No feedback on "Brand Canada"

In January, I wrote on page 2 of Grainews about branding Canadian agriculture. Maybe we're getting carried away with this near obsession with branding. Or maybe we're missing an opportunities. I don't know, yet. What I do know is that the topic has not inspired Grainews readers. In light of Christoph's latest column, I'm going to try again.

Here is my January 28 column again. Please e-mail your comments. You'll find my e-mail on the Grainews.ca homepage under the "contacts" link.

What is our ultimate goal — our one great wish — for agriculture in Western Canada? Here is my suggestion: To get a premium price for key agricultural products we export. This price will reflect the strong Canadian brand, and will result in a more profitable farm economy.

These are simple words, but they start with one major step: To define and promote the Canadian brand. There is a lot more to a brand than just a name or a logo. It has to be backed by consistent quality and reliability. It also needs a hook to attract and keep customers. Buyers must feel good about dealing with you so they’ll come back again and again.

The Liberals started a “Brand Canada” initiative a couple of years ago, and I’d like Grainews to help in carrying the concept forward. A project of that scale takes time, and some tweaking along the way. As Russell Jeffrey, principal with Blacksheep Strategy in Winnipeg says, “That exercise reminded us of the pitfalls of trying to brand a very broad region or industry in a meaningful way. In short, the broader your product or offer, the weaker the meaningfulness of the brand.” 

I want Grainews and its readers to work together through 2008 to add our ideas to the strategy. If “Brand Canada” is to work, farmers — that’s you — have to be involved. If there is no interest among Grainews readers, well then it’s a safe bet that this or any other “Brand Canada” plan isn’t going to work. So let’s try this exercise. It will teach us a lot about ourselves and our place in the world of agriculture. And in the end, we might have something to build on.

Will we start regionally, promoting Canadian Prairie brand farm products? Or will we go for a national brand right off the start? Will the brand set a list of parameters for all crops and livestock, or provide specific parameters for only a few key products? As Russell Jeffrey suggests, we may be better off starting small. “It’s easier to brand New York than U.S.A. or Canadian canola than Canadian grains and oilseeds,” he says. Some commodity groups that already have a brand strategy can share their experiences and offer advice to the rest of us.

Could we start with a Prairie brand and focus on six key crops and livestock sectors: Canola, milling wheat, malting barley, peas and lentils, beef and hogs. As in “Canadian Prairie Beef.” Beef is a good example because that’s an industry that needs fixing. It needs a public relations campaign. It needs a brand rebuild. The mission statement could be, “Reared on the rolling plains of the Canadian west and finished on barley for great taste and tenderness every time.” We could add a second clause, “Guaranteed BSE and E.coli free,” as part of our quality pledge. We could test every animal for BSE and we could irradiate every cut to get rid of E.coli. While we’re at it, we should find a better word for “irradiate.”

Part of supporting the brand is to focus research efforts on reducing production costs per unit and improving end-use qualities. We need a centre of excellence for each of these products —  beef in Lethbridge, canola in Saskatoon, and milling wheat in Winnipeg, for example. Get Ag Canada, university ag faculties, and industry working together at these centres. Take some chances on research. We are a smart, rich country. These centres should be among the world leaders in biotechnology, food safety and quality improvements.

A watchdog organization for the “Canadian Prairie” brand would oversee brand promotion internationally, and help to ensure a quick response to business inquiries. It would organize marketing campaigns abroad. It would handle legal protection of the brand. It would handle public relations in the case of a problem, such as a disease outbreak. “Yes, we did have a case in this region, but through our testing program, all of our meat is checked before it goes to store-shelves and restaurants. In this and all other such cases, any contaminated meat is destroyed before it enters our food packaging areas. This is standard Canadian Prairie policy.”

Each sub-brand would have an umbrella organization that brought together processors, exporters, researchers and farmers. This would be based on the Canola Council of Canada model. Each the year the watchdog organization would host a conference of the six sub-groups to coordinate one-year, five-year and 15-year plans.

I’m getting carried away here. I just wanted to give you a primer to open up the discussion in Grainews. I’m sure many or all of these ideas have already been discussed somewhere. What do you think? Am I way off base? Don’t worry about offending me. I want us to come up with a solid plan, and construction criticism has to be part of the process.