Charging for data is not really a business model. Removing friction to integrate data is sort of a business model. Using my data to get customers is a very good business model.
If I am a farmer looking to increase revenue i can use data to improve operations (a good thing) or use data to find better customers (a very good thing). A path I might recommend is to help someone like Nestle disintermediate ADM to find farmers that can meet Nestle's desire to improve nutrtion and reduce climate waste. Building the APIs that allow the data systems at Nestle (Either Nestle internal ERP or other systems sold into Nestle like customers) to talk to foreign parts of their value chain to accelerate disruption, adds value. Farmers are more than willing to provide data if it helps drive sales. Nestle is struggling to meet their needs for regenerative ag, an objective still in flux but none the less an objective.
The supply chain is moving more vertical. Humans want better nutrition. CPGs want to get revenue from these humans. CPGs need better systems intelegence to get there. The supply chain is moving from commodity to specility. The supply chain need network intelligence. That is the opportunity for those that touch APIs. Network Intelegence.
I totally agree that the CPGs should be the target for API integrations with AgTech. It has seemed from my experience though that it's a tough hill to climb with them. They are the ones that can add that extra value to the farmers for sure via their specialty needs. Of course I also fear that connection somewhat too as it's an easy way for them to dig their teeth deeper in the farmers operations and many may not be comfortable with that, so far that is. It's a slippery slope to say the least. I almost think there needs to be another incentive beyond just the specialty product needs the CPGs want from the farmers for a higher valued product. It might need a direct financial incentive to some extent. In any realm I don't know the exact answer but CPGs should play a bigger role financially to help get all these APIs to work the way it's wanted and that also would take a push by them to help create some of the standards AgTech data needs badly.
I have spoken to several large farm operations that are aggressive users of technology. Our lesson is they are more than willing to share data if it is being used constructively. We have invested in several AgData companies. The fastest growing (Based on sales) are firms that help farmers get more business. That means they are less excited giving data to Bayer so that Bayer can sell them more inputs. And less excited about JD taking data without their knowledge.
My lessons from this if farmers want more business from CPGs - a premium and/or multi year, a data integration effort from CPGs (paid for by CPGs) aimed to attract farmers and their data, to help farmers get long term contract, is likely to make everyone happy and create value.
Data integration to improve agronomy is way too noisy with marginal gain. The data integration has to eliminate friction in the supply chain to create outsized value. that outsized value comforts early adopters the effort is worth the return.
If the CPGs are willing to fit the bill it will and can be done. Of course that is still a big process and has many pieces to the puzzle, but the ball is in their court. At the end of the day something that makes sense by them needs to be created and presented to the growers. They don't want to wait for promises, they want action and real systems to try. If CPGs can do that for them then the value chain can connect and the growers will as you say have less worry on who and how their data is shared. In some sense, if CPGs start connecting end products to the growers directly via marketing it makes it even stickier as then the farmers brand is also enhanced. I've been seeing some progressive farmers and CPGs doing this and I think there is a solid path for it compared to doing it just for agronomy's sake. Seems we are on the same page none the less. Just more needs to be done as always.
Charging for data is not really a business model. Removing friction to integrate data is sort of a business model. Using my data to get customers is a very good business model.
If I am a farmer looking to increase revenue i can use data to improve operations (a good thing) or use data to find better customers (a very good thing). A path I might recommend is to help someone like Nestle disintermediate ADM to find farmers that can meet Nestle's desire to improve nutrtion and reduce climate waste. Building the APIs that allow the data systems at Nestle (Either Nestle internal ERP or other systems sold into Nestle like customers) to talk to foreign parts of their value chain to accelerate disruption, adds value. Farmers are more than willing to provide data if it helps drive sales. Nestle is struggling to meet their needs for regenerative ag, an objective still in flux but none the less an objective.
The supply chain is moving more vertical. Humans want better nutrition. CPGs want to get revenue from these humans. CPGs need better systems intelegence to get there. The supply chain is moving from commodity to specility. The supply chain need network intelligence. That is the opportunity for those that touch APIs. Network Intelegence.
I totally agree that the CPGs should be the target for API integrations with AgTech. It has seemed from my experience though that it's a tough hill to climb with them. They are the ones that can add that extra value to the farmers for sure via their specialty needs. Of course I also fear that connection somewhat too as it's an easy way for them to dig their teeth deeper in the farmers operations and many may not be comfortable with that, so far that is. It's a slippery slope to say the least. I almost think there needs to be another incentive beyond just the specialty product needs the CPGs want from the farmers for a higher valued product. It might need a direct financial incentive to some extent. In any realm I don't know the exact answer but CPGs should play a bigger role financially to help get all these APIs to work the way it's wanted and that also would take a push by them to help create some of the standards AgTech data needs badly.
I have spoken to several large farm operations that are aggressive users of technology. Our lesson is they are more than willing to share data if it is being used constructively. We have invested in several AgData companies. The fastest growing (Based on sales) are firms that help farmers get more business. That means they are less excited giving data to Bayer so that Bayer can sell them more inputs. And less excited about JD taking data without their knowledge.
My lessons from this if farmers want more business from CPGs - a premium and/or multi year, a data integration effort from CPGs (paid for by CPGs) aimed to attract farmers and their data, to help farmers get long term contract, is likely to make everyone happy and create value.
Data integration to improve agronomy is way too noisy with marginal gain. The data integration has to eliminate friction in the supply chain to create outsized value. that outsized value comforts early adopters the effort is worth the return.
If the CPGs are willing to fit the bill it will and can be done. Of course that is still a big process and has many pieces to the puzzle, but the ball is in their court. At the end of the day something that makes sense by them needs to be created and presented to the growers. They don't want to wait for promises, they want action and real systems to try. If CPGs can do that for them then the value chain can connect and the growers will as you say have less worry on who and how their data is shared. In some sense, if CPGs start connecting end products to the growers directly via marketing it makes it even stickier as then the farmers brand is also enhanced. I've been seeing some progressive farmers and CPGs doing this and I think there is a solid path for it compared to doing it just for agronomy's sake. Seems we are on the same page none the less. Just more needs to be done as always.
This reply is better than the article itself.