extension.tennessee.edu visibility... · web viewextension.tennessee.edu

Guidebook for Marketing Cooperative ExtensionAbstractMarketing Cooperative Extension at the Local Level is a highly pragmatic guidebook that stresses the need for creating visibility and recognition for Cooperative Extension county-based and regional programs. The guidebook offers a well-organized menu of strategies, tricks of the trade, and innovative ideas for getting programmatic recognition and developing political support. All staff, not just County Directors, will find useful ideas.

Sonya Varea-HammondCounty DirectorMonterey CountyUniversity of California Cooperative ExtensionSalinas, [email protected]

IntroductionCooperative Extension in many states is struggling to survive under budget cuts and changing legislative priorities. The guidebook Marketing Cooperative Extension at the Local Level was written to help Cooperative Extension staff increase, or at the very least maintain, funding and support. The guidebook offers strategies to "market" Cooperative Extension. "Marketing," for the guidebook's purposes, refers to a combination of methods such as public relations, communication, and networking to broadly increase visibility and understanding of the value of Cooperative Extension. The guidebook makes the case that marketing is the responsibility of all staff members, not just the County Director, and provides ideas for volunteer and clientele involvement.

The guidebook resulted from a survey in which 49 County Directors in 13 states responded to this request: "Please email five or less of the most effective practices you use to 'market' Cooperative Extension in your county." Respondents all echoed the importance of marketing to help ensure the survival of Cooperative Extension and reiterated the need to, above all, deliver solid programs.

The key word for this guidebook is "practical." Many strategies are presented to allow for maximum flexibility based on locale, program type, and personal work style preferences. The reader is encouraged to select from the options and schedule them to develop a personalized action plan.

Our Survival Depends on MarketingThe author begins by presenting the rationale for developing a marketing plan. She points out that marketing wasn't as crucial in earlier times because Cooperative Extension was the "only show in town." Those times are then contrasted with today, and the factors that have led to Cooperative Extension's anonymity or low recognition factors are identified.

Back "Then"

The early days are best described as a time when everyone recognized Cooperative Extension, commonly known as "Agricultural Extension" or, simply, "the County Agent." Other than doing a good job, there was little need for additional efforts to publicize Cooperative Extension. The likelihood was high that any member of a Board of Supervisors (County Commissioners) was also a farmer who personally relied on the services of Cooperative Extension.

Obscured by Changing Forces

Those days of easy recognition are gone for Cooperative Extension. Although the United States is no longer an agrarian economy, Cooperative Extension has transformed its programming to serve through each new economic phase and in the many different geographical areas of the U.S., finding new roles to play, as well as adapting the traditional farm, nutrition, and youth programs to fit the changing composition and needs of clientele. Nevertheless, fewer people know about the existence of Cooperative Extension and its value to society.

Changing demographics is the first of two significant challenges to Cooperative Extension's visibility. The second major challenge is the proliferation of information and methods of receiving it. Cooperative Extension competes with numerous businesses and non-profit organizations, all vying for the time and attention of oftentimes the same clientele. The pressure to be more accessible, more useful, quicker, and smarter grows dramatically.

The Rationale for Marketing

The guidebook defines the following reasons for marketing Extension:

Political--To enhance the sources of funding and support, Internal benefits--Creating high performing teams and attracting good

staff, and

Survival--competing for clientele who have other resources at their disposal

A point made by survey respondents was that without good programs, you have nothing to market. The basic principle and starting point for any marketing plan has always been to have a good product. Survey respondents said, "Good programs are the best form of marketing." "The best marketing is excellent programming." "Have relevant programming."

In the new environment, being good at programmatic disciplines is still vital, but not enough. The need for marketing is a reality.

Getting Down to BusinessFollowing the discussion on the need for marketing, the guidebook proceeds with the "how-to's" and specific techniques.

How Information Is Spread

After a brief review of advertising, publicity, public relations, and marketing, the next chapter correlates the findings of Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point to the traditional trio in Cooperative Extension: The Advisors/Agents, the cooperators/clientele, and the County Director. Each has a role in creating beneficial change and spreading the news about the value of Cooperative Extension.

Specific Strategies

Every marketing plan begins with a strategic plan. County Directors first need to define their message and the best methods to communicate it.

Communication tools are discussed, and the point is made that our traditional tools, such as charts and statistics, are less memorable than real life stories that create an emotional link to the listener.

There are tips on creating and maintaining visibility, such as:

Dealing effectively with the media, Using awards as motivators and publicity tools, Conducting special events, Networking, Offering superb customer service, Using technology, and Budgeting for marketing.

A chapter is devoted to the ways others can have active roles in marketing. Advisors/Agents are key players, but not to be overlooked is the extended network of clientele, political supporters, advisory boards, focus groups, and volunteers.

The guide concludes with a planning matrix.

Copies of the guidebook can be obtained by sending $11.00 to Monterey County Cooperative Extension, 1432 Abbott Street, Salinas, CA 93901.

ReferencesGladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point. How little things can make a big difference. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Varea-Hammond, S. (2003). Marketing Cooperative Extension at the local level. Salinas, Ca: University of California Cooperative Extension, Monterey County, California.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, [email protected].

If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support

Targeted Marketing: Lessons from an Agri-Tourism EnterpriseAbstractMarketing is a top concern for many Extension specialists and for our audiences. Whether we're selling our own programs or helping producers and growers sell their products, we need to understand marketing basics and how to apply them in the field. University of Vermont researchers analyzed marketing methods used by an agri-tourism enterprise to better understand which marketing methods are most effective in different circumstances. The results led to a new hypothesis that has the potential to help Extension personnel identify appropriate marketing methods for specific products.

Lisa C. ChaseNatural Resources SpecialistUniversity of Vermont ExtensionBrattleboro, [email protected]

IntroductionExtension specialists throughout the country are frequently asked by farmers and other business owners about marketing issues, regardless of their area of expertise. From beef to blueberries and environmental education to tourism, specialists are challenged by marketing questions yet are rarely trained to address such questions. This is not new; the need for marketing programs and the lack of trained personnel to answer questions is a recurring topic in Extension publications past and present (e.g., Larson, 1997; Muhammadm, Tegegne, & Ekanem, 2004; Weinschrott, 1985).

In an effort to find answers, University of Vermont Extension teamed up with the University of Vermont School of Business Administration and the Vermont Tourism Data Center. Working together, we designed a research project that examines the question: "How can businesses with limited

resources, such as family farms, make use of marketing research to reach new customers?"

In the first phase of the project, we worked with Amelia and Chris Darrow of Olallie Daylily Gardens in South Newfane, Vermont. The Darrows grow high-quality daylilies and other perennials on their family farm, and they use a variety of direct marketing methods. They want more people to visit their farm and purchase products while they visit, but they also want to grow their catalog and Internet mail-order business. They teamed up with the University of Vermont to see how research could help them understand and expand their customer base in a cost-effective way.

BackgroundThe well-known four P's of marketing (product, price, place, and promotion) are still essential for success (Parmerlee, 2000); however, several more P's have been added, including partnerships, publicity, and positioning, just to name a few (Comen, 2003). The list of P's goes on and on, but even knowing all the P's doesn't guarantee success in today's competitive marketplaces, with consumers suffering from information overload (Godin, 2003). To reach customers, your product must be remarkable, and your marketing must be precisely targeted (Peppers & Rogers, 1996).

Understanding how to target customers was the subject of a research study conducted by the Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing and the Vermont Tourism Data Center (Noordewier, 2003). The study profiled visitors to Vermont and purchasers of Vermont-made products. These studies used a national "PRIZM" classification system developed by Claritas, Inc. to better understand who comes to Vermont and who should be targeted for statewide marketing efforts. This system used zip codes to classify customers into a variety of demographic groupings (Noordewier, 2003).

While PRIZM codes technically identify neighborhood types, in practice they can be thought of as representing distinct household segments with particular consumer behavior, demographic, and lifestyle characteristics. A 2002 study of Vermont visitors formed four macro segments consisting of household types with relatively similar profiles. The groups were formed by clustering together similar PRIZM codes. Forming macro clusters is useful for marketing because it makes it easier to target largely similar household types.

The 2002 study of Vermont visitors identified four distinct types or groups of households traveling to Vermont in disproportionate numbers. To determine whether a specific PRIZM profile travels to Vermont in disproportionate numbers, the percent of Vermont visitors categorized in the profile is divided

by the percent of the U.S. population categorized in that profile. For example, PRIZM code number 42, New Eco-topians, accounted for 1.00% of the U.S. population in 2002 and 1.62% of Vermont visitors. Dividing 1.62% by 1.00% gives us an index of 162 and a 62% greater likelihood of making one or more trips to Vermont than the average U.S. household.

In the 2002 Vermont visitor study, the definitions and composition of the four target groups (i.e., visitors disproportionately prone to travel to Vermont) were reported as follows (Table 1, Noordewier 2003).

1. Metro Achievers

These households are among the most educated and affluent in the country, with the heads tending to be the elite in their professions or businesses. The families in the clusters comprising this target market live overwhelmingly in the suburbs of major metropolitan cities or "second" cities. In 2002, Metro Achievers represented 20% of households making one or more trips to Vermont. With the clusters comprising the Metro Achievers target market accounting for 14% of all households nationally, such households exhibited a 47% greater likelihood of making one or more trips to Vermont than the average U.S. household. Given their affluence, the propensity of Metro Achievers households to travel to Vermont makes them a highly desirable target market.

2. Small Town Movers

These are households that live in neighborhoods well outside the metropolitan beltways, in some cases in relatively remote country towns and villages. However, while residing in less densely populated areas (in some cases perhaps a deliberate choice to exchange a high profile, high-income urban job and lifestyle for a less complex and stressful way of life), many of the individuals in the clusters comprising this target are well educated, and incomes are relatively high. These households tend to be among the most influential in their communities. In 2002, Small Town Movers represented 13% of the households making one or more trips to Vermont. Since the clusters comprising the Small Town Movers target market accounted for 7% of all households nationally, these households were 79% more likely to make one or more trips to Vermont than the average U.S. household.

3. Small Town Rustic

These households tend to be located in less populated towns and villages, and generally have lower incomes and/or educational attainment compared to Small Town Movers. In 2002, Small Town Rustic households represented 13% of the households making one or more trips to Vermont. With the

clusters comprising this target market accounting for 10% of all households nationally, Small Town Rustic households exhibited a 23% greater likelihood of traveling to Vermont than the average U.S. household.

4. New Eco-topia

New Eco-topia households represent a unique target market. These households tend to live in sparsely populated areas and have moderate incomes. The educational profile of this cluster is heterogeneous, ranging from high school to college graduate. The socio-economic ranking of New Eco-topia households places them between Small Town Movers and Small Town Rustics. In 2002, these households, which represented 2% of the households making one or more trips to Vermont, exhibited a high propensity to travel to Vermont, with a 62% greater likelihood than the average U.S. household.

Table 1.PRIZM-Based Target Markets for Vermont

PRIZM Cluster Number

Cluster Name

2002 U.S. Percent

2002 Vermont Percent

2002 Vermont

Index

Metro Achievers 13.60% 19.98% 147

4 Pools & Patios 1.80% 3.51% 195

7 Money & Brains 1.00% 1.57% 157

2 Winner's Circle 2.20% 3.58% 163

19 New Empty Nests 2.30% 3.44% 150

5 Kids & Cul-de-Sacs 3.10% 3.80% 123

11 Second City Elite 1.90% 2.56% 135

3 Executive Suites 1.30% 1.52% 117

Small Town Movers 7.40% 13.21% 179

14 Country Squires 1.50% 2.95% 197

16 Big Fish, Small Pond 1.40% 2.28% 163

15 God's Country 2.90% 4.91% 169

17 Greenbelt Families 1.60% 3.07% 192

Small Town Rustic 10.20% 12.51% 123

52 Golden Ponds 1.60% 2.01% 126

37 New Homesteaders 1.70% 1.94% 114

41 Big Sky Families 1.60% 2.38% 149

43 River City, USA 1.80% 2.08% 116

58 Blue Highways 1.80% 1.98% 110

39 Red, White & Blues 1.70% 2.12% 125

New Eco-topia 1.00% 1.62% 162

42 New Eco-topia 1.00% 1.62% 162

Note that the percentages do not add to 100 because only the top 18 PRIZM profiles are listed here, out of the 62 total PRIZM profiles identified by Claritas, Inc. The 18 PRIZM profiles reported here represent those most likely to visit Vermont and buy Vermont products. They do not represent all visitors to Vermont.

Based on this prior research on Vermont visitors (Noordewier, 2003) and Olallie Daylily Gardens' interest in marketing using mailings, we designed a study that examines the effectiveness of PRIZM coding as well as current marketing methods already in use by Olallie Daylily Gardens.

Research MethodsThe study compared marketing methods and assessed their usefulness in bringing in new business. Olallie Daylily Gardens previously used ads (magazine, newspaper, and radio), a Web site, rack cards, and postcard and catalog mailings as their primary means of marketing. With the help of the University of Vermont, Olallie also used PRIZM coded mailings and a control mailing to a random sample.

The first step of the research was to learn more about Olallie's current customers. Olallie sent Claritas, Inc. a list of over 9,000 household addresses from their database of customers. Results revealed that New Eco-topians made up over 40% of the drive-market customer base. No one PRIZM code dominated the mail-order customer list.

The next step was to send a mailing to a sample of potential customers based on their PRIZM category and a random sample as a control. We purchased 10,000 mailing labels (names and addresses) from Claritas, with half of the mailing labels targeted to reach potential mail-order market customers. The remaining 5,000 mailing labels were selected to reach drive-market customer targets. The exact breakdown of the mailing list was as follows.

South-Central Vermont, excluding zip 05301, (17% or 1700 addresses) of which 850 addresses are randomly selected (no PRIZM), balance of 850 addresses would be PRIZM code #42 (New Eco-topians)

Southwestern New Hampshire (8%) 400 random, balance PRIZM code #42

Northern Massachusetts (17%) 850 random, balance PRIZM code #42

Southwestern Connecticut (8%) 400 random, balance PRIZM code #42

Minnesota (13%) 650 random, balance with an even distribution of PRIZM codes #42, 41, 15, 1, 2, 14 and 37

Wisconsin (13%) 650 random, balance with an even distribution of PRIZM codes #42, 41, 15, 1, 2, 14 and 37

Michigan (12%) 600 random, balance with an even distribution of PRIZM codes #42, 41, 15, 1, 2, 14 and 37

Illinois (12%) 600 random, balance with an even distribution of PRIZM codes #42, 41, 15, 1, 2, 14 and 37

The mailing labels were affixed to postcards, and the postcards were marked with codes so we could keep track of responses. Olallie's employees were trained to ask how new customers heard about the farm and check postcards for specific codes. The mailings were conducted during the summer of 2003.

Research ResultsDuring the winter, the Darrows counted the tally of responses for the 2003 season, which runs from May to September. For bringing in new catalog requests, advertising in Fine Gardening Magazine was responsible for the greatest response, leading to 407 catalog requests (Table 2). Web searches were second, with 270 catalog requests. In third place was an advertisement in Horticulture Magazine, with 123 catalog requests. Word-of-mouth came next with 100 catalog requests. Other forms of advertising ranked lower, including the mailings.

Word of mouth was the most effective way to bring in new farm visits (Table 2). Advertising in a local magazine ranked second, and Web searches ranked third. In contrast to catalog requests, posters, signs, maps, and book listings were effective means of generating farm visits. Similar to catalog requests, mailings generated a low percentage of farm visits.

Table 2.Marketing Methods Used by Olallie Daylily Gardens and Percentage of

Catalog Requests and Farm Visits

Marketing MethodCatalog Requests

n = 1092

Farm Visits

n = 201

Horticulture Magazine 11.3% 2.0%

Fine Gardening Magazine 37.3% 4.0%

Local Magazines 4.6% 16.9%

Newspaper Ads 0.7% 6.5%

Brochures 0.1% 5.5%

Radio and TV 0.5% 2.0%

Map/Book Listing 0.3% 9.0%

Sign/Poster 0.0% 9.0%

Web Search 24.7% 12.4%

Web Link 4.6% 2.0%

Word of Mouth 9.2% 23.9%

Mailings 1.0% 2.0%

Other 5.9% 5.0%

ImplicationsThe low response to the mailings combined with high responses to other kinds of targeted marketing methods led us to develop the Niche Products hypothesis (Figure 1). At the bottom of the pyramid are products with broad appeal, such as credit cards. Mass mailings are an effective way to reach new credit card customers for generic cards. Moving up the pyramid, products become more specialized, appealing only to select customers. For example, specialized credit cards target specific markets (e.g., the L.L. Bean credit card for L.L. Bean customers). Products such as those produced by Olallie Daylily Gardens--high-quality, field-grown, hand-dug daylilies--are toward the top of the pyramid, requiring finely targeted marketing techniques such as word of mouth and advertisements in magazines geared toward a select audience. PRIZM code classifications are an improvement on mailings to random samples, but, as we learned from the research, they are not finely targeted enough for such a specialized product as high-quality daylilies.

ConclusionsThe next phase of the research project is to fill in the blank spaces on the pyramid and improve Extension's understanding of the marketing methods that work best for different products. Beef, for example, can fit in many places on the pyramid depending on how it is produced, packaged, branded, and marketed. No-name hamburger is toward the bottom of the pyramid, while grass-fed, hormone-free, premium-priced tenderloin raised in Vermont is toward the top of the pyramid. Extension specialists can use this pyramid to help them and their audience make informed decisions about appropriate marketing methods, keeping in mind that the more specialized a product, the more targeted the marketing methods need to be.

Figure 1.Specialized Products Need Specialized Marketing

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by the Vermont Tourism Data Center (a partnership between the University of Vermont Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources and the Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing), University of Vermont Extension, and Olallie Daylily Gardens. I'm grateful to Amelia Darrow, Gary Deziel, Tom Noordewier, and Wendy Wilson for helpful comments on earlier drafts.

ReferencesComen, T. (2003). Effective marketing of recreational enterprises on private woodlands. Pages 19-26 in L. C. Chase and T. J. McEvoy, Managing woodlands for recreational enterprises. Workshop Proceedings, Burlington, Vermont: University of Vermont.

Godin, S. (2003). Purple cow: Transform your business by being remarkable. New York, NY: Penguin Group, Inc.

Larson, R. B. (1997). Encouraging marketing research. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(6). Available at:http://www.joe.org/joe/1997december/a2.html

Muhammad, S., Tegegne, F., & Ekanem, E. (2004). Factors contributing to success of small farm operations in Tennessee. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004august/rb7.shtml

Noordewier, T. G. (2003). 2002 National survey of the Vermont visitor. Burlington, VT: Vermont Tourism Data Center, University of Vermont.

Parmerlee, D. (2000). Preparing the marketing plan. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.

Peppers D., & Rogers, M. (1996). The one to one future: Building relationships one customer at a time. New York, NY: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.

Weinschrott, S. (1985). Marketing you and your business. Journal of Extension [On-line], 23(2). Available at:http://www.joe.org/joe/1985summer/iw2.html



Social Marketing: Meeting the Outreach Challenges of TodayAbstractSocial marketing uses traditional marketing strategies to create social change by maximizing audience response. The social marketing framework holds great promise for extending Extension's outreach to new audiences on

new and old issues. Extension professionals can greatly benefit the communities they serve by employing some simple, but strategized marketing techniques. Six simple tools are shared to develop a social marketing toolbox.

JoAnne SkellyExtension Educator, Carson City / Storey CountyUniversity of Nevada Cooperative ExtensionCarson City, [email protected]

IntroductionExtension faces challenges and competition in changing economic times (Varea-Hammond, 2004). Why do some programs fall short of reaching desired goals? Often, the target audience's needs are not met, or the method used to disseminate information is poorly chosen.

Social marketing is a powerful tool that can improve an individual's, a group's, or a society's welfare. Often, the goal of Extension programming is to change behavior or to have new ideas adopted and used by the target audience. Social marketing uses traditional marketing strategies to create social change by maximizing audience response. "Social marketing is the application of commercial marketing technologies to the analysis, planning, execution, and evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary behavior of target audiences in order to improve their personal welfare and that of their society" (Andreasen, 1995).

The focus is on the target audience or society. While social marketing may use commercial marketing techniques, it differs from the commercial sector because the primary objective is to influence social behavior rather than to profit the marketing organization (Weinrich, 1999).

Tools in the Social Marketing ToolboxThere are six simple tools to define, design, and deliver the right market fit.

Know the Market

Effective social marketing begins with identifying and specifying the target market and their needs as precisely as possible. Whose behavior is to be

influenced? What social change should occur? Research the audience's needs and the best methods to meet those identified needs. Tailor the program delivery approach to meet their needs.

Identify the WIIFM

Answer "What's in it for me" for the target audience. Social marketing builds consumer-centered programs (Weinrich, 1999). This goes beyond promoting the benefits of a program. There may be risks, and a potential client may have good reasons not to change. Identify why adopting the desired behavior is more valuable than maintaining an undesired behavior.

Ask, Ask, Ask, and Then Listen

Begin with a behavioral objective in mind. Find out why the audience is doing what they are doing. What is their current knowledge level? What are the audience's beliefs and attitudes related to the advocated behavior change? Ask the audience what they want, and listen to determine relevant needs (Brinckerhoff, 2003). Target the needs specifically.

Consider the Five P's Product--What kind of product must be offered to make the behavioral

change attractive to the consumer/target market (Andreasen, 1995)? To succeed in social marketing, either develop a new product, or improve an existing product (Kotler & Roberto, 1989).

Price--What is the price in time, energy, and money for the participants? What do they have to give up to adopt the new behavior? What do they see as the costs for their behavioral change, and is it worth it to them? Minimize the perceived costs, and reduce the barriers to changing. Maximize the potential benefits. From the program delivery perspective, where will the funding come from to research what behavior change is necessary and to implement and evaluate the program?

Place--How can Extension reach the audience? Is there a new place to deliver the marketing message? Can a new location generate more enthusiasm in or be more accessible to audiences? How might distribution processes work more effectively for Extension consumers? Make products and services readily available to the target audience to effectively accomplish behavioral change. If a program in a classroom setting is poorly attended, train a trainer to deliver the program in a different venue; for example: train a beautician to present nutrition information to her clients. Reach them where they are.

Promotion--What is the best technique to get the message out to the targeted audience? How can customer/media communications be more

clear and compelling? Are there new ways to communicate with clientele and market the message of Extension? Can changes be made to capture the attention of clients and media? Promotional tools include advertising, public relations, media advocacy, personal selling, special events, and rewards for achieving the desired change. Find out the most effective way to reach the consumer. For example, Hispanic-American television households watch more television on average each week than total U.S. television households (Nielsen, 2004). Television promotion could be a good promotional tool for this market.

People/Partnerships--How can Extension increase motivation and enthusiasm in internal audiences: staff, volunteers, the organization, and the community? How can Extension increase motivation and enthusiasm in external audiences: policy makers, media, partners, or donors?

Cross the Line

Be creative. Think outside the box, and be imaginative in marketing efforts. Be relative and meaningful to the audience. Be original, and state the message in a new way (Weinrich, 1999). For example, if a county government wants to change the watering practices of its resident to conserve water, it might work with wholesale nurseries to give away native drought-tolerant plants at water-efficient landscape workshops. This encourages participation at the workshops. Then, each participant could receive further plants when they have implemented the recommended water-conservation practices.

Create a "Bump in the Envelope"

An envelope that arrives in the mail with a "bump" in it, grabs the attention of the receiver. In social marketing, getting the target market's attention may be more than just a give-away. It can be memorable slogan, a catchy advertisement, or billboard. A successful slogan for a sheep-grazing fuels management project in Nevada was "Only Ewes Can Prevent Wildfire."

ConclusionIn today's non-profit market, most projects require a scientifically developed needs assessment, a monitoring process throughout the project, and a formal evaluation upon conclusion. All are factors in a successful social marketing effort. Social marketing has a systematic structure that includes pretesting of the strategy (Andreasen, 1995). Extension often involves people in educational opportunities as part of a social change campaign. This work can be effectively achieved through social marketing, which allows for improved audience identification, better product development, and targeted

marketing for each outreach effort. This framework for changing behavior holds great promise for extending Extension's outreach on old and new issues.

ReferencesAndreasen, A. (1995). Marketing social change--Changing behavior to promote health, social development, and the environment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brinckerhoff, P. C. (2003). Mission-based marketing--Positioning your not-for-profit in an increasingly competitive world. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kotler, P., & Roberto, E. L. (1989). Social marketing--Strategies for changing public behavior. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Nielsen Media Research. (2004). http://www.nielsenmedia.com/ethnicmeasure/hispanic-american/weekly_HH_viewing.html

Varea-Hammond, S. (2004). Guidebook for marketing Cooperative Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 42(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/tt5.shtml

Weinrich, N. K. (1999). Hand-on social marketing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.



© Copyright by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Copyright Policy

Local Marketing and Promotional Efforts of Florida Extension AgentsAbstractThe purpose of the study reported here was to gain a better understanding of what Florida Extension agents do to promote and market programs in their counties. The objectives of the study were to determine the perceptions of current Florida Extension agents as to specific methods or materials used to market Florida Extension programs and activities. A total of 175 Florida Extension agents responded in this study, for an overall response rate of 54.18%. Results indicated that Extension agents would benefit from the development of marketing and promotional tools that would help them to disseminate information to the public.

Ricky TelgProfessorUniversity of FloridaGainesville, [email protected]

Tracy IraniAssociate ProfessorUniversity of FloridaGainesville, [email protected]

Ashley HurstGraduate StudentUniversity of FloridaGainesville, [email protected]

Mark KistlerAssistant ProfessorNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh, North [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




IntroductionAmong their many other duties and responsibilities, county Extension agents are in charge of promoting programs that are beneficial to the residents of their county. According to Varea-Hammond (2004), three main reasons exist for marketing Extension: political motivations, so that funding and support is gained; internal benefits, which happen when high-performance teams are created and good staff is attracted; and survival, competing for clientele who have resources available. Promotion and marketing help to enhance the impact of county Extension agents' efforts and to help maintain their presence.

Chappell (1990) stated that there is more to the Extension marketing process than merely developing good programs and then making them available for public use. Chappell suggested that the success of an Extension program relies on communicating with the public in a way that creates awareness, stimulates interest, and, in the end, produces involvement by targeted clientele. Extension marketing programs use "effective pricing, communication, and distribution to inform, motivate, and service clients" (Chappell, 1994, para. 3). The main objective of Extension programming is to meet the needs of their clientele (Boldt, 1988).

Verma and Burns (1995) stated that in the 1980s, "marketing Extension" became popular in several states' Extension Services. New names, logos, outreach materials, and staff training programs were initiated. These materials together provided a unified, consistent, and cohesive image of the Extension Service. Yet the usage of Extension is declining in many areas, and public awareness of Extension programs is decreasing (McDowell, 2004).

Extension agents must use effective communication and distribution in order to best inform, motivate, and service their clients (Chappell, 1994). However, with the change in the diversity of the clientele, finding the most effective communication vehicle is becoming increasingly difficult. King and Boehlje (2000) pointed out that Extension's day of being a sole-source provider of information is gone. They mentioned that technology, combined with an open access to information, lure private organizations to compete for people who once relied solely on Extension's services.

Although Extension professionals are being encouraged to market their programs, their reaction to increasing their marketing efforts has been mixed (DeYoung, 1988). DeYoung stated that some agents are hopeful that their marketing efforts will increase funding for future projects. Others, however, fear that if a new audience is acquired, their time and resources will be overloaded (1988).

Little research has been conducted on the marketing and promotional efforts, as well as the training needs of county Extension agents. However, Extension agents are expected to use the media to varying degrees in order to get information out to their audience. A study of what media Extension agents currently use and what they feel comfortable using will help to provide a basis for developing marketing and promotional training tools for Extension agents. Therefore, the purpose of the study reported here was to gain a better understanding of what Florida Extension agents do to promote and market programs in their county.

Literature ReviewAmerican population centers have shifted from 80% rural to predominantly urban areas since the creation of Extension . Extension has traditionally focused on disseminating information to people within surrounding communities (McDowell, 2004); however, studies have demonstrated that the general public does not possess a clear understanding of the mission and funding of the Extension Service . In fact, Extension is perceived as better at carrying out effective programs than at communicating these programs . According to Fett, Shinners-Gray, Duffy, and Doyle (1995), most persons' only contact with Extension is through the mass media.

A goal in marketing is the development and repetition of a good name or brand image . Extension programs across the nation have identified with this goal, using marketing techniques to increase public awareness of their programs . Many state Extension services, from the mid-1980s on, began constructing a consistent and uniform statewide identity with new names and logos (Verma & Burns, 1995).

According to Verma and Burns, however, if Extension, or any other organization, is repeating a brand image or name that does not resonate with its stakeholders, the organization may be wasting its time and resources. As Topor (1986) stated: "A well-executed marketing plan will touch the lives and activities of practically everyone involved at your institution at one time or another. It's important, then, to involve as many people as possible" (p. 52).

According to Maddy and Kealy, the Extension Service must work on brand equity in order to attract repeat customers. Otherwise, if Extension educators do not effectively communicate the Extension brand, the consumer may not become a regular customer because they do not know how to engage in a relationship with the organization. They also point out that information is important to marketing in the future because due to the diversity of audiences, one medium will not work for all consumers (1998).

For example, a study conducted by the Magazine Publishers of America and J. Walter Thompson (Confer, 1992) indicated when print advertising was used with television advertising, the breadth and depth of the communication is enhanced and the advertiser achieves greater profits. A telephone survey conducted by Warner, Christenson, Dillman, and Salant (1996)--with a random sample of members of the general public--found that 45% of respondents had heard of the Extension Service, while only 26% indicated they or a member of their immediate family had ever used the services of Extension. The researchers noted that Extension continues to have a fragmented image and must do a better job of establishing linkages between individual programs and the overall mission of Extension.

MethodologyThe research design for this census study was a descriptive survey of a population of active (employed) Extension agents in the state of Florida. The survey was conducted via mail using an adapted form of Dillman's Tailored Design method (2000). The total of accessible Extension agents in the state of Florida after August 10, 2004--when the survey was initially distributed--was 323. The survey instrument was delivered via mail to all Extension agents in Florida. Respondents were given a period of 8 weeks to respond to the survey. Non-respondents were then contacted and sent a second, and final, wave of the survey. The response rate obtained by the survey was 54.18% (n=175).

The 25-question survey was adapted from two previous questionnaires, used in surveys of politically active agricultural leaders and of agricultural scientists in the southern United States (Lundy, Ruth, Telg, & Irani, 2005; Lundy, Telg, Irani, & Locke, 2004; Ruth, Telg, Irani, & Locke, 2004; Telg, Basford, & Irani, 2005). To ensure face and content validity, a panel of experts was utilized to review and finalize the instrument.

The data were analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis. The SPSS® 12.0 for Windows software package was used for the analysis. Frequencies, standard deviation, mean, and cross tabulations were calculated for all of the appropriate questionnaire items (Albright, 2000; Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002). Post hoc reliability analysis for the standardized items was calculated using Cronbach's alpha. Standardized item alpha was subsequently calculated at α=.88.

ResultsIn terms of gender, 58.3% (n=98) of the respondents were female, while 41.7% (n=70) were male. The largest percentage of respondents, 39.2%

(n=64), ranged in age from 51-60; 4.2% (n=7) reported being above 60 years in age (Table 1).

Table 1.Number of Respondents by Age

Age n %

26-30 17 10.5

31-40 24 14.7

41-50 51 31.3

51-60 64 39.2

61-66 7 4.2

Total 163 100.0

In terms of the highest educational level achieved, the majority of respondents, 76.3% (n=129), reported having a master's degree, 13.6% (n=23) held a bachelor's degree; and 10.1% (n=17) had a doctoral degree. As for the population size where they served, the largest percentage of the agents, 34.9% (n=61), reported working in an urban setting. The majority of respondents classified their current position within Extension to be "County Extension Agent" or "Multi-County Agent" (56.0%, n=94). "County Extension Director" (17.3%, n=29) was the next most common response.

Respondents were asked how many years of overall experience they have working in Extension. The highest number of respondents had been in Extension for 5 years or less (26.9%, n=45). Only 4.8% (n=8) had worked in Extension for more than 30 years (Table 2).

Table 2.Years in Extension

Years of Service n %

0-5 years 45 26.9

6-10 years 38 22.8

11-15 years 15 9.0

16-20 years 18 10.8

21-25 years 29 17.4

26-30 years 14 8.4

More than 30 years 8 4.8

Total 167 100.0

Respondents were asked to indicate their primary, secondary, and tertiary clientele audiences. Homeowners were cited the most frequently as respondents' primary targeted audience. Volunteers were the second-most targeted clientele group, and the third-most targeted clientele group was youth.

The most-used method or material that was used in a typical year to market Extension programs and activities was word of mouth. More than 72% of respondents (n=122) used word-of-mouth 16 times or more in a given year to promote their programs. The second-most popular method used was online methods (46.5%, n=79). The least popular method or material that was used was paid newspaper advertisements, where almost 98% (n=163) of respondents used paid newspaper advertisements zero to five times in a typical year (Table 3).

Table 3.Times in a Typical Year a Specific Method or Material Was Used

Characteristic 0-5 Times 6-15 Times More Than 16 Times

n % n % n %

Word-of-mouth 9 5.4 38 22.5 122 72.2

Online methods (Website, email)

49 28.8 42 24.7 79 46.5

Brochures/Pamphlets 29 17.1 83 48.8 58 34.1

Spokespersons (advisory committee members, volunteers, clientele)

66 38.6 50 29.2 55 32.2

Newsletters 56 32.2 89 51.1 29 16.7

Press releases 59 35.0 67 39.7 43 25.4

Demonstrations (booths at fairs, civic meetings)

67 38.7 74 42.8 32 18.5

Signs and posters you design

81 47.4 65 38.0 25 14.6

Pre-produced UF/IFAS Extension materials

83 50.6 41 25.0 40 24.4

Direct mailings (postcards) 93 54.5 40 23.6 37 21.8

Newspaper columns you write

108 64.3 30 17.8 30 17.9

Public service announcements

125 74.8 28 16.8 14 8.4

Television interviews 147 87.0 16 9.5 6 3.6

Radio interviews 150 87.2 18 10.5 4 2.3

Radio programs 49 89.2 12 7.6 6 3.6

Point of purchase ads (grocery store)

151 91.0 13 7.8 2 1.2

Newspaper advertisements (paid)

163 97.6 4 2.4 0 0.0

Other 9 45.0 7 35.0 4 20.0

The respondents ranked word of mouth (M=4.72, n=169) to be the most useful method or material used to promote Extension programs and activities. Rankings were on a Likert-type scale with 5="very useful" to 1="not at all useful." The least useful method or material used was public service announcements (M=3.39, n=157), followed by print materials provided at retail outlets (M=3.03, n=144) and paid newspaper advertisements (M=2.91, n=128) (Table 4).

Table 4.Usefulness of Methods and Materials Used in the Overall Marketing/Promotion of

Extension Agents' Particular Extension Programs and Activities

Method or Material n M SD

Word-of-mouth 169 4.72* 0.58

Direct mailings 168 4.27 0.94

Newsletters 171 4.23 0.93

Demonstrations 171 4.09 0.99

Signs and posters you design 170 3.94 0.96

Press releases 169 3.93 1.02

Newspaper columns you write 148 3.86 1.25

Online methods 164 3.73 1.05

Pre-produced UF/IFAS Extension materials 163 3.55 1.15

Television interviews 148 3.50 1.31

Radio interviews 148 3.41 1.14

Public service announcements 157 3.39 1.15

Print materials provided at retail outlets 144 3.03 1.17

Newspaper advertisements (paid) 128 2.91 1.38

*Five-point scale, with 1="not at all useful" to 5="very useful"

Respondents were asked to rank the methods of promotion that they were most likely to use with the clientele they target the most often. Extension agents responded that they were most likely to use word of mouth (M=4.67, n=175). The least likely method or material to be used was television interviews (M=2.43, n=163) (Table 5).

Table 5.Likelihood Extension Agents Are to Use Particular Methods to Market/Promote an

Extension Program or Activity with the Clientele They Work with Most Often


Word-of-mouth 175 4.67* 0.70






Press releases 173 3.70 1.38






Point of purchase ads 160 2.09 1.29



Respondents also were asked to rank the methods of promotion that they were most likely to use with the general public or people who do not typically use Extension's services. Respondents stated they were most likely to use press releases (M=4.21, n=174) to reach this audience. Respondents tended to use word-of-mouth (M=4.13, n=168) next. Respondents ranked online methods (M= 3.84, n=165) as something they were likely to use, as well. The least popular methods or materials were television interviews (M=2.77, n=164), point of purchase advertisements (M=2.25, n=164), and paid newspaper advertisements (M=1.94, n=161) (Table 6).

Table 6.Likelihood Agents Are to Use Particular Methods to Market/Promote an Extension Program or Activity with the General Public or People Who Do Not Typically Use

Extension Services


Press releases 174 4.21* 1.16

Word-of-mouth 168 4.13 1.13











Point of purchase ads 164 2.25 1.33



Respondents were asked to rate their attitudes toward Extension marketing/promotion using a set of belief statements. Sets of bipolar adjectives, each on a one- to five-point semantic differential scale were used to scale the responses. The sets of descriptors were good (1) to bad (5), positive (1) to negative (5), beneficial (1) to not beneficial (5), favorable (1) to unfavorable (5), important (1) to not important (5), difficult (1) to easy (5), up to me (1) to not up to me (5), and in my control (1) to out of my control (5). Overall, the findings indicated the respondents felt Extension marketing/promotion was good, positive, beneficial, favorable, important, difficult, up to them, and in their control (Table 7).

Table 7.Respondents' Attitudes About Extension Marketing

I believe that extension marketing/promotion, in general is . . .

n M SD

*Good (1), Bad (5) 167 2.86* 1.25

Positive (1), Negative (5) 167 2.03 0.87

Beneficial (1), Not Beneficial (5) 169 1.94 1.01

Favorable (1), Unfavorable (5) 166 2.01 0.84

Important (1), Not Important (5) 167 1.40 0.73

Difficult (1), Easy (5) 168 2.51 1.01

Up to me (1), Not up to me (5) 166 2.29 1.09

In my control (1), Out of my control (5) 167 2.77 1.11

*Descriptor word sets were on a five-point scale

Respondents were then asked to rate the marketing/promotion of their specific Extension programs. The same sets of bipolar adjectives, each on a one- to five-point semantic differential scale, was used. Similar to the general attitudes toward Extension marketing/promotion, the findings indicate the respondents felt that Extension marketing/promotion of their specific programs, was good, positive, beneficial, favorable, important, difficult, up to them, and in their control (Table 8).

Table 8.Respondents' Attitudes About Marketing/Promoting Their Specific Programs

I believe that extension marketing/promotion, of my specific programs, is . . .

n M SD

*Good (1), Bad (5) 167 2.29* 1.05

Positive (1), Negative (5) 168 1.85 0.83

Beneficial (1), Not Beneficial (5) 170 1.69 0.84

Favorable (1), Unfavorable (5) 167 1.77 0.80

Important (1), Not Important (5) 169 1.38 0.72

Difficult (1), Easy (5) 169 2.54 1.04

Up to me (1), Not up to me (5) 169 1.58 0.94

In my control (1), Out of my control (5) 169 1.99 1.04

*Descriptor word sets were on a five-point scale

Participants were asked to indicate how confident they were in their marketing and promotions capabilities in specific areas. Respondents were most confident in writing and designing a newsletter (M=4.26, n=175). The second- and third-highest ranked methods that respondents were most

confident with were writing newspaper columns and press releases (M=4.07, n=175). The respondents were least confident in writing a public service announcement (M=3.83, n=175), establishing a marketing/promotions program (M=3.21, n=175), and developing an educational program for radio (M=3.13, n=175) (Table 9).

Table 9.Respondents' Confidence in Their Marketing/Promotion Capabilities

Characteristic n M SD

Writing and designing a newsletter 175 4.26 0.96

Writing a newspaper column 175 4.07 1.00

Writing a press release 175 4.07 1.01

Designing displays/exhibits 174 3.95 1.04

Designing posters 173 3.94 1.00

Contacting the news media 174 3.93 1.10

Designing brochures 174 3.90 1.06

Being interviewed by a news reporter 175 3.86 1.20

Writing a public service announcement 175 3.83 1.13

Establishing a marketing/promotions program 175 3.21 1.14

Developing an educational program for radio 175 3.13 1.25

*5 point scale, with 1="very unconfident" to 5="very confident"

Respondents were asked to rank their level of agreement with seven belief statements pertaining to marketing and promotion of Extension. Respondents agreed the most with the statement, "Marketing/promotion is an important part of my job" (M=4.21, n=168). Respondents also agreed with the statement, "I feel comfortable contacting local news media outlets" (M=4.08, n=172). The least agreed with statement was, "I would consider

using paid television commercials to market/promote my next event" (M=2.37, n=167) (Table 10).

Table 10.Respondents' Level of Agreement Pertaining to Marketing and Promotion of

Extension


Marketing/promotion is an important part of my job.

168 4.21 0.85

I feel comfortable contacting local news media outlets.

172 4.08 0.95

I would like to learn more about the use of marketing to promote my local activities.

170 3.93 1.00

I am very knowledgeable about the use of marketing to promote my local activities.

172 3.54 0.98

I would consider using paid newspaper advertisements to market/promote my next event.

166 2.71 1.41

I would consider using paid radio commercials to market/promote my next event.

147 2.54 1.43

I would consider using paid television commercials to market/promote my next event.

167 2.37 1.36

*5 point scale, with 1="strongly disagree" to 5="strongly agree"

Respondents were asked to indicate how likely they would be to participate in training if it were made available. Respondents would be most likely to attend a training on how to establish a marketing/promotions program (M=3.78, n=174), followed by how to design displays/exhibits (M=3.62, n=175) and how to design brochures (M=3.55, n=175). The respondents were less likely to attend training programs on writing a newspaper column (M=3.13, n=174), writing a press release (M=3.15, n=174), and being interviewed by a news reporter (M=3.17, n=173) (Table 11).

Table 11.Respondents' Likeliness to Participate in Training Programs


How to establish a marketing/promotions program 174 3.78 1.15

How to design displays/exhibits 175 3.62 1.27

How to design brochures 175 3.55 1.25

How to design posters 175 3.43 1.29

How to develop an educational program for radio 175 3.43 1.30

How to write and design a newsletter 175 3.38 1.37

How to contact the news media 174 3.22 1.25

How to write a public service announcement 175 3.18 1.36

How to be interviewed by a news reporter 173 3.17 1.36

To write a press release 174 3.15 1.34

How to write a newspaper column 174 3.13 1.38

*5 point scale, with 1="not at all likely" to 5="very likely"

Discussion and ConclusionsResults indicated that the majority of respondents in this study use word of mouth 16 times or more in a year to market their programs and activities. Paid newspaper advertisements were the least-used method for marketing and promoting Extension programs and activities, used on average zero to five times a year. Word-of mouth was ranked as the most useful, and paid newspaper advertisements were ranked to be the least useful method or material used to promote Extension programs and activities.

An implication of these findings is that respondents target current and previous clients when disseminating their information, which may also

indicate that Extension agents are more confident in contacting the audience they already have, rather than trying to get information to the general public or an untested audience. The findings on using paid newspaper advertisements also indicate a possible lack of budget for promoting and marketing activities and programs. For both current clientele and the public at large, the least likely method to be used was paid newspaper advertisements.

With current clientele, Extension agents responded that they were most likely to use word of mouth, indicating that respondents depend on their current clientele to help get the information out about Extension. With the general public, however, Extension agents were most likely to use press releases. This may indicate respondents realize that to access the public at large, the information must go through mass media channels reached with a press release.

Previous research (Fett, Shinners-Gray, Duffy, & Doyle, 1995) implies that the general public receives information about Extension through mass media channels. If agents desire to reach new audiences, using methods and materials that can be widely dispersed are crucial to the success of an Extension program. However, because press releases are not included as one of the most useful methods or materials used, it can be inferred that the respondents in this study may not be necessarily trying to obtain a new audience.

Overall, respondents perceived Extension marketing to be good, positive, beneficial, favorable, important, difficult, up to them, and in their control. These findings indicate that respondents are satisfied with the job of marketing Extension. Not only do they think it is a necessary part of their job, they also find it to be rewarding. It is interesting to see that in the perceptions of "general" and "specific" Extension marketing, respondents indicated that they found it to be difficult to market Extension, perhaps suggesting that training on how to market Extension may be useful in the future.

An interesting finding of the study dealt with the fact that respondents said they felt confident in writing and designing a newsletter, writing a newspaper column, and writing a press release. Yet they indicated that they did not use these techniques as often as other methods. It may be the case that some type of training has been obtained previously on these methods. This training may be either formal training or just on-the-job experience.

It is also interesting that one of the least confident areas for the respondents was establishing a marketing/promotions program. Results indicated that respondents would be likely to participate in training on how to establish a marketing/promotions program, as well as how to design displays and

exhibits. Agents were least likely to attend training sessions on how to be interviewed by a news reporter, how to write a press release, and how to write a newspaper column. Extension agents may feel they know how to develop certain promotional materials, but may not have the experience of putting all of these materials into a cohesive marketing message for their local programs.

Recommendations for Research and PracticeThe field of agricultural communication would stand to benefit from conducting this study in other states, as well as at a national level. This information could become the basis of a more uniform training program that could be offered to Extension professionals at meetings, conferences, or possibly as online training sessions. More research also needs to be conducted in the state of Florida on Extension clients' needs. This study specifically focuses on Extension agents' use of the media, what they are confident in using, as well as the areas in which they need training. It also would be important to survey both clients and, potentially, non-clients to find out their needs and in what methods they prefer to receive information.

Based on the research, it can be concluded that Florida Extension agents would benefit from the development of marketing and promotional tools that would help them to disseminate information to the public. Communication professionals can use the findings of this study as a basis for developing training sessions to be presented to Extension agents. It is recommended that training be conducted in the areas in which the respondents were most interested. These areas include how to establish a marketing/ promotions program, how to design displays/exhibits, and how to design brochures. However, it also would be beneficial to offer training in all the areas of marketing/promotion. Based on this study, it is also recommended that more focus may need to be placed on teaching fundamental marketing/promotions skills in Extension education courses and curriculum.

ReferencesAdkins, R. (1981). Motherhood, apple pie, state legislators and Extension. Journal of Extension, 19(2), 7-11.

Albright, B. B. (2000). Cooperative Extension and the information technology era: An assessment of current competencies and future training needs of county Extension agents. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 2668.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Blalock, T. C. (1964). What legislators think of Extension. Journal of Extension, 2(2), 75-81.

Boldt, W. G. (1988). Image: Creating a unique and unified one for Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 26(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1988spring/rb3.html

Chappell, V. G. (1990). Use creative platforms for better marketing communications. Journal of Extension [On-line], 28(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990winter/tt2.html

Chappell, V. G. (1994, August). Marketing planning for Extension systems. Journal of Extension [On-line], 32(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1994august/a5.html

Confer, M. G. (1992). The media multiplier: Nine studies conducted in seven countries. Journal of Advertising Research, 32(1), RC-4-RC-11.

DeYoung, B. (1988, Fall). What's relationship marketing. Journal of Extension [On-line], 26(3). Available at:http://www.joe.org/joe/1988fall/a9.html

Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Fett, J., Shinners-Gray, T., Duffy, K., & Doyle, C. (1995). Evaluation of a county Extension office's use of mass media: a user perspective. Journal of Applied Communications, 79(1), 34-44.

King, D. A., & Boehlje, M. D. (2000). Extension: On the brink of extinction or distinction? Journal of Extension[On-line], 38(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000october/comm1.html

Lundy, L., Ruth, A., Telg, R., & Irani, T. (2005, February). It takes two: Public understanding of agricultural science and agricultural scientists' understanding of the public. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Agricultural Communication Section, Little Rock, AK.

Lundy, L., Telg, R., Irani, T., & Locke, D. (2004, February). Media relations skills and training needs of Southern agricultural scientists. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Agricultural Communication Section, Tulsa, OK.

Maddy, D. J., & Kealy, L. J. M. (1998). Integrating a marketing mindset: Building Extension's future in the information marketplace. Journal of

http://www.joe.org/joe/2000october/comm1.html

http://www.joe.org/joe/1988fall/a9.html

http://www.joe.org/joe/1994august/a5.html

http://www.joe.org/joe/1990winter/tt2.html

http://www.joe.org/joe/1988spring/rb3.html

Extension [On-line], 36(4). Available at:http://www.joe.org/joe/1998august/comm1.html

Marken, G. A. (2001). Corporate communications: It's all about delivering value. Public Relations Quarterly, 46(1), 39-40.

McDowell, G. (2004). Is Extension an idea whose time has come--and gone? Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/comm1.shtml

Nehiley, J. M. (2001). Developing a simple four-step marketing plan for Extension programs. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001april/iw3.html

Place, N. T. (2003). Land Grants: Events leading to the establishment of Land-Grant universities. University of Florida: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved July 6, 2005 fromhttp://ifas.ufl.edu/ls_grant/whatislg.htm

Ruth, A., Telg, R., Irani, T., & Locke, D. (2004, February). Agricultural scientists' perceptions of fairness and accuracy of science and agriculture coverage in the news media. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Agricultural Communication Section, Tulsa, OK.

Telg, R. W., Basford, A., & Irani, T. (2005, February). Communication preferences of politically active agricultural leaders. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Ag Communication Section, Conference, Little Rock, AR.

Topor, R. S. (1986). Institutional image: How to define, improve, market it. Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement and Support of Education.

Varea-Hammond, S. (2004). Guidebook for marketing Cooperative Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/tt5.shtml

Verma, S., & Burns, A. (1995). Marketing Extension in Louisiana: Image and opportunity. Journal of Extension[On-line], 33(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995december/rb1.html

Warner, P. D. (1993). It's time to tell the Extension story. Journal of Extension [On-line], 31(1). Available at:http://www.joe.org/joe/1993fall/tp2.html

http://www.joe.org/joe/1993fall/tp2.html

http://www.joe.org/joe/1995december/rb1.html

http://www.joe.org/joe/2004april/tt5.shtml

http://ifas.ufl.edu/ls_grant/whatislg.htm

http://www.joe.org/joe/2001april/iw3.html

http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/comm1.shtml

http://www.joe.org/joe/1998august/comm1.html

Warner, P. D., Christenson, J. A., Dillman, D. A., & Salant, P. (1996). Public perception of Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 34(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996august/a1.html



A Case Study on Marketing the Florida Cooperative Extension ServiceAbstractThis case study focuses on the development of future marketing opportunities for the Florida Cooperative Extension Service, as seen from the possible perspective of IFAS Administrative personnel. The case study focuses attention on the current activities and impacts of IFAS/Extension, as well as future program focus areas, and uses that information to develop a marketing plan for growth and public recognition. The data included for student analysis come directly from IFAS reports and publications. The accompanying teaching notes are provided to assist readers/users in drawing conclusions based on the data and information presented.


http://www.joe.org/joe-jeo.html

http://www.joe.org/contact-joe.php

http://www.joe.org/techsupport.html

http://www.joe.org/about-joe-copyright-policy.php

http://www.joe.org/joe/1996august/a1.html

Carol A. AlbertsUndergraduate [email protected]

Ferdinand F. WirthAssociate Professor of Food and Resource [email protected]

Kerri K. GilmoreUndergraduate [email protected]

Sam J. JonesUndergraduate [email protected]

Chad D. McWatersUndergraduate [email protected]

University of Florida, IRRECFort Pierce, Florida

This teaching case study is appropriate for use in an introductory marketing management course but can also be used as a tool in an Extension administration or public administration course. It is unusual as a case study in that it deals with a public educational institution versus a commercial/private organization's business or offering. Through this case study, students will become familiar with strategic planning efforts, the processes used in developing these plans, and the need for accurately measuring the effectiveness of these plans.

Students analyzing the information and data provided can be asked to make decisions on the effectiveness of the marketing effort used by UF/IFAS, determine the scope of the programs provided by the University of Florida's Cooperative Extension Service, and choose an option for the future of Extension marketing and programming. Data provided shows discrepancies between the reach IFAS leaders feel Extension marketing is having and the actual number of participants in the programs. A comprehensive set of teaching notes is available, upon request, from the second author.

Case Study Scenario--The Florida Cooperative Extension Service Marketing Problem

Dr. Mike Martin sits at his desk at the University of Florida (UF). As UF's Vice President of Agriculture and Natural Resources, he's had to make some tough decisions lately that have had significant impacts on UF staff and programming all over Florida. Budget cuts have forced the closing of two major Research and Education facilities, and changes to the Extension program are forthcoming. As he mulls over comments made at a recent Advisory meeting, he considers the Florida FIRST marketing initiative he implemented 3 years ago--an initiative that was intended to make the public aware of the benefits and services offered by Extension and the Institute of Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), thus creating a demand for their programs and making budget cuts in this area more politically unpalatable. Dr. Martin knows that Extension has often been referred to as "the best kept secret in county government." What can he do to get the secret out?

Authors' Note: Michael Martin is currently the President of New Mexico State University.

Background Information for the Case Study Analysis--The History and Purpose of

IFAS/ExtensionThe University of Florida has many claims to fame and notoriety, but it holds one title that most have never heard about--it's a land-grant university. Land grant universities were established under the provisions of the first and second U.S. Morrill Land-Grant College Acts in 1862 and 1890--laws meant to "promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life" by establishing colleges to teach "such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts." These laws were strengthened in 1887, when Congress established agricultural experiment stations, and again on May 14, 1914, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Smith-Lever Act establishing Cooperative Extension Services and specifying that they be associated with a land grant college. Federal funds would be matched by state and local funds, and used to support experiment stations and Extension offices, all operating under the auspices of the land-grant university in that state.

The UF/IFAS is a federal, state, and local government partnership dedicated to education, research, and Extension, a result of the University of Florida's designation as a land grant university. Operating as part of IFAS, Extension serves each of the state's 67 counties by providing information and conducting educational programs on issues such as sustainable agriculture, competitiveness in world markets, natural resource conservation, energy conservation, food safety, child and family development, consumer credit counseling, and youth development. These subject areas are very broad,

allowing UF/IFAS staff to focus their efforts on more specific facets of these areas.

The IFAS/Cooperative Extension Service in Florida has evolved over time to become a county-based program. A majority of the funding for Extension comes from the individual county governments. County Extension offices are usually located closer to rural areas of a county rather than clustered with other county offices. There are more than 67 Extension offices now serving the state of Florida.

In general, each office will house two or more Extension agents, who may be fully university funded, fully county funded, or funded by a combination of sources. The subject areas of the agents in that county are based on the agriculture industries found in the area. For instance, Okeechobee County's economy is largely supported by the dairy industry, so one of the agents working at the Okeechobee Extension Office is a Dairy/Water Quality Agent. The nearby counties that are more economically supported by the citrus industry have a multi-county commercial citrus agent to rely upon. Most counties in the state, but certainly not all, have one or more horticulture agents in their Extension office. Some counties have enough staff to be able to provide their communities with a Homeowner Horticulture Agent, Commercial Horticulture Agent, and an Environmental Horticulture Agent. Almost every county in the state supports a 4-H Agent, who may also have a combined focus, such as 4-H/ Agriculture or 4-H/ Family and Consumer Sciences.

Across the state there are agents who focus on dairy cattle, beef cattle, natural resources, energy and housing, marine sciences, water quality, and more. Extension agents' programs are often delivered by Program Assistants, who are usually supported by county funds, as are the clerical support and office manager positions in the counties. Figure 1 shows an organizational chart from a typical county Extension office, the St. Lucie County office. In addition to the permanent staff, there are almost 300 4-H volunteers and 82 Master Gardener volunteers working at the St. Lucie County Extension office.

Figure 1.Organizational Chart from St. Lucie County Extension FY2002-03

IFAS and Extension are made possible because of the cooperative efforts of many contributing organizations. Each of these entities is recognized for its participation on every IFAS document that is distributed to the public. Along with that, agents and county support staff are instructed to include identification on created documents for all contributing organizations, whether they are outside sources, departments or programs within IFAS. Figure 2 shows examples of some of the logos that may be included on a program announcement. Figure 2 does not show the different county logos that could also be included, because there are too many to depict in this document, but it is important that county support be recognized. Because the effects of image marketing--and therefore branding--build over time, consistency is critical. Every piece of communication should support the brand and be consistent over time (Maddy & Kealy, 1998).

Figure 2.Examples of UF, IFAS, and Extension Program Logos

Process UF Has Already Been Through to Identify Focus Areas and Branding--UF/IFAS Extension

Product AnalysisThe product provided by IFAS/Extension is non-biased, research-based information that county residents are invited to use to make sound decisions regarding natural resources, human resources, and agriculture issues. The depth of the information is often staggering to those unfamiliar with Extension. From calibrating a micro-irrigation system, to building a bat house, to learning about food safety, to obtaining a pesticide license, to raising a healthy dairy cow, it doesn't seem to stop. The price for Extension materials is unbeatable--almost everything is free. If a program has an associated charge, it can only be an amount sufficient to cover the cost of offering the program, such as handout duplication or payment for a guest speaker's travel expenses, or any provided refreshments.

Strengths and Weaknesses of UF/IFAS Extension

IFAS/Extension's strength lies in its resources--the information Extension provides via publications, programs, and individual consultations; the human resources that deliver the information; and the support of community leaders and decision makers to ensure the continuation of Extension programming. It's also a result of the growing value of information. Extension information is reliable, non-biased, researched-based and has the backing of the prestigious University of Florida. In many areas of programming, Extension is seen as the sole information source or clear leader. These areas include the 4-H Youth Leadership program, Pesticide Applicator Certification program, commercial producer education, and landscape management education.

Extension agents strive to be viewed as the authorities in their fields by the community; the public's trust and reliance are very important to agents and the future of Extension. They work hard to develop programs that are informative and interesting, using resources provided by research faculty and Extension specialists.

Unfortunately, agents are fighting an uphill battle with recognition. A recent random telephone survey by IFAS suggested that Floridians have low awareness of UF/IFAS and its major sub-units and the association between UF and local Extension programs appears tenuous (Breeze & Poucher, 1999).

Alternately, IFAS/Extension's weaknesses can be seen in its slow reaction to changing community needs. Agents need to be aware of the changing population and demographics in Florida and offer programs accordingly. Programs that are outdated but still offered to low numbers of participants are costly, a waste of an agent's limited time, and provide a false impression

about the need for Extension programming. It reduces the impact of agents' efforts. In conjunction with that, agents who cannot establish themselves as their community's leading authority, or become known for providing uninteresting programs, can also be detrimental to the overall Extension program.

Extension Agents are asked to track several statistical data points throughout the fiscal year and report their impacts annually in a Report of Accomplishment (ROA). They keep records on the number of programs they offer and the number of participants at those programs, as well the number of fact sheets they distribute, how often they use mass media, and how many clients they assist, whether at the office or on a site visit.

Agents are also required to submit an annual Plan of Work (POW) outlining the focus of their next year's programming efforts. Agents are evaluated on the measurability of their goals and objectives, as well as their intended program impact, and number of participants who indicate they will change their practices based on information they gained. Agents receive instruction on Affirmative Action guidelines and requirements, and must report annually on their efforts to include minority participation in their programs.

UF staff in Gainesville compile data from agents' annual ROA's to develop statewide statistics on Extension participation (see Table 1). Programmatic impacts are measured, and this information is used to determine the need for certain programs. Given that Florida's state population in 2000 was over 15.4 million, the corresponding year's statistics indicate that only a very small percentage of state residents were participating in Extension programs, especially since many participants take part in multiple programs.

In reviewing the annual data reports, one must realize that, due to the way that contacts and impacts are recorded, one person's contact with Extension can represent many data points in the report. For example, a gentleman enters an Extension office with a question about his landscape. Before that person leaves the office, the Master Gardeners and each agent who speaks with him will count him as a contact, and each publication he is given will be counted as a publication distributed. A class of 30 participants becomes 60 contacts after the second day. A 5-day, 4-H summer camp with 15 participants will become 75 contacts by the end of the week, and even more if other agents provided a segment during the program. This method of reporting can lead to misleading numbers on which to measure demand for services, but impressive numbers on which to request state and county funding.

The Florida FIRST Program

Dr. Mike Martin has been spearheading a strategic plan called "Focusing IFAS Resources on Solutions for Tomorrow" (FIRST) since 1998. He has stated that "at the time of implementation, the plan was intended as a road map for growth, but because of the economic changes felt throughout the state over the last three years, the plan has now become a road map for protection." Dr. Martin is aware that not everyone likes Florida FIRST, but he's adamant that there has to be some method of measuring effectiveness and accountability.

In developing the Florida FIRST program, stakeholders across the state identified areas of importance on which they felt IFAS should focus. Studies had shown that a booming economy had triggered an impressive growth in the Florida labor market in the past 20 years and that Florida's overall population was expected to grow to more than 20 million people by 2025, a 33% increase compared to projections for the year 2000. The population explosion triggered growing concern in the state over land use, and conflicts between rural and urban development. The impacts on natural resources, especially water, were also recognized. Stated objectives for IFAS/Extension programming efforts were developed that included:

Evaluations of the relevance of various parts of the UF/IFAS program-delivery system,

Increased collaboration with other public and private agencies and institutions to reduce duplication of programmatic efforts throughout the UF/IFAS organization,

Improved coordination of UF/IFAS programs statewide, Development of an expanded stakeholder base, Formation of a broad-based advisory panel, Increased conversation to evaluate the Florida FIRST effort with

individuals and organizations at the grass-roots level, and Enhanced public awareness of the UF/IFAS brand among stakeholders

and the general public.

Table 1. IFAS/Extension Activities and Impacts for 1999 and 2000, Statewide and

Selected Counties(Click the table for a larger version.)

To meet the last stated objective, Public Service Announcements (PSA's) were developed, pamphlets and brochures were printed, and Web site development escalated. As part of the program, each of the Extension offices in the state was provided a Florida FIRST toolbox--a sturdy polyurethane toolbox filled to capacity with many different types of promotion materials. The PSA's were on videotape in the box for agents' use, and Extension pencils and bookmarks promoting Extension Web sites filled the top tray; all very handy marketing tools. Ideally, an agent on his or her way to a program would be able to just pick up this toolbox and use the contents to promote Extension and help the audience to identify these programs with their sources. Public awareness was recognized as the best way to implement a "pull marketing strategy" rather than a "push" for IFAS/Extension's services. The public couldn't demand that their local representatives support IFAS programs unless they knew how IFAS benefited them.

IFAS/Extension's Current Situation

Dr. Martin again mulls over the comments put forth at the meeting by stakeholders from the Treasure Coast, a three-county area located on the east coast of Florida. They agreed that the need for change is imminent. The county Extension offices were originally developed on a county-by-county basis because studies at the time suggested the average farmer could only travel 18 miles round trip in one day. When Dr. Martin had suggested that regional instead of county-based Extension offices might be the future, the audience of stakeholders didn't balk (but they still insisted 4-H have a county

http://www.joe.org/joe/2004august/a5-t1.html

focus). Most important, he saw that even those people already involved with IFAS and supporting it as these people did, still had no clear understanding of the number of different subject areas encompassed by Extension.

Dr. Martin told the group, very truthfully, how much he appreciated their time and willingness to share their opinions on how IFAS/Extension is doing, but seeing how far uphill their battle still had to go was a bit disheartening. Informal studies had shown that more than 65% of the general public still did not know where their County Extension Office was located, were not aware of the information and service provided there, and did not know that their tax dollars supported the County Extension Office. The survey of potential customers clearly contradicts the impression made by the impact statistics. Obviously, the secret was still not out. Dr. Martin suspected the toolboxes were not being used; perhaps Agents were busy enough keeping up with the demands of those already familiar with Extension and did not see the same motivation to promote IFAS/Extension as he did. The impact data Dr. Martin was reading was not completely consistent with his personal findings in the field.

Three years after Florida FIRST was implemented, the imperatives identified were still basically the same, although one stood out above all the others as being the highest priority for UF/IFAS: water management, quality, and allocation. In reviewing the program offerings statewide, Dr. Martin saw that Best Management Practices (BMP's) programs were being offered on a variety of topics. A program being implemented in some coastal counties, the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program, promoted water quality and use awareness. Water issues seemed an area that would be in more demand in the future, and IFAS needed to be prepared to meet those demands. Showing their ability to prepare for impending state needs could help establish IFAS again as the clear leader and source for information.

The public's awareness of IFAS/Extension and their belief that the information found there is the best information they can obtain at the lowest cost is key to Extension's success in the future. The opportunity to provide statewide leadership and programming on key issues that will soon affect all segments of the population is there. The threat to IFAS/Extension comes in its inability to identify those programs that are key to its success and retaining the proper staff to promote those programs. IFAS/Extension also needs to be aware of those areas where the private sector or other organizations are duplicating their efforts.

Questions to Be Considered by the Case Study Reviewer

Dr. Martin has some tough decisions to make and a great amount of lobbying to do in order for others in the state to support him, no matter the choice he makes. On which program areas should IFAS/Extension focus its resources? What programs can and should be eliminated? How can IFAS create more awareness of the overall Extension program and the programs of individual counties?

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, and approved for publication as Journal Series No. R-09191. The authors thank Nick T. Place, Elizabeth M. Lamb, Mark A. Wade, and Anita S. Neal for their constructive comments.

ReferencesBreeze, M. H., & Poucher, Donald W., (1999). Measuring public awareness of the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences [On-line]. Available at: http://ifasmarketing.ifas.ufl.edu/ResourceCenter/SAAS_1999_Paper_Part1.htm

Israel, G. (1995). Population and agriculture in Florida: An update on trends and characteristics. Florida: University of Florida, IFAS. PE-58.

Maddy, D. J., & Kealy, L. J. M. (1998). Integrating a marketing mindset: Building Extension's future in the information marketplace. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(4). Available at:http://www.joe.org/joe/1998august/comm1.html

St. Lucie County Extension Office. (2002). Fiscal year 2002-03 budget request.

University of Florida/IFAS. (2002). Putting Florida FIRST: 1998-2002. Florida FIRST 2001 stakeholders' conference final report.

University of Florida/IFAS. (2001). County 2000-2001 Extension budget summary. Statewide county annual impact 2000 [On-line]. Available at: http://analysis2000.ifas.ufl.edu/statepfp.htm

University of Florida/ IFAS. (2000). Statewide annual impact 1999 [On-line]. Available at:http://analysis2000.ifas.ufl.edu/statewide2000.htm

University of Florida/IFAS. (2000). Fact digest [On-line]. Available at: http://analysis2000.ifas.ufl.edu/facts.htm



Developing a Simple Four-Step Marketing Plan for Extension ProgramsAbstractTo develop an effective marketing plan, you must match the needs of the various audience subgroups with the attributes of whatever you are trying to promote. We are all familiar with the benefits of advertising, but advertising is only part of a promotional plan. The idea behind marketing is to lead the consumer through the four stages that lead to purchase: awareness, interest, knowledge, and behavior. To successfully do this, you must (1) conduct an audience inventory, (2) define your goals and specify your objectives, (3) decide on the nature of your message, and (4) decide on the appropriate media.

James M. NehileyAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Agricultural Education and CommunicationInstitute of Food and Agricultural SciencesUniversity of FloridaGainesville, FloridaInternet Address: [email protected]

Would you like to improve the public's awareness of your Extension program? Would you like to have more people attend your meetings? If the answer to either of these questions is "yes," then what you need to do is create a marketing program designed to inform and motivate the audience you wish to reach. A marketing effort is designed to change the audience's knowledge, attitude, or behavior as it relates to your program.

How? Where would you start?

Step One: Conduct an Audience Inventory

Conducting an audience inventory (Entine & Ziffern, 1980) will help you determine which media you will use and how you will conduct your campaign. Break your audience into components because each will have to be treated differently. For instance, if you wanted to reach older people, how would you do it? Would you use mass media? Would you do it in the middle of the day because they go to bed early? What do older people have in common? To find this out you have to break the audience down by something other than demographics. "Psychographics" (Berkowitz, Kerin, & Rudelius, 1994) is the term used for grouping people by psychological tendencies–what they need, what they like, and how they live.

After you have divided your population into groups, list answers to the following questions next to each group on a big piece of paper.

What does this subgroup know about Extension? How do they feel about Extension? What they are currently doing that is related to Extension?

To learn more, you could use the following audience analysis techniques.

Focus group research entails small-group interviewing among persons who presumably represent characteristics of the target audience segment or segments (Wimmer & Dominick, 1994).

Survey research uses questionnaires to interview large numbers of persons who usually are selected at random, using scientific probability sampling methods. When a sample is done correctly, these persons are perfectly representative of the population in general. That is, if 10% of the population is over 60 years of age, 10% of the sample will be over 60 years of age. Because individuals in a randomly selected sample have the same characteristics as the general population, their attitudes and opinions reflect the attitudes and opinions of the targetaudience perfectly. Survey research lets you know a little bit about many different people.

Step Two: Define Your Goals and Specify Your Objectives

After you have determined what your audience wants, you should develop goals and objectives to meet those needs: a goal is a broad statement of your intentions, an objective is specific and measurable (McElreath, 1997). A goal would be something like "increasing public awareness." An objective would be "increase public recognition of the county logo by 5%." Then, when you do a survey and 5% more people recognize your logo, you know that you have met your first objective.

Why have objectives and goals? Because without them there is no REAL progress. You can produce a lot of messages and get them transmitted by

the various media, but until you specify your objectives, you aren't likely to achieve specific results. To develop goals and objectives, review your audience analysis and conduct some type of strategic analysis.

An easy-to-do, but still useful, strategy for developing goals and objectives is the SWOT analysis. This approach allows a group or organization to pull its people together and have all of them make up a list of the organizations ten greatest strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats from competitors. Then, the total group reviews and analyzes each person's list, and the group then makes up a new list–a unanimously agreed-on list–of the organization's 10 strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. A SWOT analysis can be done by the directors of the organization, or it can be done by the people in one part of the organization.

For instance in an Extension office, the review can be done by just the Extension director and the faculty agents. Or a single program can do it by completing the SWOT analysis with the participating agents, their advisory group, and possibly some of their leaders or volunteers.

Once the four lists are completed, the participants should discuss each of the elements, reorganize the list for priority (most important is number one, second most important is number two, and so forth), and reduce the list to seven elements. The final and most important part of the analysis is to plan to use the strengths to offset the weaknesses, and the opportunities to weaken the threats. When you do this, you create problem/solution statements that become your goals.

Step Three: Decide on the Nature of Your Message

Once you have analyzed your audience to determine what you should say, and once you have decided on your goals and objectives to determine what you do that would attract this specific audience, you have to decide what your message should contain (Seiden, 1990). What is it you want them to do, and what would the audience find persuasive?

To answer these questions, you should review your audience analysis and your goals and objectives. After you have reviewed this information, you should do a message inventory to determine the "nature" of your message. To conduct a message inventory for your subject matter, you should analyze your intended message by the following criteria so that it has the impact to change their attitudes. Four factors affect the length or design of your message.

Complexity

How complex will your message be? The more complex the subject, the more detail you will have to use in each of your messages and the more you need to use different messages for each audience subgroup. In each case, the audience subgroup will be willing to listen to, and be capable of understanding, only one specific message.

Duration

How long will it take you to reach and persuade your audience? Some messages are simple enough that the audience can understand them and immediately begin to change their behavior. Other messages will require a longer learning period.

For instance, take reducing trash to save your town money on waste control and collection. You could probably get people to start crushing aluminum cans in just a few months. But what about convincing them to switch to products that have less paper and plastic wrapping?

Uniqueness

Messages that stand out from the others are more recognizable and, therefore, more effective. If you can separate your message from other messages, it will be more memorable, and you will have to send fewer messages.

In advertising they say that if your program is unique you should stress its uniqueness (Roman, 1976). If your program is not unique (the community college or other government agencies carry similar information), you should find some aspect of it that is unique and make this the main theme of your message.

Appeal

Should they already want to do it? For instance, if your message is about recycling, don't they already want to save money? Sure, and they already hate to take out a big pile of trash, too. And they also want to help preserve the environment. Take advantage of the things that they already believe in. Give them specific, detailed messages that they can relate to their needs without having to change too many of their opinions or behaviors. Stress what you know they will find appealing.

Step Four: Decide on the Appropriate Media

Which media should you use to convey your carefully constructed messages to the specific audience subgroup you have decided to reach? The only way

to be sure is to conduct an audience analysis. Use the media that works with that targeted subgroup of the population.

If your audience is large and widely dispersed, you could use mass media. However, remember that mass media has little impact other than to make people aware.

If your audience is small and centrally located, you could use direct mail or telephone calls (cheaper AND more personal).

If your audience tends to be very private, don't use direct mail or telephone contact with them–it won't work. Within your audience are people who are influential in the lives of others. Reach them first. How do you reach them? They use different media from the others, so use a focus group, and find out which media they use. Then, use that media to start your campaign (Simmons, 1990).

Summary

To develop an effective marketing plan you must match the needs of the various audience subgroups with the attributes of whatever you are trying to promote. We are all familiar with the benefits of advertising, but advertising is only part of a promotional plan.

The idea behind marketing is to lead the consumer through the four stages that lead to purchase:

Awareness, Interest, Knowledge, and Behavior.

To successfully do this, you must:

1. Conduct an audience inventory,

2. Define your goals and specify your objectives,

3. Decide on the nature of your message, and

4. Decide on the appropriate media.

References

Berkowitz, E. N., Kerin, R. A., Hartley, S. W., & Rudelius, W. (1994). Marketing (4th ed.). Illinois:Irwin.

Entine, L., & Ziffern, A. (1980). Getting the word out. A handbook for planning a public information campaign. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Extension.

McElreath, M. P. (1997). Managing systematic and ethical public relations campaigns (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Roman, K. (1976). How to advertise. New York: St. Martin's Press

Seiden, H. (1990). Advertising pure and simple. New York: AMACOM

Simmons, R. E. (1990). Communication campaign management. New York: Longman.

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (1994). Mass media research an introduction. (4th ed.). California: Wadsworth.



December 2006Volume 44 Number 6Article Number 6FEA7

Return to Current Issue

The Ability to Relate: Assessing the Influence of a Relationship Marketing Strategy and Message Stimuli on

Consumer Perceptions of ExtensionTracy IraniAssociate ProfessorUniversity of FloridaGainesville, [email protected]

Amanda RuthAssistant ProfessorCollege of CharlestonCharleston, South [email protected]

Ricky W. TelgAssociate ProfessorUniversity of FloridaGainesville, Florida

[email protected]

Lisa K. LundyAssistant ProfessorLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge, [email protected]

Abstract: Extension professionals are encouraged to market their programs and their organizations, but one of the most important marketing resources--their relationships--could be overlooked. The exploratory study reported here assessed the influence of a relationship-oriented marketing strategy and specific message stimuli on consumer perceptions of a statewide Extension service. A set of two focus groups, comprised of members of the general public, was utilized. Probability samples were generated using a predetermined sampling frame based on demographic variables. Results of the study showed that the user-focused marketing concepts resonated with participants, providing support for a message strategy focused on a two-way communication approach.

Extension has been perceived as better at carrying out effective programs than at communicating these programs to stakeholders (Warner, 1993). Studies have demonstrated that legislators and the general public do not possess a clear understanding of the mission and funding of the Cooperative Extension Service (Blalock, 1964; Adkins, 1981). One study (Warner, Christenson, Dillman, & Salant, 1996) found that 45% of respondents said they had heard of the Cooperative Extension Service, while only 26% said they or a member of their immediate family had ever used the services of Extension. These researchers noted that Extension continues to have a fragmented image and must do a better job of establishing linkages between individual programs and the overall mission of Extension.

In an attempt to address these issues, Cooperative Extension has engaged in strategic marketing efforts in recent years at the federal and state levels. Since the mid-1980s, many state Extension services began constructing a consistent and uniform statewide identity with new names and logos (Verma & Burns, 1995). A primary goal of most marketing initiatives is the development and repetition of a good name or brand image (Marken, 2001)to increase public awareness of their programs(Boldt, 1988; King, 1993; Maddy & Kealy, 1998; Nehiley, 2001; Verma & Burns, 1995; Warner, 1993; Warner, Christenson, Dillman, & Salant, 1996).

However, most of these efforts have been unidirectional in nature and have overlooked the value of listening to their constituents. Chappell (1990) suggested that Extension must communicate with its constituents in a way that creates awareness, stimulates interest, and ultimately produces participation by targeted audiences. "The strategy to establish, develop, enhance, and maintain relationships to build loyalty and support for the organization revolves around three key factors: building relationships, retaining current customers, and recognizing internal and external markets" (Drysdale, 1999, p. 23).

In January 2004, a task force was called together to explore creative ways to market the new long-range strategic plan of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service. The task force proposed a marketing campaign designed to foster two–way relationships between Florida

Extension and its constituents, including current clientele and potential users.

Tactical elements for this campaign included a slogan that focuses on illustrating the relationship between Extension and its publics; a user-focused Web portal that features dynamic content, maximum usability, two-way interactivity, and strong visuals; and an accompanying print brochure. Pictures, links, and texts will focus on the user, including identifying Extension services in "public value words" like "lawns and gardens" and "families" rather than the academically focused terms ("environmental horticulture" and "family and consumer sciences"). Based on the above, the purpose of the study reported here was to assess the influence of specific message stimuli on consumer perceptions of Extension in the state of Florida, using a relationship-oriented, two-way symmetrical communication marketing strategy.

Theoretical Framework

One approach to extend relationships with internal and external markets, while maximizing credibility and cost effectiveness, is the public relations model of communication. "Public relations contributes value to an organization when its communication programs result in quality long-term relationships with its strategic publics--also known as stakeholders" (Grunig, 2001, p. 25).

Grunig (1989) suggests four models for public relations: (1) the press agentry/publicity model, which refers to propagandistic public relations that seek media attention, however and whenever possible; (2) the public information model, in which the organization disseminates information to its publics, but does not seek out information about them; and the (3) two-way asymmetrical model, which uses research to determine what messages are most likely to produce support of an organization's publics without changing the organization. Finally, in the two-way symmetrical model, organizations use bargaining, negotiating, and strategies of conflict resolution to precipitate changes in the organization itself and its publics. Although the most difficult to accomplish and sustain, the two-way symmetrical model is most efficient with respect to building give-and-take relationships with its publics (Grunig, 1992).

Methodology

Due to the limited literature on the influence of relationship marketing approaches on perceptions of Extension, a qualitative research design specifically utilizing focus groups was deemed the most appropriate method of data collection for this qualitative study. Borrowed from market research, focus groups can be defined as "a video- or audio-taped small group discussion that explores topics selected by the researcher and is typically timed to last no more than two hours" (Morgan & Spanish, 1984, p. 254).

Focus groups have several advantages. Focus groups are the sole qualitative method of data collection that allows for rich and enlightening exchanges between participants. They are commonly utilized by marketing researchers and consultants to explore marketing ideas. With respect to their use in an applied context such as Extension, focus groups provide local perceptions in rich detail and report actual statements from real people (Creswell, 1998) and can provide high-quality data about programs and services that surveys may miss (Iowa State University Extension, May 2004).

In the study reported here, two focus groups comprised of representative members of the general public were utilized. A market research firm was employed to qualify potential

participants via telephone random digit dialing (RDD) sampling. Probability samples were generated using a predetermined sampling frame based on demographic variables including gender, age, income, ethnicity, and use/non-use of Extension. After qualifying the panel, the market research firm contacted potential participants and recruited them to participate. Participants received $50 as recruitment incentive after participating in the focus group session. Faculty in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication and members of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service's marketing task force reviewed the focus group protocol and question guide for face and content validity.

An objective moderator was utilized to conduct the focus group and guide the group discussion. Moderator involvement was a balance of low to medium involvement, based on the facilitation needs of each group. A question guide was used to facilitate participant discussion and interaction.

During the sessions, focus group participants were first asked questions about their knowledge and awareness of Extension and then shown message stimuli consisting of concept boards depicting a series of slogans, Web site designs, and a brochure. The sessions were recorded using audio, video, and field notes and sessions were transcribed and analyzed by researchers to look for common themes, similarities and dissimilarities, observations of non-verbals, interactions, and reactions to message stimuli.

Data was analyzed using Glaser's constant comparative technique (1978). This technique is based on comparative analyses between or among groups of persons within a particular area of interest. This comparative analysis is the central feature of grounded theory in qualitative research and often allows the researcher to identify patterns and relationships within the collected data (Glaser, 1978). An audit trail including original data analysis, codes, semantic relationships, and listing of all domains was kept for verification and trustworthiness.

Two focus groups sessions consisting of five to seven participants each, were conducted in Fall 2004 at a central facility in Orlando, Florida. Participants included males and females and a mix of age ranges (20-70), ethnic groups, and those who use and do not use (non-use) Extension's services. During the sessions, participants were shown two different versions of a slogan for Extension that specifically focused on the relationship between Extension and its users. Two mock-ups of a Web site home page, one featuring more interactive content in the form of animation and containing changeable dynamic content and one featuring static pictures, were also shown to participants.

Results

Reactions to Message Stimuli

During the focus groups, two slogans were tested: "Solutions for Your Life" and "Solutions for You." During the sessions, it became apparent that both groups strongly preferred the "Solutions for Your Life" slogan, indicating the other choice was "too vague." As one participant noted:

It's more reassuring because it says 'your life,' not solutions 'for you' because you don't know exactly what they're talking about. But if you're talking 'solutions for your life,' I think that helps someone as an individual. It personalizes it.

Interestingly, participants associated "Solutions for You" as someone solving someone else's

problems and felt the theme raised too many questions, lacked context, and was not personal. On the other hand, the addition of two words, "your life," while making the slogan longer, made a huge difference in the meaning of the slogan for participants. "Solutions for Your Life" was felt to be more personalized and suggested improving lifestyles and quality of life for participants. The latter slogan made participants feel that the organization was talking to them, helping them solve problems, and thus was more inclusive. As one participant said:

To me, a lot of what Extension does is answer questions. You can pick up some strange little spooky-looking bug in your yard and take that to the Extension office and somebody there will help you figure out what it is and how to get rid of it. They answer questions and if you want to grow a particular plant you can call your Extension office and they'll give you all their little sheets on it and test your soil and this and that. They provide answers to questions. And that's where they're the most helpful.

Web Site and Interactive Web Portal

In general, participants' self-reported information-seeking behaviors seemed strongly associated with Web usage. Both focus groups saw the Internet as "the primary way to get information." As one respondent said, "Anything that I want to research or find out about, I go to the Internet, both for the information itself--content--as well as places and organizations that could provide information for me or information about their services." Every participant in the study said they access the Web for work, school, and personal uses, and they all used the Web every day.

Participants in both focus groups found the overall proposed Web site design appealing. Focus group participants said this about the Web site: "It looks professional." "It's simple. It looks like it would be easy to use--user friendly." "It's crisp and well laid out and not busy. It's easy to use."

With respect to the interactive Web portal concept, the consensus of both groups was that the site with interactive content and animation would be more useful. One respondent said:

I like how each time you log on, that this box would change. You know, so it gives it more of a variety instead of looking at the same thing every time you went on. I think that is beneficial for a lot of the people who go on the Web site, trying to research more about--learning about that Web site.

Participants said they would be more likely to visit the interactive site more often than a static site with unchanging content. Non-users in both focus groups said they would be more likely to follow through on utilizing Extension services, especially since they felt it would be easier to find out what was offered. Both groups felt that the use of pictures was something that stood out, and which they liked, but suggested combining the Flash animation with larger, clickable pictures and labels on pictures showing how they related to specific Extension services.

The consensus of the second focus group was that the table of contents menu, located to the left of the screen, was especially useful and made the site easier to navigate because it stayed on the screen all the time so that visitors to the Web site would not have "to back track." Both groups felt that use of drop-down menus and rollovers, designed as interactive table of contents features, were extremely important, not only to access sub-pages but also

to help non-users understand what services were offered.

During both sessions, the moderator went through each of the menu and sub-menu items on the page, which had been developed to identify Extension services using "public value words"--terms that non-users would easily recognize. Both users and non-users of Extension services liked this idea and were able to easily understand and identify what elements would be encompassed within the public value words "agriculture," "environment," "youth development," and "lawns and gardens," but had some problems distinguishing the difference and what would be contained within the "family" and "community" links. Participants believed "family" would be more appropriate under the "community" link or as "home and family." Another common concern was that "nutrition," a link placed in the sub-menu under "family," did not seem to be where participants would expect to find this information.

Discussion and Conclusions

In general, findings of the study provided support for the concept of developing and implementing a marketing strategy for Extension focused on a two-way symmetrical model of communication. The user-focused marketing concepts tested during the focus groups resonated with participants, all of whom--both users and non-users of Extension --responded favorably to a thematic slogan focused on identifying and illustrating the relationship Extension has with its users, in the form of providing "solutions for your life."

With respect to the use of the Web and the concept of the interactive Web portal as a way of facilitating two-way communication, it was interesting to note that participants all looked to the Web as their primary information source. Further, they favored the more interactive Web site design and felt that including dynamic, changeable content would be beneficial and cause them to be more likely to visit the site more often and avail themselves of Extension's services.

One of the most important findings of this study related to the participants' reaction to the use in the Web site design of user-friendly "public value words" and an organizational structure focused on communicating with stakeholders in terms that were mutually meaningful; this approach was perceived as very important by participants. Participants understood and shared the meaning of most of the terms that were tested and were very clear about the importance of using terms and navigation structure that made sense to them. This finding provides support for the potential positive influence of a message strategy focused on a two-way communication approach, in which feedback from stakeholders helps shape the communication message strategy, rather than the more common one-way communication strategy centered on dissemination of information within the context of standard Extension terminology and organizational structure.

Recommendations

Researchers in the study reported here recommend that others investigating Extension's messages and elements used to foster two-way relationships should consider or implement the following:

Conduct focus groups or targeted market surveys of users and non-users of Extension's services. Using research as a base for determining clients' understanding of Extension programs and services, as opposed to a mentality of "build it and they will come," will provide Extension professionals with more comprehensive

information to target what they do to interested clients. Use "public value words" that have meaning and strength. Academic words or

phrases that may have been used in the past should be phased out to reach a more urban and needs-focused clientele.

Establish an easy-to-understand message. As reported in this study, a shorter message--"Solutions for You"--was less understandable than the longer "Solutions for Your Life." Focus group participants grasped that "your life" meant Extension's services would have an impact on and support activities and needs they had in their everyday life. This finding is particularly interesting, in that it goes against the accepted marketing mindset that "shorter is always better."

Adopt the technology used by the target audience to disseminate the message. Understand that usage may differ from preference, as in "preferred method of delivery" on a survey. In this study, focus group participants noted that they used the Web as their primary information source every day. The Internet may not be the right technology to disseminate to all audiences, however. Determining the correct technology for message delivery should be a priority.

Build in mechanisms for feedback. The study emphasized the need to incorporate the two-way symmetrical public relations model, which is efficient in building give-and-take relationships with its publics (Grunig, 1992). Developers of Extension messages must receive input from vested clientele as they determine and, later, disseminate the message.

In light of limited resources currently being allocated in many Extension programs, it is increasingly important to understand how to leverage marketing efforts to promote Extension to existing clientele and engage more urbanized audiences with respect to the value of Extension services. Resources for Extension are often limited, and prospective clientele often difficult to reach. Focusing on relationships may provide a way to be more effective and efficient with available marketing resources. Findings from this study will, it is hoped, provide suggestions as to how relationship marketing efforts can be used to enhance the effectiveness of Extension programs and activities.

References

Boldt, W.G. (1988). Image: Creating a unique and unified one for Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 26(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1988spring/rb3.html

Chappell, V.G. (1990). Use creative platforms for better marketing communications. Journal of Extension [On-line], 28(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990winter/tt2.html

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Drysdale, L. (1999, September). Relationship marketing: A new paradigm for marketing schools. Principal Matter: The Official Journal of Secondary Principals Association of Australia, 36(1).

Glaser, B. 1978. Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.

Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public relations theory. In V. Hazelton (Ed.), Public Relations Theory, (pp. 17-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grunig, J. E. (1992). Communication, public relations, and effective organizations: An

overview of the book. In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, L. A. Ehling, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grunig, J. E. (2001). The role of public relations in management and its contribution to organizational and societal effectiveness. Taipei, Taiwan.

Iowa State Extension Service, 2004). Focus group fundamentals, Methodology Brief, Iowa State Extension Service Publications.

King, D. A. (1993). Facing the image deficit. Journal of Extension [On-line], 31(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993fall/tp1.html

Maddy, D. J., & Kealy, L. J. M. (1998). Integrating a marketing mindset: Building Extension's future in the information marketplace. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998august/comm1.html

Marken, G. A. (2001). PR has to be more involved in company branding. Public Relations Quarterly, 46(4), 31-33.

Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Qualitative Research Methods Series, 16. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.

Nehiley, J. M. (2001). Developing a simple four-step marketing plan for Extension programs. Journal of Extension[On-line], 39(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001april/iw3.html

Verma, S., & Burns, A. C. (1995). Marketing Extension in Louisiana: Image and opportunity. Journal of Extension [On-line], 33(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995december/rb1.html

Warner, P. D. (1993). It's time to tell the Extension story. Journal of Extension [On-line], 31(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1993fall/tp2.html

Warner, P. D., Christenson, J. A., Dillman, D. A., & Salant, P. (1996). Public perception of Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996august/a1.html

This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/2006december/a7.shtml.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-

[email protected].

If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support .

Extension Program Marketing and Needs Evaluation Using CraigslistAbstractCraigslist is a mostly free Internet classified ad website that is accessed by over 30 million American viewers each month. This article describes how Craigslist was used to market Cooperative Extension Service programs in the Mat-Su District of Alaska. The result was much larger program participation than obtained through traditional marketing sources such as newspapers and newsletters. Program marketing through Craigslist also resulted in more non-traditional audiences than normally experienced in the Mat-Su District. Participants tended to be ethnically and culturally more diverse, younger and less financially stable. Most had never heard of the Cooperative Extension Service.

Keywords: program, marketing, assessment, audience, needs

Stephen C. BrownMat-Su/Copper River District Agriculture AgentUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks Cooperative Extension ServicePalmer, [email protected]

A Failure AvertedImagine this common Extension program scenario: You've spent weeks preparing your 2-hour introductory gardening program to take place this evening. You've done the usual marketing practices of mailing and e-mailing press releases to local media. You've sent program invitations to lists of people who have indicated they would be interested in gardening programs,


and you've advertised the program in the usual Extension newsletters. You've done all the right things so there should be plenty of sign-ups, right?

Unfortunately, the day of the program has arrived, and only four people have registered. You had hoped for an audience of around 20. Not that these four people are unimportant, but they are the same four people who attend pretty much every Extension program you conduct. Do you cancel the program, or slog out another evening away from home for little overall impact?

This story describes a situation in the spring of 2008 that took place in the Mat-Su Cooperative Extension Service District in South Central Alaska. A combination of factors had seemingly conspired to negatively affect the marketing of this program. First, the local newspapers (usually more than eager to run Extension program announcements) had not picked up the story. Second, several consecutive weeks of really pretty weather had put local Alaskans in not much of a mood to sit indoors through a class.

Out of frustration, I decided to advertise the class on Craigslist <www.craigslist.org> under the "farm + garden" section. It was 11:00 a.m. That evening, 8 hours later, 54 people were staring back at me, anticipating an evening spent learning how to garden. A potential program failure had been averted thanks to a change in marketing tactic.

What Is Craigslist?Craigslist is an Internet-based classified advertising Web site that is free for most users. It hosts classified ads for all 50 U.S. states and more than 500 cities worldwide. According to Craigslist (2008), 30 million Americans visit the site each month seeking merchandise, jobs, housing, services, activity announcements, and personal interest forums.

Advertising Extension programs on Craigslist has many advantages besides being free. One of the biggest advantages is that users sort themselves into narrow categories of interest. This means that Extension programs can be targeted to specific audiences. For example, we recently conducted a program on calculating when it's time to trade in your gas-guzzling SUV for a more fuel-efficient model. We advertised the program under the "cars + trucks" section and had 24 people sign up for the class. Almost everyone in the program indicated they had been searching the "cars + trucks" section because they had been considering selling their SUV or were looking to buy a more fuel-efficient model. They saw the ad for our class and decided to attend in order to make an informed decision.

http://www.craigslist.com/

Another advantage to program marketing on Craigslist is that its viewers cut across almost all ethnic, age, and socioeconomic groups. Here in the Mat-Su District, our typical Extension audience overwhelmingly tends to be white, over forty, relatively well educated, and economically stable. We have noticed that audiences attending Craigslist marketed programs tend to be just the opposite. They are racially and culturally more diverse, tend to be in their mid-to late twenties, often appear to have less, if any, college education, and seem much less financially stable. Most have never heard of the Cooperative Extension Service.

Needs Evaluation Using CraigslistI first really became aware of Craigslist when a Master Gardener told me about a particularly good deal she had gotten purchasing a greenhouse on the Web site. Wanting to find a similar deal myself, I checked out the "farm + garden" section. While scanning the ads, I noticed that the buying and selling activities of people tell you a lot about their community.

In the Mat-Su District, there was tremendous interest in poultry. By reading the ads, it was easy to determine there was a relatively low level of poultry knowledge. Misidentified breeds, incorrect feeding information, and exorbitant prices being asked and paid for relatively common birds were dead giveaways.

Despite the obvious local interest in poultry issues, there had been no Extension programming regarding poultry in our district for many years. I started posting ads about freely available advice regarding chickens, and my e-mail and phone literally exploded with inquiries. Because I almost never received poultry inquiries, I had assumed there was little interest. Was I wrong!

Lessons We've Learned Using CraigslistSince we've been using Craigslist to market our programs and offerings, it has become almost irrelevant whether we get program publicity through traditional sources, i.e., through newspapers and newsletters. A well-thought-out and placed posting almost always guarantees a good audience. Here are some tips we've learned.

Emphasize the university connection-There are a lot of scams on Craigslist, and Cooperative Extension programs often seem "too good to be true."

Use pictures to convey a thought or outcome-Pictures draw more attention to your ad and help viewers see the benefit of your program.

Multiple listings for the same program are not allowed-Craigslist has the ability to identify and delete multiple listings. Choose your listing category carefully.

Don't delete and repost the same ad-People attempt to do this so their ad stays at the top of a category list. This is known as "toplisting" and can result in Craigslist deleting your ad.

For once, procrastinating is good-We've had the largest audience numbers using Craigslist by posting ads only 1 or 2 days before the program.

Post in the morning-Most people seem to be checking Craigslist from their work computers. Posting in the morning makes your ad most visible throughout the workday. Your ad will be checked out the most on the day it is posted, and hits to the ad will decline rapidly after that.

ReferencesCraigslist Fact Sheet. (2008). Retrieved September 26, 2008, from:http://www.craigslist.org/about/factsheet.html





http://www.joe.org/contact-joe.php


http://www.joe.org/about-joe-copyright-policy.php

http://www.craigslist.org/about/factsheet.html

October 2007Volume 45 Number 5Article Number 5COM1

Return to Current Issue

How Integrated Extension Programming Helps Market Cooperative Extension: The North Carolina RecommendationKaren DeBordProfessor & Extension SpecialistNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh, North [email protected]

Abstract: In a contemporary society, Extension educational programming must consider the multiple community systems affected by identified issues. Recommendations based on a 2-year study process in North Carolina demonstrate how integrated educational programming is connected to marketing Extension. Two figures provide a visual of the concepts described.

Do you ever get tired of people saying, "Extension seems to be the best kept secret?" Those


http://www.joe.org/joe/2007october/

of us who have described our work to others have heard this time and again. Cooperative Extension is indeed a wonderful network of professionals delivering educational information on a variety of topics to the public. However, to truly market what we do, we must take a long hard look at our organization and assure that we are meeting the contemporary needs of society.

Marketing the organization is intricately linked to how we conduct our day-to-day business. It is not simply about a new logo or an updated brochure. Marketing goes to the core of who we are and how we operate.

Taking a Close Look at Ourselves

To market what we do best, we must first recognize what it is that we do best. Cooperative Extension in North Carolina set out to identify and preserve the best of our rich Extension past while looking toward a renewed future. Establishing a renewed identity parallels the vision referred to as "Engaged Universities" presented the Kellogg Commission (2001).

In their report, 25 university presidents collectively agreed that land-grant universities must be responsive and relevant by "bringing the resources and expertise at our institutions to bear on problems in a coherent way." Further, they indicate that within the university, the lines between disciplines must be more transparent, and faculty must be more involved with community issues. The concept of the "engaged" university is valuable in guiding the analysis of the Extension organization and how the organizational structure of Extension parlays into marketing difficulty.

Analyzing Extension's Organizational Structure

Analyzing Extension's organizational structure involves understanding internal relationships, relationship dependency, and how authority is granted and managed. In empowered, credible organizations, Tjosvold (1991) recommends establishing strong cooperative links and constructive relations in organizations by developing: (a) a common direction and vision, (b) mutual tasks, (c) assessment of joint productivity, (d) shared rewards contingent upon success, (e) complementary responsibilities and roles that require collaboration, and (f) team identity and supportive culture (p. 297). These are primarily structural and cultural interventions aimed at fostering interdependent (rather than dependent) relations within the organization. That is, less dependency and more shared autonomy.

In taking a long hard look at Cooperative Extension, it is apparent that there are many dependent units within Extension. Externally, Extension is no longer in a safe cocoon of county and state government. Others have become part of our traditional and comfortable arena. Over time, these transformations within community organizations have caused Extension to respond in an often undisciplined, segmented, disjointed fashion. How then can an organization be marketed that has so many aspects and that is serving so many areas? It is difficult for the public to understand and grasp.

What Part of Extension Should Be Marketed?

In his book From Good to Great (2001), Jim Collins advises organizations to identify "their passion, what drives them economically, and what they can be best in the world at" (this author paid no heed to ending a sentence in a preposition). The meeting of these three aspects becomes the (marketable) vortex that represents Extension work. For Extension,

this can become the litmus test for decisions regarding planning, prioritization, programming, marketing, personnel functions, and accountability.

A North Carolina Extension study team identified Extension's passion as enhancement of the quality of people's lives (economically, environmentally, etc). This includes all people, all classes, all races, all backgrounds. The second aspect, what drive Extension economically, is Extension-built internal and external networks (county partnerships, foundations, grants, and other opportunities). And finally, what is Extension best in the world at? The team agreed that Extension has the ability to provide a collective application of a vast network or portfolio of resources.

By combining the Collins vortex with the vision of an engaged university, the North Carolina study team realized program prioritization, program development, and marketing are intricately linked organizational functions. Traditionally, Extension has viewed marketing as merely promotion. This view places Extension communications units in a reactive role. Thus, the team recommended that an integrated educational programming response organizationally must be coupled with marketing efforts in the initial stages.

Revising the Extension Educational Model

If the marketable vortex involves an internal and external application of the portfolio of Extension resources to enhance lives, then the first step in strengthening marketing is to revisit the educational programming model. The educational programming model serves as the underpinning by which new educators are oriented and experienced educators retrained, and provides the bridge to connect marketing with educational programming. Extension educators in North Carolina worked for more than a year to gain system agreement on the new model and definitions. Figure 1 depicts the new model.

Figure 1.North Carolina Cooperative Extension Program Development System

The definition of educational programming has theoretically (Boone, Safrit, & Jones, 2002) been available but the knowledge of HOW to conduct educational programs is often short-cut, with anxious public servants jumping into educational intervention as opposed to giving

attention to the critical steps of intentional planning. The revised North Carolina Extension educational programming definition is: that educational programming "is a planned, comprehensive, and integrated set of educational change strategies that are based on documented, high priority needs and are designed to produce behavioral changes among targeted learners that filter throughout social systems to produce social, economic and environmental impacts" (Guion, 2007).

Nested within this definition is a key component that makes this approach different--integrated programming. Integrated programming positions Extension operating as "engaged" with communities around issues as opposed to operating in rigid or narrow subject matter areas. Integrated programming is defined as a collaborative approach involving partners and various disciplines planning and implementing one or more strategies to impact micro and macro systems associated with one or more identified issues (DeBord, 2007). Issues programming has been part of Extension as a system for decades. An issue is a matter of widespread public concern. It is complex and multifaceted, and requires multiple disciplines to bring about impact.

Integrated Programming

Integrated programming has two critical dimensions. First, it requires multiple disciplines to bring resources to bear on the identified issue, and second it goes deep within economic, community, and social systems. In the definition of integrated programming above, "systems" refers to places and organizations where people interact, such as schools, families, organizations, government, economy, and culture (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

Learners are the smallest (or micro) aspect of the social system. However, a macro system refers to impacts made with community organizations, systems, policies, standards, or rules, including culture and the economy. In order to truly create change, we must not only work collaboratively across disciplines but we must address the issue at various social levels. Figure 2 provides a visual diagram.

Figure 2.Integrated Programming Model to Address Community Issues Must Use Multiple Resources

and Work Across All Societal Systems.

Examples of Integrated Programming

To illustrate integrated programming, imagine an Extension educator who is teaching an individual how to prepare for the workforce by teaching job interviewing skills, job-related skills, and resume building. While those are valuable skills to have, integrated programming would see beyond the individual to the other systems that touch this issue of economic development. If, within that community, there are few jobs, there is not transportation for the individual to use to get to work, and no child care for that worker, then what good has it done to teach the individual? An impact has to be made in other system levels and additional partners must be part of the educational design team.

Another example is the emerging issue of urbanization or uncontrolled growth in communities. This issue affects the environment, the economy, and quality of life. Multiple strategies are needed at the homeowner level (landscape practice), the youth level (understanding the environment), the family level (creating connections between parent/ child/grandparent to partake of and understand the environment), as well as the community policy level (zoning, growth policy, infrastructure). These are just a few of the partners that must be mobilized to anticipate a collective impact while bringing multiple Extension resources to bear on the issue.

Tying Marketing and Program Development Together

In North Carolina, we envision a long process to organizationally change who we are and how we operate. One marketing firm (Carolina Public Relations) indicated that once we are ready organizationally, we will "earn" our logo, and marketing will fall into place. To strategically prepare for marketing, NC Cooperative Extension has made some organizational changes. The first step was identifying three strategic priorities: environment, economy, and youth/family/ community well-being. Issues flow from these priorities areas.

New specialists in both program development and marketing have been hired to work closely together to identify multi-system and multidisciplinary efforts that address the priority areas. The marketing specialists will highlight those efforts that are truly integrated and that affect systems within the strategic priority areas. However, marketing will be incorporated at the beginning of the educational process and all along the way, not just at the end.

Only time will tell if these initial organizational changes will affect the way Extension is perceived by the public. However, the renewed sense of addressing contemporary societal issues has given a facelift to an organization ever interested in providing educational intervention to meet public needs.

References:

Boone, E. J., Safrit, R. D., & Jones, J. (2002). Developing programs in adult education, 2nd Edition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Collins, J. (2001). From good to great. New York: Harper Collins

DeBord, K. (2007). North Carolina Extension Conference. North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC.

Gabelnick, F. MacGregor, J. Matthes, R. S. & Smither, B. L., Eds. (1990). Learning communities: Creating connections among students, faculty and disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. No 41. San Francisco:Jossey Bass.

Guion, L. (2007). North Carolina Extension Conference. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

Holland, B. (2005). Civic and academic engagement in the multiversity

Institutional trends and initiatives at the University of California. Symposium presentation. Berkeley, CA. Retrieved January 29, 2007, from: http://cshe.berkeley.edu/events/seru21symposium2005/

Kellogg Commission (2001). Returning to our roots: Executive summaries of the reports of the Kellogg Commission the Future of State and Land Grant Universities. Retrieved June 2007 from: http://www.nasulgc.org/Kellog/kellog.htm

http://www.nasulgc.org/Kellog/kellog.htm

http://cshe.berkeley.edu/events/seru21symposium2005/

Tjosvold, D. Andrews, I. R., & Struthers, J. T. (1991). Power and interdependence in workgroups. Group and Organizational Studies, 16 (3). 285-299.

Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/2007october/comm1.shtml.


If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support .






http://www.joe.org/copyright.html

http://www.joe.org/joe/2007october/comm1.shtml

extension.tennessee.edu visibility... · web viewextension.tennessee.edu

Documents