Why has building a brand around agricultural products hit a dead end?

This autumn is truly a "golden autumn"—consumers are in for a treat. Prices across all distribution channels reveal that major agricultural products have enjoyed a bountiful harvest. Meanwhile, the variety of offerings and the superior quality of products indicate that production capabilities have significantly improved. Moreover, this autumn has also become a "golden season" for branding—specifically, it’s a prime opportunity for brand promotion. A series of conferences and forums have brought greater awareness to the fact that building strong agricultural brands is a key priority for governments in producing regions. Meanwhile, innovative initiatives and thought leadership from various organizations—alongside their groundbreaking books and concepts—have introduced audiences to the growing prominence of both well-known and emerging agricultural brands, complete with sleek, eye-catching logos. Based on these developments, experts confidently conclude that China’s journey toward robust agricultural brand development has officially begun.

However, in various forums, there’s another perspective: some local governments argue that the costs associated with brand promotion have become overwhelmingly burdensome—simply too heavy to bear. On top of that, the pressure on governments to actively promote their products is equally challenging, as initiatives like "county chiefs stepping up to endorse brands" have become a familiar—and sometimes controversial—feature of regional branding efforts. In fact, this practice has long been questioned. Some critics contend that governments should stay out of market dynamics altogether, while others believe that government support is essential for expanding market opportunities. After all, whether it’s about restructuring agricultural industries or shifting toward a more supply-side-focused agricultural model, in most regions, the government remains the driving force behind these transformations. Once structural adjustments are made, ensuring that farmers can actually boost their incomes becomes a top priority. That’s precisely why governments place such high hopes on building strong, recognizable brands. So, from a policy standpoint, there’s no inherent issue with government-backed brand endorsements. But here’s the real dilemma: Why do county chiefs still need to personally champion products—even after significant investments have already gone into creating a robust brand? Take County Chief Zhang, who stepped forward during the early stages when the product lacked a clear identity; yet now, even after substantial funds have been poured into crafting a distinctive brand, County Chief Wang continues to lend his name and credibility to the initiative. This raises an important question: If brand-building efforts are meant to eventually replace the need for personal endorsements by county officials, why hasn’t that transition fully taken hold? Meanwhile, despite ongoing progress in reshaping the agricultural supply chain, traditional marketing strategies seem stuck in familiar, unproductive patterns. As a result, the more money spent on branding, the more entrenched the reliance on county chief endorsements remains—leaving us to wonder: Where exactly is the disconnect, and how can we break free from this cycle?

Drawing on the experience of developed countries in managing agricultural product brands, the biggest difference lies in our operational mechanisms and institutional frameworks. In those countries, there’s essentially just one “responsible” stakeholder group involved in brand management—everyone from production to the customer is directly overseen by the owners and operators of the production assets themselves. This approach ensures a "full-industry-chain" model, where benefits are systematically "industrialized" across every stage—driven consistently by a single, unified "responsibility" mindset. Ultimately, this strategy builds not just product brands, but stronger, more enduring corporate brands. In contrast, in our agricultural sector, multiple "interest groups" emerge throughout the brand-building process, each pursuing its own distinct objectives—and often competing rather than collaborating. These stakeholders may be motivated by political achievements, service-oriented goals, or even distribution profits. While these groups work together in theory, their relationships are more about dividing up the pie than fostering true cooperation. And because each group focuses solely on its own segment of the value chain, there’s no clear accountability for ensuring that the brand’s ultimate value resonates with consumers. As a result, when market conditions shift—even slightly—consumers end up bearing the brunt of the consequences. Last year’s apple crisis, and this year’s pork market turmoil, serve as stark reminders of how fragile this system can be.

Has brand building alleviated this situation? While some brands have managed to provide relief—albeit unevenly—it’s clear that these brands haven’t yet coalesced into a truly powerful, unified force. For instance, even as pork prices have risen across the board this year, one particular brand maintained relatively stable pricing for its pork products. This is exactly the kind of impact a strong brand should have—it delivers consistency, reliability, and value in both supply and price. Unfortunately, most other brands aren’t performing at this level, which is why we’re still struggling to cultivate a robust brand culture today. So, what exactly can your brand do? Is it just about looking good on the surface, or do you have real substance behind the scenes? A true brand doesn’t merely stabilize supply or hold steady prices; it thrives even during tough times like production shortages—and conversely, ensures smooth sales even when harvests are abundant. After all, this kind of resilience is precisely what’s needed to support rural revitalization and foster quality-driven consumer choices. But here’s the catch: if you can’t deliver on these critical promises, why claim to be a “brand” at all? Right now, many companies fall into the trap of thinking that having a logo automatically makes them a brand. The real challenge lies in investing deeply in brand-building efforts—cultivating a meaningful culture that resonates with consumers. Without this commitment, we’ll continue to face the same frustrating "deadlock" in brand development.

To untangle this deadlock, the essential tools you need are simply two hands—specifically, the "hand of government" and the "hand of consumers." But why isn’t the consumer hand currently reaching out to "brands"? If brand creators aren’t entirely sure, they might want to take a closer look at why e-commerce has become so dominant in the market. After all, the real reason consumers love online shopping isn’t anything fancy—it’s because e-commerce puts the "direct person in charge" right in front of their eyes. In other words, the biggest challenge—or rather, the weakest link—in agricultural product marketing—the seamless connection between production and sales—has finally been resolved by e-commerce. And here’s how it works: prices are transparent, origins are openly disclosed, and products arrive fresh straight to your doorstep. So, what exactly are consumers looking for when they buy agricultural goods today? The variety is already abundant—and now, more than ever, what matters most is health and freshness. And once again, e-commerce has managed to deliver exactly that.

Selling bulk agricultural products can’t rely solely on e-commerce—after all, the social and operational costs associated with e-commerce platforms are quite high. However, the breakthroughs and innovations achieved through e-commerce are definitely worth paying attention to for brand managers. In China’s agricultural sector, connecting production with sales remains a critical challenge that needs to be addressed—but the nature of this connection has already shifted. This year, summer wheat harvests were exceptionally abundant, with overall grain quality improving by one grade compared to last year. Yet, despite this bountiful yield, high-quality, specialized wheat varieties have been largely overlooked by flour-processing companies. The reason? Ordinary wheat already meets the industry’s processing standards, so businesses are reluctant to incur higher costs by purchasing these premium, niche varieties. Just recently, an agricultural expert received a box of branded apples as a gift. When he opened it, he nearly burst into tears. The apples varied wildly in size, their colors were unappealing, and the skin was wrinkled and weathered like that of an elderly person. To make matters worse, some had visible blemishes and rot. Taking a bite, he couldn’t help but cry again. It was a flavor so unfamiliar—even after decades of living—that it felt almost alien, triggering an unexpected surge of emotion. In the end, the apples were tossed straight into the "food waste" bin. But the elegant packaging? That caught his eye immediately. Unable to resist, he headed straight to the market, where he purchased a bag of Luochuan Red Fuji apples—priced at over 4 yuan per jin—and carefully placed them back into the original box. He then gifted the beautifully packaged fruit to a friend.

Building a brand is, in essence, about creating a value chain—a network of interconnected benefits. This value chain has two key components: a vertical one, centered on the industry itself and measured by the satisfaction felt by end customers; and a horizontal one, encompassing the shared brand culture that all brands collectively nurture, fostered through traceable consumer oversight to cultivate an authentic brand-consumption environment. From this perspective, brand-building shouldn’t stop at designing a logo—it requires innovative operational strategies and a focused effort on systematically developing the "industry value chain" as a whole.