[HillaryBriss]

> Farmers tell me, “Look, I know that my data has value because everyone wants it. The part that frustrates me is that companies want my data in return for some undefined ‘value.’ Meanwhile they are often upselling me for additional services that would not exist without my data."

Sounds like a good description of what's been going on across the economy for 20 years. Farmers are asking the same question many others are asking: how can I keep more of my own data's value for myself?

[basseq]

Two thoughts:

1. This is tough, because the value of a single data point ("my data") is pretty much zero. The value is in the aggregate. Of course, without any data points, the value of the data is then zero. So the sum of the value of the individual data points does not equal the value of the data as a whole.

2. There's value to you in my ability to sell you more things. Which sounds nonsensical, but hear me out. If I'm able to sell you, it means you see value in that product or service greater than its cost. I would not be able to create that value for you without your data. So it's a help-me-help-you situation.

[otoburb]

For #1, I'd imagine that farmers already belong to (or could form?) a farming or agriculture association, and one of the [additional] responsibilities could be data collection, anonymizing and selling to other parties. The association, similar to a labour union, could also potentially hire a 3rd party to do this work on their behalf provided they still retain ownership over the data, but at least the overall coordination and aggregate value would be captured on behalf of the farmers and not the vendors.

#2 would be fulfilled more easily by the association provided there was enough true representation of member interests and concerns.

[PeterisP]

Well, but neither the farmer or agriculture association are capable to actually collect the data - the data is generated as a byproduct when all kinds of systems do work on the farmer's fields, but it is generated by and within all these third party systems.

Aggregation and cleaning up of all that heterogenous data would be even harder, and that is definitely not the task for anyone who doesn't make their core business (I mean, none of the involved big companies is able to do that yet) creating and maintaining that capability can be practically done by a couple competitors worldwide, but not by every regional association duplicating the effort.

[basseq]

#1 - You're talking adjacency (moving up the value chain), which might not be a bad idea, but is the incremental value worth it? It might be: I don't know. But I know that it implies a level of sophistication and focus that may not be present.

#2 - I don't know if there's a distinction there. Either the value is lower (because the data doesn't include anyone outside the association) or dollars just flow in a different way (e.g., increased association dues for increased "free" services vs. fee-for-service).