Marketing/Rebate Programs

The crop protection industry has long made a practice of employing marketing programs to sell products through the channel. These programs, which include discounts and rebates from manufacturers to the distribution channel, are not without a measure of effectiveness. However, as they’ve evolved, marketing programs have become highly inefficient.

Since they were first introduced around 1980, marketing programs have increased in size each year. Marketing programs now constitutes an average 25% of the manufacturer selling price, and the range goes north of 50% for some products. Channel margins obtained from the marketplace and also from retention of discounts/rebates from manufacturers on average total only 11% to 12%. This means, on average, there is a 13% to 14% negative up-front margin.

Despite the obvious inefficiency in the system, no manufacturer has found a better way to achieve their objectives through the channel, or even to recalibrate the system to increase efficiency and efficacy. Retail networks enjoy the luxury of high payments and feel that continuation of the status quo is in their best interest, so they have not put energy into promoting change.

As we consider “the big ideas” of the year or years ahead, we ask: Can these marketing programs continue to increase without either precipitating change or preventing a normal and necessary market evolution?

The goal is that the whole system — the grower, the retail networks/distribution channel, and manufacturers — contribute to the ever greater productivity needed from agriculture in the future. Accepting inefficiency, and worse, propping up inefficient players (even if unintentional), doesn’t contribute.

Why These Programs?

Marketing programs help differentiate a manufacturer’s offering. The most effective marketing programs define objective criteria of clear value to the manufacturer and the market, are doable by the channel partner, and the criteria are adhered to/correlated to payments. They differentiate the manufacturer in a way that is valuable to the channel companies, and difficult or impossible for competitors of the manufacturer to match directly. Changed periodically, programs become neither predictable nor taken for granted. In turn, they have value and cost in balance and are an opportunity for all parties to benefit.

Today, however, with a few exceptions, marketing programs from manufacturers primarily enable channel companies protection from their own weakness with upfront margin procurement in return for some commitment on priority.

Use, Dollar Values Increase

Since their introduction with pyrethroids three decades ago, crop protection marketing programs have increased (as a percentage of gross sales) more than tenfold. However, profitability retained by the distribution channel/retail networks has grown only slightly.

The portion of the industry represented by unique products — those which had no generic or in-kind competition — declined. And as it did, the importance of the distribution channel/retail networks and the need to differentiate in non-product ways increased.

By 2007, the average had grown to represent over 25% of the selling price.

As the rebates have grown, they’ve come to represent an astoundingly large dollar figure — more than $1.5 billion dollars paid annually. Marketing programs are second only to cost of goods in size of expenditure by manufacturers. That percentage has continued to increase 4% to 5% per year in recent years. Still, they are only partially effective.

We’ve Always Done It That Way

A “because we’ve always done it that way” mentality often, over time, precludes efficiency.

As the industry has matured, we’ve seen an increasing portion of products with expired patents (generic options) and/or in-kind options. That shifted the power from research-based manufacturers to the owner of the retail interface, the retailer/retail network. Retailers have the primary influence on the grower and can shift brand choice on equivalent/nearly equivalent products. Further, we’ve seen the consolidation of generics companies to be larger, stronger, and more service-oriented, which further shifted power from the basics to the distribution channel.

Ultimately, we have witnessed sweeping industry system changes that were driven by marketing programs and now sustain them, e.g., a shift by basic manufacturers to net sales from gross sales where marketing programs were an expense. Now they are off the P&L by making them an off-revenue accrual. In essence, rebates have become part of pricing.

What Can Be Done?

The current state of crop protection marketing programs seems to defy common sense and would certainly benefit from a recalibration. But how?

We know that no single manufacturer has any chance for successfully replacing marketing programs with a net pricing model. Collaborative activity isn’t an option. If any two or three manufacturers made changes with any similarity, they would likely receive Security and Exchange Commission/Justice Department scrutiny.

The distribution channel and retail networks certainly want marketing programs to continue, so we don’t expect change from there. In summary, no single company, manufacturer, or distributor/retailer has energy at this time to change the game, alter the model, or lead the change.

However, recalibration, while not urgent, could be very effective. To start, manufacturers should set measurable, value-adding, objective criteria. They should work out win/win objectives with the channel using the criteria and metrics — and then adhere to the objective criteria religiously to determine the level of marketing program payment. Since this new breed of marketing approach would not include a guaranteed payment, they would be less likely to be passed through. Recalibration should/would also keep value in use for growers paramount — so growers would not be penalized.

Retailers and retail networks are eager to effectively compete for their grower customers’ business. They can help by expressing a desire and support for win/win arrangements that strengthen their business, add value for their grower-customers, and deliver value for the dollar to their partner manufacturer. Retailers and retail networks should also cease creating and maintaining systems to estimate net, net pricing, and putting these in the hands of their sales team! They win when they continue to sell service and value.

Everyone in the industry should accept that some companies (especially in the channel) won’t survive. Ideally, that would be the weakest entities. Tweaking marketing programs helps assure that evolution favors the smart, the strong, and well-managed — and yields greater productivity of the entire system.

Other solutions might come from new technologies that capture point-of-sale information, provide more objective metrics, and tie more closely with performance. Some such systems, as employed in the consumer sector, may provide still another means to better capture value and positively evolve our industry toward greater productivity.

New mindsets will be required. But rather than doing it for the sake of “we’ve always done it that way,” it’s definitely time to consider every means possible to operate more efficiently and to grow productivity.

Leave a Reply

Management Stories

Crop InputsEPA: Let’s Talk Imidacloprid, Bees On February 18
February 11, 2016
EPA will hold an online technical briefing on its preliminary pollinator risk assessment for imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid insecticide, on Feb. Read More
ManagementThe latest on Syngenta-ChemChina Deal
February 11, 2016
Executive Editor Paul Schrimpf invites Jackie Pucci and Dave Frabotta from sister publication AgriBusiness Global to discuss the latest developments Read More
Syngenta Sign
Crop InputsSyngenta: Keep Ag In Mind During Election Season
February 10, 2016
As presidential candidates stake out their 2016 election platforms and key priorities, growers and their business partners should seek opportunities Read More
Crop InputsWeed Expert: Adding A Second Herbicide Not Always Easy
February 9, 2016
In my last post, I reviewed some recent research that suggests one of the best ways to delay the evolution Read More
Top 100 Articles
Elburn Cooperative
CropLife 100Elburn Cooperative Members Vote To Join CHS
December 28, 2015
With 81% of eligible producers voting, 94% cast an affirmative ballot for Elburn Cooperative, a diversified agricultural retailer based out Read More
West Central Cooperative, Jefferson, IA
CropLife 100Farmers Cooperative-West Central Merger Approved
December 21, 2015
The members of Farmers Cooperative Co. (FC), Ames, IA, and West Central Cooperative, Ralston, IA, have both approved the merger Read More
Wheat Growers Innovation Center, Bath, SD
CropLife 100Wheat Growers Opens Innovation Center
December 21, 2015
Wheat Growers’ commitment in providing its farmer-owners with the latest in technological advancements now has a one-of-a-kind focal point, as Read More
CropLife 100ARA Selects The Andersons As 2015 Retailer Of The Year
December 9, 2015
The Agricultural Retailers Association today named Maumee, OH-based The Andersons as its Retailer of the Year for 2015. The award Read More
CPS Washington Court House John Deere Sprayer
CropLife 100Application Equipment Report: It Is Easy Being Green For Top 100 Ag Retailers
December 5, 2015
On The Muppets television show, Kermit the Frog is famous for singing a song about the troubles he encounters in Read More
Fertilizer Bin
CropLife 100Fertilizer Sales: Another Down Year For Top 100 Ag Retailers
December 4, 2015
In pure number terms, the fertilizer category still dominates all crop inputs/services among CropLife 100 ag retailers. In 2015, for Read More
Latest News
Crop Protection Products in storage
Crop InputsNewsweek: World Is ‘Awash In Glyphosate’
February 11, 2016
The world is awash in glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, produced by Monsanto. It has now become Read More
Crop InputsEPA: Let’s Talk Imidacloprid, Bees On February 18
February 11, 2016
EPA will hold an online technical briefing on its preliminary pollinator risk assessment for imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid insecticide, on Feb. Read More
ManagementThe latest on Syngenta-ChemChina Deal
February 11, 2016
Executive Editor Paul Schrimpf invites Jackie Pucci and Dave Frabotta from sister publication AgriBusiness Global to discuss the latest developments Read More
AdjuvantsUniversity of Illinois Confirms Adjuvant’s Perfor…
February 11, 2016
An independent University of Illinois study has shown that WETCIT adjuvant, now with TransPhloem technology, provides greater herbicide uptake and Read More
Crop InputsSyngenta’s Acuron Flexi Receives EPA Approval
February 11, 2016
Growers looking to control their toughest weeds with flexibility will have access to Acuron Flexi corn herbicide from Syngenta, now Read More
EquipmentAGCO Showcases White Planters 9800VE Series Planters AT…
February 11, 2016
AGCO unveiled the new White Planters 9800VE Series planter during the 2016 National Farm Machinery Show in Louisville, KY. The Read More
EquipmentCase Unveils 2000 Series Early Riser Planter At NFMS
February 10, 2016
Case IH revealed the all-new 2000 Series Early Riser planter to media and attendees at the opening of the National Read More
Syngenta Sign
Crop InputsSyngenta: Keep Ag In Mind During Election Season
February 10, 2016
As presidential candidates stake out their 2016 election platforms and key priorities, growers and their business partners should seek opportunities Read More
Crop InputsMarrone Bio Innovations Submits New Bio-Fungicide For E…
February 9, 2016
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (MBI) today announced that it has submitted a new biological fungicide (MBI-110) to EPA. The broad spectrum Read More
Crop InputsWeed Expert: Adding A Second Herbicide Not Always Easy
February 9, 2016
In my last post, I reviewed some recent research that suggests one of the best ways to delay the evolution Read More
Crop InputsGenetic Literacy Project: Farmers Need More Herbicide C…
February 9, 2016
There are two things that I think just about every weed scientist can agree on, writes Andrew Kniss for The Read More
HerbicidesWeed Expert Warns North Dakota Growers Of Coming Herbic…
February 9, 2016
Ford Baldwin painted a bleak picture of weed control at a recent workshop here exploring the future of ag production, Read More
HerbicidesWSSA Announces New, Updated Free Web Resources
February 9, 2016
Today the Weed Science Society of American (WSSA) announced that new and updated educational materials for both weed scientists and Read More
Soybean field
FungicidesFour Arysta Fungicide Formulations Given FIFRA Approval…
February 8, 2016
Arysta LifeScience North America recently announced the issuance of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 2(ee) Recommendations for Read More
FungicidesAgri-Fos Systemic Fungicide Plus Receives EPA Registrat…
February 8, 2016
Vivid Life Sciences has announced the EPA registration of Agri-Fos Systemic Fungicide Plus, a highly concentrated active ingredient phosphite fungicide, Read More
Crop InputsBayer Contests EPA’s Decision On Valuable Insecticide F…
February 5, 2016
Crop Science, a division of Bayer, has announced it has refused a request by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Read More
Wheat Field North Dakota
Seed/BiotechSyngenta Wins Seed Fraud Suit Against South Dakota Grow…
February 5, 2016
Syngenta has obtained a $25,000 settlement from Paul and John Mayclin, Mayclin Farms, Plankinton, SD, in response to their Plant Read More
ManagementOABA Annual Conference Wraps Up In Columbus
February 5, 2016
More than 300 Ohio AgriBusiness Association (OABA) members and industry professionals were on hand to engage in collaborative learning and Read More