consciousness in food selection), butthey acknowledged that their net effect on demandfor directly marketed products is unclear.

The concern about consumer perceptions of farmerdirect marketing arises because of the wide diversityof direct marketing operations, including farmersmarkets, pick-your-own operations, CSA farms,

seasonal farm stands and year-round farm markets,entertainment farms, mail order, Internet trade, anddirect sales to restaurants. A common thread is thatfewer middle persons are involved in marketing.Facilitators and marketers question whether defini-tions and standards are needed to eliminate potentialconsumer confusion and establish a common lan-guage and understanding. How far to delve intoadded entertainment enterprises before negativelyaffecting image and customer loyalty is also an issue.

Another concern both facilitators and marketersvoiced relates to sustaining consumer interest.

Although farmer direct marketing currently enjoysgood consumer support, it accounts for only a smallportion of the consumers food purchases. Marketersrecognize that consumers make food-shoppingdecisions based on freshness, quality, appearance,and convenienceall attributes that supermarketretailers can offer equally well or better. Retainingcustomers, an increasing concern, often requiresmore costly business tactics.

Marketers voiced the need to have better access to

information on consumer trends. Facilitators alsoneed this information so they can help producersanticipate changes in consumer shopping habits.Educating consumers and promoting the benefits ofsupporting local farms were mentioned as ways toheighten consumer awareness about local farms andto increase their customer base.

Future FarmersAs with other sectors of agricul-ture, marketers have a concern about attractingindividuals to the farming profession. While farmer

direct marketing is attracting new farmers, market-ers also have a concern about the longevity of theseoperations. Many urban communities provide areceptive customer base, yet farmers market organiz-ers are having difficulty attracting farmers, partlybecause of the lack of urban-edge farmers and partlybecause of a lack of economic information to enticeproducers to sell directly.

Limited technical and financial assistance also isavailable to help young people start in farmer direct

marketing. Established farm marketers have con-cerns about bringing family members into theoperation, supporting several family members in thebusiness, and estate planning.

OtherOther previously discussed concerns likelyto continue or intensify in the future include: regula-tions, especially pertaining to food safety; landavailability, land prices, and land use controls;


31/69

22

income relative to increasing costs; supermarketcompetition; and liability concerns. Marketers also

saw government farm and food policies affecting thefuture of small farmers and farmer direct marketing.They specifically mentioned trade policies, but theydid not identify other issues, aside from the percep-tion that government supports a cheap food policy.

Information NeedsViews on information needs and support weresimilar between facilitators and marketers, with amajor difference: the intended audience for informa-tion. Facilitators seek information that improves

their ability to assist direct marketing farmers andthat documents the significance of farmer directmarketing to local and State Government, policymakers, and potential funders. Marketers are lookingfor information that helps them make better busi-ness and marketing decisions and that helps increasetheir income. Each group was interested in data andeconomic information, regulatory clarification,technical assistance, support for promotional efforts,consumer trends information, assistance with edu-cating the public about agriculture (specificallyabout the benefits of local agriculture), and inexamples of successful direct marketing methods.They also expressed a desire for easier access toinformation. Details on information needs areprovided below.

Marketing MethodsAn understanding of directmarketing channels most interested less experienceddirect marketers. This group was interested particu-larly in how to information about selling in variousdirect channels. Basic needs cited include: how toget started, what to grow, what markets to target,finding and attracting customers, costs and potentialreturns. The less experienced marketer group alsowas interested in information on cooperatives andways to create alliances between farmer and con-sumer groups. This group viewed churches as asource of building community support for smallfarmers. The marketers also desired information on

the unique demands of each direct market channel.How to sell directly to government agencies and

schools was a specific interest.

Facilitators echoed the need for information onmarketing methods and channel requirements. Thisinformation could come packaged in many forms(fact sheet, checklist, curriculum, etc.) and wouldenable facilitators to do a better job of assistingmarketers with business and marketing decisions.Facilitators also could more actively help producersreach markets if they understood channel require-ments better.

Business Decision-Making ToolsSpecificneedsmentioned include information on: costs and returnsassociated with various crops or enterprises, perfor-mance standards that allow marketers to comparetheir operations with a standard for similar opera-tions and that relate performance to a commonmeasure (e.g., cost per square foot), potential returnsassociated with various marketing channels andmethods, feasibility of various diversification oppor-tunities, and rules of thumb. In addition to economic

information, estate-planning information also was ofinterest.

Facilitators also expressed an interest in businessperformance standards to improve their ability toprovide technical assistance to marketers. Marketers,especially those more experienced, are interested inkeeping track of the direction of their businesses.Economic information also would benefit marketersseeking sources of credit because lenders are unfa-miliar with potential costs and returns of direct

marketing.

Another need related directly to business decisionmaking is price information. Wholesale prices andprices paid at direct farm outlets vary widely. Pro-ducers engaged in farmer direct marketing use acombination of tactics to set prices that some feel aretoo low because wholesale and supermarket retailersoften serve as the basis for the price setting.


32/69

23

Industry DataInaddition to farm-level economicdata, facilitators are interested in more data on the

scope and size of direct marketing as a sector ofagriculture. They need documentation to garnersupport for direct marketing programs from alllevels of government, community economic leaders,and consumers. They specifically need: the size andscope of direct marketing (nationally and by State);the multiplier effect of direct marketing; and theindirect benefits of local agriculture that accrue tofarmers, communities, and consumers. This infor-mation would help facilitators build the case formore farmer direct marketing support.

Consumer Trend Information and DataInformation on consumer trends is critical because itaffects future activities in farmer direct marketing.Marketers need the information to adjust to chang-ing consumer trends, and facilitators need it toprovide marketers with a picture of what is aheadand to help them adjust. Both groups feel that thisinformation already exists, but it simply must berelevant and accessible to farmer direct marketingaudiences.

Technical AssistanceTechnical assistance needsrange from a very basic level of who can help andhow to transition from wholesale into farmer directmarketing, to studies that assess the feasibility ofniche products or diversification strategies. Eco-nomic information and industry data provide thebasis for technical assistance. Information to facili-tate technical assistance might include State directo-ries of direct market service providers, a State-by-State inventory or case studies of successful market-

ing strategies, packaged courses or how to manu-als, a compilation of the best direct marketingpractices, etc.

In addition to information and data, effective techni-cal assistance will require the help of specialists inthe field. A delivery system for information existsthrough USDA Extension and other USDA agencies

and State departments of agriculture. A critical needis to find the most effective means to reach market-

ers who need the information. Conferences andworkshops are effective but reach a limited segmentof the audience. Direct marketing associations areanother conduit of information to members but donot exist in every State. Where they do, their mem-bership is generally small. Access to quality assis-tance and credible information is a key need.

Consumer Education and PromotionFocusgroup participants said the importance of educatingthe public about the sources of food and the benefits

of supporting local farms and other promotionalefforts directed at increasing consumer purchasesfrom local farms were seen as important needs.Producers and facilitators expressed the belief thatthis education is not solely the role of government,but that government could help clarify misinforma-tion about the food supply and help educate con-sumers about farming and the benefits of supportinglocal farms. This education would benefit not onlyfarm direct marketers but all other agriculturalproducers as well. Resource materials about the food

supply, farmings benefits, nutrition, food safety, etc.,could teach youth in schools and during farm visitsand inform adult consumers.

Regulatory ClarificationA clear consensusdeveloped among focus group participants on theneed for regulatory clarification and streamlining.Farm direct marketers cope with regulations frommany directions: farm-level regulations, such aspesticide use and water quality protection; retailingregulations; local zoning; food safety and health

regulations if food is served at markets; labor regula-tions; etc. Marketers are concerned that manyregulations are not relevant to their enterprises.Moreover, changing regulations and new require-ments are often poorly communicated or impracticalto implement on a small scale. They suggestedpractices to comply with regulations to addressregulatory confusion.


33/69

24


34/69

25

The information needs identified by focus groupspresent program opportunities for USDA-AMS and

other USDA agencies. Although participants agreedon the need for information, they, especially market-ers, voiced caution about government involvementin direct marketing. Facilitators also voiced hopethat government will not duplicate what the privatesector or State agencies are doing, but that it willbecome a partner in enabling and enhancing directmarketing efforts. In particular, facilitators wereinterested in having USDA-AMS stimulate newinitiatives through grants and involve direct market-ing experts outside of USDA in achieving direct

marketing program goals. Facilitators specificallywere hopeful about having such USDA agencies asthe Farm Service Agency, with no prior history indirect marketing, redirect programs to include directmarketing. To address the concerns and informationneeds of the direct marketing community, facilitatorsstated that USDA-AMS must consider how it willdeliver information and what it is best suited todeliver and support.

Approaches to Enhanced Involvement of

USDA-AMS in Direct MarketingFocus group participants commented on howUSDA-AMS should approach an enhanced role infarmer direct marketing.

CollaborationA commonly expressed view wasthat USDA-AMS should collaborate with others indirect marketing. USDA-AMS also could exerciseinfluence on State departments of agriculture, sisterUSDA agencies, and other departments of govern-

ment to become more involved in direct marketing.Focus group participants saw USDA-AMS as havinga key role in encouraging collaboration betweenpublic and private organizations and in coordinatingregular regional networking among such groups asthose who were assembled for focus group meetings.By promoting regional networking, programmaticinformation, and experiences, USDA-AMS couldbetter use resources targeted at direct marketing.

Implications for USDA-AMS Programs

Balanced ApproachAnother recommendationwas that USDA-AMS work to support all types of

direct marketingfarmers markets, on-farm mar-keting, CSA farms, agricultural tourism, food servicesales, etc. Focus groups also expressed concern thatthe needs of direct marketing should be balancedwith other agricultural marketing needs so as not tocreate unrealistic expectations about farmer directmarketing opportunities.

Using Existing ExpertiseAn additional recom-mendation for USDA-AMS is to use availableexpertise in direct marketing throughout the country

in various agencies when sponsoring conferences,workshops, and training; in conducting research; andin producing publications and other products.

Possible Programmatic Responses toIdentified NeedsThe needs the focus groups identified provide manyopportunities for USDA-AMS to respond.

ClearinghouseOne role for USDA-AMS is tocoordinate the gathering and dissemination ofinformation and data. Information should be re-viewed for quality of content. Information onconsumer trends was a common interest. This role isbeing addressed by USDA-AMS through its directmarketing website.

GrantsThe participants considered grant funds tosupport marketing initiatives to be important andnecessary. They expressed the opinion that USDAshould encourage and fund innovative direct market-

ing initiatives through the Federal-State MarketingImprovement Program or other departmentalresources. Participants pointed to reauthorization offunds under the 1976 Direct Marketing Act as oneway to increase funds for direct marketing.

Broader Government Agency SupportBeyondfunding, USDA-AMS could leverage support fromsister USDA agencies and other government depart-


35/69


36/69

27

such as churches sponsor farmers markets or other-wise support a group of small farmers. An inventory

of innovative ways to link producers and consumerscould promote other such efforts.

Access to Quality Wholesale ProduceAs farmerdirect marketing businesses have grown, farmers arespending less time growing and more time market-ing. This trend necessitates that they purchaseproduce locally or through regional wholesalemarkets. USDA-AMS could facilitate networksbetween local growers and farm marketers. Market-ers also expressed concern about the quality of

produce available through wholesale terminalmarkets. USDA-AMS has a historical role of work-ing with wholesale terminal markets and couldinvestigate issues related to product quality atterminal markets. As an alternative, auction marketsin Pennsylvania are an increasingly common sourceof produce purchases by farm marketers. USDAcould investigate methods of linking farm marketerswith local growers.

Expanding Market ChannelsSeveral farm

marketers and facilitators indicated an interest inselling to schools or government institutions, but theinternal agency purchasing practices and govern-ment regulations present barriers. USDA-AMScould investigate the nature of these barriers andidentify ways to overcome them so those localgrowers could sell directly to institutions. Manualson how to sell to schools or the government inter-ested focus group participants.

PromotionFocus group participants suggested

that USDA-AMS become a partner in supportingpromotional efforts organized by States and market-

ing associations. They expressed the opinion thatUSDA should promote U.S. agriculture in general

and that providing resource materials to educateyouth and consumers about farming and the foodsystem was an appropriate role. They saw a nationalpromotional campaign that educates consumersabout the benefits of supporting local farmers as away to increase demand for farmer-direct-marketedproducts.

How-To InformationLess experienced market-ers were eager to obtain information on a variety ofdirect marketing subjects, such as information on

getting started, potential costs and returns, and newopportunities and marketing methods such as pick-your-own operations, CSA, farm markets, agricul-tural tourism, entertainment farming, and selling atfarmers markets. They considered case studies,successful models, and best marketing methods to beinstructive. Of particular interest was the potentialfor Internet marketing of farm products. In additionto written information, they saw workshops, tours,videos, and conferences as valuable means of com-municating information and sharing new ideas.

Performance StandardsMany businesses haveperformance standards they use to measure progress.Because direct marketing is so diverse, it may bedifficult to develop standard measures. Marketersasked for some common measures such as advertis-ing or labor costs as a percentage of sales, sales persquare foot, inventory turnover, etc. They couldgather this information through a network of univer-sity specialists who would collect and compilecomparable data for their region into a national

summary of performance standards for direct mar-keting.


37/69

28


38/69

29

A capstone activity in each focus group was elicitinginformation needs in an otherwise frictionless

perfect world.At the conclusion of each focusgroup meeting, participants were asked to sharetheir views of the most critical needs to address.Specific suggestions, in the words of focus groupparticipants, were recorded on-screen and verifiedfor accuracy by the person contributing the com-ment. Perfect world responses are listed in tables 1and 2. Tables 3 and 4 summarize discussions and listpotential responses to issues raised in discussions.

The specific suggestions will help USDA-AMS to

support direct marketing. Suggestions must becompatible with the mission of USDA-AMS, consid-ering whether the suggestion is an appropriatefunction of a Federal agency, State agency, or privateorganization; what could be accomplished withavailable resources; and which suggestions wouldproduce the most benefits.

An overriding theme was education for both produc-ers and consumers. With this dual emphasis, produc-ers skills and consumer interest were considered less

problematic in pre-focus group survey responses. Atthe end of focus group meetings, however, bothmarketers and facilitators suggested directing moreinformation resources toward tracking consumer

Perfect World Summary

trends and educating consumers about the farm andfood system. Supply-side information needs that

were expressed ranged in scope from technicalinformation on food safety and regulations toinformation on new or emerging products adaptableto direct sale.

Direct Marketing OutlookFocus group participants offered generally positiveoutlooks for direct marketing. They saw strategiesthat strengthen linkages between farmers andconsumers as a way to increase demand and directmarketing sales. Linkages that are developing and

are likely to result in expanded opportunities in-clude: private-public partnerships, tourism connec-tions, urban-rural links, farmer-restaurant and foodservice sales, farmer-school and government links,joint promotion of farm and food products, andmore support for farmers through a better consumerand community understanding of agriculturescontributions. USDA-AMS, further developing itsdirect marketing action plan, has the opportunity topromote linkages that improve access to markets forsmall farmers and to achieve its mission of facilitat-ing efficient, dependable, and equitable marketing ofagricultural products.


39/69

30

Table 1. Marketers: Facilitating Direct Marketing in a Perfect World

Network and sharing of marketing ideas, includingthe web.

Periodicals and publications? Gathering and ensuring accessibility of informa-

tionconsumers, growing, enterprise data, newvarieties. Education for the consumer: local farms and

benefits of communities' farm base. Promotion efforts, especially farm tours: a how-to

guide would help. Good information on food safety and more perspec-

tive or context for the risks one may assume whenconsuming food.

More advocacy for farming and food products. The perfect website: links to people who can speak

on regulations; lighting and displays; marketing andcreating scarcity; entertainment worlds (but this is

against the grain because farmers are independentand do not want to be put in boxes).

Education: farmers are a tough audience, resistantto abrupt change, though 90 percent of the informa-tion they need is the same; what is left are theinformation niches for the other 10 percent.

Intergenerational transfer of the farm business. Industry standards: labor, advertising, parking and

facilities layout; profit margins. Anticipate trends.

There needs to be program information dissemi-nation of information to people who need ite.g.,market information and complementary info, publicservice announcements, etc.

Need more local farmers marketswithin reason-able distance from producers. Tie-in with local restaurants, supermarkets, etc. Product identificationneed for training, learning

for younger generation nationwide. Facilitate the flow of information; e.g., directed to

the school system. A clearinghouse or centralizedinformation system.

Continue to provide trained specialistsrole model Consumer education focusmixed message with

encouraging imports while encouraging farmers tobe productive. Cant

Direct Marketing Today

Documents

Transcript of Direct Marketing Today