National Fieldman

[Toughie]

This may be starting something controversial, but what do you think is the value of a Fieldman for a national breed association?  What would be the job description if you were going to hire a fieldman?  What type of person makes the best choice for the job and what do you think that person would be worth? 

 

[coyote]

I would hope she would creat enough sales to pay for her wage.

 

[knabe]

what do they do?

 

[justintime]

National fieldmen usually work for bigger breed associations. I do not think many National fieldmen could justify their existence through bringing enough money into the association to cover their salaries and expenses. There may be a few fieldmen that can do this, but I certainly haven't met many.  The situation in the US is a bit different than here in Canada. In the US there are cattle through most parts of the country. In Canada, the majority of our cattle are located in a band probably 350-400 miles wide and over 2500 miles long ... along the US/ Canadian border. Travel costs here in Canada are ridiculously high. Many people do not realize how much wider Canada is than the US, and if you look at a map, Canada does stick out far more than the US does, into the Atlantic. I have stood on the rocks at Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia a few times and every time I look at the ssigns to various cities around the world, I am amazed at the fact that I am over twice as close to England than I am to my home ... and it is still a long ways from here to the West Coast. This country is huge! I even hear breeders in the bigger beef breeds questioning why they have fieldmen working in their associations.

I am a firm believer that it is the job of the breeder to promote his breeding program. The breed association's job is to provide general promotion of what the breed has to offer the industry. The main job of the association is to maintain the by-laws and the breed registry set up by the membership. I think it would definitely take a special person to work as a fieldman for any length of time and I do not think it is a job where anyone could hit the ground running once they are hired. There would be a definite time period of learning the job, meeting the breeders and developing a cost effective action plan. I certainly would not want this job, and I think there would be a rather high turnover in personel. When you consider that a single plane ticket from one side of this country to the other side is usually over $1000 and sometimes even more, a breed association would have to have pretty deep pockets.

In a perfect world, it would be nice to have breed employees to come and visit every breeder as well as many commerical producers as possible. I think that gaining a bigger share in the beef industry doesn't happen over night or from one or two visits with a producer. It is a long term goal, and I think it is most likely to occur through relationships developed between the breeder and the commerical producers than from efforts of a fieldman. IN a perfect world, I would like to have a couple full time employees and a winter home in Mexico, but these are just dreams and very far from reality!

 

[Toughie]

In my opinion, the purpose of a National Association should be to enhance the value of the animals bred by its members, whether that means keeping an accurate recording of pedigree information or promoting the breed on a national or international basis.  There are always those dynasties within any breed which feel they don't need the assistance which should be readily available to all members, but for those who are new to a breed or wondering where to spend their hard earned dollars within a breed, some assistance from the parent association should be forthcoming.  This is where the position of a National Fieldman could be very beneficial.  He would be responsible for the promotion of the "breed" within the parameters of the guidances of the Board of Directors.  He would also be a visible "face" of the association at national and international events.  He would be the co-ordinator of programs offered by the association, if there are any!!  The right person would be the idea person who would bring innovative approaches to the Board with regards to marketing the breed.  There are many ways to pay for this service.  One would be to amalgamate the secretary-manager position with the National Fieldman and make it a full time position.  Another would be to have our pedigree work done by an organization which is economical instead of blindly paying the highest premium for that service, thus freeing up funds to go toward other services needed by the membership.  A check-off system could be used any time the Fieldman assists with the sale of, or enhancement of animals or services.  Perhaps it would be time to look at amalgamating with another organiztion in order to cut costs, but at the same time create more opportunities for the members.  In a country as big as ours it is vitally necessary to have a coordinated effort to have every member feel included.  This can only be done through the services of a paid employee.  Every breeder is either too busy or too ingrained in their own philosophies to be able to perform this task on an ongoing basis.  Desperate times call for desperate measures, and we are approaching desperate times in the purebred cattle industry.  It helps to be proactive instead of reactive.  There are only two ways that a national association can increase revenue and that is by increasing memberships and registrations.  If a concentrated effort can be made to increase those two areas, then an association will thrive and be in a position to meet the challenges of a changing beef market.

 

[Okotoks]

National fieldmen usually work for bigger breed associations. I do not think many National fieldmen could justify their existence through bringing enough money into the association to cover their salaries and expenses. There may be a few fieldmen that can do this, but I certainly haven't met many.  The situation in the US is a bit different than here in Canada. In the US there are cattle through most parts of the country. In Canada, the majority of our cattle are located in a band probably 350-400 miles wide and over 2500 miles long ... along the US/ Canadian border. Travel costs here in Canada are ridiculously high. Many people do not realize how much wider Canada is than the US, and if you look at a map, Canada does stick out far more than the US does, into the Atlantic. I even hear breeders in the bigger beef breeds questioning why they have fieldmen working in their associations.

I am a firm believer that it is the job of the breeder to promote his breeding program. The breed association's job is to provide general promotion of what the breed has to offer the industry. The main job of the association is to maintain the by-laws and the breed registry set up by the membership. I think it would definitely take a special person to work as a fieldman for any length of time and I do not think it is a job where anyone could hit the ground running once they are hired. There would be a definite time period of learning the job, meeting the breeders and developing a cost effective action plan. I certainly would not want this job, and I think there would be a rather high turnover in personal. When you consider that a single plane ticket from one side of this country to the other side is usually over $1000 and sometimes even more, a breed association would have to have pretty deep pockets.

In a perfect world, it would be nice to have breed employees to come and visit every breeder as well as many commerical producers as possible. I think that gaining a bigger share in the beef industry doesn't happen over night or from one or two visits with a producer. It is a long term goal, and I think it is most likely to occur through relationships developed between the breeder and the commerical producers than from efforts of a fieldman. IN a perfect world, I would like to have a couple full time employees and a winter home in Mexico, but these are just dreams and very far from reality!

I agree with your thoughts JIT. My concerns about a National fieldman is both the cost and putting the biggest expense of the association in one person. If you get the wrong person you have gambled away a lot of money. I have seen some great secretaries and fieldman destroyed by members who blame these people for their failure. If you have a product you need to promote it and market it yourself. Canada is a vast country and even though we are a small breed a fieldman could not make it to every herd in one year and if he did the travel expenses alone would break us and he would have no time to market.
There is also the assertion that our costs for registration and transfer are high but we have associations from the US, South America and Australia using CLRC's services both because of the economical costs and also for the accuracy. Swine exports in Canada  always require the registrations to come from CLRC as it is recognized world wide for it's high standards. I of course am biased about CLRC after being on the board for several years but I can attest to the fact that costs have been held far below the rate of inflation for the last 12 years. I can also say that before the Canadian Shorthorn Association got rid of it's staff and own office we were bleeding red ink, year in and year out, in spite of continual increases in fees  and we could not have sustained the losses over a much longer period of time.
I would like to see a financial plan that shows the salary, travel costs and what the increase in fees required to support a fieldman would be over a five year period. My guess is our fees would quadruple and there would be lots of members claiming the fieldman only looked after his favourites!

 

[justintime]

We have looked a few times at moving the business of registrations, transfers, etc to the breed office and it has never been feasible to do so. It is not a simple process and it is very costly as well. In our case here in Canada, the costs were far beyond what we could afford and at that time we were also approached by the Canadian Angus Association and they proposed that they do the Shorthorn registrations and transfers one day each week. The cost was going to be more than what CLRC were charging us at that time so the decision was made to remain there.  The Canadian Angus Association moved out of Can National Livestock Records over 20 years ago, and it became a huge problem for them. I think they have got many of the problems worked out now, but they found out it was a very intensive thing to do.  I was on the CSA board at that time, and I felt like you, that there had to be some cost saving measures that could be accomplished by moving this work to the CSA office. This was far from being the case and I have come to believe that we have one of the best registries in the world and I think we could never afford to move, nor could we ever manage it in the same regard as it is being done now.

In regards to having a breed association employee suggesting to a new breeder, where they should be investing their money, I can see huge problems from this happening. I do not believe ANY breed association should ever be involved in telling its membership where to buy or where not to buy. A breed association has to be pretty non political in most every regard. There are also issues of different cattle working in different areas of the country, and you still would have to be very careful in issues like this.

I know there are some advantages for having breed personal but as Okotoks has already mentioned, the wrong person hired, would bleed the membership dry in a short period of time. I would love to have the luxury of a fieldman, but I cannot even imagine the costs that would be involved, when you consider salary, vehicle, insurance, travel expenses , etc. It would be very high!  I have heard several Angus breeders in recent years questioning what their association spends each year on employee travel expenses and it is a bit mind boggling. I certainly would want to see a complete detailed financial plan as well before anything is done. We used to have a CSA fieldman who assisted the membership and if he was able to make sales, the member was supposed to pay the CSA a 5% of the total sales to help pay for this service. I may have been a good idea but it never worked as not one single person was willing to pay the CSA this fee. I can only assume this would be the case again. In my opinion, it would take a minimum of $120,000 a year to finance the costs of a fieldman, and I expect he would be only doing a fraction of the job he should be doing. I have no idea what it would cost to do it right.

 

[RyanChandler]

In regards to having a breed association employee suggesting to a new breeder, where they should be investing their money, I can see huge problems from this happening. I do not believe ANY breed association should ever be involved in telling its membership where to buy or where not to buy.

Perhaps- perhaps not.  If there is performance info documented, I have no problem with the association recognizing the superiority of a particular set of genetics.  At the same time, if they're asked about genetics that have documented inferiority- Again, I have no problem with the association recognizing this.  I expect any and all reps of the assoc to be FORTHRIGHT when asked direct questions regarding the legitimacy of the genetics in question.  I HATE people beating around the bush and it takes me all about 2 seconds to tell when they are.  When I call a sales rep and ask for the pros and cons of an animal in question- I want to hear exactly and precisely what they are.  As soon as they start talking in those vague terms, one can't help but assume something is being, at a minimum, overlooked.  Omissions are the same as lies. 

 

[Okotoks]

In regards to having a breed association employee suggesting to a new breeder, where they should be investing their money, I can see huge problems from this happening. I do not believe ANY breed association should ever be involved in telling its membership where to buy or where not to buy.

Perhaps- perhaps not.  If there is performance info documented, I have no problem with the association recognizing the superiority of a particular set of genetics.  At the same time, if they're asked about genetics that have documented inferiority- Again, I have no problem with the association recognizing this.  I expect any and all reps of the assoc to be FORTHRIGHT when asked direct questions regarding the legitimacy of the genetics in question.  I HATE people beating around the bush and it takes me all about 2 seconds to tell when they are.  When I call a sales rep and ask for the pros and cons of an animal in question- I want to hear exactly and precisely what they are.  As soon as they start talking in those vague terms, one can't help but assume something is being, at a minimum, overlooked.  Omissions are the same as lies.

So everyone should pay for a fieldman to sell "the superiority of a particular set of genetics" ? So would that be a low birth weight EPD with a high positive calving ease, exceptional weaning weight EPD's high milk or possibly low milk for dry conditions. Would it be high marbling or high REA. Who would decide one set of numbers was better, maybe we should add stayability. Maybe EPD's are important but they don't necessarily trump soundness and feed efficiency. With all the variables no one will agree so the fieldman will favour his own beliefs and those who support him. It really is just human nature how this will end up going. It's certain everyone wouldn't agree on how this will work like we all agree about things on Steer Planet.  :

 

[jaimiediamond]

Another concern is it takes a fieldman time to get established.  I asked a couple different breeders (purebred and commercial) and got the same response they would have to know the new fieldman and see them in action before they would trust him/her to find cattle for them. It could take up to 2 years before there is a strong rapport amongst buyers and the fieldman meaning probably it would take minimally 3 years before results would be seen not many associations can afford 3 years salary and travel before results are readily available.

 

[caledon101]

We have looked a few times at moving the business of registrations, transfers, etc to the breed office and it has never been feasible to do so. It is not a simple process and it is very costly as well. In our case here in Canada, the costs were far beyond what we could afford and at that time we were also approached by the Canadian Angus Association and they proposed that they do the Shorthorn registrations and transfers one day each week. The cost was going to be more than what CLRC were charging us at that time so the decision was made to remain there.  The Canadian Angus Association moved out of Can National Livestock Records over 20 years ago, and it became a huge problem for them. I think they have got many of the problems worked out now, but they found out it was a very intensive thing to do.  I was on the CSA board at that time, and I felt like you, that there had to be some cost saving measures that could be accomplished by moving this work to the CSA office. This was far from being the case and I have come to believe that we have one of the best registries in the world and I think we could never afford to move, nor could we ever manage it in the same regard as it is being done now.

In regards to having a breed association employee suggesting to a new breeder, where they should be investing their money, I can see huge problems from this happening. I do not believe ANY breed association should ever be involved in telling its membership where to buy or where not to buy. A breed association has to be pretty non political in most every regard. There are also issues of different cattle working in different areas of the country, and you still would have to be very careful in issues like this.

I know there are some advantages for having breed personal but as Okotoks has already mentioned, the wrong person hired, would bleed the membership dry in a short period of time. I would love to have the luxury of a fieldman, but I cannot even imagine the costs that would be involved, when you consider salary, vehicle, insurance, travel expenses , etc. It would be very high!  I have heard several Angus breeders in recent years questioning what their association spends each year on employee travel expenses and it is a bit mind boggling. I certainly would want to see a complete detailed financial plan as well before anything is done. We used to have a CSA fieldman who assisted the membership and if he was able to make sales, the member was supposed to pay the CSA a 5% of the total sales to help pay for this service. I may have been a good idea but it never worked as not one single person was willing to pay the CSA this fee. I can only assume this would be the case again. In my opinion, it would take a minimum of $120,000 a year to finance the costs of a fieldman, and I expect he would be only doing a fraction of the job he should be doing. I have no idea what it would cost to do it right.

CLRC is one of the most accurate and respected Registars in the world. What they are not good at is self promotion and competing in the aggressive way that other Registrar services do.

I am very much against the Canadian Angus Association's efforts to sell their services and take on registry work for smaller breeds; that's what CLRC was created for and, they are very good at it.
As long as we have the Animal Pedigree Act we will have CLRC however, the Angus association's efforts to canabalize the industry for the purpose of generating more revenue for their own office seems predatory in my opinion.
They did this to the Murray Grey breed about 12 years ago and it was very damaging. The transaction numbers were so small it really made some of us scratch our head wondering why they would even bother to fight so hard to get it away from CLRC. The story traced all the way back to Australia.

God help the poor bastard that the CSA hires to be their fieldman....if that is what's actually coming next??
He or she will be blamed for everything you can imagine and more. Just the hiring process will be hugely scrutinized and then criticized nationally. If he's from the West...he/she has a problem....If he's from the East....same thing. No one person can effectively cover all of Canada. They'd spend most of their time just travelling to their destination.

Here's my suggestion....save the money and don't do it. The only one who is going to benefit from this is Air Canada.

 

[RyanChandler]

In regards to having a breed association employee suggesting to a new breeder, where they should be investing their money, I can see huge problems from this happening. I do not believe ANY breed association should ever be involved in telling its membership where to buy or where not to buy.

Perhaps- perhaps not.  If there is performance info documented, I have no problem with the association recognizing the superiority of a particular set of genetics.  At the same time, if they're asked about genetics that have documented inferiority- Again, I have no problem with the association recognizing this.  I expect any and all reps of the assoc to be FORTHRIGHT when asked direct questions regarding the legitimacy of the genetics in question.  I HATE people beating around the bush and it takes me all about 2 seconds to tell when they are.  When I call a sales rep and ask for the pros and cons of an animal in question- I want to hear exactly and precisely what they are.  As soon as they start talking in those vague terms, one can't help but assume something is being, at a minimum, overlooked.  Omissions are the same as lies.

So everyone should pay for a fieldman to sell "the superiority of a particular set of genetics" ? So would that be a low birth weight EPD with a high positive calving ease, exceptional weaning weight EPD's high milk or possibly low milk for dry conditions. Would it be high marbling or high REA. Who would decide one set of numbers was better, maybe we should add stayability. Maybe EPD's are important but they don't necessarily trump soundness and feed efficiency. With all the variables no one will agree so the fieldman will favour his own beliefs and those who support him. It really is just human nature how this will end up going. It's certain everyone wouldn't agree on how this will work like we all agree about things on Steer Planet.  :

It wouldn't be a particular set. Unless one set dominated all facets.  I'm talking about specifics here "which genetics provide the most growth" "which are the best marbling" "which have the most maternal function" and so forth.

 

[caledon101]

We have looked a few times at moving the business of registrations, transfers, etc to the breed office and it has never been feasible to do so. It is not a simple process and it is very costly as well. In our case here in Canada, the costs were far beyond what we could afford and at that time we were also approached by the Canadian Angus Association and they proposed that they do the Shorthorn registrations and transfers one day each week. The cost was going to be more than what CLRC were charging us at that time so the decision was made to remain there.  The Canadian Angus Association moved out of Can National Livestock Records over 20 years ago, and it became a huge problem for them. I think they have got many of the problems worked out now, but they found out it was a very intensive thing to do.  I was on the CSA board at that time, and I felt like you, that there had to be some cost saving measures that could be accomplished by moving this work to the CSA office. This was far from being the case and I have come to believe that we have one of the best registries in the world and I think we could never afford to move, nor could we ever manage it in the same regard as it is being done now.

In regards to having a breed association employee suggesting to a new breeder, where they should be investing their money, I can see huge problems from this happening. I do not believe ANY breed association should ever be involved in telling its membership where to buy or where not to buy. A breed association has to be pretty non political in most every regard. There are also issues of different cattle working in different areas of the country, and you still would have to be very careful in issues like this.

I know there are some advantages for having breed personal but as Okotoks has already mentioned, the wrong person hired, would bleed the membership dry in a short period of time. I would love to have the luxury of a fieldman, but I cannot even imagine the costs that would be involved, when you consider salary, vehicle, insurance, travel expenses , etc. It would be very high!  I have heard several Angus breeders in recent years questioning what their association spends each year on employee travel expenses and it is a bit mind boggling. I certainly would want to see a complete detailed financial plan as well before anything is done. We used to have a CSA fieldman who assisted the membership and if he was able to make sales, the member was supposed to pay the CSA a 5% of the total sales to help pay for this service. I may have been a good idea but it never worked as not one single person was willing to pay the CSA this fee. I can only assume this would be the case again. In my opinion, it would take a minimum of $120,000 a year to finance the costs of a fieldman, and I expect he would be only doing a fraction of the job he should be doing. I have no idea what it would cost to do it right.

If the CSA can afford a full time employee and chooses to move in that direction then (in my opinion) they would obtain a far greater ROI on their investment if they passed on the hiring of a fieldman and instead, focused on bringing in a General Manager with all of the necessary qualities.
The CSA Board, like all others, is comprised of active, volunteer members.
A good GM provides a steady, ongoing influence and provides guidance to both the new and established Directors. He/She fully understands the Pedigree Act.

Boards evolve and some are better than others; a good GM provides some continuity and confidence for the membership.

A good GM has his finger on the pulse of all other Shorthorn associations both within Canada and beyond. He/She updates the Board with accurate information and introduces "best practices" learned from direct observation of other Shorthorn associations and other breeds.
The GM would visit key auction events nationally to represent the CSA and would attend all provinical AGM's to represent the CSA Board directly. He/She would develop a close relationship with all of the key contacts within the ASA especially and, attend their AGM also.

With a good GM you have someone every breeder can contact directly with their concerns and ideas. I can almost guarantee you that any "fieldman" hired would end up taking some of the calls and it wouldn't be the best use of their time; you don't hire a fieldman to be Ann Landers.
This GM would NOT own cattle or have any conflicting background.
The "right" GM is someone who isn't afraid to stand up and tell the Board what they don't want to hear.
We already have a good staff in the CSA office and I would certainly recommend that they be encouraged to apply for any new position created. 

 

[carl]

If I recall correctly the motion at the meeting was to increase the registration fees by $5 and then the board is supposed to strike a committee to look at ways of using this money to promote the breed. That could involve hiring a fieldman or spending more money on advertising or any other initiative the committee feels would advance the breed. I think the committee will come to the same conclusion that Grant and Dan have, a full time fieldman will cost WAY more than this $5 increase is going to generate. I also have some general concerns about a fieldman. Who gives him/her direction? I would have a hard time thinking of things to do to keep them occupied over the year. I also believe it could become a very political position and there is no doubt in my mind that there will be members that are unhappy with the performance of this person no matter what he or she does. I just don't see a fieldman as being the savior of this breed. I hope the committee gives this issue some serious thought before they make any  decisions.

 

[justintime]

Carl I agree with what you have stated here. I had to miss this meeting so I have never been real clear on what the motion was. I am a big believer in the printed word ( aka advertising) and I think this breed has gained a "presence " in the beef industry from the national advertising campaign the CSA has had over the last decade. I know I have sold bulls to people who have told me that these ads started them thinking about the Shorthorn breed, and I am sure many others have as well. There is so much more that could be done in this regard. A couple years ago, in one day at Agribition, I had leading breeders from the Angus, Simmental and Charolais breeds make comments to me about how could the Shorthorn breed be coming out with a better advertising campaign than their breeds were? It was a good day for me!!! I think the breeders who have worked hard on this ad campaign deserve much more credit than they have received. I think okotoks ( Dan) has played a major role in these ads and I will always be very grateful for his dedication and hard work.
In regards to the fieldman being a Savior for the breed, Jesus Christ himself would have a tough time trying to please the membership!