Farmers Fight Back With an Alliance

Farmers are pissed. Campaigns to expose bad farming conditions and animal rights violation have finally forced farm groups to step up and respond. The U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance was formed in November. “Farmers Create New Alliance to Fight Bad Publicity” by The Associated Press reports the purpose of the Alliance is “to improve farmers’ public image and advocate for what they describe as more farm-friendly policies”.

So far there isn’t a clear plan. The article reports social media will be used to showcase good farmers so as to balance out the images of bad farmers. The campaign will not involve ads. As spokeswoman Cindy Hackmann put it “We need to have a conversation instead of plastering an ad on a billboard or in a magazine” The other use of social media will be to exhibit real conditions of farms. The alliance believes that negative publicity has disillusioned consumers into believing in an impossibly perfect farm.  Joe Cornely, “spokesman for the Ohio Farm Bureau” stated:

 “So often people advocate for a utopian world and it’s not doable. Feeding the world requires us to kick up some dirt and create a few odors. That is just a reality of producing food and fiber that may not fit in with the utopian vision”

The alliance has their sights on fighting the “opposition”, as Hackmann called them. It can be assumed the “opposition” consists of those who make videos and stir up negative publicity. But one can easily assume that the “opposition” includes anyone who believed in the bad publicity or supports laws to create better farm conditions. In fact, if the statements from the Alliance in the article are any clue of their campaigning then they need to rethink it.

Stating, “people advocate for a utopian world” comes off as if consumers are living in a fantasy world because they react with anger or disgust at the negative campaigns they see. And while some would say consumers should not be so quick to believe in such campaigns, the farmers did little to counteract the negative publicity. Consumers, unfortunately, were left with anger and it is insulting to state this as believing in a utopia. Although the article did not mention consumers as much as the creators of the negative publicity, it is the former who will read the article more than the latter.

If the Alliance wants to create conversations with consumers, they will need a plan, which might involve marketing. Cornely admits, “the people who see the world differently than we do are the masters at messaging and influencing the public and we have to play in that same arena”. It seems Hackmann is stating the Alliance will do the opposite. Messaging and influencing does involve marketing and I don’t know how the Alliance plans to defeat bad campaigning without it.

The Alliance will have to soften up their tone when dealing with consumers. Words like "opposition” and “utopia” will have to be abandoned. In the world of many becoming vegans, FDA raids, contaminated food, and animal rights videos, the Alliance will have to come up with a clear, consistent, structured campaign to win back the public.