Jeffrey is a partner with Blacksheep Strategy Inc., a consulting firm based in Calgary and Winnipeg.
This column is about perspective.
Is it just me, or does it seem to you that Canadian agriculture is awash in rhetoric that claims to represent the obvious truth?
Unfortunately, the truth isn’t that obvious to people with a broader perspective. Often, the common man sees shades of grey. Sometimes, they even disagree with the truth and then are labelled as “not understanding the issue.”
Or worse, they can be accused of aligning themselves with the wrong side. Then they are bad people.
Read Also
Downturn in grain farm economics threatens to be long term
We might look back at this fall as the turning point in grain farm economics — the point where making money became really difficult.
So you end up with silence. Rhetoric meets no response. So does rhetoric win?
No. It’s just a breeze blowing in one direction.
I’m not averse to a bit of well-crafted public relations spin. People with points of view have the right to employ resources to assist them in convincing others of their point of view.
But well-crafted messages are only effective if they make reasonable sense to the target group. You can only influence someone if you make sense to them, although bullying works for a short time.
It’s pretty lame to craft your message to appeal to the people who already bought the idea. All too often, our little group of buddies tells us how wonderful our ideas are while the rest of the world just rolls their eyes.
How does perspective help? Putting yourselves in the customer’s shoes allows you to adjust your position and message to have improved impact. Impact creates movement toward a goal.
Here are some of my favourite recent examples of rhetoric and some insight on what the Rest of the World, or ROTW, might think, but not say out loud.
The Easter Report: We’re going to fix everything through a massive program of government intervention and rule making.
Politicians and bureaucrats: I can’t take the time to understand or get behind this complex array of initiatives. Let’s pretend it has a chance.
Humane Society: They’re keeping sows in crates, forcing them to eat, poop and nurse their piglets without moving around very much.
ROTW: Yikes, I hope they aren’t going to turn them loose outdoors like they did 30 years ago. I wonder what the smell would be like. “Honey, don’t forget to pick up five pounds of bacon for brunch. Superstore is selling it for $2.25 a pound.”
Various Righties: The Canadian Wheat board doesn’t have a monopoly and therefore can’t extract higher prices. Government subsidies get transformed into higher land values and therefore don’t enhance farm net incomes in the long run.
ROTW: Economics is so confusing. Doing what’s best for the economy isn’t practical in Canada anyhow.
Various Lefties: Certified seed is bad. Use common seed.
ROTW: Returns to plant breeding in all non-hybrid crops have been negative, leading to reduced investment and lagging productivity. Innovation is now vying with productivity as the concept of day in Ottawa so an agenda that is counter to both lacks common sense.
Greens: Everyone should eat eggs from free range chickens.
ROTW (which includes the egg marketing agencies) quietly observes that consumers can already eat free range eggs, brown eggs and Omega 3 eggs any time they want. A quickly developing perspective might be: “Do we really want more avian critters running loose in urban areas?”
Agricultural Institute of Canada: Expand the GST to food and pass the money back to farmers.
ROTW: More taxes? Don’t the milk, egg, chicken and wheat boards already take care of this commodity price problem?
International Trait Company (pick one): Commercial farmers love our technology. Why don’t they speak up in public policy debates?
ROTW: I’m running a business here. I don’t want to draw attention to my political views. What’s in it for me?
Agriculture Canada: Agriculture is the key link in the value chain and thinking about it will help farm incomes.
ROTW: Value chains start with the consumer and are propelled by the economic benefits from processing and distribution. Efficiency rules. Production agriculture is the source of raw material and is far removed from the consumption driver.
What I’ve observed from these examples is that the rhetoric often generates a brief or even prolonged period of media coverage and supportive sentiment. This makes the group promoting the view feel good.
There is a collective advancement of self esteem among its members, resulting in renewed energy and financial support.
In fact, in the fundraising business it’s standard practice to use fear and controversy whenever donations need a boost.
For example, I’m sure the National Farmers Union campaign against plant breeders’ rights has been profitable. This is a fabulous example of an organization understanding the perspective of its donor base.
Most businesses have to sell new production to new customers to stay alive. In the rhetoric business, you can live off past sales forever. The cost of production is low.
For all the ink consumed on these narrow perspectives, you would think at least one of them would produce results.
Here’s a test. Put this list in a safe place and pull it out a year from now. I bet you’ll find the same people saying the same things with the same lack of results.
It makes you wonder what the purpose is, doesn’t it? I bet you know but won’t say anything.
