Sustained forests; sustained profits
Sustained forests; sustained profits
| [ HOME | Lasting Forests Home | Table of Contents | The Finder | Glossary ] |
Kirk H. Beatie, Ph.D
Blacksburg, Virginia, August 8, 1979
In 1979 we were planning a decision-aid system closely related to The Trevey (primarily serving forestry and wildlife interests and many units of Lasting Forests). We had financial support for developing the prototype, but national political systems changed rapidly and all staff were dismissed, all prior work lost, and the concept shelved. I have seen pieces and parts of the concept emerge and the Internet and new software as well as hardware have changed the picture that we once had in mind. Nevertheless some parts of the project have been saved. Dr. Beattie had great interest in the social dimensions of natural resource management. He did a remarkable analysis of marketing in agriculture. That typed manuscript, once planned as a release of the project, has been held since it was written. Not to have done so would have been a gaint waste of tax payer money and disrespect for the thoughtful, hard work of Dr. Beattie. It is now made available within this web site. I believe it has great relevance now, perhaps as much as in 1979. I am pleased to have helped in the early versions and to have saved, then scanned his work for what can be, I believe, very useful applications. I request comments showing significantly different findings and conclusions about these important ideas that have emerged since what seems like a long time ago when this paper was prepared. The list of references is missing but now being sought.
R.H Giles, August, 2002
Abstract
A marketinq strategy for a rural improvement system, an agricultural decision aid, is presented. It is based on findings from literature related to innovation and adoption of new ideas and practices in aqriculture. Definitions of adoption, diffusion, innovation, innovator, and opinion leader are presented. Based on the time of adoption of an innovation, persons have been classified as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. At least two conceptual models of innovation diffusion have been proposed. Innovativeness has been shown to be related positively to sociological, psychological, demographic, and personality variables.
Keywords: adoption, diffusion, innovator, innovation, marketing, opinion leader
It has generally been difficult to predict if a person will adopt an innovation and even more difficult to predict when he or she will adopt. The process of adoption has been divided into stages of awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. Impersonal sources of information (mass media) have teen shown to be important during the early stages of the adoption process. Personal sources of information achieve greater importance during the middle and latter stages. Studies have reported a relationship between opinion leadership and adoption.
Marketing involves disseminating information about a product, or in some cases the product itself, in such a way that acceptance (use or purchase) of the product will be maximized. Prior to developing a marketinq strategy for an agricultural decision aid, a review of concepts and findings from the literature on diffusion of innovations was conducted and is reported herein. The review is divided into sections on models of adoption, classification of adopters, characterstics of adopters, predicting adoption, stages of adoption, adopters as opinion leaders, and information sources for innovations. The developed marketing strategy is based on findings from this review and the nature of the implementing orqanization.
Definitions
Adoption: "Adoption may be defined as continued full scale use since the first trial; increasing scale of use since first trial; trial, use, and later discontinuance; trial and then discontinuance; or just trial alone. For new ideas, even intention to use is sometimes classified as adoption" (Presser 1969:512).
Diffusion: "The acceptance over time of some specific item - an idea or practice -by individuals, groups, or other adopting units, linked to specific channels of communication, to a social structure, and to a given system of values, or culture" (Katz et al. 1963:240). "Diffusion is the process by which meaningful communications about an innovation are exchanged among members of a society" (Engel et al. 1969:4).
Innovation: "Any idea, practice, or artifact perceived to be new by the relevant adopting unit" (Zaltman and Stiff 1973:426).
Innovator: "A person among a category of people within a defined geographical area who, at a given time, uses a new idea before some percentage of the people to whom that idea is applicahle" (Presser 1969:511-512). "Individuals who adopt new ideas or products earlier than others" (Summers 1971).
Opinion Leader: "...one who exerts disproportionate influence on others through interpersonal communication" (Summers 1971:313).
Venturesomness: the degree to which individuals favor trying new practices and ideas.
Models of Adoption
At least two conceptual models of innovation diffusion in a spatial and temporal context have been proposed (Brown et al. 1976). The first is a communications model in which information flows comprise the primary factor underlying spatial and temporal differences in adoption. Interpersonal communications are deemed particularly important in this model. Mendez (1968) presented a communications-based model of diffusion. New information reaches individuals first from outside the community through mass-media type communication. Subsequent flow of information is accomplished through the same media, accompanied by a flow of information through local channels. In the third stage, an innovation is passed from generation to generation, while other channels continue to operate.
The second model stresses the importance of market and infrastructure factors which control the availability of the innovation to potential adopters. Results by Brown et al. (1976) suggest a spatial pattern of penetration of adoption into an area followed by a filling-in process. An implication of the market and infrastrucutre model is that differences in adoption time may be the result of the marketing strategy of public or private proponents of the innovation, rather than the result of innovativeness characteristics of potential adopters.
(It is no great leap to see the potential unification of these two models in a singular model - structure,dynamics, and relations - as suggested throughout this web site. (Giles))
Classifying Adopters
Rogers (1957, 1962) developed a classification for persons adopting an agricultural innovation at various times. His classification has been used most frequently. Based on the time of adoption, persons were classified as either innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, or laggards. If the percentage of persons adopting a practice is plotted by time, and if the boundaries to the adopter categories are based on the frequency distribution of the normal curve, adopters can be classified. It has been customary to classify innovators as those persons beyond two standard deviations (SD's) to the left of the mean adoption time; early adopters as those between one and two SD's to the left; early majority as those between the mean and one SD to the left; late majority as those between the mean and one SD to the right; and, laggards as those beyond one SD to the right of the mean (Presser 1969). Laggards, in contrast with innovators, are generally defined as the last group of persons to adopt an innovation (Uhl et al. 1970).
In the marketing literature, innovators have been classified by the time of adoption and "ownership of new products" methods (Midgley and Dowling 1978). The first method defines as innovators those persons who purchase a product in the first X amount of time after product availability or the first X percent of a given market to purchase. The second method involves determining how many of a prespecified list of new products an individual has purchased at the time of a survey (Baumgarten 1975, Darden and Reynolds 1974, Green and Langeard 1975, Green et al. 1974, Summers 1971, 1972).
As an example of the time of adoption method, Brown et al. (1976) classified adopters into four categories based on the standard deviation (SD) of adoption time of cattle artificial insemination. Diffusion for the sample of 562 Swedish farmers started in 1946 with a mean adoption time of 10.62 years (SD=4.92). The 99 farmers who adopted prior to 1951 were designated "Innovators- Early Adopters," the 213 farmers adopting from 1951 throuqh 1955 were classified as the "Early Majority," farmers adopting from 1956 through 1960 were classified as "Late Majority," and adoption from 1961 through 1964 resulted in a classification of "Laggards."
Reynolds (1971) classified merchants into early and late adopters based on the length of time it took them to adopt a local bank charge account program (less than or equal to three months for early and greater than three but less than 19 months for late). Donnelly and Ivancevich (1974) classified as innovators those persons purchasing a particular Ford model car during the first three months followng its introduction. Robertson and Kennedy (1968) operationally defined innovators as the first 105~ of a community's members to adopt a small home appliance. Arndt (1967a) classified purchasers of a new coffee as pioneers (first 12% to purchase), early adopters (13% - 30%) , late adopters (31% - 42%) , and nonadopters (58% of population were nonpurchasers).
According to Presser (1969:513), "There is no sound theoretical basis for awarding adopter categories to qiven proportions or percentages of the population. It is a matter of convenience." Some researchers have attempted to eliminate the arbitrariness of the "artificial cutting point" method of classifying adopters by using time of adoption (e.g., days following availability of innovation) or number of new practices adopted as continuous, dependent variables. Eliminating somewhat arbitrary classifications allows the use of statistics having variance measures.
Characteristics of Adopters
Zaltman and Stiff (1973) and Zaltman and Lin (1971) provided characteristics of persons associated with different categories of adoption. Innovators are viewed as venturesome, risk-taking, and comprise about the first 3% of those to adopt an innovation. Rogers (1961b) suggested that the agricultural innovator plays major roles in the diffusion of new ideas:
Early adopters, generally the next 13% to adopt, command respect from their peers and are more socially integrated. The early majority (314% of adopting population) are reported to be deliberate in their decision-making, Late majority adopters and laggards are reported to be either skeptical or traditional about the innovation.
Rogers and Stanfield (1968) , in a review of 700+ studies of diffusion, reported that innovativeness is related positively to education, literacy, income, level of living, cosmopoliteness, mass-media exposure, opinion leadership, relative advantage of innovation, and compatibility of the innovations.
See for a source of lists for mail marketing.
| Table 1. Characteristics associated with adopters, innovators, and adoption of innovations. (+ indicates a positive association or correlation, - a negative association or correlation; n a = not applicable.) | ||
| Characteristic | Direction of Association |
References |
|---|---|---|
| Socioeconomic-Social | ||
| Income | + | Bose 1961, Cancian 1967, Coughenour 1960, Feaster 1968, Fliegel 1957, Gartrell et al. 1973, Painter and Pinegar 1971, Rogers and Stanfield 1968, Stanfield and Whiting 1972 |
| Education | + | Bose 1961, Chaudhari et al. 1967, Coughenour 1960, Feaster 1968, Gross 1949, Loy 1969, Marsh and Coleman 1955, Painter and Pinegar 1971, Rogers and Stanfield 1968, Gormon and Moore 1968 |
| Occupational status |
+ | Painter and Pinegar 1971 |
| Membership in organization |
+ | Painter and Pinegar 1971 |
| Age | + | Chaudhari et al. 1967, Feaster 1968, Gross and Taves 1952, Wilkening et al. 1962, |
| - | Yeracaris 1970 | |
| Participation in farm organization |
+ | Gross 1949, Gross and Iaves 1952, Marsh and Coleman 1955, Wilkening et al. 1962 |
| Involvement in community activities |
+ | Bose 1961, Couqhenour 1960, Gross 1949,Rogers and Stanfield 1968 |
| Social status | + | Coughenour 1960, Havens 1965, Marsh and Coleman 1955, Stanfield and Whiting 1972 |
| Social isolation | - | van den Ban 1960 |
| Scientific attitude toward farming |
+ | Bose 1962, Coughenour 1960, Moulik and Lokhande 1969, Young and Coleman 1959 |
| Dependency on primary group ties |
- | Wilkening 1950 |
| Personality | ||
| Earning motivation |
+ | Moulik et al. 1966 |
| Venturesomness | + | Havens 1965, Loy 1969, Zaltman and Stiff 1973 |
| Progressiveness | + | Hoffer and Stangland 1958 |
| Initiative | + | Hoffer and Stangland 1958 |
| Professionalism | + | Copp 1958 |
| Conservatism in non-farm activities |
- | Wilkening 1950 |
| Willingness to take risks |
+ | Zaltman and Stiff 1973 |
| Degree of self-acceptance |
+ | Robertson and Meyers 1969 |
| Dogmatism | - | Coney 1972, Jacoby 1971 | Information-Related | Exposure to magazines and newspapers |
+ | Painter and Pinegar 1971, Rogers and Stanfield 1968 | Contact with Extension Service |
+ | Feaster 1968, Marsh and Coleman 1955 | Reading Experiment Station bulletins |
+ | Gross 1949, Gross and Taves 1952, Marsh and Coleman 1955 | Amount of television viewed |
+ | Green et al. 1974 | Other | Farm size | + | Brown et al. 1976,Chaudhari et al. 1967, Copp 1958, Gross 1949, Havens 1965 | Number of cattle | + | Brown et al. 1976, Havens 1965 | Farm density in locality |
+ | Brown et al. 1976 | Neighborhood first adoption year |
+ | Brown et al. 1976 | Intensity of use of product class |
+ | Taylor 1977 |
| Perception of profitability of innovation |
+ | Havens and Rogers 1961 |
| Value of crop sold |
+ | Marsh and Coleman 1955 |
| Farm operation efficiency |
+ | Hoffer and Stangland 1958 |
| State of US | na | Walker 1969 |
| Culture | na | Green and Langeard 1975 |
| Similarity of an innovation to one adopted previously |
+ | Brandner and Kearl 1964 |
The findings of Rogers and Stanfield (1968) are supported by the relationships presented in Table 1. A review of studies citing characteristics associated with adopters, innovations, and adoption of innovations found strong support for relationships between adoption and income, education, age, involvement in community activities, and other variables.
Many attributes of innovations are reported to affect the acceptabilty of the innovation. Some attributes reported in the literature have been financial cost (Fliegel and Kivlin 1966) , social cost (Becker 1970, Homans 1961) returns to investment, efficiency (l3arnett 1953) risk, communicability (Rogers 1962) corpatibility, complexity (Flieqel and Kiviin 1962), and perceived relative advantages.
Predicting Adoption
Many studies have employed simple and multiple discriminant function analysis to classify different categories of adopters using two or more independent variables. Table 2 presents
| Table 2. Percentage of various adopter categories calassified correctly in previous studies. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage Classified Correctly | ||||||
| Innovators | Early adopters |
Early majority |
Late majority |
Laggards | All adopters |
Reference |
| 32.0 | Fliegel 1956 | |||||
| 5.0 | Ramsey et al. 1959 | |||||
| 59.0 | Chattopadhyay and Pareek 1967 |
|||||
| 70.0 | 26.0 | 41.8 | Brown et al. 1976 | |||
| 55.7 | 64.7 | Uhl et al. 1970 | ||||
| 72.8 | Finley 1968 | |||||
| 79.0 | Ostlund 1974 | |||||
| 96.7 | 42.5 | Robertson and Kennedy 1968 | ||||
| 51.0 | Ostlund 1972 | |||||
| 73.6 | King 1964 | |||||
| 67.9 | Frank et al. 1964 | |||||
| 96.0 | Loy 1969 | |||||
Uhl et al. (1970) were able to classify correctly 64.7% of laggards and 55.7% of early adopters of new products based on 11 variables. The variable that discriminated best between laggards and earlier adopters was family size. The families of laggards tended to be smaller. Finley (1968) was able to predict accurately 72.8% of early and late adopters of improved farming practices. Ostlund (1974) was able to classify correctly 79% of innovators based on numerous independent vaiables. Personal characteristic variables were of little importance. Venturesomeness and socioeconomic status were the only variables related to innovativeness.
Robertson and Kennedy (1968) were able to classify correctly 96.7% of innovators and 42.5! of non- innovators of a small home appliance based on personality and social characteristic variables. King (1964) was able to classify accurately 73.6% of early buyers and other consumers using 21 variables in a multiple discriminant analysis. Frank et al. (1964) classified accurately 67.9% of innovators using 20 independent variables.
Many authors have used multiple regression analysis to infer the relative importance of variables purported to be associated with adoption, despite the suggestion by Bruce and Witt (1970) that discriminant function analysis was more appropriate. Fliegel (1956) was able to predict only 32% of the variation in adoption of 11 farm practices using six independent variables. Significant independent variables were familism (achievement of group versus individual goals), information contacts, level of living, and attitude toward new farm practices. Ostlund (1972) was able to explain 51% of the variance in innovative donsumer purchase behavior using personality, socioeconomic, and product perception variables. Chattopadhyay and Pareek (1967) were able to explain 59% of the variance in adoption behavior of Indian farmers using three value orientations (e.g., conservatism-liberalism).
It has generally been difficult to predict if a person will adopt an innovation and even more difficult to predict when he or she will adopt. This is probably due to adoption occurring within a particlar setting which includes biophysical, economic, social, cultural, and psychological factors (Wilkening et al. 1962).
Stages of Adoption
Beal et al. (1957) conceptualized the stages of the adoption process as involving awareness, information, application, trial, and adoption. The awareness stage begins when a person first acquires knowledge of an innovation. The individual is aware of the existence of the innovation but lacks information about its details. The awareness stage precedes motivation to acquire information about the innovation.
The second stage, information, begins with the individual becoming motivated to seek information about the innovation. According to Beal et al. (1957), the individual normally seeks general information about the new practice, product, or idea and attempts to relate it to his or her previous experiences and background. The application stage, third in the sequence, is concerned with the person applying the idea to his or her present or predicted situation. The potential adopter goes through a mental trial which involves reflection upon any previous similar innovations, deciding on the relative advantage of the innovation over other alternatives, and projecting the desirability of the innovation in relation to future goals. Beal et al. (1957) report that a decision to try or not to try the new practice is made during the application stage.
The fourth stage, a trial period, involves the individual becoming interested in putting the practice into effect on his or her land. The person probably does not seek further evaluative information (goodness or badness of the innovation) but is interested in the details of applying the practice on his or her land (i.e., how, when, where, what). The process of adoption is completed when the individual evaluates the results of the trial, is satisfied with the results, and opts for continued use of the innovation.
The majority of persons interested in the stages of adoption appear to accept the validity of the previous stages. Conflicts over the name which should he assigned a particular stage have arisen but there is generally no conflict over the components of the stage. Reynolds (1971) preferred to replace the labels of information, application, and adoption with interest, evaluation, and acceptance, respectively. Rogers (1962) preferred to call the second stage "interest" and the third stage "evaluation."
Reynolds (1971), Campbell (1966), and Hassinger (1959) suggested that the traditional five-stage adoption model be extended to include a problem-oriented beginning to the adoption process. That is, the traditional model begins with awareness created as a non-purposive or random event, where the individual does not actively seek information about something he or she does not know exists. Reynolds suggested that awareness of an innovation may be the result of active search for a problem solution. An individual may also recognize a problem or deficiency but not make an attempt to find a solution to the problem. Awareness is a result of passive reception of information. In his study, Reynolds (1971) reported that 19% of early and 40% of late adopters had a problem-oriented beginning to the adoption process.
Mendez (1968) reported thai many innovatibns tend to follow an S-shaped diffusion pattern, where the vertical axis represents the cumulative percentage of individuals adopting a practice and the horizontal axis represents the time at which they adopt.
Adopters as Opinion Leaders
Some research has been conducted on the relationship between adoption of innovations and opinion leadership. The hypothesis has normally been that opinion leaders tend to adopt more frequently and earlier than persons not opinion leaders. The rationale for the investigation has been that if opinion leaders do tend to adopt more frequently and earlier, marketing strategies can be directed specifically at opinion leaders and directed less extensively at the general population.
Baumgarten (1975) found that 12.1% of his sample of college students could be classified as innovative communicators. That is, they were both early adopters of new fashions and high opinion leaders. A correlation of 0.34 was reported between early adoption and opinion leadership. Baumgarten noted that one of the networks by which the innovative communicator disseminates information is verbal in nature. Baumgarten suggested that communicable information content should be a prime ingredient of any message directed at the innovative communicator.
Many studies have found that adoption of agricutural innova~ions and contact with change agencies are correlated positively with opinion leadership. "In groups with favorable norms toward change the members with most exposure with and information about new farm practices are best able to help the other members with their decisions whether or not to adopt these practices" (van den Ban 1970:20 1).
Summers (1971) reported the absence of a strong relationship between innovativeness and opinion leadership for consumer products. However, for steel products, Czepiel (1974) reported that opinion leadership with respect to the innovation was greater among early adopters than among later adopters.
Lionberger (1953) found that farmers to whom other farmers most frequently talked about farm matters had higher adoption rates of improved farm practices. A study by Marsh and Coleman (1954a) tended to support Lionberqer's findings. Wilkeninq (1952) found little difference between the adoption rates of farm operators to whom two or more farmers said they went for advice on farm matters (informal leaders) and the adoption rates of farmers in general.
Information Sources for Innovations
A very important marketing aspect of the diffusion of innovations is the information source(s) used at each stage of the adoption process. The literature generally shows that impersonal sources of information (e.g., radio, television, newspapers, magazines) are responsible primarily for informing persons of the existence of an innovation. Personal sources (e.g., friends, extension agents, others in the same occupation) are reported to he used more frequently as information and evaluative sources during the stages of trial, evaluation, and adoption.
[The Internet appearing after this paper was written must now be factored into the sources of information.] RHG
Martilla (1971) reported that impersonal sources of information about a product became less important in the adoption sequence from awareness to adoption. Nearly 50% of the information sources mentioned by paper-related manufacturers in the awareness and interest stages were impersonal (e.g., product literature, trade journals), compared wit.h 30% in the evaluation and trial stages and 26% in the adoption stage. Thus, word-of-mouth communication tended to be more important in the latter stages of the adoption process. In the early stages, impersonal sources were important in developing awareness of new products.
Wilkening (1953) reported that one of the mass media or one of the agriculture agencies was mentioned most frequently as the source of first knowledge of an improved farm practice. He reported that personal contact with extension agents and other farmers is necessary to encourage complete acceptance of an innovation. In a later study, Wilkening (1956) reported that mass media (press, radio, farm magazines) are used primarily as a source of first knowledge about agricultural innovations. Agricultural agencies (e.g., Soil Conservation Service, county agents) are used to obtain instructions for putting a practice into operation. Other farmers provide instructions and help in decision making.
Wilkening et al. (1962) reported that mass media, particularly farm journals and papers, were the most common source of first hearing about all new practices for dairy farmers in Australia. Other farmers were the second most common source of first knowledge about new practices. Further information was obtained from cther farmers more frequently than from other Sources. The authors also reported that farmers who listen to farm radio programs and who use farm magazines adopt more improved pactices than those who do not. They also reported that agricultural officials apparently have a positive effect upon the adoption of all types of improved practices.
Copp et al. (1958) created the following categories of information sources:
Mass media use was most important at the awareness stage. Personal sources (oral extension and peers) were cited more at the interest and evaluation stages. Printed and oral extension and commercial sources were cited most at the trial stage.
According to Engel et al. (1969), knowledge of an innovation often reaches consumers first through advertising and other forms of mass media. The consumer usually turns to more personal sources as he or she moves from awareness to trial.
Rogers and Beal (1958) reported that impersonal sources of information (mass media) were used more at the awareness stage. Personal sources were used more at the other stages of the adoption process. A study by Mason (1964) supported the findings of Rogers and Seal (1958) and also found that the use of all information sources increased from awareness through adoption. Robertson (1967) found qeneral exposure to communication sources was almost identical for innovators and non- innovators.
Czepiel (1974) reported that the source of information about an innovation in the steel industry was personal for 77% of early adopters and 84% of late adopters. Robertson (1968) reported that personal sources of information are likely to be more influential than mass media in later stages of the adoption process. Van den Ban (1970) suggested that the mass media do not result in important changes in human behavior unless they are combined with interpersonal communication.
Engel et al. (1969) reported that innovators of automobile diagnostic service centers subscribed to significantly more magazines than non-innovators. Fett (1971) found a correlation between the amount of mass media contact and adoption of farm practices among Brazilian farmers. Rogers (1961a) reported that innovators in agriculture have more contact with agricultural scientists, are more likely to read research literature, and read more farm magazines than non-innovators.
The importance of interpersonal communication in the adoption of innovations is well- documented. Sawhney (1967) reported that personal sources of information were more important than mass media in influencing adoption of improved farm practices during all five stages of adoption. Bose (1964) found that other farmers were much more influential in trying to get a farmer to adopt a practice than were impersonal sources in Indian villages.
Wilkening et al. (1962) found that personal contact among the dairy farmers of northern Victoria (Australia) was important. There seemed to be a high degree of interest in what other farmers were doing and in what was new in farming. Other farmers were reported to be an important source of information, particularly at the point when individuals decide if they will adopt a new practice.
Lionberger and Hassinqer (1954), in a study of Missouri farmers, reported that 47.8% of the farmers felt intimate associates were the most valuable sources of information about new practices, 25.0% felt mass media were most important, and 30.1% reported institutionalized sources were most valuable. Crain (1966) reported that impersonal communication was valuable in influencing neighboring cities to adopt water fluoridation practices.
Wilkening et al. (1962:142) suggested "When at the point of deciding whether to adopt a new practice, most farmers depend upon the experience and knowledge of other farmers." Pareek and Sinqh (1969) found that interpersonal communication played a vital part during all stages of the adoption process in a study of Indian farmers. Meyer (1976) stressed the importance of interpersonal contacts in the diffusion of noneconomic innovations.
Arndt (1967a) found that housewives receiving favorable word-of-mouth pressure were more likely to buy a new brand of coffee than those exposed to unfavorable word-of-mouth pressure. Similar results have been shown elsewhere (Engel et al. 1969).
Personal sources of information about new farm practices are more likely to reside in a farmer's immediate neighborhood than outside it (Lionberqer and Hassinger 1954, Marsh and Coleman 1954b).
The importance of extension in the diffusion of agricultural innovations has been supported by several studies. Moulik et al. (1966) reported a correlation between adoption of nitrogen fertilizers by farmers in India and level of contact with extension officials.
Persons in extension normally do not have time to work intensively with all farmers. Van den Ban (1970) reported that working with local leaders will often be more effective than trying to spend a short period of time with a broad array of farmers. Van den Ban (1970) reported that personal communication is usually required before new farm practices are adopted, but there is some resistance to asking advice from other farmers. He suggested using group discussions in extension education to create a situation where the information from one farmer to the other flows easily.
The influence on adoption of message distortion, adjacent adopters, and learning of principles has been suppported. Flieqel et al. (1971) reported that discrepancies from personal information sources about an agricultural innovation affected the rate of adoption among Indian farmers (i.e., some farmers did not adopt because of message discrepancies). Several studies (e.g., Arndt 1967b) have shown that each adopter category is influenced mainly by individuals of the same or the adjacent more innovative category. Opare (1977) found that adoption of improved cocoa raising practices in Ghana was higher when the farmer knew or learned the principles underlying the recommended practice.
Marketing Strategy
The following strategy is a set of recommend marketing procedures to be employed during each of the stages of awareness, interest, evaluation, and trial. Recommendations are based on the nature of each of the stages of adoption.
Awareness
The awareness staqe begins when a person first acquires knowledge of an innovation. In this case the innovation is an agricultural decision aid. Television, radio, newspapers, and magazines would be most influential in informing farmers, ranchers, orchardists, etc. (hereafter "farmers") of the existence of the agricultural decision aid. Radio and television spots could include discussions between an interviewer and a representative of the organization implementing the decision aid. Articles discussing the decision aid should be prepared and submitted periodically to newspapers and magazines throughout the United States. It would seem particularly important to publish notices of availability of the decision aid and to supply testimonials to highly specific agricultural journals and magazines (e.g., Hog Farm Management, Soybean Digest). Testimonials, written from interviews with farmers satisfied with the decision aid, should be submitted to appropriate magazines (e.g., interview with soybean farmer should be published in Soybean Digest) . In some cases it may be necessary to pay for magazine space and classify the interviews as advertisements.
Flyers, brochures, sample prescription documents, and displays should be made available at businesses visited frequently by farmers. Fxamples of businesses frequented by farmers would be farm cooperatives, seed dealers, mercantiles, and farm machinery dealerships. Displays should be attractive, eye-catching, and should provide a source to be contacted for additional information.
Depending on availability of funds, it may be desirable to consider a mass mailing of a brochure and photoreduced, sample, prescriptive document to farmers throughout the US. This is done quite frequently in marketing of new products (e. g., mass distribution of a sample- size toothpaste or soap). A sample prescription would be photoreduced to reduce mailing and production costs.
Information booths could be developed and made available at functions attended by farmers. Examples would be state and county fairs and livestock auctions.
Opinion leaders and innovators should be contacted and their assistance solicited in disseminating information about the availability of the aqricltural decision aid. Opinion leaders can be identified by contacting farmers in a locality at random, asking them to identify by name the three persons they would contact regarding the desirability of a practice, and creating a distribution of the frequency with which various farmers in the area are identified. Innovators can probably be most accurately identified by the size of their agricultural operations. Innovators tend to have larger operations than non-innovators.
It is critical to the rapid and extensive adoption of the agricultural decision aid that a sufficient amount of time, money, and personnel be allocated to development and implementation of marketing techniques to he used during the awareness stage.
Interest
The interest stage begins with an individual becoming motivated to seek information about the innovation. Toll-free telephone numbers should be made available for persons wishing to obtain information about the decision aid. Representatives of the implementing organization should be available to discuss the prescription system with farmers on a one-to-one and group basis. Public meetings should be widely publicized and held frequently to provide information about the decision aid. Many of the marketing techniques begun during the awareness stage should provide information sufficient to answer queries of farmers during the interest stage.
Evaluation
The evaluation stage, third in the adoption sequence, is concerned with the person applying the practice to his or her present or predicted situation. The potential adopter goes through a mental trial which involves reflection upon any previous similar innovation, decidinq on the relative advantage of the innovation over other alternatives, and projecting the desirability of the innovation over other alternatives.
Three marketing procedures are recommended for use during the evaluation phase. These procedures are distribution of testimonials, continued group meetings, and demonstration farms. Testimonials from satisfied users of the decision aid should be prepared and distributed to potential adopters. Group meetings would provide answers to questions farmers still had about the nature of the decision aid. A demonstration farm, owned and operated by a farmer successfully implementing the prescriptions of the decision aid, should be located and advertised extensively. Persons entering the evaluation phase are debatinq the merits of the decision aid. Providing visual evidence that the decision aid has proved successful (i.e., the demonstration farm) should be effective in convincing farmers who are neutral or slightly unfavorable toward the decision aid. The demonstration farm(s) should also be effective in solidifying beliefs of farmers who are presently favorable toward the decision aid.
Trial
During the fourth stage, a trial period, individuals apply the prescription of the agricultural decision aid to their operations. Marketing during this stage should involve supplying technical assistance to persons implementing the prescriptions and assisting them in evaluating the "on-the-ground" results of the implementation. Farmers putting into practice the prescriptions should be contacted periodically by representatives of the implementing organization to assure that practices are being performed in conformance with the prescription. Particular care should be taken to make sure that farmers dissatisfied with the results of the trial did not make errors in completing resource inventory or other forms or in implementing prescriptions.
Summation of the Marketing Strategy
Marketing procedures for informing farmers of the availability of the agricultural decision aid should include television, radio, newspaper, and magazine advertisements and notices; flyers, brochures, sample prescription documents, and displays at businesses; mass mailing of a brochure and sample document; information booths; and, selective contact of opinion leaders and innovators. Toll-free telephone numbers and representatives of the implementing organization should be available to answer questions about the decision aid. Public meetings should be held to provide information. Procedures for use during the evaluation stage of the adoption process may include distribution of testimonials, group meetings, and demonstration farms. Technical assistance and monitoring of prescription implementation should be made available.
Return to the top.
| Quick Access to the Contents of LastingForests.com |
|---|
This Web site is maintained by R. H.
Giles, Jr.
Last revision January 17, 2000.