Direct Marketing Today

Challenges and Opportunities

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Agricultural

Marketing

Service

February 2000
Direct Marketing Today:

Challenges and Opportunities

United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

Transportation and Marketing Programs

In cooperation with

Nelson Bills

Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY

Monika Roth

Cornell Cooperative Extension—Tompkins County

Ithaca, NY

Jane Maestro-Scherer

Maestro-Scherer Consulting, Inc.

Brooktondale, NY

February 2000

The project was conducted under a reimbursable cooperative agreement, administered by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Transportation and Marketing Programs (TMP), Eileen Stommes, Deputy

Administrator. Errol R. Bragg, agricultural marketing specialist, Wholesale and Alternative Markets (W&AM), TMP, was

project leader, and Claire Klotz, economist, W&AM, TMP, provided significant input in accomplishing objectives of this

study.
ii

Acknowledgments

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,

national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille,

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

During the course of this project, many people have made invaluable contributions to the success of this

report. Special recognition is due to the cooperators from the many industry sectors who contributed to this

project with their valuable time and expertise. Industry leaders throughout the United States from Extension,

State departments of agriculture, and community-based and nongovernmental organizations, supplied invaluable information and direction to this project. Special thanks also to the 25 marketers who participated in the

focus groups, sharing their expertise and providing important practical experiences for this project.
iii

Page

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... vii

Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 1

Background .................................................................................................................................................... 1

Focus Group Methodology................................................................................................................................... 2

Focus Group Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 2

Selecting Focus Group Participants.............................................................................................................. 2

Location of Focus Group Meetings .............................................................................................................. 3

Focus Group Organization ........................................................................................................................... 3

Focus Group Participant Profile ........................................................................................................................ 5

Regional Differences ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Focus Group Participant Experience in Direct Marketing .......................................................................... 5

Facilitator Profile ........................................................................................................................................... 6

How Facilitators See Their Roles ................................................................................................................. 8

Marketer Profile ............................................................................................................................................ 9

How Marketers See Their Roles................................................................................................................. 10

Pre-Focus Group Survey Results .................................................................................................................... 11

Challenges and Opportunities..................................................................................................................... 11

Sources of Direct Marketing Information .................................................................................................. 13

Accessing Direct Market Information ........................................................................................................ 14

Future USDA-AMS Efforts To Affect Direct Marketing Decisions ......................................................... 16

Focus Group Meeting Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 19

Challenges and Barriers as Perceived by Marketers ................................................................................... 19

Labor ................................................................................................................................................... 19

Competition ........................................................................................................................................ 19

Income and Credit .............................................................................................................................. 19

Regulations and Insurance .................................................................................................................. 19

Technical Assistance and Grants ......................................................................................................... 20

Location............................................................................................................................................... 20

Challenges and Barriers as Perceived by Facilitators ................................................................................. 20

Producer Marketing Skills .................................................................................................................. 20

Technical Assistance and Grants ......................................................................................................... 20

Financial Capacity and Income........................................................................................................... 20

Regulations .......................................................................................................................................... 21

Perspectives on the Future of Direct Marketing ........................................................................................ 21

Consumer Perceptions and Demand .................................................................................................. 21

Future Farmers .................................................................................................................................... 21

Other ................................................................................................................................................... 21

Contents
iv

Page

Information Needs ...................................................................................................................................... 22

Marketing Methods............................................................................................................................. 22

Business Decision-Making Tools ........................................................................................................ 22

Industry Data....................................................................................................................................... 23

Consumer Trend Information and Data ............................................................................................ 23

Technical Assistance ............................................................................................................................ 23

Consumer Education and Promotion ................................................................................................ 23

Regulatory Clarification...................................................................................................................... 23

Implications for USDA-AMS Programs ............................................................................................................ 25

Approaches to Enhanced Involvement of USDA-AMS in Direct Marketing ........................................... 25

Collaboration ...................................................................................................................................... 25

Balanced Approach .............................................................................................................................. 25

Using Existing Expertise ..................................................................................................................... 25

Possible Programmatic Responses to Identified Needs ............................................................................. 25

Clearinghouse...................................................................................................................................... 25

Grants .................................................................................................................................................. 25

Broader Government Agency Support ............................................................................................... 25

Regulatory Relevance.......................................................................................................................... 26

Regulatory Compliance ...................................................................................................................... 26

Key Contacts and Information Dissemination................................................................................... 26

Association Development and Support .............................................................................................. 26

Research and Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 26

Consumer and Market Research ........................................................................................................ 26

Strengthening Producer and Consumer Linkages ............................................................................. 26

Access to Quality Wholesale Produce ................................................................................................ 27

Expanding Market Channels .............................................................................................................. 27

Promotion ........................................................................................................................................... 27

How-To Information .......................................................................................................................... 27

Performance Standards ....................................................................................................................... 27

Perfect World Summary ................................................................................................................................... 29

Direct Marketing Outlook .......................................................................................................................... 29
v

Page

Appendixes .......................................................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix 1. Focus Group Participants

Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials

Maps and Figures

Map—Residency of Focus Group Participants ............................................................................................ 4

Figure 1. Years of Experience in Direct Marketing ..................................................................................... 6

Figure 2. Direct Marketing Facilitator Affiliation by Sector ...................................................................... 7

Figure 3. Support and Services Currently Provided by Direct Marketing

 Facilitator to Focus Group Participants ....................................................................................... 7

Figure 4. Facilitator’s Program Activities .................................................................................................... 8

Figure 5. Farm Products Produced by Marketer Focus Group Participants.............................................. 9

Figure 6. Marketing Channels Used by Marketer Focus Group Participants.......................................... 10

Figure 7. All Participants: Direct Marketing Problems ........................................................................... 11

Figure 8. Facilitators: Direct Marketing Problems .................................................................................. 12

Figure 9. Marketers: Direct Marketing Problems .................................................................................... 13

Figure 10. All Participants: Importance of Direct Marketing Information Sources ............................... 14

Figure 11. Marketers: Importance of Direct Marketing Information Sources........................................ 15

Figure 12. Facilitators: Importance of Direct Marketing Information Sources ...................................... 15

Figure 13. Methods Used To Access USDA Information ......................................................................... 16

Figure 14. All Participants: Importance of USDA Involvement .............................................................. 17

Figure 15. Marketers: Importance of USDA Involvement ...................................................................... 17

Figure 16. Facilitators: Importance of USDA Involvement..................................................................... 18

Tables

Table 1. Marketers: Facilitating Direct Marketing in a “Perfect World” ................................................ 30

Table 2. Facilitators: Facilitating Direct Marketing in a “PerfectWorld” ............................................... 31

Table 3. Summary Challenges, Information Needs, and Potential Responses ......................................... 32

Table 4. Implications for USDA-AMS Programs Summary ..................................................................... 34
vi
vii

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-

Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) Farmer

Direct Marketing Action Plan (August 1998) identified the need for public input on farmer direct

marketing issues and opportunities. A goal of this

plan is to translate this participation into the development of an effective programmatic strategy for

USDA-AMS that reflects the needs of the direct

marketing community, promotes direct marketing

alternatives, and improves market access for small

farmers. The first step toward gathering public

comment was a farmers market forum in July 1998.

The second step was to expand the collection of

information through focus group meetings with

marketers and individuals who work with small

farmers or support direct marketing (facilitators).

Five focus group meetings were held with marketers

and facilitators in three locations (Sturbridge, MA;

Grand Rapids, MI; Memphis, TN). The diversity of

locations afforded balanced contributions from a

broad constituency and an opportunity to investigate

regional differences in production and marketing

strategies. Forty direct marketing facilitators and 27

direct marketers from 34 States participated.

Direct Marketing Challenges and

Opportunities

Pressing issues are producer perceptions of cost and

returns, financial capacity of direct marketing

businesses, availability of technical assistance and

grants, and the overall regulatory environment faced

by direct marketing firms. Of lesser concern were

the status of producer marketing skills, availability of

insurance, and the status of information and networking in the direct marketing community. Finally,

relatively few focus group participants judged

consumer interest to be a large problem for direct

marketers.

Executive Summary

Market facilitators and marketers do not always hold

similar opinions. A greater proportion of facilitators

consider direct marketing success to be problematic,

while marketers have a more buoyant attitude.

Marketers downgraded capacity issues related to

producer marketing skills, while more than 60

percent of facilitators indicated that lack of these

skills is a major impediment to direct marketing.

Both groups are wary of costs and returns associated

with direct marketing but do not consider consumer

interest a big problem in the direct marketing of

farm products. Facilitators assigned greater significance to problems stemming from lack of technical

assistance or grants and the regulatory environment

faced by the direct marketing community.

Implications for USDA-AMS Programs

Participants placed substantial emphasis on persuading USDA to expand data collection and applied

research. Facilitators seek information that enhances

their efforts to assist marketers and documents the

significance of direct marketing. Marketers are

looking for information that helps them make better

business decisions and increase their income. Another high priority for both groups is developing

“how to” manuals on a variety of direct marketing

subjects.

Information needs that focus groups identified

present program opportunities for USDA-AMS and

for other USDA agencies. Although they agreed on

the need for information, participants (especially

marketers) voiced caution about “government”

involvement in direct marketing. They also voiced

concern that the Federal Government not duplicate

what the private sector or State agencies are doing,

but that it become a partner in enhancing direct

marketing efforts. Facilitators, in particular, were

interested in having USDA collaborate with or

stimulate new initiatives through grants using

existing expertise.
viii

Possible Programmatic Responses to

Identified Needs

❖ Establish an information and data clearinghouse

❖ Provide more funding authority for grants

❖ Enlist broader support from allied Federal

agencies

❖ Promote regulatory relevance

❖ Assist with regulatory compliance

❖ Develop and utilize key contacts for information

dissemination

❖ Develop and support marketing associations

❖ Collect research and data

❖ Expand consumer and market research

❖ Strengthen producer and consumer linkages

❖ Improve access to quality wholesale produce

❖ Expand market channels

❖ Provide “how-to” information

❖ Develop performance standards for direct

marketing
1

Project Goals and Objectives

Background

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in its Direct

Marketing Action Plan (August 1998) identified the

need for public input on farmer direct marketing

issues and opportunities to develop an effective plan

that reflects the needs of the direct marketing

community, promotes direct marketing alternatives,

and improves market access for small farmers. The

first step toward gathering public input was taken

during a forum on July 1, 1998, for farmers market

managers and other experts working with farmers

markets.

A second initiative identified in the Action Plan was

to conduct focus group meetings with direct marketing facilitators—individuals representing organizations that support small farmers and farmer direct

marketing. A Cornell University team with prior

focus group experience convened and facilitated the

focus group meetings. To better meet project objectives, it was decided to expand the project to include

direct marketers and facilitators in the focus group

study.

The interest of USDA-AMS in direct marketing

originates with its mission to facilitate efficient,

dependable, and equitable marketing of agricultural

products. The impetus for this project stems from a

trend toward more direct marketing, especially

among smaller farmers. This trend is fueled by

consumer interest, by producers’ desire for greater

returns, and by growing community awareness of

the contributions of farming and local food production.

Farmer direct marketing has become a successful

alternative marketing method, especially for smaller

producers who are uninterested in or unable to

participate and compete effectively in larger wholesale market channels. Although still a small percentage of total agricultural sales, the number of direct

marketers and the volume of direct sales are growing. The number of channels also is becoming more

diverse, as indicated by the growth in farmers

markets and community-supported agriculture

(CSA) farms and in such new methods as mail order

and Internet marketing.

Additional impetus for assessing the role USDAAMS might play in support of small farmers and

farmer direct marketing comes from the January

1998 USDA report, A Time to Act, provided by the

National Commission on Small Farms. The report

identifies the need to increase the emphasis on

marketing opportunities for small farm businesses

and to increase small farm income.

Input from focus groups will help to clarify and

affirm the role of USDA-AMS in support of the

direct marketing community and will provide

guidance in developing an expanded programmatic

strategy for direct marketing. USDA-AMS seeks

insight from both farm marketers and facilitators on

high-priority direct marketing issues and opportunities and the role it might play in addressing them.
2

Focus Group Methodology

The focus group process as a data-gathering tool

offers the following advantages:

• Participants are chosen based on their expertise,

thereby enabling USDA-AMS to obtain an

authoritative assessment of issues and problems.

• Participants can explore specific issues in depth.

• Focus group meetings are highly interactive and

provide a venue for useful brainstorming.

• The information resulting from focus group

discussion can provide valuable reference points

and context for additional policy and planning

discussions.

Alhough the focus group process is a useful tool for

percolating ideas and enhancing the understanding

of issues, the team recognized that the information

generated may come from more dominant group

members and, though rich in detail, still is purely

anecdotal. To reduce this weakness, the team used

questionnaires in addition to meetings to collect

information more systematically.

Focus Group Objectives

USDA-AMS identified several interrelated objectives to guide the process of gathering information

from focus group participants:

• to understand the roles facilitators play to support

farmer direct marketing,

• to understand how farm direct marketers view

their role and why they became and are involved

with farmer direct marketing,

• to learn about innovative strategies and techniques facilitators use to support direct marketing

or marketers use to expand direct marketing

efforts,

• to identify major challenges or constraints farm

direct marketers or facilitators face in their efforts

to support direct marketing,

• to gain information about issues and trends that

have implications for the future of farmer direct

marketing,

• to understand how marketers and facilitators

address challenges,

• to learn about needs and gaps in information,

• to identify current information sources and their

relative value to marketers and facilitators,

• to identify the means for accessing information,

• to identify key needs in a perfect world, and

• to identify the unique role USDA-AMS could

play in meeting key needs.

Selecting Focus Group Participants

The project focused on two groups, facilitators and

marketers. Together, they represent the principal

clientele for USDA-AMS technical assistance and

outreach efforts (appendix 1).

Focusing on direct market facilitators conforms with

the USDA-AMS direct marketing program strategy.

USDA-AMS intends to identify and collaborate with

key organizations working to support direct marketing, including representatives from State agriculture

departments, State and county Extension specialists,

and nongovernmental groups with a variety of

relevant agricultural interests.

Marketers were selected from two groups: those

with substantial experience in direct marketing and

considered to be industry leaders and limitedresource small farmers who may not have much

experience with direct marketing but could benefit

from additional marketing opportunities. To be costeffective, marketer focus group meetings were

scheduled around regional or national marketing

conferences.

Focus group participants were selected by consulting

key individuals having regional or national contacts

with direct market farmers and facilitators. The

USDA-Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service’s Small Farm Directory served as

an additional reference for identifying potential

participants. Some participants were selected from

conference attendance lists and in consultation with

individuals having prior contact with attendees.
3

The researchers tried to have as many types of

organizations as possible represented at each location and to have good representation from a large

number of States. For marketer meetings, attention

was paid to balancing representation by State of

origin, type and size of enterprise, marketing methods, experience, race, and gender.

Location of Focus Group Meetings

Five focus group meetings were held in three locations to gather input from a broad constituency of

agricultural interests and to recognize regional

differences in production and marketing strategies.

Each session attracted participants who covered a

broad geographical region: Sturbridge, MA—New

England/Mid-Atlantic; Grand Rapids, MI—Midwest

and Far West; Memphis, TN—Southeast and South

Central. To be cost-effective, four of the five focus

group meetings were scheduled around regional and

national marketing conferences.

• Sturbridge, MA, Dec. 3, 1998—Facilitator Meeting

Sturbridge is a central meeting location. Facilitators in the region have a history of working

together on direct marketing conferences and

agricultural promotion efforts. The facilitators

attending this focus group meeting probably have

more combined direct marketing experience than

facilitators in any other region of the country.

• Grand Rapids, MI, Jan. 20 and 22, 1999—Marketer

and Facilitator Meetings

In Grand Rapids, the 1999 North American

Farmers’ Direct Marketing Conference joined

with the Michigan Vegetable Conference. The

North American Farmers’ Direct Marketing

Conference, held for the past 14 years, attracts

from 1,000 to 1,300 people. Two focus group

meetings were convened during this conference,

one for marketers and one for facilitators from the

Midwest and Far West. This venue offered the

opportunity to involve highly experienced direct

marketers and a facilitator group with a strong

focus on direct marketing issues.

• Memphis, TN, Mar. 24 and 25, 1999—Marketer

and Facilitator Meetings

In Memphis, a USDA-sponsored Agricultural

Marketing Outreach Workshop focused on

opportunities for limited-resource farmers. Two

focus groups convened at this location, including

one with a group of farmers diverse in their

marketing experience, enterprise type, and income. As a group, they had less experience in

direct marketing. Facilitators, too, were more

diverse in their experience and affiliations, including State agriculture departments, 1890 college

faculty and Extension staff, and cooperative and

private organizations working on small farm

problems and community development issues.

Focus Group Organization

A letter of invitation from USDA-AMS went to

potential participants, followed by a second letter of

invitation from Cornell University. Potential participants were contacted by phone to determine their

availability and interest in attending the focus group

meeting. A letter of confirmation went to those

responding positively. Another mailing, which

included a pre-focus group questionnaire, followed

soon thereafter. The pre-focus group questionnaire

(appendix 2) asked participants to indicate how

much listed factors were problems for direct marketing. They also were asked to describe their contact

with USDA and indicate the relative importance of

possible sources of direct marketing information.

Finally, they were asked to consider issues of additional USDA-AMS involvement with direct marketing assistance.

The pre-focus group questionnaire provided responses unaffected by the dynamics of the focus

group discussion. Results helped set the stage for

focus group discussion and for assessing and clarifying the role USDA-AMS might play in assisting

direct marketing clientele.

A few days before the focus group meeting, participants received by fax a list of attendees and a meet-
4

ing agenda (appendix 2). Each focus group meeting

followed a similar agenda, starting with an introduction to the focus group process and goals of USDAAMS. Participants introduced themselves, described

their roles, and shared examples of successful direct

marketing strategies. They discussed challenges and

constraints with possible solutions to problems,

focusing on information gaps and needs. Pre-focus

group survey data were presented to guide conversation and clarify issues considered to be problems.

The group leaders encouraged free and open dialogue among participants as they managed the

agenda and directed the conversation. To synthesize

the day’s discussion, each participant was asked to

articulate a key need to address in a perfect world.

Each focus group meeting was recorded on videotape, through on-screen inventory of comments, and

through written summary notes.

At the conclusion of the focus group meeting,

participants saw a demonstration of the USDA-AMS

direct marketing Web page and completed a second

questionnaire, answering identical questions on

problems and issues for USDA involvement (appendix 2). Participants were asked to contrast their

experiences with those of others in the group and to

highlight issues unique to their regions.

About 1 month after the focus group meetings, a

third followup survey sent to participants asked for

demographic information and information on the

focus of direct marketing efforts (appendix 2).

Information gathered in surveys and focus group

discussions was summarized and integrated to reflect

key concerns and information needs in direct marketing. Each survey was keyed to individual participants so that shifts in responses as a result of focus

group discussion could be observed.

Residence of Focus Group Participants*

*States indicated in black had no participants

Number of participants

(16 states had no participants)

 3 to 6 (10)

 2 to 3 (4)

 1 to 2 (20)
5

Forty direct marketing facilitators and 27 direct

marketers from 34 States participated (appendix 1)

in the USDA Direct Marketing Focus Group

Project (see map). Some States were not represented

because individuals contacted were unable to attend.

Regional Differences

Several unique differences emerged by region, based

on focus group meeting discussions.

Northeast/Mid-Atlantic

• Long tradition of direct marketing of all types

• Concern about local land-use regulations

• High cost of land for farming

• Limited land available for farming

• Agricultural land preservation programs in several

States

• Public interest in preserving farms and open space

• High cost of doing business

• Good population access

• More people and consumers than farmers who

can supply them

• Strong consumer interest in purchasing from local

farms

• Many small, diverse family farms

• Strong competition from supermarket retailers

Midwest and Far West

• Concern about sprawl

• Population base spread out, opportunities good

near cities but challenging in rural locations

• Need to attract customers from farther distances,

more emphasis on becoming a farm destination

and tourist attraction and keeping people on

farms longer by offering a variety of services and

amenities (restaurants, gift shops, attractions,

festivals, etc.)

• Linkages being forged with tourism and economic

development community and direct marketers

• Many farmer direct marketing operations emerging out of wholesale sales

• Growing and selling less farm produce, selling

more farm entertainment

Focus Group Participant Profile

• A need for high-quality produce from other

farmers to sell at farm markets

• Supermarket competition increasing

Southeast and South Central

• More emphasis on wholesale marketing, less on

direct marketing

• Stronger tradition of cooperatives by which small

farmers access markets

• Producers with less experience with direct marketing, a need for more basic information and

assistance

• Interest in niche market opportunities

• A need for more successful farmers markets

• A rural population base with limited urban access

• Transportation an issue for getting products from

farms to urban markets

• Limited-income consumers and producers

• A price barrier for direct-marketed produce posed

by low supermarket prices

• Supermarket competition less intense

• Competition among marketers intense in areas of

concentrated production

These regional differences, while not mutually

exclusive, reflect the many challenges, barriers, and

opportunities direct marketers face. Considering

programs in support of farmer direct marketing, the

public must recognize regional differences while

focusing on common needs.

Focus Group Participant Experience in

Direct Marketing

Overall, marketers had more direct marketing

experience than the facilitators who provided them

with support and services (figure 1). Marketers

averaged 17 years, facilitators 13 years. Seventy

percent of marketers had more than 10 years’

experience in direct marketing. In contrast, only 54

percent of facilitators had more than 10 years’

experience.
6

Facilitator Profile

Sixty percent of the direct marketing facilitators

were affiliated with government or university-related

organizations (24 participants) (figure 2). Twentyeight percent were affiliated with a university (11

participants), either as Extension staff or having

responsibility for direct marketing activities with a

university program, and 33 percent were from State

departments of agriculture (13 participants). Within

the “other” category of facilitators not affiliated with

either a government or university organization, 28

percent (11 participants) described their organizations as “nonprofit” or listed their professional

affiliation as either market managers (three participants) or producers who operated their own direct

marketing business (six participants). Producers

participating in facilitator group meetings were

invited because of their affiliation with grower or

marketer associations, such as the North American

Farmers’ Direct Marketing Association, organic

farming associations, etc.

Facilitators were asked about the direct marketing

support and services offered by their organizations.

Of 40 organizations represented in the focus groups,

67 percent (27 participants) reported that their

organizations concentrated major efforts on conferences and workshops (figure 3). They followed these

efforts closely with promotional activities (66 percent) and resource materials (64 percent). Research

activities, such as case studies, research projects and

surveys, or data gathering, came last as a major focus

of support or services provided (29 percent).

As a minor focus, tours and surveys and data gathering led as support or services provided by 41 percent

of the organizations (figure 3). This response was

closely followed by training and printed resources,

such as publications, fact sheets, and newsletters.

When asked about their agencies’ ability to respond

to requests for assistance and information on direct

marketing issues, 86 percent of all facilitators rated

Years of Experience in Direct Marketing

More than 15 years

11 to 15 years

6 to 10 years

1 to 5 years

FIGURE 1

0 10 20 40 30

Percent of participants

Facilitator

Marketer
7

Direct Marketing Facilitator Affiliation by Sector

Private

University

Government

FIGURE 2

0 10 20 40 30

Percent of participants

50

Support and Services Currently Provided by 

Direct Marketing Facilitator Focus Group Participants

Resource materials

Promotion

Conferences/workshops

Consultation

Market development

Publications/fact sheets

Training

Electronic services (e.g. e-mail)

Case studies/research projects

Tours

Survey/data gather/assembly

Newsletters

FIGURE 3

0 10 20 40 30

Percent of participants

50 60 70 80

Major focus

Minor focus
8

organizational capability to respond to direct marketing requests as good to excellent. Commenting

on how direct marketing requests have changed in

the past 3 years, facilitators mentioned an increase in

the number and nature of requests and new clients

overall. Requests ranged from general direct marketing questions to starting a farmers market, agricultural tourism opportunities, farmers market manager

training, and website construction.

Facilitators also were asked about their individual

involvement with various direct marketing issues.

More than half (69 percent) of all facilitators report

that a major focus in their direct marketing work

involves activities related to farmers markets. At least

half reported that they are active in activities related

to roadside stands (53 percent), direct marketing

associations (53 percent), and specialty marketing

(50 percent) as a major focus of individual involvement. The same percentage is involved in agricultural tourism but only as a minor focus. Facilitators

are least active overall in international market

development and livestock marketing, with close to

half (48 percent) reporting that they are not currently active in these areas. Figure 4 provides additional details on other direct marketing program

activities.

How Facilitators See Their Roles

Facilitators amplified on their activities in support of

farmer direct marketing during focus group discussions. This involvement included special interests

pertaining to agriculture and community (organic,

sustainable, agricultural land preservation, food

security and safety, youth education, grower/marketer associations, etc.).

Facilitators indicated they work on various levels,

including: advocacy or policy; market development;

agricultural tourism promotion; general promotion;

agricultural diversification; added-value/food processing strategies; Extension outreach; research

studies; surveys; publications; conferences, workshops, training; etc. Many expressed a desire for

Facilitator’s Program Activities

Pick-your-own

Roadside stands

Farmers markets

Organic foods

Specialty crops

Connecting farmers with rest./stores

CSA’s subscription farms

Ag tourism; farm trails

Value-added processing

Cooperatives

Direct marketing associations

Specialty marketing

Livestock marketing

FIGURE 4

0 10 20 40 30

Percent of participants

50 60 70 80

 Active, and a major focus Active, but a minor focus

International market development

90 100

Not active

Note: CSA is community-supported agriculture
9

more networking, collaboration, and support with

others engaged in similar work. They frequently

mentioned a need for funding and gaining community-political support for direct marketing efforts.

Most expressed the belief that they could enhance

their efforts if they had better data to document the

significance of direct marketing.

Marketer Profile

Vegetables in general (59 percent) and pumpkins in

particular (44 percent) were the two most popular

crops sold by marketers who participated in the

focus groups (figure 5). Orchard and berry crops

came in a close third (41 percent). Other crops or

products mentioned included sweet corn, nuts,

straw, flowers, sheep, cattle, soybeans, and processed

products, such as corn meal, cider, and baked goods.

Most marketers reported that they sell farm products through on-farm markets (70 percent) (figure

6). More than half (52 percent) have pick-your-own

operations or sell products wholesale. Farmers

markets (22 percent) and agricultural tourism (19

percent) were not used as commonly by participating

marketers. About one-quarter of marketer participants indicated they also sell products through

cooperatives, forward contracting, and stockyards.

Close to 40 percent of participant marketers grossed

$500,000 or more in 1998. Forty-five percent

reported gross sales of less than $50,000. Of those

reporting less than $50,000 in gross sales, close to 63

percent reported that more than half of their gross

earnings came from direct marketing activities.

Within this group, about 38 percent relied on direct

marketing activities to get 75 percent of farm gross

sales.

Farm Products Produced by Marketer

Focus Group Participants

Other

Greenhouse crops

Christmas trees

Berry crops

Orchard

Livestock product

Vegetables

Pumpkins

FIGURE 5

0 10 20 40 30

Percent of participants

50 60
10

How Marketers See Their Roles

Farm direct marketers identified two key roles in

group discussion: to provide fresh, safe, high-quality

foods and to provide an opportunity for the public to

interact with farmers and learn about farming. The

more experienced marketers clearly were more

attuned to consumer interests and, hence, were more

concerned with consumer trends. Because many

operated on-farm markets or entertainment farms,

their main concern was to offer quality products and

experiences for farm visitors. Many of the less

experienced marketers expressed interest in reaching

consumers, identifying niche opportunities, and

learning how to market directly. Quality and pride in

what they grow or offer was a consistent sentiment

of both groups.

Marketing Channels Used by Marketers

Garden center

Greenhouse 

Festivals

Farmers market

Ag tourism

Wholesale

Pick-your-own

FIGURE 6

0 10 20 40 30

Percent of participants

50 60 70 80

Farm market
11

Challenges and Opportunities

An underlying premise for this project is that the

Nation’s farm and food industries are not fully

exploiting opportunities to expand production and

enhance incomes through direct marketing. A

central line of discussion centers on defining problems. What exactly are the challenges and barriers

now facing farm and food producers who want to

grow their business through direct sales? To start,

the group assembled a list of direct marketing

problems on this topic, drawing upon the experience

of individuals engaged in direct marketing. These

problems included concerns about the supply side

and the demand side of the direct marketing equation.

Nine direct marketing problems are identified in

figure 7. Focus group participants were asked to

assign these marketing issues to one of four categories, depending on the severity of the problem. On

the demand side, participants were asked to evaluate

overall consumer interest in direct marketing. On

Pre-Focus Group Survey Results

the supply side, participants were asked to consider

constraints presented by climatic conditions and a

variety of institutional factors and the extent to

which they are problems for successful direct marketing.

On the demand side, relatively few participants

judged consumer interest to be a large problem.

About 34 percent of all focus group participants

indicated that, in fact, consumer interest was not a

problem at all. On the supply side, four factors were

rated as problems with the same proximate intensity.

These factors included the overall regulatory environment faced by direct marketing firms (58 percent), financial capacity of direct marketing businesses (55 percent), producer perceptions of cost and

returns from direct marketing (54 percent), and

availability of technical assistance or grants (52

percent). Of lesser concern was availability of insurance and information and networking in the direct

marketing community (figure 7).

All Participants: Direct Marketing Problems

Producer perceptions of costs

Insurance

Producer marketing skills

Information/networking

Financial capacity

Short seasons

Consumer interest

Technical assistance/grants

FIGURE 7

0 10 20 40 30 60 50 70 90 80

A problem no one can solve

A big problem Not a problem

100

A slight problem

Percent

Regulations
12

Both important convergence and some sharply

differing opinions notably emerge between facilitators and marketers, as shown in figures 8 and 9.

Facilitators and marketers disagreed the most about

five factors that may be problematic to their direct

marketing activities—producer marketing skills,

short seasons, financial capacity, regulations, and

information and networking. For factors considered

problematic, marketers downgraded capacity issues

related to producer marketing skills. More than 60

percent of facilitators indicated that lack of producer

marketing skills is a major impediment to direct

marketing. In contrast, only 15 percent of marketers

rated producer marketing skills as a big problem.

The most evident unanimity between marketers and

facilitators related to producer perceptions of costs

and returns and consumer interest in directly marketed products. Fifty-six percent of facilitators and

58 percent of marketers regarded producer perceptions of costs and returns as a big problem (figures 8

and 9). Conversely, respondents also evidently

agreed on costs and returns associated with direct

marketing, with similar proportions in both groups

reporting that consumer interest did not constitute a

big problem in their direct marketing activities (39

percent for marketers, 31 percent for facilitators).

On the other hand, facilitators were far more concerned about the seasonality of direct marketing

enterprises, with nearly 30 percent rating this issue

as a big problem or worse; none of the marketers

reported this issue as a big problem. Facilitators also

assigned more significance to problems stemming

from lack of technical assistance or grants and the

regulatory environment faced by the direct marketing community.

Issues facilitators ranked as unimportant—consumer

interest to regulations—ranged from 30 percent to

as little as 3 percent. Marketers exhibited a more

Facilitators: Direct Marketing Problems

Producer perceptions of costs

Insurance

Information/networking

Financial capacity

Short seasons

Consumer interest

Technical assistance/grants

FIGURE 8

0 10 20 40 30 60 50 70 90 80

A problem no one can solve

A big problem Not a problem

100

A slight problem

Percent

Regulations

Producer marketing skills
13

buoyant attitude, and a much larger percentage of all

participants assigned issues to the “not a problem”

category.

Marketers were asked to consider three additional

potential problems: competition, labor, and product

quality. Among these issues, labor ranked highest

with 80 percent of all marketer participants, indicating that labor concerns represented at least a slight

problem for the direct marketing community.

However, less than 40 percent rated labor as a major

problem. More than 60 percent of all marketers

rated the competitive position of direct marketers

relative to supermarkets and other food outlets to be

at least a slight problem. On the other hand, while

37 percent of marketers considered issues related to

product quality to be at least slightly problematic,

fewer than 4 percent considered this factor to be a

big problem.

Sources of Direct Marketing Information

All focus group participants put a high emphasis on

networking and personal contacts as a source of

direct marketing information (figure 10). Closely

related, more than 70 percent indicated that growers—direct marketers themselves—were a very

important information source. As information

sources, few important differences emerged among

State departments of agriculture, Extension educators, university academics, not-for-profit organizations, and trade associations. The participants

assigned slightly more importance to trade journals

and other types of publications. About 30 percent of

all participants ranked USDA as a very important

information source. Only the information category

of private consultants ranked lower.

A big problem

Marketers: Direct Marketing Problems

Producer perceptions of costs

Insurance

Producer marketing skills

Information/networking

Financial capacity

Short seasons

Consumer interest

Technical assistance/grants

FIGURE 9 

0 10 20 40 30 60 50 70 90 80

A problem no one can solve

Not a problem

100

A slight problem

Percent 

Regulations

Competition

Labor issues

Product quality
14

Four focus group meetings held during direct

marketing conferences enhanced project operation

but probably introduced selection bias because many

focus group participants are attuned to and favor

conference attendance. In any event, nearly all

participants indicated that conference attendance

was at least somewhat important as a source of direct

marketing information.

Information sources ranked similarly between

facilitators and marketers (figures 11 and 12). It

might be expected that facilitators would rely more

than marketers on USDA as an information source,

but focus group data do not support this proposition. In fact, a larger percentage of marketers indicated that USDA was an important information

source. However, this response is not specific to

USDA-AMS, and marketers may contact several

USDA agencies. Discussions at marketer focus

group meetings revealed that many farmers use

services of the Farm Service Agency; Natural Resources Conservation Service; and Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service. Consultants were used least as an information source,

perhaps because fewer of them specialized in this

work.

Accessing Direct Market Information

Roughly half of the individuals who attended the five

focus groups had recent contact with USDA, and

their access methods are measured in figure 13.

Some notable contrasts emerged between marketers

and facilitators. Given that marketers participating

in the focus groups were chosen from conference

delegates, more of them indicated they gathered

information at conferences and trade shows, compared to facilitators. Facilitators, on the other hand,

more often use direct mail and Internet technology

(web or e-mail). One in 10 marketers participating

in the focus groups had used the USDA-AMS

website or had contact with USDA personnel

through electronic mail.

All Participants: Importance of Direct Marketing Information Sources

Extension

State department of agriculture

USDA

Trade associations

Trade journals/publications

Nonprofit organizations

State university academia

Contacts/networking

FIGURE 10 

0 10 20 40 30 60 50 70 90 80

Very important Not at all important

100

Somewhat important

Percent 

Conferences

Consultants

Market managers

Growers
15

Marketers: Importance of Direct Marketing Information Sources

Extension

State department of agriculture

USDA

Trade associations

Trade journals/publications

Nonprofit organizations

State university academia

Contacts/networking

FIGURE 11 

0 10 20 40 30 60 50 70 90 80

Very important Not at all important

100

Somewhat important

Percent 

Conferences

Consultants

Market managers

Growers

Facilitators: Importance of Direct Marketing Information Sources

Extension

State department of agriculture

USDA

Trade associations

Trade journals/publications

Nonprofit organizations

State university academia

Contacts/networking

FIGURE 12 

0 10 20 40 30 60 50 70 90 80

Very important Not at all important

100

Somewhat important

Percent 

Conferences

Consultants

Market managers

Growers
16

Future USDA-AMS Efforts To Affect Direct

Marketing Decisions

Finally, participants in the survey judged the value of

USDA-AMS involvement in a variety of direct

marketing information products (figure 14). Every

group tended to support more USDA-AMS involvement. Marketers reported that USDA involvement

advancing opportunities for small-scale producers to

sell directly to schools and other local institutions

was very important (46 percent) (figure 15), while

facilitators most emphasized data collection and the

conduct of applied research (81 percent) (figure 16).

Both groups placed relatively high priority on the

development of “how to” information manuals on a

variety of direct marketing subjects. However, a

higher percentage of facilitators (more than 70

percent) expressed the belief that the development of

“how-to” manuals constituted a very important task

for USDA involvement, compared to marketers (50

percent). Facilitators seem more committed to the

Internet now and view USDA involvement in

Internet marketing and Internet dissemination of

information to be very important (52 percent and 65

percent, respectively). On the other hand, although

30 percent of marketers felt that Internet dissemination of information was a very important task for

USDA involvement, only 9 percent felt that USDA

should support Internet marketing.

Survey responses revealed that marketers were

slightly more ambivalent about the need for more

USDA-AMS involvement in direct marketing than

facilitators (figures 15 and 16). This conclusion was

further substantiated in facilitator meetings, where

participants encouraged USDA-AMS to collaborate

and work in support of local and State efforts and to

draw from current experience. On the other hand,

marketers at meetings voiced concern about what

USDA-AMS intended by assistance. Considering

this difference, however, there were no obvious

differences in weights assigned to various direct

marketing efforts.

Methods Used to Access USDA Information*

Internet (Web, e-mail)

Direct mail 

Trade show

Fax

Phone

Conference

FIGURE 13

0 10 20 40 30

Percent of participants who have sought USDA information

50 60 70 80

*Percentages seeking information were 56% and 41%, respectively, for facilitators and marketers.

Facilitators

Marketers
17

All Participants: Importance of USDA Involvement

Roadside markets

Public markets

Farmers markets

Direct marketing to rest./inst.

Small producers selling to sch./ins.

Internet marketing

Community supported ag. (CSA)

Internet dissemination of info.

FIGURE 14 

0 10 20 40 30 60 50 70 90 80

Very important Not at all important

100

Somewhat important

Percent 

Development of “how to” manuals

Conferences

Market manager training/cert.

Data collection and applied res.

Marketers: Importance of USDA Involvement

Roadside markets

Public markets

Farmers markets

Direct marketing to rest./inst.

Small producers selling to sch./inst.

Internet marketing

Community supported ag. (CSA)

Internet dissemination of info.

FIGURE 15 

0 10 20 40 30 60 50 70 90 80

Very important Not at all important

100

Somewhat important

Percent 

Development of “how to” manuals

Conferences

Market manager training/cert.

Data collection and applied res.
18

Facilitators: Importance of USDA Involvement

Roadside markets

Public markets

Farmers markets

Direct marketing to rest./inst.

Small producers selling to sch./inst.

Internet marketing

Community supported ag. (CSA)

Internet dissemination of info.

FIGURE 16 

0 10 20 40 30 60 50 70 90 80

Very important Not at all important

100

Somewhat important

Percent 

Development of “how to” manuals

Conferences

Market manager training/cert.

Data collection and applied res.
19

Challenges and Barriers as Perceived by

Marketers

Issues of concern raised by direct farm marketers in

the discussion concurred with the pre-focus group

survey findings. Major concerns included: labor

issues—availability, wages, and regulations; increasing costs—low returns, especially if competing with

supermarkets on price; financial capacity related to

farm viability and credit access; and regulatory

overload, relevance, and compliance issues. Participants identified the lack of technical assistance and

grants as barriers, especially those with limited direct

marketing experience.

Labor—Marketers mentioned that labor was not a

new concern, but that the cost of labor was increasing because of regulations, competition for workers,

and the need to offer competitive wage and benefit

packages. Larger growers hire migrant labor for

field work, and seasonal retail labor generally is a

mix of students and local residents. A positive work

environment contributing to a positive work force

was considered critical to the success of farmer

direct marketing. Employee training and benefit

packages are a management priority for experienced

marketers.

Competition—Survey respondents saw supermarkets as a major external competitor to farm market

retailers. Price competition was a more significant

concern than competition for product quality.

Competition from neighboring farms was of lesser

concern. Marketers solved this challenge creatively—through joint promotion to attract more

customers to the region or by creating a unique farm

identity.

Income and Credit—Generating a livable wage

concerns all farmers, including direct marketing

farmers. The more experienced marketers reported

that sales of farm products are a decreasing percentage of total sales. More sales are generated through

“entertainment,” but with more effort required to

Focus Group Meeting Discussion

generate these dollars. Another income problem

results from the seasonal nature of direct marketing.

One challenge for direct marketers is to increase

income through year-round sales and to encourage

repeat sales within a season and from one season to

the next. How to attract and retain customers and

secure their loyalty is a considerable challenge.

Related to income is the question of financial capacity. Some marketers were frustrated by the cumbersome process of obtaining credit through federally

funded loan programs offered by the Farm Service

Agency or Small Business Administration. Given

that no business plans or profiles are available on

direct marketing for lenders to know about these

operations, both farm and traditional banking

institutions are reluctant to make loans for direct

marketing or specialty enterprises.

Regulations and Insurance—Both marketers and

facilitators expressed the need for regulations relevant to direct marketing operations. Regulations at

all levels of government concerned them, including

Federal regulations pertaining to labor, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, migrant

workers, pesticides, and food safety. Marketing

regulations for meat and dairy products, mentioned

at all focus group meetings, posed limitations for

direct marketing. Conformity between Federal and

State laws also concerned respondents, and they

cited a need for conformity between State and local

health enforcement practices and procedures. At a

local level, land use regulation and how it affects

farming have emerged as an issue. One challenge for

farm direct marketers is to be informed on all

regulations to ensure compliance. They expressed

additional concern about the cost of regulatory

compliance, which many were willing to bear if they

felt confident that future regulations would not

render present efforts obsolete. Obtaining liability

insurance concerns marketers less, although they did

talk about the need to minimize exposure to risk and

protect themselves against claims.
20

Technical Assistance and Grants—The experienced marketers generally were less concerned about

the availability of technical assistance than were less

experienced marketers. Technical assistance needs

varied between the two groups. Marketers at both

Memphis and Grand Rapids needed business information, and they viewed grants as an opportunity

but were uncertain about the grants available and

how to obtain them.

For less experienced marketers, information needs

were basic: how to get started, how and where to sell

direct, what the niche market opportunities are,

what the potential return is, and where to get help.

The more experienced marketers needed more

detailed business decision-making information:

performance standards, benchmark information,

consumer trends information, facility layout and

design details, and streamlined regulations. The

experienced marketers also voiced more concern for

liability issues, perhaps because of the size of their

businesses and because many are involved in entertaining the public at their farms.

Location—The question of location was not identified in the pre-focus group survey but was identified

as a challenge in discussions. Marketers located near

urban areas were less concerned about attracting

customers, but they were concerned about cost of

doing business in an urban-influenced area and

about stricter land-use controls. Marketers in rural

areas were more concerned about how to reach

consumers. Lacking transportation for products to

urban communities and lacking accessible urban

marketing outlets (farmers markets) presented

barriers to direct marketing in the southern region.

Lacking skills in selling directly to consumers was

another barrier the less experienced marketers

identified. On the other hand, attracting customers

to farms also was considered challenging because

consumers with limited resources may not have the

means or motivation to visit farms, and creating a

destination farm involves much time, expense, and

uncertainty.

Challenges and Barriers as Perceived by

Facilitators

Facilitators attributed more importance to the

following problems: producer marketing skills,

technical assistance and grants, financial capacity,

income and viability issues, consumer perceptions

and demand, and regulations. Although these issues

are similar to those rated as big problems by marketers, there were some subtle differences.

Producer Marketing Skills—Facilitators identified

the following problems with producer marketing

skills: producers lack time for marketing and are

inexperienced in interacting directly with consumers, thus the need for technical assistance to improve

producer capacity for direct marketing. Although

marketers considered producer marketing skills less

of a problem than did facilitators, they were concerned about the impression that poorly run farm

markets might make on consumers and how this

impression affects the image of direct marketing.

Technical Assistance and Grants—Most facilitators expressed the need for technical support and

grant funding. Facilitators also recognized the need

for more expertise and capacity to address the

interests and concerns of farm direct marketers. The

lack of good information about farmer direct marketing was a limiting factor in providing assistance to

producers. Marketing research receives low support

from academia, and data gathered on farmer direct

marketing by State and Federal agencies are limited

or incomplete. To build a case for direct marketing

support, data must demonstrate their significance to

academics, policy makers, and potential funders.

Financial Capacity and Income—Many facilitators

expressed concern that farmers would see farmer

direct marketing as the solution to agriculture’s

income problems. Facilitators cautioned that costs

and returns vary widely among direct market operations. Small entrepreneurial farmers have difficulty

obtaining credit because traditional lenders are

unfamiliar with direct marketing operations and
21

their potential returns. The lack of information on

costs and returns from farmer direct marketing

affects both lending and technical assistance.

Regulations—Concerns facilitators raised were

similar to those of marketers. Regulations must be

relevant to farmer direct marketing. Of particular

concern is the sale of meats, poultry, fish, and dairy

products at farm direct outlets. Institutional barriers

imposed by regulations also were viewed as limiting

direct sales to schools, government, and institutional

outlets.

Perspectives on the Future of Direct

Marketing

Both facilitators and marketers raised the following

issues on the future of farmer direct marketing:

Consumer Perceptions and Demand—Although

facilitators and marketers considered consumer

interest in local food and farm products to be reasonably strong, both expressed concern about

consumer perceptions of direct marketing and about

future consumer demand. They mentioned numerous changes in consumer demographics (e.g., aging

population, more food consumed away from home,

more health consciousness in food selection), but

they acknowledged that their net effect on demand

for directly marketed products is unclear.

The concern about consumer perceptions of farmer

direct marketing arises because of the wide diversity

of direct marketing operations, including farmers

markets, pick-your-own operations, CSA farms,

seasonal farm stands and year-round farm markets,

entertainment farms, mail order, Internet trade, and

direct sales to restaurants. A common thread is that

fewer middle persons are involved in marketing.

Facilitators and marketers question whether definitions and standards are needed to eliminate potential

consumer confusion and establish a common language and understanding. How far to delve into

added entertainment enterprises before negatively

affecting image and customer loyalty is also an issue.

Another concern both facilitators and marketers

voiced relates to sustaining consumer interest.

Although farmer direct marketing currently enjoys

good consumer support, it accounts for only a small

portion of the consumer’s food purchases. Marketers

recognize that consumers make food-shopping

decisions based on freshness, quality, appearance,

and convenience—all attributes that supermarket

retailers can offer equally well or better. Retaining

customers, an increasing concern, often requires

more costly business tactics.

Marketers voiced the need to have better access to

information on consumer trends. Facilitators also

need this information so they can help producers

anticipate changes in consumer shopping habits.

Educating consumers and promoting the benefits of

supporting local farms were mentioned as ways to

heighten consumer awareness about local farms and

to increase their customer base.

Future Farmers—As with other sectors of agriculture, marketers have a concern about attracting

individuals to the farming profession. While farmer

direct marketing is attracting new farmers, marketers also have a concern about the longevity of these

operations. Many urban communities provide a

receptive customer base, yet farmers market organizers are having difficulty attracting farmers, partly

because of the lack of urban-edge farmers and partly

because of a lack of economic information to entice

producers to sell directly.

Limited technical and financial assistance also is

available to help young people start in farmer direct

marketing. Established farm marketers have concerns about bringing family members into the

operation, supporting several family members in the

business, and estate planning.

Other—Other previously discussed concerns likely

to continue or intensify in the future include: regulations, especially pertaining to food safety; land

availability, land prices, and land use controls;
22

income relative to increasing costs; supermarket

competition; and liability concerns. Marketers also

saw government farm and food policies affecting the

future of small farmers and farmer direct marketing.

They specifically mentioned trade policies, but they

did not identify other issues, aside from the perception that government supports a “cheap food policy.”

Information Needs

Views on information needs and support were

similar between facilitators and marketers, with a

major difference: the intended audience for information. Facilitators seek information that improves

their ability to assist direct marketing farmers and

that documents the significance of farmer direct

marketing to local and State Government, policy

makers, and potential funders. Marketers are looking

for information that helps them make better business and marketing decisions and that helps increase

their income. Each group was interested in data and

economic information, regulatory clarification,

technical assistance, support for promotional efforts,

consumer trends information, assistance with educating the public about agriculture (specifically

about the benefits of local agriculture), and in

examples of successful direct marketing methods.

They also expressed a desire for easier access to

information. Details on information needs are

provided below.

Marketing Methods—An understanding of direct

marketing channels most interested less experienced

direct marketers. This group was interested particularly in “how to” information about selling in various

direct channels. Basic needs cited include: how to

get started, what to grow, what markets to target,

finding and attracting customers, costs and potential

returns. The less experienced marketer group also

was interested in information on cooperatives and

ways to create alliances between farmer and consumer groups. This group viewed churches as a

source of building community support for small

farmers. The marketers also desired information on

the unique demands of each direct market channel.

How to sell directly to government agencies and

schools was a specific interest.

Facilitators echoed the need for information on

marketing methods and channel requirements. This

information could come packaged in many forms

(fact sheet, checklist, curriculum, etc.) and would

enable facilitators to do a better job of assisting

marketers with business and marketing decisions.

Facilitators also could more actively help producers

reach markets if they understood channel requirements better.

Business Decision-Making Tools—Specific needs

mentioned include information on: costs and returns

associated with various crops or enterprises, performance standards that allow marketers to compare

their operations with a standard for similar operations and that relate performance to a common

measure (e.g., cost per square foot), potential returns

associated with various marketing channels and

methods, feasibility of various diversification opportunities, and rules of thumb. In addition to economic

information, estate-planning information also was of

interest.

Facilitators also expressed an interest in business

performance standards to improve their ability to

provide technical assistance to marketers. Marketers,

especially those more experienced, are interested in

keeping track of the direction of their businesses.

Economic information also would benefit marketers

seeking sources of credit because lenders are unfamiliar with potential costs and returns of direct

marketing.

Another need related directly to business decision

making is price information. Wholesale prices and

prices paid at direct farm outlets vary widely. Producers engaged in farmer direct marketing use a

combination of tactics to set prices that some feel are

too low because wholesale and supermarket retailers

often serve as the basis for the price setting.
23

Industry Data—In addition to farm-level economic

data, facilitators are interested in more data on the

scope and size of direct marketing as a sector of

agriculture. They need documentation to garner

support for direct marketing programs from all

levels of government, community economic leaders,

and consumers. They specifically need: the size and

scope of direct marketing (nationally and by State);

the multiplier effect of direct marketing; and the

indirect benefits of local agriculture that accrue to

farmers, communities, and consumers. This information would help facilitators build the case for

more farmer direct marketing support.

Consumer Trend Information and Data—

Information on consumer trends is critical because it

affects future activities in farmer direct marketing.

Marketers need the information to adjust to changing consumer trends, and facilitators need it to

provide marketers with a picture of what is ahead

and to help them adjust. Both groups feel that this

information already exists, but it simply must be

relevant and accessible to farmer direct marketing

audiences.

Technical Assistance—Technical assistance needs

range from a very basic level of who can help and

how to transition from wholesale into farmer direct

marketing, to studies that assess the feasibility of

niche products or diversification strategies. Economic information and industry data provide the

basis for technical assistance. Information to facilitate technical assistance might include State directories of direct market service providers, a State-byState inventory or case studies of successful marketing strategies, packaged courses or “how to” manuals, a compilation of the best direct marketing

practices, etc.

In addition to information and data, effective technical assistance will require the help of specialists in

the field. A delivery system for information exists

through USDA Extension and other USDA agencies

and State departments of agriculture. A critical need

is to find the most effective means to reach marketers who need the information. Conferences and

workshops are effective but reach a limited segment

of the audience. Direct marketing associations are

another conduit of information to members but do

not exist in every State. Where they do, their membership is generally small. Access to quality assistance and credible information is a key need.

Consumer Education and Promotion—Focus

group participants said the importance of educating

the public about the sources of food and the benefits

of supporting local farms and other promotional

efforts directed at increasing consumer purchases

from local farms were seen as important needs.

Producers and facilitators expressed the belief that

this education is not solely the role of government,

but that government could help clarify misinformation about the food supply and help educate consumers about farming and the benefits of supporting

local farms. This education would benefit not only

farm direct marketers but all other agricultural

producers as well. Resource materials about the food

supply, farming’s benefits, nutrition, food safety, etc.,

could teach youth in schools and during farm visits

and inform adult consumers.

Regulatory Clarification—A clear consensus

developed among focus group participants on the

need for regulatory clarification and streamlining.

Farm direct marketers cope with regulations from

many directions: farm-level regulations, such as

pesticide use and water quality protection; retailing

regulations; local zoning; food safety and health

regulations if food is served at markets; labor regulations; etc. Marketers are concerned that many

regulations are not relevant to their enterprises.

Moreover, changing regulations and new requirements are often poorly communicated or impractical

to implement on a small scale. They suggested

practices to comply with regulations to address

regulatory confusion.
24
25

The information needs identified by focus groups

present program opportunities for USDA-AMS and

other USDA agencies. Although participants agreed

on the need for information, they, especially marketers, voiced caution about “government” involvement

in direct marketing. Facilitators also voiced hope

that government will not duplicate what the private

sector or State agencies are doing, but that it will

become a partner in enabling and enhancing direct

marketing efforts. In particular, facilitators were

interested in having USDA-AMS stimulate new

initiatives through grants and involve direct marketing experts outside of USDA in achieving direct

marketing program goals. Facilitators specifically

were hopeful about having such USDA agencies as

the Farm Service Agency, with no prior history in

direct marketing, redirect programs to include direct

marketing. To address the concerns and information

needs of the direct marketing community, facilitators

stated that USDA-AMS must consider how it will

deliver information and what it is best suited to

deliver and support.

Approaches to Enhanced Involvement of

USDA-AMS in Direct Marketing

Focus group participants commented on how

USDA-AMS should approach an enhanced role in

farmer direct marketing.

Collaboration—A commonly expressed view was

that USDA-AMS should collaborate with others in

direct marketing. USDA-AMS also could exercise

influence on State departments of agriculture, sister

USDA agencies, and other departments of government to become more involved in direct marketing.

Focus group participants saw USDA-AMS as having

a key role in encouraging collaboration between

public and private organizations and in coordinating

regular regional networking among such groups as

those who were assembled for focus group meetings.

By promoting regional networking, programmatic

information, and experiences, USDA-AMS could

better use resources targeted at direct marketing.

Implications for USDA-AMS Programs

Balanced Approach—Another recommendation

was that USDA-AMS work to support all types of

direct marketing—farmers markets, on-farm marketing, CSA farms, agricultural tourism, food service

sales, etc. Focus groups also expressed concern that

the needs of direct marketing should be balanced

with other agricultural marketing needs so as not to

create unrealistic expectations about farmer direct

marketing opportunities.

Using Existing Expertise—An additional recommendation for USDA-AMS is to use available

expertise in direct marketing throughout the country

in various agencies when sponsoring conferences,

workshops, and training; in conducting research; and

in producing publications and other products.

Possible Programmatic Responses to

Identified Needs

The needs the focus groups identified provide many

opportunities for USDA-AMS to respond.

Clearinghouse—One role for USDA-AMS is to

coordinate the gathering and dissemination of

information and data. Information should be reviewed for quality of content. Information on

consumer trends was a common interest. This role is

being addressed by USDA-AMS through its direct

marketing website.

Grants—The participants considered grant funds to

support marketing initiatives to be important and

necessary. They expressed the opinion that USDA

should encourage and fund innovative direct marketing initiatives through the Federal-State Marketing

Improvement Program or other departmental

resources. Participants pointed to reauthorization of

funds under the 1976 Direct Marketing Act as one

way to increase funds for direct marketing.

Broader Government Agency Support—Beyond

funding, USDA-AMS could leverage support from

sister USDA agencies and other government depart-
26

ments. Specific agencies and departments to approach for direct marketing support include: USDA’s

Rural Development, Farm Service Agency, Forest

Service, Food and Nutrition Service, ExtensionSmall Farm or Sustainable Agriculture Research and

Education programs; the Small Business Administration; and the Departments of Education, Labor, and

Housing and Urban Development. A common

channel should communicate efforts on behalf of

other agencies or departments to improve the

distribution of information and access to programs.

Participants considered access to government

programs by small farmers and direct marketers a

problem, and voiced specific concerns over the

lending practices of the Farm Service Agency and

access to disaster payments. They also expressed the

belief that USDA-AMS could influence State and

local government programs to support direct marketing.

Regulatory Relevance—Direct marketers need

cross-department or -agency efforts to ensure that

regulations are relevant. Departments and agencies

to consult include: Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Human Services, Food

and Nutrition Service, Food Safety and Inspection

Service, and others, as appropriate. To ensure that

regulations are relevant, departments should provide

“best direct marketing management guidelines” that

the regulators could adopt and marketers could

follow.

Regulatory Compliance—USDA-AMS could

provide information to help direct marketers remain

abreast of changing regulations. A regulatory checklist or compliance manual would help.

Key Contacts and Information Dissemination—

In each State, marketers should identify key direct

marketing contacts in State departments of agriculture, Extension, and groups outside government

engaged in promoting direct marketing. These

contacts could disseminate information.

Association Development and Support—Another

means to disseminate information, State-level farmer

direct marketing associations or networks exist in

some States but should be encouraged in all States.

A strong national trade association, similar to the

Produce Marketing Association that tracks consumer

trends, could provide data on the size of the industry

and research performance standards for farmer

direct marketing. The North American Farmers’

Direct Marketing Association eventually might play

this role.

Research and Data Collection—By setting research priorities and defining a template for research

or case studies, marketers could collect comparable

results that they could use to build a national database of information on direct marketing while

recognizing regional differences and opportunities.

Many focus group participants said this collection

was important because data currently available on

direct marketing are viewed as both inaccurate and

incomplete. Accurate data are also needed to gain

more support for direct marketing from government

and other sources.

Consumer and Market Research—Concerns

about the future of direct marketing could ease by

providing marketers with information on consumer

trends and emerging niche market opportunities.

Marketers need information to make informed

decisions in response to changing marketing conditions. Most producers do not have the capacity to do

research, which could be a valuable role for USDAAMS. Indeed, many Federal-State Marketing

Improvement Program grants already support

projects that assess the feasibility of niche marketing

opportunities.

Strengthening Producer and Consumer Linkages—Marketers identified stronger linkages between producers and consumers as a way to expand

direct marketing. As an example, this approach

might link rural farmers and urban consumers

through CSA-type arrangements or have groups
27

such as churches sponsor farmers markets or otherwise support a group of small farmers. An inventory

of innovative ways to link producers and consumers

could promote other such efforts.

Access to Quality Wholesale Produce—As farmer

direct marketing businesses have grown, farmers are

spending less time growing and more time marketing. This trend necessitates that they purchase

produce locally or through regional wholesale

markets. USDA-AMS could facilitate networks

between local growers and farm marketers. Marketers also expressed concern about the quality of

produce available through wholesale terminal

markets. USDA-AMS has a historical role of working with wholesale terminal markets and could

investigate issues related to product quality at

terminal markets. As an alternative, auction markets

in Pennsylvania are an increasingly common source

of produce purchases by farm marketers. USDA

could investigate methods of linking farm marketers

with local growers.

Expanding Market Channels—Several farm

marketers and facilitators indicated an interest in

selling to schools or government institutions, but the

internal agency purchasing practices and government regulations present barriers. USDA-AMS

could investigate the nature of these barriers and

identify ways to overcome them so those local

growers could sell directly to institutions. Manuals

on how to sell to schools or the government interested focus group participants.

Promotion—Focus group participants suggested

that USDA-AMS become a partner in supporting

promotional efforts organized by States and marketing associations. They expressed the opinion that

USDA should promote U.S. agriculture in general

and that providing resource materials to educate

youth and consumers about farming and the food

system was an appropriate role. They saw a national

promotional campaign that educates consumers

about the benefits of supporting local farmers as a

way to increase demand for farmer-direct-marketed

products.

How-To Information—Less experienced marketers were eager to obtain information on a variety of

direct marketing subjects, such as information on

getting started, potential costs and returns, and new

opportunities and marketing methods such as pickyour-own operations, CSA, farm markets, agricultural tourism, entertainment farming, and selling at

farmers markets. They considered case studies,

successful models, and best marketing methods to be

instructive. Of particular interest was the potential

for Internet marketing of farm products. In addition

to written information, they saw workshops, tours,

videos, and conferences as valuable means of communicating information and sharing new ideas.

Performance Standards—Many businesses have

performance standards they use to measure progress.

Because direct marketing is so diverse, it may be

difficult to develop standard measures. Marketers

asked for some common measures such as advertising or labor costs as a percentage of sales, sales per

square foot, inventory turnover, etc. They could

gather this information through a network of university specialists who would collect and compile

comparable data for their region into a national

summary of performance standards for direct marketing.
28
29

A capstone activity in each focus group was eliciting

information needs in an otherwise frictionless

“perfect world.” At the conclusion of each focus

group meeting, participants were asked to share

their views of the most critical needs to address.

Specific suggestions, in the words of focus group

participants, were recorded on-screen and verified

for accuracy by the person contributing the comment. “Perfect world” responses are listed in tables 1

and 2. Tables 3 and 4 summarize discussions and list

potential responses to issues raised in discussions.

The specific suggestions will help USDA-AMS to

support direct marketing. Suggestions must be

compatible with the mission of USDA-AMS, considering whether the suggestion is an appropriate

function of a Federal agency, State agency, or private

organization; what could be accomplished with

available resources; and which suggestions would

produce the most benefits.

An overriding theme was education for both producers and consumers. With this dual emphasis, producers’ skills and consumer interest were considered less

problematic in pre-focus group survey responses. At

the end of focus group meetings, however, both

marketers and facilitators suggested directing more

information resources toward tracking consumer

Perfect World Summary

trends and educating consumers about the farm and

food system. Supply-side information needs that

were expressed ranged in scope from technical

information on food safety and regulations to

information on new or emerging products adaptable

to direct sale.

Direct Marketing Outlook

Focus group participants offered generally positive

outlooks for direct marketing. They saw strategies

that strengthen linkages between farmers and

consumers as a way to increase demand and direct

marketing sales. Linkages that are developing and

are likely to result in expanded opportunities include: private-public partnerships, tourism connections, urban-rural links, farmer-restaurant and food

service sales, farmer-school and government links,

joint promotion of farm and food products, and

more support for farmers through a better consumer

and community understanding of agriculture’s

contributions. USDA-AMS, further developing its

direct marketing action plan, has the opportunity to

promote linkages that improve access to markets for

small farmers and to achieve its mission of facilitating efficient, dependable, and equitable marketing of

agricultural products.
30

Table 1. Marketers: Facilitating Direct Marketing in a “Perfect World”

• Network and sharing of marketing ideas, including

the web.

• Periodicals and publications?

• Gathering and ensuring accessibility of information—consumers, growing, enterprise data, new

varieties.

• Education for the consumer: local farms and

benefits of communities' farm base.

• Promotion efforts, especially farm tours: a “how-to”

guide would help.

• Good information on food safety and more perspective or context for the risks one may assume when

consuming food.

• More advocacy for farming and food products.

• The perfect website: links to people who can speak

on regulations; lighting and displays; marketing and

creating scarcity; entertainment worlds (but this is

against the grain because farmers are independent

and do not want to be put in boxes).

• Education: farmers are a tough audience, resistant

to abrupt change, though 90 percent of the information they need is the same; what is left are the

information niches for the other 10 percent.

• Intergenerational transfer of the farm business.

• Industry standards: labor, advertising, parking and

facilities layout; profit margins.

• Anticipate trends.

• There needs to be program information ... dissemination of information to people who need it—e.g.,

market information and complementary info, public

service announcements, etc.

• Need more local farmers markets—within reasonable distance from producers.

• Tie-in with local restaurants, supermarkets, etc.

• Product identification—need for training, learning

for younger generation nationwide.

• Facilitate the flow of information; e.g., directed to

the school system. A clearinghouse or centralized

information system.

• Continue to provide trained specialists—role model

• Consumer education focus—mixed message with

encouraging imports while encouraging farmers to

be productive. Can’t compete with cheap imports.

Funds into and info on direct marketing for both

consumers and farmers.

• Cooperatives for enabling delivery of produce to

community.

• Streamline the process farmers need to satisfy to get

anything done. Cut back on red tape.

• Technical assistance. “Armchair” administration—

no sense about the reality of the situation on the

farm level. Funding with quicker turn around really

helpful. Regulations—changing the rules too often.

County-level administration in terms of regulations.

• Get the word out to people so they know you’re

there. “America has the safest food in the world.”

Quell the fears. Be a part of the media in enabling a

positive environment.

• Local USDA and Extension—is there a way they

can help market products? We can grow them;

where do we sell? Specific product marketing

knowledge is needed.

• Limited information on organics from USDA.

Extension does not seem to want to work with

farmers in relation to organics. Educate Extension.

• Directory of producers. Organic farming production of crops. Cooperative organization needed to

get recognition for farmers.

• More information integration with application

systems that are user-friendly. Seminars on grant

writing. Info on availability of grants. Eligibility

standards of submissions.

• USDA recruitment of young people for county

agent jobs.

Grand Rapids Memphis
31

Sturbridge

• Resources—training to meet

consumer demands; support

Cooperative Extension and work

on finding people interested in

direct marketing.

• Make available information

that’s simple, useful, and easily

understandable.

• Farmers market that will make

both consumers and farmers

eager to “come-look-see.”

• Nutritional information that

educates in a better way. Also on

the level that is pragmatic; e.g.,

school system.

• A lifeline between small farmers

and city people; e.g., inner city.

Support to start markets with

built-in incentives.

• Market startup, organization,

revolving funds, seed money.

• Direct marketing positions

shared by State organizations

and associations, internships,

universities, State depts. of ag

and farmers. Volunteer recruitment included in this design.

• Fewer people learning to cook.

Consumer education.

• Quality control for better and

universal standards.

• Price and volume reporting for

more crops and locations.

• Marketing concepts and information for small producers.

• No farmers will apply for food

stamps.

• Training: make available and

identify information on marketing opportunity—what’s selling

where?

• Available consultants who know

the marketplace and conduct

training—include incentive

training that’s market specific

(diversification, etc.).

• Information sources available to

facilitators and consumers that is

useful “at the moment” databased information. “How-to” on

market research. Tie in to Small

Business Administration;

training on entrepreneurship.

• Education and information more

accessible in layman’s terms.

Starter kits. Publish success

stories.

• Make farming an attractive occupation.

• Identify and describe 25 new

products with cost and return

information.

• Sources of information on a range

of products, especially new and

emerging products.

• Convene group to ID research and

capacity building networks and

rewards for regional collaboration.

• More emphasis and clarity on

research projects related to direct

marketing; streamline the application process; recover more information from the grants process.

• Reorient effort to technical assistance and demo projects.

• Get USDA out of the "running

farmer's market business"; direct

marketing is building local capacity.

• Increased info on value-added

products and marketing channels.

• Continue assembly of existing

materials and build in the direct

marketing piece.

• Demand information: market

capacity; size of market (get the

whole picture on the business plan

and its feasibility).

• Integrate across agencies and derive

some regulatory "best management

practices" for direct marketing.

• Model incubator facilities

• Access to capital and grants for

business development; think about

the continuum and entry points for

USDA vs. States.

• Inventory "who is doing what" in

direct marketing.

• If there is money, they will come.

Table 2. Facilitators: Facilitating Direct Marketing in a “Perfect World”

• 1,000 interns assembling

information—all USDA funded.

• Facilitate networking.

• Market meat and milk as easily

as vegetables and fruit.

• Farmers make money and

sustain the business and family.

• No farmland loss.

• Adequate data.

• Bridge the big farm-small farm

gulf; promote diversity.

• Community-supported agriculture.

• USDA continues the dialogue

on these issues.

• USDA comes up with a more

viable farm system.

• Cities recognize importance of

farmers markets vs. other

infrastructure.

• USDA is the cash cow for direct

marketing efforts.

• Process for moving the business

from production to direct

marketing.

• Farmers overcome their fear of

cooperation.

• Facilitating private and public

health, including nutrition

issues.

• Nutrition education—what food

is and where it comes from.

• Funding: a balanced support of

local marketing vs. export

marketing.

• USDA, farmers, nongovernmental organizations act like

a big family.

Grand Rapids Memphis
32

Producer marketing skills • Programs that help producers become better marketers

• Better outreach to all marketers

• Tools for evaluating markets, recommendations for improvements

• Tools for improved marketing (successful models, etc.)

• Tours, conferences, workshop, training

Labor: availability, cost, regulations • Employee and management training

• Cost-effective benefits and incentives packages

• Streamlined regulations, easier to comply

Increasing income • Prices that generate a livable wage

• Alternative products and activities to increase sales

• Agri-entertainment and tourism activities

• Year-round selling strategies

• Value-added product and service strategies

• Efforts to attract/retain customers

Finance: ease of obtaining credit • Less cumbersome process for obtaining government loans

• Business profiles that offer evidence of performance potential

• Information and training for lenders

• Targeted loan program for direct marketing enterprises

Regulations: at all levels • Relevant regulations

• Regulatory checklist

• Best management practices for meeting regulatory requirements

• Remaining informed about and complying with regulatory changes

• Uniform enforcement between agencies and levels of government

• Identifying solutions to regulatory impediments and marketing barriers

Location issues • How to attract customers to rural locations

• How to access consumers in urban centers

• Estimating trade and sales potential

• Matching operation type to location and customer base

• Land costs and controls

Competition (price, customers): • Maintaining high product quality, service, experience

Internal and external • Emphasizing unique farm attributes

• Joint promotion efforts

• Consumer education

Technical assistance • Producer selling skills

• Facilities: design, layout, features, operations

• Business information: costs and returns

• How to get started

• Business decision-making tools

• Tools for assessing business performance

• Access to knowledgeable experts (in Extension, ag departments, organizations)

• Who to call for help

• Training for facilitators

• Meeting regulatory requirements and ensuring food safety

Table 3. Summary Challenges, Information Needs, and Potential Responses*

Challenges, Information Needs Potential Responses
33

Anticipating consumer trends • Information on demographic trends, shopping habits

• Understanding consumer perceptions (surveys)

• Identifying niche consumer markets

Future farmers • Attracting new farmers to direct marketing

• Introduction to market gardening courses

• Information about business potential and success stories

• Business planning assistance

• Estate planning assistance

Grants and funding • How to write a grant

• What grants are available

• Grants addressing marketing concerns

• Grants for innovative demonstration projects

Research • Data on industry size, scope, multiplier effect

• Business-level economic information

• Costs and returns by market channel

• Consumer trends information

• Feasibility studies: new products, new markets, diversification, etc.

• Business performance studies, industry standards

• Case studies

• Market channel requirements

• Regulatory and institutional barriers

Consumer education • Benefits of local purchases and supporting local farms

• Helping reduce confusion over food safety

• Promotional strategies—effective ways of reaching consumers

• Ag education programs for use in various settings including at farms

Government farm and food policies • Support for direct marketing opportunities

• Ease of getting loans

• Trade policy impacts

• Balancing direct marketing with other ag marketing needs

*Based on participant input and translated into an action that might address challenge or need.

Table 3. Summary Challenges, Information Needs, and Potential Responses* (concluded)

Challenges, Information Needs Potential Responses
34

Collaboration • Work with sister USDA agencies, State depts. of agriculture, State/

county Extension services, nongovernmental organizations, and industry

associations.

• Forge public-private networks.

• Coordinate regional working groups.

• Facilitate information exchange.

Balanced approach • Work in support of all types of direct marketing methods.

• Balance direct marketing needs with other ag marketing needs.

• Avoid creating unrealistic expectations for direct marketing.

Use existing expertise • Draw upon experts when sponsoring conferences and workshops,

offering training, conducting research, producing publications, etc.

• Build upon expertise and increase capacity to address needs.

Clearinghouse • Gather and disseminate information through appropriate networks (State

ag depts, Extension, associations, organizations)

• Assure quality of content.

• Monitor website use and measure multiplier effect.

• Identify best means of getting information to targeted audiences.

Grants • Support innovation through grant opportunities.

• Continue Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program funding.

• Seek reauthorization of funds via 1976 Direct Marketing Act.

• Establish grant program priorities via RFP announcements.

Enlist government agency support • Leverage support from sister USDA agencies and other government

departments.

• Coordinate communication and outreach regarding the availability of

program support via clearinghouse or network.

• Inform State and local governments about direct marketing opportunities.

• Address barriers imposed by department or agency regulations.

Regulatory relevance • Conduct cross-department or agency efforts to ensure consistency.

• Review regulations for their relevance to direct marketing.

• Interpret regulations for direct marketers so they can be made relevant.

• Suggest best management practices for regulatory compliance.

• Ensure State and Federal regulatory conformity.

• Suggest relevant regulations for State and local regulators.

• Enact meat marketing regulations that permit direct marketing.

Regulatory compliance • Help direct marketers remain informed about changing regulations.

• Publish a regulatory checklist and compliance manual.

Key contacts • Identify key contacts in each State for information dissemination.

• Publish a contact directory.

• Support regular networking opportunities to enhance State level efforts.

Association development • Encourage State-level farmer direct marketing associations.

and support • Support a strong national association.

• Use associations as a key means to disseminate information.

Potential USDA-AMS Role

Table 4. Implications for USDA-AMS Programs Summary

Alternative Strategies for Implementation
35

Research and data collection • Establish research priorities based on challenges, needs (table 3).

• Define a template for collecting comparable data that contribute to a

national database.

• Collect data that describes the scope and size of direct marketing at a

national and State level.

• Collect producer-level data and economic information.

• Gather pricing information, setting a realistic price.

Consumer and market research • Information on consumer trends.

• Information about emerging niche opportunities.

Strengthening producer and • Encourage (via grants or other means of support) innovative arrange

consumer linkages ments that link producers and consumers (restaurant-farmer networks,

church-farmer networks, etc.).

• Inventory and publish existing innovative arrangements.

Accessing quality wholesale products • Link local farm markets to local farms for wholesale sales.

• Encourage alternative arrangements, such as auctions or cooperatives, as

a means of improving access to local farm products.

Expand market channels • Identify practices and procedures for selling directly to schools or

government institutions.

• Work to eliminate barriers for local sales.

Promotion • Become a partner in supporting promotional efforts by States and

marketing associations.

• Create consumer awareness of the benefits of supporting local farms.

How-to information • Basic-level information on getting started, marketing methods.

• Strategies for transitioning to direct marketing.

• Business plans.

• Business decision-making information, costs, and returns.

• New opportunities, ideas.

• Case studies, success stories, models, best marketing methods.

• Requirements for selling to restaurants, institutions, schools, ethnic

groups, etc.

• Pricing strategies.

• Published price information.

Performance standards • Identify common measures to help assess business performance benchmark information, rules of thumb.

• Provide expected costs and returns by market channel.

Potential USDA-AMS Role

Table 4. Implications for USDA-AMS Programs Summary (concluded)

Alternative Strategies for Implementation
36
37

APPENDIXES

Appendix 1. Focus Group Participants

Appendix 1. Focus Group Participants ■ 1-1

States and organizations of participants:

Connecticut

1. Connecticut Cooperative Extension

2. Connecticut Department of Agriculture

3. Hartford Food System

Delaware

4. University of Delaware – Cooperative Extension

Maine

5. Maine Department of Agriculture

6. Maine-Cumberland County Extension

Maryland

7. Maryland Department of Agriculture

Massachusetts

8. American Farmland Trust

9. Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture

10. Massachusetts Association of Roadside Stands

11. Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts

12. North American Farmers’ Direct Marketing Association

New Jersey

13. New Jersey Department of Agriculture

New York

14. Dutchess County Cooperative Extension

15. New York State Department of Agriculture &

Markets

Pennsylvania

16. Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

17. Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension

Rhode Island

18. Rhode Island Department of Agriculture

Vermont

19. Vermont Department of Agriculture, Food &

Markets

Sturbridge Facilitators

Grand Rapids Facilitators

States and organizations of participants:

Kentucky

1. Commodity Growers Cooperative Association

Illinois

2. Wauconda Orchards

Missouri

3. Missouri Department of Agriculture

Wisconsin

4. School of Agriculture

University of Wisconsin-Platteville

Minnesota

5. Minnesota Department of Agriculture

Iowa

6. Drake University Law School

West Virginia

7. West Virginia Department of Agriculture

Michigan

8. Michigan Apple Committee

Idaho

9. University of Idaho Cooperative Extension

Okalahoma

10. The Kerr Center, Inc.
1-2 ■ Appendix 1. Focus Group Participants

States and cities of participants:

Iowa

1. Fort Dodge

Ohio

2. West Jefferson

Illinois

3. Belleville

4. Poplar Grove

Colorado

5. Boulder

Grand Rapids Marketers

Arizona

6. Wilcox

Oklahoma

7. Porter

Missouri

8. Waverly

Oregon

9. Aurora

Nebraska

10. Gretna

States and organizations of participants:

Alabama

1. Federation of Southern Cooperatives

2. Tuskegee University

Arkansas

3. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas -

ATTRA

4. Sustainable Agriculture Working Group

5. Heifer Project International

Louisiana

6. Economics Institute

Memphis Facilitators

Mississippi

7. Alcorn State University

South Carolina

8. Seeds of Hope Farmers Market

Tennessee

9. Tennessee Alternative Growers Association

Texas

10. Texas Department of Agriculture
Appendix 1. Focus Group Participants ■ 1-3

States and cities of participants:

Alabama

1. Marbury

2. Midway

Georgia

3. Ellijay

Louisiana

4. New Orleans

5. Washington

6. New Orleans

Memphis Marketers

Mississippi

8. Smithdale

9. Petal

10. Tylertow

Missouri

11. Rockville

12. Hermitage

13. Osceola

Tennessee

14. Millington

15. Stanton

Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials ■ 2-1

Page

Participant Brochure—Facilitators........................................................................................................................................ 2-2

Participant Brochure—Marketers ......................................................................................................................................... 2-4

Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire—Facilitators ..................................................................................................................... 2-6

Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire—Marketers ...................................................................................................................... 2-8

Post-Focus Group Questionnaire—Facilitators ................................................................................................................. 2-10

Post-Focus Group Questionnaire—Marketers ................................................................................................................... 2-12

Follow-up Survey—Facilitators ........................................................................................................................................... 2-14

Follow-up Survey—Marketers ............................................................................................................................................ 2-16

Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials

Contents
Why are we here?

We would like you to help us....

❁ understand how producers view direct marketing

activities

❁ determine to what extent information is a challenge

in facilitating direct marketing of agricultural

products

❁ explore and understand how producers who want

to use direct marketing channels find and use

information

❁ understand how information affects the decision to

sell into direct markets

❁ identify any crucial information gaps

❁ brainstorm about useful information products

❁ explore steps that USDA can take to enhance

direct marketing

❁ determine recurring problems faced by producers

who rely on direct marketing channels

Why are we using focus groups?

We are using focus groups because...

❁ it’s a way to explore specific issues

❁ we can choose participants who can give us a

more accurate picture of the potential users of

information services

❁ it’s an especially useful tool for brainstorming

2-2 ■ Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials

Participant Brochure

Facilitators

What happens next?

The results of our discussions will be used in...

❁ a report of findings

❁ policy discussions at USDA

❁ planning additional information programs

❁ longer term outcomes

What’s on for today?

8:00-8:30 a.m.

Arrival

❁ Morning refreshments

8:30-9:00 a.m.

Introductions and Orientation

❁ Members of the focus group team and their roles

❁ Purpose of focus group

❁ USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service and direct

marketing

9:30-10:00 a.m.

How would you describe your role as a facilitator of

direct marketing?

❁ What role do you play in promoting/facilitating

direct marketing?

❁ Which direct marketing method(s) are you primarily

involved with?

❁ What innovative techniques/strategies have you

initiated to expand existing programs or the

startup of new ones?

❁ Please share a success story from your experiences working with direct marketers.
Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials ■ 2-3

10:00-10:15 a.m.

Break

10:15-11:00 a.m.

What are the challenges/constraints you face as

facilitators of direct marketing?

❁ What are the major issues or problems you encounter when working with direct marketing?

❁ Which direct marketing channels are growing or

shrinking?

❁ Where is direct marketing headed in the next 5

years?

❁ What do you consider as your most important

current and future challenge(s) as a facilitator

of direct marketing?

11:00-11:30 a.m.

How do you face the challenges in direct marketing?

❁ What are the possible solutions to the challenges

you face?

❁ What information needs accompany these solutions?

❁ Where are the information gaps?

11:30-12:15 p.m.

Lunch

12:15-12:30 p.m.

Summary of morning session

Discussion of the Pre-Focus Group Survey Results

12:30-1:15 p.m.

In a perfect world ...

❁ What information and assistance are important to

you?

❁ How would you like to get this information (print,

electronic, other)?

❁ How can USDA better facilitate direct marketing?

1:15-1:30 p.m.

Post-Focus Group Questionnaire

Wrap-up

1:30-2:00 p.m.

Demonstration of USDA Web Page

HAVE A SAFE TRIP HOME

Please note that focus group results cannot be used to draw conclusions that can

be generalized to all individuals involved in facilitating direct marketing. All

individual information collected in this focus group will be kept strictly confidential. All reports from this activity will be presented in aggregate form.
2-4 ■ Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials

Why are we here?

We would like you to help us....

❁ understand how producers view direct marketing

activities

❁ determine to what extent information is a challenge

in facilitating direct marketing of

agricultural products

❁ explore and understand how producers who want

to use direct marketing channels find and use

information

❁ understand how information affects the decision to

sell into direct markets

❁ identify any crucial information gaps

❁ brainstorm about useful information products

❁ explore steps that USDA can take to enhance

direct marketing

❁ determine recurring problems faced by producers

who rely on direct marketing channels

Why are we using focus groups?

We are using focus groups because...

❁ it’s a way to explore specific issues

❁ we can choose participants who can give us a

more accurate picture of the potential users

of information services

❁ it’s an especially useful tool for brainstorming

Participant Brochure

Marketers

What happens next?

The results of our discussions will be used in...

❁ a report of findings

❁ policy discussions at USDA

❁ planning additional information programs

❁ longer term outcomes

What’s on for today?

8:00-8:30 a.m.

Arrival

❁ Morning refreshments

8:30-9:00 a.m.

Introductions and Orientation

❁ Members of the focus group team and their roles

❁ Purpose of focus group

❁ USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service and direct

marketing

9:30-10:00 a.m.

How would you describe your role as a facilitator of

direct marketing?

❁ Which direct marketing method(s) are you primarily

involved with?

❁ What innovative techniques/strategies have you

initiated to expand existing programs or the

startup of new ones?

❁ Please share a success story from your experiences working with direct marketers.
Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials ■ 2-5

10:00-10:15 a.m.

Break

10:15-11:00 a.m.

What are the challenges or constraints you face as

facilitators of direct marketing?

❁ What are the major issues or problems you encounter when working with direct marketing?

❁ Which direct marketing channels are growing or

shrinking?

❁ Where is direct marketing headed in the next 5

years?

❁ What do you consider as your most important

current and future challenge(s) as a direct marketer?

11:00-11:30 a.m.

How do you face the challenges in direct marketing?

❁ What are the possible solutions to the challenges

you face?

❁ What information needs accompany these solutions?

❁ Where are the information gaps?

11:30-12:15 p.m.

Lunch

12:15-12:30 p.m.

Summary of morning session

Discussion of the Pre-Focus Group Survey Results

12:30-1:15 p.m.

In a perfect world ...

❁ What information and assistance are important to

you?

❁ How would you like to get this information (print,

electronic, other)?

❁ How can USDA better facilitate direct marketing?

1:15-1:30 p.m.

Post-Focus Group Questionnaire

Wrap-up

1:30-2:00 p.m.

Demonstration of USDA Web Page

HAVE A SAFE TRIP HOME

Please note that focus group results cannot be used to draw conclusions that can

be generalized to all direct marketers.

All individual information collected in this focus group will be kept strictly

confidential. All reports from this activity will be presented in aggregate form.
2-6 ■ Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials

1. You are...(Please circle ALL that apply.)

1 State Department of Agriculture 4 Market Manager

2 Extension Educator 5 Producer

3 Academic 6 Other (Please specify.)

2. In your opinion, to what extent are the following factors a problem for you in your work with direct marketers? (Please circle ONE response for each

factor.)

A problem

no one A big A slight Not a No Opinion

can solve problem problem problem

a. Producer marketing skills-------------- 1 2 3 40

b. Insurance ------------------------------------ 1 2 3 40

c. Perceptions of costs

and returns ---------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

d. Consumer interest ------------------------ 1 2 3 4 0

e. Short seasons ----------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

f. Information and networking ----------- 1 2 3 4 0

g. Financial capacity ------------------------ 1 2 3 4 0

h. Technical assistance/grants ---------- 1 2 3 4 0

i. Regulations --------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

j. Other (Please specify.)

_____________________________ 1 2 3 4 0

3. How could USDA play a more proactive role in providing assistance and/or developing and distributing information for the areas you have

identified as a “A big problem” in your work as a direct marketing facilitator (Question 2 above)?

4. Have you sought and/or received any USDA direct marketing related information or

assistance in the past 2 years? (Please circle ONE response for each column.)

Sought information Received information

1 Yes 2 No 1 Yes 2 No

5. What type of information or assistance? (Please circle ALL that apply.)

1 Technical 3 Funding

2 Marketing 4 Other (Please specify.)

Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire

Facilitators
Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials ■ 2-7

6. In general, how would you describe the quality of information you received from USDA? (Please circle ONE response.)

1 Excellent 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor

7. How did you get this USDA information? (Please circle ALL that apply.)

1 Direct mail 3 Phone 5 Trade show 7 Other (Please specify.)

2 Internet (Web, e-mail) 4 FAX 6 Conference

8. Please indicate how important each of the following are as sources of direct marketing information. (Please circle ONE number per source.)

Very Somewhat Not at all No

Important Important Important opinion

a. USDA -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

b. State department of agriculture -------------------------- 1 2 3 0

c. Extension -------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

d. State university academia --------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

e. Nonprofit organization -------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

f. Trade associations ------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

g. Trade journals and publications ------------------------- 1 2 3 0

h. Contacts and networking ---------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

i. Conferences ---------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

j. Consultants ----------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

k. Market managers ---------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

l. Growers ---------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

m. Other (Please specify.)

__________________________________________1 2 3 0

9. How important is it that USDA become more involved in...

Very Somewhat Not at all No

Important Important Important opinion

a. Farmers markets -------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

b. Public markets ----------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

c. Roadside markets ------------------------------------------------ 1 2 3 0

d. CSA’s (community-supported agriculture) --------------- 1 2 3 0

e. Internet marketing ------------------------------------------------ 1 2 3 0

f. Direct marketing to restaurants and institutions ------ 1 2 3 0

g. Small producers selling to schools and govt.

institutions ---------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

h. Internet dissemination of information --------------------- 1 2 3 0

i. Development of “how-to” manuals -------------------------- 1 2 3 0

On what subjects? (Please specify.)

____________________________________________ 1 2 3 0

____________________________________________ 1 2 3 0

j. Conferences -------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

k. Market manager training and certification --------------- 1 2 3 0

l. Data collection and applied research ---------------------- 1 2 3 0

m. Other (Please specify.)

____________________________________________ 1 2 3 0
2-8 ■ Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials

Marketers

1. Your direct marketing operation includes...(Please circle ALL that apply.)

Products Market Channels

(Please circle the products (Please circle the channels

which are raised on the farm) you use for your products)

1 Orchard 1 Pick-your-own operations

2 Berry crops 2 Farm market

3 Vegetables 3 Greenhouse

4 Pumpkins 4 Garden center

5 Greenhouse crops 5 Farmer’s market

6 Christmas trees 6 Festivals

7 Livestock products 7 Ag tourism

8 Other farm products (Please specify.) 8 Wholesale

9 Other (Please specify)

2. In your opinion, to what extent are the following factors a problem for your direct marketing business? (Please circle ONE response for each factor.)

A problem

no one A big A slight Not a No

can solve problem problem problem opinion

a. Producer marketing skills------------ 1 2 3 4 0

b. Insurance ---------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

c. Perceptions of costs

and returns -------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

d. Consumer interest ---------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

e. Short seasons --------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

f. Information and networking --------- 1 2 3 4 0

g. Financial capacity ---------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

h. Technical assistance and grants -- 1 2 3 4 0

i. Regulations ------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

j. Competition ------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

k. Labor issues ------------------------------ 1 2 3 4 0

l. Product quality -------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

m. Other (Please specify.)

____________________________ 1 2 3 4 0

3. How could USDA play a more proactive role in providing assistance and/or developing or distributing information for the areas you have

identified as a “a big problem” in your work as a direct marketing facilitator (Question 2 above)?

Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire
Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials ■ 2-9

4. Have you sought and/or received any USDA direct marketing related information or assistance in the past 2 years? (Please circle ONE response for

each column.)

Sought information Received information

1 Yes 2 No 1 Yes 2 No

5. What type of information or assistance? (Please circle ALL that apply.)

1 Technical 3 Funding

2 Marketing 4 Other (Please specify.)

6. In general, how would you describe the quality of information you received from USDA? (Please circle ONE response.)

1 Excellent 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor

7. How did you get this USDA information? (Please circle ALL that apply.)

1 Direct mail 3 Phone 5 Trade show 7 Other (Please specify.)

2 Internet (Web, e-mail) 4 Fax 6 Conference

8. Please indicate how important each of the following are as sources of direct marketing information. (Please circle ONE number per source.)

Very Somewhat Not at all No

Important Important Important opinion

a. USDA -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

b. State department of agriculture -------------------------- 1 2 3 0

c. Extension -------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

d. State university academia --------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

e. Nonprofit organization -------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

f. Trade associations ------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

g. Trade journals and publications ------------------------- 1 2 3 0

h. Contacts and networking ---------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

i. Conferences ---------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

j. Consultants ----------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

k. Market managers ---------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

l. Growers ---------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

m. Other (Please specify.)

__________________________________________1 2 3 0

9. How important is USDA becoming more involved in ....

Very Somewhat Not at all No

Important Important Important opinion

a. Farmers markets --------------------------------------------------- 1 2 30

b. Public markets ------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 3 0

c. Roadside markets ------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

d. CSA’s (community-supported agriculture) ---------------- 1 2 3 0

e. Internet marketing ------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

f. Direct marketing to restaurants and institutions ------- 1 2 3 0

g. Small producers selling to schools and government

institutions ----------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

h. Internet dissemination of information ---------------------- 1 2 3 0

i. Development of “how-to” manuals --------------------------- 1 2 3 0

j. Conferences --------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

 k. Market manager training and certification ---------------- 1 2 3 0

 l. Data collection and applied research—— ----------------- 1 2 3 0

 m. Other (Please specify.)

____________________________________________ 1 2 3 0
1. Based on our discussion today, how would you compare the problems and challenges associated with direct marketing in your State to those of

others in your region?

2. Reflecting on your response to Question 1 above, how would you now describe the extent to which the following factors are a problem for direct

marketing in your region? (Please circle ONE response for each factor.)

A problem

no one A big A slight Not a No

can solve problem problem problem opinion

a. Producer marketing skills------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

b. Insurance ----------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

c. Producer perceptions of

costs and returns ------------------------------ 1 2 3 4 0

d. Consumer interest ----------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

e. Short seasons ---------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

f. Information and networking ---------------- 1 2 3 4 0

g. Financial capacity ----------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

h. Technical assistance or grants------------ 1 2 3 4 0

i. Regulations -------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

j. Competition -------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

k. Labor issues ------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

l. Product quality --------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

m. Other (Please specify.)

________________________________ 1 2 3 4 0

3. Based on what you’ve heard from the group today, please indicate how important each of the following are as sources of direct marketing

information for direct marketing facilitators in your region. (Please circle ONE number per source.)

Very Somewhat Not at all No

Important Important Important opinion

a. USDA ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 3 0

b. State department of agriculture ------------------------------ 1 2 3 0

c. Extension ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 3 0

d. State university academia ------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

e. Nonprofit organizations ---------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

f. Trade associations ----------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

Post-Focus Group Questionnaire

2-10 ■ Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials

Facilitators
Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials ■ 2-11

g. Trade journals/publications ----------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

h. Contacts and networking -------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

i. Conferences -------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

j. Consultants --------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

k. Market managers -------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

l. Growers -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

m. Other (Please specify.)

____________________________________________ 1 2 3 0

4. Still thinking about your region, how important is it that the Agricultural Marketing Service of USDA become more involved in...

Very Somewhat Not at all No

Important Important Important opinion

a. Farmers markets -------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

b. Public markets ----------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

c. Roadside markets ------------------------------------------------ 1 2 3 0

d. CSA’s (community-supported

agriculture) ---------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

e. Internet marketing ------------------------------------------------ 1 2 3 0

f. Direct marketing to restaurants and institutions ------ 1 2 3 0

g. Small producers selling to schools and

government institutions ---------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

h. Internet dissemination of Information --------------------- 1 2 3 0

i. Development of “how-to” manuals -------------------------- 1 2 3 0

On what subjects? (Please specify.)

j. Conferences -------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

k. Market manager training and certification --------------- 1 2 3 0

l. Data collection and applied research ---------------------- 1 2 3 0

m . Other (Please specify.)

____________________________________________ 1 230
2-12 ■ Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials

Marketers

Post-Focus Group Questionnaire

1. Based on our discussion today, how would you compare the problems and challenges associated with direct marketing in your State to those of

others in your region?

2. Reflecting on your response to Question 1 above, how would you now describe the extent to which the following factors are a problem for direct

marketing businesses in your region? (Please circle ONE response for each factor.)

A problem

no one A big A slight Not a No

can solve problem problem problem opinion

a. Marketing skills ---------------------------- 1 2 3 40

b. Insurance ------------------------------------ 1 2 3 40

c. Expected costs and returns ----------- 1 2 3 4 0

d. Consumer interest ------------------------ 1 2 3 4 0

e. Short seasons ----------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

f. Information and networking ----------- 1 2 3 4 0

g. Financial capacity ------------------------ 1 2 3 4 0

h. Technical assistance and grants --- 1 2 3 4 0

i. Regulations --------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

j. Competition --------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

k. Labor issues -------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

l. Product quality ---------------------------- 1 2 3 4 0

m. Other (Please specify.)

____________________________ 1 2 3 4 0

3. Based on what you’ve heard from the group today, please indicate how important each of the following are as sources of direct marketing

information for direct marketing businesses in your region. (Please circle ONE number per source.)

Very Somewhat Not at all No

Important Important Important opinion

a. USDA -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

b. State Department of Agriculture ------------------------- 1 2 3 0

c. Extension -------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

d. State university academia --------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

e. Nonprofit organizations ------------------------------------ 1 2 3 0

f. Trade associations ------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

g. Trade journals and publications ------------------------- 1 2 3 0
Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials ■ 2-13

h. Contacts and networking ---------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

i. Conferences ---------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

j. Consultants ----------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

k. Market managers ---------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

l. Growers ---------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 0

m. Other (Please specify.)

_________________________________________ 1 2 30

4. Still thinking about your region, how important is it that the Agricultural Marketing

Service of USDA become more involved in...

Very Somewhat Not at all No

Important Important Important opinion

a. Farmers markets ------------------------------------------------1 2 3 0

b. Public markets ---------------------------------------------------1 2 3 0

c. Roadside Markets-----------------------------------------------1 2 3 0

d. CSA’s (community-supported agriculture) ------------- 1 2 3 0

e. Internet marketing ----------------------------------------------1 2 3 0

f. Direct marketing to restaurants and

institutions --------------------------------------------------------1 2 3 0

g. Small producers selling to schools and

government institutions --------------------------------------1 2 3 0

h. Internet dissemination of information -------------------1 2 3 0

i. Development of “how-to”manuals ------------------------1 2 3 0

On what subjects? (Please specify.)

__________________________________________ 1 2 3 0

__________________________________________ 1 2 3 0

j. Conferences 1 2 3 0

k. Market manager training and certification 1 2 3 0

l. Data collection and applied research 1 2 3 0

m. Other (Please specify.)

__________________________________________ 1 2 30
1. Years of experience working with direct marketers. ______ Years

2. What areas of direct marketing are you currently working in? (Please circle ONE number for each area.)

No, I am not Active and a Active but a

currently active here major focus minor focus

a. Farmers markets 1 2 3

b. Roadside stands 1 2 3

c. Pick-your-own 1 2 3

d. CSA’s subscription farms 1 2 3

e. Connecting farmers with

restaurants, specialty food

stores, institutions 1 2 3

f. Organic foods 1 2 3

g. Specialty crops 1 2 3

h. Value added processing 1 2 3

i. Ag tourism; farm trails 1 2 3

j. Livestock marketing 1 2 3

k. Specialty marketing 1 2 3

l. Cooperatives 1 2 3

m. Direct marketing associations 1 2 3

n. International market development 1 2 3

o. Other (Please specify.)

______________________________ 1 2 3

3. Describe the kind of support or services related to direct marketing that your organization or agency provides. (Please circle ONE number for each

support or service.)

No, this is not Provided and a Provided but a

currently provided major focus minor focus

a. Newsletters 1 2 3

b. Publications and fact sheets 1 2 3

c. Conferences and workshops 1 2 3

d. Tours 1 2 3

e. Case studies and research

projects 1 2 3

f. Surveys and data gathering

and assembly 1 2 3

g. Promotion 1 2 3

h. Training 1 2 3

i. Consultation 1 2 3

j. Electronic services

(e.g., e-mail, listserve,

websites, etc.) 1 2 3

k. Resource materials 1 2 3

l. Market development 1 2 3

m. Other (Please specify.)

___________________________________ 1 2 3

2-14 ■ Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials

Facilitators

Followup Survey
4. In which of these support or service activities does your organization or agency have the greatest need for outside assistance?

5. Which of the following best describes your agency’s current ability to respond to requests for assistance and information on direct marketing

issues? (Please circle ONE response.)

1 EXCELLENT, almost all requests are met using agency resources

2 GOOD, at least half of all requests are met using agency resources

3 FAIR, less than half are met by agency resources or referrals to other agencies

4 POOR, neither agency resources or knowledge of other referral agencies can meet requests

5 None of the above describes our ability to respond. (Please elaborate.)

6. How, if at all, have these requests changed in the last 3 years?

7. How would you assess the situation and outlook for direct marketing in your State over the next 5 years?

Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials ■ 2-15
2-16 ■ Appendix 2. Focus Group Materials 58

Marketers

1. Years of experience in direct marketing. ______ years

3. What were your gross sales for your business in the 1998 calendar year?

(Please circle ONE response.)

1 Under $50,000 3 $100,000-$500,000

2 $50,000-$99,999 4 Over $500,000

4. What percent of your 1998 gross sales came from the direct marketing of products

and services? (Please circle ONE response.)

1 Under 10% 4 51%-75%

2 10%-25% 5 More than 75%

3 26%-50%

5. Describe the kind of support/services you believe are useful to direct marketers.

(Please circle ONE number for each support or service.)

Very Useful Somewhat Useful Not Useful

a. Newsletters 1 2 3

b. Publications and fact sheets 1 2 3

c. Conferences and workshops 1 2 3

d. Tours 1 2 3

e. Case studies and research

projects 1 2 3

f. Surveys and data gathering

and assembly 1 2 3

g. Promotion 1 2 3

h. Training 1 2 3

i. Consultation 1 2 3

j. Electronic services

(e.g., e-mail, listserve,

websites, etc.) 1 2 3

k. Resource materials 1 2 3

l. Market development 1 2 3

m. Other (Please specify.)

__________________________________ 1 2 3

6. In which of these support or service activities do you have the most need for outside assistance?

7. How would you assess the situation and outlook for direct marketing in your State over the next 5 years?

Followup Survey
59
60