It is easy to test your idea. If you take the time to list the names of biochars and biochar amended products that are offered in different markets you will find a wide variety of names depending on the application. Names of formulated or amended products like Christer's communicate the function or need that their products fulfill. Wholesale biochars are sold by the truckload as biochar or biocarbon depending on the labelling requirements of the state and the end use. You will find a guide to labelling requirements for biochar amended soil amendments on the USBI website. Since you are in a dreaming condition, how much do you imagine that biochar sales would increase if you changed the name? 500,000 tons per year? Try selling biochar yourself and you will find that the product description or name is probably a minor aspect of developing large sustainable markets.
Totally respect that viewpoint, and think you're right -- we'll see where it matters and where it doesn't based on what the producers in the community do. I don't expect it to work everywhere, but it seems interesting that some of the newest entrants in the market are choosing not to brand their products as "biochar." Seems like their growth rate and survival rate relative to the industry will tell us something (though probably too many confounding variables to tell what).
I'm curious, in your experience, what are the sectors in which "biochar" has the the strongest brand? Do you think it has a positive/negative connotation? From chatting to people within the investment community, I would say "biochar" conjures a mixed response.
Added wrinkle to this, of course, is that if carbon offsets become a large portion of the overall market revenue, "biochar" is likely to be helpful. Who knows, but migration towards alternative names (or avoidance of "biochar") is something I see happening in the high value products market.
When you aggregate the branded products with different names you will find that most of them will be in consumer products like soil amendments for retail garden use, landscaping, turf and tree applications. Branding is probably less important in wholesale markets where the larger volumes are sold. In the last 15 years many biochar companies have failed for multiple business reasons rather than because of product names. That (and a couple of high profile scams) is likely the reason for the mixed view of some of the investment community. In 2007 at the first conference of the International Agrichar Initiative the late Dr. Peter Read, Massey University, New Zealand, suggested the term "biochar" to mean charcoal intended for use in carbon sequestration and soil improvement. The organization became the International Biochar Initiative and developed standards and a methodology of accounting for carbon sequestration using biochar. While not initially accepted the standards and methodology became a basis for the development of the emerging carbon offset and removal markets such as the European Biochar Certificate, Puro.earth etc.
"In the last 15 years many biochar companies have failed for multiple business reasons rather than because of product names." Of course. I'm not saying the companies failed because of their name. I do think that naming sometimes conveys the state of thinking within an org (and customer focus, or lack there of).
Also, I should have been clearer in the piece - I'm not saying the industry needs to rebrand, but that the companies should explore names and naming conventions that focus on value proposition communication - not connection to the larger biochar community. I think it goes without saying that at this point "biochar" is the name of the sector.
Frank Strie has many examples of product names that communicate product value in his reply to your same question on LinkedIn. So far rhetorical "killer app" and naming games don't do much for building markets and adoption. You have suggested changes in messaging. What have you learned from your interviews that can help us advance buyer awareness of the value of biochars and biochar based products? Where does it strike you that biochars and biochar based products fulfill customer needs in important ways?
One more thing (this is why these discussions are so valuable) - I think if I had to synthesize it, I would say that I want to see entrepreneurs that are obsessed with solving the problem of their choosing (soil, filtration, etc.) not figuring out where to apply the solution they're obsessed with. That's the heart of how I think the industry gets to scale.
RE : ... "I want to see entrepreneurs that are obsessed with solving the problem of their choosing (soil, filtration, etc.) not figuring out where to apply the solution they're obsessed with. "...
Remember Peter, your School Days"
Bio = Life
Biology = Life Science
Char = Pyrogenic Carbon
Biochar is Pyrogenic Carbon to support / to foster Life.
ConstructionChar, FiltrationChar , CharCrete are technical carbon products...
I've been working on a piece that breaks down some of the markets I find promising (and why) which will likely go up Friday, but I think I frame the question differently. I don't think the way to scale will to be to build awareness about biochar per se. I think it will be done either via 1) individual companies and products that simply outcompete alternatives or 2) carbon credits. As of right now, the only biochar-based products I've seen which are not significantly demand constrained are 1) fertilizer products in developing markets that have high input costs and 2) carbon offset markets.
In that context, I think out the question as: how can we build the large companies that will popularize the space (via credits or products) and build demand for raw biochar?
Peter, you're right that naming is powerful. You're also right that it's better for a name to describe what something DOES (i.e., how it solves a problem -- what it is used for) rather than only what it is made of or how it is made. What are some words that describe what biochar does, what it is used for, what problem it solves? A hammer is for hammering. We don't call it a wooden handle with flat metal chunk on the end.
In at least one respect, the problem biochar solves IS what it is and how it is made. The main reason we are talking about biochar is that biochar is a solid and durable substance made from atmospheric CO2. It is a form of carbon sequestration. It is helping to solve the problem of excess CO2 in the air. This benefit does not rely on what the biochar gets used for. Just MAKING the biochar converts non-durable biologically captured CO2 into durably sequestered CO2. If you just stuffed the biochar into a cave and sealed it up, the sequestration value would still exist.
So what are the applications for biochar beyond carbon sequestration? What problems does biochar solve and what does it DO other than sequestering carbon? Focus on those applications and new names might emerge.
Right on! We haven't thought exactly in those terms, but we sell our "TerraLlum" ("Earth Light" in catalan) Super Soil. But we also sell our "BioChar-Grown" "VerdaLlum" (Green Light) carbon negative veggies.
Our humble success (not easy after a COVID year) and even survival after this year is due to presenting an extensive narrative about growing soil, and letting nature do the rest. People visiting our farm and eating our veggies come back for more, and want to grow themselves, with our soil.
It's the Soil, definitely the soil.
One of the "magic" ingredients of the soil is biochar, but good soil is so much more, and ours takes six to twelve months to cure, and that's not something anybody wants to do, or even can do in their back yard.
Amen Christer! I'm not sure really what the way forward is, but it looks like you've found one. Someday I'm going to come out and see your greenhouses. Sounds like Valhalla. Adelante!
It is easy to test your idea. If you take the time to list the names of biochars and biochar amended products that are offered in different markets you will find a wide variety of names depending on the application. Names of formulated or amended products like Christer's communicate the function or need that their products fulfill. Wholesale biochars are sold by the truckload as biochar or biocarbon depending on the labelling requirements of the state and the end use. You will find a guide to labelling requirements for biochar amended soil amendments on the USBI website. Since you are in a dreaming condition, how much do you imagine that biochar sales would increase if you changed the name? 500,000 tons per year? Try selling biochar yourself and you will find that the product description or name is probably a minor aspect of developing large sustainable markets.
Totally respect that viewpoint, and think you're right -- we'll see where it matters and where it doesn't based on what the producers in the community do. I don't expect it to work everywhere, but it seems interesting that some of the newest entrants in the market are choosing not to brand their products as "biochar." Seems like their growth rate and survival rate relative to the industry will tell us something (though probably too many confounding variables to tell what).
I'm curious, in your experience, what are the sectors in which "biochar" has the the strongest brand? Do you think it has a positive/negative connotation? From chatting to people within the investment community, I would say "biochar" conjures a mixed response.
Added wrinkle to this, of course, is that if carbon offsets become a large portion of the overall market revenue, "biochar" is likely to be helpful. Who knows, but migration towards alternative names (or avoidance of "biochar") is something I see happening in the high value products market.
When you aggregate the branded products with different names you will find that most of them will be in consumer products like soil amendments for retail garden use, landscaping, turf and tree applications. Branding is probably less important in wholesale markets where the larger volumes are sold. In the last 15 years many biochar companies have failed for multiple business reasons rather than because of product names. That (and a couple of high profile scams) is likely the reason for the mixed view of some of the investment community. In 2007 at the first conference of the International Agrichar Initiative the late Dr. Peter Read, Massey University, New Zealand, suggested the term "biochar" to mean charcoal intended for use in carbon sequestration and soil improvement. The organization became the International Biochar Initiative and developed standards and a methodology of accounting for carbon sequestration using biochar. While not initially accepted the standards and methodology became a basis for the development of the emerging carbon offset and removal markets such as the European Biochar Certificate, Puro.earth etc.
"In the last 15 years many biochar companies have failed for multiple business reasons rather than because of product names." Of course. I'm not saying the companies failed because of their name. I do think that naming sometimes conveys the state of thinking within an org (and customer focus, or lack there of).
Also, I should have been clearer in the piece - I'm not saying the industry needs to rebrand, but that the companies should explore names and naming conventions that focus on value proposition communication - not connection to the larger biochar community. I think it goes without saying that at this point "biochar" is the name of the sector.
Frank Strie has many examples of product names that communicate product value in his reply to your same question on LinkedIn. So far rhetorical "killer app" and naming games don't do much for building markets and adoption. You have suggested changes in messaging. What have you learned from your interviews that can help us advance buyer awareness of the value of biochars and biochar based products? Where does it strike you that biochars and biochar based products fulfill customer needs in important ways?
One more thing (this is why these discussions are so valuable) - I think if I had to synthesize it, I would say that I want to see entrepreneurs that are obsessed with solving the problem of their choosing (soil, filtration, etc.) not figuring out where to apply the solution they're obsessed with. That's the heart of how I think the industry gets to scale.
RE : ... "I want to see entrepreneurs that are obsessed with solving the problem of their choosing (soil, filtration, etc.) not figuring out where to apply the solution they're obsessed with. "...
Remember Peter, your School Days"
Bio = Life
Biology = Life Science
Char = Pyrogenic Carbon
Biochar is Pyrogenic Carbon to support / to foster Life.
ConstructionChar, FiltrationChar , CharCrete are technical carbon products...
Nothing to do with obsession, to be very Fank
Appreciate this discussion btw - this is great!
I've been working on a piece that breaks down some of the markets I find promising (and why) which will likely go up Friday, but I think I frame the question differently. I don't think the way to scale will to be to build awareness about biochar per se. I think it will be done either via 1) individual companies and products that simply outcompete alternatives or 2) carbon credits. As of right now, the only biochar-based products I've seen which are not significantly demand constrained are 1) fertilizer products in developing markets that have high input costs and 2) carbon offset markets.
In that context, I think out the question as: how can we build the large companies that will popularize the space (via credits or products) and build demand for raw biochar?
Peter, you're right that naming is powerful. You're also right that it's better for a name to describe what something DOES (i.e., how it solves a problem -- what it is used for) rather than only what it is made of or how it is made. What are some words that describe what biochar does, what it is used for, what problem it solves? A hammer is for hammering. We don't call it a wooden handle with flat metal chunk on the end.
In at least one respect, the problem biochar solves IS what it is and how it is made. The main reason we are talking about biochar is that biochar is a solid and durable substance made from atmospheric CO2. It is a form of carbon sequestration. It is helping to solve the problem of excess CO2 in the air. This benefit does not rely on what the biochar gets used for. Just MAKING the biochar converts non-durable biologically captured CO2 into durably sequestered CO2. If you just stuffed the biochar into a cave and sealed it up, the sequestration value would still exist.
So what are the applications for biochar beyond carbon sequestration? What problems does biochar solve and what does it DO other than sequestering carbon? Focus on those applications and new names might emerge.
Biochar and biochar, the ingredients make the difference.
Right on! We haven't thought exactly in those terms, but we sell our "TerraLlum" ("Earth Light" in catalan) Super Soil. But we also sell our "BioChar-Grown" "VerdaLlum" (Green Light) carbon negative veggies.
Our humble success (not easy after a COVID year) and even survival after this year is due to presenting an extensive narrative about growing soil, and letting nature do the rest. People visiting our farm and eating our veggies come back for more, and want to grow themselves, with our soil.
It's the Soil, definitely the soil.
One of the "magic" ingredients of the soil is biochar, but good soil is so much more, and ours takes six to twelve months to cure, and that's not something anybody wants to do, or even can do in their back yard.
Amen Christer! I'm not sure really what the way forward is, but it looks like you've found one. Someday I'm going to come out and see your greenhouses. Sounds like Valhalla. Adelante!