Home » 15inno

Mars Goes Beyond Brands, Opens Up Innovation Efforts

September 28, 2012 15inno 16 Comments

Over the many years that I have been working with open innovation, I have noticed that one company just seems to want to do things differently.

This company is Mars. Yes, the company with strong consumer brands such as M&Ms, Snickers, Pedigree, Whiskas, Skittles, Dolmio and many others.

The thing about Mars is that they have always acted as if they want to do things by themselves. They would even say so when you got a chance to speak with them although this happened rarely as they almost never attend conferences where you could exchange insights and experiences. This was quite unusual as the fast moving consumer industry is one of the most matured industries when it comes to open innovation and an industry that has been very open with their efforts.

Well, the open innovation paradigm shift is definitely shaking things up and Mars is about to change their approach. Now, they have just launched a new innovation portal called InnovateWithMars.

The portal looks nice although traditional. What’s interesting are the challenges that Mars is about to face. First, you should read these statements from the portal:

“As a privately owned company, we have traditionally communicated more about our brands than about ourselves as a business. But, today people want to know more about the businesses they choose to support.”

“In today’s ever changing world, the process for managing External Innovation is vital to continue and progress our business. Through connection and collaboration we can achieve mutual benefits by achieving results faster, better and more while each keeping our own strategic development, consumer insights and technology bases. We would like to share our expertise, knowledge and experience to support your idea and create faster, better results, benefiting us both.”

The latter is similar to statements that most of Mars’ competitors have made for years. The first statement is a key reason why Mars gets into the game this late.

If I were to help Mars as an external consultant, I would be very intrigued to look into a set of questions that evolve around perception.

What is the internal perception of Mars’ corporate innovation capabilities?

What do current and potential innovation partners think of Mars when it comes to innovation?

What can Mars do to manage, align and improve these perceptions?

Perceptions are important as they can make or break your open innovation initiatives at the early stages. They need to be attended both internally and externally.

Of course, the biggest challenge for Mars is that you cannot fake it for very long. If your company is not ready for open innovation, it will show no matter how well you manage these perceptions. So getting your innovation teams – and the entire organization – ready to embrace external input to the innovation process is even more important than managing the perceptions.

I think Mars has a huge challenge because of their historically closed approach to doing business.

Is it too late for Mars to really reap the benefits of open innovation? On their new innovation portal, they state these benefits like this:

“Mars is already starting to realize the benefits of External Innovation and the results it can produce, including FASTER acceleration of delivery of business solutions, BETTER access to a wider range of knowledge and technology to develop advanced business solutions and access to MORE business solutions by using the same resources.”

Are they too far behind their competitors or are their brands strong enough to give them a second chance? The jury is out. We will just have to wait and see.

Share |

Currently there are "16 comments" on this Article:

  1. Sandra Pickering says:

    Hi, Stefan,
    Carrying on our twitter chat….
    I am interested in your analysis and observations, some of which I think are valid.
    I work on the principle that smart people like to be challenged :) so a few challenges –
    Is there evidence that Mars has a problem with lack of innovation?
    My own experience of open innovation is that there are some smart people using smart processes but less focus on content and domain expertise. There is value from better processes of course but I have a strong opinion that genuine innovation needs depth in a domain (and by domain I don't mean the market segment or the technologies – it could be, for example, user experience or branding.)
    I don't see a lot of content around brands and branding in the open innovation world so it is interesting to think of how to add value to a company like Mars that has been hugely successful based on brand expertise.

    It will be interesting to see how it develops.
    Thanks again for taking time to comment on it.

    • Stefan Lindegaard says:

      Hi Sandra, sorry for the late reply! I don't think Mars has a problem with innovation as such. It seems to be a quite successful company, but they will have some challenges with their open innovation initiatives as stated in my post. You mention depth in domain. This sounds familiar to the T-shape model which I think is a great model. Check this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills

      General Mills has expanded its successful G-WIN open innovation program to include digital marketing experimentation through G-WIN Digital. Check this link: http://www.generalmills.com/en/Company/Innovation…. This might be somewhat related to your comments. I will also soon publish a post on how a company works with processes rather than products and services on open innovation.

  2. Keith Chisholm says:

    As an associate of Mars I can attest to the fact that we do appear to very insular to the outside world. However, as anyone that knows the company a little will find that we are grounded in 5 principles, one of which is Mutuality. The principle of Mutuality means creating win-win propositions with our suppliers, vendors, and partners. This principle has been alive and well in the organization for decades and will continue to serve us well in the area of open innnovation.

    Perhaps there is confusion between closed and confidential. Since we are a privately held company we do enjoy the privacy of our relationships and work efforts and therefore the perception could be that we are closed. As this perception exists we do need to work on it to be seen as a key partner and open to new innovation externally.

    • Stefan Lindegaard says:

      Hi Keith, appreciate your input! The Mutuality principle makes good sense for open innovation efforts and I hope/think it will serve you well. But yes, you will have to work on the perception. Good luck with the initiatives!

  3. Sandra Pickering says:

    Interesting point on perception, Keith.
    As an ex-associate I can also add that Mars has an immensely strong network of former associates working in many other industries around the world. We retain good informal links with each other and with Mars and many ex-associates also have formal working relationships with the business. So, perhaps it's not as closed as it appears.
    I am pleased to hear that open innovation is linked to the Mutuality principle.
    Good luck

    • Stefan Lindegaard says:

      An alumni network as Sandra describes it could be a great resource for open innovation. The same goes with retirees. I have consulted with a couple of companies on using such resources, but there are unfortunately no direct outcomes yet. I hope we will some in the near future.

  4. Stefan Lindegaard says:

    Talking about being a secretive / hard to reach company…I was trying to find a way to get in touch with the team behind Innovation With Mars – try to click this link: http://innovatewithmars.com/contactus.aspx

    Not good enough! They need to change this…

    • Sandra Pickering says:

      Why?
      I admit that it is not the norm but why do you say it is 'not good enough'? Not good enough for whom?

      • Stefan Lindegaard says:

        Come on, you have an open innovation portal, and you cannot even contact the people behind the initiative. What kind of message is that to send? :-)

        • Sandra Pickering says:

          I agree that it is unusual.
          I suspect it was deliberately designed that way for reasons they think are important.
          It's bound to put some people off of course but it's basically about Type I / Type II errors – for example, perhaps it acts as a strong filter to weed out time-wasters?

          • Kevin Christopher says:

            I agree with Stefan. I had to fill out a survey just to ask for a contact to learn more about academic partnering.

  5. Hi Stefan: The public face of companies doing open innovation are not necessarily representative of what they are doing overall in this area. Further, I don't see open innovation as competitive, per se, except perhaps to the extent that other companies' practices are somehow putting others at a competitive disadvantage…which is a somewhat difficult argument to make.

    Best regards,

    Michael

    • Stefan Lindegaard says:

      Hi Michael, agree on the first point, disagree on the second. There is a limited pool of quality innovation partners and the big companies are fighting it out to get the best into their ecosystem. I think this is a quite simple argument to make :-) Stefan

    • Sandra Pickering says:

      Michael I agree with you and, given that Mars is not listed on the stock market it perhaps has more freedom to do what's right rather that what's fashionable.
      I think I get your second point but would you mid expanding it a little?
      Thank you
      Sadra

  6. Michael Fruhling says:

    Hi Stefan: Thanks for your reply. I agree with part, but not all of your counterargument. I agree that companies active in open innovation are actively working to activate varied networks to identify and cultivate attractive external resources. On the other hand, for competitive advantage to be achieved, attracting these resources must consistently translate to their being productively applied, and that the resources become exclusive to that company. If both of these things are true, I can accept this would likely translate to competitive advantage. Otherwise, I'm less sure. It's a good topic for discussion, debate, either way. Have a nice weekend,

    Michael

  7. Sandra Pickering says:

    On the value of Open Innovation: I am familiar with the arguments pro and con but is there any decent research on EVA or better still Customer Value Added to a company from OI?

My Books

Site Sponsor

LinkedIn Community

Join the Leadership+Innovation group on LinkedIn. Click this link: Leadership+Innovation

Other Events

Archives

Follow Me @ Twitter