Adding a territory agronomist in central Iowa

I’m opening a new seat for Q1 to support a 9-county patch where our in-furrow program outperformed checks by 6–8 bu last season, and I’m torn between hiring a pure relationship builder or a data-heavy trial junkie. For those leading agronomy sales teams, which profile sticks longer and moves proven product without eroding farm-gate trust?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‍​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​‍‌⁠‌​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠‌⁠‌‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠‌​‌⁠‌‌‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‌‌​‌‌‌⁠​‍‌​‌​‌‍‌‌‌​‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌‌‍​‌‌‍​‌​⁠‍‌‍‍​‌​⁠​​⁠‌‍‌‍​‍‌‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​​

I’d pick the relationship-first and make trial rigor non-negotiable: we cut churn by hiring for trust and requiring three geo-spread strip trials per county in the first 90 days with grower co-presented results, which sold the in-furrow story without the “data-heavy trial junkie” vibe. Would you support that 90-day cadence for the 9 counties?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‍​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​‍‌⁠‌​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠‌⁠‌‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠‌​‌⁠‌‌‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​​​⁠​​​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠‌‌‌‍​‌‌‌‍​‌​‍‍‌⁠‍‍‌​​‍​⁠‌​‌‌​‍​⁠‍​​⁠‌⁠‌‍‌‌​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌⁠‌⁠‌‍‌‍​⁠‌⁠​⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​