You can’t grow that!
Here is a story that shows just how quickly the horticultural industry in diverging into two different types of business. On the one hand we have smaller, independent garden professionals and on the other hand we have the larger concerns who seem terrified of what the smaller concerns are up to. How else does one explain Scotts/Miracle Gro‘s recent actions?
According to her website, garden writer CL Fornari decided last October to start a campaign titled, “You Can Grow That”. Once a week any garden writer who wished to participate would write an article under that heading. You can read about it here. Long story short, Scotts/Miracle Gro applied for a trademark on “You Can Gro That!”, after she had broached the idea on The Internet.
What’s up with Scotts? At a recent shareholders meeting in January 2012, Chairman and CEO Jim Hagedorn said, “We are making a step change in fiscal 2012 and setting a new benchmark for our advertising investment,” Hagedorn told shareholders. “Both our Scotts and Miracle-Gro brands will be supported by completely new campaigns. While we will continue to support individual products in each commercial, we will do so with a consistent approach and message that creates a halo effect for the brands. I believe this is some of the best creative work we have done in years and I am confident it will impact our business – not just in 2012 – but over the longer-term as well.”
Then last August Scotts reported, “During today’s conference call to discuss its third quarter results, the Company said it expects adjusted earnings for fiscal 2012 to be approximately $2.00 per share and mistakenly stated an expected loss in the fourth quarter of about 40 cents. To clarify, the Company anticipates an operating loss in the fourth quarter which will translate into an adjusted loss per share closer to 60 cents. The Company still expects adjusted earnings per share of about $2.00 for the year.”
Like all of us, Scotts is trying to figure out its place in the changing gardening scene. Its reputation has taken a beating these last few years, and people just don’t seem to want to garden in a way that helped build the company in the past. Garden centers no longer feel it necessary to carry their products, as there are better alternatives now available. Lawns are slowly loosing favor with the gardening public, and lawn care is where Scotts ruled. Finally, through actions like trade marking a phrase, “You can grow that” it shows a certain un-becoming characteristic. It seems destined to alienate itself even further from the very people it would normally count on for support, garden writers and their readers.
Thanks for bringing attention to this important issue. The big guys are ultimately NOT on our side, whatever perceived benefit there might be from their promoting more awareness of gardening in general. Maybe it’s legal but what a mean-spirited and divisive move for any company to make.
Ian,
It is petty and divisive, just as you say.
I’m not at all surprised this happened. They had billboards for the campaign up this summer.
http://seedbroadcast.blogspot.com/2012/07/mighty-billboards-mississippi-rain-and.html
See the second picture in that post.
I’m surprised they were issued the trademark since it is such a generic phrase. When it, the “You Can Grow That” line, was first brought up in that brainstorming thread on your FB group for Independent Garden Centers and Media, I figured something like this would pop up.
When I met the ladies from the Seed Broadcast project this summer and saw their picture of the You Can Gro That billboard I figured that somehow Scott’s and the garden writers were working together on it since the GWA and Scott’s have a friendly relationship.
Mr. Brown Thumb,
Scotts may not realize, or they do but just don’t care that some of these garden communicators are also nursery people. No longer are garden communicators and nursery people necessarily separate trades. In this case CL,, as well as some of the other “you can grow that” participants are nursery people and some cases the owners of garden centers. They are trying their best to come up with ideas that might bring some business their way. When you have growers, and retail going out of business at an alarming rate and you take away one of the ideas these business people came up with for their own use, well it doesn’t sit too well. Let’s face the facts. Scotts is in direct competition with many of the independent garden centers that at one time might have supported Scotts.
In the long run I think the value Scotts gets out of trademarking the slogan, “You can gro that” will be greatly diminished by the “ill will” it has fostered. Sure, many gardeners will never know of the “behind the scenes” aspect of the slogan, but it is talked about in groups like our Retail Garden Center Group you mentioned. Just the other day a well known grower in the trade was telling us that to support Scotts is ethically, and morally wrong. That’s not the type of “advertising” most companies desire.
I was in ‘shock and ore’ to read what Scotts has done with trade-marking ‘you can grow that’. I guess this is ‘the taste of a new generation’, but its not ‘M’m M’m good’. As a writer I like to ‘get ready to rumble’ but I want to ‘be all that you can be’ and choose my words carefully. Still this kind of stuff can ‘put a tiger in your tank’. Scotts ‘just do it’ attitude for their marketing doesn’t leave me with a ‘we love to see you smile’ feeling, but ‘it’s so easy, even a caveman can do it’. Sure it’s ‘taking care of business’ to come up with these slogans, but to rip it off from a blogger and prevent others from using it leaves me to think that Scotts is ‘Home of the Whopper’. ‘Have it your way’, we can show disapproval by buying from the competition, words that ‘melts in your mouth, not in your hands’. What ever happened to freedom of speech, doesn’t it extend to the written word as well as the spoken word? As always Trey, your blog is ‘good to the last drop’ when exposing ‘pork, the other white meat’.
Pingback: You cannot control the message | The Blogging Nurseryman by Trey Pitsenberger
There is no benefit to that statement anyway no matter how Grow/Gro is spelled.
A major campaign should be led with a benefit statement if it is possible to do so. There is sufficient evidence of scientifically proven health and environmental benefits of plants and gardening to draw upon.
Why grow that If I don’t believe there is a benefit to growing anything strongly enough to already be doing it? If the goal were to overcome the brown/black thumb fears of people that’s a negative goal. The goal should be to expand the market in a positive manner. I’m not going to try to write the campaign copy. My point is that it should be a carefully considered strategy and execution based on benefit, not feature or fear. As with any profession (horticulture) there are copywriters and then there are very excellent headline copywriters who specialize in coming up with those one-line zingers that resonate and vibrate within the soul of the intended audience. They need a good strategy to aim their words at.
Sid,
Which shows just how lame Scotts/Miracle-Gro is in trademarking that phrase.
I supported the groups goals, but have never been a fan of catch phrases or slogan. The “just plant something” campaign had desperation written all over it. Why plant something? Because my local garden center wants me to?
I am also not a fan of “campaigns”, either. We’re suppose to band together and spend time and money campaigning for what?
The answer is to produce a product and service that matches and then exceeds the customers expectations. When that happens, the campaigns can take off on their own.
To the credit of CL and the “you can grow that” campaign, it was at least a grass roots effort that doesn’t cost much other than time invested. I think the idea of having the members who want to be involved doing the work is the way forward. It doesn’t have to be a catchy phrase, just people doing what they love and want to do,
Pingback: We can grow that! | The Blogging Nurseryman by Trey Pitsenberger