How the Internet has Changed the Face of Agriculture

By Charleston|Orwig

American agriculture has undergone more significant changes in the last 15 years than it has since farmers transitioned from horses to tractors. Farm sizes have grown exponentially, while the number of farms continues to decline. Price fluctuations in virtually every commodity have caused expansion and retraction, and expansion again. World markets have tightened and then loosened, impacting trade. Catastrophic diseases have caused mass food-animal depopulation and greater food security fears. Consumers have become a powerful regulatory body, and helped spur the development of niche markets. And the Internet has dramatically changed how farmers find and receive information.

At the end of the last millennium the American farmers’ three primary methods for finding information relating to management of their operations, fluctuation in commodity markets or changes in their respective industries was what came over the radio, was delivered in their mailbox, or came face-to-face from their local extension agent.

Farm broadcasters delivered farm news in the morning and markets at noon, with some providing market closings in the afternoon. The mailbox brought weekly and monthly farm publications and the occasional direct mail marketing piece. Extension agents offered advice either on the farm or through regular area management meetings. The Internet was still just a communication method employed by the Department of Defense—the dot-com age was about to explode.

While these communications methods still exist and continue to be important information delivery mechanisms, the Internet and the advent of satellite-based communication have had greater impact on the American farmer than any other communications vehicles over the last century. The impact has registered in two significant ways: 1) the farmers’ ability to receive information that directly impacts their ability to make management decisions in near-real time, and 2) the ability of their respective industries to communicate with the consumer.

The Demands of Multi-million Dollar Businesses

Large-scale modern agriculture has its roots in row crops, where rapidly emerging farm machinery technology made it possible to till, plant and harvest thousands of acres in a manageable time period. As the idea of economies of scale took hold in other farming enterprises, feedlots with tens of thousands of steers on feed began emerging, as well as like-sized hog and poultry operations. Due to the level of capital investment dairy operations lagged in the development of large-scale operations, but in 2006 a significant milestone was passed. U.S. operations with more than 500 cows, 3,215 herds at that time, contributed more to the nation’s milk supply than the 68,295 herds with 500 or fewer cows.

These trends toward large operations will only continue, and likely will grow at a faster rate. This has created a segment of mostly family-owned farms that must be categorized as multi-million dollar corporations. These farmers’ involvement in the hands-on daily operations becomes more distant as the demands of managing the operations take more of their time.

Similar to managers of non agricultural companies with like revenue, the need for information for this new breed of American farmer is more diverse and demanding. Unlike their predecessors, they cannot afford to rely solely on their mailbox or radio to deliver timely information they can use to make management decisions. Enter, then, the delivery of real-time information.

Critical management information delivered instantly

If nothing else, the Internet has provided a vehicle for the delivery of real-time, critical information to farmers. Commodity markets can be tracked as they change, as can the stock exchange, on a global basis. Weather forecasts are updated continuously. Web sites, RSS feeds and blogs report the latest news as it happens. And information can be delivered to wherever the farmer is in the world, directly to a cell phone.

As can be expected, ag companies have recognized this changing information dynamic and employed mechanisms that provide critical information to farmers as well. It used to be that the first tactic a company implemented was to print an informational brochure. Over the last decade, that first tactic has transformed to a Web site. These portals began as static information resources that required target audiences to go to the site to find and download the necessary information. Sites have adapted as the information needs of farmers has changed. Now Web sites must reach out to producers with critical information as it becomes available. E-mail alerts or text messages alert subscribing producers to news as it becomes available. Interactive calculators help farmers determine a return on investment from the implementation of certain technologies. Interactive chat mechanisms allow producers to talk to other producers in cyberspace.

What’s critical for ag companies to realize is that as the middle class of American farmer diminishes—they are either getting bigger to reach economies of scale or getting smaller to meet niche markets—so changes their information needs. No longer is it feasible to implement one blanket strategy to reach all of this diverse audience. The needs of the many certainly do not apply to the needs of the few.

This evolving customer base has forced ag companies to take a hard look at which type and size of operation they are going to be able to establish a productive long-term business relationship with. For those companies that serve a broader farmer audience—now termed the rural lifestyle audience—communications mechanisms are being employed that foster the exchange of ideas and support producer networks. For companies that serve a more specific customer segment, targeted communications are becoming more critical to long-term success.

Even traditional information delivery mechanisms have adapted. Most publications have merged printed content with Web content, often providing a synopsis in print of a longer article that can be read online. Farm broadcasters have evolved to posting audio and video podcasts on a station’s or network’s Web site. This allows farmers who are already strapped for time access to news and information on their own schedule.

As farms continue to grow, middle managers are being given more and more responsibility and decision-making power. While this makes the farming enterprise more efficient, it creates a larger problem for those companies that are trying to reach the actual decision maker. Oftentimes these individuals are not clearly designated, which makes them difficult to identify and reach. In addition, many of these middle managers are Hispanic, employees who have been with the enterprise for many years and experienced gradual increases in responsibility before reaching a mid-management position. While their English language skills are generally accommodating, there exists a potential communications barrier.

It also is important to provide these middle managers with information that can be communicated to the individual personnel whom they manage. In many cases cell phone technology can be employed to reach this audience. In general this is a mobile audience that often does not have a land-based phone system, let alone a computer. They rely heavily on their cell phone, which makes text messaging a viable communications channel.

The rise of Internet and satellite-based technology has changed the face of how farmers receive and utilize information and, in so doing, forced companies to make changes in order to accommodate. Yet companies targeting agricultural audiences have lagged behind consumers who have adopted technology at a much more rapid pace.

Creating transparency for consumers

As much as the Internet has changed how farmers receive and use information, it has also given consumers greater access to information on how their food is produced. And as much as it has provided ag companies with new opportunities to reach and educate farmers, it has provided those entities that would do away with animal agriculture greater influence on consumer preference.

The combination of greater access to on-farm production methods and ongoing negative attacks by various activist groups has had an impact on production practices available to farmers. The farmer’s ability to use genetically modified crops, milk-production-enhancing hormones and some pharmaceuticals, to name a few, has been negatively impacted by activist pressure. Recently, Proposition 2 in California was passed requiring larger animal housing areas for egg-laying chickens and veal calves. The ban on sow crates has been accepted into law in three states, with pending propositions on several state ballots. All of these steps have been directed by opponents of animal agriculture, and Internet campaigns have been integral to the communications efforts of these organizations.

One reason for activist group’s success in influencing consumers is the same reason companies have been successful with online campaigns targeting farmers—their target audience trusts that the information they are receiving is truthful and legitimate. The Internet enables this sort of trust to be developed, because it is easy to mask an organization’s true intentions through the development of a professional Web site. A committee of five can look like a multi-million dollar organization with the right Web presence.

The most successful activist organizations work under the cover of a perception that the organization is forthright and willing to work in concert with agriculture. In reality, the goals of these organizations are very different. For example, consumers trust that organizations focused on animal rights are in support of humane animal treatment, when in truth, they are solely focused on the abolition of animal agriculture, the consumption of meat and/or use of animal byproducts. As a result, many socially conscious but mis-informed consumers pump million of dollars in donations into these organizations, supporting what they believe is an animal welfare cause devoted to sheltering puppies and kittens.

Similarly, a company can benefit when the farm audience trusts that the information they are delivering is truthful and designed to ultimately benefit the farmer’s business rather than just make the company a few extra dollars. The companies that make this investment benefit from building a stronger relationship with their customers, because the customers trust that the company is performing in their best interest. This is when the company moves to the nearly impenetrable partner status, and out of the role of being just another vendor or supplier.

For as farms grow and operators become more business savvy, greater emphasis is placed on relationships. Farmers expect companies to invest in their business by taking ownership of challenges and providing innovative solutions, rather than just throwing them another product or service. As activists exert greater pressure on consumer preference, and as this preference translates into control of technology available to farmers, these challenges are becoming more than just what goes on in the daily operation of a farming enterprise. Often times this requires grass roots efforts that begin by using interactive tools such as social networking, or targeting specific, non-mainstream audiences that are considered influential decision makers
These audiences are often quite Internet savvy and can be best targeted through congruent Web sites, blogs and podcasts.

So should the Internet be blamed for enabling the rise of animal activists and the proliferation of their attacks against agriculture? No more than the Internet should be given complete credit for the atmospheric rise in the use of technology on American farming enterprises.  But those companies that use Internet technology as part of integrated marketing and communications efforts stand a greater chance of providing customers with information and resources that are vital to informed decision making.

Profitable, long-lasting business relationships will be achieved by those willing and dedicated toward operating in the same realm as farmers and producers. This will include traditional forms of communication like radio and print. But it must also include the new tools of the communications frontier. Fasten your seatbelts, the changes will come rapidly.

Contact details:
E. Orwig, CEO
T: 262-563-5100, E: lorwig@charlestonorwig.com
www.co-demand.com