In our work using mobile channels to develop services supporting rural smallholders, we're finding the content process to be one of the biggest hurdles (sourcing, aggregating, validating disseminating, etc.).  Naturally, farmers themselves are great sources of content and solutions.  The challenge here, though, is how do we apply the content process to user generated content at scale?

Direct connections can be facilitated by ICT, but if poor answers and recommendations are given, users can’t be expected to return. 

I think one answer could be a system of self-policing where the community is responsible for the answers and recommendations given?  To structure this would be quite tricky.  We can see an early attempt coming from Pamoja Media’s Ukulima.net.  This is a mobile web platform that allows farmers to connect and interact on topics related to their similar agriculture interests.

During a recent conversation with an MNO (who is considering deploying an AgriVAS) they expressed concerns over how an Agriculture partner (NGO) would financially sustain its self in the long run (after potential start-up funding would run out).  The MNO made it clear they are not in a position to provide on-going funding.  I feel this sharing of costs and revenues is a large component to determining the overall business case.

In the broader picture, we know that there are various B2C and B2B revenue streams to tap into for overall AgriVAS financial sustainability (including the cost incurred by all partners).  To address this MNO's specific concern, we need to dig a bit deeper into how the revenue and costs are shared amongst the partners, starting with 2, a main Ag partner and the MNO.  There are many ways to slice the pie (for a primer, please see chapter 5 of the GSMA AgriVAS Toolkit: http://gsmworld.com/documents/mAgriReport_101111_final.pdf).  

I see the logical division is for the MNO to bear the cost of service delivery on the technical side and marketing and distribution to consumers.  They'd receive the benefits from subscription and call revenue as well as the indirect benefits (ARAPU, churn and market penetration).  

On the other side, I see the Ag partner bearing the cost of sourcing and managing agriculture content, staffing and managing a helpline and marketing and sales to their farming communities.  They can cover their costs and sustain themselves from B2B sales revenue (to contract farming organizations) and the alternative revenue streams (advertising, market research, etc.).

Further details would need to be worked out to ensure both parties are properly motivated to meet service level expectations.  But I feel this model may provide a good start.  Thoughts?