_{Image courtesy of Frog design}

This is the third blog in a series of posts on insights and highlights from the mFarmer initiative. Learn more about the individual services we worked with by reading our mFarmer case studies.

mFarmer first blog post: Who uses Agri VAS services?
mFarmer second blog post: Delivering agronomy information through mobile
mFarmer fourth blog post: Delivering market price information through mobile

Service providers can deliver Agri VAS on ‘pull’ channels like IVR, USSD and helplines, or through ‘push’ SMS or voice SMS subscriptions, or offer a combination of complimentary push and pull channels. Push services allow service providers to establish an ongoing engagement with the user. Pull models allow for more specific queries and two-way interactions leading to more valuable information exchange, but may not provide enough touch points on their own to create loyal service users.

Text-based channels are convenient for users who are literate but unsuitable for low-literacy users or those with low technological literacy and not using SMS for peer-to-peer communication.  They require less initial investment than automated voice channels, but as a downside offer less value to a bottom of the pyramid (BOP) target market.  Voice-based channels offer an alternative to those who cannot read, or have problems with vision. However, users with low technical literacy may still require training to navigate to the information they need.  Voice-based channels are more costly to implement than text-based ones – however this GSMA Intelligence report shows that IVR may be more scalable than SMS in the long run, as the costs of SMS services scale up with the size of the user base.

USSD offers text-based access to menus to seek content which addresses the users’ situation.

Pros and cons:

• + Can allow users to pull the content they desire, and if combined with SMS channel for delivery allows users to save SMS messages on their mobile phones to share with the community or to middlemen when negotiating prices of outputs;
• + Suited for dynamic types of content including market prices and weather forecasts which can be delivered succinctly;
• – Difficult for users with low technical literacy – requires user education;
• – USSD opens a short term connection with the network which ‘times out’ after a few minutes.  Users of Tigo Kilimo tested in the field did not understand that this was normal and thought the service was ‘broken’ when the connection dropped.

IVR allows users to select from a number of options to listen to pre-recorded agricultural information.

Pros and cons:

• + Offers information over voice-based channel which can benefit users who have low literacy or have poor vision;
• + Can provide longer tips with detailed explanations and instruction;
• – Considering complexity and diversity of agronomy-related content IVR menus can be large and complex to navigate, leading to difficulty finding information.  One user said:

“I had some difficulty in finding the information I was looking for, especially in the case of garlic and onions. I wanted some general information on seed varieties, fertilisers, irrigation, etc. but I could not locate this information. You should tell how to use the system. You should help us in finding the information.” mKisan user, Pakur district, Jharkland, India

Read more about a service which uses IVR in our resources on mKisan.

Subscription services send regular SMS or voice SMS messages to users, which can either be on a specific topic area suited to the user, or generic agricultural content.

Pros and cons:

• + Relevant information sent regularly may maintain engagement with users who do not have pressing needs but want to learn about farming;
• + Voice SMS addresses literacy challenges;
• – Providing properly customized push content can be a challenge, as customisation requires information about location, type of crop the farmer is growing and current stage of the crop cycle.

Find out how IKSL provide relevant push content for some of their users in our Airtel Green SIM case study.

Helplines offers the benefit of users speaking directly to an agricultural expert to resolve a problem on the farm.

Pros and cons:

• + Helplines which allow users to communicate directly with an agricultural expert are always the most favoured channel by end-users;
• + Low technical literacy required;
• + Useful for accessing all types of agricultural content – though service providers with limited capacity may consider offering a helpline solely for emergencies such as disease outbreaks;
• – Call centres are expensive to run and scale, requiring investment to keep up with demand;
• – Poor network connectivity in rural areas can lead to disconnections.

Orange’s Sènèkèla service includes an all-purpose agricultural call centre – read the Orange Sènèkèla case study.

Users who actively pull information may be more interested in seeking information to improve farming operations or to solve an immediate problem on their farm. Users of push channels may be receptive to advice and tips on how to be more productive on their farms, with less immediate needs.  Users’ willingness to pay for content can be similarly divided into these two categories – farmers generally see the value in paying for information which they are actively seeking.  They are less likely to pay for generic push content which does not address specific issues they are facing. The combination of both functionalities can leverage the positive qualities of each resulting in a more robust service and the potential to subsidize one channel through charging another.

Is this your experience of delivering agriculture content, or do you have a different story? Please leave any comments below, or contact us by email: [email protected]. Stay tuned for more insights from the mFarmer initiative over the coming weeks.