264. Exploring Agriculture and Technology at Gyeongju Conference

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.

Working on a new book, this time about marketing

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.

What do consumers really want to know about food?

Listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast type playback of the original article

My previous article about what consumers know about food is only part of the equation. What is as important is to know what they want to know and why. When it comes to knowledge of food, consumers can be divided into three main groups. There are those who know about food and most are always interested to learn more. Then, there is the (large) group of people who do not know. Some are willing to learn. Usually, they are confused by all the contradictory points of views that they hear or read and they just do not know who they should believe. This open-minded sub-group gathers people from all walks of life. They may have their biases but they are willing to change their minds. Another sub-group among those who do not know much about food gathers people who do not know and do not care as long as their food is safe, tastes good to them and has the right price. Then there is the third group, the difficult group of those who think they know but don’t. Usually, they are not willing to learn because, well, they already know it all and they are certainly not looking forward to have their certainties challenged. This group can be divided into two sub-groups, too: those who think they have the monopoly of science and those who think they have the monopoly of morals.

In this article, I will focus on the people who have the willingness to learn about food. What would be the point of trying to spend time if that willingness was not there? Also, all I can tell is my personal experience when meeting with people who are asking questions about food and where it is all going. Actually, I always found that the conversations I have had with people asking me about food and agriculture went quite well. I guess the secret for that is to not try to force people into any conclusion. Let them decide for themselves. People do not like being told what they should know and believe. It is a very normal reaction, and that is why so-called “educating” the consumer will never really achieve much. Just have a relaxed talk without any particular agenda other than to listen and respect each other’s point of view.

Further, even though marketing experts always like to define specific areas of attention, the mapping of consumers is not all that useful when it comes to the food conversation. Of course people are concerned about health, environment, origin of product, production methods, etc… When you look at what consumers want to know, it really comes down to two main issues. One is “How do I know that my food won’t make me sick -or worse?”, and the other one is “Can I trust the food producer?” These two issues are quite interconnected and not easy to address for food suppliers. The first issue, which really comes down to the topic of food safety is work in progress. There has never been full absolute food safety in the past and it will not be possible to guarantee that in the future, either. A large part of food safety issues actually happen in the consumers’ homes because of poor food handling. Many consumers do not know the basics of proper food handling. But even at the producer’s level, no production system is immune. Problems happen just as well with industrial production as with farmers’ market type of food. It happens with large producers just as it happens with small producers. This is where the issue of trust plays an important role. Consumers want to know which suppliers they can trust for food that does not contain anything harmful or/and weird. In previous posts, I have raised the issue of trust many times and mentioned how difficult it is to earn. Why do some food producers earn trust and others not? It has been the idea of brands since day one: the consumer can recognize the producer easily and know that the product is reliable every time. In our world flooded with information, rumours and stories of all sorts, and with a reach like never before, this is not sufficient anymore. If the question of how to earn trust is often difficult to answer, another way of looking at it is to do what I like to do when I cannot get an answer: to look at it from the opposite angle. The question then becomes what makes consumers not trust a producer? I am sure that you can make a list of reasons very quickly. Here I can give you a few: not knowing the producer, bad or unknown reputation, unreliable quality, regular problems, hiding information, not answering questions, lying to the customer, saying one thing and doing another, etc… It has a lot to do with quality of the product and quality of the communication, and consumers want to know what the quality of both is.

Traceability and transparency address those concerns to some extent. They are certainly helping by creating a much required communication and openness. However, the question remains whether food suppliers are on the same wave length as what consumers want to know. Traceability and transparency are not new concepts. They were part of my dealings with my customers some 25 years ago, and I still have the same reservations today as I had by then. I can state without any doubt that traceability is essential but I would like to see it become a proactive tool, instead of about just recording history. I remember telling one of my customers by then that I thought that traceability in order to be able to explain on rather short notice what went wrong was really short changing the customer. With today’s mass digitalization, which makes getting the information about the records even quicker, I believe that my point has become even more important. Traceability cannot just be about finding out the cause of a problem after the customer has found out. I always have considered that the customer can never be the quality control of a supplier. If producers have traceability systems that allow them to tell within moments what went wrong, then the system has to be able to prevent the problem from happening. The traceability system has to be connected with the quality assurance system. With the rise of sensors, internet of things, data collection software and artificial intelligence, the traceability system must become the frame for quality assurance and the high-tech devices will have to allow a real time 100% quality control on physical, chemical and biological quality criteria. It will have to be able to shut down the production line as soon as a deviation from the quality standard occurs. Traceability will move from “writing history” to “making (clean) history”. There are already a lot of possible quality defects that are prevented from being sent to consumers but it has to be even better in the future. Ideally, the objective must become zero recall, because even if recalls help prevent problems from getting worse, their incidence is creating a feeling of insufficient safety.

Regarding transparency, I believe that there is a disconnect between what food producers are doing and what consumers are looking for. Of course, the best way to be fully transparent is to put every bit of data and information in the system. From a consumer’s point of view, what is transparency really about? Do you know anyone who wants to check every detail of the production of what s/he buys? Consumers might be interested to know from which farm their food comes from. They might be interested in knowing the farmer’s name and see pictures. Will they want to be interested in digging as far as to know when chickens were born and when, what feeds they ate during their life and where the feeds came from and what they were made of and where the ingredients used for the feed came from and when they were produced, or would they really be interested in knowing the genealogy of the chickens and look up for where the parents and grandparents were raised, or have the production details in the slaughterhouse? I doubt it. In my opinion, the highest value of transparency for consumers is that the food producer has it and is willing to show everything if questions arise. In other words, the producer is not trying to hide or misrepresent anything.  After all transparent means exactly that: you can see for yourself through the window and you do it without having someone telling you what and where to look. More than the content of information presented, it is the food producer’s attitude that matters. The role of social media also amplifies the need for transparency, but it also may contain some pitfalls for producers. A recent survey by Deloitte shows that Millennials and GenZ assess producers by their values a lot and that their loyalty will be to the values and not to the brand. I believe that values are going to be a critical aspect of how consumers choose from whom they will buy their food, and anything else. The combination of social media with heightened sense of individualism (some would say narcissism) and yet at the same time a strong trend towards polarization and tribalism around sets of values and beliefs means that food producers will have to navigate skillfully in the future.

Copyright 2019 – Christophe Pelletier – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.

The importance of values in value chains

When it comes to looking for partnerships as part of a value chain, one area tends to be neglected. Usually, business people will develop their business plan properly, identify their market and their source of supplies, and make sure that the math is solid. Beyond the numbers, there is always the human factor that will play a role. Every company, therefore every partner in the chain has its own specific culture. This is important to realize, because when cultures, and values, do not match, the relationship will always bring some hardships at some point.

This is not a simple problem to solve, and usually, only few potential partners share your values. It is also important to realize that the word “values” does not necessarily imply good ethics and honesty. After all, hyenas move in packs. Sometimes, the partner that can help grow your business the fastest might not be the right one for the long-term, but it might be the best choice for now.

Depending on in which region of the world you do business, the sense of time, sometimes even of urgency, can vary a lot. For instance, North Americans tend to want to start business immediately, while the Japanese will take all the time they need to find out whom they do business with, and build enough of confidence in their potential partner before starting business. In the land of the rising sun, it can take several years before the first transaction takes place.

What are the risks of a mismatch of values? It can have serious consequences, depending on how much of your business is engaged with the “wrong” partner. It can range from dissatisfaction about the profitability of your business, constant disagreements and tensions with your business partner, to your being ripped off. One thing is sure: there will never be complete trust and loyalty when values are not aligned.

Several years ago, I developed a quantitative system to evaluate the value of a business partnership. It is rather simple in its design and very powerful in its implementation. It helps identify the strengths and the weakness of the business relationship, and it is an amazing to tool to use to address potentially damaging issues over time, and create clarity for future dealings. By realigning values, both business partners can develop a plan of action and look beyond the price negotiations alone.

Copyright 2010 – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.