The NAFB Internet Usage study has been one of my favorites for a number of reasons: one, because it is backed by people that really care about farming (the NAFB); two, because the study works hard to achieve an accurate distribution of respondents, both in terms of geography and in farm size. And with a sample of 2,225, the results give a pretty accurate picture of what's going on out there.
The numbers for accessing the internet continue to grow: 55% of Farmers access the internet personally, and that number grows to 70% when you look at only $500K+ operations. Approximately 13% of both groups have someone else access it for them, which bumps the numbers to 68% and 83% respectively when it comes to information (what I mean by that is, while they are not exposed to many ads, they might be exposed to online content).
The real eye-opener is the lack of the producer's use of social media. Only 2% use Twitter. Only 5% have ever participated in a blog (posted one or responded to one). Only 5% belong to any online community. And only 13% have ever even been to a social media site (mySpace, Facebook, or LinkedIn). When you meet some of these producers face-to-face, believe me, you don't doubt it. Social media is 'sissy' to a lot of them.
Ted Haller, the director of this research and a colleague of mine, said it best: "The real issue with the internet, is that unlike the media analysis of the past, there seems to be more of a willingness to project one's own usage habits on the internet as 'universal' with not a lot of data to back it up. This is a very easy thing to do since agri-marketers have a very high usage level on the internet - maybe even into the 99% range".
I believe it to be a travesty that people who claim to be "marketers", who learned in marketing 101 that we need to understand the target audience, would be so willing to project our city-boy internet habits onto our target group.
Don't get me wrong, I work in the internet field and often recommend online strategies to reach crop and livestock producers. But until I see some reliable data that confirms a critical mass of producers using social media, I'm staying away from it. I recommend you do the same.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
Farmers Internet Habits Often Overstated
In the agri-business world, there are a number of companies that are investing heavily into providing good content to crop and livestock producers, in an effort to capture eyeballs and the growing curve of internet advertising dollars. While I applaud the business savvy of investing with a vision, I want to caution the buyer of internet media to carefully scrutinize all published data when it comes to evaluating the internet habits of farmers. In particular, one must watch the universe of farmers being surveyed.
The worst one I have seen this year was a claim that "89% of farmers are online", that, when investigated, it turned out to be an online survey. After immediately throwing out this data as garbage, the mind wanders to the other 11% that answered online and didn't know that's where they were!
Nicholson Kovak came out recently with survey results that claimed a high percentage of use of many advanced applications of internet, including social media. But based on the learned opinion of my colleagues, this was also a blatant self-serving venture to provide backup data to rationalize purchasing their online products. Apparently they surveyed a large number of farmers but threw out responses that didn't agree with their agenda, and tabulated only the results that they wanted.
One needs to have access to the entire survey in order to be able to scrutinize it properly. One recent survey from Farm Business Communications in Canada correctly identified the source as "all farmers that recieved their e-newsletter were invited to participate". To FBC's credit they did properly qualify their data at the beginning of the presentation; however by page four of the PowerPoint, using the qualifier became redundant they started making sweeping statements like "75% of farmers use a mobile internet device" whereas if they would have just said "75% of respondents" they would have maintained the integrity of what they were trying to report. The danger here is that someone looks at, or only has access to, page four and then comes to the mistaken conclusion that "75% of farmers have a mobile internet device".
Therefore, before determining whether a survey is valid and can be included in your evaluation, please do your best to follow these general guidelines:
1. Ensure that you have the entire survey report, not just a page or so out of it
2. Scrutinize in detail the universe being measured - is there any skew in that at all?
3. survey methods where one is contacted (i.e. phone) result in a greater response rate than opt-in or on-line surveys and will give you a better true representation
4. Where possible, get a copy of the actual questionnaire being utilized and check how the questions were asked to see if they were leading the respondent in any way.
5. Ensure that the company doing the survey is an independent research firm not connected with the company being surveyed. Do not use surveys that are either done in-house or by students from an educational institution.
Personally, I find that Ipsos-Reid in Canada and the NAFB in the states both do a pretty decent job of reporting accurate internet use by farmers and ranchers. What has been your experience?
The worst one I have seen this year was a claim that "89% of farmers are online", that, when investigated, it turned out to be an online survey. After immediately throwing out this data as garbage, the mind wanders to the other 11% that answered online and didn't know that's where they were!
Nicholson Kovak came out recently with survey results that claimed a high percentage of use of many advanced applications of internet, including social media. But based on the learned opinion of my colleagues, this was also a blatant self-serving venture to provide backup data to rationalize purchasing their online products. Apparently they surveyed a large number of farmers but threw out responses that didn't agree with their agenda, and tabulated only the results that they wanted.
One needs to have access to the entire survey in order to be able to scrutinize it properly. One recent survey from Farm Business Communications in Canada correctly identified the source as "all farmers that recieved their e-newsletter were invited to participate". To FBC's credit they did properly qualify their data at the beginning of the presentation; however by page four of the PowerPoint, using the qualifier became redundant they started making sweeping statements like "75% of farmers use a mobile internet device" whereas if they would have just said "75% of respondents" they would have maintained the integrity of what they were trying to report. The danger here is that someone looks at, or only has access to, page four and then comes to the mistaken conclusion that "75% of farmers have a mobile internet device".
Therefore, before determining whether a survey is valid and can be included in your evaluation, please do your best to follow these general guidelines:
1. Ensure that you have the entire survey report, not just a page or so out of it
2. Scrutinize in detail the universe being measured - is there any skew in that at all?
3. survey methods where one is contacted (i.e. phone) result in a greater response rate than opt-in or on-line surveys and will give you a better true representation
4. Where possible, get a copy of the actual questionnaire being utilized and check how the questions were asked to see if they were leading the respondent in any way.
5. Ensure that the company doing the survey is an independent research firm not connected with the company being surveyed. Do not use surveys that are either done in-house or by students from an educational institution.
Personally, I find that Ipsos-Reid in Canada and the NAFB in the states both do a pretty decent job of reporting accurate internet use by farmers and ranchers. What has been your experience?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Victory for Agri-Marketing in Canada
To review, the BBM (Bureau of broadcast measurement) here in Canada, responsible for measuring radio listenership and television viewership across the country, recently changed the occupation codes, grouping farmers and ranchers in with all other primary industries.
The argument has been that, compared to fishermen, lumberjacks and miners, farmers and ranchers are a distinctly seperate group. Plus we have a 50 million dollar advertising industry marketing specifically to farmers, and even our own agri-marketing association (CAMA).
Subsequent to their committee meetings in mid-September, to follow is the response from BBM:
Both the Radio Technical Committee (RTC) and the Television Research Committee (TVRC) have approved splitting the Primary Industry category into Agriculture Industry and Other Primary Industry. The changes will be implemented in the radio diary in Spring 2010, and in TV diary in Fall 2010.
The changes will be implemented in the PPM questionnaire effective September 2010. However it is important to note that the data will not be available for release in PPM until September 2011, as it takes one year to refresh the PPM qualitative data.
The following is a comment I got from an insider that attended the meetings:
I wish I could claim all the credit, but when I introduced the topic I said, “Good, we need this. Who will make the motion?” It took about 2 seconds to get 3 people wanting to move the change.
Both measures were passed in about 2 minutes.
Thanks for your push, you were the one to make it happen, for all our benefit.
I am ecstatic with the recognition that the agriculture is still a valid marketing category in Canada, and to be able to continue using occupational-specific data to measure radio listenership and TV viewership in this country. And because the occupational data has been added to meters too, the future is also assured.
The argument has been that, compared to fishermen, lumberjacks and miners, farmers and ranchers are a distinctly seperate group. Plus we have a 50 million dollar advertising industry marketing specifically to farmers, and even our own agri-marketing association (CAMA).
Subsequent to their committee meetings in mid-September, to follow is the response from BBM:
Both the Radio Technical Committee (RTC) and the Television Research Committee (TVRC) have approved splitting the Primary Industry category into Agriculture Industry and Other Primary Industry. The changes will be implemented in the radio diary in Spring 2010, and in TV diary in Fall 2010.
The changes will be implemented in the PPM questionnaire effective September 2010. However it is important to note that the data will not be available for release in PPM until September 2011, as it takes one year to refresh the PPM qualitative data.
The following is a comment I got from an insider that attended the meetings:
I wish I could claim all the credit, but when I introduced the topic I said, “Good, we need this. Who will make the motion?” It took about 2 seconds to get 3 people wanting to move the change.
Both measures were passed in about 2 minutes.
Thanks for your push, you were the one to make it happen, for all our benefit.
I am ecstatic with the recognition that the agriculture is still a valid marketing category in Canada, and to be able to continue using occupational-specific data to measure radio listenership and TV viewership in this country. And because the occupational data has been added to meters too, the future is also assured.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Internet: farmers still behind the curve
A recent release from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA, Washington DC) shows that the big change 2009 versus 2007 is that a significant percentage of producers moved from dail-up to more high-speed forms of internet. However, total growth of farmers online 2009 versus 2007 is very slow - almost flat in some categories. Here is a quote:
A total of 59 percent of U.S. farms now have Internet access, compared with 57 percent in 2007. Sixty-four percent of farms have access to a computer in 2009, the same level as 2007. The proportion of U.S. farms owning or
leasing a computer in 2009, at 61 percent, was up 1 percentage point from 2007. Farms using computers for their farm business increased 1 percentage point from 2007 to 36 percent in 2009.
When we look at larger operations or crop operations, the numbers are better, but they still generally do not rise above 70%. As Agri-marketers based in cities and towns, we become accustomed that everyone we know (except maybe gramma) uses a computer daily. In Agriculture, we need to remember that internet strategies, like all media choices, will reach a portion of the target group but not everyone. Proper media planning in Agri-Marketing involves looking at all media choices, online and offline, in order to assemble the winning combination. That is the challenge and the field of expertise of media planning.
A total of 59 percent of U.S. farms now have Internet access, compared with 57 percent in 2007. Sixty-four percent of farms have access to a computer in 2009, the same level as 2007. The proportion of U.S. farms owning or
leasing a computer in 2009, at 61 percent, was up 1 percentage point from 2007. Farms using computers for their farm business increased 1 percentage point from 2007 to 36 percent in 2009.
When we look at larger operations or crop operations, the numbers are better, but they still generally do not rise above 70%. As Agri-marketers based in cities and towns, we become accustomed that everyone we know (except maybe gramma) uses a computer daily. In Agriculture, we need to remember that internet strategies, like all media choices, will reach a portion of the target group but not everyone. Proper media planning in Agri-Marketing involves looking at all media choices, online and offline, in order to assemble the winning combination. That is the challenge and the field of expertise of media planning.
Monday, August 10, 2009
BBM Update
Hi readers! If you've been following this blog, then you would know that BBM recently announced a change to their occupation category. What was previous "Farm / Farm Worker" has now been revised to "Working in Primary Industry", which means that crop and livestock producers have been grouped with workers in the forestry, mining and fishing industries. From an agri-marketers' perspective, primary industries are not a homogenous group; Therefore the data they now report on TV vieewership and radio listenership habits is in effect useless.
I did report previously that due to members' outrage, the RTC did recommend that the Primary Industry category be broken down further into Agriculture vs. Other Primary Industry for radio diary.
Now I have been informed that this issue will make it to the agenda for both the RTC and TVRC meetings to happen in September. With some luck BBM will reinstate the measurement of farmers on TV diary, and include farmer-specific measurement for the first time on metered data for both radio and television. Many thanks to everyone who called or emailed BBM directly or BBM member stations on this issue. I'll keep you updated.
I did report previously that due to members' outrage, the RTC did recommend that the Primary Industry category be broken down further into Agriculture vs. Other Primary Industry for radio diary.
Now I have been informed that this issue will make it to the agenda for both the RTC and TVRC meetings to happen in September. With some luck BBM will reinstate the measurement of farmers on TV diary, and include farmer-specific measurement for the first time on metered data for both radio and television. Many thanks to everyone who called or emailed BBM directly or BBM member stations on this issue. I'll keep you updated.
Friday, June 19, 2009
According to BBM, Farmers are now Lumberjacks
Effective with the Fall 2008 study, BBM announced a change to their occupation category. What was previous "Farm / Farm Worker" has now been revised to "Working in Primary Industry", which means that crop and livestock producers have been grouped with workers in the forestry, mining and fishing industries.
Their primary reason for this is that agriculture only accounts for 2.1% of jobs in Canada, and this sample size in most cases is too unreliable to obtain useful information. grouping the category to include other primary industries increases the percentage to 3.8% of all Canadians(source StatsCan 2006). From a research methodology standpoint, I understand why it was done. The problem is, what is sound methodology does not always make sound business sense.
Here’s the issue: Primary industries are not a homogenous group. A farmer is different from a fisherman and a forestry worker is something completely different. If they need to be grouped to satisfy someone’s need to be statistically reliable, I have no problem with that. But the data should also be available to be broken out for someone who specifically wants it.
Agriculture, this little 2.1% segment of the occupational market, is a 50 million dollar advertising category. there is even an advertising association (CAMA) devoted specifically to marketing to this one segment, with active chapters in a number of provinces. We make our marketing decisions (hopefully) based upon accurate and usable data. If the sample size is too small, let's look at ways to increase it to be more representative of the importance of the advertising category. But the solution is not to group apples and pears together and call them apples…because the reality is now the data is a Japanese yah pear.
Subsequent to this, the RTC recommended that the Primary Industry category be broken down further into Agriculture vs. Other Primary Industry. This change will be implemented in the radio diary, but not likely until Fall 2010. At this point, there are no plans to make this change in the TV diary or PPM questionnaire.
While I am thankful that BBM has made a positive move (even they admit this has been a hot button issue), the lack of measurement in metered markets and TV diaries is still acute. In 2008, I myself spent 2 million dollars in TV advertising to farmers, and now, without any current farmer-specific research to prove who's watching what program, it will be extremely difficult to justify to clients.
Their primary reason for this is that agriculture only accounts for 2.1% of jobs in Canada, and this sample size in most cases is too unreliable to obtain useful information. grouping the category to include other primary industries increases the percentage to 3.8% of all Canadians(source StatsCan 2006). From a research methodology standpoint, I understand why it was done. The problem is, what is sound methodology does not always make sound business sense.
Here’s the issue: Primary industries are not a homogenous group. A farmer is different from a fisherman and a forestry worker is something completely different. If they need to be grouped to satisfy someone’s need to be statistically reliable, I have no problem with that. But the data should also be available to be broken out for someone who specifically wants it.
Agriculture, this little 2.1% segment of the occupational market, is a 50 million dollar advertising category. there is even an advertising association (CAMA) devoted specifically to marketing to this one segment, with active chapters in a number of provinces. We make our marketing decisions (hopefully) based upon accurate and usable data. If the sample size is too small, let's look at ways to increase it to be more representative of the importance of the advertising category. But the solution is not to group apples and pears together and call them apples…because the reality is now the data is a Japanese yah pear.
Subsequent to this, the RTC recommended that the Primary Industry category be broken down further into Agriculture vs. Other Primary Industry. This change will be implemented in the radio diary, but not likely until Fall 2010. At this point, there are no plans to make this change in the TV diary or PPM questionnaire.
While I am thankful that BBM has made a positive move (even they admit this has been a hot button issue), the lack of measurement in metered markets and TV diaries is still acute. In 2008, I myself spent 2 million dollars in TV advertising to farmers, and now, without any current farmer-specific research to prove who's watching what program, it will be extremely difficult to justify to clients.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Online Recommendation: Prairie Crop Producers
I have been in the media planning and buying business since 1985, figuring out the best platforms to reach a variety of consumer and business target groups, at the right reach and frequency, using the most cost-efficient approach. Over the last number of years I have devoted my energies exclusively to the agriculture sector. I love the ag business, and I love agri-marketing. However I have also come across a number of people in the industry that believe they know the best media solution for their clients, from a mix of business experience, relationships, and their own media habits and that of their peers.
Rather than run in a direction because of my personal bias, I have been a passionate advocate of data: research it, report all the findings, and if it helps to paint a picture, offer some possible insight based on experience. I understand that the data can be somewhat outdated, but the focus therefore should be to get more timely data - to assume on a trend is dangerous. Case in point, I remember when we went from three channels to twelve on basic cable and the agency world cried "fragmentation", and the TV media was on its way out. Here 25 years later, I can still reach 80% of the farmers I want in almost any given area by buying two TV stations.
I use this same approach as I look at how computers, the internet and finally social media has worked its way into the lives of Western Canadian Crop Producers.
First of all, we must get a demographic picture of the Canadian Farmer. StatsCan 2006 is getting pretty old, but the beauty of the study is that it is not by sample - Every farmer participates. StatsCan 06 also shows that the Canadain farmer is pretty old, too. Very few farmers (under 10%) are under age 35, and over 40% are over age 55. The average age of the farmer in the prairies is now over 50 years of age, and that average has increased by 2.5 years since 2001. Farm Succession is a real problem in Canada, and not a lot of new young farmers are entering the market. Furthermore, unlike us city folk that look forward to Freedom 55, the farmer loves his profession and will not retire until he is physically unable to perform the tasks. It is not unusual to still be actively farming until one is in his late 70s.
StatsCan 2006 reported the following penetration levels: 45.5% use a computer for business. 34.7% have internet access. 32.3% have email. Compared to the 2001 survey, the numbers have grown, but not exponentially (they were in the 23-30% range in '01).
To us urbanites living in the city, the computer and internet access has been a part of our daily lives as long as we can remember. It is difficult to believe. Yet the data is public domain, anyone can access it.
Other data, more recent, shows significantly higher levels of penetration, but the sample is qualified to have a minimum size of farming operation. And the newer data also shows that dial-up access is still in the majority.
We are now living in 2009, and many of us are looking forward to marketing plans for 2010. High-speed has become more and more available rurally. Logically (and supported in the ag press) that a producer is doing himself a disservice if he isn't at least accessible by email and checking weather and markets online. It has become an indispensible business tool. The point is twofold: one, that the internet as a business tool is still relatively new for the majority of producers. Second, the market is primarily men aged 45 and over, which are late adopters of technology, linear thinkers, and as a group don't see the benefits of being connected with social media.
Straight business applications for your ag product, such as a clean website with good SEO, and targeted paid search, are great ways to get on the shopping list with a producer. But I caution against spending marketing budgets on social media applications at this time. As urbanites we're all excited about Twitter and Linkedin. But for the crop producer, the cellphone is indispensible, GPS directly affects the bottom line, and internet is a distant third.
Rather than run in a direction because of my personal bias, I have been a passionate advocate of data: research it, report all the findings, and if it helps to paint a picture, offer some possible insight based on experience. I understand that the data can be somewhat outdated, but the focus therefore should be to get more timely data - to assume on a trend is dangerous. Case in point, I remember when we went from three channels to twelve on basic cable and the agency world cried "fragmentation", and the TV media was on its way out. Here 25 years later, I can still reach 80% of the farmers I want in almost any given area by buying two TV stations.
I use this same approach as I look at how computers, the internet and finally social media has worked its way into the lives of Western Canadian Crop Producers.
First of all, we must get a demographic picture of the Canadian Farmer. StatsCan 2006 is getting pretty old, but the beauty of the study is that it is not by sample - Every farmer participates. StatsCan 06 also shows that the Canadain farmer is pretty old, too. Very few farmers (under 10%) are under age 35, and over 40% are over age 55. The average age of the farmer in the prairies is now over 50 years of age, and that average has increased by 2.5 years since 2001. Farm Succession is a real problem in Canada, and not a lot of new young farmers are entering the market. Furthermore, unlike us city folk that look forward to Freedom 55, the farmer loves his profession and will not retire until he is physically unable to perform the tasks. It is not unusual to still be actively farming until one is in his late 70s.
StatsCan 2006 reported the following penetration levels: 45.5% use a computer for business. 34.7% have internet access. 32.3% have email. Compared to the 2001 survey, the numbers have grown, but not exponentially (they were in the 23-30% range in '01).
To us urbanites living in the city, the computer and internet access has been a part of our daily lives as long as we can remember. It is difficult to believe. Yet the data is public domain, anyone can access it.
Other data, more recent, shows significantly higher levels of penetration, but the sample is qualified to have a minimum size of farming operation. And the newer data also shows that dial-up access is still in the majority.
We are now living in 2009, and many of us are looking forward to marketing plans for 2010. High-speed has become more and more available rurally. Logically (and supported in the ag press) that a producer is doing himself a disservice if he isn't at least accessible by email and checking weather and markets online. It has become an indispensible business tool. The point is twofold: one, that the internet as a business tool is still relatively new for the majority of producers. Second, the market is primarily men aged 45 and over, which are late adopters of technology, linear thinkers, and as a group don't see the benefits of being connected with social media.
Straight business applications for your ag product, such as a clean website with good SEO, and targeted paid search, are great ways to get on the shopping list with a producer. But I caution against spending marketing budgets on social media applications at this time. As urbanites we're all excited about Twitter and Linkedin. But for the crop producer, the cellphone is indispensible, GPS directly affects the bottom line, and internet is a distant third.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
