Over the last several weeks, I have met with and discussed ROI with multiple growers when it comes to AgTech equipment. These weren’t surface-level conversations. These were detailed, spreadsheet-driven, “show me exactly how this works on my operation” discussions. Here are a few perspectives that stood out and are worth sharing.

– If the equipment, technology, or solution does not reduce costs in a clear, quantifiable way, the chances of adoption are slim to non-existent.

– Growers operate on razor thin margins. Technology only works on a farm if it directly reduces a cost within the operation.

– Statements like “this will increase your yields” are often seen as a red flag. In most cases, you are better off proving ROI through labor, input, disease, or pest reduction. If yield increases happen, that is upside, not the primary justification.

I cannot remember a single piece of technology that was adopted purely on the promise of increasing yields. That might be surprising from the outside looking in, but it is consistent across operations, commodities, and geographies. Yield is variable, hard to isolate, and even harder to bank on when margins are tight. Cost reduction, on the other hand, is tangible and immediate.

Another consistent theme is how growers react to ROI calculators provided by AgTech companies.

– Growers almost always question the assumptions behind ROI calculators.

– In many cases, those assumptions are far from realistic, and the model breaks quickly when applied to actual farm conditions.

– In my over two years at Western Growers, I have seen over 100 ROI calculators. I have seen assumptions that factor in yield increases, rising labor costs, and even future gains in machine productivity that do not exist yet.

As soon as a grower starts adjusting those inputs to reflect their real-world numbers, the ROI often disappears. That creates skepticism, and once that trust is lost, it is very difficult to regain.

There is a different approach that I have seen resonate much more consistently with growers.

– Keep labor rates, fuel costs, and input costs constant over the expected payback period.

– Take a conservative view on performance and utilization.

– Structure ROI around a three-year period to evaluate viability, even if the asset life is longer.

Keeping assumptions grounded builds credibility. It also forces technology to stand on its own merit. If the ROI only works when labor costs increase every year or when the machine performs better in year three than it does today, the risk profile becomes too high for most growers.

The three-year ROI window is another important factor. It gives growers a realistic lens into whether a piece of equipment can meaningfully contribute to the operation. It does not mean the machine is fully paid off in three years, but it does provide a clear signal on whether the investment is moving in the right direction toward a five-year payback.

Even for technologies that have been commercially available for more than five years, the decision framework remains the same.

– Does it reduce operational costs?

– Can that reduction be proven with conservative assumptions?

– Is the payback realistic within the context of the broader operation?

At the end of the day, growers are not buying technology. They are making capital allocation decisions under uncertainty. If technology cannot demonstrate ROI on a conservative spreadsheet, there are usually better, lower-risk places to invest that capital within the operation.

AgTech companies should rethink how they communicate ROI to potential customers, focusing on clear, conservative, and operation-specific outcomes that help growers get comfortable with the level of risk.