Having just been in Germany and Ireland, where the public are reasonably knowledgeable about farming and the problems facing agriculture. I noted that especially in Ireland that there are weekly farming supplements in some of the newspapers. These are actually farming based, not a bunny hugging view. To me this seems to give the man on the street a good idea of what is going on, rather than him having the opinion that we farmers are just grabbing subsidys and raping the countryside. Also that we are not all farming intensivly and injecting god knows what into the ground. We have an excellent industry magazine in the Farmers Weekly, would it be possible work with some of the newspapers to put together a farm supplement and try to bring the consumer to the truth? At the moment we are seen as a bit secretive and we get a bad name for it. Is this a viable option? Ed

             Our local town's "squeaker" carries a Farmer suppliment regularly. It is very good and covers the points which you have asked for. Unfortunately, our last one has been thrown out. I was looking for it to check the Editorial. It is produced in the Northeast covering Aberdeenshire and Angus mainly but may extend into Fife and Perthshire and give National pieces also.

             The only objection I have heard so far came from my newsagent. He told me that some of his customers complained at having to pay for something they did not want. What they did not realise was that the suppliment was free.

             I should imagine that FW will have enough on its plate without going into local papers, but I am sure there will be plenty of keen local Agricultural businesses throughout the country willing to get involved, even if only from an advertising point of view. I should imagine it would be necessary for a local press to take up the challenge and to provide the office work and expertise.  

 

 

 

 

 

ed the digger:

We have an excellent industry magazine in the Farmers Weekly, would it be possible work with some of the newspapers to put together a farm supplement and try to bring the consumer to the truth?

I like the idea and, as Allyr says, it will present a serious challenge to FW journalists. Some of the local newspapers such as the Hereford Times have a good agricultural section and most of the nationals already feature food from the point of view of preparing and eating it. In addition, the broadsheets (including the Times) have regular articles on various aspects of agriculture and associated industries.

It would be difficult I guess for FW to find a profitable niche in one of the nationals. What may work however, is a syndicated column that summarised what had happened in the industry during the past month. Ordinary people might then become aware of the key variables affecting the industry. weather, prices, imports, regulation, humour, human interest in 1000 words! Tough job even for one of the FW pro's.

Peter, I agree with your points. I was not pushing for FW to do this on it's own but if we can persude the national papers to take an intrest in REAL farming then this could go a long way to help our cause. The current slant on agriculture is to my mind that we all live in big houses, keep our cattle in intensive housing fed on anything but grass (we have Anchor to thank for that), go around getting rid off as much wildlife as poss, collect huge subsidys from the EU and that we complain when Messers Tesco want to cut our prices. We are seriously in a minority now and the public is loosing touch with what we do. Food to them is a right not a privelige, and as someone said in another thread they won't fully appreciate us until they go to tescos and the food is scarce and double the price. I don't avocate this, I think we need to show the public the true side of farming , how we aren't just a load of moaning people who won't let th wander in the national park of England, and hopefully we can go some way to help them appreciate us rather than resent us ed

Err please can we stop using the 'C' word, that is the word 'consumer', these are people just like you and me, that is people who are asked increasingly to 'consume' less and hopefully live better healthier, longer lives while leaving a planet with enough resources for future people to enjoy. Just start connecting with people like you and me and not this weird sect that corporate accountants refer to, they are not from another planet!

 

the greenth:

Err please can we stop using the 'C' word, that is the word 'consumer', these are people just like you and me, that is people who are asked increasingly to 'consume' less and hopefully live better healthier, longer lives while leaving a planet with enough resources for future people to enjoy. Just start connecting with people like you and me and not this weird sect that corporate accountants refer to, they are not from another planet!

Ok sorry, should read, connecting with the public

 

Ed 

It is a lovely idea, but comes with difficulties. I think we would struggle with the resources and I am afraid many nationals/mainstream media outlets just wouldn't be interested - they would argue that their coverage of the farming industry is appropriate for their audience. If we went down this route we'd also want a Farmers Weekly credit - which I think many of the papers would be reluctant to give. You only have to see how they covered the RPA losing the bank details story. A number of papers covered it, but most failed to acknowledge in the piece Farmers Weekly's role in breaking the story and the fact it wouldn't have come to light otherwise. They completely airbrushed us out of it because they can't bear to name check other publications.

However, I think the nationals would benefit from a columnists like Stephen Carr/Matthew Naylor /Charlie Flindt/David R who can write thought-provoking and funny articles about life as a 'proper' farmer. Given the interest in food and the countryside there is at the moment I think they would go down well with the general public and would have a more 'real' feel than the likes of Alex James.

 True true, i didnt think that the Farmers weekly would be able to get involved, completely due to the reasons you have just outlined but if the nationals would take articles from the FW columists that could be a major coup. Stephens one would be perfect........

 

Ed

          I should add that our regional newspapers: the "Press and Journal" from Aberdeenshire and the "Dundee Courier" have an excellent agricultural news section every day.

           Ed, I think if this quality, or better, of agricultural news was available in the big Nationals it would do a lot of good. Trouble is, would they be interested in publishing things which are not sensational? I mean, would they feel it would justify there time, space and staff if the Agri news was not targeting there increase in circulation. Perhaps, as has been mentioned it would take an affiliation, ie with the Farmers Weekly or an agricultural organisation, before they would consider a half or full page devoted to quality agricultural news.  

           I should imagine the advertising rates would be quite expensive and I wonder if these papers would provide the incentive for our producers, buyers and suppliers to advertise. I would hope so. If presented well it is a great window for us. 

Isabel Davies:

the nationals would benefit from a columnists like Stephen Carr/Matthew Naylor /charlie Flindt/David R who can write thought-provoking and funny articles about life as a 'proper' farmer. Given the interest in food and the countryside there is at the moment I think they would go down well with the general public and would have a more 'real' feel than the likes of Alex James.

This is the main problem... a lot of the nationals seem obsessed with "names". They like celebrity columnists - in society today, sadly, celebrity seems to be valued about knowledge!

Let's hope a farmer's son or daughter becomes editor of the Daily Mail one day - that might help put the (real) countryside on its radar!

Isabel Davies:

However, I think the nationals would benefit from a columnists like Stephen Carr/Matthew Naylor /charlie Flindt who can write thought-provoking and funny articles about life as a 'proper' farmer. Given the interest in food and the countryside there is at the moment I think they would go down well with the general public

Yes! Isabel, I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Getting the right person to do a regular piece could be invaluable. We have an excellent Farmer's view point, now and then, in the Courier and it gives a lot of relief to see some contentious issues clarified properly.

 

AllyR:

We have an excellent Farmer's view point, now and then, in the Courier and it gives a lot of relief to see some contentious issues clarified properly.

That's interesting to hear Ally... quite a few local papers do a good job of farming coverage. It's just a shame we can't get into the nationals more.

I think farming has made huge amounts of progress when it comes to TV in the last two or three years. Programmes like Jimmy Doherty's have really connected with a mainstream audience. I'm sure the way he looks (the ladies always tell me he's a bit of a hunk!) didn't hurt his pitch to get on the box...

Now I'm sure this is going to get me in trouble, and I'm not saying that aiming to educate the public about farming is a bad idea, but just why do we imagine that the readership of newspapers is in general interested enough to read a regular farming column?  And, in any case, why do we think farming is so special?

Yes I know we all have to eat, but in modern life there are many occupations without which people would notice a deterioration, but do any of them have the same burning desire to connect with the consumer?   I don't think so.  They're not so insecure. 

And even when it comes to food, without the lorry drivers, process workers and retailers most people would go very hungry, or spend all day finding food to buy, but would you want to read a regular piece on the trials and tribulations of running a supermarket or driving a lorry or baking bread?  Do they all feel the need to justify what they do? 

The popular columnists write about any aspect of life which they think important, interesting or a good base for their wit.  If one was to write exclusively about farming they would no doubt build up a regular readership but it would be fairly narrowly drawn from those with farming connections.  For the rest, it would go the way I deal with the sports section, the fashion section, the house and home section, the travel section and the appointments pages.  As Mrs J says every Sunday "I don't know why you bother with a paper, you throw away more of it than you read.".

Jacobus:

why do we think farming is so special?

 

This is a very good point Jacobus, it is because of the great disconnect between farming and society at large  that your question even needs to be asked. One key to the type of article is to make sure that whatever is written it is 'relevant' to the reader, you have to meet them  where they live to use marketing speak. There are many, many articles about farming in the wide press but not about the trials and tribulations of farming per se but about how certain aspects of a farm operations benefit or threaten the lives of the reader. Any farm focused article needs to be about a subject that is familiar to the non-farming reader, not require a reader to work to hard at figuring out what the real message for them is and very importantly it must reward the reader in a meaningful way.

An example of a recent topical story is that of the increase in the sales of  pigs trotters, heads, oxtails, sweetbreads and equally of rabbit, pigeon and other game all highly farming related but not led by the farm side view (or if it was you couldn't tell) but pitched at the familar human interest story about how to beat the recession. The media presentations featured plenty of contributions from butchers showing the cuts off; while chefs gave tips on how to cook using the various wobbly bits on offer. I read and watched three of these pieces being rolled out in the mainstream journals and prime time TV slots but not one UK farm reference was made in any of them.

These may have been pieces promoted by the meat industry representative commissions for all I know but if this was the case then they too were not exactly visible in the output I experienced.

 

 

 

 I agree with Jacobus, the consumer Public are getting a one sided message, Farming as a whole in the UK doesnt seem to be promoting itself well in the Media. This is the inbalance that needs to be addressed. There almost needs to be a PR company who can help to increase the image of UK agriculture PLC

 

Ed

I can agree wholeheartedly with jacobus.

Farming can't promote itself to itself.

ed the digger:

There almost needs to be a PR company who can help to increase the image of UK agriculture PLC

I can't see farmers digging (sorry ) into their pockets for a PR comany. Promotion costs serious money. Farmers don't do serious money, unless it is on a big machine that will rust and devalue.

 Doesnt the NFU have a PR department? or are they too busy designing new logos?

Jacobus:

why do we imagine that the readership of newspapers is in general interested enough to read a regular farming column?

Quite.

Jacobus:

in modern life there are many occupations without which people would notice a deterioration, but do any of them have the same burning desire to connect with the consumer?   I don't think so.  They're not so insecure.

I broadly agree with your central point, however there is a difference between a farming business and most other businesses. For example, if my engineering bujsiness is declining and I have under utilised machines I can mothball them on a temporary basis or realise the assett. (such as it is) I could even lock the door and walk away. However, a farmer 's options are less clear. His grass continues to grow, and he cannot mothball his stock.

I agree with the major thrust of your argument that farmers seem to be more insecure in dealing with the public than many others and which (others say) could be partly remedied by greater PR activity. This insecurity may have something to with their treatment by an ignorant and unsympathetic government and the ease with which organisations who are perceived as being anti-farmer, are able to get their message over to the public at large.

I have always felt it a terrible waste of resources that food has to be promoted by PR people when it is a basic necessity and when food values should have been embedded in childhood and not therefore, in need of 'wastefull' marketing and promotion. Least of all the marketing and PR of the industry that produces the food.

However, that is the world we live and to rectify the situation, I think the answer is to imbue children with a sense stewardship of land and an understanding of the mechanisms of food production. We cannot teach them respect but we can teach manners and we can educate them about food production and the rural way of life, and much is now being done in that direction. (Farm visits et al) 

We can then only trust and hope that they will come respect us as a consequence. Respect is after all, a function of the internal workings within someones' own head and so is an output from them not an input from us. Farmers can however, show respect to their customers and visitors, and in return hope to earn their respect.

As to my respect for this current crop of politicians? With few exceptions, I haven't any.

I do however respect the office but not the man.

 

ed the digger:

 Doesnt the NFU have a PR department? or are they too busy designing new logos?

Yes it does and it does many things to help promote farming, including producing educational materials to be used in schools. 

While I am pleased that you say you agree with me I think that is probably because you haven't understood my position.   I don't believe that there is very much value in promoting British Agriculture per se, at least any more than is currently done, and I question why farmers seem to think there is.

the greenth has cited recent TV and press articles concerned with helping people economise on food.  He says that these do not mention British agriculture.  He may be right, but what benefit would that give to either the organ producing the programme or article or indeed to the viewer/reader?  As far as TV is concerned you have to admit that the, mostly complimentary, exposure of British agriculture in the recent past has been excellent. 

People comment on Jimmy Doherty and his popularity and on some, at least, of the output on Countryfile - moved from its daytime slot to prime time on Sunday evening.  Many of the cookery programmes (Great British Menu in particular) make a virtue of using fresh local produce and in some cases feature the producers concerned.  Can you think of any other industry that has had this level of factual coverage in the last year or so?  I can't.  Even those that come close don't make a virtue of delving down the production chain.  What property programmes ever look into brick production, what medical programmes consider drug research, what fashion programmes look at textile production (except that one on BBC3 which looked at sweat shops in India, or the series on BBC4 about Harris Tweed). 

No, at present, farming gets a very good deal from TV and yet it seems farmers are not satisfied.  They want everyone who eats food to prefer British even when it's more expensive and to love farmers. 

Although this topic comes up regularly on the forum, no-one has ever satisfactorily explained the reason for this.  Do they believe that promoting British agriculture or the British farmer in general will lead to an increase in consumption of home produced food at the expense of imports and hence to rising prices?  If so it seems that a general feel-good campaign is unlikely to achieve this. 

Or perhaps there's a feeling that the public don't like and appreciate British farmers and prefer overseas ones.  If so I'm not sure on what this is based really.  No, the only reason I can really think of is that farmers believe they are looked at unfavourably because of the subsidies received. 

It's almost as if there's a feeling of guilt which needs to be assuaged with positive PR on what jolly good chaps we are, really.  If this is the case then I think we should count our lucky stars that we get the excellent and positive coverage that we do. 

 Thanks everyone for the comments, i just think that we can do more to increase our profile and bring it under one umbrella rather than the NFU, MLC, RED TRACTOR, Potato marketing board, CLA etc. Surely the money would be better spent promoting as a whole rather than as so many separate organisations

Once again Ed you have asked the right question and one I have asked of the various organisations too, the waste of money through multiplication of effort is just one area that concerns me as is the multiple counting of 'beneficiaries' that all organisations who take some form of public or levy money practice as a means of accounting for the money that is spent.

It does appear at times that if the boxes are ticked then all must be well and that the organisations in question must therefore be doing a great job.

This is the 'Emperors New Clothes' story of our day where no one is prepared to state the obvious and stop the madness.

In all honesty if they (the multiple agencies) did not exist I would doubt very much that we would be any worse off. Then connecting with people could be direct, open and honest and not conducted by a brand management campaign that clutters the environment and confuses the receiver of the spun message to the point that the people we need on farmings side resort to apathetic behaviour.

Sweeping generalisms I know or if you prefer a version of the old fashioned method of divide and rule.

 

ed the digger:

bring it under one umbrella rather than the NFU, MLC, RED TRACTOR, Potato marketing board, CLA

The NFU exists to promote the interests of its members.  Its main effort being to represent those interests in the legislative and regulatory arena but also in the press and in the provision of information in education.  It is not involved in the marketing of its members produce.

MLC - no longer exists.  Its functions are now split between: BPEX - which promotes the interests of pig farmers in England through education of producers and marketing materials (website, recipes etc.) and promotion of English pork to the consumer.  EBLEX - which promotes the interests of beef and sheep farmers in England through education of producers and marketing materials (website, recipes etc.) and promotion of English beef and lamb to the consumer.  Hybu Cig Cymru - which promotes the interests of beef, sheep and pig farmers in Wales through education of producers and marketing materials (website, recipes etc.) and promotion of Welsh beef, lamb and pork to the consumer.  These organisations in their marketing activities have two aims, The first is to persuade consumers to buy the English or Welsh product in preference to imported meat or produce from another UK region, and secondly to buy beef, lamb or pork in preference to other meats.

RED TRACTOR - is a standard mark licensed to processors and retailers to denote produce primarily made from ingredients sourced from farms certified under the Assured Foods Standards.

Potato Marketing Board - no longer exists.  Its marketing and education functions are now undertaken by The Potato Council, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.  In respect of consumer marketing, unsurprisingly it promotes the eating of British potatoes.

CLA - is an association of rural land and business owners.  It is primarily a political lobbying organisation.  It does not involve itself in the marketing of its members products.

I'm not sure quite what benefit you, and the greenth, would expect to accrue if these bodies and the many others in a similar role got together to promote British agriculture as a whole rather than their own particular specialist areas.  Such a vision seems to fly in the face of reason.  You might as well suggest that Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsbury's, Waitrose, Aldi etc. pool their advertising budgets and run a campaign to persuade everyone to patronise any supermarket, or for Shell, Esso, BP etc to donate their marketing budgets to OPEC to advertise the virtues of petrochemicals in general rather than any particular brand.

Organisations come into being as an expression of a perceived need by people who determine that their pooled efforts can more effectively acheive a goal than their individual efforts.

Each organisation does however, have a core purpose that is not necessarily related to the core purpose of another organisation. They can work together at times but at other times, by definition, must pursue their own core purpose.

Jacobus has given examples of that principle in operation, and he is right in using the OPEC and supermarket illustrations to show that the idea of all (or the majority) of rural related bodies combining to promote British 'farm' products is not practical.

He is also right in saying that TV is broadly sympathetic to British Agriculture and farmers, and that it is farmers themselves who appear to think that 'the world is out to get them'.

Many of us on this forum believe we have a government ignorant of rural matters and spiteful towards rural folk, but we had best not assume that everyone is out to villify and traduce us. (Even if some are) Better to develop contacts with those sympathetic towards us and let our natural charm and the logic of our arguments work within them. In that way they do our work by recruiting others to our cause. Jeff Rooker is probably an example of someone who did as much for agriculture as could be done within the antipathetic hot house of the labour party at the time.

As to connecting with the customer. I think we would all agree that the best contact with the customer is Face to Face. However, modern distribution and retail systems mean that that is not possible for most farmers. As a consequence their product is classed as a commodity and, as has been said before, commodities are bought on price.

For farmers to maximise their share of the supply chain, they must produce the product and then add value in one or more forms. However, to add value invariable requires capital. Capital has costs which demand a return and so capital, in the form of machines, need to produce volume. Farmers must therefore, raise that capital themselve or consider at what stage in the supply chain a form of Co-operative can add value to their product. In my view this is the only way (short of world-wide food shortages) whereby producers are going to get more out of the supply chain than they currently do.

Marketing schemes, logos, membership of QA bodies do not address the central problem for farmers which is, "How can I get an increased share of the money swishing around in the supply chain?"

To emphasise the point and to use the example of OPEC once again. OPEC countries, particularly those in the Middle East, now own and run refineries, own and run their own tankers (Shell is in the process of selling its fleet to Brunei [Alchohol is now rationed to non Muslim crews at two cans a day- down from ten] and have major stakes in retailing) and, in the case of Britain, own many of the retailing sites. 

In summary. To connect to the customer you must get to get close to him/her. Marketing schemes do not bring you closer they are a substitute for real contact and can often emphasise the gap between you rather than emphasise how close you are. As an example of this; Gordon Brown talking about the recession says "I share your pain." does that make you feel that he is closer to you or further away?

 

Picking up on points made by Jacobus and Peter - perhaps there is less of a problem than we have traditionally thought. If you look at some of the surveys done with the public in the past couple of years then to some people's minds farmers have a consumer rating to die for.

The way that politicians and NGOs view the industry has to some extent made us all rather paranoid. But I suspect the average punter on the street has a pretty positive view of farmers.

There will be odd bits in the paper on TV which jar with farmers. But you have to question - does it really matter? You have to be very careful about over-reacting to issues that don't matter in the grand scheme of things. 

Isabel Davies:

But I suspect the average punter on the street has a pretty positive view of farmers.

 

This is factually accurate Isabel as demonstrated by a number of opinion that show that 'farmers and especially 'family farmers' have high approval ratings even by animal welfare groups but 'farming' per se does not enjoy the same positive view, just consider topics like  'wind farming', 'GM crop farming', 'Intensive livestock farming', 'Vegetable farming (gang labour), 'fish farming' as a few areas of farming that have connected with the public negatively.

To connect with the public means as Peter Wells re-stated 'Meeting them where they live' and for me many of these farm side agencies fall well short of delivering their message in ways that appear to be value for money if you measure success by an industry with fewer farmers, falling farm incomes or more reliance on non-farming income while needing to increase their responsibilities to the environment.

Sorry, for me the depth of connection by the agencies in question to the people who buy our product is not working or is costing to much money or to simply pose the question if we didn't have them how just how much worse would the industry be off?

Not a lot methinks! Unless, someone somewhere can produce facts to suggest otherwise, I remain to be convinced that the multi-agendas of the various agencies are doing a lot of good to reconnect 'farmers' with 'consumers'.