Introduction
The Virginia Department of Forestry awarded the PIE Center a bid to conduct research for the Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF), which represents 13 southern states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The scope of the project included a content analysis of 15 Forest Action Plans, a communications evaluation and cross analysis of the Forest Action Plans, communications evaluation and the Southern Forest Futures Project.
The content analysis and cross analysis analyzed the Forest Action Plans and Southern Forest Futures Project to see how well each fulfilled the requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill, which required a statewide assessment of forest resources, trends, conditions and threats, as well as a long-term statewide strategy for addressing threats and identifying necessary resources.
The communications evaluation included a representative sampling of materials used by SGSF to plan communications with its target audiences about forests. The SGSF website was also evaluated. These materials were reviewed and analyzed for consistency, usability, messaging strategies, and effectiveness.
Content analysis
Introduction
To conduct the content analysis, PIE Center researchers located all of the information for the Forest Action Plans and Forest Futures Project, as well as the directive from the 2008 Farm Bill which commissioned the states to develop the plans. These documents were printed in two sets for the PIE Center researchers’ review.
Key findings
Throughout the results, it was apparent that no two states or territories approached the plan in the same manner. The layout, organization, and inclusion of different components varied greatly from one state to another. Depth and detail of information varied by state and was sometimes very comprehensive and sometimes very vague. The total number of pages in the plans ranged from 102 to 510 and averaged 225.8. Nine states or territories published one document, while six published as many as three documents.
Several of the states did have commonalities that emerged throughout the data. Some of the most noteworthy commonalities were in active programs developed by the states, issues and threats, and benefits sections. In the active state programs section, many of the states had programs for the same topics.
As the plans addressed benefits, the plans showed areas of commonality. Three benefits (water quality & quantity, recreation/quality of life/heritage/community forests, air quality & carbon sequestration) were recognized by 12 of the 15 states or territories. The commonalities and overlap between states/territories offer beneficial implications.
Additionally, as the plans addressed issues and threats, two (Natural disasters/other climate related issues and invasive species) were important to all 15 states and territories. Six issues and threats (Natural disasters/other climate related issues, invasive species, wildfires, urban sprawl/development/fragmentation/parcelization, insects/pests, and disease) were identified by 12 of the 15 states or territories.
Identifying threats and strategies to overcome threats are two of the most important tasks when conducting strategic planning. In the ratings determined by the researchers, the states and territories scored the highest in these three areas. This indicates that the states and territories are working effectively to create a sound strategic plan.
In the ratings provided by the researchers, three areas for improvement emerged. As a collective group, the states and territories struggled to fulfill the following Farm Bill components: assessment of resource conditions, conditions and trends, and identification of necessary resources.
With lack of detail and explanation provided in the Farm Bill language, it was not surprising to see differences of interpretations among the states. One place where this was most apparent was in the discussion of trends and conditions. Each state defined and interpreted trends and conditions slightly differently.
Recommendations
PIE Center researchers suggest that SGSF develop a template to be used for the development of plans and reports such as the one used for this research report. The implementation of a template will add consistency and uniformity across all states and territories. In addition, SGSF should define and interpret Farm Bill language or other unclear policies. By doing this, all states and territories will have the same expectations and understanding, thus resulting in a more consistent product.
Similarly, clear definitions of the differences between goals, objectives, and strategies would increase consistency. Confusion over these terms was observed and many of the goals, objectives, and strategies overlapped, were unclear, and immeasurable. The scope of goals, objectives, and strategies should be realistic, to ensure achievement. It is recommended that each state or territory revise its goals, objectives, and strategies to ensure that they are appropriate and incorporate the appropriate components.
As a group, SGSF should identify and take advantage of the opportunities to increase collaboration. Several states operated separate programs that addressed similar topics. For example, SGSF should create a program for wildfires, rather than each state or territory spending money and resources to reinvent the same program in each state. Similarly, because many states identified the same issues and threats, SGSF should examine and address the issues and threats to benefit the whole organization.
In many cases vague resources were listed like “money,” “programming,” “people.” By going back and making these more specific and measurable the goals, objectives, and strategies are more likely to be reached because the resourced needed will be identified. In addition, specifying what resources are needed and how much is required puts each state/territory in a better position to receive those resources.
Communications evaluation
Introduction
To conduct the communications evaluation, the PIE Center requested and received a representative sampling of materials SGSF uses to plan communications with its target audiences about forests. The SGSF website was also evaluated. These materials were reviewed and analyzed for consistency, usability, messaging strategies, and effectiveness.
Key findings
The SGSF logo clearly shows the name of the organization with a leadership focused tag line, but does not articulate that the organization is a conglomeration of state agencies. In addition, the SGSF logo is a departure from the typical badge design of state departments or divisions of forestry logos as well as the National Association of State Foresters logo.
By using a logo that diverges from the typical badge design, some audience, particularly consumers, may not be connecting the SGSF logo to state or federal forest agencies. Without the connection, SGSF may be losing credibility and a sense of authority that is associated with the typical badge logo design.
A new branding campaign, suggested in a draft marketing plan, was still divergent from the typical badge logo and designed as a “sister brand” of the current SGSF. However, the creation of a new logo does not always result in effective branding and messaging.
Adding logos can also dilute the overall brand identity and therefore brand quality, while changing the brand logo reduces brand recognition. Also, without research, the potential impact of the updated logo and tag line remains indefinite. Without testing the brand’s attributes with the target audience, the effectiveness of the brand will remain unknown.
The marketing plan draft showed a lack of differentiation between the two marketing objectives. In addition, the objectives did not have specific strategies or tactics to achieve them, making the promotional goals of SGSF seem vague and possibly unattainable with a lack of actionable items.
The marketing collateral listed in the draft plan included more details about the logistics of developing the material than the content of each. For instance, the development of a SGSF presentation would be important for standardizing a promotional message, but without content parameters, it was unclear what would be included in the presentation.
Overall, the action requirements listed in the draft marketing plan for the SGSF website, marketing collateral, trade shows and economic development strategy are necessary and encourage transparency between the marketing group and SGSF as to how each will be accomplished.
Recommendations
In developing all future branding, marketing, communications and outreach materials, SGSF should pay special attention to defining a clear target and segmented audience, as well as a call to action. When possible, SGSF should consider a long range, forward-thinking strategy for issues identification to attempt to be more proactive in its communications, marketing and outreach campaigns.
SGSF should focus on personal relevance with target audiences in its overall messaging techniques. Personal relevance is achieved through the use of people who look like and are relatable to the target audience and the use of imagery to convey emotion and connectedness.
SGSF should continue to reach audiences first with communications and secondarily through education. When education is received first it can seem overwhelming and uninteresting. By communicating a message first, the audience member’s interest is piqued and they can decide if they want to pursue more content about the topic or issue.
Continuing to test all marketing, communications and outreach materials, including specific logos and messages, with a target audience is important for SGSF to understand how branding materials are perceived. Without research, the impact of brand or campaign attributes is unknown. Therefore, research should be conducted before new materials are launched to ensure effective use of resources.
Specifically, SGSF should consider updating its current logo to incorporate recognition of the involvement of state forestry agencies and the locality of the organization. However, SGSF should attempt to accomplish its goals through messages associated with a logo to form a complete brand instead of trying to accomplish everything visually with just a logo.
SGSF should establish a brand manager and identity guide. An identity guide establishes a protocol for the creation of new communication material, including brochure or additional pages to a website. It specifies requirements for logo placement, colors to represent the organization, which fonts to use for headlines and body text, and any other specifications the organization wishes to use to help develop and maintain brand recognition.
SGSF should consider focusing its marketing and communications efforts on opinion leaders. Opinion leaders are consumers age 18 to 35 who are registered voters with some post-secondary education. This group takes a greater interest in current topics, have the ability to share information and influence the attitudes of others. By targeting opinion leaders, SGSF reaches an audience already willing to receive information that streamlines efforts, increases the flow of information and efficiently uses resources.
SGSF should develop and expand the objectives of the marketing plan draft for promoting forests and forest products. The plan should include goals, tactics, and strategies for accomplishing the objectives instead of the action requirements. Breaking down larger objectives into smaller, achievable tasks, will streamline the campaign.
Cross analysis with Forest Futures Project
Introduction
For this project, researchers conducted a cross analysis on the results from SGSF 15 Forest Action Plans (FAP) and the communication evaluation with the Forest Futures Project (FFP). The FFP was completed as an effort to anticipate the future and analyze what the interaction of future changes might mean for southern forests and the services they provided in the region’s 13 states. Both SGSF territories, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, were excluded from the FFP.
Key findings
The FFP identified similar recurring issues and threats recognized by the FAPs. Therefore, there was a common theme of issues identified by both the region and individual states/territories, allowing SGSF to focus its attention on those dominant forces.
The alignment of conditions and trends between the FFP and the FAPs was also strong. Of the conditions discussed in the FFP, 76.4% were also discussed in the FAPs. Of the trends discussed in the FFP, 60.0% were also discussed in the FAPs. Similar topics were discussed throughout the FFP and the FAPs, though the topics were classified differently.
By using consumer input to identify the meta-issues affecting the region, a sense of buy-in and ownership of the process was created between the SGSF and the public. Therefore, SGSF has the opportunity to build communications strategies for each of the meta-issues and develop outreach materials surrounding those strategies.
Recommendations
The FFP should further consider public education/perception and the impact this issue may have on the future of forests. The majority of southern states identified this as a priority and therefore should be considered regionally. Similarly, collaboration between the region and the 15 states and territories should be increased. This will prevent the same work from being done multiple times, as well as increase the resources available to all of the agencies.
The FFP should consult the 15 southern states/territories for descriptions of forestry trends and conditions identified in the particular state or territory. Doing so will allow FFP to develop a comprehensive discussion of southern forest trends and conditions. SGSF should develop a set of consistent definitions of terms (i.e. issue, threat, trend, and condition) so that the region and its states are classifying items correctly.
To be more inclusive, FFP should expand to include Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, as they are part of SGSF.
SGSF should focus its consumer-based communication efforts on the 10 meta-issues defined by the consumers themselves. By focusing on issues that are already identified and of importance to consumers, SGSF can ensure communication is efficient and effective.
