A Motion for Rebranding

One major impediment within the organic movement is the public perception of how
organic is defined, portrayed in the media, and how it is marketedpositively and negatively.
In the 1970s, Earl L. Butz, the U.S. secretary of agriculture, was quoted as saying, When
you hear the word organic, think starvation. (Roberts, 2011) As with all things unknown, or
straddled with variable connotations, negative statements such as that can have a huge impact on
perspicacity that can last for decades.
In a random internet search of the same question, which was highly non-academic, the first
post listed was an ask/answer site. The question posed was What do you think of when you hear
the word organic? The first answer given wasHippies. The second answerIts supposed
to mean food grown without chemical pesticides of fertilizers, only natural bio type fertilizers.
(But), in the grocery store this usually means double the price. The buyers are usually anal retentive
yuppies. The third answer was In terms of food expensive! Of 4,320,000 results, this was the
first site listed. In 35 years the word organic has held connotations from starvation, to hippies, to
anal retentive yuppies, to just expensive. This is not an ideal branding platform. Studies including
one by Benjamin Onyango, of the Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics at North
Dakota State University, find that food familiarity was also negatively associated with organic food
purchase. (Onyango, et all, 2007)
If we are to treat organic agriculture and all that it entails, as a unified group with set
regulations and governances, then it should be equipped in this market economy with competitive
tools. Attaching positive value and experience to the concepts, practices, and benefits of organic
farming must be at the forefront and recreating a brand identity should be at its foundation.
Recreating a brand identity requires an identifier. As noted previously, there are negative
inferences. Does the word organic not resemble the position and personality of this form of
agriculture anymore? Is there an identifier that infers more positive associations? Would the word
ecological, or biological, or traditional, or even heritage stand in for organic? Realistically,
complete change of the identifier may not be practical or feasible; however, it should be examined.
If the identifier of organic remains then work must be done to educate and define the
publics perception, giving the brand personality with differentiating and convincing reasons why

the products are better. One problem has been the constant barrage of misinformation and attacks in
the press and by persons supported by large conventional agricultural dollars, as exampled by
Dennis Avery and the Hudson Institute.
However, the label connotation is only part of the public perception. The other real fact is
that organic products are retailed at a much higher cost to the consumer. Perhaps there is some
justification of supply and demand, however the draw to organic production for profit is trending (if
not encouraged). There is the limitation of fad market peek with type of marketing model.
For prosperous organic longevity a foundation based on the ethics that formulated the
historic differentiation would be the more sustainable approach. In other words, substantiate and
market the philosophical and physical that sets organic agriculture apart from convention.
Aggression in offence as well as defense is needed in this battle of denotation.
As prices edge toward unreasonable for the average consumer in this economy, the organic
market should look at its consumer target, not for immediate short gain flourish, but for long term
overall health of the industry. That target market should be broad based and mid-level in order to
sustain constant growth. Focus on a long term market plan may decrease immediate profitability,
but the gain in numbers convert to eventual loyalty not dependent on trends.
Donald Lotter in his 2003 article published in the journal of Sustainable Agriculture speaks
on studies defining the sociology of organic farmers. He states organic farmers have a significantly
greater concern for long-term sustainability and a greater willingness to incur present risk of
possible future benefits (relative to their conventional counterparts)(Lotter, 2003) . With these
attributes in mind, energies and monetary investment should be employed into a national marketing
campaign.
Do you remember the Got Milk campaign, a joint venture with the California Dairy
Association and the California DFA? Chances are you do; it had a 97 percent awareness rate. This
campaign single handedly halted the downward spiral of milk consumption during an aggressive
competition rich market of alternative beverages. It was successful. So could be a campaign
formulated to provide positive branding, education, and reasonable offensive tactics outlining the
principles the organic movement was originally based on.

References:
Lotter, D.W. 2003. Organic Agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 21(4): 59-128
Onyango, B.M., Hallman, W.K., and Bellows, A.C. 2007. Purc.hasing organic food in the U.S. food
systems: A study of attitudes and practice. British Food Journal, 109(5): 399-411
Roberts, J. 2011. Organic Agriculture: Protecting Our Food Supply or Chasing Imaginary Risks?
Lerner Publishing Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN