Re: [compost_tea] The chemical world

From: David Anderson <squtch_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:38:46 -0800
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:23:26 -0800 (PST), Robert Norsen
<bnbrew_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why use startling phrases?  If you don't stop them from watchinig TV with a
> startling statement long enough to get attention, possibly interested, in
> organic methods they will use chemlawn forever. Ok some will only hear or
> repeat the headline.  Some heckle to appear important to their own ego. A
> sport.   Never learn or change unless it is their own idea.    

Well, instead of "thatch your lawn in 30 minutes", can you think of
some catch phrase that moght get their attention without sounding like
snake-oil?

Because, while I undersatand your point, it is deceptive, and it will
cause a those that know that the thatch will still be there 30 minutes
later to scoff and not bother listening to your explanation.

Yeah, it's catchy. But it leads to failed communication and bad
will.If that is not your goal, it would be a good thing to be a little
more careful choosing your words when they will reach a lot of people.

Try soming like "grow a beautiful natural lawn that only needs
watering once a month" or whatever seems to be the consensus of the
turf types. Then as one of your points, mention that thatch concerns
are a thing of the past after a few applications.

> our brewer development.  So how do we get chem indoctrinated farmers to
> become organic farmers?  Tell then it might work some of the time?. Try it
> on your 10,000 acres. It may make a difference?  If you are lucky?
> Sometimes?  Just don't expect much!  

Yeah, if that is the truth, tell tham that it might work some of the time

Give them an unbelieveable headline to read, and they won't bother to
listen to part two of your pitch.

If you want to change chem farmers to organic farmers then you are
working on your needs and your agenda. You will not get them to change
until you start working on their needs and their agenda.

> If it doesn't work the farmer knows he will lose a half $M. It is going to
> take more than maybe to interest him or a back yard gardener in changing to
> the organic way.

Farmers are actually used to maybe. And they are pretty good at
spotting BS. If your attention getting headline does not pass their BS
meter, then you are going to have a tougher sale in the future.

Give him a snappy headline that he can believe.

> If organic does work for him, it will change his farm from a staggering
> annual loss ( including the loss of farm soil )  to a significant annual
> gain. That is the findings of testing and the experience of other farms that
> went organic - Is it wrong to make a strong case that each farmer can use to
> help make the change?  

That is a great case. Make that case in a way that they can believe
it. No pie in the sky promises. Show them how to do it, and be honest
about the risks.

You are dealing with their livelihood, not your desires for the world.

This is about *their* health, *their* money, *their* soil. Those are
their priorities. Sure they want the world to be a better place,
starting with keeping food on their table.

> If all these farms together, going organic, will clean up the dead zone in
> the gulf of Mexico,
> will reduce flooding of the Mississippi, will hold water in the aquifer,
> will return the dry states to useful farms, will reverse desertification,
> will return health to American and people and animals world wide, kids and
> their parents and grand parents. The observations by many astute scientists
> have reported this and more is a  highly probable result of organic.
> Persons on this list have reported significant first hand obserevations that
> support ACT

Bad sales pitch.

Go back to "you can improve the financial health of your farm". That
is *their* first priority.

Dave


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Sat Jan 22 2005 - 11:57:24 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:44 EST