<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NAFB Wave Research Study</title>
	<atom:link href="http://agwired.com/2008/12/15/nafb-wave-research-study/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://agwired.com/2008/12/15/nafb-wave-research-study/</link>
	<description>What&#039;s new in the world of AgriBusiness</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 13:31:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck</title>
		<link>http://agwired.com/2008/12/15/nafb-wave-research-study/comment-page-1/#comment-55822</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:30:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://agwired.com/?p=8740#comment-55822</guid>
		<description>Ah, quantification.  Which leads to justification.  Which leads to ???  I think this is our biggest challenge in online (interactive or whatever you want to call it).  I think media planners and buyers know that web sites and other forms of new media are reaching their target audience but they want to know &quot;who&quot; the numbers represent.  As one client put it to me (paraphrased), &quot;I don&#039;t care how many you can directly identify, I just need a number which includes a demographic.&quot;

This is tough to do.  It&#039;s why so many companies are still trying to control the visitor experience (log ins, registrations, premium content).  That way they can identify, quantify and justify to advertisers and sponsors.  However, that puts up a barrier that many won&#039;t cross so then you&#039;re leaving out potential customers.

With AgWired I can identify the almost 3,000 people who receive ZimmNews, which is really a promotional mechanism for the website (and our other ones too).  This does give me some demographics to point to but leaves out the 10,000+ other visitors/rss feed subscribers.

There are efforts going on with the IAB and ADM to create standards but I haven&#039;t seen anything really meaningful yet.  I hope that groups like NAFB will include their efforts in the mix.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, quantification.  Which leads to justification.  Which leads to ???  I think this is our biggest challenge in online (interactive or whatever you want to call it).  I think media planners and buyers know that web sites and other forms of new media are reaching their target audience but they want to know &#8220;who&#8221; the numbers represent.  As one client put it to me (paraphrased), &#8220;I don&#8217;t care how many you can directly identify, I just need a number which includes a demographic.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is tough to do.  It&#8217;s why so many companies are still trying to control the visitor experience (log ins, registrations, premium content).  That way they can identify, quantify and justify to advertisers and sponsors.  However, that puts up a barrier that many won&#8217;t cross so then you&#8217;re leaving out potential customers.</p>
<p>With AgWired I can identify the almost 3,000 people who receive ZimmNews, which is really a promotional mechanism for the website (and our other ones too).  This does give me some demographics to point to but leaves out the 10,000+ other visitors/rss feed subscribers.</p>
<p>There are efforts going on with the IAB and ADM to create standards but I haven&#8217;t seen anything really meaningful yet.  I hope that groups like NAFB will include their efforts in the mix.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Vance</title>
		<link>http://agwired.com/2008/12/15/nafb-wave-research-study/comment-page-1/#comment-55807</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Vance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:35:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://agwired.com/?p=8740#comment-55807</guid>
		<description>I think you&#039;ve read the data correctly Chuck.  The higher up the gross farm income (GFI) curve you go on these producers, the more likely they are to have broadband access, and the more likely they are to use it on a more regular basis than their lower-income counterparts.  This is somewhat intuitive if you assume that the &quot;higher end&quot; producers have higher information needs regarding their marketing strategies and how the news and weather affect those plans.

From a marketers standpoint, the beautiful thing for radio is that the fragmentation with web-based media, as with print-based media, means you have to buy many more properties to achieve a similar saturation.  Because radio is &quot;broadcast&quot; instead of &quot;narrowcast&quot; - like niche print and web tools - a marketer can but a relatively small number of NAFB-member networks and stations to achieve an exceptional penetration into a given segment of the market.

The beauty of the internet, of course, is that is - in theory - quantifiable in a way that neither radio nor print can possibly be.  I say in theory simply because the industry hasn&#039;t decided on the best way to do the quantification; an internet version of AMR, in other words.  It may be that something as simple as Google Analytics, which many of us use, will be sufficient.  NAFB&#039;s Marketing and Promotion Committee is working with our partners in the agrimarketing community to determine that very thing.  As we determine that, I think NAFB members&#039; web-presences are uniquely positioned to make the combined radio-web mix the most useful tool in the agrimarketers&#039; toolbox.

I look forward to your thoughts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you&#8217;ve read the data correctly Chuck.  The higher up the gross farm income (GFI) curve you go on these producers, the more likely they are to have broadband access, and the more likely they are to use it on a more regular basis than their lower-income counterparts.  This is somewhat intuitive if you assume that the &#8220;higher end&#8221; producers have higher information needs regarding their marketing strategies and how the news and weather affect those plans.</p>
<p>From a marketers standpoint, the beautiful thing for radio is that the fragmentation with web-based media, as with print-based media, means you have to buy many more properties to achieve a similar saturation.  Because radio is &#8220;broadcast&#8221; instead of &#8220;narrowcast&#8221; &#8211; like niche print and web tools &#8211; a marketer can but a relatively small number of NAFB-member networks and stations to achieve an exceptional penetration into a given segment of the market.</p>
<p>The beauty of the internet, of course, is that is &#8211; in theory &#8211; quantifiable in a way that neither radio nor print can possibly be.  I say in theory simply because the industry hasn&#8217;t decided on the best way to do the quantification; an internet version of AMR, in other words.  It may be that something as simple as Google Analytics, which many of us use, will be sufficient.  NAFB&#8217;s Marketing and Promotion Committee is working with our partners in the agrimarketing community to determine that very thing.  As we determine that, I think NAFB members&#8217; web-presences are uniquely positioned to make the combined radio-web mix the most useful tool in the agrimarketers&#8217; toolbox.</p>
<p>I look forward to your thoughts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Jewell</title>
		<link>http://agwired.com/2008/12/15/nafb-wave-research-study/comment-page-1/#comment-55803</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Jewell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:20:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://agwired.com/?p=8740#comment-55803</guid>
		<description>Chuck,

I agree with your statement, &quot;The web isn’t about “mass audience numbers” but “niche audience numbers.”  It requires a mind shift for some.  You have to be okay with not having all the attention - but if you are gaining the attention of that niche audience that cares about what you have to say, there is a lot of power in that.  Marketers should pay attention to this as well.  Figure out who you are exactly trying to advertise to - identify the ag bloggers/podcasters are that speak regularly to that audience, and sponsor them.  I believe there is more value there, than a spendy add that falls on deaf ears.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chuck,</p>
<p>I agree with your statement, &#8220;The web isn’t about “mass audience numbers” but “niche audience numbers.”  It requires a mind shift for some.  You have to be okay with not having all the attention &#8211; but if you are gaining the attention of that niche audience that cares about what you have to say, there is a lot of power in that.  Marketers should pay attention to this as well.  Figure out who you are exactly trying to advertise to &#8211; identify the ag bloggers/podcasters are that speak regularly to that audience, and sponsor them.  I believe there is more value there, than a spendy add that falls on deaf ears.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

