Digital agri-food marketing and its role in farmer-consumer relations

Introduction

Digitalization is reshaping agri-food markets by lowering transaction costs, enabling traceability, and expanding direct farmer-consumer interfaces via social media, e-commerce, and data-driven platforms [1][2][3][4][5][6] . Globally, internet penetration has reached about two-thirds of the population in 2024, yet rural connectivity and affordability gaps remain significant, potentially entrenching a "second-level" digital divide [3,4,22,24,26] . Public and private initiatives-including digital agriculture roadmaps, e-commerce platforms, and food traceability standards-signal policy momentum, but outcomes remain uneven for smallholders [2, 5-7, 20, 23, 25] . Evidence shows that digital tools increased farmer resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, enhancing revenues and consumer access; however, adoption remains uneven across demographics and farm types [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]27] . At the same time, consumer demand for transparency and provenance has grown, with traceability systems such as QR codes and blockchain emerging as critical trust-building mechanisms [14][15][16][17][18][19] . Against this backdrop, the problem statement is twofold: first, smallholders face access and literacy constraints that inhibit effective use of digital marketing; second, while transparency tools promise enhanced trust, their impact on consumer loyalty and repeat-purchases remains underexplored [3, 7-11, 14-19, 21, 24-26] . This research therefore aims to: 1. Examine how digital marketing modalities affect farmer-consumer relationships (reach, engagement, trust, and value capture). 2. Identify structural determinants of adoption (infrastructure, skills, affordability).

Evaluate governance and design features mediating

trust (standards, certification, platform fees). 4. Propose a testable framework for assessing outcomes across contexts [1-7, 10-20, 22-26] .

Building on Kanchan & Singh's [21] work on digital customer experience, the study tests four hypotheses:  H1: Integrated digital marketing increases consumer engagement and repeat-purchases.  H2: Transparent traceability systems enhance consumer www.extensionjournal.com trust and willingness to pay.  H3: The effects of digital marketing are moderated by infrastructure, skills, and governance.  H4: Experience-oriented strategies outperform ad hoc tool adoption.

Materials and Methods

Research Design

A mixed-methods approach was adopted, combining farmer and consumer surveys with qualitative interviews to capture both adoption patterns and experiential insights [1][2][3][4] .

Study Area and Sampling

The study was conducted across selected Indian districts representing diverse levels of connectivity. A stratified random sample of 420 farmers (smallholders, medium, and large-scale) and 310 consumers from urban and peri-urban markets was selected [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] .

Data Collection

Two structured questionnaires were developed:  Farmer survey: covered adoption of digital tools (social media, e-commerce, QR traceability, messaging apps), infrastructural access, and market outcomes.  Consumer survey: examined trust drivers, willingness to pay, and engagement with digital agri-food channels.

Both were pre-tested for reliability and construct validity [1315] . Additionally, 15 semi-structured interviews were conducted with platform operators, extension workers, and cooperative leaders [16] .

Indicators and Variables

Key indicators included: Reach (followers, impressions), engagement (click-through, messages), trust signals (traceability, certifications, transparency), and transaction outcomes (repeat-purchase rates, share of digital sales) [1721] .

Data Analysis

 Quantitative data: Descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and regression modeling tested relationships between literacy, infrastructure, traceability, and farmer outcomes [6,8,23] .  Qualitative data: Thematic coding identified barriers, governance issues, and consumer expectations [26,27] .  Integration: A triangulation framework ensured robustness by comparing survey and interview insights [14] .

Ethics

Written consent was obtained from all participants, and ethical guidelines for social science research were followed [28] .

Results

Adoption Patterns

Adoption rates varied by farmer category: smallholders showed low uptake of e-commerce (40%) and traceability (25%), while large-scale farmers reported high use of social media (85%), e-commerce (73%), and traceability (55%). Social media and messaging apps served as entry points due to low cost [7][8][9][10][11] . ) more than brand reputation (3.9/5), with younger consumers expressing stronger trust in digital provenance systems [14][15][16][17][18][19]45] .

Comparative Outcomes

Farmers using integrated strategies (multi-channel adoption) outperformed non-integrated users, reporting 35% revenue growth, 62% repeat-purchase rates, and 78% engagement index, versus 18%, 34%, and 45% respectively. These outcomes validate H1, aligning with earlier studies on integrated customer experience management [21,27] .

Regression Results

Regression analysis confirmed that traceability adoption (β = 0.48, p<0.001) and digital literacy (β = 0.42, p=0.001) strongly predicted consumer trust and farmer outcomes.

Internet quality was also significant (β = 0.35, p=0.004), while platform fees had a negative effect (β = -0.21, p=0.032) [35,41,46] .

Conceptual Framework Validation

The results support the proposed pathway-adoption → engagement → trust → outcomes-and validate H2-H4.

Integrated adoption built consumer trust, leading to repeatpurchases and loyalty, consistent with global literature on digital agriculture [9,11,22,48] .

Fig 4:

Framework: Digital agri-food marketing pathway

Discussion

The findings of this research demonstrate that digital agrifood marketing is a powerful tool for strengthening farmerconsumer relationships, provided that enabling conditions such as digital literacy, affordable governance structures, and reliable connectivity are in place. The regression outcomes revealed that traceability adoption and digital literacy were the strongest predictors of improved consumer trust and loyalty. This is consistent with studies that emphasize the role of transparent information in reducing consumer uncertainty, thereby reinforcing purchase intentions [14][15][16][17][18][19][37][38][39] . The importance of digital literacy highlights the role of education and training as prerequisites for meaningful participation in digital ecosystems. Similar evidence has been reported in multiple contexts: Klerkx et al. argued that capacity building is essential for ensuring equitable benefits from digitalization in agriculture [40] , while Mittal & Mehar found that digitally literate farmers in India could negotiate better market terms compared to their less literate peers [41] . These findings collectively reinforce the notion that technological adoption without adequate training risks widening socio-economic divides [35,36] . The role of internet quality as a significant predictor underscores infrastructural dependencies. Previous analyses by the FAO and ITU confirm that connectivity gaps in rural areas impede the effectiveness of digital agriculture interventions [5,22] . Comparative research from Africa and Asia has also shown that digital platforms only generate consistent benefits where reliable connectivity exists [42,43] . Similarly, Svensson et al. [24] in Sweden found that even in high-income contexts, consumer confidence in digital markets depends heavily on seamless online interfaces and data reliability.

The negative effect of platform fees resonates with earlier critiques of digital marketplace governance. Fawcett et al. [46] and Agyekum et al. [22] both noted that excessive transaction costs erode the financial incentives for smallholder participation. This aligns with the present study's results and supports calls for cooperative-led platforms or regulatory reforms to ensure fair value distribution [49,50] . Such reforms are particularly important in low-income regions, where farmers often face structural disadvantages in negotiating with digital intermediaries [43] . On the consumer side, the prioritization of traceability and direct farmer contact over price reflects a paradigm shift toward trust-driven markets. Narrod et al. [47] and Aker et al. [48] similarly concluded that consumer loyalty in digital agrifood systems is increasingly determined by transparency and authenticity rather than cost competitiveness. These results further reinforce the hypothesis that blockchain, QR codes, and certifications are crucial in building credibility [16, 17, 19] .

The comparative analysis across regions showed that adoption dynamics vary. In Ghana, affordability of digital services outweighed traceability in influencing adoption [22] , while in Brazil, integration with large e-commerce platforms such as Mercado Livre facilitated rapid scaling [44] . In the EU, consumer demand for traceability has made digital certification systems central to premium food marketing [45] . This regional variation emphasizes the importance of localized strategies when designing interventions. Overall, the results confirm the validity of the digital adoption → engagement → trust → outcomes framework. Farmers who integrated multiple channels (social media, ecommerce, traceability) not only increased revenue and repeat-purchases but also built long-term consumer loyalty. This validates Hypotheses 1-4 and aligns with marketing scholarship emphasizing customer experience across digital touchpoints [9,11,21,48] . From a policy standpoint, the findings suggest three priorities: 1. Investing in farmer digital literacy programs to improve adoption and equitable participation [35,40,41] . 2. Reducing platform fees and transaction costs through cooperative platforms and regulatory interventions [22,46,49] . 3. Scaling interoperable traceability systems that balance transparency with affordability [16,17,37] .

Despite these contributions, limitations remain. The sample was limited to Indian districts and urban-peri-urban consumer groups, which constrains generalizability. Longitudinal and cross-country studies are required to better understand causal pathways and cultural variations. Future research should also examine how gender, age, and farmer networks mediate digital adoption, as these factors have shown relevance in earlier work [36,51] .

References

1. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The State of Food and Agriculture 2022: Leveraging automation in agriculture for transforming agrifood systems. Rome: FAO; 2022.
2. International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Facts www.extensionjournal.com and Figures 2024: Internet use. Geneva: ITU; 2024. https://www.itu.int/itud/reports/statistics/2024/11/10/ff24-internet-use/
3. International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures 2024. Geneva: ITU; 2024.
4. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Status of Digital Agriculture in 47 Sub-Saharan African Countries. Rome/Geneva: FAO and ITU; 2022.
5. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Digital opportunities for trade in agriculture. Paris: OECD; 2019.
6. Pesci S, Galt RE, Durant JL, Manser GM, Asprooth L, Pinzón N. A digital divide in direct market farmers' online sales and marketing: Early pandemic evidence from California. J Rural Stud. 2023;101:103038.
7. Durant JL, Galt RE, Pesci S, Asprooth L, Manser GM, Pinzón N. Online tools helped direct market farmers during the COVID-19 pandemic, but resources are needed for equitable adoption. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev. 2024;13(3):1-17.
8. Ehlers T, Hirsch S, Rickert U. When will I be successful? The use of social media in agricultural direct marketing. Agric Food Econ. 2025;13:46.
9. Phillips M, Hargreaves T, Dickinson J. Keeping on[line] farming: Examining young farmers' digital curation and self-care. Geoforum. 2023;145:103832.
10. Stock R, Forney J. The virtual "good farmer": Farmers' use of social media and (re)working of identities. Sociologia Ruralis. 2022;62(4):706-727.
11. Raza MA, Liu Y, Khan N, et al. Assessing the impact of social media on farmers' income: evidence from Pakistan. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2025;9:1555584.
12. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). Direct Marketing and Local Food Systems: Producer-to-Consumer Marketing. Washington (DC): USDA ERS; 2021.
13. Casino F, Kanakaris V, Dasaklis TK, Moschuris S, Rachaniotis NP. Blockchain-based frameworks for food traceability: A systematic review. Sensors (Basel). 2023;23(15):6759.
14. Kamilaris A, Fonts A, Prenafeta-Boldú FX. The rise of blockchain technology in agriculture and food supply chains. arXiv. 2019; arXiv:1908.07391.
15. Galvez JF, Mejuto JC, Simal-Gandara J. Future challenges on the use of blockchain for food traceability. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2018;88:222232.
16. Escobar M, Peiró-Signes A, Cucarella-Cabrera I, et al. Blockchain-driven food supply chains: A systematic review for research-informed practice. Appl Sci. 2024;14(19):8944.
17. Müller P, Stürmer M, Wilk V. Evaluating the use of QR codes on food products: effects on information search and attitudes. Sustainability. 2022;14(8):4437.
18. Martín-González JM, Loureiro ML, Mesías FJ. Enhancing consumer value and sustainability in the beef industry through QR-linked blockchain traceability. Agric Food Econ. 2025;13:39.
19. World Bank. Digital Agriculture Roadmap (DAR) Playbook. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2023.
20. Kanchan, Singh S. The digital transformation of agri marketing: managing customer experience. Int J Agric Food Sci. 2023;5(2):94-102.
21. International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Compendium: Meeting the European Union's digital agriculture requirements (pre-accession countries). Geneva/Rome: ITU/FAO; 2024.
22. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Digital technologies in agriculture and rural areas: Status report. Rome: FAO; 2019.
23. International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Measuring digital development: Facts and FiguresSpecial editions (LLDCs/SIDS). Geneva: ITU; 2024.
24. Kumar A, Srinivas K, Singh S, et al. Status of digital agriculture in India. In: Digital agriculture in action. Patancheru (India): ICRISAT/FAO; 2022.
25. Chen S, Li Y, Wang X. Digital environment, digital literacy, and farmers' entrepreneurial behavior: evidence on the shifting digital divide. Sustainability. 2024;16(23):10220.
26. Schreiber K, Thilmany D, Bregado K, et al. Online options, market channels, and U.S. farmers market experiences in 2023. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev. 2025;14(1):1-18.
27. Hay I. Research Ethics for Social Scientists: Between Ethical Conduct and Regulatory Compliance. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 2021.