Why Biological Products Struggle to Scale: The Science-to-Sales Translation Problem

TL:DR

Your sales team isn’t the problem. They are the signal that something in your system is broken. Biological products struggle commercially because companies are still using a chemistry-based sales playbook, relying too heavily on yield and ROI instead of clearly articulating the problem being solved. Sales teams don’t need more data. They need a clear, repeatable story that translates complex science into field-level impact and gives them confidence in how to position the product. Most field trials are designed for scientific validation, not for selling, which leaves critical grower questions unanswered. The real solution is not more training or more data, but building a system that connects science, marketing, and sales into a cohesive narrative that can be consistently used in the field.

Introduction

If your sales team knew how to sell your biological product, they already would. When companies don’t hit their revenue targets, the instinct is to question effort, training, or talent. But in most cases, that’s not where the problem lives. Sales teams are not the bottleneck; they are the earliest signal that something in the system isn’t working. When biological products struggle commercially, it is rarely a people problem but rather a translation issue between science and sales.

The Sales Frustration

I once walked the floor of a trade show seeking out companies that sold microbial products or at the very least included microbes into some of their products. I would ask the sales folks firstly, do you have any products that contain microbes, and then secondly, I asked them to tell me more about the importance of having microbes in their products.

I received answers anywhere from they help the plants access more nutrients to I’m not sure what they do and honestly, I don’t sell much of them.

Very few companies sold their microbial product well and all of them lead with X yield increase and Y ROI.  So basically if I walked the floor and added 10 different products to my field of corn, I should be getting an additional 60 bu/ac and an additional $100/acre. But we all know that isn’t how this works.  You can’t keep adding products based on their yield increase and get indefinite increases.

So why do we still lead with yield and ROI?  Because that is how the chemistry playbook has told us to lead.  One pound of nitrogen has historically resulted in an additional bushel of corn, therefore that has been the way we’ve sold inputs.  Based on that kind of equation.

But biologicals don’t work like that, yet here we are still selling them that way. And guess what, it’s not really working. 

Sales know it’s not working which is why when given a broad product portfolio that includes a mix of chemistry and biological products, the chemistry products always take precedence.

It’s because we aren’t giving our sales team the biological playbook, and I’m here to fix this.  It’s a systems problem, not an individual issue. We must arm our sales teams with the science they need to sell biological products.

But Whitney, we’ve given the sales team 3 years of field data with statistical significance between both a grower’s standard AND a competitor product. We’ve penciled out a clear ROI, and we know the mode of action.  What more could they want? They have all this and yet never do anything about it. They have what they need.

Science teams talk in mechanisms, pathways, statistical significance and nuance.  Commercial needs timing, positioning, impact, and less nuance and more definitive language.  These two groups are fundamentally in opposition and therefore have a hard time agreeing on the path forward.  Neither are wrong.  This is just a misalignment of language and incentives.

What Sales Actually Need

Sales don’t need more graphs; they need more context.  They need clear answers to basic and repetitive questions.  They need a complete science story, not pieces where they have to determine which piece to pick up when.  They need a narrative where they can enter at any point during their conversations and still hit on all the major points. They need a tagline and catchy phrase that pulls growers in and engages their audience.

Yes we need to provide sales teams with region-specific trials that reflect what growers are actually doing.  But we also must provide them with visuals demonstrating mode of action. We much help growers SEE the impact. This could be a color changing assay. It could be a timelapse on water percolating through the soil. We are asking growers to TRUST that what we say is happening is actually going to happen.  Let’s give them reasons to believe.

Why Doesn’t Yield Only Messaging Work?

Yield is the outcome. Growers aren’t solving for yield.  Growers are solving for something else that RESULTS in a yield increase.  It’s about tackling something along the path to yield that results in an increase in yield.  So, when you are leading with yield-only messaging, growers don’t know where and how to place your product in their operation and decisions they still need to make.  If you are not talking about a pain point, buyers lose their anchor and end up passing on the purchase.

Yes, yield and ROI are important pieces of information that help growers place your product among the other products they are considering.  They are the common thread that is used for comparing products that are different, but it cannot be the entirety of your message.  

Designing Science for Commercial Use

As a product development scientist, I’ve spent my career balancing science for scientific exploration and science to sell a product. This is an area where I am extremely passionate because they don’t teach commercial science in graduate school.  So, we end up with a dearth of science that is designed for selling.

Because of this, we end up with field trial data that shows inconsistent yield increases partly because we are testing the same product across various geographic regions and use cases. We can’t explain why in some cases it works well, and in others, it peters out. Now, I’m not saying that we’ll ever really be able to do enough research where we can accurately predict yield increases time and time again.  But we can do enough to help explain why in some cases it might not have produced like we hoped it would.

And this looks like designing experiments and field trials to also answer the question: “What will the grower ask?”

These experiments look like multiple harvests to try and see when the products has the most impact. It looks like soil characteristics and rainfall. It looks like capturing management decisions, seed variety, and leaf tissue nutrient analyses.  Now I never advocate for doing this in every experiment; that would be cost prohibitive. But I do think at least one if not a few studies needs to be designed with the above in mind. These will look different than a control vs. treatment type of study design. These are intentional.  These are strategic.  These are studies that will be put into the hands of commercial when completed so they must be treated as such from the beginning.

And at the end of the experiment, the studies will be put together in a complete data package with context, an executive summary, a commercial summary, a mini-training slide deck, and the sales team will be trained on how to talk about these types of experiments. 

It will not be a quick email blast with a graph. It will be weeks long trainings and working with your marketing department to create materials.

And after all that done, your sales team will be able to say things like:

“Look at this graph, our product gives a better start to your corn than grower’s standard practice because we see more nitrogen uptake at V4, larger above ground biomass, and larger roots.”

 Or

“Based on our experience, we see a two-week lag in plant performance between when we apply this product at side-dress so don’t get too concerned when you don’t see anything right away.  Your field should green-up in about two weeks”

Or

“We repeatedly see an easier transition from V12 to R1, which is important for fruit set and overall yield. This means you might not see anything visually until R1 so don’t panic.  That’s totally normal, this product is designed to support the transition into reproductive which is a highly stressful time.”

And by doing these kinds of experiments, or at the very least incorporating this kind of thinking, you’re actually creating a sales enablement library. Tools that can be used over and over as your product portfolio expands. If you want to learn more about this kind of strategy, head over to my blog, Three Pillars of Product Development.

This is a systems problem

It’s not a matter of not having enough stuff to put out there, it’s a matter of not having the system created to create and support such outputs. It’s about getting the structure in place first, and then the information will follow.

What does this look like?

1. A central information hub that can be accessed asynchronously by your sales team. This is a central repository for your sales toolbox.

2. Demos and field trial results that can be shared externally stored in the information hub. These must have a high-level technical report accompanied by a sales script.

3. FAQ documents that are product specific. This should be a joint document between science and commercial. This should address key scientific principles that are KEY to understanding your product.

4. Product position document: the value proposition.

5. Role-playing as a potential grower or dealer that forces the sales team to implement the learnings. This should be after you have created a few of the above documents.  Consider this a way to practice what they should know and test out different phrasing or ways of talking about the key concepts.

6. Cross-functional training between R&D and commercial.  Work with a scientist and have them give a seminar to the sales team.  Make sure to mentor the scientist to make sure they are creating a commercially relevant seminar.  Focus on impact 

You’re creating an ecosystem of access and constant learnings.  You want to empower self-sufficiency while simultaneously creating a system of accountability.

Yes, And.

Scientists are trained to ask questions, defend, validate, reduce uncertainty, and leave room for nuance. Commercial teams want simple, persuasive, certain information that can be used to convince people to buy. This creates tension. Both groups are seemingly in opposition to each other.

I hear from scientists “they are oversimplifying my work.”  And then immediately afterwards I hear from sales “I don’t know what I can or can’t say because I don’t get anything definitive from R&D.”

Yes, the science is nuanced, AND we still need to produce definitive language for commercial teams to take to potential customers and partners. Translation is not oversimplification but instead it’s what allows the science to actually create value.

The Cost

If you’re still reading this blog, then my guess is that you are already feeling the cost.  Missed revenue, sales member turnover, almost closing partnership discussions that fizzle out, loss of customer and dealers that buy less and less from you each year.

If your biological portfolio isn’t growing, start by listening to your sales team.

When they say:
“We don’t have what we need.”
“I don’t know how to explain this.”
“Growers aren’t getting it.”

That is not resistance.
That is not lack of effort.
That is structural feedback

Your sales team is not the problem. → They are the clearest signal you have that something in your system isn’t working.

Biological products don’t fail because the science is weak. → They fail because the science never gets translated into something usable in the field.

Fix the translation, not the people.

• 1. Why are biological products harder to sell than chemical inputs?

  Biologicals are harder to sell because they don’t follow the same predictable, linear response as chemical inputs. While chemistry products can often be tied directly to yield increases, biologicals work through complex biological systems, making them harder to explain, position, and consistently demonstrate without the right sales narrative.

• 2. Why doesn’t yield and ROI messaging work for biological products?

  Yield and ROI are outcomes, not decision drivers. Growers make decisions based on specific problems in their operation. When companies lead only with yield, they fail to show where the product fits or what issue it solves, making it difficult for buyers to justify adoption.

• 3. What do sales teams actually need to sell biological products effectively?

  Sales teams need a clear, repeatable story that connects mode of action to field impact. This includes simple explanations of how the product works, when it works, what to expect in the field, and how to answer common grower questions with confidence.

• 4. How should field trials be designed to support sales?

  Field trials should not only prove efficacy but also answer practical questions growers will ask, such as when results appear, under what conditions the product performs best, and what variability to expect. This makes the data more usable for real sales conversations.

• 5. How can companies improve alignment between R&D and sales teams?

  Companies can improve alignment by creating shared language, building cross-functional training, and developing tools like FAQs, product positioning documents, and sales scripts that translate scientific findings into commercially relevant messaging.