Trade Talk: Midwestern farmers express troubling views of research

By Joseph Rydholm | April 1, 1996

Reading time: 4 minutes

Abstract

Research isn't finding fans among U.S. farmers. This article looks at farmers' attitudes toward research and suggests action researchers can take to improve research's standing.

Research Topics:: Focus Groups | Incentive Payment & Processing | Mail Surveys | Respondent Cooperation/Satisfaction | Telephone Interviewing/CATI | The Business of Research
Industry/Market Focus:: Agriculture/Agribusiness | Research Industry
Content Type: Magazine Article | Trade Talk

Share Print

There's discontent in the Heartland. Midwestern farmers seem to be nurturing a bumper crop of ill-will toward the research industry, a study shows.

Last fall, Market Directions, a Kansas City, Mo., research firm, conducted telephone interviews with 208 farmers in 12 Midwestem states. The objectives were to: gauge their interest in and opinions of the research process; determine the factors (time of year, incentive, survey subject matter, etc.) that influence cooperation; and to learn how to optimize farmer cooperation in research studies.

To be contacted for the study farmers had to have 250+ acres in crop production, be the primary decision maker on farm operation input purchase decisions, and have participated in market research in the past.

The upshot of the study is that research firms and their clients have some work to do to repair farmers’ opinions of the research process. They also may want to look into sponsoring or undertaking some kind of educational effort to let farmers know how they benefit from participating in research.

Why? Well, in addition to just over half of the respondents feeling that answering research survey questions is a waste of time, Market Directions found that a majority of Midwest farmers do not believe:

the research industry serves a useful purpose (88 percent);
surveys are a way for people to give feedback to manufacturers (92 percent);
confidentiality of responses is maintained (66 percent);
answering questions is in their best interest (64 percent);
answering questions is an interesting experience (53 percent).

Yet despite their apparent dissatisfaction with the research process, the farmers reported participating in seven of every 10 research calls. The most common reasons for refusing to participate center around convenience issues (too busy, bad time of day/night, not in the mood) and lack of interest in the subject.

Contacted regularly

Farmers reported receiving about one mail survey per month. While they are contacted regularly with mail surveys or for telephone research, the farmers reported few calls to participate in a focus group or other qualitative research. Forty-five percent said they hadn’t done any in-person interviews during the past three years. Eleven percent said they had participated in at least one in-person interview. On average, respondents said they received one invitation to participate in a focus group every six months.

A majority of respondents said they would be more likely to attend a focus group where a meal is served. The subject matter of the group had the most influence on their attendance. The date, time and other factors were less important. As with most consumer groups, evening appears to be the best time of day to do groups with farmers. Six out of 10 said they preferred to attend an evening group.

In general, Midwest farmers weren’t very satisfied with the typical ag market research telephone interview. Ratings varied considerably, but the mean was a 5.0 on a 10-point scale. Other than the length of the survey, the most common causes of frustration were interviewers who lacked skill/knowledge, the time of day of the call, and confusing and/or difficult to understand interviews. Only one respondent cited the lack of an incentive.

Incentives work

To test the impact of various incentive levels, the sample was equally and randomly split into four incentive groups: the first group received no incentive, the second received $2, the third $5 and the fourth $10.

The research found that use of incentives, even modest ones, may increase cooperation rates significantly. In the Market Directions study, a $2 incentive increased cooperation rates from 70 percent to 80 percent. Incentives of $5 and $10 increased participation to 86 percent and 81 percent, respectively.

Of the incentives tested, six of 10 of the respondents ranked money first as having the greatest value in causing them to participate in telephone surveys. A donation to an ag organization like 4H or FFA came in second.

Other study highlights:

For some reason, farmers recalled telephone interviews lasting about half as long as they actually did.
Though lawmakers and research industry organizations have made valiant efforts to curb sugging (selling under the guise of research), farmers reported receiving many calls from telemarketers who couched their intentions in a phony survey.
Most respondents indicated they were either not at all likely or not very likely to respond to interviews where they were asked to phone an 800-number.
The study also shows that it’s important to keep surveys focused on one or two information areas and to clearly express the purpose of the research to respondents. Farmers expressed displeasure with being contacted for research they felt was little more than a "fishing expedition."

Good interviewers are key

What makes farmers likely to participate in a telephone interview? A skilled, knowledgeable interviewer is perhaps the most important contributor to contented respondents. If a farmer already perceives participating in research as a waste of time, he or she will have no patience for a poorly trained interviewer who stumbles over product names and appears to know little about the farmer’s industry. On the other hand, if the interviewer is sharp, businesslike and appreciative of the farmer’s time, chances are high that the farmer will come away from the process with good feelings.