The TerrAvion Collapse: A Warning to Other Investor-Supported Ag-Tech Companies?

Even with how lightning quick many events have occurred during the strange year that has been 2020, the rapid-fire demise of ag technology company TerrAvion was still surprising. And could this signal potential trouble for other agricultural start-ups with heavy Wall Street-type investment profiles?

For those unfamiliar, TerrAvion has been one of the darlings of the precision agriculture/technology sector for several years. Founder/CEO Robert Morris helped the company provide grower-customers with field imagery data to better manage their crops. Over the company’s eight-year lifespan, it drew many millions of dollars from investors outside of agriculture looking to “cash in” on technology innovation. And by many accounts, TerrAvion was one of the market leaders in imagery data management.

Advertisement

Then, late in the day on Friday, September 4, word began to spread in the industry that the Hayward, CA-based company had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In this filing, the company listed some $25 million in liabilities vs. “far less” in assets.

Top Articles
2024 Annual CropLife Ag Tech Awards of Excellence -- Nominations Are Now Open

Now, many companies ultimately recover from Chapter 11 filings. However, it oftentimes takes several years to do so as creditors and new financial terms are hashed out in the courts.

But this was not the case for TerrAvion.

Less than four hours after word of the bankruptcy filing hit the news, I received the following note from TerrAvion’s Morris: “TerrAvion is ceasing our operations today, September 4, 2020,” he wrote. “If you are a client, I strongly recommend downloading a copy of any data you have licensed and wish to retain immediately, as we do not know how long our infrastructure will remain active. I wish we could have given everyone more of a heads up, but we were working and hoping to avoid this until just hours ago. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am in this outcome.”

The letter went on to say that all current TerrAvion employees – Morris included – were now out-of-work, effective immediately, and that any questions from customers should be directed to the bankruptcy trustee. It also pointed out that the company’s business model, to provide agriculture with a modern, open, high-resolution data  infrastructure, had largely been a successful one.

But not in certain eyes, apparently. “Though TerrAvion delivered the most volume in our category – with positive and growing margins – agribusiness and capital markets seem to have incommensurate expectations,” wrote Morris. “TerrAvion was caught in the middle. The team and I did everything possible in our power to make it work.”

Will other ag start-ups end up on a similar path as TerrAvion?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

This statement makes it sound as if financers in TerrAvion had gotten “nervous” regarding their investments in the company with all the market uncertainty currently being felt, causing its rapid collapse. And that makes me wonder how many other recent agriculture companies with similar investor-supported profiles might be next, given the current economic environment?

As always, only time will tell. But after what happened to TerrAvion, I would imagine there are more than a few agriculture companies out there that might be wondering about their futures.

4

Leave a Reply

Balancing logistics with expectations is key to growth and survival. Many Ag Tech companies are totally out of balance. Satshot is fully in balance and is why we have been here for 26 years and will be here in the future. We are here to meet customers expectations or we will say so upfront that we can’t!

I met Robert Morris personally in CA. At that time in Europe we didn’t even realize what a great company he had built up here.
But when I got the email on September 4th it became clear again why we don’t have a typical VC investor on board. VCs often do not understand the implications of our client base in the agricultural sector and its long-term perspective.

AgTech is not an investment opportunity to make money quickly. AgTech is more of a life insurance policy both for farmers, consumers and in the end society as we know it.
Because farmers and therefore also the products for farmers depend on long-lasting supplier relationships and are very limited in terms of their flexibility when it comes to which agricultural products they can produce.
As a startup in AgTech, we cannot show 10X after 5 years. We have to think in terms of decades and generations. Above all, we have to build trust with the farmer.
But once you have done this and are established in the market, you have to do a lot wrong to be pushed out of the market again.

When it comes to new technologies and, above all, digital products, farmers find it difficult to jump on them. In fact, this is very understandable. In the past 20-30 years we haven’t had the opportunity to access such large amounts of data or to put them in useful relation. Innovations insisted mainly on improved machine technology. You could touch the improvements at any time and try to understand them.
When a digital product comes onto the market, it is “only” information on a display. And if something is broken in this information on the display, there is no point in repairing the display because it will not help.

It is therefore quite understandable that a farmer does not immediately jump to new “information”, because the farmer cannot adjust his business strategy within 1 month. First of all, its crop must grow on the field.

A start-up in the AgTech sector simply needs stamina to resist the typical initial backlash of the market, access to the market and, above all, an understanding of the market.

Our relatively small independent agricultural consulting company in the PNW used this service for about 3 years, mainly as an experiment to see if we could help find the true value to growers beyond the pretty picture, and augment our own sampling and consulting service. In theory, it was a very good match, and we may still pursue other options. TerrAvion really did try to connect with the right distributors who had the agronomic and horticultural expertise needed to help them find that true value to the grower. The model made sense to us.

One aspect of this is that this kind of company has a narrow or small “moat” around it. The barrier to entry (or “moat”) is not that large and other companies can and do compete. Furthermore, satellite, manned aerial, and drones all compete for the same business, but each probably has their own unique appropriate contribution for agriculture.

I must agree with what Marcel said about the patience and expectations of venture capital. In our world, you plant an orchard which won’t yield until year 3-5 and won’t become profitable until year 8 or 10 (no one even thinks in terms of “quarters”.) With TerrAvion, we felt a growing pressure to sign up and commit to acreage as early as January, well before our growers were ready to sign up and sometimes before they even knew what they would plant. We made the mistake this year of falling for that and we pre-paid for acreage that we thought was locked down. One grower second guessed the value to them and backed out in the spring and we ended up losing quite a bit. It was clear that the venture capital firm was anxious for their money and was putting pressure on the sales staff to get cash in hand as early as possible. This is too bad, because, the concept was good. But the concept still needed several years of proving itself to our clients to build momentum and the product still needed time to mature and really find the untapped value.

Wealth from get-rich-quick schemes quickly disappears; wealth from hard work grows over time. – Proverbs 13:11 NLT

Avatar for Connor Craig Connor Craig says:

Hi David, I’m happy to see you and your company liked the service. I was the PNW pilot flying the aircraft for several years. It was a tough time when the news was broke to us in September. I visited Terr Avion HQ many times in the “off season” of flying and their model seemed to be very good.

Would a local service providing NDVI mapping be useful to your agricultural consulting company?

Advertisement
Advertisement