Media Use for Marketing Purebred Cattle

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Media Use for Marketing Purebred Cattle
Physical Description:
1 online resource (88 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Hicks, Reba Ellen
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Agricultural Education and Communication
Committee Chair:
CARTER,HANNAH S
Committee Co-Chair:
RUMBLE,JOY N

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
cattle
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
The cattle industry is a large enterprise for American agriculture. Despite the significant number of jobs and revenue the beef industry has provided on an annual basis, the beef industry has not been immune to both natural and man-made problems, such as disease, drought, food safety concerns, and increased input costs. A majority of genetics in today's cattle industry stem from purebred cattle. Purebred cattle producers marketing costs are much higher than commercial marketing costs. This study examined what media producers were using, as well as the effectiveness. Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003) was used as a theoretical framework. The researcher used survey methodology to conduct this study and a questionnaire was created. This survey was distributed to 189 clients of Ranch House Designs, Inc.. Upon analyzing the results, it was found that producers are using basic components, web components, and photography the most. It was noted broadcast components were used the least. Basic components, web components, and photography were perceived as the most effective types of media. It was recommended by the researcher further research be conducted in this field of study. Particularly, qualitative research was suggested in order to understand why certain media are used and others are not.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Reba Ellen Hicks.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: CARTER,HANNAH S.
Local:
Co-adviser: RUMBLE,JOY N.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2014
System ID:
UFE0046823:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

MEDIA USE FOR MARKETING PUREBRED CATTLE By REBA ELLEN HICKS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

2014 Reba Ellen Hicks

PAGE 3

To my daddy, who believed the best gift one person could give another is an education

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS When I reflect on my educational experiences and think of all the individuals who have helped me achieve my goals, I know I am truly blessed beyond measure. I have a family that has encouraged me to pursue my academic goals. The person who deserves the most gratitude is my mom. From hauling cattle around the country in high school to coming to watch horse shows during graduate school, she has never discouraged my love of animals or the agricultural way of life. Countless hours of encouraging words have been spoken throughout this process, and for that I will always be thankful. She has been my best friend and number one supporter through this process and I coul d not be more appreciative. I would like to thank Mr. Wilson Head for being such a supportive friend to both my mom and me. Thank you for your pep talks and sharing your faith. My brother has also been a great supporter throughout this process. If I needed a good laugh or just to talk about the important things in life like football and fishing, I knew who to call. Pictures of little Trent easily made me smile, and I love him more than you know. I cannot wait to spoil him. Secondly, I would like to thank D r. Donna Bohanan. I would have never thought walking into History 1020 at Auburn University would change my life, but it certainly did. I am even thankful for our shared love of horses and Coco Chanel. As I look back, our time spent riding and our conversa tions along the way shaped many of my decisions, specifically the decision to attend graduate school. Thank you for teaching me to think like the Royal Air Force, and simply know. I would also like to thank William. Your love and support has been unwavering throughout this process, and for that, I will always be thankful. Throughout the good times and the bad, you have always offered support and encouragement. Thank you for all that you do and all that you are. I love you!

PAGE 5

5 There have been numerous individuals who have played a role in my education at the University of Florida. I am grateful to have obtained a degree from the Department of Agricultural Education and Communica tion. First off, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Hannah Carter. You have helped me believe that I could do this and look, we did it! Thank you for your support and encouragement. I am thankful for my committee member, Dr. Joy Rumble, as well. Thank you for being patient with me while running data and using SPSS. You have always believed in me and offered kind words of encouragement. You are one of the most intelligent individuals I have had the pleasure of meeting, and I am so excited to see how far you will go. Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Ricky Telg. Your green pen will always be in the back of my mind. You have taught me so much about both academics and life. I appreciate you always lending a shoulder to cry on, no matter how busy you were. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for sharing your faith and your time. Thank you to Rachel Cutrer and Ranch House Designs, Inc. for all of your help. You have been a role model since I took my first Shorthorn heifer to Louisville in 2003, and I thank you for that. Most importantly, I would like to thank God for his love and gift of strength. Without His 5:7).

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 11 History of Catt le in the United States ................................ ................................ ..................... 12 Marketing Purebred Cattle ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 13 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 16 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 17 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 17 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 18 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 19 Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 19 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 20 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ................................ 21 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 21 Diffusion of Innovations ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 21 Elements of Diffusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 22 Adopter Categories ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 24 Previous Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 26 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 30 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 31 Research Perspective ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 31 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 31 Population and Sampling Procedures ................................ ................................ ..................... 33 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 33 Questionnaire Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 33 Validity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 34 Reliability ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 34 Institutional Review Board ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 34 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 35 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 35 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 36 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 37

PAGE 7

7 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 38 Gender and Age ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 38 Education ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 38 Head of Cattle Owned ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 39 Years Involved with Cattle Operation ................................ ................................ ............. 39 Objective One: To determine the media used by purebred cattle producers to market purebred cattle ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 39 Basic Components ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 39 Outdoor Components ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 40 Web Components ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 40 Print Component ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 40 Broadcast Component ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 41 Other Components ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 41 Objective Two: Determine the effectiveness of media as perceived by cattle producers ...... 42 purebred cattle ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 43 marketing purebred cattle ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 44 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 45 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ 59 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 60 Objective 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 6 0 Objective 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 60 Basic ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 61 Outdoor ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 61 Web ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 62 Print ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 62 Broadcast ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 63 Other ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 63 Objective 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 64 Objective 4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 64 Discussion and Implications ................................ ................................ ............................ 65 Factors Impacting Diffusion ................................ ................................ ............................ 65 Educational Opportunities ................................ ................................ ............................... 66 National Research Agenda ................................ ................................ .............................. 66 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 67 Recommendations for Practice ................................ ................................ ........................ 67 Recommendations for Futur e Research ................................ ................................ ........... 67 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 68 A PPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ................................ ............................. 69 B SURVEY COMPLETION REQUESTS ................................ ................................ ................ 70

PAGE 8

8 C MARKETING PUREBRED CATTLE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ 74 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 85 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 88

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Marketing Costs for V8 Ranch ................................ ................................ .......................... 16 4 1 Gender of Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 47 4 2 Ages of Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 47 4 3 Education Level of Participants ................................ ................................ ......................... 47 4 4 Head of Cattle Owned ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 47 4 5 Number of Years Involved with Operation ................................ ................................ ....... 48 4 6 Use of Basic Components ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 48 4 7 Outdoor Components ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 49 4 8 Web Components ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 50 4 9 Print Components ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 51 4 10 Broadcast Components ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 51 4 11 Other Components ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 52 4 12 Perceptions of Basic Components ................................ ................................ ..................... 52 4 13 Perceptions of Outdoor Components ................................ ................................ ................. 53 4 14 Perceptions of Web Components ................................ ................................ ....................... 54 4 15 Print Components ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 55 4 16 Broadcast Components ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 56 4 17 Other Components ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 56 4 18 M edia Use related to Gross Sales, 2012 ................................ ................................ ............ 57 4 19 Media Use related to Gross Sales, 2013 ................................ ................................ ............ 57 4 20 Media Use and Gross Sale Correlation, 2012 ................................ ................................ .... 58 4 21 Media Use and Gross Sale Correlation, 2013 ................................ ................................ .... 58

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science MEDIA USE FOR MARKETING PUREBRED CATTLE By Reba Ellen Hicks May 2014 Chair: Hannah Carter Major: Agricultural Education and Communication The cattle industry is a large enterprise for American agriculture. Despite the significant number of jobs and revenue the beef industry has provided on an annual basis, the beef industry has n ot been immune to both natural and man made problems, such as disease, drought, food safety concerns, and increased input c osts. A majority of genetics today are derived from purebred cattle. Purebred cattle producers marketing costs are much higher than c ommercial marketing costs. This study examined what media producers were using, as well as the effectiveness. Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003) was used as a theoretical framework. The researcher used survey methodology to conduct this study and a qu estionnaire was created. This survey was distributed to 189 clients of Ranch House Designs, Inc.. Upon analyzing the results, it was found that producers are using basic components, web components, and photography the most. It was noted broadcast component s were used the least. Basic components, web components, and photography were perceived as the most effective types of media. It was recommended by the researcher further research be conducted in this field of study. Particularly, qualitative research was suggested in order to understand why certain media are used and others are not.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The beef industry has been an important value added enterprise in United States agriculture (Otto & Lawrence, 2000 ). Gross receipts from the sale of cattle in 2012 totaled $44 billion, accounting for 21% of all agricultural receipts and making the beef sector the largest equivalen t of the beef industry in 2011 was $79 billion, which has continued to rise with higher input costs occurring for producers (United States Department of Agriculture, 2011). Cattle have been produced in all 50 states in the United States, providing economic contributions to nearly every county in the nation, and serving as an economic driver in rural communities (Otto & Lawrence, 2000). The beef industry has also provided an immense number of job opportunities in various sectors, employing approximately 2 mi llion people fulltime (Otto & Lawrence, 2000). Despite the significant number of jobs and revenue the beef industry has provided on an annual basis, the beef industry has not been immune to both natural and man made problems, such as disease, drought, foo d safety concerns, policy restrictions, and increased input costs (Mintert, 2012). Herd size has dramatically diminished throughout the industry, input costs have continued to increase, and some producers have chosen to leave production agriculture rather than rebuild their cattle herd (Freitag, 2013). In 2013 the total number of beef cattle in the United States was at its lowest point since 1952, and dramatic increases in input costs, such as feed, veterinary care, machinery, fuel, labor, and marketing hav e placed further economic strain on the challenges include changing weather patterns, the effect of developing technology on both farming and food, and significant shift

PAGE 12

12 History of Cattle in the United States Columbus brought cattle to the New World in 1493 on his second voyage ( Gillespie, 1998). In the early 1600s cattle were imported from Europe and the cattle were used mainly for milk, butter, hides, and draft (USEPA, 2013). Cattle were sold locally or the cattle were driven to cities (Revzan, 193 5). There was no refrigeration system to transport meat, so cattle were shipped live (Hurt, 2002). The shipping of corn fed cattle w as first reported in 1805 and the cattle were shipped from Ohio to Maryland. These cattle were fed on corn for four to six months, with the driving of the cattle lasting approximately six weeks (Revzan, 193 5). From 1800 to 1860, beef cattle were not particularly successful in the southern section of the United States given the onset of the Civil War. With this event, Florida exported and marketed cattle to t he West Indies (Revzan, 1935). From 1870 to 1885, the development of the range cattle industry on the Great Plains altered the beef cattle industry great ly. Most cattle were moved to Texas, due to difficult calving condit ions in the North (Revzan, 1935). Beginning in 1850, a small number of cattle from Texas were sold and marketed in New York, but not until years later was a movement begun to rea ch northern markets (Revzan, 193 5). Following the Civil Wa r, dramatic changes to the cattle industry began to occur. During the Civil War, railroads were not finishe d, halting most transportation of cattle. The war caused a stop in railroad construction, putting a halt on the transportation of cattle and leading to a seven percent decrease in cattle numbers (United States Department of Agri culture, 1867 ). This decreas e combined with wartime price inflation revived the movement of marketing Texas cattle to northern states At the close of the war, New York City processed approximately 4.2 million cattle between the years of 1865 and 1880, or 281,566 head of cattle annua lly (Revzan, 193 5). Texas was able to supply the demand for cattle. Although Texas was a confederate state, Texas was not a large base for military movements and was blockaded. With this, there were no

PAGE 13

13 markets available other than New Orleans and Mobile, w hich were controlled by the Morgan L ine of steamship s (Revzan, 1935). co 5). By 1870, principal routes to the eastern markets had developed ranging from boat to train. W ith all of the major stockyards open, such as Chicago, Omaha, and Kansas City, consumers were able to buy cuts of meat and desired products more ea sily than before (Hurt, 2002). During this time d irect marketing of cattle began to increase. Direct marke tin g as described by Revzan (193 the sale to slaughterers at places othe r than public stockyard markets (p.202). Eventually cattle were no longer shipped by railroad, due to technological advances, such as refrigeration, causing many stockyards to cea se operation (Hurt, 2002). Stockyard closures prompted a movement of strategic planning and marketing of quality cattle. A large majority of cattle sold in the United States have been feeder or slaughter cattle derived from commercial herds of cattle (Un ited States Department of Agriculture, 2011). These cattle have generally been sold at an auction barn where the producer receives market price for th e cattle (Rawls & Lane, n.d.). Marketing of commercial cattle became known as a standard practice with th e price based on general characteristics, including weight, age, hide color, and breed. Approximately 3% of these cattle have been purebred cattle, which have established the genetic standards that influence growth traits and qualities (Schmidt, 2007). Sch midt (2007) stated that pur ebred cattle are the genetic engineers of the beef cattle industry, adding a much larger value than cattle sold at an auction barn at a commodity price. Marketing Purebred Cattle ered in a Registry

PAGE 14

14 history has co ncluded there are very few populations of tchie, erived from combining various lineages of cattle (Wallace & Ritchie, 2006). Each Registry Association sets standard percentages for purebred animals, with a small amount of genetic material remaining from the base cowherds (Briggs, 1949). Most seedstock b ulls and heifers produced by purebred cattle breeders are sold to commercial cattlemen. Superior bulls and females that can create genetic improvement are sold to other purebred cattle breeders (Troxel, Jennings, Gadberry, Powell, Barham, Beck, 2006). Cont rary to commercial practices purebred cattle breeders do not market cattle through local auction barns. For large purebred cattle breeders, production sales are held to showcase the bulls and females produced. Small breeders may contribute to a consignmen t sale that includes cattle produced by several breeders who may not have enough cattle for a p roduction sale (Cutrer, 2011). Both large and small scale cattle breeders can participate successfully in private treaty sales, which are transactions that occur as private negotiations between a buyer and seller (Cutrer, 2011). Although these transactions have traditionally taken place at the farm or ranch, these types of sales have been completed through technology such as websites or video auction (Cutrer 2011). Given the vast differences in commercial and purebred cattle, the marketing of each type of cattle is also different. Purebred cattle breeders have used specialized marketing techniques that have not been used in marketing commercial cattle (Trox el, et al., 2006). In marketing purebred cattle, the phenotypic qualities which are the physical qualities (Gillespie, 1998), have served as a basis for value, along with pedigree, disposition, and performance records (Cutrer,

PAGE 15

15 2011). Marketing costs for p urebred cattle have often been ten times the per animal cost of marketing commercial cattle at an auction barn (Troxel, et al., 2006). Many purebred cattle breeders have advertised regularly in magazines and breed publications and have also utilized photo graphy, graphic design, postage, and pre sale and post sale entertainment, including food and drinks (Troxel, et al., 2006). Marketing purebred cattle has continued to be a strategic process. Marketing purebred cattle, as with any product, has been a scie nce based on many factors, including consumer behavior, the economy, and social trends (Cutrer, 2011). Although print advertising has provided benefits to producers of purebred cattle, technology has allowed producers to utilize digital media to reach a la rger target audience of buyers (Cutrer, 2011). When accompanied by a website, social media outlet, or another digital media outlet, print advertisements have worked well (Cutrer, 2011) Printed advertisements have worked best to direct the readers to a we bsite where the reader can obtain a greater amou nt of information regarding the farm or ranch (Cutrer, 2011). service in the agriculture industry, websites are now one of the most affordable options for p roducers to promote purebred cattle (p. 110) outlets, such as websites, offer unlimited updates, photographs, and no geographical barriers (Cutrer, 2011 ). When moving to online sales, breeders saved many sale da y costs and stress the cattle less (Cutrer, 2011). A specific example of effective utilization was seen in a case study with V8 Ranch, a purebred Brahman and Shorthorn production ranch founded in 1944 in Wharton, Texas. V8 Ranch has had numerous internati onal and national champion females and bulls (Willia ms, personal communication, April 19, 2013). This ranch found a mixture of print based advertis ing,

PAGE 16

16 web based advertising and social media outlets achieved greater sale results than print based advertisin g alone, which was used in previous years. When asked how each buyer heard about V8 Ranch, 70% of the new sale buyers were new clients who made initial contact through e mail blasts and Facebook. While the ranch has still used print advertising, owner Jim Williams says The results of adding different media can be seen in Table 1 1 (McMahon French, 2011). Table 1 1 Marketing Costs for V8 Ranch Breed Publication Advertising $27,000 All Breed and Junior Publication Advertising $9,000 Internet Advertising $2,500 Social Media Networking Free Promotional Apparel $5,000 Total Advertising Expense $43,500 Gross Annual Sales $950,000 Advertising Costs 4.5 % of sale gross This information was collected through a case study performed with Ranch House Designs Inc. and Julie McMahon French Promotional Strategy in 2011. While this is only one example, this case study has provided the stage for understanding the importance of using digital media along with print based advertising. It should be noted 4.5% is a high advertising cost, and producers typically use 2 3% of the gross sales to budget. Producers have had multiple reasons for using advertising, but the main reason has simply been to sell a product (Laermer & Prichinello, 2003 ). Aside from simply selling cattle, purebred cattle producers have had other reasons to utilize paid advertising including creating a brand name, establishing presence in the market place, and bu ilding their reputation (Cutrer, 2011). Problem Statement and awareness of effective digital media use in marketing purebred cattle. Additionally, this research addres sed the overall perceptions of digital media used in cattle marketing and the

PAGE 17

17 factors that contributed to producer use of this technology. With potential profit at stake, producers need to understand the effective use of media outlets in the marketing and selling of purebred cattle. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of digital media for marketing purebred cattle. The following research objectives were used to guide this investigation: 1. To determine media us ed by purebred cattle producers to market purebred cattle. 2. To determine the effecti veness of media as perceived by cattle producers. 3. To determine a relationship between media usage and gross sales 4. arr iers to using digital media to market purebred cattle. Significance of the Study The problem in this study addressed is significant because the study aids in the understanding of digital media usage in the marketing of purebred cattle. The lack of knowledge that producers may have can greatly alter the adoption of digital media when marketing cattle. This research is valuable and significant, as the research could allow purebred cattle producers to best identify the most effective method of marketing purebred cattle. The results of this study could address issues that producers have had with using digital media in marketing purebred cattle. The current study attempted to collect information useful to stakeholder groups such as, the Natio n al Cattleme Association, as well as various breed organizations and state cattlemen associations. This study also attempted to lay the groundwork for analyzing which realm of digital media is most effective in mark eting purebred cattle.

PAGE 18

18 Additionally, this study aided in the advancement o f the Nationa l Research Agenda for the American Association of Agricultural Education (Doerfert, 2011). This agenda provides research priority areas and initiatives for the years 2011 2015. The research priority this study addressed was Research Priority Two: New Technologies, Practices, and Products Adoption Decisions. These are i nterventions that enhance successful technology adoption. Definition of Terms This section operationally defines terms in the manner that they were used in the study. B REEDER : Individual that raises and produces cattle (adapted from Briggs, 1949). B UYER : This is the buyer of the cattle that are for sale (adapted from Cutrer, 2011). B UYING M OTIVES : Any force causing the buyer to seek satisfaction (adapted from Cutrer, 2011). C OMMERICAL C ATTLE Any group of cattle that do not belong to a Registry Association (adapted from Briggs, 19 49). D IGITAL M EDIA : Digitized media (text, graphics, audio, video) that can be transmitted over the Internet or other outlets (adapted from Cutrer, 2011). F ACEBOOK : Social media website that allows users to create online profiles, and make connections by s haring various forms of media (adapted from Hoe, 2011). F ACEBOOK P AGE : Facebook term used for business that initiates a Facebook Page (adapted from Cutrer, 2011). G ROSS R ECEIPTS : Gross receipts are the total amounts the organization received from all so urces during its annual accounting period, without subtracting any costs or expenses (adapted from USDA, www.usda.gov) I NTERNET S ALES A ND V IDEO A UCTIONS : Sale animals are prepared ahead of time, and then posted online. The auction begins and ends at a des ignated time. Bidders must log into a secure bidding system and place bids via Internet (adapted from Cutrer, 2011). M ARKETING : Marketing is a strategic process that is carefully planned, implemented, and evaluated. Marketing is based on many factors inclu ding consumer behavior, the economy, and much more (adapted from Cutrer, 2011). S EEDSTOCK : Animals, especially pedigreed livestock, maintained for breeding purposes (adapted from Cutrer, 2011).

PAGE 19

19 S OCIAL M EDIA : A dedicated website or other application that a llows users to communicate by posting information or photos (adapted from Cutrer, 2011). S TOCKYARD : The simplest marketing method where producers bring their cattle. The auction occurs at a scheduled time and is usually local (adapted from Cutrer, 2011). Limitations In an attempt to validate the credibility and generalizability of this study, limitations were explored. The lack of dependable Internet speed or access for both purebred cattle producers and buyers to dependable Internet is the first limitatio n encountered in this study The lack of Internet or Internet speed between computers is a large factor in marketing purebred cattle (Cutrer, 2011). The sample that was surveyed may not represent views of cattle producers across the United States since thi s was a small sample. In this study, the data was self reported. Self reported dollar amounts are a limitation because it is possible that participants may not provide truthful, accurate dollar amounts, thus obtaining inaccurate results in the study. Assu mptions There are two basic assumptions in which this study is designed. A ll purebred cattle producers surveyed are established producers who are clients of Ranch House Designs, Inc When working with less established producers many variables could skew th e gross sale number such as quality of cattle customer base, and lack of reputability. Secondly, participants in the study are truthful in completion of the survey instrument. Participants are also assumed to give honest responses regarding a sale gross and input cost. These figures may become skewed if producers are not honest when completing the survey instrument.

PAGE 20

20 Chapter Summary The purpose of this study was to examine how purebred cattle producers use digital media in marketing cattle Purebred cattle have contributed genetics to both the feeder and slaughter cattle that make up the United States beef cattle industry. Traditional marketing of feeder and slaughter cattle has included auction barns however the marketing of purebred cattle is substantially different. Natural and man made problems have presented an opportunity for purebred cattle breeders to strategically market quality cattle. The marketing costs of purebred cattle have often been ten times the per animal marketing costs se lling commercial cattle at an auction barn. The effective marketing of purebred cattle has included traditional print media, but incorporating the use of digital media has proven effective and profitable for producers. The problem addressed by this study w awareness of effective digital media use in marketing purebred cattle. The data collected from this study will be useful in gaining a better understanding of the most effective types of digital media i n marketing purebred cattle, as well as which factors aid in the diffusion of technology among purebred cattle breeders.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of digital media for marketing purebred cat tle. The objectives of the study were 1) to determine media used by purebred cattle producers to market purebred cattle, 2) t o determine the effecti veness of media as perceived by cattle producers, 3) to determine a relationship between media usage and gro ss sales, and 4) t o arriers to using digital media to market purebred cattle. This chapter reviews the relevant literature and research relating to the understanding of digital media and the adoption of digital media for the purposes of marketing cattle. The literature begins with a comprehensive overview of the theoretical framework used to conduct this research and expands into a conceptual framework. With an understanding of both the theoretical base, as well as the previous research conducted, the gap in current knowledge and the need for new research became apparent. The results of this study could address issues that producers have had with using digital media in effectively marketing purebred cattle. Theor etical Framework The guiding theoretical framework for this study was Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003). The use of this theory has been documented in past media research, and established a framework to explore the adoption of digital media as a ma rketing tool by purebred cattle producers. Diffusion of Innovations channels over time among the members of a social system. It is a special type of communication, in that t

PAGE 22

22 messages about new ideas, which involve a certain degree of uncertainty in regards to the s obvious advantages, is very difficult. Many innovations require a lengthy period of many years from the 1). Innovations differ in regards of adoption time, as the speed of diffusion is based upon many Elements of Diffusion he innovation, communication channels, time, and the individual or social system are known as innovations (Rogers, 2003). An innovation may also be new to an individual who may have known about the innovation for some time but never fully developed a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation. A common type of innovation is a new technology being introduced. Types of digital media in livestock m arketing, such as a website, online auction, or social media, have been considered a type of technology. Technology consists of two components: a hardware aspect and a software aspect (Rogers, 2003). The hardware component consists of the tangible represen tation of technology, while the software aspect consists of the information behind the technology (Rogers, 2003). Technological innovations have often been beneficial for adopters, but potential adopters have sometimes been reluctant to practice new innova tions because of unknown effects (Rogers, 2003). Communication refers to the way in which individuals communicate the innovation to others, whereas the channel is the method in which individuals use to deliver the message.

PAGE 23

23 Communication channels allow me ssages regarding an innovation to pass from one individual to another individual (Rogers, 2003). Rogers (2003) stated five characteristics of an innovation to explain its rate of adoption. relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, and observability and less complexity will be adopted more rapidly innovation has improved from the precedin g innovation and can be measured economically, in terms of convenience, satisfaction or social status (Rogers, 2003). The rate of adoption increases with the level of relative advantage (Rogers, 2003). The consistency of an innovation with previously ex isting values, needs of potential adopters, or experiences have been measured. This measurement is known as compatibility and also aids in the rate of adoption (Rogers, 2003). The difficulty of using an innovation and difficulty understanding an innovation is known as complexity (Rogers, 2003). Easier innovations to understand and use are easier to adopt than more difficult innovations. Trialability refers to the ability to experiment with an innovation. Trialability allows individuals to test an innovatio n on a limited basis without committing to the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Lastly, observability refers to visible results of an innovation. All four elements have been crucial in the understanding of adoption, but the idea of a social system has been a k ey element. The social system has a direct effect on the diffusion an affect diffusion through the structure, roles of opinion leaders, and change agents (Rogers, 2003).

PAGE 24

24 Both opinion leaders and change agents influence social system complexity. The opinion leaders provide information to the other members of the system. Opinion leadership is earned when the leader has developed a technical competence of the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Opinion leaders are more exposed to communication channels inside. Change as the process by which alteration occurs in the structure and function of a social system (Rogers, 2003, p. 6). The social system is structure d formally and informally in order to provide regularity and stability (Rogers, 2003). A formal structure is well developed and involves hierarchies, while 2003). An informal social system existed among purebred livestock producers. Adopter Categories In regards to the innovation decision process, individuals can be categorized into adopter categories. Rogers (2003) identified the adopter categories as 1) innovators 2) early adopters, 3) early majority, 4) late majority, and 5) laggards. Individuals whose interests in new ideas lead them out of their social system to more broad social relationships are known as innovators (Rogers, 2003). Geographical limitations do not play a role in relationships among innovators, allowing a larger social network (Rogers, 2003). Innovators often have financial resources that allow them to try innovations with no consequences if the innovation fails (Rogers, 2003). A high degree of t echnical knowledge, the ability to cope with a high degree of uncertainty about an innovation, and respect by members of the social system are also prerequisites for innovators (Rogers, 2003). Local trials that can address trialability may also be provided by innovators to address skepticism of other potential adopters (Rogers, 2003). Although innovators assist within

PAGE 25

25 the local social system, early adopters usually are more a part of the local social system (Rogers, 2003). Differentiating from innovators, early adopters are more intertwined within the local social system (Rogers, 2003). Early adopters often provide guidance and advice regarding innovations to potential adopters (Rogers, 2003). Early adopters make informed decisions when adopting innovation s. Careful decision making skills allow early adopters to be well respected in adopting it, and then conveying a subjective evaluation of the innovation to near peers through interpersonal networks (Rogers, 2003, p. 283). Following early adopters, the early majority adopts innovations. (Rogers, 2003, p. 283). Individuals within the early majority have been interacting among their peers, but they do not necessarily hold positions of status, such as opinion leaders, within the social system (Rogers, 2003). The innovation decision process for the early majority is longer than the innova tion decision process for the early adopter. Since the early majority is in the middle of the five adopter categories, this category is imperative to understanding the diffusion process (Rogers, 2003). The late majority comprises the fourth adopter categor y, following the early majority. various reasons differing from those in earlier economic necessity for the late majority and the result of increasing peer pressures (Rogers, 2003, p. 284). Unlike innovators, those individuals in the late majority usually lack financial

PAGE 26

26 stability. For th is reason, a large amount of uncertainty should be eliminated before adoption (Rogers, 2003). The final group in the adopter category is that of laggards. Laggards often have traditional values on which their decisions are based (Rogers, 2003). Suspicion often accompanies the presentation of innovations. Previous Research The conventional auction method of marketing has been used to market cattle until recently (Gillespie, Basarir, & Schupp, 2004). A multitude of marketing alternatives ha s been made available to producers including video auctions, private treaty sales, use of strategic alliances, and Internet marketing (Gillespie, Basarir, & Schupp, 2004 ) Conventional auctions have provided producers with a central location where multiple buyers could bid on cattle. In a study among producers, 91% use d conventional auctions for marketing some cattle (Gillespie, Basarir, & Schupp, 2004). A portion of this figure consisted of producers who use d conventional auction for only calves, cull bre eding stock, or other animals (Gillespie, Basar ir, & Schupp, 2004). Video auctions were used by only 3% of the population. Although only 3% of the population used video auctions, a majority of the producers owning more than 100 head of cattle primarily use d video auctions (Gillespie, Basarir, & Schupp, 2004). This particular finding illustrated the importance of size in the ability to effectively benefit from a digital marketing practice (Gillespie, Bassarir, & Schupp, 2004). The research also found that th e probability of 100% purebred producers utilizing conventional auctions was 0.0475 less than that of a 100% commercial producer (Gillespie, Bassarir, & Schupp, 2004). Producers who held a college degree, had more animals, a higher percentage of purebred c attle with higher weaning weights, with more diversified operations, or consulted more often with a county extension agent were more likely than commercial producers to use one or more alternative marketing methods

PAGE 27

27 (Gillespie, Bassarir, & Schupp, 2004). Re sults found that older producers were more traditional in marketing practices, most likely because of years of marketing through traditional outlets (Gillespie, Bassarir, & Schupp, 2004). These findings also suggested that new, younger cattle producers ent ering the industry would have a greater use of alternative marketing arrangements such as digital media (Gillespie, Bassarir, & Schupp, 2004). It was suggested that educational programs that inform producers of the benefits and costs of alternative market ing programs would be highly beneficial in the diffusion process, as contact with cattle producers revealed that many were either unaware or knew very little regarding alternative marketing practices (Gillespie, Bassarir, & Schupp, 2004). The availability of the Internet for producers was not reviewed in this study, but this plays an important role in the decision to use alternative marketing methods (Gillespie, 2009). Previous research provided by a Pew Research Center (2012) found that 81% of adults in th e United States have access to the Internet. A USDA (2011) study found that 62% of United States farms have been equipped with Internet access, which showed a gap within the United States Internet average compared to United States rural Internet us age (Whi te, 2013) A recent study of Oklahoma beef cattle producers indicated that 100% of 47 beef cattle producers surveyed had Internet access at either their home, their cattle operation, or on a smart phone (Gillespie, 2009). In an era of increasing technology the Internet has rapidly created a new standard for communication ( Gillespie, 2009 ). Internet marketing has been used to a limited degree by only cow calf operators in the cattle industry (Gillespie, Basarir, & Schupp, 2004). Multiple aspects of digital media have been included in Internet marketing such as digital photographs and videos. Advantages of Internet marketing have been numerous including a larger number o f buyers bidding on the cattle,

PAGE 28

28 premium prices due to specificity of traits, and lower commission fees (Gillespie, Basarir, & Schupp, 2004). A portion of Internet marketing involves social media us e by producers and buyers. Social media use has often created brand salience for the producer marketing cattle (Gillespie, 2009). A study conduct ed by Gillespie (2009) explored United States and perceptions of social media as a communication tool. This study was conducted using descriptive survey methodology. The study found that United States beef producers communicate through social media and place significant value on social media as a communication tool (Gillespie, 2009). Producers valued this method of communication because of the relationships that were created with other producers and allied industry groups. Gillespie (200 9) suggested that observability has played a large role in the adoption of social media among producers, and that producers are more likely to adopt in the future if they are given more opportunities to see other producers using social media. A quantitative study conducted by Graber (2011) sought to understand Texas agriculture of Texas agricultural producers prefer red more traditional forms of communic ation to social sample used some type of social media. Graber (2011) discussed the future of social media ion of social media among Texas agricultural producers was explored. A majority of respondents said that social media would not be used in their future, however 26% respondents answered maybe, and 10% of the respondents answered yes when speaking of social media use in their future (Graber, 2011).

PAGE 29

29 Those in the agriculture industry have utilized Facebook and other various social media outlets (Graybill, 2010). Graybill (2010) conducted a qualitative study that explored the use of Facebook as a communication tool by those who have been involved in agriculture. Graybill (2010) concluded that Facebook could be used as an effective communication tool for the promotion of agriculture related products. The results also showed that those involved in agriculture wer e not limited to only one form of social media, but were often active on other social media platforms (Graybill, 2010). The use of a variety of social media outlets has drawn an audience in multiple ways (Graybill, 2010). A qualitative study examining the use of social media in agriculture found that some producers prefer to use digital media for marketing and sharing information. A participant the public (Telg & Barnes, 2011). This study also provided information regarding the adoption of technology through generational differences. One participant indicated that some of the older generations have no t actually adopted the Internet or e mail, and some of them ha ve only recently adopted the cell phone (Telg & Barnes, 2011). The use of digital media such as physically bringing them to the farm (Telg & Barnes, 2011). Thi s method has been important in marketing cattle, allowing cattle to be sold without geographical limitations. Members of the focus groups also stressed the importance of providing information over a variety of communication channels to meet the needs and p references of members (Telg & Barnes, 2011). Ultimately social media should be used in conjunction with existing communication channels (Telg & Barnes, 2011).

PAGE 30

30 Remaining productive has required producers to stay updated with technological advances and in formation accessibility (Maddox et al., 2003). Although a large number of producers have had access to technologies, the adoption of these technologies has been slow innova tion decision process, the y will need positive reinforcement. This positive reinforcement should come through observability, suggesting progress within the adoption process (Rogers, 2003). Along with observability, producers must also be satisfied with the content being provided and ease of use (Katz et al., 1974). In order to increase the amount of producers using become more competent and confident in usin Riesenberg & Gor, 1989, p.13). Although producers have been shown to be adopting digital media at a slower rate than general audiences, a need has arisen to find out how cattle producers best reach core audiences w hen mar keting purebred cattle. Summary of Innovations theory was used. This theory, framework, provided a strong foundation on w hich this study was formed. Chapter two provided recent literature and research addressing the conceptual model and the use of digital media in agriculture and marketing. The lack of research on the practice of marketing purebred cattle through digital me dia has been media in marketing purebred cattle, will contribute to the knowledge base and provide a starting point for more research in this area.

PAGE 31

31 CHAPTER 3 M ETHODOLOGY Chapter 3 discusses the methodology used to conduct the study. In Chapter 3 the researcher will discuss the research perspective and specific methods used to measure the adoption of digital media for marketing purebred cattle. Included herein ar e the research design, a description of the population and sample, instrumentation, the approval of the study by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board, and a description of data collection and analysis process. Research Perspective This st udy was empirical in nature, investigating the adoption of media by producers for marketing purebred cattle. Essentially, this study sought to quantitatively describe a phenomenon. With this, more information should be gained and sound findings should be p rovided, leading to more research regarding the same phenomenon in the future. The researcher described a phenomenon deductively and was removed from personal interactions with participants in this study, therefore a quantitative approach seemed most appro priate for this study. These are defining features of quantitative approaches to research (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010). Research Design This research used a descriptive survey methodology to determine the adoption of digital media in the marketing of p urebred cattle. Descriptive studies ask questions regarding variables, but do not manipulate variables (Ary et al., 2010). Best (1970) ultimately described descriptive research by saying: It is concerned with conditions or relationships that exist; practi ces that prevail; beliefs, points of view, or attributes or relationships that are held; processes that are going on, effects that are being felt; or trends that are developing (p. 116).

PAGE 32

32 Descriptive research methodology was chosen for this particular stud y in order to analyze the adoption of digital media in the marketing of purebred cattle and the relationships between various attributes of the producers as they relate to communication preferences and the use of digital media. The survey was constructed according to Dillman, Smyth and Christian (2009) and was distributed in an electronically formatted questionnaire to participants in the study. The questionnaires were distributed via e mail. Electronic survey methods have the po tential to bring efficiencies to the design and management of self 352). The use of electronic surveys also elim inates geographical barriers for researchers in conducting national surveys (Dillman et al., 2009). One concern with conducting surveys electronically is included access to the Internet and variation in transmission capabilities based on telecommunication infrastructure (Dillman et al., 2009). Although this has been a concern, Internet skills and access to Internet have been increasing (Schonlau et al., 2002). Four main types of errors inherent in survey research studies, including coverage error, samplin g error, non response error, and measurement error (Dillman et al., 2009). In this study, non response error and measurement error were addressed. Non response error occurs when the researcher does not receive responses from all participants in the sample (Dillman et al., 2009). Procedures recommended in the Tailored Design Method were used in this study to address non response error (Dillman et al., 2009). The researcher also interviewed a small sample to determine if a possible bias or difference existed among the non respondents. Measurement

PAGE 33

33 effects, was reduced by the use of a pilot test distributed to a panel of experts prior to final survey distribution (Dillman et al., 2009). Population and Sampling Procedures This study used a simple random sample drawn from a population. The target population was composed of purebred cattle producers who: (a) had been producing cattle for one year or more, and (b) belonged to Ranch House Designs, Inc. website listerv in 2013. Ranch House Designs, Inc. has been described as a full service graphic design and web design agency located in Wharton, Texas, serving thousan ds of clients internationally. The agency operated both print and web divisions and reaches approximately 18,000 livestock producers with their email blasts (Ranch House Designs, Inc., 2013). For this study, producers who were involved exclusively in feedlot operations, exclusively commercial cattlemen, or those with out a valid e mail address were excluded from the population. A simple random sample of the population was selected by Ranch House Designs, Inc. using a random n th selection. Ranch House Designs, Inc. conducted the random sampling procedure in house to pro tect their list of clients Instrumentation A researcher designed questionnaire was created to address th e objectives of this study ( Appendix B). The instrument was reviewed by a panel of experts to ensure validity, and a pilot study was conducted with industry professionals, establishing reliability of the questionnaire. The survey responses for both the pilot study and full research study were collected through an e mail questionnaire designed following the Dill man Tailored Design Method (2009). Dat a were exported to SPSS for data analysis. Questionnaire Design The use of visual elements and color was limited. The questionnaire was introduced with an inviting welcome screen, followed by a question applicable to all respondents (Dillman,

PAGE 34

34 2007). Tru st was established by using Ranch House Designs, Inc. to distribute the questionnaire, as Ranch House Designs, Inc. has established credibility among purebred cattle producers especially clients. (Dillman, 2007 ). Rachel Cutrer owner of Ranch House Designs, Inc. sent the initial email to clients. Qualtrics was used to distribute the survey online. Validity A panel of experts reviewed the instrument in order to ensure face and content validity. The panel included four faculty me mbers from the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Florida; ten industry experts from purebred breed associations, including the American Angus Association, American Simmental Association, American Hereford Association, and the A merican Shorthorn Association; and two educational professionals outside of the purebred cattle industry. Panel members suggested improvements to the researcher after reviewing the instrument. Revisions were made to the questionnaire in order to ensure val idity. Reliability Reliability was also tested, as the measurements must be both valid and reliable. Following the establishment of face and content validity, a pilot test was used to estimate instrument reliability. The pilot study panel included 16 me mbers of the executive boards of multiple breed associations. This panel was selected because of their similarity to the target population. Institutional Review Board The first step in this process was to gain approval through the University of Florida I nstitutional Review Board (ARB 02). Federal regulations and the University of Florida policy require approval of all research studies involving human subjects before investigators can begin research. The University o f Florida Office of Research and the Ins titutional Review Board (IRB) conduct this review to protect the welfare and rights of human subjects involved in either

PAGE 35

35 behavioral or biomedical research. In compliance with this policy, this study was reviewed by iew Board and received approval (Protocol #2013 U 10 67) on September 18, 2013 ( Appendix A). Data Collection Survey responses were collected according to the principles of the Dillman Tailored Design Method (2009). Following the pilot test, contact infor mation was obtained from Ranch distributing the questionnaire through a system of five contacts is recommended. These five notices include a pre notice letter, a questi onnaire, a thank you letter, a follow up questionnaire, and a final contact (Dillman, 2009). The timeline for completing web based surveys is shorter than the timing for traditional mail surveys. The survey was e mailed three separate times with a pre noti ce letter and a final contact. The members of the study received a pre notification email from the Ranch House Designs, Inc., on October 2, 2013, explaining the purpose of the study. The first e mail was sent on October 9, 2013, with two reminder e mails f ollowing on October 16, 2013 and October 23, 2013. The final e mail was sent October 30, 2013. Multiple reminder e mails were sent in order to encourage participation. The study was closed on November 3, 2013. Concluding the survey, 63 of the 189 partici pants responded to the survey, which resulted in a response rate of 33%. Data Analysis Quantitative data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics, including mean, median, and mode, were used in the an alysis for this study. Correlations were also used to describe relationships in this study.

PAGE 36

36 Summary The study described was empirical in nature, investigating the adoption of digital media by producers and buyers for marketing purebred cattle. Essentiall y, the study sought to quantitatively describe the process of marketing purebred cattle. This research used descriptive survey methodology. The survey was conducted according to Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2009) and was distributed in an electronically formatted questionnaire to participants in the study. This questionnaire was distributed via e mail. The study used a simple random sample drawn from a population of purebred cattle producers. The target population was composed of purebred cattle producers who : (a ) had been producing cat tle for one year or more, and (b ) belonged to Ranch House Designs, Inc. web listerv in 2012. A simple random sample was chosen from the population of producers. This sample was chosen by Ranch House Designs, Inc. A panel of experts reviewed the instrument in order to ensure face and content validity. Reliability was also tested, as measurements must be both valid and reliable. Survey responses were collected according to the principles of the Dillman Tailored Design Method. Q uantitative data were analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive statistics were used in the analysis for this study.

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Chapter 1 described the history of marketing cattle, with a particular focus on the usage of different types of methods for marketing purebred cattle. Additionally, the first chapter provided a background for studying the lack of understanding regarding the us e of digital media in marketing purebred cattle. Chapter 1 identified the follow ing objectives to aid in guiding the study: 1) to determine media used by purebred cattle producers to market purebred cattle, 2) to determine effectiveness of media as perceived by cattle producers, 3) to determine a relationship between media usage and g ross sales, and 4) to identify the producers' perceptions of barriers to using digital media to ma rket purebred cattle. Further, c hapter 1 explained the importance of the study and identified its purpose. The chapter concluded by defining key terms and sta ting the assumptions and limitations of the study. Chapter 2 presented an overview of the theoretical foundations and the conceptual framework in which this study was built. The theory supporting this study was Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003). Di ffusion provides an explanation for the diffusion of a particular innovation through a particular system. This explanation includes descriptions of the innovation rates of adoption and a description of adopter categories. This chapter also discussed previo us findings regarding conventional marketing and Internet marketing. Overall, the l iterature presented in the chapter did not reveal any previous studies that measured the use of digital media in marketing purebred cattle, thus further establishing the nee d for this study. Chapter 3 outlined the methodology u sed in order to answer the research questions in which the study was founded. Moreover, this chapter addressed research design, population, instrument design, and data collection procedures. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the usage and effectiveness of digital media in marketing purebred cattle.

PAGE 38

38 This chapter presents the findings of the study beginning with a description of the population as well as the findings of each of the objectives. The population of this study consisted of clients of Ranch House Designs, Inc At t he conclusion of the data collection procedures, outlined in chapter 3 63 of the 189 (33.3%) clien ts responded. Although web surveys are much like traditional surveys, the delivery is different. A mail survey is delivered to the participant, but a web sur vey generally asks participants to go and get the survey themselves, via website. For those not familiar with technology, this can make participants feel uncomfortable (Dillman, 2009). This may have contributed to a low response rate. Demographics Demographics were collected in the questionnaire and are provided in order to characterize the responses of the study. These demographics included age, gender, education level, and head of cattle owned. The results are represented in tables Gender and Age Of the 63 respondents, 63% ( n = 40) were male, and 37% ( n = 23) were female. Of the 62 respondents who reported age, 11% ( n = 7) reported being 2 0 24 years old; 27% ( n = 17 ) being 25 34 years old; 27% ( n = 17) being 35 44 years old; 16% ( n = 10) being 45 54 years old; 11% ( n = 7) being 55 to 64 years old; and, 7 % ( n = 4) being 65 years old or older. (Table 4 1, 4 2) Education Of 62 respondents 3% ( n = 2) described their highest level of education to be high school graduate or GED recipient; 8% ( n = 5) ha d some college education but did not receive a degree; 13% ( n = 8) indicated their highest level of educati % ( n = 26) received a bachelor's degree; 29 % ( n = 1 8 ) received a master's degree; and 5% ( n = 3) reported having a doctoral degree (Table 4 3)

PAGE 39

39 Head of Cattle Owned Additionally, 13% ( n = 8 ) of the respondents reported to have owned less than 25 head of cattle; 15% ( n = 9) owned 25 50 head of cattle; 21% ( n = 13) owned 51 100 head of cattle; 29% ( n = 18) owned 101 200 head of cattle; 10% ( n = 6) owned 201 300 head of cattle; 7 % ( n = 4) owned 301 499 head of cattle; and, 5% ( n = 3) ow ned 500 or more head of cattle. (Table 4 4) Years Involved with Cattle Operation After evaluating answers of 6 0 respondents, 1 1 % ( n = 7 ) had been involved with the operation for 1 5 years; 10% ( n = 6) had been involved for 6 10 years; 3 2 % ( n = 20) had been involved for 11 20 years; and, 44% ( n = 27) had been involved for more than 20 years. (Table 4 5) Objective One : To determine the med ia used by purebred cattle producers to market purebred cattle The questionnaire contained six items regarding the media used by purebred cattle producers to market purebred cattle. Clients of Ranch House Designs, Inc. were asked which media was used to ma rket were their purebred cattle. This objective was measured by categorizing basic components, outdoor components, web components, print components, broadcast components, and other media components. Respondents were given the option to select 1) currently using, 2) am interested in using, or 3) not interested. The frequencies ( f) and percentages (%) are identified in tables. Basic Components Basic components consisted of colors, name, logo, and a tagline. The use of a name was most prevalent as 92.1% ( n = 58) of respondents reported current use. When asked about the use of color, 87.3% ( n = 55) of respondents were currently using colors. Results indicate 85.7% ( n = 54) of respondents were currently using a logo. Results show 36.5% ( n = 23) of respondents we re currently using a tagline. (Table 4 6)

PAGE 40

40 Outdoor Components Outdoor components consisted of farm signs, billboards, pedigree signs, promotional displays, and show animal exhibition. The use of farm signs was most prevalent with 69.8% ( n = 46) of responden ts currently using farm signs. Results show 66.7% ( n = 42) were currently using show animal exhibition, and 15.9% ( n = 10) were not interested in using show animal exhibition. Pedigree signs were currently being used by 61.9% ( n = 39) of the respondents. P romotional displays were currently being used by 46% ( n = 29) of respondents. Results indicated 55.6% ( n = 35) of respondents were not interested in using billboards. (Table 4 7) Web Components Web components consisted of blogs, email blasts, email address, website, web banner advertising, web links, and social media. A large percentage of respondents used some type of digital media. Results show 90.5% ( n = 57) of respondents were currently using a website. An email address was currently being used b y 84.1% ( n = 53) of respondents. Social media was currently being used by 68.3% ( n = 43) of respondents. Web links were currently being used by 55.6% ( n = 35) of respondents, and 30.2% ( n = 19) of respondents would like to use web links. Results show 54% ( n = 34) of respondents were currently using email blasts. Results indicated 38.1% ( n = 24) of respondents would like to use web banner advertising, and web banner advertising was currently being used by 34.9% ( n = 22) of respondents. The use of blogs was low in comparison to other media represented by web. Results indicated 44.4% ( n = 28) of respondents were not interested in using blogs, 30.2% ( n = 19) would like to use blogs, and 11.1% ( n = 7) of respondents were currently using blogs. (Table 4 8) Print Component Print components consisted of brochures, business cards, catalogs, letterhead/envelopes, magazines/newsletters, and postcards. Business cards were the most popular print materials, as

PAGE 41

41 79% of respondents ( n = 49) were currently using business ca rds. Magazines and newsletters were currently being used by 75.8% of respondents ( n = 47). Results indicated 54.8 %( n = 34) of respondents were currently using catalogs. Letterheads and envelopes were currently being used by 45.2% of respondents ( n = 28). Results showed 35.5% ( n = 22 ) of respondents were currently using brochures. Results indicated 30.6% ( n = 19) of respondents were not interested in using postcards, 29% ( n = 18) would like to use postcards, and postcards were currently being used by 22.6% ( n = 14). (Table 4 9) Broadcast Component Broadcast components consisted of Internet broadcast, radio broadcast, and television broadcast. Broadcast was used the least of all components evaluated in this study. Results indicated 41.9% ( n = 26) of respondents were not interested in using Internet broadcasts and 30.6% ( n = 19) of respondents were currently using Internet broadcasts. Results indicated 66.1% ( n = 46) of respondents were not interested in using radio broadcasts. Results indicate d 66.1% ( n = 41) of respondents were not interested in using television broadcasts. (Table 4 10) Other Components Other components consisted of apparel, photography, promotional items, and sponsorships. Photography was the most widely used component clas sified as other with 84.1% ( n = 53) of respondents currently using photography. Results illustrated 63.5% ( n = 40) of respondents were currently using apparel. Sponsorships were currently being used by 50.8% ( n = 32) of respondents. Results showed promoti onal items to be the least used component of the other category as only 41.3%( n = 26) of respondents were currently using promotional items. (Table 4 11)

PAGE 42

42 Objective Two: Determine the effectiveness of media as perceived by cattle producers In order to ass ess the effectiveness of media as perceived by cattle producers, respondents were asked to describe how each type of media had impacted the promotion of their purebred cattle. The six categories assessed included basic, outdoor, print, web, broadcast, and other Each of these constructs had a range possibility between one and four. Respondents could select 1) had a large impact on promoting my cattle; 2) had a minimal impact on promoting my cattle; 3) had no impact on promoting my cattle; or 4) do not use. The frequencies ( f) and percentages (%) are identified in tables Of the basic components, the use of a name had the most benefit for producers, as 69.8% ( n = 44) of the respondents reported the use of a name had a large impact on the promotion of their o peration. Respondents perceived a tagline to have the least impact with only 14.3% ( n = 9) of the respondents reporting the use of a tagline had a large impact on the promotion of their cattle (Table 4 12) When using outdoor components, the results indicate p roducers perceived the exhibition of show animals to be the most eff ective. Of the respondents, 50.8% ( n = 32) reported the exhibition of show animals had a large impact on the promotion of their cattle. Of the respondents 4.8% ( n = 3) reported t he usage of billboards had a large impact on the promotion of their c attle. (Table 4 13) When using web components, the results indicate p roducers perceived the usage of a website to be the most effective in promoting their c attle. Of the respondents 66 .7% ( n = 42) selected the usage of a website had a large impact on the promotion of their cattle operation. The use of social media also appeared to be effective as perceived by prod ucers. Results indicated 46% ( n = 29) reported the usage of social media h ad a large i mpact on their cattle operation Blogs proved to be least effectiv e. (Table 4 14)

PAGE 43

43 The results indicated p roducers perceived the usage of printed magazines or newspapers to be the most effective in promoting their cattle when using print Of t he respondents, 54.8 % ( n = 34) reported the usage of magazine or newspaper print materials had a large impact on the promot ion of their cattle operation The effectiveness of catalog usage was also perceived high amon g producers. Of the respondents, 48.4 % ( n = 30) reported the usage of catalogs had a large impact on the promotion of their cattle operation. Overall, producers perceived the use of catalogs and/or magazines or newspapers to be more effective than the use of brochures, letterheads/envelopes, o r postcards when using print (Table 4 15) Of all categories of media, producers perceived the usage of broadcasting to be the least effective in promoting their cattle Of the respondents, 27% ( n = 17) producers perceived the usage of Internet broadcasting had a large impact o n the promotion of their cattle. Radio broadcasting had far less users. Of the respondents, 14.3% ( n = 9) perceived radio broadcasting to have no impact on the promotion of their cattle Television br oadcasting was similar to radio b roadcasting. Of the respondents, 14.3% ( n = 9) of respondents reported television broadcasting to have no impact on the promotion of their cattle operation. (Table 4 16) Producers perceived the use of professional photogra phy to have the largest impact on the promotion of their cattle operation when using other components Of the respondents, 69.8% ( n = 44) indicated the use of professional photography had a large impact on the promo tion of their cattle operation. The use o f apparel, promo tional items, and sponsorships were noted to have a positive impact on the promotion. (Table 4 17) purebred cattle Once the effectiveness of digital medi a as perceived by producers was determined, the relationship between media and gross sales w as determined. Pearson Correlation coefficients

PAGE 44

44 were computed to reveal if any correlations existed between the types of media used and the annual sale gross. The d ata was recoded to represent if purebred producers were using the media. The data was recoded to 1 if used and a 2 if not or would like to use. Producers were given a choice to choose the sales gross most representative of their operation. Responses were d ispersed, which showed an accurate representation of producers. For the year 2012, results indicated 11% ( n = 6) chose under $10,000; 18% ( n = 10) of respondents chose $10,001 $20,000; 11%( n = 6) chose $50,000 $75,000; 11% ( n = 6) chose $101,000 $150,000; and 13% ( n = 7) chose more than $500,001 in gross sales. For the year 2013, results indicated 13% ( n = 7) of respondents chose $10,001 $20,000; 11% ( n = 6) chose $20,001 $30,000; 16%( n = 9) chose $50,000 $75,000; 11% ( n = 6) chose $101,000 $150,000; and 16 % ( n = 9) chose more than $500,001 in gross sales. The magnitudes of the correlations are presented using correlation magnitudes presented by Miller (1994). (Table 4 18, 4 19) Results indicated a significant negative correlation between broadcast media and gross sales in both 2012 ( r = .512, p > 0.01) and 2013 ( r = .518, p > 0.01). This negative correlation indicated as the use of broadcasting increased, gross sales decreased and vice versa. (Table 4 20, 4 21) Results indicated a negative correlation between other media and gross sales in both 2012 ( r = .293, p > 0.05) and 2013 ( r = .293, p> 0.05). This negative correlation indicated as the use of other media increased, gross sales decreased and vice versa. rceptions of barriers to using digital media for marketing purebred cattle This objective sought to gain a better understanding of barriers preventing producers from using digital media to market purebred cattle. First, it was imperative to learn if produc ers had Internet access at their home or cattle operation. A majority of respondents ( n = 62, 98%)

PAGE 45

45 stated Internet was accessible at either their home or cattle operation. Next, respondents were asked if they owned a smart phone. A majority ( n = 58, 94%) re sponded yes. If respondents owned a smart phone, a question was presented regarding how their cell phone was used. Cell phones were used by 45.2% ( n = 28) of respondents to access social media, 64.5% ( n = 40) of respondents chose to access the Internet, 62 .9% ( n = 39) chose to access e mail, 67.7% ( n = 42) chose to send/receive text messages, 71% ( n = 44) chose to send receive phone calls, 35.5% ( n = 22) chose to view online cattle sales, and 21% ( n = 13) chose other. Respondents were allowed to enter text if "other" was selected. Weather, maps, and Facetime were common answers when other was chosen. One respondent stated "I have a problem with no cell service at my home or my ranch, so I cannot fully utilize my smart phone." Although the technology is avai lable, perhaps people do not live in an area for the product to work optimally. Lastly, respondents were asked an open ended question as to why digital media was not being used by producers more often. Eight respondents described the barriers to using so cial media for marketing purebred cattle. Five respondents referenced a lack of knowledge and in their purebred cattle of how cost effective using new meth Summary This chapter presented the findings of the study. Findings were organized and presented by the following o bjectives: 1. To determine the media used by purebred cattle producers to market purebred ca ttle.

PAGE 46

46 2. To determine the effectiveness of media as perceived by cattle producers. 3. To compare which types of media are most effective in the marketing of purebred cattle determined by gross sales. 4. purebred cattle. Chapter 5 will summarize the st udy and discusses the conclusions, implications, and recommendations of this study.

PAGE 47

47 Table 4 1. Gender of Participants Gender f % Male 40 63.0 Female 23 37.0 Note: Self reported age of study participants ( n = 63) Table 4 2 Ages of Participants Age f % 20 24 7 11.3 25 34 17 27.4 35 44 17 27.4 44 54 10 16.1 55 64 7 11.3 65 or Over 4 6.5 Note: Self reported age of study participants ( n = 62) Table 4 3 Education Level of Participants Education Level f % High School/GED 2 3.2 Some College 5 8.1 8 12.9 26 41.9 18 29.0 Doctoral Degree 3 4.8 Note: Self reported education level of study participants ( n = 62) Table 4 4 Head of Cattle Owned Head of Cattle Owned f % Less than 25 8 12.9 25 50 9 14.5 51 100 13 21.0 101 200 18 29.0 201 300 6 9.7 301 499 4 6.5 500 999 1 1.6 1000 or more 2 3.3 Note: Self reported number of cattle owned ( n = 61)

PAGE 48

48 Table 4 5 Number of Years Involved with Operation Number of Years f % 1 5 7 11.3 6 10 6 9.7 11 20 20 32.3 More than 20 27 43.5 Note: Self reported years involved ( n = 60) Table 4 6 Use of Basic Components Basic Component f % Name I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 58 2 0 92.1 3.2 0.0 Color I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 55 4 2 87.3 6.3 3.2 Logo I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 54 7 0 85.7 11.1 0.0 Tagline I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 23 19 9 36.5 30.2 14.3

PAGE 49

49 Table 4 7 Outdoor Components Outdoor Component f % Farm Signs I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 46 14 2 69.8 22.2 3.2 Show Animal Exhibition I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 42 4 10 66.7 6.3 15.9 Pedigree Signs I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 39 8 10 61.9 12.7 15.9 Promotional Displays I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 29 17 10 46.0 27.0 15.9 Billboards I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 5 9 35 7.9 14.3 55.6

PAGE 50

50 Table 4 8 Web Components Web Component f % Website I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 57 5 0 90.5 7.9 0.0 Email Address I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 53 6 1 84.1 9.5 1.6 Social Media I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 43 7 7 68.3 11.1 11.1 Web Links I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 35 19 6 55.6 30.2 9.5 Email Blasts I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 34 16 9 54.0 25.4 14.3 Web Banner Advertising I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 22 24 11 34.9 38.1 17.5 Blogs I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 7 19 28 11.1 30.2 44.4

PAGE 51

51 Table 4 9 Print Components Print Component f % Business Cards I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 49 7 4 79.0 11.3 6.5 Magazine/Newspaper I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 47 7 6 75.8 11.3 9.7 Catalogs I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 34 11 11 54.8 17.7 17.7 Letterhead/Envelopes I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 28 12 14 45.2 19.4 22.6 Brochures I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 22 13 19 35.5 21.0 30.6 Postcards I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 14 18 19 22.6 29.0 30.6 Table 4 10 Broadcast Components Broadcast Component f % Internet I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 19 10 26 30.6 16.1 41.9 Radio I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 9 3 46 14.5 4.8 66.1 Television I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 4 5 41 6.5 8.1 66.1

PAGE 52

52 Table 4 11 Other Components Other Component f % Photography I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 53 4 2 84.1 6.3 2.3 Apparel I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 40 12 6 63.5 19.0 9.5 Sponsorships I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 32 10 12 50.8 15.9 19.0 Promotional Items I am using I would like to use I am not interested in using 26 18 9 41.3 28.6 14.3 Table 4 12 Perceptions of Basic Components Basic Component f % Colors Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 16 31 3 4 25.4 49.2 4.8 6.3 Name Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 44 9 1 1 69.8 14.3 1.6 1.6 Logo Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 32 16 2 3 50.8 25.4 3.2 4.8 Tagline Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 9 14 5 17 14.3 22.2 7.9 27.0

PAGE 53

53 Table 4 13 Perceptions of Outdoor Components Outdoor Component f % Farm Signs Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 24 17 4 7 38.1 27.0 6.3 11.1 Billboards Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 3 2 10 32 4.8 3.2 15.9 50.8 Pedigree Signs Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 23 13 6 9 36.5 20.6 9.5 14.3 Promotional Displays Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 21 8 5 18 33.3 12.7 7.9 28.6 Show Animal Exhibition Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 32 11 5 7 50.8 17.5 7.9 11.1

PAGE 54

54 Table 4 14 Perceptions of Web Components Web Component f % Blogs Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 7 1 7 33 11.1 1.6 11.1 52.4 Email Blasts Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 18 16 6 13 28.6 25.4 9.5 20.6 Email Address Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 26 24 3 2 41.3 38.1 4.8 3.2 Website Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 42 11 2 0 66.7 17.5 3.2 0.0 Web Banner Advertising Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 13 9 6 22 20.6 14.3 9.5 34.9 Web Links Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 14 22 3 13 22.2 34.9 4.8 20.6 Social Media Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 29 10 1 13 46.0 15.9 1.6 20.6

PAGE 55

55 Table 4 15 Print Components Print Component f % Brochures Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 12 11 5 25 19.4 17.7 8.1 40.3 Business Cards Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 20 26 6 3 32.3 41.9 9.7 4.8 Catalogs Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 30 6 4 16 48.4 9.7 6.5 25.8 Letterhead/Envelopes Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 11 13 10 18 17.7 21.0 16.1 29.0 Magazine/Newspaper Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 34 11 3 10 54.8 17.7 4.8 16.1 Postcards Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 10 6 6 27 16.1 9.7 9.7 43.5

PAGE 56

56 Table 4 16 Broadcast Components Broadcast Component f % Internet Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 17 4 6 25 27.0 6.3 9.5 39.7 Radio Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 5 5 9 34 7.9 7.9 14.3 54.0 Television Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 4 3 9 37 6.3 4.8 14.3 58.7 Table 4 17 Other Components Other Component f % Apparel Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 19 19 5 11 30.2 30.2 7.9 17.5 Photography Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 44 9 2 3 69.8 14.3 3.2 4.8 Promotional Items Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 16 11 6 22 25.4 17.5 9.5 34.9 Sponsorships Had a large impact Had a minimal impact Had no impact Do not use 14 14 8 20 22.2 22.2 12.7 31.7

PAGE 57

57 Table 4 18 Media Use related to Gross Sales, 2012 Gross Sales f % Under 10,000 10,001 20,000 20,0001 30,000 30,001 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,001 100,000 101,000 150,000 150,001 175,000 175,001 200,000 200,001 300,000 301,000 400,000 401,000 500,000 More than 500,001 6 10 4 4 6 1 6 4 0 2 3 3 7 11.0 18.0 7.0 7.0 11.0 2.0 11.0 7.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 13.0 Note: Self reported gross sales of study participants (n=56) Table 4 19 Media Use related to Gross Sales, 2013 Gross Sales f % Under 10,000 10,001 20,000 20,0001 30,000 30,001 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,001 100,000 101,000 150,000 150,001 175,000 175,001 200,000 200,001 300,000 301,000 400,000 401,000 500,000 More than 500,001 5 7 6 2 9 1 6 2 1 3 3 1 9 9.0 13.0 11.0 4.0 16.0 2.0 11.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 16.0 Note: Self reported gross sales of study participants (n=55)

PAGE 58

58 Table 4 20 Media Use and Gross Sale Correlation, 2012 Component r p Basic Outdoor Web Print Broadcast Other .203 .098 .138 .234 .512 .293 .140 .483 .313 .085 .000** .031* Note: p < .05, ** p < .01 Table 4 21 Media Use and Gross Sale Correlation, 2013 Component r p Basic Outdoor Web Print Broadcast Other .197 .176 .151 .243 .518 .293 .140 .483 .313 .085 .000** .031* Note: p <.05, ** p <.01

PAGE 59

59 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter summarizes the study and discusses the conclusions, implications, and recommendations drawn from this particular study. The first section of this chapter provided an overview of the study, including the purpose and specific objectives, methodo logies, and findings. The remainder of the chapter discussed the conclusions, implications, and recommendations. The problem addressed by this study was the lack of purebred cattle producers' adoption and awareness of effective media use in marketing pure bred cattle. A review of the literature showed no previous scholarly research in this subject matter. The purpose of this study was to examine the media for marketing purebred cattle. In addition, this study sought to gain an understanding of the types o f media producers are using to market purebred cattle. This study also described the population of the producers who are clients of Ranch House Designs, Inc. in terms of gender, age, education levels, and head of cattle owned. A survey was distributed onli ne to determine this information. The following research objectives were used to guide this study: 1) determine media used by purebred cattle producers to market purebred cattle, 2) determine effectiveness of media as perceived by cattle producers, 3) dete rmine relationship between media usage and gross sales, and 4) to identify the producers perceptions of barriers to using digital media to market purebred cattle. The survey instrument was researcher developed, reviewed by a panel of experts for face and content validity, and pilot tested to establish acceptable reliability scores. In this study, the population was defined as all clients of Ranch House Designs, Inc. who have purebred cattle operations ( n = 189 ). Responses were obtained from 63 of the 189 Ra nch House Designs, Inc. clients, for an overall response rate of 33.3%.

PAGE 60

60 Summary of Findings Objective 1 Objective 1 sought to determine the media used by purebred cattle producers to market purebred cattle. The respondents were asked to select which type s of media were being used to promote their purebred cattle operation. These six categories included basic, outdoor, print, web, broadcast, and other. Results indicated basic components were being used most, meaning respondents realized the importance of b randing their operation. Most respondents were using a name and a logo. This indicates respondents realized this was the first and most important step in marketing their purebred cattle. Photography was highly used by respondents, showing the importance of quality images to promote purebred livestock. Often these images are used with other media such as print catalogs or websites. Most individuals who have adopted the use of photography are also using other forms of media. Broadcast media was used the least by Ranch House Designs, Inc. clients. Ranch House Designs, Inc. did not offer broadcast media at the time the survey was administered. Clients may not want to outsource to other marketing companies, or may believe broadcast media is not needed if it is no t being offered. To some, broadcast media was considered a premium service, which may have slowed the rate of adoption as described by Rogers ( 2003). Producers may have believed a premium service was too advanced for the size and scale of the cattle operat ion. Objective 2 The second objective focused on determining the perceptions of effectiveness of media by purebred cattle producers. Overall, effectiveness for each media type was measured individually assessing six mediums involved in marketing purebred cattle. The six categories included basic, outdoor, print, web, broadcast, and other. Respondents could select a value on a

PAGE 61

61 Likert type scale. The values ranged from one to four, with one being "had a large impact on promoting my cattle," and four being do not use." Basic Basic components consisted of colors, name, logo, and tagline. Similarly to objective 1, basic components appeared to be the most effective as perceived by producers. Of the basic components, the use of a name had the most benefit for p roducers. Again, this echoes the importance of creating brand awareness. Producers realized how important this was, and included the basic components that make a brand. Respondents perceived taglines to have the least impact. Again, respondents may have be lieved a tagline was for larger operations, or may not have known exactly what tagline referred to. Outdoor Outdoor components consisted of farm signs, billboards, pedigree signs, promotional displays, and show animal exhibition. Producers perceived the exhibition of show animals to be the most effective in promoting their cattle. Respondents realized the importance of show animal exhibition, as this is their chance to display the operation s product to both potential buyers and other producers. When sho wing animals, incorporating other outdoor components such as signage is also important. Producers realized this, as many chose the use of farm signs or stall signs were effective in promoting their purebred operation. Producers had a low usage of billboard s and thought billboards were not effective. Billboards are used for roadways, so many producers may not think they need this level of advertising or their operation is too small to use billboards. Farm signs and billboards are closely related, so those pr oducers using farm signs may have decided using one form of signage was enough.

PAGE 62

62 Web Web components consisted of blog, email blasts, email address, website, web banner advertising, web links, and social media. Producers perceived the usage of a website to b e the most effective in promoting their cattle. A majority of respondents selected the usage of a website had a large impact on the promotion of their cattle operation. Producers realized the importance of having a central location for their information. A website should be one of the first components producers use, since a website ultimately serves as a destination for most other advertising calls to action (Cutrer, 2011). Websites also provide a centralized presence for all online advertising, including s ocial media. Echoing is, the use of social media also appeared to be effective as perceived by producers. Many producers who believed their website had a large impact also believed social media was effective, hence using the two together. Producers perceiv ed the least use and least effectiveness of blogs. Blogs are fairly new to the purebred industry, and are very simple to use. Some producers use blogs to show day to day life on the farm, but many producers do not have time for a blog. Blogs must be update d constantly, and are usually updated by the producer as opposed to a professional. Print Print components consisted of brochures, business cards, catalogs, letterhead/envelopes, magazine/newspaper, and postcards. Producers perceived the usage of printed magazines or newspapers to be the most effective in promoting their cattle. Magazine and ne wspaper advertising were perceived to have a large impact on promoting purebred cattle. Prior to upcoming shows or sales, producers can put in advertisement in a variety of magazines. Some producers may even put a congratulatory advertisement after a show or sale. This may be thought of as a traditional method, but younger producers also found this category of print to be effective. The use of sale catalogs was also thought to have a large impact on the promotion of cattle

PAGE 63

63 operations. Sale catalogs often el iminate geographical barriers and allow prospective buyers to have the information about each lot in front of them. Catalogs are standalone pieces, often eliminating competition that would be found in magazines (Cutrer, 2011). Overall, producers perceived the use of catalogs and/or magazines or newspapers to be more effective than the use of brochures, letterheads/envelopes, or postcards. Broadcast Broadcast components consisted of Internet broadcasts, radio broadcasts, and television broadcasts. Of all ca tegories of media, broadcasting had the least use and producers perceived the usage of broadcasting to be the least effective in promoting their cattle. Overall, the amount of usage is low compared to other types of media. In regards to the low amount of u sage for Internet and television broadcasting, this may be due to a low adoption rate among users, which can be contributed to lack of knowledge, accessibility, or costs. Ranch House Designs, Inc. also did not offer broadcast options at the time of the sur vey. This may attribute to the low adoption rate. Other The other media category was composed of apparel, photography, promotional items, and sponsorships. Producers perceived the use of professional photography to have the largest impact on the promotio n of their cattle operation. Although professional photography can be expensive, bad photos of cattle cost the producer much more. The photographs are used to attract potential buyers. Photographs lacking certain attributes can cost producers buyers. The p erception of effectiveness may attribute to the high adoption rate. The use of apparel, promotional items, and sponsorships were used much less than professional photography, but were noted to have a positive impact on the promotion.

PAGE 64

64 Objective 3 This obje ctive sought to determine which types of media were most effective in marketing purebred cattle. Once the effectiveness of various types of media by producers was determined, the correlation of media usage and gross sales was determined. Seven categories w ere used in this correlation including basic, outdoor, web, print, broadcast, and other. Each category was correlated with the sale gross from 2012 and 2013. Of these categories, the use of outdoor advertising, which included farm signs, billboards, pedigr ee signs, promotional displays, and show animal exhibition, had the most beneficial correlation with gross sales in both years. Show animal exhibition contributed largely to this correlation. The use of web closely follows. Although neither of the relation ships is significant in statistical terms, these do seem to have the largest positive impact. In both years, the use of broadcast had a significant negative correlation in both the 2012 and 2013 sale gross values. From this, it is evident when sales increa se, the use of broadcasting decreases and visa versa. The low adoption rate or cost associated with broadcasting may contribute to these values. Ranch House Designs, Inc. did not offer broadcasting at the time of the survey, which may have also contributed to the negative correlations. Objective 4 The final objective in the study sought to identify producers' perceptions of barriers to using digital media for marketing purebred cattle. In order to analyze producers' perceptions of barriers, an open ended qu estion was presented. Producers seem to have access to the technology and industry professionals to use advanced marketing techniques, however some producers felt their operation was not to the level of using these marketing techniques. For producers who d o feel the need for marketing methods, a lack of knowledge was presented. Another common

PAGE 65

65 factor seemed to be cost. Respondents also suggested if a return on sales were probable, they would consider using digital media in their operation. Discussion and Implications There has been no scholarly research done examining the use of media in marketing purebred cattle. This study sought to understand the most effective methods to market purebred cattle. Understanding the types of media being used and which of these media types is most effective can assist producers in the industry, breed organizations, and communications professionals. Factors Impacting Diffusion Those users currently using media to promote their purebred cattle operation have most likely pas sed through the implementation and confirmation stages of the innovation decision process. A large attribute having an effect on the rate of adoption is observability (Rogers, 2003). If later adopters have an opportunity to observe notable purebred cattle producers using digital media as a method of marketing, they too may implement digital media usage. There were certain media used mostly by large scale producers. The reason some producers were not adopting certain media was due to size of operation. Large breeders may have been observed using these methods, so smaller producers may believe this media is not suitable for their operation. In order to assess the use of media, it is important to analyze producers who are not using media. Overall, lack of interest, lack of knowledge, and lack of time seem to be factors preventing producers from adopting digital media to market their cattle. Al though the direct cost of Internet use is low, the indirect costs can vary. The time involved in learning a new technology can be significant, and producers often have prior time commitments (Smith et al.,

PAGE 66

66 2004). These individuals are in the late majority, adopting new ideas just after the average members of a system (Rogers, 2003, p. 284). Producers needed to see using media was worth their time and effort before the conscious effort was made to adopt new technologies. Educational Opportunities Althoug h there were a significant amount of respondents using digital media along with traditional media, there were respondents who were not using both. Traditionally, print is used as an avenue to digital sources. Those individuals not using digital media large ly contributed their reasoning to lack of knowledge. Educational programs informing producers of the benefits and costs of alternative marketing programs would be highly beneficial in the diffusion process, as producers are either unaware or know very litt le regarding alternative marketing methods (Gillespie, Bassarir, & Schupp, 2004). Communications professionals such as Ranch House Designs, Inc. have offered educational workshops for producers to attend. Although attendance has been significant, these hav e occurred in Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas. This may pose geographical barriers for producers in other areas of the country. A need for workshops in other states could be assessed to see if producers across the country are interested in learning which med ia to use to market purebred cattle. National Research Agenda The previous conclusions, discussion, and implications can all be linked back to the American Association for Agricultural Education National Research Agenda 2011 2015 (Doerfert, 2011). Specif ically this study aids in the following research priority area (RPA): RPA 2: New technologies, practices, and products adoption decisions Agriculturists, rural landowners, homeowners, and consumers will embrace new technologies, practices, and products de rived through agricultural and natural resource research.

PAGE 67

67 Recommendations Recommendations for future research and practice are provided as a result of assessing the use and effectiveness of digital media in the marketing of purebred cattle. Recommendatio ns for Practice Purebred cattle producers should communicate with a communications professional or extension agent to determine which media platforms should be used to promote their operations. Classes and workshops need to be offered by communications professionals, extension agents, or breed associations to assist purebred producers in learning to use different platforms, especially digital media. Involve extension agents in classes and worksh ops to assist producers with marketing strategies and usage of various platforms. Provide example marketing plans or case studies of very successful cattle operations. Recommendations for Future Research Research should be done to see why some platforms of media are chosen over others among producers. Research should be done to determine which platforms of media work best together. Research should be done to determine which media work best for various sizes of operations. Research should be done to dete rmine the source of knowledge for producers regarding media use in marketing. A qualitative study assessing the quality of media being used should be conducted. Content analysis should be used to determine the quality of media used. Research should be d one to determine knowledge of different platforms of media in order to assess if lack of knowledge is the contributing factor to lower usage of some forms of media. Research should be conducted to determine what type of social media is being used to promo te purebred cattle. A qualitative study should be done be done to assess quality of product being sold, along with a brand audit type study of producers.

PAGE 68

68 A study should be done to show a comparison of marketing purebred cattle versus other types of livest ock. A study should be done regarding brand recognition among purebred cattle producers. Summary Chapter 5 began by reviewing the purpose and objectives of this study. Then summaries of findings for each of the four objectives were provided. Next, conclus ions were drawn from data presented in Chapter 4. These conclusions were discussed and compared to previous literature. Additionally, Chapter 5 demonstrated how the conclusions helped to advance the National Research Agenda for American Association for Agr icultural Education. Finally, recommendations for practice and future research were offered.

PAGE 69

69 APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL Effectiveness o f Digital Media f or Marketing Purebred Cattle Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to collect information from cattle producers regarding the utilization of digital media in purebred livestock operations. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to participate in a survey, where you will be asked a ser ies of questions regarding the current marketing strategy of your purebred cattle operation. Time required: 20 minutes Risks and Benefits: There are no risks associated with this study. There are no direct benefits to you for participating in the study Compensation: You will not be compensated for your participation. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your name will not be connected with your responses nor be used in any report. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. By clicking yes, I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description.

PAGE 70

70 APPENDIX B SURVEY COMPLETION REQUESTS Pre Survey E Mail Dear Ranch House Designs, Inc. Client, In a few days, Reba Ellen Hicks, a master's student in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida, will be contacting you to participate in a national study regarding the use of digital media in marketing purebred ca ttle. Ranch House Designs, Inc. is supporting this research and we hope that you will participate. The results of this survey will assist agricultural communicators and industry professionals better understand your advertising needs. The email that you wi ll receive from Reba will explain more details of the research and the importance of this research. Most importantly, she will explain the importance of your participation in the survey questionnaire. Thank you in advance for your contribution to this mas ter's research. Sincerely, Rachel Cutrer President and Creative Director Ranch House Designs, Inc.

PAGE 71

71 Initial Contact Email Dear Ranch House Designs, Inc. Client, Please take a moment out of your day to assist me in gathering data for my master's thesis project. As a master's student in agricultural communications and someone who has a passion for the cattle industry, I am interested in discovering the best way to market your cattle within regards to using digital media. With your assistan ce, the data collected will help beef cattle producers like yourself market cattle in the most effective way. The link below will direct you to a short questionnaire regarding your personal use of digital media in promoting purebred cattle. This questio nnaire should take approximately 15 20 minutes to complete. You assistance with this research is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the questionnaire or the research the data supports, please feel free to contact me at the email addre ss provided below. Follow this link to the Survey: Take the Survey Or copy and paste the URL below into your Internet browser: https://ufl.qualtrics.com/WRQualtricsSurveyEngine/?Q_SS=3W4oMkePg5L5ARn_5 4J2gjKvqiZEfLT&_=1 Follow the link to opt out of future emails: Click here to unsubscribe Sincerely, Reba Ellen Hicks University of Florida Graduate Assistant Department of Agricultural Education and Communicat ion rhicks@ufl.edu

PAGE 72

72 Follow Up Contact Email Dear Ranch House Designs, Inc. Client, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for participating in my research and encourage you to complete the survey instrument if you have not already done so. It is not my intention to continue to bombard you with e mails, but it is part of the research design I must adhere to in order for my research to be deemed valid. The link below will direct you to a short quest ionnaire regarding your personal use of digital media in promoting purebred cattle. This questionnaire should take approximately 15 20 minutes to complete. You assistance with this research is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the qu estionnaire or the research the data supports, please feel free to contact me at the email address provided below. Follow this link to the Survey: Take the Survey Or copy and paste the URL below into your Internet browser: https://ufl.qualtrics.com/WRQualtricsSurveyEngine/?Q_SS=3W4oMkePg5L5ARn_ 5 4J2gjKvqiZEfLT&_=1 Follow the link to opt out of future emails: Click here to unsubscribe Once again, your participation in completing the survey is greatly appreciated. You are helping to develop a better understanding of marketing methods used by purebred cattlemen. Thank you, Reba Ellen Hicks University of Florida Graduate Assistant Department of Agricultural Educati on and Communication rhicks@ufl.edu

PAGE 73

73 Final Follow Up Contact Email Dear Ranch House Designs, Inc. Client, I am sending you this message as a final reminder that I need your assistance. I am currently collecting data for my thesis, and your response is imperative to the success of my research. Two weeks ago, I sent you the following email: Please take a moment out of your day to assist me in gathering data for my master's thesis project. As a master's student in agricultural communications and someone who has a passion for the cattle industry, I am interested in discovering the best way to market your cattle within regards to using digital media. With your assistance, the data collected will help beef cattle producers like yourself market cattle in the most effective way. The link below will direct you to a short questionnaire regarding your personal use of digital media in promoting purebred cattle. This questionnaire should take approximately 15 20 minutes to complete. You assistance with this research is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the questionnaire or the research the data supports, please feel free to contact me at the email address provided below. Follow this link t o the Survey: https://ufl.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_54J2gjKvqiZEfLT Or copy and paste the URL below into your Internet browser: https://ufl.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_54J2gjKvqiZEfLT This questionnaire is only available for one more week so please participate at your earliest convenience. Your time and input are so i mportant to me, and a crucial for the success of my master's thesis. If you have any questions regarding the survey or the research being supported by the survey, please feel free to contact me. Thank you again for your assistance! Sincerely, Reba El len Hicks University of Florida Graduate Assistant Department of Agricultural Education and Communication rhicks@ufl.edu

PAGE 74

74 APPENDIX C MARKETING PUREBRED CATTLE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 75

75

PAGE 76

76

PAGE 77

77

PAGE 78

78

PAGE 79

79

PAGE 80

80

PAGE 81

81

PAGE 82

82

PAGE 83

83

PAGE 84

84

PAGE 85

85 LIST OF REFERENCES Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Best, J. (1970). Research in education (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Briggs, H. M. (1949). Modern breeds of livestock. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing. Cutrer, R. (2011). Livestock merchandising: A complete guide to livestock advertising and promotion Bryan, TX: Tops Printing. Dil lman, D.A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2 nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., Christian, L.M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: J ohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. Doerfert, D. L. (Ed.) (2011). National research agenda: American Association for Agricultural 2015 Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Department of Agricultural Education and Communicat ions. Freitag, J. (2013, March). Looking down the road: M egatrends and beef industry shifts. Agriview.com Retrieved June 18, 2013, from http://www.agriview.com/news/ livestock /looking down Gillespie, J.L. (2009). communications tool (Unpublished master thesis). Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. Gillespie, J.R. (1998). Animal Science Clifton Pa rk, NY: Delmar, Cengage Learning. Gillespie, J., Basarir, A., Schupp, A. (2004). Beef producer choice in cattle marketing. Journal of Agribusiness 22(2), 149 161. Graber, L ( 2011 ) Traditional and social media use by Texas agricultural producers M.S. Thesis. Texas Tech University, Lubbock Texas Graybill, M. (2010). Exploring the use of Facebook as a communication tool in agricultural related social movements. Lubbock, Texas. Hurt, R.D. (2002). Ame rican agriculture: a brief history West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Katz, E., Blumler, J.G., Gurevitch, M. (1973) Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly 37(4), 509 523.

PAGE 86

86 Laermer, M. & Prichinello, R. (2003). Full frontal PR: Getting people talking about you, your business, or your product. New York, NY: Bloomberg Press. Maddox, S.J., Mustian R.D., & Jenkins, D.M. (2003, February). Agricultural information preferences of North Carolina farmers. Paper presented to the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Mobile, Alabama. Mintert, James. (2012, January). Livestock outlook appears tight for 2012. American Farm Bureau 93 rd Annual Meeting Lecture conducted from Hawaii Convention Center, Honolulu, HI. Otto, Dan and John D. Lawrence. ( 2001 ) Economic impact of the United States beef industry Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Department of Economics. Pew Research Center. (2012). The demographics of social media users 2012. Retrieved June 18 2013, from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Social media users.aspx Rawls, E.L., & Lane, J.C.. (n.d.) Beef cattle marketing Knoxville, TN: University of Tenne ssee. information on new or improved farming practices. Retrieved from http://pubs.aged.tamu.edu/jae//pdf/vol30/30 03 07.pdf Revzan, D. A. 1909 1988. (1935). Livestock prod uction and market ing: A series of readings. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Edwards Brothers, Inc. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5 th ed.) New York, NY: Free Press. Schmidt, S. (2007) Beef production [Word document]. Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Website: http://www.ag.auburn.edu/~schmisp/beef/index.htm Schonlau, M., Fricker, R.D., & Elliot, M.N., (2002). Conducting research surveys via e mail and the web Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Smith, A., Paul, C.J., Goe, W.R., Kenney, M. (2004). Computer and internet use by great plains farmers Davis, CA: University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Statist ical Package for Social Sciences (Version 22) [Computer software]. Telg, R., & Barnes, C. (2012). Communication preferences of Florida Farm Bureau Young Farmers & Ranc h ers. Journal of Applied Communications, 96 (2), 50 65. Troxel, T.R., Jennings, J., Gadber ry, M.S., Powell, J., Barham, B., & Beck, P. (2006). Beef cattle production Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas.

PAGE 87

87 United States Department of Agriculture. (1867). Monthly report of the department of agriculture for the year 1866 Washington, D.C.: Gov ernment Printing Office. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2011). Retrieved June 18, 2013 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/top ics/animal products/cattle beef/statistics information United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Background of beef production in the U.S. Retrieved June 18, 2013, from http ://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/beefbackground.html Vergot, P., Israel, G. & Mayo, D. (2005). Sources and channels of information used by beef cattle producers in 12 counties of the Northwest Florida extension district [Electronic version]. Journal of Extens ion, 43 (2), n.p. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org /joe/2005 april/rb6.phph Wallace, R. & Ritchie, H. (2006). What is a breed? Beef Magazine Retrieved from http://beefmagazine.com/mag/b eef_breed Warner, K.E. (1974). The need for some innovative concepts of innovation: An examination of research of the diffusion of innovations. Policy Sciences 5 433 451. White, D. (2013). marketing (Unpublished master thesis). Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

PAGE 88

88 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Reba Ellen Hicks was born in Dothan, Alabama. She graduated from Rehobeth High School in May of 2008. Following high school graduation, she enrolled at Auburn University. During her time at Auburn University, Miss Hicks was heavily involved in Student Government iss Hicks received her Bachelor of Science in a nimal s ciences from Auburn University. In August of 2012, Miss Hicks entered the graduate department in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida where she specia lized in agricultural communications. During her time in the graduate program at the University of Florida, she served as a graduate teaching assistant as well as faculty support.