Illinois Fertilizer
Conference Proceedings
January 24-26, 2000
| Home | 2000 Index | Search |
|
|
| Home | 2000 Index | Search |
S.A. Simms1
Public understanding and appreciation of the benefits of fertilizer usage in Illinois and the United States are critically important. Lack of understanding could result in the implementation of public policy that would threaten the economic viability of the fertilizer industry and farmers—and ultimately the quality and quantity of our food supply. Recently, this concern has become most evident with the United States Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation and implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act in reference to fertilizer usage. Additionally, federal EPA's interpretation of the Food Quality Protection Act could also threaten product availability for those producers who use fertilizers to benefit consumers.
Those in the agricultural industry realize the benefits of fertilizer usage. However, the majority of the people of Illinois never hear the full story of such benefits but are instead bombarded with messages by those who oppose modern, productive, and efficient agricultural practices. A recent Lexus/Nexus document search for articles in major U.S. newspapers about fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and farm chemicals revealed that 56 of 114 articles contained negative messages about products that the agricultural industry needs in order to produce the quality food and fiber the world demands.
These negative messages not only reinforce and urge on those who hold extreme negative positions on fertilizer and farm chemical usage, but they also have a potentially adverse impact on consumers who are considered neutral when it comes to their feelings about usage of fertilizers and crop protectants. A recent American Farm Bureau Federation study on consumer attitudes toward farmers and selected farm issues indicated that as much as 42% of the general population is considered neutral or has no opinion when asked how good of a job farmers are doing using crop protectants and other similar products properly. Fully 24% thought farmers were doing a poor job. The public's perception is dangerously inaccurate when it comes to understanding just how good of a job farmers are doing using these products and also in understanding the need for such products in producing a safe and abundant food supply.
Considering the number of negative news articles in the general media about fertilizer and chemical usage, and considering that a plurality of the population has a neutral feeling about farmers' correct usage of these products, it seems clear that a public education campaign would help consumers better understand the benefits of fertilizer usage. The fertilizer industry and those who use its products need a proactive voice in the media. To that end, FREC funded a statewide radio campaign to accurately tell the fertilizer story in Illinois.
Overall, the campaign utilized 60-second radio commercials (transcripts begin on the next page) that were written and produced to get the audience's attention through the use of clever sound effects, catchy music, and a combination of interesting voices. The commercial message is wrapped in a presentation called "Amazing Ag Facts" and offers listeners "true but little known facts" about fertilizers and their benefits.
The target audience for the campaign was 25-54-year-old adults who are principal food shoppers and known voters. Ten to 15 commercials per week were purchased on 111 "downstate" radio stations in small and medium-sized communities, as well as on two top-rated (with the target audience) Chicago radio stations (a complete station listing follows the transcripts). The campaign was spread over 20 weeks with the schedule arranged so that the commercials would be on the air one week, off the next, and then back on. The campaign began in June 1999 and concluded at the end of November 1999.
During the airing of these commercials, Illinois Farm Bureau received unsolicited calls from people in the Chicago area who heard the commercials and wanted more information or wanted to know how we substantiated some of our facts. For each call, we provided the background information and documentation behind the facts presented in the spots. One call from the editor of Seed World magazine resulted in an editorial in the magazine that complimented the campaign and urged the industry to do more such "in-your-face advertising" (the editor's words) that help tell the farmers' story to consumers. In the absence of formal research, it is hard to measure the total effectiveness of the campaign, but these types of anecdotes suggest that people are listening and that the message is getting through.
Perhaps a future project should be limited to one media market. Prior to conducting the mass media campaign, focus groups could be used to determine the issues surrounding fertilizer usage. Based upon focus group findings, a questionnaire could be developed and administered via phone to a randomly selected group of people to determine perceptions of fertilizer usage. Message content could be developed based on these perceptions and serve as the core of a mass media campaign utilizing both television and radio. Following the campaign, research could be conducted via phone to determine if people's perceptions of fertilizer usage had changed.
Fertilizer Spot #1: Sound Science
Fertilizer Spot #2: Food Demands
Fertilizer Spot #3: Precision Agriculture
Fertilizer Spot #4: Improve Productivity
Station Listing (Table of stations which aired the campaign)
1 S.A. Simms has worked in public relations for Illinois Farm Bureau since 1982. Currently, he is Promotion and Graphic Arts Director for IFB and is responsible for consumer advertising campaigns and other PR activities conducted by IFB. He has a B.S. in Communication Research from Illinois State Univ., Normal (1979).
