Variations on Technology: Reaching Urban Audiences with Interactive Information Directories

Cathy Koelsch Oklahoma County Urban IPM Coordinator Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Stillwater
Mary M. Porter, APR Communications Specialist Texas Agricultural Extension Service, College Station
Co-authors
Nowell Adams, Dr. Janell Johnk and Dr. Michael Merchant Texas Agricultural Extension Service
Dr. Gerrit Cuperus and Dr. Mike Smolen Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service

Extension must compete for recognition in large urban areas. In a frenetic existence, the average urbanite is
unaware of the valuable information available through county Extension offices that could make life a bit more
manageable. The common challenge to the Extension mission of information dissemination is visibility.

Both Oklahoma and Texas Extension Services launched similar community interactive phone directories in 1995
to meet a growing need for easily-accessed information by urban residents. Built into the projects were the means to
track its volume and capture specific use data to evaluate its effectiveness. The two states used slightly different
delivery systems making the comparative data important to examine as other states consider these methods and
technologies to reach their urban audiences.

Municipalities generally deal with environmental issues, such as yard waste disposal and water quality protection.
Recent reports of food poisoning have caused concern about food safety. The county is not a familiar entity in cities.
Extension has had to adapt new technologies to assist communities with these concerns, as well as answer questions
involving general horticulture and pest management.

The Oklahoma effort is a pilot project in the Oklahoma City area to provide 100 messages 24-hours a day on
topics ranging from horticulture to food safety. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service (OCES) printed their Guide
in more than 800,000 yellow page books, promoting it with 20,000 collateral brochures in nine surrounding counties
that did not receive an Oklahoma City directory, but where the call was toll free. Brochures were primarily distributed
in Central Oklahoma, but available statewide.

Texas featured a smaller number of messages, 22, using 4-color graphics to stimulate attention. Distribution was
smaller (110,000 households) in a free magazine-sized directory designed as a consumer resource and, frankly,
competitor to yellow pages. Each directory had a “tip of the week or month” that could be changed for seasonal
information or new regulations or research.

The VoiceLink ad started July 1 and was distributed to 110,000 households in the City of Plano, a fast-growing
suburb of Dallas with a population approaching 150,000. Residents could access Extension information by dialing a
phone number and then entering a four-digit code for specific information. The book could be characterized as more
focused on a specific market in the City of Plano, a Dallas suburb of mostly upper income and professional residents,
not a traditional Extension audience.

Four messages led to direct connection with county offices for additional help. The company offered, but we did
not subscribe, to a fax-back feature which let the caller request a brochure or paper copy of an information sheet
faxed to them. Other options included a detailed report on zip codes, and even addresses of callers. For an additional
fee, of course. This would be ideal for direct marketing efforts, but out of our price range.

The interactive directories addressed two concerns for Extension in urban areas:

1. Reaching urban clients more efficiently.
   The old tried, true and very tired “25 at a time” evening program will never reach a significant number of the one
   million in the Oklahoma City area or the four million population in Dallas-Fort Worth.
   
2. Market itself better to citizens unfamiliar with Extension.
   In the Oklahoma City metro area, Southwestern Bell printed 811,000 yellow page books. OCES believes this was an
   excellent marketing tool to promote Extension information and to stress environmental stewardship, reinforcing the
   popular Blue Thumb program.
   

In Texas, we found in meetings with vendors that the competition and costs associated with the various telephone
yellow page directories is fierce and highly complex. The VoiceLink 2000 project was a first attempt for Interactive
Communications to break away from what they seemed to view as the constraints of the telephone company, in this
case, Southwestern Bell, to build a more market-oriented product.

Access

OSU’s Environment Guide is free to callers within the Oklahoma City calling area, including nine counties in
Central Oklahoma -- an area containing approximately one-third of the state’s three million population. Callers may
access messages outside the calling area for a long distance charge.

One number accesses the main program. Callers must have a listing of topics and corresponding numbers to listen
to specific topics. In addition, callers have the option of selecting additional messages or speaking to Extension or
Blue Thumb personnel following each message. VoiceLink has direct connect on only four selected topics whereas
Oklahoma has call-through access on all 100 choices.

Topics varied between the two states’ Extension projects only by category listings and volume. Objectives were
the same. Both focused on horticulture, pest management, food safety and environmental topics. Horticulture and pest
management messages concentrated on environmentally-sound management practices, emphasized low impact
alternatives to chemical use and made very limited chemical use recommendations. Home economics messages
focused on food safety and preservation and family and parenting issues.

Each system provided callers with monthly updates on several topics. Messages could be updated, as needed,
when information changed.

Distribution

The two states’ systems differed primarily in the total number of messages available to callers. The OSU project
included 100 very specific messages divided into five sections with two subsections. Texas only had 22 messages in
four sections The categories were similar.

Environmental Guide subsections within horticulture tips included home gardening, fruits and nuts, lawn care,
trees and shrubs, and flower and houseplants. Subsections of food preservation and safety tips included canning, freezing and food safety. There were five messages updated monthly on the garden, lawn, trees, food safety and Blue
Thumb (which focused specifically on water quality and protection). In VoiceLink, four messages changed monthly
as “tip of the month” for pest control, gardening, parenting and food safety.

Technologically, both the interactive information directory, VoiceLink, and the Environmental Guide offer a
messaging service a step up from previous recorded tele-tips. The mechanics are much more professional. There are
no tapes or machines to be maintained at county offices. Digital messages are professsionally recorded and maintained by the messaging service.

Calls are free to the public and the system is available 24-hours a day. The system is digital and can take many
calls on the same topic at the same time, unlike county phone lines which often are busy. The Collin County Extension office, which serves the City of Plano but is not located there, is listed for individuals wanting additional information. Both vendors provided monthly reports on calls received and how many were direct connects.

Methods

To make this happen, county agents and specialists approached the administration with the new concept of raising
the Extension profile to urban audiences and assisting offices by answering common questions. Urban agents and
area specialists wrote scripts for the pre-recorded messages. Areas of discipline included IPM, horticulture, home
economics and water quality. County agents and specialist wrotes the monthly tips.

OCES funded the Environment Guide for one year at a cost of $12,000. The goal was to generate 100,000 calls the first
year. At the end of four months, the count stood at 8,000 going into the winter -- a long way to go, but seasonal factors could
change the totals. The majority of funding originated from Extension and smaller portions came from IPM, water quality
and Blue Thumb grants under provisions for public education and information dissemination.

VoiceLink 2000 was funded through the Departments of Entomology and Plant Pathology and by water quality
grant monies in Extension District 4 (Dallas). Because it went into a smaller market as a pilot, no specific goals were
set. Rather, it was viewed as a substitute, or inexpensive version, of a market survey, that would indicate whether or
not a wider scale effort was justified.

Coalitions

Significantly, Texas worked with the City of Plano’s Solid Waste Department on this first ad, providing information on the city’s solid waste and recycling programs. It’s an ideal partnership opportunity that has enabled the Collin
County Extension office (perceived to be the country mouse by the City of Plano city mice) make contact with an arm
of city government that they had not dealt with before.

The Blue Thumb program in Oklahoma has forged strong relationships among local and state government entities
and business and consumer groups.

Response Data

Table A. VoiceLink 2000 Pilot Project Call Data - July through October 1995
City of Plano, Texas - Collin County Extension Service

Average 662.75/month for first four months.
* Includes food safety, parenting and 4-H

Table B. OSU Environmental Guide
Call Data - August through October, 1995
Oklahoma County Metro Area

Average 1,747 calls per month

^ Computer problems prevented data collection.
* Includes pest control
() = direct connects

Analysis of Data

As we analyze the preliminary data, and its initial impact, we get some hints about where to go from here. The
data should stimulate new ideas on how to use this new technology to meet the needs of urban dwellers. Seasonal
factors cannot be overlooked as we examine monthly call reports. Promotional efforts must be coordinated with
growing seasons to maximize the impact of the public’s interest in the topics.

Three major differences contrast the two pilot projects:

1. Oklahoma printed brochures and promoted their Information Line. Texas did not, partly due to funding limitations, but more for philosophical reasons -- trying to test whether the information directory could generate its own calls.
   
2. The size of markets was vastly different. While the City of Plano is large (100,000 plus), as a target market, it is a very small portion of the four million in the sprawling Dallas-Fort Worth metro area. On the other hand, Oklahoma’s
   pilot approached saturation of their market, reaching 811,964 households and businesses in a population pool of one
   million plus in Oklahoma City and surrounding counties.
   
3. Costs were significantly different. Oklahoma paid $12,000 for a year in a known publication.
   Texas paid $500 for a 6-months trial run in a start-up product.
   

Comparison to Maryland

Both Minnesota and Maryland operate similar programs. Since 1990, Maryland Cooperative Extension has
maintained a Home and Garden Information Center with a toll free phone number for residents of the state of Maryland. It cannot be accessed from outside the state. Taped information is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and horticulture consultants are available 5 days a week. Pre-recorded information includes a “Tip of the Week” as well as
answers to the most frequently-asked questions.

Since its inception in 1990, the Center has handled over 190,000 telephone calls. Of these approximately 105,000
(more than half) were helped with questions personally by Center staff. These statistics point to a potential problem.
This would throw some Texas county offices into total gridlock. This is what our counties want to avoid in many
cases, because it requires so much staff time. Yet, this reaches people who’ve likely never before been served by
Extension. How do we use this technology to achieve the information dissemination goal without generating a massive staffing shortage? Can such an effort really be maintained at the county level?

Maryland has mailed approximately 5,000 fact sheets, 2,500 soil test kits, diagnosed 373 plant samples and
produced 50 research-based publications on environmental horticulture issues such as ornamental insects, diseases,
and pest management.

In 1993, 900 volunteer hours were donated at the Center on various projects. Statewide 7,500 hours were donated
by Master Gardeners and 161 new Master Gardener interns were trained.

Problems

Once in place, managing the service is no small job. While start-up is the most intense, there must be a process
for keeping updates on track and evaluating the report data. Some glitches we encountered:

1. Planned and executed by a committee of specialists and agents, the project should ultimately have been handed off to the County office. In Texas, the three specialists sort of ran a “firehouse” operation of getting updates done by
   the person who could get to it, although most scripts were done at the beginning.
   
2. Keeping messages under 1.5 minutes was a formidable task and writing for the ear is a special challenge.
   
3. We had no system for tracking which calls coming to county offices resulted from the directory. Nor were we able to measure an increase in the volume of calls, even though data show July in Oklahoma had an average 10 extra calls
   per day as a result of direct connects.
   
4. Vendors did not provide timely reports. A computer problem prevented Oklahoma from receiving beginning data for June and July.
   
5. Collin County has no Master Gardener program so all calls must be fielded by Extension staff while Oklahoma County has a strong contingent of 100 Master Gardener volunteers who help field these calls.
   

Conclusions

The Extension Service increased awareness and access of research-based information offered. This was an
excellent marketing tool for visibility promotion of non-traditional programs for urban audiences.
Since these were pilot projects, they focused only on specific areas in each state. This information access system
is an effective solution for urban county offices to answer more consumer questions and helps Extension reach a
commuting, confused, and sometimes clueless urban clientele.

What next? in Oklahoma City or Tulsa? in Texas? in Fort Worth, who hoped to be the next pilot city in Texas? To
Market or not? Cost -- who pays and how?

If results of the pilot are successful, we hope to write a grant proposal for a bi-state phone messaging 800 number.
The emphasis on this being a pilot program is that the long-term costs, at least in Texas, are too high for Extension to
sustain without firm administrative support. We negotiated a $500 price for this six-month trial in Plano and hoped to
negotiate a similar price for the Fort Worth pages. Prices are comparable for Oklahoma.

Interactive Communications normally charges $15,000 for a full-page ad and messaging service for six months.
They have offered a price break based on our University status of $9,000 for six months. This appears to be impractical unless communities underwrite the service.

As we prepared this paper, Interactive Communications, publishers of the VoiceLink 2000 book, decided against
publishing another book in Plano or any other city. They report Extension one of their most aggressive and effective
draws in the book. However, individual advertisers didn’t get enough calls to justify the cost. The message service will
remain in place, but no new directories will be published or distributed.

So, investigation will continue on alternatives. SelectTalk, through the standard yellow pages, reportedly takes 16
million calls a year and may be the next stop for Extension, should a favorable rate materialize. The initial call
statistics will help us develop a rationale for action.

Extension personnel, especially the joint IPM group comprised of Texas A&M and OSU agents and specialists,
agree they would like to include greater portions of each state. They are exploring the possibilities of a single information access system shared by both states through an 800 number to include North Texas and most of Oklahoma.
This would take Extension to a higher percentage of clientele and increase visibility of both state Extension services.

Message information varies little between North Texas, Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Oklahoma and North Texas
have similar pest problems and environmental concerns. Information that does conflict will be minor.

Estimated to cost $12,000 to $20,000 a year, an 800 number would be provide a single service to all communities
in a two-state area -- clearly a bargain compared to the city by city approach.