Marketing Cooperative Extension Organizations And .
Marketing Cooperative Extension Organizations andExtension Local Foods Educational Programs:A Review of Online Practices Used Across the South*Southern Rural Development CenterMississippi State UniversityJames BarnesAssociate Extension Professor &StoryBrand Certified Marketing Guide/CopywriterDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsMississippi State UniversityJames.barnes@msstate.eduGrace Layton LangfordSouthern Rural Development Centergel17@msstate.edu* This applied research was financially supported by Mississippi State University Extension, the Department ofAgricultural Economics, and the Southern Rural Development Center at Mississippi State University.
Marketing Cooperative Extension Organizations andExtension Local Foods Educational Programs1.0 dvertisements, search engine optimization, e-mailmarketing campaigns, and much more are all part ofonline marketing (American Marketing Association,2018). Online marketing can be complex for anycompany or organization because a strategic choicemust be made to use some or all of these onlinemarketing tools to sell a product. Selling multipleproducts adds to complexity because limited marketing resources have to be allocated acrossmultiple products or brands.1 The bottom line: online marketing of multiple brands can be evenmore complex than marketing a single company brand.Online marketing of multiple brands at a university is even more complex than marketingmultiple company brands.2 Why? Institutions, such as universities, are slow to adapt to marketchanges and are largely characterized by bureaucracy with hierarchical leadership structuresthat determine how limited resources are to be used across multiple departments (North, 1990).Other factors also increase online marketing complexity for universities.According to Rauschnabel et al. (2016), three other factors add significant complexity to onlinemarketing of multiple brands within universities. First, brand architectures within universities arecomplex. Universities are comprised of colleges, departments, governing bodies, and multiplelayers of team-based production across and within these entities, all of which complicates thedecision to allocate marketing resources toward promoting a brand or brands. For example,1A brand is, generally speaking, a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of those components, intendedto identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors(American Marketing Association, 2018). The brand identity for any particular brand can then be defined as a uniquecombination of interconnected liabilities and assets that enhance or detract from the brand value provided by a productor service (Aaker, 1996).2In this context, brands can refer to individual faculty, departments, colleges, or specific educational programs for theconsumers or businesses.2
should a department head allocate her resources to promote the department brand only or seedmarketing investments to promote smaller teams that have organized within a department thatfocus on specific needs expressed by consumers or businesses within her state? How does sheallocate resources to successfully brand all of these faculty and their programs within her stateand more broadly? And how is this done equitably so faculty who are more likely to have figuredout “the system” do not exclude others from receiving attention for their programs?Another factor that adds complexity to online marketing within universities is how internalresources are allocated across departments. Chapelo (2010) concluded that a consistentstructure for the marketing function within universities is lacking. With limited marketingresources, universities often allocate their efforts using centralized marketing teams, but thetasks of the marketing team are extremely diverse, from student recruitment, faculty recruitmentand retention, and international and public relations. Chapelo (2010) noted that resourcesdevoted to university branding of faculty programs were simply lacking, yet a large part of facultypromotion depends on the degree of their national reputation for scholarly work and programs.The third factor that adds complexity to online marketing within universities is meeting the diverseneeds of multiple stakeholder groups. Waeraas and Solbakk (2009) concluded that brandingresearch is lacking within the walls of universities. Further, they noted that the marketing literaturewould be highly informed by case study research that documented how specific programs arebranded successfully from start to finish, with an internal focus of understanding the keys tosuccess, and the overall process in place. The idea is to research one aspect of a university’sbranding efforts, say, for an individual faculty within a department, and identify the steps in amarketing process that led to specific outcomes for the program, whether greater participationor longer-term impacts.Brand architecture, internal marketing resource allocation, and meeting the diverse needs ofcommunity stakeholders add significant complexity to online marketing within universities.One of the consequences of added online marketing complexity is marketing messages can beunclear. When marketing messages are unclear, customers do not listen (Miller, 2017). Further,unclear marketing can persist within universities amidst complexity, and a lack of a consistentmarketing message that is clear can make or break brands for departments and faculty. Thequestion is: How can universities add marketing message clarity and consistency to deliverquality services for multiple diverse groups given all of its complexities?3While this is described in more detail in another section, marketing message clarity refers to a message that requiresan audience to spend only a small amount of energy to understand its meaning (Miller, 2017). Consistency means thesame clear marketing messages are repeatedly posted on social media. Where we find high frequency of this, we say33
Understanding how to clearly develop and communicate faculty-developed educationalprograms as brands within universities has been studied at length. Following Waeraas andSolbakk (2009), we conducted research on how websites and social media were used to marketeducational programs within universities. Specifically, we examined how Cooperative Extensionorganizations within land-grant universities in the Southern U.S. used websites and social mediato promote local foods educational programs.4Cooperative Extension is a nationwide educational and outreach network that was formalized bythe Smith-Lever Act in 1914. Congress created the Extension system to address rural, agriculturalissues (APLU, 2018). Local foods educational programs are relatively new and have emergedas the local foods movement has also emerged. Cooperative Extension offers a variety ofeducational programs, but we chose local foods because it is foundational to this organization’smission to assist the local food system in its development in counties across the United States.We specifically examined Cooperative Extension organizations across the Southern Region ofthe U.S., as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.5A total of 25 Cooperative Extension organizations at land-grant universities were reviewed. Inconcert, we collected more than 30 variables across 1,380 Facebook and Twitter posts that relateto the type of marketing messages used and the resulting clientele engagement. We categorizedthese posts across several dimensions including, but not limited to, the type of educationalprogram categories marketed as Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR), 4-H, Family andConsumer Sciences (FCS), or Community Development (CD). Local foods Extension programscan appear in any of these categories. We also evaluated 25 Extension websites and presentsome preliminary results for the Southern Region as a whole and discuss how to improve theonline marketing of Extension programs aimed at developing local food systems.We used the StoryBrand marketing framework (Miller, 2017) to evaluate websites and someaspects of social media posts. We used the brand value framework from Bricks-To-Clicks (Barnes, 2017) to understand how online marketing practices were used to create brand valuefor Extension programs aimed at developing local food systems in the Southern Region.6Land-grant universities are institutions designated by a state’s legislature or Congress to receive the benefits of theMorrill Acts of 1862, 1890, and 1994 (APLU, 2018).4The Southern Region includes: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.5Aaker (1996) defined several dimensions of brand value that include: (1) brand loyalty; (2) brand awareness; (3)perceived quality; (4) brand associations; and (5) other proprietary assets such as patents, trademarks, and channelrelationship (Kotler, et al., 2007). Attempting to increase brand value through effecting changes along brand valuedimensions can be extremely complex, especially within such institutions as universities.64
The remainder of this study has been organized as follows. First, we explain why unclearmarketing is the problem for companies and Extension organizations alike, how this occurs, andwhat can be done to eliminate unclear marketing of Extension programs aimed at developinglocal food systems. The same online marketing approach could be implemented for anyExtension program. The discussion centers on how to improve marketing message clarity usingthe StoryBrand framework, yet, the foundation of this framework is based in advancements inneuroeconomics.7Next, we explain how the StoryBrand marketing (Miller, 2017) and the Bricks-To-Clicks socialmedia (Barnes, 2017) frameworks were used in concert to create an overall set of metrics formeasuring brand equity as three core components: 1) brand assets; 2) brand awareness; and 3)brand engagement with Extension.Third, we explain the methods used to collect the website and social media post data and howthose fit the brand equity model used herein. Fourth, we present some preliminary results for theSouthern Region. Finally, we make specific recommendations to improve the online marketing ofExtension programs aimed at developing local food systems.Neuroeconomics studies various aspects of economic decision-making based on neuroscience and its effects onconsumer choice (Glimcher, 2004).72.0 unclear marketing is the problemMarketing an Extension program focused on thedevelopment of local food systems is no different frommarketing a company’s products or services to itscustomers. The marketing message has to be clearlyand quickly understood by customers, and the messageshould be repeatedly shared across websites and socialmedia to increase sales. For Extension programs, saleswould typically be synonymous with more clienteleparticipation in a program.In the world of online marketing, customers do not necessarily buy the best products andservices. Instead, they buy the ones they understand the fastest (Miller, 2018). Customers do5
not read all content on websites or social media posts. Instead, they scan content. Generally,customers create a first impression of a business based on its website in only 2.6 seconds(SWEOR, 2018). This means we have only a few seconds to clearly communicate threefundamental things on a website or social media post:1. What is the product or service offered?2. How will using said product or service make a customer’s life better, or how does saidproduct or service solve a customer’s problem?3. How do I buy or use the product or service?Failing to clearly communicate these three fundamentals creates confusion for customers, orExtension clientele. Confusion leads to marketing failures.Schneider and Hall (2011) researched company product launches and concluded the biggestreason for failure was that entrepreneurs failed to prepare to market their products becausethey focused so much of their time on production and design. The result: marketing messagesare hurriedly developed to launch a product. The take-home message: Entrepreneurs shouldspend adequate time marketing and making the message clear. If not, unclear marketing will notconnect with customers and that means lower sales. Worse yet, unclear marketing could resultin the financial collapse of a company, or any organization.But there are marketing strategies for entrepreneurs to employ that build their brands aroundclear and succinct marketing messages. Likewise, Extension can use clear marketing to increaseparticipation in educational programs. A three-part plan can be used to eliminate the problemof unclear marketing: 1) Increase marketing message clarity; 2) Increase marketing messagefrequency; and 3) Increase strategic marketing resources.Increase Marketing Message ClarityUnclear marketing costs companies millions of dollars every year from poorly developedwebsites to misaligned social media postings to failed product launches (Schneider and Hall,2011; Miller, 2017). Why does unclear messaging not work? Unclear messaging causes ourbrains to use more calories to understand images, videos, the words used on websites, andsocial media posts (Miller, 2017). When customers expend lots of calories understanding amarketing message, they simply do not listen and that means lost sales. Customers want clarityof marketing messages first and foremost.Extension clientele want the same thing as customers: a marketing message that is clear aboutan Extension program, so they too can decide to engage. If marketing messages are unclear,6
Extension clientele do not scan our websites and social media posts. Potential clientele simplywill not listen, and that means fewer people will participate in our Extension programs aboutlocal food system development. Marketing message clarity across websites and social mediais a critical factor in marketing any Extension program online.Increase Marketing Message FrequencyAnother critical factor to marketing any Extension program online is the frequency of themarketing message pushed across websites and social media. Assuming an Extension program’smarketing message is clearly positioned on its website and used throughout its social media,the message has to be repeatedly marketed.What does this look like in practice? Assume an Extension local foods program has its ownTwitter account that is separate from the main Extension Twitter account. Typically, the followingfor an Extension agency-level Twitter account is substantially larger than that for any oneExtension program Twitter account, so there exists a network advantage in retweeting contentfrom a specific program to the larger audience that follows the main Extension Twitter account.The same holds true on Facebook and Instagram. Sharing content from an Extension localfoods program to the larger Extension social media audience is one way to increase marketingfrequency. This is an extremely low-cost effort. Others exist as well.Increase Strategic Marketing ResourcesThe problem of unclear marketing messages can be made worse because Extension programmanagers can find themselves overwhelmed with the daunting task of managing all of theirwebsite and social media content, and doing so consistently. Extension program managersgenerally lack significant time and marketing expertise to invest in marketing their programsalone. Instead, they often rely heavily on their Extension organization’s website and social mediaplatforms to assist in the promotion of their Extension programs, including those devoted topromoting the development of local food systems.However, most Extension organizations are limited in resources devoted to equally marketingall programs. Increasing strategic marketing resources could alleviate the problem of unclearmarketing. By strategic, we mean implementing a marketing framework that adds marketingmessage clarity and frequency to all Extension programs. This could be accomplished byintegrating program evaluation, program, and marketing specialists within an Extensionorganization to create a standardized approach to marketing each Extension program, includingthose for local food system development. A standardized marketing framework would need tobe implemented and measured across Extension programs. Each of the program evaluation,7
program, and marketing specialists would have to be trained in a standardized marketingframework designed specifically to add clarity to marketing messages across Extensionprograms. The components of the brand value system described herein could be such a unifyingframework.3.0 brand value system as a methodThis research was exploratory in nature as we primarilyused observational post data from social media platforms.The principle focus was to seek a deeper understandingof how Extension Services use social media and websitesto brand Extension programs as well as to evaluate theresulting engagement with Extension clientele.The brand value system as a method operationalizes theconceptual frameworks used herein. This creates a set of social media and online marketingmetrics that can then be used for additional research. Extension Services could also createdashboards with these metrics to monitor engagement per marketing message used on socialmedia. Further, the model used herein identifies a comprehensive framework to understandbranding.Conceptual ModelWe believe unclear marketing is the problem for companies and Extension organizations alike.Approximately 38 percent of consumers will leave a website if the layout or design is unattractive(Adobe, 2015). When design or layout confuse, consumers simply do not want to continuestruggling with understanding why a product or service will make their lives better. The mainpoint is: clear marketing affects sales.Increasing marketing message clarity, marketing message frequency, and strategic marketingresources can alleviate unclear marketing. An important step that could help substantiallyis to implement a new marketing framework for all Extension programs that adds clarity soclientele engage. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to explore all the details of howto implement such a marketing framework and its process, we do refer to the Bricks-To-Clicks 8
Extension program at Mississippi State University(Barnes, 2018) and the marketing frameworkcalled StoryBrand (Miller, 2017) as one alternativeapproach that could provide some solutionsto add greater clarity in marketing of Extensionprograms.In concert, these two marketing frameworkscreate the overall brand value system that wasused in this study. In what follows, we outline the core components of this system and explainhow we collected data across each of its components for websites and social media postsfor each land-grant university’s Extension service in the Southern region. Table 1 shows theSouthern region states and their corresponding universities. Table 2 shows the list of universitiesas well as data collected across Facebook, Twitter, and websites per university.Table 1. Southern Region States and Universities in the StudyStateUniversitiesAlabama Alabama A&M University andAuburn University Tuskegee University University of Arkansas University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Florida A&M University University of Florida University of Georgia Fort Valley State University Kentucky State University University of Kentucky Louisiana State University Southern University Alcorn State University Mississippi State University North Carolina A&T State University North Carolina State University Langston University Oklahoma State University Clemson University South Carolina State University Tennessee State University University of Tennessee Prairie View A&M University Texas A&M University Virginia State University an
measuring brand equity as three core components: 1) brand assets; 2) brand awareness; and 3) brand engagement with Extension. Third, we explain the methods used to collect the website and social media post data and how those fit the brand equity model used herein. Fourth, we present some preliminary results for the Southern Region.
B. Susie Craig, Washington State University Cooperative Extension Karen Dickrell, University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Caitlin Huth, University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Lila Karki, Tuskegee University Cooperative Extension Service Phyllis Lewis, university of Wyoming Cooperative Extension Service
This newsletter is sponsored by Cooperative Network and the Senior Cooperative Foundation. SCF SENIOR COOPERATIVE FOUNDATION Prepared quarterly by Cooperative Network's Senior Cooperative Housing Council and distributed via U.S. mail and email as a service to member housing cooperatives. Cooperative Network 145 University Ave. W., Suite 450
Cooperative Extension — April, 2016 reorganization process for Cooperative Extension, a division of University of Wisconsin-Extension, has begun planning for a reorganization that will sharpen its focus on education, streamline administration, and meet state budget cut mandates. During March, UW-Extension leaders charged an 11-member steering
cooperative. On January 21, 1999, the PCC and HSCC completed an inter-cooperative agreement to facilitate efficient management and accurate accounting between the two cooperatives. The agreement, “Cooperative Agreement Between Offshore Pollock Catchers’ Cooperative and Pollock Conservation Cooperative” remains
employer. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia State University, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. Edwin J. Jones, Director, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg; M. Ray McKinnie, Administrator, 1890 Extension Program,
The Cooperative State-County-Landowner Lymantria dispar Suppression Program . Upshur, Webster, Wetzel, Wirt, Wood and Wyoming Counties. WHAT IS THE . Lymantria dispar . COOPERATIVE SUPPRESSION PROGRAM? It is a cooperative regional suppression program between landowners, the West Virginia Department . University (WVU) Cooperative Extension .
1st SIPPS Extension SIPPS Beginning 2nd Challenge Extension Rev, & Extension SIPPS Beginning, Extension Rev 3rd SIPPS Extension Review, Extension, SIPPS Extension Review, Extension, Comprehension strategies with on-grade level Books and Common Lit Passages Challenge & Ready Reading Challen
May 05, 2011 · 3022 Broadway . Uris Hall, Room 604 . New York, NY 10027 . dn75@columbia.edu . May 5, 2011 . Abstract . We review accounting principles related to the reporting of marketing activities and evaluate their implications for marketing research and practice. Based on our review, we argue thatFile Size: 393KBPage Count: 50Explore further(PDF) Strategic Marketing and Marketing Strategy: Domain .www.researchgate.net(PDF) Marketing Management - ResearchGatewww.researchgate.net5 Marketing Management Orientationscommercemates.com5 Marketing Concepts: Marketing Management Philosophieswww.iedunote.comBasic Marketing Principles - Mercer Universityfaculty.mercer.eduRecommended to you b
