Corporate bribery?

[grassfarmer]

I got a phone call today inviting me to view some crop plots out near Rocky. I was told the date and that it would take about 2 hours to walk through and fill in the necessary questionnaire afterwards. AND they would pay me $75 for my time!!

This was a novel idea so I told the girl to continue with the details.
After asking if I was in the beef business etc etc the "qualifying" questions turned to how much land I had suffering from weeds and brush encroachment. When I answered that I didn't have any intention of getting involved in the junk science of selectively spraying herbicide on my land to control supposed weed problems she denied any knowledge of what the plots were about or which company was behind the program. It was patently obvious to me that it was the Grazon or Remedy makers.
Why on earth would they pay you to view their test results? - is it simple bribery by corporate America to get hundreds of signed references from producers about their products. Or is it about them gaining regulatory approval for a new product that Cowman was hinting they were working on?
I have no interest in allowing these drug parasites a foothold in my business to further reduce my income so I sent them packing. I'm not for sale to corporate America - for $75 or any other price.

[WoolyBear]

I think the first thing I would ask for was to see the money, then the plots.

Anytime I can take my "much better 1/2" out for supper on someone elses dime, I will...... and enjoy the fact that if I tell a fib or two, an American company is all the better. About 95% of the time when we leave the farm (aside from getting parts) is to attend something free. It might be an auction sale, a chemical meeting, or someother farm related meeting.

I have never been a fan of telephone surveys. Especially the ones that waste 5 minutes of my time, only to inform me that my "size" category was full, or my acrerage of wheat wasn't significant enough. Have you noticed that most chemical rebates now require you to use such and such on atleast 320 acres? Take all of my acres, divide by 320 and I would if I only grew 3 crops and sprayed them with 2 chemicals. Not good
to maintain the same "rotation" year in year out if all you are doing is farming the rebates.

I admire you conviction grassfarmer........I do the same most of the time. And ALL THE TIME with Stats Can

[farmers_son]

Organizations often use peer groups for product development. Paticipants often but not always get paid for taking part and the companies benefit from the opinions that are expressed. I am sure you would have been able to provide them some useful insights had you participated as I do not see you as being shy with your opinions.

I took part in a peer group years ago when Agri-ville was being put together and have been involved with others as well. I do not recall that the Agri-ville people paid their group participants so I guess no bribery there. There might have been sandwiches. I doubt $75 dollars could be considered bribery however, it is a way to say thank you for participating.

You might be wrong to assume chemical companies are American. Bayer and others like them are based in Europe.

[farmers_son]

Participating is one thing but if it involves being inundated with telephone calls, letters etc. pressuring to purchase products then I would have to agree with grassfarmer and tell them to keep their money etc.

I guess its not much different than the pharmaceutal companies that pay to have our local vet host his clients at a nice dinner after which we listen to their pitch for their products, or the open house at the local feed shop where the livestock handling equipment manufacturer buys the donuts and the sales pitch is free !!!

[cakadu]

I would be hesitant as well grassfarmer and it would be along the lines of wondering what would be in store for me in the future in terms of signing up.

Quite often, as producers, we are expected and even encouraged at times, to come and sit at the table and offer opinions on various things. The Ag Summit comes to mind as one such event - despite the fact it lasted 2 years. When we do go and participate, quite often we are not on the same playing field as the others in the room and by that I mean some are there because it is a function of there job and are getting paid to be there. As a producer that isn't always the case. Companies, organizations and even the government realizes that as producers it is not always easy for us to get away and nobody is paying us to be there. The feeling that sometimes permeates a room is that your opinion is not as valid because you are sitting there for "free." This could be a step for wanting to pay for your time, even though there could be additional strings attached. Focus groups are often compensated for their time, as farmers_son has stated.

[cowman]

I don't believe it ever hurts to take a look? Especially if you are getting paid! Who knows, you might actually see something that makes sense.
If nothing else you get to see what the opposition is doing and get out and talk with fellow producers and see what they think?
Personally I always try to keep an open mind and I never miss an opportunity to see how the other guy does it.

[silverback]

Why would you pass up an opportunity to get paid, drink their beer, and then debate how bad (or good?) their product or ideas are?

If you believe that strongly that they are greedy, self serving companies, why not get in their face and let them try and convince you otherwise. That is the best way to get your point to them, no?

[silverback]

Linda, the Ag Summit process did involve individuals who were geting paid as government staff, some elected officials were being paid a honoraium for attending but there were numerous volunteers involved as well. I was one of them, and in my view the volunteers like Harvey Buckley and Bob Anderson were the ones that made a difference.
I always feel that if my opinion is worth anything I should be willing to give it without expecting to be paid compensation for doing so.

[cakadu]

I understand about the AG Summit process all too well. I was one who chaired a team, was project manager for another and sat on 3 more teams because I believed in what the Ag Summit was supposed to do.

It came out of my own pocket and I strongly believe in giving back. There are times though when I think that my volunteer work has ended up becoming a detriment because I have worked for "free" for so long. While people like to see volunteer work on a resume, it doesn't amount to the same thing as paid work, even though one may have had responsibilities etc.

[cakadu]

I did feel that the Ag Summit was beaurocratically driven to some extent but once we had our team focused on issues things went well enough even though we had some major differences with the co-chairs. That was the one thing that I never did understand, is how the co-chairs or chairs of the various action teams were selected. We had some excellent people on our team and several excellent potential chairs.

[cakadu]

There were several methods for choosing the chairs that I'm aware of. A couple of them stood up and said that they would like to be chairs and one or two of the co-chairs stepped up about a year into the process, others of them were picked because they were deemed to be the one to lead and others like myself were asked to step into the role later in the game. Which team was it that you were on - it was LUCAT wasn't it? I know the environmental team was on top of things right out of the gate and never looked back.

Actually, at the start of the process there were very few government people involved. It wasn't until the major reshuffle was happening that many of them got onto teams as a means of helping to justify their positions. In some cases, the team was more government folk - provincial and municipal - than it was industry. Just the way it ends up sometimes.

I think overall the teams felt that they had accomplished the goals that they had set out. There should be a retrospective coming out at some stage on the Ag Summit - 5 years later - as the chairs have been interviewed over the past couple of months. I don't know when it is going to be coming out - we weren't given that information, but when I am, I will post it here so people can have a look.

[Horse]

Cacadu was this the workshop for rural alta, I was asked to sit on that one but declined because it is my experence that this govmt always has thier answer and then asks the question ,I Wonder how many studies are sitting on the shelf never opened.
That way the govmt can always say they studied the situitation whitch is all B.S. , now my name isnt worth much but I wont let them use it on the bottom of a report that they didnt even look at IE The Thurber report on crown land , The focus 2000 and quite a few more.