PowerPoint Presentation

[Audio] Welcome to Module 5, Go-to-Market, Partnerships and Funding Pathways.

[Audio] Welcome to Module 5, our last main module. So far, you have scored your outcome, understood your customers, mapped your rights, and shaped a business model with a price. Now we ask two very practical questions. How will your offer reach customers? And how will you pay for the journey from where you are to the first sustainable revenue? These questions are connected. The way you go to market determines your costs and timeline. The funding you can obtain determines how fast and how far you can go. And both depend on evidence: customers who have used your solution and will say so, partners who commit, and a clear plan. In this module, we will build a one-page go-to-market plan. We will compare channels, from direct sales to cooperatives, advisers and machinery platforms. We will look at partnerships and how to structure them. We will learn how to run a pilot that ends in a reference customer instead of an endless trial. We will take a short look at regulation and standards that may apply. And we will then survey the funding routes, from customers and grants to licensing and investment, including some specific European instruments that are relevant to agricultural innovators. A reminder, as in earlier modules: nothing here is legal or financial advice, and funding rules change often. I will point out where to check current conditions. Let us begin..

[Audio] A go-to-market plan does not need to be long. A single page can be enough, as long as it answers the right questions. Let me walk through the elements. First, the target segment: your beachhead from Module 2. Be specific about who they are and what problem you solve for them. Second, the offer. Geoffrey Moore, whom we met in Module 2, uses the idea of the whole product. Customers do not buy only the core technology; they buy everything needed to get the result: installation, integration with what they already use, training, support, and trust that the supplier will still be there next season. A research prototype is usually just the core. Your plan should state what the whole product includes and who provides each part. Often, partners provide some of it. Third, message and proof. Take your value proposition sentence and your best evidence, and decide what you will say and show. In agriculture, proof usually means results from fields like theirs, and the voice of someone they trust. Fourth, price and terms from Module 4. Fifth, channels and partners, which we discuss next. Sixth, the sales path: how does a customer move from first hearing about you, to trying, to buying, to renewing? Write it as steps and decide what you need to do at each step. For many agricultural products, the sequence follows the calendar: awareness in the off-season, trial during the growing season, a purchase decision before the next season begins. If you miss that window, you may wait a year. And finally, milestones and metrics. Choose a few measures that tell you whether the plan works: how many pilots started, what share of pilots converted to paid customers, how long it takes a new user to get value, and how many customers renew. Review them regularly, and be ready to change course. A plan is a hypothesis, and these numbers are how you test it..

[Audio] Your channel is the path through which your offer reaches customers. In agriculture, several channels are common, and each has trade-offs. Remember the point from Module 2: customers rely on people and organisations they already trust, so the best channel is often one that carries that trust. Direct sales means you or your team sell to the farm. You keep control of the relationship, and you learn a lot from every conversation. But the cost per customer is high, because farms are many, dispersed, and busy. Direct sales make sense when each customer brings a high contract value, or in the early stage when you are still learning. Cooperatives and producer organisations bring access to many members at once, and carry the trust of their members. They can also buy for the group or negotiate favourable terms. The trade-offs: decisions can be slow, they will negotiate price and conditions, and they may ask for exclusivity or a commission. Agronomists and advisers are among the most influential voices on a farm. If an adviser recommends your tool, adoption can accelerate. But you will need to train them, give them a reason to recommend you, such as a service they can include in their own offer, and respect their independence. They will not recommend a tool they do not trust. Distributors and input suppliers have reach, logistics and existing relationships. They take a share of the margin, and in some cases they sell products that compete or conflict with what your digital tool recommends, so check the incentives. Machinery manufacturers and farm management platforms offer integration and potentially large scale, because your solution reaches farmers inside tools they already use. But they are also gatekeepers: they decide what connects. Terms about data, which we covered in Module 3, are central here, including the rights that farmers now have to access data from connected machines. And events, demonstration days and digital marketing create awareness. They are inexpensive ways to be seen, but they rarely convert complex products without personal follow-up. To choose, ask two questions of each channel. Do my target customers already trust it? And does the economics work, meaning the cost of winning a customer through this channel against the value of that customer? A simple rule of thumb: high-value customers justify direct effort; low-value customers need intermediaries that bring many at once. Most ventures start with one or two channels, learn, and add more..

[Audio] Almost no research outcome reaches the market alone. Partners provide what you lack: access, credibility, capacity, or complementary technology. Let us think about which partners you might need. Pilot farms and early customers give you real conditions and evidence. Technology and integration partners let your solution connect with other systems that customers use. Distribution partners, such as cooperatives or distributors, give reach. Research and validation partners add scientific credibility and independent evidence. Data partners provide access to datasets you need. Industrial licensees take your technology to a larger market. And funders and investors provide resources. How do you choose? Five tests. Complementary strengths: does the partner bring something that you do not have, and not just more of the same? Aligned incentives: do they gain from your success, and do you gain from theirs? Credibility: does their name help you with your target customers? Capacity: do they have the time and resources to follow through? And limited dependence: if this partner left, would your business survive? Overreliance on one partner is a risk, especially if they are far larger than you. Next, structure. A good principle is to start small and build trust. Begin with a short pilot agreement or a memorandum of understanding that defines a limited, low-risk collaboration. If it works, move to a commercial agreement. Avoid early commitments that are hard to leave, such as long exclusivity, before you have evidence that the relationship works. Whatever the form, agree in writing on the things we discussed in Module 3: what each side contributes, who owns what is created, how data is used and protected, whether any exclusivity applies and for how long, how long the agreement lasts, and how either side can exit. Disagreements about these points, left unresolved at the start, are the commonest cause of broken partnerships. Where do you find partners? Start with your own network and the cooperatives, advisers and farmers you met in your interviews. Beyond that, European resources can help: the Enterprise Europe Network supports businesses in finding partners across countries, and, for results from Horizon Europe projects, the grant rules point to the Horizon Results Platform as a place to find interested parties to exploit results. Use them to widen your search..

[Audio] In earlier modules, I stressed that evidence from peers is your most powerful marketing asset. The pilot is where you create it. But many pilots end in a polite report and nothing else. Let me show you how to design a pilot that produces a customer and a reference. Start with objectives and success criteria, agreed in writing before you begin. What should be true at the end for the pilot to count as a success? For example, a reduction in the number of treatments, hours saved per week, or a yield protected. Agree on how it will be measured. Without this, each side may later judge the pilot differently. Next, make comparison possible. Wherever feasible, use a baseline, meaning the situation before, or a control, such as a comparable plot managed in the usual way. This turns your result from an impression into evidence. Plan around the crop calendar. Know when the key decisions happen and make sure your tool is installed, tested, and supported before that moment. A pilot that starts too late in the season may deliver no useful result until the next one. Clarify practical matters: who owns and can use the data generated, what support you will provide, who the contacts are on each side, and what training users will receive. These details prevent frustration that can ruin a technically successful pilot. Be careful about scope and duration. A pilot should be limited, with a clear start and end. Endless free pilots drain your resources and teach the customer that your product is free. Charging a modest fee, as discussed in Module 4, signals commitment and filters for serious partners. Decide in advance what happens at the end. If success criteria are met, the customer converts to a paid arrangement on terms you have already outlined, perhaps with a loyalty discount. If not, you part on good terms, having learned something valuable. And finally, secure the reference. Ask permission to publish a short case study, to quote the farmer or the cooperative, to bring other farmers to visit, or to use their name. Do it at the start, so that it is part of the pilot agreement. A satisfied customer who tells their neighbours is worth more than any advertisement..

[Audio] Regulation is often an afterthought for research teams, and it can become a late and expensive surprise. The goal here is not to make you legal experts, but to ensure that you ask the right questions at the right time. The first question is: which rules apply to my type of product, and from when? This depends on what you are selling: software only, a device, a service, a tool that gives advice, or something embedded in machinery. We covered data rules in Module 3, so I will just remind you that the GDPR and the Data Act may apply to your handling of farm data. If your product includes digital elements, such as connected software or devices, the EU Cyber Resilience Act, Regulation 2024/2847, is relevant. Its main obligations apply from 11 December 2027, while reporting obligations apply from 11 September 2026. That means that manufacturers of in-scope products must already be ready to report actively exploited vulnerabilities and severe incidents. If your product is machinery, or part of machinery, note that the new Machinery Regulation, 2023/1230, will apply from 20 January 2027. If your tool uses artificial intelligence, check how the EU AI Act classifies it, because the obligations depend on the use and risk level. The timing of some obligations has been under discussion in the legislative process, so check the current position. Beyond these, there are sector rules and standards. Tools that advise on plant protection may interact with rules on pesticide use and integrated pest management. Some customers require organic or retailer certifications that depend on how data is recorded. And in machinery, interoperability standards such as ISOBUS, which governs communication between tractors and implements, may decide whether your product connects at all. A few practical suggestions. First, identify your regulatory questions early and write them down. Second, ask the right people: your institution's legal or compliance staff, industry associations, standards bodies, or national authorities. Third, budget time and money for compliance, because certification and testing can take months. And fourth, remember that many rules apply when a product is placed on the market, so research prototypes and pilots are often treated differently, but do not assume that without checking. This is general information, so please verify applicability for your own product..

[Audio] Now to the funding question: how do you pay for the next stage? Let us survey the main routes. Customers are the best source, when it is possible. Paid pilots, service contracts and early sales bring in cash and also prove demand. Even small amounts matter, because they show that someone values your work. Grants provide non-dilutive funding, meaning you do not give up ownership. They suit the gap between technology and market, where private investors hesitate, but they are competitive, slow, and come with reporting obligations. They work best when you have a clear plan and a team that can deliver it. Licensing deals, which we discussed in Module 4, can bring upfront fees, milestone payments and royalties, and they shift development costs to the licensee. Debt and guarantees, such as bank loans, sometimes supported by public guarantee schemes, suit businesses that have predictable revenue and can repay. They are rarely suited to an early-stage outcome with no revenue yet. Equity means selling shares in your company to investors: business angels, venture capital funds, or strategic investors such as larger companies in the sector. You gain capital and often experience and networks. In exchange, you give up part of the ownership and accept expectations of rapid growth. That fits some ventures, but not every research outcome. A licensing deal or a service business may be a better match. As a rule, match funding to stage. When your gap is technical, between a prototype and a validated product, grants are a natural fit. When you are validating the commercial side, a mix of early revenue, grants and perhaps angel investment makes sense. When you have proven demand and are ready to scale, venture capital or strategic partners become relevant. What do funders and investors look for? A very similar list in each case. A credible team with the skills and commitment to deliver. Evidence from customers, as in Modules 2 and 5. Traction: pilots, letters of intent, revenue. A market sized from the bottom up. A protectable advantage, which is why Module 3 matters. A business model with sensible economics. A clear plan for how the money will be used, with milestones. And an honest view of risks. A typical pitch follows the same logic: the problem, your solution, evidence from customers, the market, the business model, traction so far, competition, the team, the financial plan and the ask, and the milestones you will reach with the funding. Remember, this is general information and not financial advice: for decisions about equity or debt, consult a qualified adviser..

[Audio] Let me now mention several European instruments that are relevant for agricultural innovators. I will give figures from the 2026 programmes, which are the latest I could check, and I strongly recommend that you confirm the current conditions, because amounts, deadlines and eligibility change from year to year. First, the European Innovation Council, or EIC, under Horizon Europe. Its 2026 work programme has a budget of more than 1.4 billion euros across several funding lines. EIC Transition is designed for promising research results. It requires that the proposal builds on results already achieved in an eligible project, and it funds validation and demonstration in an application-relevant environment, starting around TRL 3 or 4 and aiming for TRL 5 or 6, and developing business and market readiness. The funding rate is one hundred percent of eligible costs, and the amount ranges from half a million to two and a half million euros per project. The 2026 expansion of eligibility, as reported, includes results from certain Horizon Europe projects, which is relevant if your outcome came from one. The 2026 deadline for Transition was 16 September 2026, so for new applications, check the next work programme. The EIC Accelerator is for small companies and start-ups taking an innovation to market. It offers grants of up to two and a half million euros, and equity investments between half a million and ten million euros. It is aimed at later-stage development and market entry, with the grant supporting innovation activities at roughly TRL 6 to 8. Submission is continuous, with periodic cut-offs. Note that it targets companies, so a research team would typically need a company or a plan to create one. Second, EIT Food, the European innovation community for food and agriculture. It runs equity-free start-up programmes at three stages: the Seedbed Incubator for launch, the Accelerator Network for business acceleration and technology validation, and RisingFoodStars for scaling commercial capabilities. For the 2026 Accelerator Network, applicants needed a technology with a prototype or pilot at TRL 4 to 8 that fit one of the themes, with hubs in cities such as Munich, Helsinki and Catania. Check the next call for details. Third, support structures. The Horizon Results Platform and National Contact Points can advise on programmes, eligibility and partners, and early contact with your National Contact Point is highly recommended before preparing any proposal. And do not overlook national and regional innovation schemes, and rural development programmes, which often fund pilots, demonstration and investment in farm digitalisation, with their own rules. The takeaway: there is no single perfect instrument. Look at your TRL, your commercial readiness scorecard from Module 1, and your organisation type, and pick the instrument that matches, then check the current rules..

[Audio] Our fifth and last working exercise before the closing. Please pause the video when I finish. Step one: write a one-page go-to-market plan. Include your target segment, the whole product, your message and proof, your price, your main channel, the steps of your sales path, and three metrics that would tell you whether it works. Step two: list three partners you could approach, and for each one, write what they would give you and what they would want in return. Step three: design one pilot. Define its objective, the success criteria, the duration, and what happens at the end if it succeeds. Step four: choose the funding route that best fits your stage, using your readiness scorecard from Module 1. Write down what evidence you would need to present to that funder. Step five: list three regulatory or compliance questions that you need to check for your product, and who you could ask. Take around fifteen minutes. Pause the video now..

[Audio] Let us summarise Module 5. We started with the idea that a good product and a good model still need a route to customers and a way of paying for the journey. We built a go-to-market plan on a page: segment, whole product, message and proof, price, channel, sales path and metrics, always planned around the agricultural calendar. We compared channels: direct sales, cooperatives, advisers, distributors, machinery platforms, and events, and we saw that the best channel is usually the one customers already trust, and that works economically. We discussed partners: choosing for complementary strengths and aligned incentives, starting small, and agreeing in writing on intellectual property, data, exclusivity and exit. We learned how to design pilots that produce customers and references, with success criteria, baselines and conversion terms. We reviewed regulations that may apply, from data rules to the Cyber Resilience Act and the Machinery Regulation, and stressed asking early. And we surveyed funding routes, matched them to stage, discussed what funders look for, and looked at European instruments such as the EIC and EIT Food, with a reminder to check current conditions. If you completed the exercise, you now hold the building blocks of a commercialisation plan: your readiness scorecard, customer map and interview plan, value proposition, rights audit, business model canvases, and now a go-to-market and funding sketch. In the final part of this seminar, we bring these together into your ninety-day plan: a short list of concrete actions, with owners, evidence to collect, and a clear decision point. We will also review the key takeaways, and then open the floor for questions. Let us conclude..

References. European Commission. (2025, November 6). EIC Work Programme 2026 (budget over €1.4 billion; Pathfinder, Transition, Accelerator and other lines). Official page: https://eic.ec.europa.eu/eic-2026-work-programme_en EIC Transition: eligibility, TRL range, funding rate and amount, 2026 submission deadline (16 September 2026). Check the 2027 EIC Work Programme for the next call. EIC Accelerator: grant up to €2.5 million, equity about €0.5–10 million, continuous submission with periodic cut-offs in 2026. EIT Food. (2026). Entrepreneurship programmes (Seedbed Incubator, EIT Food Accelerator Network, RisingFoodStars) and EIT Food Accelerator Network 2026 call. https://entrepreneurship.eitfood.eu/ Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 (Cyber Resilience Act): reporting obligations from 11 September 2026; main obligations from 11 December 2027. Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 (Machinery Regulation): applies from 20 January 2027. Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement, Article 16 and Annex 5, on exploitation and the Horizon Results Platform (see Module 3). Moore, G. A. (2014). Crossing the chasm (3rd ed.). HarperBusiness. (Whole product concept.) ISO 11783 (ISOBUS): serial control and communications data network for tractors and machinery. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act); Enterprise Europe Network (European Commission-supported network for business partnering)..

[Audio] Thank you!. thank you!. TALLHEDA has received funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 101136578. Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them..