Melvin P. Garber
University of Georgia

Background: Garden Writers, unlike their name suggests, are communicators of gardening information using various means to distribute their information, including the written word. Although not generally part of a university, they are communicators with and educators of the gardening public. They may be the most important influencer group in the retail Lawn and Garden Industry. As educators of the gardening public, it is important that they have good, accurate, unbiased information to communicate to their constituents.

Garden Writers probably reach a large portion of the American gardening public. For university-based educational communicators, Garden Writers would be an important group to target. University communicators generally have limited resources with which to disseminate large amounts of information. Therefore, directing information to a group that in-turn reaches millions of consumers, would provide a nice multiplier effect to our out-reach efforts. Garden Writers are busy professionals that would appreciate well-prepared, research-based information that they could easily use in various forms of communications. We could become a valuable resource for the Garden Writer profession.

Effective working relationships with groups such as Garden Writers requires a reasonable level of understanding of their needs. To foster a closer working with this group, a national survey was conducted of members of the Garden Writers Association of America. The objectives of the survey were to: (1) to gain a better understanding of this important group of educators of the American gardening public, (2) gather information that would help other groups communicate with Garden Writers, (3) provide Garden Writers with insight into their profession, and (4) foster a closer working relationship between the Garden Writer profession and other associations/businesses within the nursery/landscape/retail segments of the lawn and garden industry.

Method. The survey was mailed in 1997 to all members (1359) of the Garden Writers Association of America that resided in the United States. Total surveys returned were 691 for a 51% response rate. There were 177 surveys returned as "not applicable" and when these are removed from the membership count, the response rate changed to about 44%. The large number of respondents and the completeness of the surveys provided a solid sample of the Garden Writer population In the United States from which to draw conclusions regarding Garden Writers activities and impact on plant and hardgood suppliers.

The attached tables summarize the responses for the survey questions and generally each table represents one question. The data is for all Garden Writers as a group. The results in this document have not been sorted by factors such as geographic location, primary job description (editor, writer, photographer, etc.), or specialties/area of expertise.

Results.

Table 1. Geographic distribution of gardening communications by Garden Writers (GW).

^Z Mean score of 1 = (<25%), 2 = (25-49%), 3 = (50-75%), 4 = (>75%); ±S.E.

Table 2. Population reached by each Garden Writer communications medium.

^Z Number of respondents that use each type of communication medium, total

respondents =514. Percentages are expressed as (No. of respondents x 100)/514.

The total for all categories exceed 100 percent due to use of multiple media by

Garden Writers.

^Y Estimated number of people reached by Garden Writers for each communication

medium, expressed as (000).

Table 3. Type of plant material information reported by Garden Writers that generate

the greatest positive consumer response.

^Z Total of 21 categories identified, the top ten categories in this table represent over 75%

of responses. Percentages are computed as (No. of respondents x 100)/504. The total

number of respondents for the plant material information portion of the survey was 504.

Table 4. Value placed on potential services and information by Garden Writers.

^Z Combined response for "no value" and "somewhat valuable".

^Y Mean scores for 1= no value, 2 = somewhat valuable, 3 = valuable, 4 = very valuable; ± S.E.

of the mean.

Table 5. Characteristics of Garden Writers.

Table 6. Utilization of information sources for new or appropriate plants.

^Z Combined response for "use a little", 2,3,4; "use some", 5,6,7; "use a lot", 8, 9, 10.

^Y Score for frequency of use on a 1-10 scale; ± S. E.

** Chi-square with 3 df significant at the 0.01 probability level.

Table 7. Most frequently used books for plant information.

^Z Total of 288 books identified, the top 8 are listed.

^Y Based on 514 respondents, total exceeds 100% since respondents could identify up to 3 books.

Table 8. Most frequently used journal/magazine for plant information.

^Z Total of 196 journals/magazines identified, the top 10 are listed.

^Y Based on 514 respondents, total exceeds 100% since respondents could

identify up to 3 journals/magazines.

Table 9. Utilization of the world wide web by Garden Writers.

^APercentages computed based on 509 respondents.

Table 10. World wide web sites used by Garden Writers.

^Z Percent response for: Low =not available +no value, Medium = somewhat valuable, and

High = valuable+very valuable.

^Y Mean score for 1=not available, 2 = no value, 3 = somewhat valuable, 4 = valuable,

5 = very valuable; ± S.E.

** Chi-square with 2df significant at the 0.01 probability level.

Table 11. Opportunity for increased communications for Garden Writers.

**Chi-square with 1df significant at the 0.01 probability level.

Table 12. Projected consumer interest over next five years by Garden Writers.

	DemandZ
Plant category	Less	Same	More	ScoreY
-------------Percent response--------------
Herbaceous perennials (hosta,daylily, etc.)	3.2	18.9	77.9	4.1 ± 0.04
Native ferns and wildflowers	3.3	21.0	75.7	4.1 ± 0.04
Ornamental grasses	6.3	19.6	74.2	4.0 ± 0.04
Herbs	3.7	23.2	73.0	4.0 ± 0.04
Ground covers (liriope, ivy, etc.)	5.8	30.4	63.8	3.8 ± 0.04
Broadleaf shrubs (evergreen and deciduous)	3.0	45.7	51.4	3.6 ± 0.04
Vegetables	6.4	43.4	50.2	3.6 ± 0.04
Evergreen trees (broadleaf and coniferous)	3.1	55.0	41.9	3.5 ± 0.03
Deciduous trees	3.1	57.4	39.5	3.4 ± 0.03
Roses	13.0	44.5	42.5	3.4 ± 0.04
Bedding plants (annuals)	13.8	44.0	42.3	3.4 ± 0.04
Coniferous shrubs	9.5	53.4	37.2	3.4 ± 0.05
Turf (sod)	40.6	46.0	13.4	2.6 ± 0.04

^Z "Less" combined response for much less and little less; "more" is combined response for little more

and much more.

^Y Mean scores for 1=much less, 2 =little less, 3 = about same, 4 =little more; 5 = much more;

± S.E.

Table 13. Importance of plant traits on future demand as viewed by Garden Writers.

^Z Combined response for "not important" and "somewhat important".

^Y Mean scores for 1= not important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 =important, 4 = very important;

± S.E.

Table 14. Importance of information sources to Garden Writers in determining which plants to write about.

^Z Combined response for not important and somewhat important..

^Y Mean scores for 1= not important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 =important , 4 = very important,

± S.E.

Table 15. Plant material information valued by Garden Writers.

^Z Combined response for "no value" and "somewhat valuable".

^Y Mean scores for 1= no value, 2 = somewhat valuable, 3 = valuable, 4 = very valuable; ± S.E.

Conclusions: Garden Writers distribute their communications locally as well as nationally (Table 1). They reach a large portion of the U.S. population, especially with newspaper, magazine, and television communications (Table 2). Since the percentage of Garden Writers that use each communications medium varied widely, it would be important to know which medium is used by the Garden Writers on your mailing list. Garden Writers were using the World Wide Web at the time of this survey and their use has continued to increase. Therefore, web-based information would be a good way to transfer information in the future. However, we still must communicate with Garden Writers regarding our web page location and other useful links.

Only 45% of the Garden Writers indicated that they receive all the plant material information needed (Table 5). This indicates the need for greater communication between university communicators and Garden Writers. In fact, only 50% of the Garden Writers received regular communications from land grant universities (author feels this should be about 90%). The 50% compares unfavorably with the percentage of Garden Writers receiving regular communications from growers/industry (64%). This suggests that industry is doing a better job than university personnel of communicating with Garden Writers.

The study identified key sources of information used by Garden Writers to develop their communications regarding plant material. These sources provide examples of the type of information needed, suggest outlets for university information, and identify which sources are not considered very useful (Table 6). University publications received a 5.5 rating (out of 10.0), suggesting opportunity for improvement. The frequency of use rating (5.5) was consistent with the percenatage of Garden Writers receiving regular communications from land grant institutions (50%). This suggests that Garden Writers love our material and would use more, if we increased our communications. In fact, 87% of the respondents indicated the desire for greater communication with university personnel (Table 11). This was second only to Arboreta and Botanical Gardens and compared favorably with other groups such as chemical companies (34%).

The study also identified the type of plant material information that generates the greatest consumer response (Table 3),the type of plant material information used in their communications (Tables 14 and 15), and future demand for plant material (Tables 12 and 13). This information could be used to determine topics for articles, type of information to include, and specific plants of interest to consumers.

Garden Writers have objectives similar to university communicators and there is much to be gained from greater interaction of the two groups. Perhaps we should identify professional opportunities for Garden Writers to share their needs and offer suggestions for a more effective working relationship.