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