Agricultural materials: the same product, two purchasing decisions

Sinh Vũ once sat down with a supply company in the Mekong Delta. They sell fertilizers and pesticides to both individual farmers and three cooperatives under contract each season. The question they posed was very practical: "What should our flyer say?" The short answer is: two different flyers, because these are two completely different buyers. The longer answer is worth reading through this entire article.

Two ways to buy that cannot be mixed

Individual farmers buy fertilizers based on habit and trust. You ask neighbors who used it last season, consult familiar dealers, and look at packaging you recognize. Decisions often occur within minutes at the store, sometimes at the edge of the field while a technician is present. The perceived risk is measured by the harvest: if it fails, the loss is the family's income for three to six months. Therefore, they are not easily willing to try something new.

The cooperative purchases through a distinctly different process. The management board meets, compares at least two to three suppliers, requests capability documents, checks licenses, and inquires about the ability to deliver on time for planting and care seasons. The decision is not made by one person but is approved collectively. The person signing the contract must explain to the members why this supplier was chosen. The risks here are not only seasonal but also the personal reputation of the decision-maker.

The divergence point determines everything

The divergence point does not lie in the product. The same fertilizer, the same pesticide. The divergence point lies in the question each side asks themselves before signing.

Individual farmers ask: "Can this person be trusted? Have I seen results yet?" This is a question about personal trust and direct evidence. An effective brand message for them must lead with results from their specific region, in the voice of farmers growing the same crops in the same soil. Technical data is less convincing than a statement like, "Last season, Mr. Tam in the neighboring hamlet used it, and the rice was sturdier than before."

The cooperative asks: "Does this supplier have sufficient capability? If there is an issue, can I explain it to the members?" This is a question about organizational capability and risk credit. An effective brand message for them must demonstrate operational scale, verifiable collaboration history, complete technical records, and the ability to commit to timely delivery.

Brand is the perception of customers, not what you print on the packaging.

Marty Neumeier, The Brand Gap

When the two customer groups have completely different perceptions that need to be built, a single message serving all will not truly serve anyone well.

Common mistake: one voice for all

Most agricultural materials companies address this issue in the most natural way: writing a general message, broad enough not to offend anyone. The result is a message that resonates with no one.

A flyer printed with the words "high quality, reasonable price, timely delivery" does not convey anything to a farmer standing at the store by the field. A thick catalog listing sales achievements is also not enough for the cooperative to confidently sign a contract without accompanying capability documents.

More dangerously, when a company tries to write a slogan "serving from farmers to cooperatives": this sounds comprehensive, but no one in either group feels directly addressed.

Solution: one base, two layers

No need to separate the brand. Separating the brand consumes resources and divides the accumulated brand recognition over time. What needs to be done is to build a strong brand foundation, then design two layers of documents and messages for the two customer groups.

The common foundation includes the name, visual identity, and core commitments. The layer for individual farmers leads with field language, images from the fields, and evidence from real users in the area. The layer for cooperatives leads with capability records, clear technical data, delivery commitment terms, and a list of cooperatives that can be contacted for verification.

These two layers do not contradict each other. They convey the same truth about the business, but in a way that the audience can understand and believe.

Three touchpoints to address first

If you are running a materials company serving both groups and do not yet have the resources to implement the entire system right away, Sinh Vũ suggests starting from three areas that create the clearest impact.

• Retail point-of-sale materials: flyers, price lists at agent stores. This is where individual farmers make decisions. The message must be short, familiar images, and include at least one testimonial from a local user.
• Capability profile for cooperatives: a PDF document and printed version including company introduction, product catalog with specifications, list of partner cooperatives, and ordering and delivery process. This is what the contract signer takes to meetings with the board.
• The uniforms and tools of field technicians: this is a touchpoint (where the brand and customers meet directly) that many businesses overlook. Technicians interact with both groups. When they appear neat and can quickly produce a technical document, the professional impression is formed faster than any advertisement.

A brand does not replace product quality

This is important: a good brand message cannot cover up a poor product. In the agricultural materials sector, rumors spread quickly along the field edges and through farmers' Zalo groups. A failure due to a product will erase many seasons of building trust.

A brand performs best when it amplifies what is already true. If the product is good, the technicians are knowledgeable, and deliveries are on schedule, then this is the material to build the message. The brand is not a layer of paint on top: it is how you present the truth about the business in a way that buyers can understand and trust.

Two customer groups, two purchasing methods, two ways of presenting that truth. This is a message design problem, not an advertising budget problem.