Tag Archives: Value

266. The Value Conundrum – Part 2: Who Gets a Share of AgriFood Value?

Posted on by

As we saw in Part 1 of the Value Conundrum, creating and selling successfully added value is far from easy. The key is to have a product that is attractive in value and price, but that is not the whole story. The next challenge is to share the value within the value chain. As we are going to see, this exercise, even when paved with good intentions, is a little minefield of its own.

A vibrant agricultural landscape featuring fields of crops, a farm market, trucks, and sunny skies, with pathways illuminated by dollar signs representing financial transactions throughout the farming process.

Congratulations, you succeeded with many efforts in creating a new product for which there is interest in the market. You invested time and resources; you made investments and yet something strange happens: you do not see the financial reward for your efforts. Someone else seems to benefit much more than you do for the efforts and the sacrifices you made and the risks that you took.

Where did that extra money that you were promised ended up going? Welcome to the unfair world of value chains! Although it sounds like humor and irony, this is a reality that many in food and agriculture experience on a regular basis. And it is not funny at all. You increased costs and probably you contracted more debt in order to get the new products out of the ground. What was supposed to be an improvement turns out to be at the very least a major frustration.

Why is that, and why do producers not get the proper share of the added value they created? Well, it is all in the way the chain from farm to consumer plate works.

First, money enters the chain from only one end: the money that the consumers pay for the products they buy. For each unit sold, a bit more money comes in the system. The overall total for the product line is the total pot that the entire value chain has to distribute to all the links of that chain, and that can be a lot of players!

Like everything else with business, it is necessary to start with the end of the chain and go backward. At the point of sale to the consumer, the retailer or the restaurant charges their price, but those sellers also had to buy the product to include it in their offering. That is where things start to get tricky… and unfair. Their purchasing, and the price they pay is always the result of a commercial negotiation. Always! And it is same to their suppliers. Those, too, bought at a price that resulted from another commercial negotiation. Once the revenue money enters the pot, it is also necessary to factor in the respective costs at each part of the chain. The negotiations may appear about prices but they actually about the respective margins of all the suppliers and buyers.

That is the thing: a value chain -although the term sounds really friendly and aimed at fairness- is in reality a sequence of many commercial negotiations, and anyone who had to deal with major buyers knows that such negotiations can really be cutthroat, purely and simply. Commercial negotiations are always about bargaining power. What alternative offers do buyers have that make them demand the price they demand? That is an important question, and why it is so important to know who the competition is. Business is first of all competition, which means that they are many contenders but only a few ones will get the medals. And there will be losers.

Then, the bargaining power brings the next question: how bad do you want -or worse, need- to get that sale? That will set the dynamics of the negotiation. How much concession can you afford? How much compensation for each concession can you get from the buyer? Of course, that has a lot to do with supply and demand. This good old law of economics will determine who has the upper hand in the negotiation and who does not. Quite often, the producer is in the weaker position. For them, it is a matter of how many alternatives they have to sell the product, and what those alternatives are. The key rule here is that you will sell for the worst alternative you have when you do not have other alternatives.

This part of commercial negotiation is critical to get the added value and get most of it. You must have a strong bargaining position. If you don’t, then you are in trouble. A solution that often sounds attractive is to get a bigger market share. First, you need to be able to grow to the desired size. That requires access to some substantial money. But even though you grow your market share, this is no guarantee for a better bargaining position. Supply and demand will always trump market share. Just imagine you are the sole producer. You have a market share of 100%. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Not necessarily. If you produce more than the market can absorb, you will have a problem. You need to move your entire production and buyers cannot take it all. What your choices, then? Well, you can stick to your price and store the unsold volumes. If you are in the business of perishables, as is the case for many food and agriculture products, you will soon be under time pressure. The product is deteriorating. You must sell it. The only way to do that on short notice is to cut your price to what the buyer wants to take that volume. Of course, you can think of freezing the product. That also costs money an gnaw at your margin. There goes the value is someone else’s pocket.

In Part 1, I was mentioning that many food producers are production-driven and look at profitability from a “production costs plus margin” point of view. That is the wrong approach. The right one is to be market-driven, in order to balance supply and demand, to have a solid bargaining position, basically to know the market so that you produce what sells at a profitable price instead of producing and then struggle to figure out who will buy and at what price. The latter is always the fastest path to doom. Yet, it is the path wandered much too often. The old quote of Peter Drucker: “The purpose of a business is to make a customer” should be much more prevalent in food and agriculture than it usually is.

For a successful future, marketing must be considered at least as important as the technical side of production, especially with farmers. They should be more than “farmers”. They should see themselves primarily as food suppliers, who just happen to have a farm.

Copyright 2026 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.

265. The Value Conundrum – Part 1: How to get higher-value products from the ground?

Posted on by

In many parts of the world, there is a lot of talk about how producing more added value is the eay of the future. I was recently in South Korea, and how to create higher-value food products was on of the discussion topics. Here, in Canada, there is a newly launched program, “Let’s Grow, Canada!”, which is about making several billions of dollars to help growing production and mostly of finding ways of adding more value. The EU is also trying to push food production in that direction. Africa is also pondering about how to shift from a basic commodity producer to producing added-value products made on the continent. Basically, everyone is talking about it.

Farmers in money-filled field beside PROSPERITY GROWTH chart showing USD values from 2021 to 2025+
Farmers walk through a symbolic money-filled crop field beside a rising prosperity chart.

The longing to adding value to food production is not new. I have heard this my entire professional life. In some cases, policymakers try to develop incentives and offer substantial amounts of money to achieve this objective. Often, added value seems to have become synonym of innovation. It is true to some extent, but innovation alone is not enough, and it would be wise to not throw money in the wrong places. As I explained in a previous post, (261. Boosting the Adoption of Innovation), innovation must solve problems and actually add value, which is far from being always the case.

In most projects aimed at producing added value, I miss one major element in the conversation. It is as if the market would naturally buy into added value. One comment I have heard many times from producers is whether they produce added value or added costs. Often, they are not so sure of the correct answer. This is a very valid question, and making added value profitable is not a given. One cause for approaching value in the wrong way lies in the very nature of food and agriculture. It is first of all a technical activity and most producers still approach it in a production-driven manner. Even many of those who claim to be market-driven are actually still production-driven, but with a little twist: they are marketing-driven. Unfortunately, that is not the same as market-driven.

By focusing on technical aspects of production, food and agriculture looks primarily at the cost aspect. The main purpose is to find ways of lowering costs all the time. Understand me well, this is essential indeed, but it is only half the equation. The other half, beyond just revenue, is at least as important: the profit margin. To me, a sales department is not about moving volume, it is about generating margin. The role of sales is to pull the entire business on the path of better profitability. We all know that margin discussions can be a source of tension between sales and production. If the two departments look at their respective primary activities, it is only logical. Sales want to move product and keep customers happy, and production wants to keep costs low. By initiating change, the numbers change and both sides try first to stick to their priorities. Truly adding value requires a different mindset. It is about the overall business performance. As I have often said, it is like a ballgame. It does not matter so much who scores the goals. What matters is that the team wins. To add value, it is necessary to start with a solid understanding of market opportunities and determine indeed if the added costs are going to be more than compensated by a higher margin. That is what market-driven is about: finding the right customers that generate higher margin. Producers who are marketing-driven often fail because they try to make a basic product look like some sort of specialty by adding some marketing gimmick. Such an approach usually is short-lived and often, the margin is not there.

Value is tricky, and so is product pricing. Producers, being focused on production costs have a very rational and objective approach. They calculate the cost and then add what they need to determine the price that they want and need. Opposite to that, the consumer market follows very different rules. First of all, consumers’ purchasing decisions are often subjective. Food is loaded with emotions and consumers’ decisions are not rational. Despite not being rational, they follow a remarkably strong logic, which in most cases is an entirely different logic than the producer’s one. For consumers, the value of food lies in many areas. You name it! It can be nutritional value, but it can be quality, flavor, packaging, convenience reputation. It can be what the children like or not. Value from a consumer’s point of view is not only subjective, it is relative, too. That is where the price plays a role. If the perceived value is higher than the price, people buy the product. If it is lower, they don’t. Consumers will switch their shopping from one product to another. The bargain this week is different than last week. Competition is an essential part of that game. Which one is the savviest? Is the market for added-value over or undersupplied? Are the added costs -and therefore the “added” price- good value for money? Does everyone rushes in the same niche and commoditizes it?

This is why endless discussions about whether price matters or not are futile. Yes, price matters. Always. Even if you think that you have the best product in the world. Producers determine the price they ask, and consumers determine the value they accept to pay. Sales results will depend greatly on whether your product matches the value they think it has.

Market knowledge is where adding value starts, and that changes the rhetoric down the road.

More on The Value Conundrum with Part 2: Who gets a share of agrifood value?

Copyright 2026 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.

264. Exploring Agriculture and Technology at Gyeongju Conference

Posted on by

Last week, on September 9th 2026, I have had the great pleasure and honor to speak at the Global CEO Summit 2026 in Gyeongju, South Korea.

A panel discussion taking place on stage at a conference, with several speakers seated on a stage and an audience in the foreground. Multiple large screens display the speakers and text, with a focus on fostering collaboration between corporations and smaller businesses.

The theme of the conference was about the development of new technologies and how it will support industries in the Gyeongju region. My role was to participate in two sessions. One session was “Future Agriculture: Unlocking Future Industries with AgriTech” and the second one was “Shaping Gyeonbuk’s Future: CEO Roundtable”.

Here is a link of the entire conference as broadcasted on YouTube.

A man in a suit speaking into a microphone while seated on a panel at a conference, with a digital screen in the background.

The entire conference was quite energetic and enthusiastic. The discussions were quite productive with many astute remarks and suggestions that will undoubtedly be very useful for further action. I found this conference quite stimulating and informative. It has been a great experience.

A professional man sitting at a table with a friendly expression, wearing a suit and tie, with a water bottle and a drink in front of him. A nameplate in front displays his name.

As it was my very first time in South Korea, I had decided to extend my stay and spend more time in the country. I spend several more days in Gyeongju and a few more in Busan. Of course, discovering Korean food was one of the most important goals of this stay, and it did not disappoint. The many restaurants and cafés have been a real treat all along.

Gyeongju is a lovely mid-size town with a rich cultural heritage. I really enjoyed the quaint and relaxed atmosphere. I have had a great time there. Korean history is everywhere in town. I knew very little about the history of Korea and Gyeongju was the ideal place to learn about it. The many museums, the tombs of rulers from the Silla dynasty and heritage building have all been a great opportunity to discover the rich past of the region and of the country.

A person stands in front of a traditional Asian architectural structure with a colorful roof, surrounded by stone pillars and steps.

Busan had a different vibe. It is a major urban center and the pace there is different than in Gyeongju. I was staying near the seaside and clearly, that part of Busan is very much focused on tourism. As far as I am concerned, Gyeongju was about learning and Busan was more about entertainment.

Traveling across the country also made a few things clear for me. First, it is quite a mountainous country and there are not many places for farming and for urban development. Clearly, there has to be competition between the two of them. With such a limited space, it is obvious that every piece of land that can be put into food production is utilized for that purpose. The density of agriculture is high. Just as urban development has to go vertical, so does agriculture and that will be part of the future.

Another aspect that definitely will affect future agriculture is climate change. South Korea, just like many other regions in the world has had to deal with very hot temperatures this year. Climate change will undoubtedly play a pivotal role in not only how food production will be set up but also which productions will have a future and which ones will probably struggle. This is where technology can play a role but technology alone is never enough. Leadership and long-term vision are just as important. From my experience during the Gyeongju Summit, I believe that the leadership and the vision are strong. This will be quite valuable. Of course, execution and collaboration will be key, as usual.

Another thing that came up clearly to me during the event is the collective spirit. Clearly, the purpose here goes beyond just the business. It is about the group, be it the value chain, the community, the region and the country. This is something that was very obvious for me in Gyeongju. It is something that I feel much less present in similar events in North America and Europe. I like the spirit that I found in South Korea.

Of course, like with all conferences, time is limited and there is only so much that one can discuss. There certainly are many questions that have remained unanswered. Because of that, I would like to indicate here a few avenues that I believe are useful for further steps.

Food is a dynamic business and it is in constant evolution. On the consumer ends, demographics change and it will affect how people consume and what markets will trend up, and also which ones will trend down. I see the future demographic situation of South Korea as an important factor, first of all in terms of market size. From a population of 52 million in 2025, it is expected to drop to 47 million in 2050 and even to 22 million in 2100, according to UN forecasting. The country is aging. In such a situation, I see two major groups influencing food consumption.

Gen Z and the rising Gen Alpha will consume and buy quite differently that the previous generations. Trends will move fast. Today, like in many countries, protein is fashionable. Fiber will be the next one. Although in Western countries, ultra processed foods are under serious scrutiny, I did not have the impression that it was quite the case in South Korea, as many products that would be considered ultra processed foods seem quite popular with young people. Of course, I did not carry out a market survey and I stayed here just a week. Other aspects that will have an influence are the desire for new flavors and experiences. Another aspect that will shape food consumption -and other consumer goods- are values. Younger generations do not just buy a product, a brand or from a company. They buy values. They expect producers to be faithful to the values they claim and to stick to them. Failure to do so will be punished immediately. Older generations tended to be more loyal to a brand or to a company. That is not the case with younger people, probably also thanks to social media. Their loyalty goes to values, and they will buy from those who present the values that they look for. Too bad for the brand or the company if they disappoint.

The other group that will have influence are the seniors. Their eating habits are different and so are their nutritional needs. They will be somehow more traditional and less fickle in their choices. That also present opportunities, just of a different kind.

In mature markets, consumption often shifts from volume growth to value. After all, a stomach can only absorb so much. In such markets, niches play an increasingly important role. The key of a niche is to produce added value. The drawback is that the volume of a niche is limited, per definition. To succeed with added-value products, the key is to understand what presents value to the consumer, and that can be difficult to define and to spot. This problem is everywhere. It is not just a South Korean industry issue. Actually, Canadian food producers struggle with the same dilemma. The industry and the government try to push producers to get in that direction, but consumers also have their say. Adding value requires a strong understanding of what truly matters to consumers, and what trends on social media is often different than what really is on top of the consumer’s mind. Further, unlike what many marketing consultants claim, price does matter but it matters relatively to the perceived value. As long as a product seems to have great value for money, it sells well. If not, then it does not sell. The problem for many food producers is that they often still think from a production-driven perspective, not from a market-oriented one. They think costs plus. Consumers look at it differently. They compare all the options they have and they pick the ones that offer the best perceived value for their money. The problem here is that perceived value changes all the time. All it takes is a new good-value-for-money product to change the dynamics of a market. Value is relative and subjective. Costs and prices are rational and economic in nature. Success with added-value products depends on how the two match or not.

This has consequences when food producers address issues that are considered of importance, such as health, nutrition, environmental impact or animal welfare. I have seen so many surveys claiming that consumers say they would be willing to pay more for “better” production methods, and yet consumers showed a very different behavior when in the store. They do not perceive the value for the additional price and they stick to the “lesser” production systems.

What really matters from a producer stand point is profitability. Regardless of all marketing aspects, the reality is that prices are always the result of negotiations and the outcome of commercial negotiations always depends on the supply and demand situation. To balance supply and demand, it is essential to do some solid forecasting in terms of volumes but also in terms of who the competitors are and what their respective cost structure is.

An interesting example for balancing supply and demand is the Canadian supply management system, which really comes down to a quota system. The industry forecasts what the domestic market can absorb and adjust production quotas accordingly. Of course, that also requires to limit outside competitors to access the market. Actually, that system is not bad. However, it requires that the country can already supply itself and is competitive enough. Canadian farmers in these value chains make a very decent income. What I see a bit of a weakness, is that this “protected” situation may sometimes be an impediment to innovation, particularly in marketing. Also, such a system is not aimed at conquering export markets. Everything has advantages and disadvantages.

This trip has been very informative and helped me look at many aspects of food production and consumption from a new angle. This has been quite refreshing.

Copyright 2026 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.

261. Boosting the Adoption of Innovation

Posted on by

There seems to be a persistent impression that food and agriculture is slow with the adoption of innovation, in particular of new technologies. At least, I hear this comment regularly, but is it really the case?

Two agricultural researchers in a field examining bio-fertilizer and disease-resistant plant data

Personally, I do not share that negative sentiment, although I can understand both the frustration of innovators and the resistance from the sector. Food and agriculture are often perceived as being conservative and slow to change. In my opinion, this is not quite a correct assessment. Food production has undergone major and profound transformations over the years. In that regard, the sector has proven that it is far from opposed to change. Today’s food production is quite different than it was 40, 25, 10 or even just 5 years ago.

Consumer demand, natural conditions, government policies and the tools available to producers have all changed dramatically. The complexity and the challenges have strongly increased and the food industry has adapted accordingly and successfully. Unfortunately, the sector has been too timid in its communication about progress. It should showcase its evolution much more blatantly. The general public would benefit greatly from knowing how agriculture has been able to be at the forefront of innovation, while keeping its values rooted in common sense. The latter is probably why the sector is considered conservative. It is so to some extent, but the real reason is that food producers, and farmers in particular, do not jump on every hype. They observe and think first. Before everything else, they need to be convinced, and that is the main challenge for innovators who often would like to skip that step.

The main mistake innovators make is to have a push production-driven approach while they should be more market-oriented. A few simple factors greatly improve the chances of the adoption of innovation.

The first one is to make sure to solve the problem. I insist here on use “the” and not “a”. The solution that an innovation offers must be quite specific to the problem for the user. Solving a problem might do just that, but it might not be the problem that needs to be solved. Then, the result is a mismatch. That is the drawback of developing an innovation first and then try to push it in the market. It might not meet as much interest as expected.

The second factor depends directly on the first one. A solution that solves the problem of the users means that it does add value to them. The value can be of an economic, financial, time saving or organizational nature. In a B2B environment, value is often about objective and measurable parameters. It is rational and usually easily supported with numbers and calculations. These are essential to move the customer from indecision to a frank “Yes”. My personal experience has always been to put myself in the customer’s shoes and find out what added value truly means. In other words, what does the innovation have that existing options don’t? Once you show the numbers that mean an advantage for the customer, adoption is much easier and natural. For consumer products, value is much more of a subjective nature and demonstrating it is quite a different exercise. It is a topic of its own, perhaps for another column.

A third essential factor to boost the adoption of innovation, and especially of new technologies, is to make sure it is user friendly and reliable. Food producers, especially farmers, will not go for a long, complicated and uncertain learning curve. They want something that can be implemented quickly and effectively, and that will not need regular troubleshooting. Since technology is only as good as the user, training is essential. No new technology should be brought on the market without a user’s manual and proper testing. The customer must never be the quality control or the guinea pig, unless they agree to be.

Creating the best conditions possible is essential for the adoption of innovation. Without customers, innovation remains just a nice idea, and a business just remains a hobby. It is never too early to start marketing activities and place the customer at the centre of innovation.

Copyright 2026 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.

Working on a new book, this time about marketing

Posted on by

The idea of writing a book about marketing in food and agriculture has been on my mind for quite a while. Yet, I have been struggling with the style I wanted to use. I started writing several times over, as could not find the right tone. I would not want to write “just another” marketing book. There are already hundreds of thousands of them, if not even possibly millions. Especially, I did not want to write a theoretical and abstract book. From my experience, that is the main weakness of so many of them. I now have finally found the tone and style that I believe will be the most effective. I have tested it in several of my recent assignments and the feedback I receive tells me that I have now found the right path. It will be straight-forward and plain language. There will be as few complicated terms as possible, perhaps even a book without four or five syllable words.

The project also comes from my past experiences with the topic. How many times have I been told that price is not really that important, while my experience has always been that price always comes in the discussion and plays a major role in the customer’s decision to buy or not? Price is important! Of course, it is! Saying otherwise is simply delusional. But the price is always brought in relation with what the perceived value of the product is. And this Is why the book will be built around the idea of value, of what that word means, how flexible and fluid it is, how it relates for what the customer wants and/or needs, and what added value is really about.

And since the book will deal with value, I will go one step further and address values, too, because the perceived value finds its roots in the set of values of the customer, and also because sharing common or similar values significantly increases the chances of making the sale.

My area of expertise, for as much as I have one, is food and agriculture. Therefore, the book will focus on these business areas. Perhaps, it could be extrapolated to all sectors just as easily, but I will not be as presumptuous as to think it can. Marketing food and agricultural products is a specific exercise, as this category has its very own idiosyncrasies. The readers -and the future- will determine if extrapolating to other sectors is a possibility. I am quite comfortable in food and agriculture and my niche is there. I do not have a need to overreach but, just as everything else I do, I will do what I do best where I do it best, at least to start.

In my work, I regularly meet with food producers who are always looking for better business and for ways to strengthen their future. They all ask me the same question: “Is there a market for this product?” That is why the book will have a clear practical angle (I wish to strongly insist on that aspect) aimed at food producers who want to sell in better markets and find better customers.

The theory on marketing will be limited to a strict minimum. Emphasis will be on avenues that will help the reader develop and implement an original new sales and business strategy, in particular how to close the deal with the customer.

I have already identified more than 30 topics to cover in this book. I have made some good progress but the road ahead is still long. I will keep you posted in the future as I will come closer to completion and reach some important milestones towards its final publication.

Copyright 2023 – Christophe Pelletier – The  Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.