Why Ag Has Believability Problem
There’s a gap in agriculture that doesn’t get talked about enough—and it’s not about technology, yields, or inputs. It’s a gap in understanding. Ag brands are talking, farmers are listening… but the message isn’t landing. And the strange part is that both sides are trying. Brands are investing more into marketing than ever before. Farmers are consuming more content than ever before. But somewhere in between, things get lost.
You can feel it almost immediately when you see it. A piece of marketing that looks polished, sounds confident, checks all the boxes—and yet somehow says nothing. It doesn’t offend, it doesn’t stand out, and it definitely doesn’t stick. It just exists. And in agriculture, where every decision has real consequences, “just existing” isn’t enough.
The root of the problem is perspective. Most ag marketing is built from the inside out. It starts with what the brand wants to say, how the product is positioned, what claims can be made, and how it all fits together neatly. But farming doesn’t work neatly. Out in the field, decisions are messy, situational, and often made under pressure. Farmers aren’t thinking in terms of messaging—they’re thinking in terms of risk. What happens if this doesn’t work? What does this look like in a bad year? Who else has actually tried it?
Recently, I came back from the Commodity Classic, and it reinforced this in a very real way. Walking the show floor, you see a lot of innovation, a lot of investment, and a lot of effort to communicate value. But you also start to notice a pattern. So much of what’s being presented feels like a perfect solution—clean messaging, clear outcomes, controlled environments. And yet, it’s all being offered into a farming world that is anything but perfect. Conditions change. Variables stack up. Plans fall apart. Farmers know this better than anyone. So when messaging feels too certain, too polished, or too ideal, it doesn’t build confidence—it creates distance.
It’s as if brands are offering perfect solutions in a farming world where nothing is ever perfect—and farmers know it. That disconnect is hard to ignore. Because when the message feels too clean, too controlled, or too certain, it immediately raises doubt instead of confidence.
That’s where the gap really starts to show. While brands are focused on clarity and control, farmers are looking for proof. Not polished proof—real proof. The kind that comes from experience, not explanation. That’s why a simple video of a farmer walking a field and talking through what’s happening often carries more weight than an entire campaign. It’s not because it’s better produced. It’s because it feels real.
And then there’s trust. Agriculture has always been a relationship-driven industry, but the way trust is built has changed. It used to come from local networks, neighbors, and in-person conversations. Now it’s happening online, through creators, podcasts, and videos. Farmers are still looking for the same thing they always have—someone they believe—but they’re finding it in different places. The problem is, many brands are still trying to insert themselves into that equation instead of becoming part of it.
At the same time, attention has moved—and moved fast. Farmers aren’t waiting for information anymore; they’re scrolling through it. They’re watching content between tasks, listening while they work, picking up insights in small moments throughout the day. Platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and podcasts have become the new front lines of communication. But a lot of ag marketing still feels like it was built for a different era, where attention was slower and easier to hold.
What makes this gap even more frustrating is that it’s not caused by a lack of effort. Brands are working hard. There are more videos, more posts, more campaigns than ever before. But more content doesn’t automatically mean better connection. In fact, without the right approach, it just adds to the noise.
The brands that are starting to stand out aren’t necessarily louder—they’re just more aligned. They’re closer to the field, closer to real experiences, and more willing to let go of control. They’re not trying to perfect the message; they’re trying to make it believable. They show what actually happens, not just what’s supposed to happen. They talk about decisions, not just outcomes. And over time, that builds something most marketing struggles to achieve: credibility.
Because that’s really what this gap comes down to. Not awareness. Not reach. Credibility.
Farmers don’t need more information—they’re surrounded by it. What they’re looking for is something they can trust enough to act on. And that only happens when the message feels like it comes from the same world they’re operating in.
The gap between ag brands and farmers isn’t impossible to close. But it requires a shift—from control to understanding, from messaging to meaning, and from talking at farmers to actually meeting them where they are.
And right now, the brands that figure that out aren’t just marketing better.
They’re being believed.
