AGENDA:
- Lay the basis for how we will organize and message the different products
- Identify the End Goal (i.e. increase adoption of AgGateway standards)
- Identify the Core Value Proposition
- Who is the core customer of our brand?
- Review the different types of brand architecture available
- Identify external factors
- AgGateway brand strategy?
- Is there co-branding with standards organizations? Will there be conflicts with these existing brands?
- Develop Strategic Messaging Points
PRESENT 5/11/16: R. Andres Ferreyra (Unlicensed), Jeremy W Wilson, Dan Berne (Unlicensed), Shannon Haringx (Unlicensed)
DISCUSSION:
- Everyone agrees to abide by AgGateway antitrust guidelines.
- Emotions, risk, fear - what we are doing here is protecting companies that have adopted from the pain of making multiple point to point integrations. Talk once to everybody rather than having to integrate with each partner.
- Benefit = Scalability
- Why is it beneficial to adopt the AgGateway logo, standards, create a plug-in for ADAPT?
- Farms are businesses. AGIIS, ADAPT, some of the other councils tend to be the B2B side, while SPADE tends to be more of a consumer oriented brand.
- We need to show to the businesses the value to the end user of working with us.
- We have a combination of people we need to address. How do we bring a unified brand to all of them?
- We tend to lump growers all together. We haven't done a good job of identifying different behavior groups. Probably 5-6 segments exist. There is more work to be done there.
- Brand extensions - just because you have something new doesn't mean it should be an extensions. SPADE, PAIL, etc. are projects and should not be viewed as brand extensions.
- Makers of software vs. machines vs. inputs should be divided as target audiences
- 4 potential target categories:
- AgGateway Member Companies
- Non-AgGateway Companies
- Growers
- Ag Industry Consultants and Influencers
- Brand Positioning:
- For the customer (who has this problem) + Frame of Reference (AgGateway standards are:) + Proof Points (and provide:)
- What problem does this solve for me? What is it? How does it help?
- PAC members (Equipment Manufacturers):
- Problem: Data Interoperability/ability to share information resulting in excess development resources (time, people, money) inhibits scalability. Hard to keep up with changes. Difficulty understanding cooperation is acceptable and doesn't impede profitability → working in a collaborative space.
- Frame of Reference (for those problems, AgGateway is): a safe haven for collaboration that provides a way to more efficiently support their customers' business processes; a larger, integrated view of the market and ecosystem; a way to connect with other companies
- Proof Points: standardized terminology/vocabulary, data formats & documents; a voice at the table, regardless of size; clear set of rules of engagement (guidelines/governance); reduced time through point to point scalability; improved products and services; reduced human intervention to share information
- PAC Members (Input Manufacturers):
- Problem: lacking reference data or getting it from multiple different sources;
- Frame of Reference: same as equipment manufacturers; a way for their customers to use their products better
- Proof Points: Reference data; enable better data continuity through the supply chain; ability to provide accurate and timely product documentation; increase chances that products are used according to... see other benefits in Reference Data API flyer (http://s3.amazonaws.com/aggateway_public/AgGatewayWeb/About%20Us/API%20Flyer_72415.pdf).
- PAC Members (Software & Service providers):
- Problem: Lack of data interoperability - higher costs, more resources
- Frame of Reference: same as other PAC members
- Proof Points: Reduce human intervention to produce production reports; common terminology
- Growers:
- Ideal Targets are: Early Adopters (customer type) / Corporate Farms (market niche) --- Next Targets are: Early Pragmatists / Smaller Farms
- Problem: Process large amounts of data and turning it into actionable information; meet reporting requirements; have data that is easy enough to use by less-skilled labor force
- Frame of Reference: work with companies that participate in AgGateway/move through member companies; guarantee of improved interoperability; help them be more productive & efficient;
- Proof Points: number of companies connected via AgGateway; ability to use mixed fleet; ability to leverage data; ability to collect, organize and consolidate field data; reduced human intervention to facilitate necessary reporting; reduced labor in redundant data entry;
- Brand Architecture:
- Monolithic Brand (aka Branded House) - i.e. BMW, John Deere, Google
- Free Standing Brands (aka House of Brands) - i.e. Syngenta, Monsanto
- Endorsed Brand - i.e. Apple iPhone
- Ingredient Brand - i.e. Intel Inside
- Is AgGateway an Endorser brand? i.e. AgGateway ADAPT?
- Potential AgGateway Brand Architecture:
- Master Brand = AgGateway
- Ingredient Brand = Enabled by AgGateway eAgriculture Resources
- Branded Platforms = AGIIS, ADAPT, AIDC (these should be officially trademarked by AgGateway)
- Trademarked Elements = Core Documents
- Recommendation: use "ADAPT Data Model" instead of just ADAPT
- AgGateway has distinct markets it addresses: Ag Retail, Supply Chain, Precision Ag
- Align along an axis of (vertical) Supply Chain and (horizontal) Field Operations. Third axis may be grower business emphasis
- Problem is how to address/reach the middle group in the center of this graph (see photograph or gliffy created by Andres- link)
- SPADE, PAIL are project names and live only internally to AgGateway. Should not be used outside the organization except to promote the projects for recruitment. Otherwise, we should be focusing on the products coming out of the projects.
- In the coming week, plan to come up with brand guidelines and provide examples.
- Stakeholder to Asset Map (see gliffy created by Andres)
- Communications team agenda item - use the stakeholder to asset map to identify messaging required for various stakeholders; look for gaps & needs
- Conclusions:
- We DO want to associated branded assets with the AgGateway Master Brand, as opposed to individual projects
- We DON'T want to use project names such as PAIL, SPADE outside AgGateway (or council names) unless:
- We are promoting participation in the projects
- We are communicating project goals and status, or
- We are explaining where something came from (e.g. where the content was developed)
- Platforms (ADAPT, AgGlossary, AGIIS, Reference Data)
- They are key contributions to the industry
- We suggest acquiring registered trademarks for them
- They are associated with the Master Brand:
- "AgGateway's ADAPT (platform/toolkit/data model, etc.)"
- "AgGateway's Ag Glossary"
- "AgGateway's AGIIS" or "AGIIS by AgGateway"
- "AgGateway's Reference Data APIs"
- They are key contributions to the industry
- Trademarked Assets (Ag eStandards, AgXML, Core Documents)
- They are associated with the Master Brand:
- Core Documents: "AgGateway's Core Documents" or "AgGateway's Core Documents for Field Operations"
- Ag eStandards: ?
- AgXML: ?
- They are associated with the Master Brand:
- Actions:
- Communications team meeting on 5/23 will be used to begin developing branding guidelines and pull together examples
- Use stakeholder map to identify messaging required for various stakeholders; look for gaps & needs
- Develop messaging for each stakeholder group and an action plan for utilization
- Identify and finalize approach to external factors (AgGateway branding, co-branding with standards organizations, etc. - Jim Wilson?)
- Revisit some of the flyers, such as SPADE, PAIL and determine if branding changes are in order (i.e. emphasize brands over project names)