The farmer does not just buy the product. How to reduce purchasing risk in agro marketing?

Choosing a plant protection product, seed material or agricultural machinery requires more than just comparing prices and parameters. The farmer must assess whether the given solution will work in his/her farm and bring the expected benefits. It is also important to consider the risks associated with making the wrong decision. 

In agriculture, the cost of production is particularly high. The production yield depends on many factors that the agricultural producer has limited control over: weather, disease pressure, soil conditions, and market conditions. Even properly selected technology does not always guarantee the expected result.

For companies operating in the agro industry, this represents an important communication challenge. It is not enough to convince the customer that the product has specific characteristics. It is also necessary to show why choosing it is justified under specific conditions and what criteria allow for a conscious decision.

Effective agricultural marketing It should not only highlight the product’s potential for reducing production risks, but also reduce perceived purchasing risks. It is crucial to provide reliable arguments that facilitate the assessment of the feasibility of the investment and reduce the uncertainty associated with changing the current technology. 

Two types of risk that a marketer should keep in mind

W Communication of agricultural products Most often we focus on production risks. We highlight the risks associated with the occurrence of diseases, spoilage, deficiencies in nutrients, or machine breakdowns. Then we present the product as a solution to a specific problem.

This is a logical and often justified way of constructing an argument. However, it does not take into account the entire process. making decisions.

The second important area is the purchasing risk resulting from the choice of a specific product and the assessment of its suitability for use in the farm. 

A farmer may know that a certain technology allows them to reduce the risk, yet they still choose not to purchase it. Why?

Perhaps they have been using a different solution for years and know its effectiveness. Perhaps they do not have sufficient information to assess whether the new product will work in their farm conditions. They may also consider that the potential benefit does not justify a higher price or the risk of changing a proven technology.

From the perspective of the producer, these are two separate communication challenges. The first involves demonstrating the need to solve a specific problem. The second involves providing arguments to justify the choice of a specific offer.

That is why even a convincing campaign showing the risks to crops does not necessarily lead to an increase in sales of the promoted product.

Product communication or problem-based communication?

When designing campaigns for agricultural brands, we often use two methods of message building.

The first focuses on the product. It highlights its name, technical parameters, properties, results of experiments, or advantages over competing solutions.

The second part is based on the situation of the recipient. It shows the specific problem, its potential consequences, and then presents possible ways of action and the place of the product in the proposed solution.

However, these are not competitive strategies; one must choose one of them.

Their usefulness depends primarily on the stage of the purchasing process the recipient is at and the information they need.

A farmer who is just beginning to recognize the problem can seek information about its causes, the scale of the threat, and possible actions. In such a situation, problem communication allows him to interest him in the topic and build a context for presenting the technology.

In turn, the recipient comparing two well-known fungicides can expect specific data regarding the scope of application, effectiveness, or cost of the treatment. Elaborate descriptions of a problem that they are perfectly familiar with will not add any additional value.

Communication directed at the farmer is presented in a different way; for several seasons now, he has been buying the same product and primarily needs information about its availability, the current offer, or the purchase date.

A mature communication strategy therefore does not consist in replacing the product’s parameters with an emotional narrative. It consists in adapting the argument to the actual situation and the information needs of the recipient.

Table 1. Comparison of approaches to marketing communication in the agro industry

How to use the structure of a consulting conversation in content marketing?

One way to design communication based on reducing uncertainty is to use the structure of a conversation conducted by a competent advisor with the farmer.

It is not about mechanically transferring sales techniques to an article, advertisement, or video material. It is about organizing the argument in a way that corresponds to the natural process of evaluating the problem and choosing a solution.

In practice, five stages of such a narrative can be distinguished.

1. Recognition of the needs and situation of the recipient

A good advisory conversation begins with determining the problem the client is facing. In digital communication, a headline, the first sentences of an article, or the beginning of a video clip can serve a similar role.

Instead of a general advertising slogan, we can refer to a specific issue: the protection of rapeseed during the fall of the leaves, the assessment of the effects of plant damage after hail, or the costs of downtime during intensive field work.

A message formulated in this way allows the recipient to quickly assess whether the material meets their current needs.

However, it is important not to confuse interest in a specific issue with readiness to purchase. A recipient seeking information may be at a completely different stage of the decision-making process than someone comparing offers from specific manufacturers.

2. Showing the consequences of the problem

The next step is to present the importance of the given topic for farm management practice.

We can explain what factors influence the development of a specific threat, when its occurrence can lead to losses, and what determines the effectiveness of individual actions.

The quality of the argumentation is particularly important in this context.

Communication based on risk can easily turn into an attempt to instil fear. Meanwhile, excessive exposure to threats without reference to the actual probability of their occurrence does not build credibility.

The farmer does not need another advertisement convincing him that everything he does not do will have negative consequences. He seeks information that allows him to assess the situation and decide whether a certain action is justified.

Therefore, the goal of this stage should not be building a sense of danger as much as demonstrating the real scale of the problem and the conditions in which it may be relevant to the farm.

3. Defining the criteria for selecting the solution

This is one of the most important, yet often overlooked, elements of marketing communication.

Before we present a specific product, it is worth explaining what properties of the solution are important for achieving a specific goal.

In the case of plant protection products, these may include, among other things, the range of registered uses, effectiveness against specific agro-predators, the application period, and the possibility of incorporating the product into an accepted protection technology.

When choosing an agricultural machine, the performance, reliability, serviceability, operating costs, or the ability to work with the equipment you already have can be important factors.

These criteria should be based on the needs of the recipient, and not be designed solely so that one product appears to be the only possible choice.

It is at this stage that communication can begin to reduce the risk of purchasing decisions. It provides the farmer with the basis for independently evaluating the available solutions.

This does not mean that it is necessary to translate the issues that are obvious to an experienced agricultural producer in detail. The recipient is an expert, so the level of argumentation should correspond to their knowledge and actual needs.

4. Presentation of the product and translation of the properties into benefits

Only at this point, if the adopted material design allows for it, does a specific product appear.

His presentation should refer to previously defined selection criteria.

Simply listing the technical parameters is not always enough. It is worth showing what significance they have in everyday farm practice.

For example, a specific design solution of the machine can affect shortening the service time, and the availability of a local service center can limit the potential consequences of downtime during the season.

Similarly, the properties of the product used in cultivation should be presented in the context of its actual, proven action and conditions of use.

However, not every feature needs to be translated into an elaborate language of benefits. If the recipient understands the meaning of a specific parameter well, excessive simplification can weaken the professionalism of the message.

It is crucial to maintain a balance between specialized knowledge and the clarity of the arguments.

5. Providing evidence supporting the choice

The promise of risk reduction should have reliable grounds.

Depending on the product category, these may be results from experiments, comparisons of parameters, operational data, documented effects of use, or experiences of other users.

It is important not only the presence of evidence, but also the way it is presented.

The results of an experiment conducted under specific conditions should not be presented as an achievable result in every farm without justification. Similarly, a single user recommendation does not replace representative data on the effectiveness of the product.

The proof should enable the recipient to assess what it actually concerns and to what extent it can be applied to their own situation.

It doesn’t always have to appear at the end of the communication either. In some campaigns, a reliable result of experience, a specific technical advantage, or documented economic benefit can be the strongest point opening the message.

The model presented is therefore not a rigid instruction. It is a structure that is useful in designing an argument that should be adapted to the product, the communication channel, and the stage of the purchasing process.

The economic dimension of risk – an argument that cannot be ignored

The discussion about reducing risk in agriculture should not end with the effectiveness of technology.

Ultimately, many purchasing decisions have an economic dimension. Even a product with proven properties may not be a justified choice in every situation.

It is therefore worth remembering the difference between the potential effectiveness of a solution and the cost-effectiveness of its implementation.

If the new technology costs more than the one currently used, the recipient should be given arguments to assess whether the additional expense is economically justified.

It could be higher expected efficiency, the reduction of certain losses, time savings, or a reduction in operating costs.

In practice, however, the importance is not only the magnitude of the potential benefit, but also the probability of its realization and the conditions under which it may occur.

Therefore, communication should not automatically equate a more expensive product with greater safety or better financial results.

For the recipient, the value is not just the promise of reducing risk, but the ability to assess whether the cost of reducing it remains proportionate to the expected benefits.

This is particularly important when introducing new technologies that must compete not only with the products of other manufacturers, but also with the farmer's experience and habits.

„In agro marketing, simply presenting the effectiveness of a product is not enough. It is essential to demonstrate under what conditions its application translates into a justified economic effect. The farmer analyses not only the potential of the technology, but also the cost-benefit ratio and the risks associated with changing existing solutions. Therefore, marketing communication should be based on reliable data, the results of experience, and economic arguments that allow assessing the feasibility of investing in a specific technology.”
— Jacek Kwiatkowski, President of the Board of Directors of Adagri Sp. z o.o.

Why is trust more important than the declaration of safety itself?

In the agricultural industry, knowledge and experience play an important role in the purchasing process. A trusted advisor, salesperson, or other agricultural producer can be an important source of information about technology.

However, this does not mean that brand communication it should be based solely on the image of the expert.

The appearance of a field advisor in a video material, their comment in an article, or a user recommendation can increase the credibility of the message. Provided that there is actual knowledge, experience, and arguments behind the presence of a specific person that can be verified.

In digital marketing, it is easy to create the impression of authenticity. Building lasting trust is much more difficult.

Therefore, expert materials should not only present the advantages of the technology, but also explain the conditions of its use, limitations, and situations in which achieving a specific result is most likely.

Such communication may be less effective than a clear promise of success, but it gives the recipient much better grounds for making a decision.

It is worth remembering the legal restrictions on the communication of agricultural products, especially plant protection products. Statements regarding their action must be substantiated, and advertising cannot mislead about the product's properties and the associated risks.

Does risk-based communication actually sell better?

This is a question that we should not answer solely based on intuition.

Communication that shows the problem to the receiver can more effectively attract attention and build interest. However, this does not automatically mean that it will generate more valuable inquiries or more sales.

In practice, it is worth testing different ways of argumentation.

For example, in a new product campaign, we can compare a message focusing on technology parameters with a communication that highlights specific production risks and how to mitigate them.

We can also check whether presenting the results of the experiences at the very beginning of the material yields better results than gradually building a narrative of the problem.

However, it is crucial to choose the right meters.

A high click-through rate for an advertisement does not necessarily mean that its message helps people make purchasing decisions. Similarly, a high number of page views does not necessarily indicate its actual impact on sales.

Depending on the goal of the campaign, more valuable data may be available regarding the quality of the contacts obtained, interest in a specific offer, the number of inquiries directed to distributors, or conversions at later stages of the purchasing process.

If we have access to relevant data, it is also worth analyzing the impact of communication on actual sales results.

This approach allows us to treat risk-based communication not as a universal recipe, but as a marketing hypothesis whose effectiveness can be verified.

Effective communication does not eliminate risk. It helps to make better decisions

Agricultural marketing operates in an environment where uncertainty is a natural element of business activity. No campaign will change weather conditions, eliminate all production risks, or guarantee an economic result.

However, it can help the recipient better understand the problem, compare available solutions, and assess the consequences of their own choice.

Therefore, risk-based communication should not boil down to raising fears and presenting the product as a response to every threat.

Its task is to provide credible arguments: from identifying the need, through defining the selection criteria, to presenting documented properties and possible economic benefits.

For producers and distributors operating in the agro industry, this also means a change in the way they think about content marketing. Its value does not solely depend on the attractiveness of the materials published, but on how effectively they support the actual purchasing decision-making process.

Effective marketing does not promise the farmer that the use of the product will eliminate all risks. It shows under what conditions the solution can prove effective and provides specific arguments that help assess its usefulness in their own farm. 

We have been connecting agro brands with farmers for over 20 years.

Talk to us about your campaign and start reaching the right audience.