This document outlines a public relations plan to address Monsanto Corporation's negative image among small farmers. Focus groups and surveys with agricultural workers found most had a negative view of Monsanto due to experiences with strict patent laws and regulations. The plan recommends Monsanto improve public outreach, make patent laws less strict to allow for accidents, and provide samples and meetings to rebuild trust with small farmers negatively impacted in the past.

1. Public Relations Plan – Final Project
Monsanto Corporation vs. Farmers
Issue of a corporate giants’ negative image
in the eyes of the small time agriculturalist
Written by: Cole Phillips
MC 3360
12-4-14

2. The PR Problem:
Over the course of a few years I have transferred three times between schools
while trying to discover what field of study truly caught my interest. In doing so I
chose agriculture as my minor and saw first hand how each university differed in
their views of how certain material was to be presented to the class. While one
university chose to emphasize some aspects of agriculture more so than others the
same issue seemed to arise within all of them. I discovered that a corporation
known as Monsanto, which is known for their sustainable agricultural products, was
constantly being brought up in lecture as having a negative image in the eyes of
many who have conducted business with them, as well as those who just happened
to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Based on the research I performed it became apparent that this issue is truly
something that needs to be addressed. The situation is one of importance since
agriculture is something that has and always will be important in our society. The
data collected in the research shows that the majority of respondents held a
negative view of the company and much of it comes from bad experiences with the
corporations patenting laws and regulations of their products.
The use of focus groups and surveys served to be very enlightening and helpful in
that they helped me narrow down the target audience most often affected by the
issue. Not only was I able to define my audience, but it also gave me an inside look at
how the company is viewed by so many who have come into contact with them as
well as ideas on how to turn this negativity around.
Secondary Sources:
Anderson, Lessley. "Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? - Modern Farmer." Modern
Farmer. N.p., 4 Mar. 2014. Web. 27 Sept. 2014.
California Law Review. Jun2012, Vol. 100 Issue 3, p691-720. 30p.
Cullet, P. (2004). Farmer Liability and GM Contamination: Schmeiser Judgment.
Economic and Political Weekly, (25). 2551.

3. Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law. Fall2013, Vol. 24 Issue 1,
p95-148. 54p.
Martin, A. (2013). SEED SAVERS V. MONSANTO: FARMERS NEED A VICTORY FOR
WILTING BIODIVERSITY. Journal Of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property
Law, 24(1), 95-148.
Ma, M. (2012). Anticipating and Reducing the Unfairness of Monsanto's Inadvertent
Infringement Lawsuits: A Proposal to Import Copyright Law's Notice-and-
Takedown Regime into the Seed Patent Context. California Law Review,
100(3), 691-720.
Monsanto Takes a Farmer to Supreme Court; Guess Who's Winning?. (2013).
GeneWatch, 26(1), 32-33.
Focus Groups:
I conducted the first of the focus groups in Junction Texas, since I myself have a
ranch there. Seeing as how I spend a large amount of time on my property there in
Junction I took it upon myself to ask residents of the city if they wouldn’t mind
joining the focus group that I was performing. The first group was conducted on
October 5, 2014. The second and third focus groups were performed on October 6
and 12, 2014. I performed the second focus group in San Angelo Texas since I was
familiar with the area having done business with some of the local ranchers there
over the last few years. The third focus group was performed in Three Rivers Texas
on account that I knew a local businesswoman who owned a Hot-Shot business in
which she knew many farmers in the area on a personal and professional level.
The first group included three men, ages ranging between 20-60. My next group
consisted of two woman and one man, ages ranging between 20-60. My final group
consisted of two men and one woman, ranging from 20 to 60+ years of age.
I began the focus groups by asking all of the participants what their specialty and
or occupation was when dealing with agriculture. I then asked whether their careers
were considered private or public to get an idea of how involved they were in the
field. The options for occupation were listed as farming/crops, raising livestock, and
“other,” which were for those participants who considered their line of work to be in
a different category. This would help me in deciding whether or not there was a
direct correlation between certain careers in the field of agriculture and the
negativity that was depicted towards Monsanto. In the first group, for example, two
of the men responded with negative views toward Monsanto and both worked
either raising livestock and or farming/crops. The second focus group held

4. emphasis on public knowledge of Monsanto and asked questions regarding products
associated with the company as well as general questions that incited positive or
negative views with certain aspects of the company. One question in particular was
whether or not the respondent had or knew someone that had been under
investigation by the company. The female respondent had heard rumors of the
investigations through the Internet, while one of the male respondents had an uncle
who was currently being investigated for patent infringement. The third focus group
aimed at learning what solutions the public has for dealing with Monsanto. One
exploratory question that was asked was: What ought to be done about the conflict
between farmers/crop growers and the Monsanto Corporation? Each of the
respondents answered quite similarly in that one man thought a truce should be
enacted while the other man and woman felt that a debate should take place
whether in a public space or a boardroom to discuss the issues at hand. The goal of
this question was to learn from the opinions of those who answered them and to
hopefully acquire a consensus on what ought to be done from the view of the public.
While this sample of respondents may not accurately depict the entire population, it
can in fact give a better understanding of the problem and offer insight on the data
collected to eventually amount to accurate data that can be used to solve the overall
problem.
These focus groups helped to shape my overall plan by giving me detailed
information from each of my groups, whether it was the age of the respondents,
their views of the company, and or the occupation that each held. Each respondent
worked in the field of agriculture, which was very useful in targeting the population
for my study. Once I accrued this information I knew constructing a viable survey
from it would be much easier.
Survey Research
I chose to use a survey during the research as a way of gaining a greater
understanding of how respondents felt regarding Monsanto. The survey offered
quick feedback and covered key points that could be used in evaluating the target
populations general attitude and understanding of the information before them.
The first six questions offered information regarding the demographics of the
participants as a way of visualizing who in fact was on the receiving end of this
survey. The questions that followed were formed to learn how knowledgeable the
participants were when dealing with patent laws as well as the products affiliated
with the company. I also asked whether or not the participants contacted Monsanto
to voice their opinions on actionable issues. The reason behind this was to see
whether or not the general population was opinionated enough to bring up their

5. concerns with the company or if there was a lack of taking charge when confronting
a large corporation due to laziness, fear or general disregard.
The source of my questions was a culmination of both the results of the focus
groups as well as general information that I felt would be necessary in coming up
with solutions for the problem. Some of the questions were formulated after having
read the articles that are listed under secondary research as well.
My target audience consisted of both men and women ranging from 20-60+ years
of age. I chose this range because I felt that the youngest that would actively be
involved in a career regarding agriculture would be around the age of 20 years
while the majority of the audience who may or may not have dealt with Monsanto
would be of a higher age group. Most ranchers and farmers that I know are around
the age of 40 and up, and many of the family run farms have been passed down
through the generations which leaves a large group of elderly and middle aged men
and women who now operate the businesses. While many people at a younger age
haven’t had the experience of dealing with a larger company, those respondents
who are older have a higher chance of having relations with a sustainable
agriculture company or knowing someone who may have been directly impacted by
the actions of them.
I chose to use the convenience sampling procedure by using emails and Facebook
Messenger by creating a group for friends as well as others to respond to. I also
distributed my survey through phone calls, and in person while attending a wild
game dinner with a family friend. While there, I met many people involved in the
field of agriculture who in fact had or knew people associated with the Monsanto
Corporation and offered to take my the survey I had constructed.
Survey Results:
Based on my survey, which consisted of 50 respondents, I would conclude that
there are varied views associated with Monsanto and their image. While the
majority of the respondents hold a negative view towards the company there was a
close percentage of respondents who responded with a neutral standpoint as well.
The percentages depict 36% of the audience to harbor negative views, followed by
34% neutral and 30% positive. The results associated with demographics show that
36% of the population was moderately involved in agriculture, and that 56% of the
50 respondents believe that large corporations are making small farm life more
difficult. The degree to which the highest percentage of respondents understood
patent law was 44% and they answered as only understanding “some” of the law.
These facts lead me to believe that many agriculturalists that are actively involved in
their careers hold a negative attitude towards Monsanto and feel that corporations
such as it are making small farm life harder. The fact that the highest percentage
only understand some of the patent laws followed by the second highest of 36%
which understand it very little leaves me to believe that the lack of knowing the

6. consequences associated with these infringements could be a cause for much of the
negativity surrounding the company.
What is your view of Monsanto?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Positive 15 30.0 30.0 30.0
Negative 18 36.0 36.0 66.0
Neutral 17 34.0 34.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

7. To what extent are you involved in agriculture?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very 15 30.0 30.0 30.0
Moderately 18 36.0 36.0 66.0
Minimally 17 34.0 34.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Do you feel like larger corporations are making small farm life more or less difficult?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid More 28 56.0 56.0 56.0
Less 22 44.0 44.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Indicate the degree to which you understand patent law:
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid None 7 14.0 14.0 14.0
Very little 18 36.0 36.0 50.0
Some 22 44.0 44.0 94.0
Very well 3 6.0 6.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

8. Recommendations:
Based on the different methods of research I performed, I conclude that the
negative imagery that has been associated with the Monsanto Corporation is
primarily due to a lack of understanding patenting laws, as well as the company’s
over-reaching desire to punish all who infringe their patents whether out of general
neglect, or complete accident. While the general population that this plan is aimed
towards is close in its responses both neutrally and negatively the fact remains that
the company has an image issue regarding the public eye. Many of the respondents
claimed to have not been directly impacted by Monsanto, however the fact that 26%
of them had been or knew others that had been poses the question of how many
others in the overall U.S. population are dealing with problems. There are many
court cases that are currently in the process of ruling in favor of the defendant or
the plaintiff in regards to patent infringement and to many agriculturalists who
make their livelihood from what they grow or raise, Monsanto is a corporate giant
that has struck fear into many who plant crops or those who have done business
with them.
My suggestion to Monsanto is to focus on re-creating its image in a way that will
appeal to the small time farmers and to clients who have previously contacted them
with concerns or negative feelings on actions they have taken. The company needs
to take into account that their patent laws are extremely strict, and while they are
entitled to protect their products they should also take into account how easily an
accident can occur. One respondent that I confronted told me about a family friend
who was under investigation by Monsanto. Monsanto is well known for their GMO’s
or genetically modified organisms. Roundup Ready Corn is a product that Monsanto
created which is a corn kernel that has been genetically modified to have roundup
genetically imprinted within the plant itself to make it healthier. The respondent
claimed that his friend had never used Monsanto’s seeds, however they came onto
his property uninvited and ran tests on his crops and found an acre or two that
contained their genetically modified seeds. The acreage that was affected was near a
major highway in which feed trucks often drive by. The question now revolves
around whether the man did in fact plant their seeds, or whether the seeds blew out
of a feed truck as it drove by. This incident is a common defense for many farmers
who have been suspects or had lawsuits filed against them. This fear is why many
people have grown negative feelings towards the company. I suggest that the
company change its investigatory procedures by not trespassing onto a person’s
property un-announced to test their crops.
Furthermore, I suggest that Monsanto strives to make their patenting laws less
strict as to allow more wiggle room for those who are being sued for what may not
be their fault. The lawsuits that have been filed have been in the upper thousands of
dollars and some farmers and small businesses have found themselves to be in such
a deep hole that they may never recover from it. As far as a campaign plan,
Monsanto could hold public meetings where they display their products and patent

9. information in small towns where they have clients. These meetings would be a
great way for farmers and ranchers to communicate with Monsanto personnel and
to voice their opinions and concerns. As a sign of good faith in consumers the
company could also give out samples of their products to those who have been
negatively affected in the past as a form of peace between the two. The company has
previously had problems with people re-planting Monsanto’s seeds the following
year and this is where patent infringements have become an issue yet again. I
recommend that they allow for a two-year planting season for the seeds as a type of
cushion for those who fear being sued for accidental planting. Using Twitter,
Facebook, and other social media outlets could be very beneficial in showing their
relations with happy clients and helping the community by giving a little back to
those who were negatively impacted.
Appendices:
1. Survey Instrument
My survey instrument consisted of a series of questions that I created
through Microsoft Word. Each question was associated with a hyperlink
checkbox next to each option for easy data retrieval. I distributed the
questions among family friends, acquaintances, as well as through Facebook,
email and phone calls. The information that was gathered was then used in
evaluating the feedback received from the target audience’s views regarding
Monsanto.
2. Focus Groups Summary:
Based on the focus groups that were performed, I learned that the
majority of the people that answered the questions held a negative view of
Monsanto. There were a few that felt that the company overall had done well
for its clients and consumers but the consensus at the end of the evaluations
still rested with a damaged image for the company. I discovered that some of
the respondents associated lawsuits with the cons of working with a
company like Monsanto. This correlation seems to be a common issue
regarding the company in court cases around the nation as well as those
involved in the research conducted here. I also found that most of the
negativity came from respondents that were middle aged, probably from
personal experience or from parents and family that had problems with the
company in the past and had passed down the business or property.

10. 3. Survey Summary:
Based on my completed surveys, I discovered that the overall percentage
of people working in farming/crops and raising livestock was higher than
those who worked in different aspects of the field. More than half of the
respondents felt that larger corporations such as Monsanto were making
small farm life more difficult. The degree to which respondents were familiar
with patent law ranged from 14% knowing none to 44% knowing some.
Overall it seems as though many people are unaware of the laws associated
with patents and the consequences that are associated with them. Whether
out of neglect or complete accident these lawsuits that are filed by Monsanto
are probably caused by a lack of knowledge on law. The results demonstrate
that the personal views of the people revolve around the negative spectrum.
SPSS Spreadsheet Results and Frequencies:
*Spreadsheet Continues to next page*

11. Frequency Table
What is your present profession?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Farming/Crops 16 32.0 32.0 32.0
Raising Livestock 11 22.0 22.0 54.0
Other 23 46.0 46.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

12. How long have you been working in agriculture?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Less than 5 years 19 38.0 38.0 38.0
5-10 years 12 24.0 24.0 62.0
10-20 years 13 26.0 26.0 88.0
More than 20 years 6 12.0 12.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
What is your view of Monsanto?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Positive 15 30.0 30.0 30.0
Negative 18 36.0 36.0 66.0
Neutral 17 34.0 34.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

13. How old are you?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 20-30 13 26.0 26.0 26.0
31-40 9 18.0 18.0 44.0
41-50 11 22.0 22.0 66.0
51-60 10 20.0 20.0 86.0
Over 60 7 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Ethnicity?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid African American 5 10.0 10.0 10.0
American Indian 2 4.0 4.0 14.0
Asian 4 8.0 8.0 22.0
White/Caucasion 24 48.0 48.0 70.0
Hispanic 13 26.0 26.0 96.0
Other race 2 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

14. Gender?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 32 64.0 64.0 64.0
Female 18 36.0 36.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
To what extent are you involved in agriculture?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very 15 30.0 30.0 30.0
Moderately 18 36.0 36.0 66.0
Minimally 17 34.0 34.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Do you feel like larger corporations are making small farm life more or less difficult?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid More 28 56.0 56.0 56.0
Less 22 44.0 44.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

15. Has the company's image grown in a positive or negative way in the eyes of its
consumers and clients?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Positive 28 56.0 56.0 56.0
Negative 22 44.0 44.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Are you knowledgeable on new and upcoming technologies in the field of
agriculture?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 28 56.0 56.0 56.0
No 22 44.0 44.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Indicate the degree to which you understand patent law:
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid None 7 14.0 14.0 14.0
Very little 18 36.0 36.0 50.0
Some 22 44.0 44.0 94.0
Very well 3 6.0 6.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

16. How did you come to hear about the Monsanto Corporation?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Word of mouth 17 34.0 34.0 34.0
Online 9 18.0 18.0 52.0
Magazine/Periodical 8 16.0 16.0 68.0
Family/Friend 16 32.0 32.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Have you or anyone you know been negatively impacted by Monsanto?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 13 26.0 26.0 26.0
No 37 74.0 74.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

17. Which products are you familiar with?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Agricultural Seeds 17 34.0 34.0 34.0
Traits, Technologies,
and Partnering
3 6.0 6.0 40.0
Vegetables 8 16.0 16.0 56.0
Weed control 7 14.0 14.0 70.0
All of the above 15 30.0 30.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Do you feel that the guidelines for Monsanto product usage are clearly defined?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 10 20.0 20.0 20.0
No 14 28.0 28.0 48.0
Not certain 26 52.0 52.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0

18. Have you contacted Monsanto to voice your opinions on actionable issues?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 10 20.0 20.0 20.0
No 40 80.0 80.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0