You Don’t Launch a Samba School in a Week
Why regenerative agriculture solutions keep skipping the most important step between product and scale
Two carnivals just ended.
Two weeks ago, Brazil’s streets went silent after five days of chaos, color, and joy. Last week, Basel did the same, but in its own way. Quiet lanterns, masked figures, piccolo and drums echoing through cobblestone streets at 4 a.m.
I’ve been thinking about both of them ever since.
Not because I was at either. But because they represent two of the most instructive models for how to bring something complex into the world. And right now, watching how regenerative agriculture solutions get built and commercialized, AgTech platforms, certification schemes, transition finance programs, soil carbon projects, I keep seeing the same mistake play out.
Everyone wants to parade. Nobody wants to prepare.
Two carnivals. Two logics.
Brazil has not one carnival but two.
There is the bloco de rua, the street party. Anyone can join. There is no fixed route, no uniform, no rehearsal required. You show up, you follow the music, you belong. The energy is electric. The rules are minimal. It is spontaneous, democratic, joyful, and impossible to plan.
Then there is the Sambódromo version.
A samba school preparing for Carnival in Rio and in São Paulo is a different creature entirely. It can take a full year of work. The enredo (the narrative theme) is chosen months in advance and must be defended in less than 80 minutes of performance. Every ala, every float, every costume, every drumbeat has a function. Forty judges score harmony, rhythm, costumes, floats, percussion, flag-bearer and drum major performance, and the overall storyline. Promotion and relegation are real. Stakes are real. Failure is public.
It is pageantry. But it is also strategy, logistics, and execution at scale.
Then there is Basel’s Fasnacht. The three most beautiful days, as locals call them. It runs for exactly 72 hours, from 4 a.m. Monday to 4 a.m. Thursday, not a minute more. Every Clique (the organized carnival groups) prepares their lanterns, costumes, and satirical themes for months. The Morgestraich, the opening march in complete darkness, requires synchronization across thousands of participants across the entire old city. There are no shortcuts. If you have not prepared, it shows immediately.
Both the Sambódromo and Fasnacht share something the bloco de rua does not: the outcome is not defined by the energy of the moment. It is defined by what happened before anyone set foot on the street.
Regenerative solutions have a bloco problem.
Here is the pattern I see repeatedly.
A founder builds something real. The technology works, the methodology is sound, the science is there. Or a team inside a larger organization designs a transition program with genuine ambition: practice changes, measurement frameworks, financial incentives that could actually move behavior.
Then someone says: let’s launch.
And they do. Often quickly. The solution goes to market before anyone has spent serious time understanding who, exactly, they are trying to reach. Before the value proposition has been tested with real farmers or real buyers, or real certification clients, in real conversations. Before anyone has asked which channel actually reaches the right decision-maker, or whether the assumed route to market makes sense at all. Before the unit economics at farm level have been pressure-tested by segment, geography, or operation size. Before the offer has been reshaped based on what early users actually said.
For a founder, this looks like a product that technically works but commercially stalls. Pilots that get funded but don’t scale. A Series A conversation that keeps circling back to the same unanswered question: how do you actually reach the right farmer, at volume, at a cost that makes sense?
For a more established solution provider or program operator, it rhymes but looks different. Uptake slower than projected. Cost per participant that won’t come down. Pilots that plateau at the same number, year after year.
The solution was not wrong. The sequence was.
What offer design actually requires
Offer design is not marketing. It is not messaging. It is the work that happens before any of that.
It starts with a question that sounds obvious but is rarely answered with real rigor: who, specifically, is the customer and what problem are you actually solving for them?
Not “row crop farmers in the Midwest.” Not “smallholders in Southeast Asia.” Those are populations. Offer design requires segments, groups of people who share a common problem, a common decision logic, and a common way of evaluating whether something is worth their time, their data, or their risk.
And the problem has to be economic. Not aspirational.
A farmer doesn’t wake up wanting to regenerate their soil. They wake up worried about input costs eating into margin, about yield variability they can’t predict, about what happens to their land value if water availability keeps declining. A food company isn’t looking for a certification. It’s looking to protect a sourcing region it depends on, or to close the gap between a public commitment and a verifiable supply chain story, before an investor or regulator asks the question first. A transition finance provider isn’t funding sustainability. It’s trying to deploy capital into an asset class that isn’t purely commodity-correlated.
Same solution. Entirely different problems. Entirely different offers.
This distinction matters more than almost anything else in go-to-market design, because the framing of the offer determines what the customer is actually comparing you to. If you lead with your technology, you get evaluated against other technologies. If you lead with the outcome, lower input cost per unit, reduced supply chain exposure, measurable land value retention, you get evaluated against the cost of the problem itself. That is a much more favorable position, and a much shorter conversation.
Once you have real segments and real problem statements, you need real feedback, not surveys, not focus groups. Actual conversations, early, with people who might say no. The farmers, buyers, or program participants who decline at the beginning are the ones who tell you what the offer is actually missing. They are the most valuable signal in your entire commercialization process. And most teams never systematically collect it.
Then you need channel logic. Regenerative solutions often assume that existing agricultural channels, input retailers, co-ops, agronomists, certification bodies, can carry a fundamentally different kind of conversation. Sometimes they can. Often they cannot. The skills, incentives, and trust relationships required to explain a transition pathway or a data-sharing arrangement are different from the ones required to move seed or crop protection product. Channel selection is a strategic decision, not an inherited default.
None of this is intellectually complicated. All of it takes time. And most teams skip it, because the pressure to show traction is immediate, investor timelines are real, and the work of offer design produces no visible output until it’s done.
The Sambódromo does not improvise
A samba school does not decide its theme two weeks before Carnival.
The enredo is the spine of the entire performance. Every costume, every float, every choreographic sequence, every lyric in the samba song is built around it. Change the enredo late, and everything collapses. But here is the part that’s often missed: the enredo is not invented in isolation. It emerges from a process. Community input. Internal debate. Testing of ideas against what the audience, and the judges, are actually evaluating.
The school does not guess at what will land. It investigates, then commits, then executes.
Basel’s Cliques do the same. Each group selects a satirical theme and spends months crafting lanterns and costumes that communicate it precisely. The lanterns displayed at Münsterplatz during Fasnacht are not decorations. They are arguments, visual, deliberate, constructed to make a point that resonates with people who know the context. They work because the preparation was serious.
In both cases, the quality of the final performance is almost entirely determined before the first step is taken in public.
This is exactly the relationship between offer design and commercial launch. The parade is not where you figure out your message. It is where you deliver it.
Channels are not neutral
One more thing that offer design forces you to confront, and that investors often underweight when evaluating regenerative solutions.
The channel you use to reach farmers, buyers, or supply chain participants is not a neutral delivery mechanism. It shapes the message, filters the audience, and sets expectations before the first conversation happens. A transactional input retailer carries different relationship equity than a trusted agronomist. A sustainability-focused certification body reaches a different grower profile than a commodity co-op. A direct digital platform makes different demands on the farmer than a field-based program delivered by extension agents.
Most regenerative solutions inherit their channel from whatever relationships already exist, the pilot partner, the first investor’s network, the founder’s prior connections. That is understandable. It is also one of the primary reasons solutions stall between pilot and scale.
The Sambódromo assigns specific roles deliberately. The porta-bandeira and mestre-sala, the flag-bearer and drum major, are not interchangeable with the percussion section or the float designers. Different functions require different skills, different presence, different timing in the sequence. Confuse them and the performance breaks down, visibly, in front of 90,000 people.
The same is true for go-to-market design. The right offer delivered through the wrong channel does not convert. It just consumes more runway before arriving at the same outcome. For a funded startup, that is a serious problem. For a program with a fixed deployment window, it is a strategic failure.
What skipping this costs, in ways that compound
The cost of skipping offer design is not always visible at first. Solutions launch. Pilots enroll participants. Early numbers look acceptable. Progress is declared.
The real cost shows up later, and it compounds.
It shows up in cost per farmer acquired that stays stubbornly high, because the segment is too broad or the channel too expensive. In pilots that hit the same ceiling year after year, because the farmers who enrolled weren’t the right farmers to build from. In investor conversations that stall at Series A or Series B, because the go-to-market thesis hasn’t been validated at the unit level. In food company procurement teams that believe in the program but can’t operationalize it into their supply base.
And it shows up in credibility, which, in a sector as relationship-dependent as agriculture, is one of the hardest things to rebuild once spent.
Regenerative agriculture is not short on ambitious solutions. It is short on solutions that reach meaningful scale without burning through capital or compromising on rigor. Every launch that underperforms, every pilot that doesn’t replicate, makes the next conversation with farmers, buyers, and investors slightly harder.
The bloco de rua is forgiving. If the music stops, you find another block and keep dancing. A funded solution with a board, a deployment commitment, and a commercial target is not. It deserves the preparation the Sambódromo would demand.
The questions worth sitting with
If you are building a regenerative solution today, as a founder, a program operator, or an investor evaluating where a solution sits in its commercial journey, there is a version of this that applies directly.
Do you know which customer segments your solution is designed for, and has each been defined by a specific economic problem, not a sustainability aspiration?
Is your offer framed around the outcome the customer needs to solve, or around the capabilities of your platform or methodology?
Do you know whether your channel can carry the commercial conversation your solution actually requires, or is it inherited from convenience?
Do you know what early adopters found missing or insufficient, and has the offer changed as a result?
If the answers are uncertain, the solution is in bloco mode. Which can generate energy and early momentum. It does not, on its own, generate the compounding traction that makes a regenerative business viable at scale.
The Sambódromo earns its stage over twelve months of invisible work. Fasnacht earns its 72 hours the same way. The visibility is the last part. Not the first.
If you want to pressure-test whether your regenerative go-to-market is built on offer design or on optimism, there is a starting point.
That assessment is often where the distance between regenerative intent and regenerative scale first becomes visible.
Beyond Harvest is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.