Usage of social marketing strategies in changing public behavior:A case for "rural enterprise and agri-business promotion project"

Abstract

This case study looked at the application of social marketing strategy tools with respect to the Rural Enterprise and Promotion Project, a horticultural marketing project run under CARE Kenya, in Makueni District. These tools as they are known; Product, Place, Price and Promotion. Additional tools have been added, as Process, Personnel, Partnership, Policy and Politics The REAP project has been having problems in getting the farmers to play their part for the programme to succeed. Overtime, the smallholder farmers participation and commitment has waned. This study sought to look at the problem of slow adoption of the new farming technique by the smallholder farmers under the lens of social marketing strategies and the extent of their application in the model. For any successful social marketing program, the right mix of the social marketing tools needs to be applied. The study was carried out using focus groups discussions with the smallholder farmers under the REAP programme, to gain insights and their perceptions about the whole REAP programme. The discussions were moderated by the researcher herself using a discussion guide prepared along the social marketing tools as they are known, as well as information already collected from the REAP staff concerning the current adoption problem. The focus group discussions took place at the farms. The information was collected in form of notes by the moderator, which were later classified according to the social marketing tool they applied to. Information from the partners was collected using a semi-structured undisguised questionnaire which sought to obtain their attitudes using Likert Summated Ratings. The findings from these analyses led to the following conclusions: I) Product The concept of the social product has been well understood by the farmers, however its positioning has not been successful because its tangible product base has not been achieved by the fanners. The tangible product is increased income and this is the main expectation by the farmers. VI The farmers have an overall positive image of REAP as a credible organization. However, enhanced extension was identified as a need. The farmers also felt that REAP can strive to fulfil its role more efficiently, for example, by having timely delivery of input supplies, keeping appointment times and generally work at improving in all areas that add cost to farmers, whether monetary or non-monetary costs. The Project staff need also to be more responsive and sensitive to farmers' needs. The recommendation would be for REAP to strive to live up to the Product positioning by ensuring income becomes a reality. Alternatively they can modify the positioning, hence the REAP model. 2) Place Farmers are generally unhappy with all costs being deducted at source, hence leaving no money for dividend payment. They feel that REAP can strive to at least make some regular payments to motivate the smallholder farmer. The intangible product, that is, the new farming techniques and linkages with private service providers is attractive to farmers. They reported enthusiasm with all that they learn. However, linkage with the private companies has been minimal. REAP has served as an intermediary between the smallholder farmer and the private companies. As observed earlier, REAP need to review its model with the aim of coming up with positioning that is achievable within the current operating environments. 3) The Price Farmers are in agreement that the costs required in adoption of this new technique are very high. The cite especially the cost of money, cost ofland-clearing and management fee. VII The farmers also recognized the existence of real threats to successful horticultural farming. These include crop diseases, machine breakdowns, adverse climatic condition, delays of inputs, crops rejection by exporters and several others. The recommendation here is for REAP to look for ways to reduce the costs of adoption. Farmers perceive the price they have to pay as outweighing the benefit. This is a real threat to the success of the model and REAP may need to radically review it in order to advance it. 4) Promotion REAP has been very successful in its application of personal communication strategies with the farmers. The farmers are aware of their role and also the goal of the programme. They expressed a need to have closer interaction with REAP staff through enhanced extension. However, awareness of the whole concept has not been sufficient to increase the farmers' commitment through adoption. Other tools which have not been as successful have affected the overall practice expected from the farmers. This points to the importance of the right marketing mix for success. 5) Partnership, policy and Politics. REAP has partners with both favourable and unfavourable attitudes towards the Project. Since working with partners makes social marketing more effective, it would be recommended that REAP works at enhancing the relationships. It would be recommended that REAP investigates the attitudes further with the aim of enhancing its relationships with the various partners.